Menifee City Council
June 17, 2026

foot wall will separate residences from the Project’s truck court on the northern side .1 The Project proposes at least 90 dock doors and 130 truck trailer parking spaces on the Project’s northern side meaning that trucks will be unloaded and heavy-duty truck movements will occur within 25 feet of homes on a round-the-clock basis. The long-term, adverse effects – noise, air quality, and nighttime lighting – of a large-scale industrial operation on the adjacent residential community cannot be understated (see, EIR Figures 5.2-2 (indicating construction emissions)

5.2-3 (indicating locations of onsite emissions), 5.2-4 (indicating truck movement emissions).

That is, the Project will locate a source of noise and harmful air emissions in the middle of an existing residential area. As the EIR notes, “[o]peration of the proposed Project would include emissions from vehicles traveling to the Project site and from vehicles in the parking lots and loading areas.” (EIR p. 5.2-26). The Draft EIR Figure 5.10-5 illustrates the locations of vehicle activity and noise generating sources at the Project site relative to the “site boundary” which is shared with residences to the north:

For the reasons outlined in this letter, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Project. The Project is fundamentally incompatible with the

1 (City Council Staff Report p. 8, “North Perimeter Screening”). The EIR describes a 14 -foot wall for a portion of the northern boundary; however, the record indicates the wall will be 8-feet from grade where it runs behind the truck court.

In other places along the northern boundary, the wall will be six feet.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 587

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1207 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

surrounding environment. At a minimum, b efore the Project’s EIR can be legally certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the EIR must be revised, and additional mitigation measures must be proposed consistent with the public comments in the record.

I. THE PROJECT’S INTENSITY AND SITE DESIGN IS INCONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED

LAND USE POLICIES

The Project will locate truck dock doors on both sides of the building, meaning that residences to the north and south will be exposed to the intense building and truck operations and truck movements by design. “Optimizing” the building’s “operational capabilities” at the expense of residents’ health and quality of life is unacceptable. At a minimum, the Project must be redesigned with respect to the building’s design and truck route to include:

• Eliminating the dock doors on the north side of the building; • Eliminating the “64 trailer parking spaces” on the north side of the building;
• eliminating truck drive aisles on the north side of the building except for emergencies;
• eliminating all truck driveways on the north side of the building; and • eliminating the truck route on Geary Street.

Site design alternatives exist to minimize impacts to residents. These alternatives must be fully explored. This should include incorporating the provisions of Assembly Bill 98 into the Project’s design. This law requires that industrial projects provide certain buffers and implement operational measures to minimize the impacts of warehouse operations on sensitive receptors. Arguably AB 98 does not apply to the current Project, however, the provisions of AB 98 should be considered feasible alternatives and mitigation measures within the meaning of CEQA.

The Project, however, must confirm to the City of Menifee ’s adopted policies and design standards that apply to industrial development. The City of Menifee’s General Plan, Policy OCS-9.2, states that the City shall, through land use decisions, “Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.” The Project does not “buffer” sensitive land uses as a mere 25 feet separates the Project’s truck court from adjacent residences where school age children live and play in their backyards . The City is urged to uphold its General Plan. The City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies (adopted through the General Plan on or about March 2, 2022) 2 state that “in siting new warehouse, logistics and distribution uses,” the following policies apply:

2 https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16937/Industrial-Good-Neighbor-Policies?bidId= This hyperlink and all hyperlinks cited in this letter, and their contents, is fully incorporated herein, and the relevant information at the link is summarized in the body of this letter.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 588

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1208 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• Truck traffic shall generally be routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors;
• To the maximum extent feasible, buildings shall be designed so that truck driveways and loading docks are oriented away from sensitive receptors to minimize impacts;
• Sufficient landscape buffers and walls shall be provided on-site to screen sensitive receptors from truck access, parking, and storage; • Building massing shall be consistent with the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines so as to reduce visual dominance on adjacent sensitive receptors. (emphasis added)
The Project directly conflicts with these standards which were adopted to protect sensitive land uses from exactly the type of intense industrial development that is being considered.

For instance, truck traffic is not being routed to impact the “least amount ” of sensitive receptors: by design, the Project will funnel trucks to roadways shared by residents and past homes. The EIR forecasts that 100% of the Project’s heavy-duty trucks will use Murrieta Road inbound to the Project site, rumbling by homes located along and near the roadway (see, Final EIR, Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis, Figures 4.2 and 4.4). Furthermore, Geary Street is a residential street, which should not be utilized for heavy truck traffic.

The Project’s design must also comply with the City’s adopted Industrial Development Design Standards , adopted through the City’s General Plan 3, including that “[w]here industrial uses are adjacent to sensitive non-industrial uses, appropriate buffering techniques such as setbacks, screening, and landscaping, should be provided to mitigate any negative effects of industrial operations.” (Site Design (b).) A mere 2 5-foot separation between the Project’s truck court and residences is not an “appropriate” buffer by any reasonable interpretation.

Regarding vehicle circulation, access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Residents in this area will be forced to “mix” with heavy duty truck traffic daily. The Project is expected to generate 1,135 daily vehicle trips (1489 passenger car equivalent trips), all of which will pass homes and circulate in and around the residential area. The transportation analysis assumes that most the Project’s vehicle trips will occur on Murrieta Road and that 100% of inbound truck trips will occur on Murrieta Road from Ethanac Road (see, Traffic Impact Analysis, Figures 4.2 and

4.4). The Project will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week thus exposing the surrounding community to relentless traffic noise. The nearest Riverside Transit Authority public transit location is a bus stop located 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site, and the Project does not propose to provide or extend public transit opportunities which would alleviate some of the vehicle activity. The lack of available public transit underscores the incompatibility of the Project at its proposed location.

The proposed P roject not only represents poor land use planning but also it leads to significant environmental impacts according to the Project’s EIR. The EIR concludes the Project will have unmitigated environmental impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (project-

3 https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design-Guidelines_Amended-March-2-2022?bidId=

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 589

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1209 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

level and cumulative) and noise (project-level and cumulative) (Draft EIR p. 8-2). Still the EIR does not fully and appropriately evaluate these and other areas of potential impact as discussed in this letter. Moreover, the City as the lead agency is obligated under CEQA to fully mitigate, the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of the Project. Unfortunately, the proposed mitigation program falls short of this mandate. This letter identifies numerous feasible measures which should be adopted before the Project can be approved.

II. THE EIR MUST BE REVISED AND FURTHER MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED

A. THE EIR’S PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING

The Draft EIR’s Project Description section states that the Project includes a building setback of approximately 205 feet from the northern property line, and that loading dock doors would be located 265 feet from the Project’s northern property line which is shared with residential home sites. (Draft EIR p. 3-17.) This is misleading. While the building is set back either 205 or 265 feet from home sites to the north , the Project is separated from adjacent home sites by only 25 feet – in fact, the Project proposes 130 truck trailer parking spaces (“the truck court”) within 25 feet of homes, and the truck drive aisle is located only approximately 80 feet from residential home sites.

An EIR must describe the project being proposed for approval. (Guidelines, § 15124.) The EIR’s “project description” must include: (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project; (b) statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a general description of the project’s technical, economic and environmental characteristics, and (d) a statement briefly describing the intended use of the EIR. (Id.) CEQA requires that the description of the project be complete and accurate. ( Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v.

City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1.) “The description of the project is an indispensable element of both a valid draft EIR and final EIR.” (Id. at 16.) Courts have repeatedly held that the “project description must be accurate, stable and finite.” ( Id.) In accordance with these standards, the EIR’s Project Description section must be updated to reflect the reality that homes are much closer than 265 feet from the Project:

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 590

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1210 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Truck and related operations (parking, maneuvering, backing up [including back up beepers], headlights at nighttime, people talking) will cause noise and lighting effects much closer than “265 feet” as the EIR’s Project Description leads the reader to believe. Furthermore, the Project Description does not identify the residences located south of McLaughlin Road. The description of uses to the south of the Project site is limited to a “Southern California Edison Easement” when, in fact, th ere is a single -family neighborhood to the immediate south of McLaughlin Road. In sum, the EIR’s Project Description must be updated to accurately and fully describe the Project’s surrounding uses.

B. LAND USE IMPACTS

Contrary to the EIR’s conclusions, the Project presents conflicts with adopted land use plans including, but not limited to, the following policies of the City’s General Plan:

• Goal C -1 in that the Project does not “meet the circulation needs of all residents…”. The Project directs substantial vehicle traffic – more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips - to local roadways used by residents in rural residential areas. • Goal CD -3 in that , as discussed in this letter, the development is not “appropriately buffered from dissimilar land uses so that differences in type and intensity do not conflict”. The Project building is 55 feet and separated only by 25 feet from residences to the north.
• Policy CD-3.6 in that site entries and storage bays are not located to “minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods.” The Project’s truck entryways are located on rural residential roadways, and the “storage bays” are located on both sides of the Project’s building.
• Policy CD-3.20 in that the Project does not “avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls.” The Project is a 55-foot building of solid walls that will entirely block views across the site from the vantage points of single-story surrounding homes to the north.
• Goal N-1 in that adjacent noise -sensitive residences are not “protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.” The Project will generate significant levels of traffic noise, which will negatively impact residents on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week.
• Policy N-1.2 in that the Project is not being required to “comply with the noise standards” of local code. The Project will cause noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance as discussed herein.
• Policy N-1.7 in that the Project is not being required to “mitigate exterior … noise levels to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors.” There are no operational noise mitigation measures proposed with respect to the Project’s contribution to significant traffic noise levels. Also there are no “design features” discussed in the record that would mitigate noise at or around loading docks, such as the use of sound dampening materials.
• Policy N-1.9 in that the City is not limiting “the development of new noise - producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors.” The Project is a new noise- producing use that will operate directly adjacent to residences.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 591

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1211 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

In addition to conflicts with General Plan policies, the Project is manifestly inconsistent with the City of Menifee Industrial Good Neighbor Guidelines as discussed above. This represents a potentially significant “land use” impact within the meaning of CEQA. For example, the Project is not designed so that “to the maximum extent feasible, buildings shall be designed so that truck driveways and loading docks are oriented away from sensitive receptors.” (General Performance Standard Policy 2). Rather, the Project is designed with dock doors on both sides to make the building more attractive to potential tenants. This design decision is in clear disregard of so-called “Good Neighbor” Guidelines. As the Project is speculative (i.e., no tenant is identified) per the EIR, there is no demonstrated need for this design choice. Also, for example, the Project conflicts with General Performance Standard Policy 1 in that truck traffic is not “routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors (e.g., access locations).” The Project is intentionally designed so that trucks will use Murrieta Road for site access at multiple “access locations” which will cause trucks to travel past homes in route to the Project site. Also for instance, the Project is inconsistent with Air Quality Policy 2 (a) in that the facility is designed so that trucks will queue in the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors in the truck court on the Project’s northern side . The concentration of truck activity on the Project’s northern side is the antithesis of “Good Neighbor” land use planning.

The Project is not consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s guidance that warehouses shall not be located within 1,000 feet from nearest sensitive receptors 4. The closest receptors to the Project site here are within 25 feet.

The EIR must also fully evaluate the Project’s consistency with all regional planning documents such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) including SCAG’s Transportation Management Demand Strategies. 5 6 Consistency with the RTP/SCS has not been demonstrated.

Once again, the Project should be conditioned to provide setbacks and other design elements consistent with Assembly Bill 987. The requirements of AB 98 should be considered a feasible design alternative where sensitive receptors are located within 25 to 500 feet on both the northern and southern sides of the proposed building. AB 98 ( Government Code, § 65098.1) provides:

(a) Commencing January 1, 2026, any proposed new or expanded logistics use development 250,000 square feet or more where the loading bay is within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor that is utilizing a site zoned for industrial use or any site where an application was submitted to the jurisdiction by September 30, 2024, to rezone as industrial and the rezone to industrial was ultimately approved shall

4 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use- handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf
5 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/tdm-strategic-plan_scag.pdf?1607732260 6 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-tdm-toolbox-strategies.pdf?1715621181 7 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB98/id/3023370

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 592

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1212 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

comply with all of the following:
(1) Include all Tier 1 21st century warehouse design elements described in subdivision (g) of Section 65098.
(2) Orient truck loading bays on the opposite side of the logistics use development away from sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible.
(3) Locate truck loading bays a minimum of 300 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor to the nearest truck loading bay opening using a direct straight-line method. (4) Have a separate entrance for heavy -duty trucks accessible via a truck route, arterial road, major thoroughfare, or a local road that predominantly serves commercial oriented uses. (5) Locate truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors. Heavy-duty diesel truck drive aisles shall be prohibited from being used on sides of the building

that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line. (6) Include buffering and screening to mitigate for light and noise, as described in Section 65098.2. (emphasis added)

Finally, the EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential impacts with respect to EIR Land Use Threshold LU-1. This threshold asks whether the Project would “physically divide an established community.” The Project will locate a massive warehouse building in between two areas of rural or semi -rural residential development: the single-family homes on Floyd Avenue to the north of the site and the single-family homes to the south of McLauglin Road.

The Project will bisect this residential area with a 55-foot box building, physically cutting across the area and isolating the residences to the north from those to the south. Consequently, the EIR’s conclusion of “no potential impact” with respect to this threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

In short, the EIR’s land use section must be revised, and further site design mitigation must be adopted.

C. VISUAL RESOURCES

The EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential for aesthetic or visual resources impacts. (Draft EIR section 7.1 .) Aesthetic impacts were found to be “not significant” through the Initial Study/NOP and therefore were not evaluated by the EIR (id.).

The Project site is currently vacant, undisturbed natural land set within an existing environment of vacant lands and rural residential homes. The EIR’s two existing site photographs show that the site consists of open space and natural vegetation, and the photographs indicate that views across the site are of open landscape. (Draft EIR Figure 3 - 4a.) The Project will convert this natural site to an urban use, namely a 55 -foot “box” concrete building with lighting pole s, paved roadways, and other infrastruc ture along with off-site transportation improvements to widen roadways. The permanent conversion of rural, unimproved lands to a large box-style structure with associated nighttime lighting has the potential for major changes to the existing visual environment. Under CEQA, this must be Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 593

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1213 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

considered a “potentially significant impact” which should be evaluated.

There are no renderings or simulations of the Project buildi ng from relevant vantage points to illustrate the impact of the Project (size and scale) compared to the existing environment. Th e lack of information in the record renders the analysis incomplete.

Furthermore, the fact that the site is zoned for industrial development does not eliminate the potential for environmental impacts as claimed by the EIR. (Draft EIR p. 7-1.) In other words, “compliance with a general plan in and of itself ‘does not insulate a project fr om the EIR requirement where it may be fairly argued that the project with generate significant environmental effects.” ( Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881). Courts have held that, “[t]he general plan alone doe s not constitute substantial evidence that there is no significant effect.” (East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5. Cal.App.4th 281, 303.) “’A significant effect on environment’ is defined as a ‘substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (Guidelines, § 15382) Single-story homes to the north of the Project site have views across the site of the mountains to the south and west ( see, site photographs attached). These views will be entirely obstru cted by the 55-foot Project building. The EIR improperly ignores this area of potential impact to the existing environment.

Finally, r egarding lighting impacts, the Project proposes a field of industrial development in an undeveloped rural location. The potential for adverse changes to the nighttime visual environment must be fully assessed. (See, e.g.,8 [City of Malibu requires a photometric study].) Adherence to a lighting ordinance does not eliminate the need to evaluate the potentially significant adverse change to the environment as a result of the Project.

D. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The EIR concludes that the Project will have less than significant air quality impacts and therefore no mitigation is re quired. ( Draft EIR p. 5.2 -42.) This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence , and the EIR lacks critical analysis and information to form its conclusion.

The Project’s operational air quality impacts were calculated using a trip length assumption of 34.51 miles for all truck trips. ( Draft EIR p. 5.2 -24.) This method underestimates air emissions particularly NOx (diesel) emissions due to heavy duty truck trips. The South Coast A ir Quality Management District (“South Coast AQMD”) commented regarding the Project’s Draft EIR that more realistic trip length assumptions should be used “such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 90 miles for Port -related trips.” (Final EIR p. 2-28.) The City declined to update the air quality analysis to account for the South Coast AQMD’s recommendations (see, Final EIR Appendix D, Response 1). The air quality analysis should be updated consistent with AQMD’s recommendations

8 https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/30381/Commercial-Lighting-and-Photometrics-Submittal Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 594

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1214 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

particularly to evaluate the Project’s NOx impacts due to diesel trucks. Because the building is built on “speculation”, that is, without a specific tenant, the “worst case” scenario must be evaluated consistent with CEQA.

The Final EIR’s Response to Comment A.6.3 states that “not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter.” However, in the absence of tenant information that would indicate that trips will be shorter due to the nature of tenant-specific operations, the “conservative approach” is to assume that Project-related trucks will travel to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, consistent with the recommendations of the air resource agency with jurisdiction (AQMD). This approach is also consistent with evidence that Menifee is promoting the city as “proximate to major shipping ports at Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego” with distances from Menifee to these three ports being “less than 100 miles” which , according to the City, “represents a reasonable commute for warehous e/distribution users to locate in Menifee.” (Meyers Research Industrial Demand and Opportunity A nalysis – Update prepared for City of Menifee, pg. 17 9). In summary, the air quality analysis for a warehouse logistics/distribution project in Menifee should reflect the city’s goal to attract businesses that receive goods from the Ports.

In addition to underestimating diesel emissions due to heavy duty truck trips, t he air quality analysis improperly assumes “zero” air emissions for “energy sources” a s well as “zero” air emissions for the operation of “on-site equipment”. (Draft EIR, Appendix B, Table

5.2-7.) These assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Project’s Air Quality Study section 3.5.5 assumes that all on -site equipment will be “electrically powered ”, but this is not a condition of the Project’s ap proval or a CEQA mitigation measure. The Air Quality Study section 3.5.2 states that energy emissions are assumed to be zero because the “site is not expected to utilize natural gas for the building envelope.” However, the Project is not conditioned to require the use of all electric appliances and to prohibit the use of natural gas. In short, the assumption that the Project will generate “zero” GHG emissions due to both the operation of onsite equipment and energy consumption onsite is not supported by the record.

In terms of the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts, the Air Quality Study does not evaluate this area of potential impact. The Air Quality Study asserts, based on an outdated “AQMD white paper”, that the Project cannot have cumulatively significant air quality impacts because the Project will purportedly result in less than significant air quality impacts on an individual basis. (AQ Study Section 3.11.) This conclusion is made in spite of the fact that the EIR also identifies numerous warehouse projects in the planning process in the vicinity of the proposed Project , including the Northern Gateway Logistics Center, the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project, the McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project, the Northern Gateway Commerce Center, and the Compass Northern Gateway Project. (Draft EIR, Table 5-1.) The Project’s Traffic

9 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RC189-20-City-of-Menifee_Industrial-Demand- FINAL-10.26.2020.pdf

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 595

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1215 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Impact Analysis included “56 cumulative development projects” within the cumulative traffic analysis (TIA p. 20; see, Figure 3.3 “Location of Cumulative Projects”). Yet the City has not evaluated the Project’s con tribution to cumulative air quality effects. Again, t he South Coast AQMD commented in response to the Draft EIR that the City should evaluate the Project’s “direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.” (Final EIR p. 2-29.) The Final EIR’s Response to Comment s claims that the cumulative health risk impacts from combined projects are less than significant. This claim does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative exceedance of criteria emissions , particularly NOx impacts due to the combined effects of thousands of diesel trucks operating in the Project area . The Final EIR’s Appendix D, Response 2 likewise does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Although the City is currently considering millions of square feet of industrial development, t he EIR does not contain either a qualitative or quantitative discussion of cumulative industrial projects or their associated air quality emissions. The failure to evaluate the combined effects of the thousands of diesel trucks in and around the Project area is a failure to confront the reality of the harmful and long -term consequences of the City’s land use decisions. The environmental and public health consequences of the City’s decisions should be evaluated in connection with all projects that will contribute to cumulatively significant air quality conditions. The EIR is incomplete and fails on an informational basis without a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

The South Coast AQMD has convened working groups 10 to revise its recommendations for analysis of cumulative air quality impacts 11, with the last meeting occurring in November 2024. According to the latest AQMD working group presentation, “South Coast AQMD has initiated policy development to evaluate cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of toxics during projec t operation” ( id. p. 4) . The AQMD states that additional guidance is needed because “[a] project’s incremental effect on the environment, though individually limited, may be cumulatively considerable.” (id. p. 5). According to the AQMD, industrial land uses such as warehouse developments near sensitive receptors are “key” factors for a cumulative impact analysis ( see id., p. 7). The AQMD is in process of considering revised standards for cumulative impact analysis including for project-level CEQA review (see id., p. 21, 27-28).

As a threshold of significance for air quality impacts in this case, the Project EIR asks whether the Project will have a potentially significant cumulative air quality impact.

However, the discussion that follows the threshold does not list or identify any cumulative projects that could, in combination with the Project, contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts; nor is there any analysis of cumulative projects in combination with the Project’s air quality impacts. Rather, there is only the blanket conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts need not be analyzed because purportedly there are no individually significant air quality impacts. CEQA defines a “cumulative impact” as one that may be

10 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new) 11 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6-20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 596

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1216 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considered with past, present, and foreseeable future projects. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130 (a), 15355 (b).) The term “’cumulative impacts’ refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (Guidelines, § 15355.) The EIR to comply with CEQA’s informational mandates where it has not required a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Air quality conditions are far worse in areas where warehouse buildings are concentrated due to the diesel truck trips associated with these facilities. (See, https://www.nasa.gov/earth/nasa-funded-study-assesses-pollution-near-los-angeles-area- warehouses/). According to an article in the LA Times, as of 2021, “the warehouses of the Inland Empire accounted for more than a billion square feet. There are more than 3,000 warehouses in San Bernardino County and nearly a thousand more in Riverside County.

They c over almost 37 contiguous square miles.” 12 In 2022, the area occupied by 4,299 warehouses amounted to 1,041,229,079 square feet of industrial development in the Inland Empire (see, id.). Given the concentration of warehouse development in the Project vicinity in particular, the EIR must evaluate the Project’s contribution to these air quality conditions.

The Warehouse CITY13 database shows that the City of Menifee has “approved” 11,500,000 square feet of warehouse development, resulting in 8,000 daily truck trips and 1,246 pounds of N Ox daily (see, Exhibit A hereto [Warehouse CITY database]) . The South Coast AQMD’s individual threshold for NOx (operational) is 55 lbs per day 14. Moreover, the City is actively promoting the “Ethanac Expressway” as a “new east -west interregional route to serve southwestern Riverside County” which will facility the growth of “industrial” uses in the area.15 Considering this evidence, the City must perform a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project. Revisions to the Project’s air quality study are necessary to account for the past, present, and future cumulative growth in the City’s industrial sector.

E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IMPACTS
The Project will generate significant GHG impacts. (Final EIR, Appendix F, Table ES- 1). The EIR calculates the Project’s GHG emissions to be 4,796.13 MTCO2e annually which exceeds the adopted threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e (Table 3-8). While the EIR proposes some mitigation for significant GHG impacts, the mitigation program fails to adopt all feasible mitigation contrary to CEQA.

An EIR’s central purpose is to identify a project’s significant environmental effects and then evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing them. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21002.1(a), 21061.) The City must adopt any feasible mitigation measure that can substantially lessen the project’s significant GHG impacts, including due to mobile emissions. ( Public Res. Code, § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(3).) Here, a comparison between Appendix F Table 307 (“GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation”) and Table 3-8 (“GHG Emissions – With

12 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 13 https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/
14 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25
15 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/industrial/
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 597

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1217 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Mitigation”) shows that the proposed mitigation measures nominally reduce overall GHG emissions, and the program does nothing to reduce “Mobile Source” emissions which are the largest contributor to the Project’s GHG emissions. Accordingly, further mitigation is needed and required before the Project can be approved.

Assembly Bill 1279 16 requires the State to achieve net zero GHGs as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. The bill requires California to reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and by 85 percent compared to 1990 levels. The City as lead agency responsible for CEQA compliance must take all steps through its land use plans to ensure that future projects are in conformance with these GHG emission reduction targets. As feasible mitigation, the City must require the Project to operate at, or set reasonable goals to achieve, “net zero” consistent with State’s goal to carbon neutrality by 2045. 17 The implementing measures maybe a mix of on -site reduction measures (such as generating on -site renewable energy through solar power) and off-site community investments to reduce GHG emissions and offsets.

The EIR asserts that “the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan” because “the Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.” ( Appendix F, GHG Report p.

64.) The EIR does not explain or show how the Project will comply with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan ’s strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions , especially rela tive to reductions of Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”)18.

For instance, the Project does not support a “sustainable transportation system”, i.e., it does not provide access to public transit. (CARB Scoping Plan Appendix E, Section 3.1, Strategy Area 1, p. 10). The Scoping Plan notes that to “deliver the State’s carbon neutrality goal, California needs to double the capacity and service frequencies of the existing local public transit network.” ( Appendix E p. 12 .) The Scoping Plan, Appendix D 19, contains “Local Actions ” that are recommended to reduce GHGs including measures including “improving transit service…”; and “facilitat[ing[ deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses” (Appendix D, Table 1 p. 11). Neither of th ese measures are required here. According to the Scoping Plan, “lead agencies should prioritize on-site design features within the project site that minimize GHG emissions, including installation of renewable energy electricity gen eration and all-electric design.” (Appendix D, p. 29), which is not required of the Project. If on-site measures cannot reduce impacts, CARB recommends that local agencies consider local, off -setting GHG reduction strategies, such as a “local mitigation bank” 20 that enables applicants to fund local projects in exchange for being credited with the resulting GHG reductions in their CEQA analyses (Appendix D p. 30). Other off-site measures may include “local urban forestry

16 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1279 17 https://lci.ca.gov/climate/carbon-neutrality.html
18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents 19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf 20 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s09c9mk
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 598

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1218 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

programs”; “local building retrofit programs”; “off -site EV chargers”; and “public transit subsidies” (Appendix D, pp. 30-31). None of these measures have been considered with the respect to the Project.

The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan ( i.e., California’s plan to achieve GHG emissions consistent with reduction targets) “proposes reducing VMT from 24.6 miles per day in 2019 to 18.4 miles by 2030 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 17.2 miles per day by 2045 (a 30 percent reduction)” (id.). The Project will not satisfy this goal as the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) is calculated to be 25.94 according to the Project’s VMT Analysis (Draft EIR, Appendix L, Table 2.) A reduction in VMT is necessary to help achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals (id.). The Project does not satisfy CARB’s VMT targets, nor does it adopt all feasible mitigation that would help to reduce the Project’s VMT impacts as discussed in this letter.

Insofar as the EIR references and/or relies upon the County of Riverside’s VMT thresholds, the City should consider the measures within the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (“CAP”)21 as feasible mitigation, including:

• CAP Policy R2 -EE11 (p. 4 -10) stating that the County of Riverside shall promote LEED building ratings as a means to reduce GHG emissions. • R2-CE1 requiring solar panel installations on new commercial buildings and “encouraging” energy storage system installation with solar panels.

Installation of a maximally sized solar system with sufficient battery storage must be considered feasible mitigation in this case.
• R2-L1 states that “shaded surfaces may be 20 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit [] cooler than the peak temperatures of unshaded materials.” Increasing tree plantings, particularly in parking areas, must be considered feasible mitigation for the Project.
• Also for instance, R2 -L2 states that cool roofs and cool pavements reduce the need to cool buildings and reduce the “heat island” effects of projects.

Exceeding existing regulatory requirements (Title 24) for the installation of cool roofs and cool pavements must be considered feasible mitigation for this Project.

Another means of reducing VMT include requiring or encouraging local hiring, which is not a requirement of the Project ( see, Riverside County General Plan Land Use Policy 8.12).

The EIR should also consider feasible measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, et al.22 that are feasible and applicable to the Project, such as:

21 https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-CAP-2019-2019-CAP-Update-Full.pdf 22 https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 599

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1219 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• T-7 “Provide Ridesharing Program” including providing an app or website for coordinating rides among employees.
• T-8 “Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program” where the employer provides subsidies for employees to use public transit. • T-9 “End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities” that includes bike parking, showers, and personal lockers.
• T-10 “Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool” that provides groups of 5 to 15 employees with a cost -effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting.
• T-13 “Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” that provides EV charging stations beyond what is required by CalGreen/Title 24. • T-24 “Expand Transit Network Coverage” to expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service.

According to the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan,23

[c]ontrary to popular belief, zero -emission vehicles (ZEV) alone are not enough to solve the climate crisis. The 2022 Scoping Plan illustrates that despite cleaner vehicles and low - carbon fuels, the path to carbon neutrality by 2045 also depends on reducing per capita VMT (the total passenger vehicle miles driven by an average person in California on any given day). To meet the carbon neutrality goal, the Scoping Plan proposes reducing VMT from 24.6 miles per day in 2019 to 18.4 miles by 2030 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 17.2 miles per day by 2045 (a 30 percent reduction) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the Project should adopt further “VMT measures” such as incorporating a bus transit stop and promoting accessibility to public transit such as by providing a shuttle service to transit service for employees 24. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, should also explore programmatic VMT mitigation options. Other jurisdictions like the City of Escondido are evaluating “VMT Exchange Programs” for instance25 (see also, 26 27).

Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the State, accounting for roughly 40 percent of California’s GHGs 28. Consequently, the City must propose enforceable transportation measures through the EIR that are designed to reduce fuel use in cars and trucks This should include conditioning the Project to require future implementing projects to increase the availability of charging and refueling stations and other zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, including direct current fast chargers capable of charging light, medium, and

23 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-e-sustainable-and-equitable-communities.pdf 24 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation- measures.pdf
25 https://www.escondido.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2117/VMT-Exchange-Program-PDF 26 https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Implementing-SB-743.pdf 27 https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal
28https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4821#:~:text=Transportation%20is%20the%20largest%20source,state wide%20emissions%20in%20recent%20years.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 600

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1220 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

heavy-duty vehicles. Level 3/DC Fast (or Quick) Chargers (DCFC) should be required29 (see id. [big rig truck with battery size of 550kw and range of 250 miles take approximately 24 hours to charge with a Level 2 charger]) . This comment also applies to “medium duty” vehicles such as delivery vans. See 30 [FedEx vans charge in hours with DC quick charger/Level 3].) Chargers should be required that are able to charge the battery of a Class 8 (heavy duty/big rig) truck . These chargers are feasible and available on the commercial market.31

In addition, the Project should establish fleet efficiency requirements for vehicle fleets.

This should include, at a minimum, requirements that industrial tenants shall use exclusively zero emission light and medium -duty delivery trucks and vans; and shall use near -zero and zero-emission technologies in heavy-duty applications such as “last mile delivery.” 32 As the State moves toward its goal of zero emission goods movement, the City must ensure that the Project is in line with this important objective by also requiring the phase-in of zero emission or clean technology for heavy duty trucks. According to CARB, actions to deploy both zero emission and cleaner combustion technologies will be essential to meet air quality goals in California particularly with respect to goods movement. 33 Additional, feasible mitigation for operational air quality impacts includes the phase -in of electric, hybrid electric, hydrogen electric, or battery operated ( i.e., non-diesel) trucks. The Project should be conditioned to adopt a “Diesel Minimization Plan” whereby zero emission trucks are phased in, e.g., 25% of truck fleets shall use zero emission technology by 2030, and increase that percentage by 10% per year, until 100% of trucks operating on sites are zero emission. A mitigation measure is feasible if it can be achieved in a reasonable period of tim e. (Guidelines, § 15364.) The use of electric trucks in all applications would help to reduce the Project’s significant traffic noise impacts and reduce noise impacts at the Project site.

According to a May 2024 study by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “[t]here are currently more than 125 -zero emission models across Class 2b to 8 vehicle segments in North America. This number is anticipated to exceed 240 models over the next few years.” 34 Zero-emission vehicles, including Class 7 and & battery-electric semi- trucks, cause significantly less air pollution than diesel semi-trucks. 35 According to the EPA, transportation accounts for 33% of GHG impacts with 21% from medium and heavy -duty trucks and buses.36 Thus, requiring zero emission Class 7 and 8 semi-trucks in lieu of diesel semi-trucks would greatly reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts. The phase -in of battery electric trucks as part of the Project’s implementation is economically feasible.

Battery electric trucks have been shown to have a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than diesel trucks.37 According to one study by the University of Berkley, electric trucks have 10-

29 https://blog.evbox.com/level-3-charging-speed
30 https://www.carscoops.com/2018/11/fedex-adds-1000-china-built-chanje-f8100-electric-vans-fleet/ 31 https://polb.com/port-info/news-and-press/charging-station-to-power-electric-trucks-in-port-11-30-2023/ 32 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/treated-sacrifices-families-breathe-toxic-fumes-california-s- warehouse- hub-n1265420
33 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf 34 https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drivegreen/pdf/mhd-roadmap.pdf 35 https://theicct.org/battery-electric-trucks-emit-63-less-ghg-emissions-than-diesel/ 36 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/why-we-need-decarbonize-transportation 37 https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 601

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1221 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

20% lower per mile TCO than the equivalent diesel trucks across all categories. 38 A Department of Energy Study found that zero emission heavy duty electric trucks will be cheaper than diesel trucks by 2035. 39 Electric trucks are “ready to meet the cost and performance demands for substantial share of regional and long-haul trucking today.” (Fn 11 p. 1.) At the same time, there is a need for “public and private investment” in the usage of battery powered heavy duty trucks as well as the installation of the infrastructure required to charge these trucks. 40 Among other things the “siting” of charging stations near industrial zones will “be a key element to their success” (fn 13 p. 20). In short, the phase-in of electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure should be considered feasible mitigation for significant GHG impacts.

The Project should adopt further measures to reduce significant GHG impacts , including:

• Construction equipment 50 horsepower or greater shall be Tier 4 without exception.
• Construction tools (e.g., saws, drills) shall be electric only with adequate electric hook ups provided during all construction periods. • The buildings’ roofs shall be constructed with “light colored roofing materials” on all areas not covered by solar panels or necessary equipment. Cool roofs retain less heat and reflect more sunlight, thus lowering energy demand and reducing the “heat island” effect of a building. The Project must be conditioned to use roofing materials with a solar reflectance index (“SRI”) of 78 for at least 75% of the roof surface (portions not covered in solar), consistent with USGBC standards. To provide measurable environmental benefit, the roofing material must be at the highest possible rating. (See 41 ; see also, e.g., Riverside County Climate Action Plan Measure R2-L2 42.)
• Obtaining LEED Silver certification to the most current USGBC43 rating system for the industrial buildings.
• Installing concrete, preferably white concrete, in all parking areas. Light - colored concrete is more reflective of sunlight and it absorbs less heat, thus using concrete in all parking areas will reduce the “heat island” effect of the Project. 44 45Among other benefits, cooler surfaces and air reduce the need for

38 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/page/Climate_Consistent_Pathway_Could_save_1trillion_over_EPA_Worki ng_Paper_UCB.pdf
39 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-will-be- cheaper-diesel
40 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/california_clean_trucks_program.pdf 41 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/coolroofguide.pdf 42 https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-CAP-2019-2019-CAP-Update- Full.pdf
43 https://www.usgbc.org/leed
44 https://heatisland.lbl.gov/coolscience/cool-pavements 45 https://www.lehighwhitecement.com/en/about-
us/sustainability#:~:text=White%20cement%20products%20help%20designers,night%2C%20making%20roadway% 20infrastructure%20safer.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 602

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1222 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

air conditioning in vehicles. (See, id. Riv. County Climate Action Plan Measure R2-L2.)
• Providing enhanced landscaping in parking areas to provide 50% shade coverage within 10 years of operations. This can also reduce “heat island” effects and reduce the need for air conditioning. ( See, id. Riv. County Climate Action Plan R2-L1)
• Installing and utilizing solar power for 100% of the facility’s total electricity demand including electric vehicle charging stalls in parking areas. Solar power is entirely feasible and is particularly appropriate for a Project of this size, scale, and location. A large portion of the Project’s GHG and Energy impacts could be reduced by utilization of PV solar arrays.
• Limiting truck idling to no more than three continuous minutes. • Requiring all trucks that access the site to have 201 7 or newer engines. This requirement will align with the Port of Long Beach’s requirement that any new registered drayage trucks must be model year 2014 or newer.46 • All heavy-duty trucks shall also meet CARB’s lowest optional low oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022.
• In order to reduce VOCs during construction of the Project, during construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall ensure that “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints be utilized. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC.
• Only super -compliant low VOC paints and coatings shall be used during operation that shall have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L. (See, 47 , 48.)
• All on-site cargo handling equipment (yard trucks, hostlers, forklifts, etc.) shall be zero emission (electric) only; no natural gas or propane equipment. • The Project shall be all electric, including HVAC, water heating, refrigeration, ovens, cooktops, and automated equipment shall be powered by electricity for the lifetime of the Project. Natural gas and/or propane shall not be used. • A minimum of 15% of the big rig/heavy duty truck parking spaces shall be equipped with electric vehicle infrastructure for future use by electric trucks including heavy duty electric trucks.
• Installation of Fast 350 kW EV chargers that are capable of recharging two big rig trucks at the Project facility.
• In addition to the standard bicycle requirements, provide at electric plug ins for charging of electric bikes (“e - bikes”) or personal electric scooters within the secured bicycle parking areas.

Furthermore, the California Attorney General has published a list of best practices for warehouse developments:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf These include:

46 https://polb.com/environment/clean-trucks/#program-details 47 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/tos 48 https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 603

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1223 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on -site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district , and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric only with the necessary electrical charging stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero -emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.
▪ For instance, according to the City of Hemet’s General Plan 2030 49, “Riverside County is becoming one of the prime areas for the use of solar technologies due to the area’s abundant sunshine… Energy resource conservation and the use of renewable resources can reduce [] fiscal and economic effects, as well as improve air quality.” (General Plan, p. 7-27) • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non -diesel fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.

49 https://www.hemetca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2162/7_OS_web?bidId= Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 604

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1224 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

In sum, the City should condition the Project to adopt further GHG measures to address the Project’s significant impacts.

F. ENERGY IMPACTS

State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F provides that “[t]he goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.” (emphasis added). Appendix F puts “particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” CEQA requires that an EIR “include a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.” ( See, California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209). “The requirement to adopt energy impact mitigation measures is ‘substantive and not procedural in nature and was enacted for the purpose of requiring the lead agencies to focus upon the energy problem in preparation of the final EIR” (id.).

The Project will create a significant demand for energy resources, including:

• 434,971 gallons of fuel annually (Draft EIR Table 4-9), and • 816,024 kWh of electricity annually (Draft EIR Table 4-11)

The EIR asserts that due to compliance with Title 24 and other regulatory requirements the Project would not be “wasteful or inefficient or unnecessarily consume energy resources” (Draft EIR, Appendix E, Energy Analysis, p. 36). Compliance with existing regulations is not sufficient for purposes of CEQA compliance. The Project must explore and adopt energy mitigation measures especially with respect to transportation energy resources ( see, California Clean Energy, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 210.)

The EIR should propose measures to ensure compliance with and the advancement of the policies and goals of Senate Bill 100 which commits to 100% clean energy in California by 2045. For instance, requiring industrial projects to maximize the use of solar energy with complete roof coverage with photovoltaic solar panels is one means to ensure that the State can meet its energy efficiency goals. A project of this size and type is prime for maximizing solar energy usage. MM GHG-1 states that the applicant shall be required to install a minimum 101.3 kW DC solar photovoltaic (PV) system “or offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures.”. It is not known how much of the facility’s energy demand will be met by a 101.3 kW system; the Project must be conditioned so that 100% of its energy demand is met by solar PV. Also, MM GHG-1 allows the operator to offset some unspecified amount of energy demand with “alternative renewable measures.” This is vague and unenforceable.

The use of an on-site renewable energy system would also help to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts, where energy production is contributor to GHG emissions.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 605

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1225 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Electricity accounts for approximately 15% of the State’s GHG emissions 50 51. Solar panels, on the other hand, produce electricity without emitting GHGs. According to an article by CalMatters, the installation of rooftop solar panels helped cut California’s annual greenhouse gas pollution by about 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018 from 2009 levels, equivalent to taking about 1.3 million cars of the road. 52 Again, California has committed to achieving 60% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% clean, zero -carbon electricity by 2045.53

The Project must also take steps to reduce the Project’s significant consumption of fuel such as, requiring as mandatory conditions of approval:

• The phase-in of electric vehicles
• The use of electric light and medium duty vehicles
• Facilities shall use only electric on-site cargo handling equipment (no diesel or natural gas equipment)
• No diesel generators shall be allowed
• Installation of on -site infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles – such as requiring the installation of 350kW electric vehicle chargers and expanding infrastructure for the future charging of electric vehicles; and • Expansion of public transit or funding to assist City with expansion of public transit to provide access to Project site.

In short, the City must explore and require measures to offset the Project’s consumption of energy resources.

G. NOISE IMPACTS
The EIR’s conclusions with respect to construction and operational noise impacts are not supported by substantial evidence . The EIR’s Noise Analysis should be revised and recirculated for at least the following reasons.

First, the EIR indicates th at the Project will result in significant construction noise impacts. The EIR adopts as a threshold of significance (NOI -1) whether the Project would result in “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. ” The Noise Analysis (Final EIR, Appendix A) shows that the Project’s construction phases will cause noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance54. At 50 feet, construction noise levels are expected to range from

50 https://calepa.ca.gov/climate-dashboard/#:~:text=On%20Track,track%20to%20meet%20these%20targets. 51 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf 52 https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/01/california-renewable-energy-solar-policy-cuts-greenhouse- gases/#:~:text=The%20impact%20of%20California's%20solar,million%20cars%20off%20the%20road. 53 https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100
54 City of Menifee Noise Ordinance - Table 5.10-1: Development Code Stationary Source Noise Standards Stationary Source Noise Standards. Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards:
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10-minute) 45 Leq (10-minute) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10-minute) 65 Leq (10-minute) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 606

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1226 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

68 dBA Leq to 81 dBA Leq (Table 5.10-4, Table 5.10-5). Rather than making a finding of significance, the EIR applies an arbitrary 80 dBA Leq construction noise standard (which it claims to a “ reasonable daytime standard”, p. 5.10 -21), but even judged by that standard, Table 5.10-4 shows that noise levels will meet or exceed 80 dBA at 50 feet, especially when considering the “Composite Reference Noise Level” which accounts for combined activities.

For instance, with respect to the “Grading Phase,” composite construction noise level s will be 83.3 dBA Leq. (Table 5.10 -4.) This is a significant impact. Moreover, the Project’s construction noise levels far exceed the existing noise levels (see, Table 5.10-2). The fact that construction activities are allowed between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. does not mitigate the environmental impact. Furthermore, there are no conditions of approval or mitigation measures to support the EIR’s statement that concrete nighttime concrete pouring activities will not exceed 70 dBA Leq , which is apparently the threshold of significance for nighttime concrete pouring activities.

Second, the Noise Analysis omits information to the extent that existing noise measurements were not taken at homes adjacent to proposed truck court areas to the north.

The measurement locations are located on the northwest corners of the Project site, and not at the locations which will be most impacted by the truck court and loading docks (see, Figure

5.10-1). For instance, an existing noise measurement should have been taken at or near the location of “R2” which is one of the sensitive noise receiver locations nearest to the Project’s truck court on the northern side (see, Figure 5.10-3). The failure to assess Project-related noise to existing noise levels at adjacent receiver locations renders the analysis incomplete.

Last, the EIR indicates that the Project’s nighttime operational noise will exceed the noise ordinance standard (45 Leq exterior)55 with respect to all receiver locations R1 through R5 ( see, Table 5.10 -9). Similarly, the increase in noise during nighttime hours exceeds thresholds despite the conclusion of the EIR ( see, Tables 5.10-11 and 5.10-3). The Project’s increase in noise is greater than 3.0 dbA and therefore the “Increase Criteria” is seemingly exceeded. Also, it is unclear why the “Reference Ambient Noise Levels” with respect to this portion of the analysis are the “daytime ambient noise levels” ( see footnote 4) when it is the nighttime noise levels being evaluated ; the “ambient noise levels” applied to this portion of the analysis should be the “nighttime” noise levels of Table 5.10-2.

In sum, the EIR indicates that Project noise levels will exceed the limits of the City’s Noise Ordinance and result in permanent increases in noise on a significant basis. F urther analysis and mitigation is required. Among other potential mitigation measures, the Project should restrict the hours of truck deliveries to daytime/evening hours. This must be considered feasible mitigation for significant roadway noise impacts. Other measures include site design changes that would eliminate truck activity nearest to homes on the Project’s northern side.

City of Menifee Development Code Tabe 9.210.060-1
(Draft EIR, p. 5.10-17)
55 https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/menifee-ca/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1550#secid-1550

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 607

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1227 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

H. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

The Project will generate at least 1.135 daily vehicle trips at full buildout. The Traffic Impact Analysis ( Final EIR, Appendix B “TIA”) concludes that the “Opening Year Cumulative with Project traffic volumes” scenario results in significant impacts to the intersection of Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road (i.e., Level of Service F at AM/PM peak hour) (TIA p. 51, p. 58, Tables 5.5, 5.6). Rather than mitigating this impact by constructing the necessary improvement to bring the Level of Service at this intersection to a satisfactory level, the EIR reasons that “fair share” mitigation is appropriate . Even if “fair share” fee- based mitigation is appropriate for this Project, it is not shown based on substantial evidence that there is a fee-based transportation program in place to ensure that the improvement will be constructed in time of need or at any time in the future. This renders the “mitigation program” inadequate under CEQA.

The EIR concludes that “development of the proposed project would cause an increase in delay at the intersection of Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road” and the EIR identifies an improvement would reduce that impact to a less than significant level (i.e., “widen and restripe the NB shared left-thru-right lane to provide exclusive left-turn, thru, and right-turn lanes”) (TIA p. 58 item 4). Rather than require this improvement be implemented as a condition of Project development, the Project is purportedly responsible for a “fair share” of the total cost – roughly three to four percent (see, Tables 6.3 and 6.4).

The EIR notes that the improvements as to Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road are not part of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Program (TUMF), therefore, “a project fair share percentage was calculated” (p. 61). However, there is no evidence or information in the record that this improvement is part of any planned program of improvements (a city capital improvement schedule or program, for example). Without such evidence, the mitigation program is inadequate. Even if the improv ement should appropriately be cons idered for “fair share” mitigation, there is no evidence that the mitigation measure is likely to occur in the future; therefore, it is unenforceable within the meaning of CEQA.

The “fair share” fee -based mitigation payments are not listed in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see, Final EIR, MMRP p. 4 -18), which makes the measures entirely unenforceable under CEQA. This is procedurally improper.

The traffic improvements are identified as “mitigation” for significant CEQA impacts. In terms of the Project’s Conditions of Approval, the improvement is indicated in COA No. 82, but the COA does not identify the “program” to which the “fair share” fees will be paid to ensure that the improvements are actually constructed and not disregarded. (City Council Staff Report, Exh. A no. 82). In fact, the record implies that a program has not been established with respect to the improvement in question where it implies that a “Road Bridge and Benefit District (RBBD)” that would include improvements at Murrieta and Ethanac Road has not been created and/or this improvement is not part of the program (see, COA no. 81). The improvement is not liste d in relevant transportation programs to our knowledge. See, County of Riverside Amendment No. 9 to the Menifee Valley Road and

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 608

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1228 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Bridge Benefit District (May 2017) 56. See also, list of Menifee Valley Road & Bridge Benefit District Facilities from County of Riverside Transportation Department website 57.

This improvement also does not appear to be included on the list of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (see, City of Menifee Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2021-2016, p. 23) .58 As a result, the transportation mitigation program is uncertain and ineffective within the meaning of CEQA. “To be adequate, these [fair share] mitigation fees … must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.” ( Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188-1189; see, Guidelines, § 15130 (a)(3); Public Res. Code, § 21081.6 (a)(1), (b) [mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable”].)

Furthermore, the EIR is inadequate because it omits a critical intersection from the scope of analysis. While the EIR identifies that the Project is located “south of Floyd Avenue,” (TIA p. 16), the EIR does not include the intersection of Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue as a “study area intersection.” This omission is prejudicial. (See, TIA, Table 3.1.) The EIR’s truck trip distribution model identifies that 100% of trucks will pass through this intersection in route to the Project site. Floyd Avenue is a residential street. It is essential that the EIR evaluate the Project’s impacts to this intersection.

III. THE CITY MUST ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, AND

THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE
The Draft EIR evaluates two Reduced Project alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) that would reduce the Project’s development intensity by 30 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

While both alternatives would reduce significant Project impacts, Alternative 3 would reduce significant GHG impacts to a less than significant level according to the Draft EIR (Table 8- 4). Alternative 3 would develop a 251,133 square foot speculative warehouse that would generate 629 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the proposed Project. (City Council Staff Report, Exhibit C – Findings of Fact p. 98). Due to the size reduction, Alternative 3 would allow for “increased setbacks” and “the northern portion [of the site] would be left undeveloped” (id.). According to the City’s proposed Findings of Fact (City Council Staff Report Exhibit C), Alternative 3 is rejected as “infeasible” for two reasons: “it would require a similar level of mitigation as the proposed project” and “although the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, they would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the P roject” (Exhibit C, p. 94) . These reasons do not amount to substantial evidence of infeasibility as required by CEQA.

To ensure that alternatives are properly assessed and considered, CEQA “contains a `substantive mandate’ requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if ‘there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures' that

56 https://trans.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop401/files/migrated/Portals-7-documents-rbbd-menifee-final-report- amend.pdf
57 https://trans.rctlma.org/menifee-valley-road-bridge-benefit-district-facilities 58 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FY2021-26-CIP-Budget-Details-FINAL- 20210709.pdf

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 609

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1229 of 1562

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

can substantially lessen or avoid those effects’.” ( County of San Diego v. Grossmont - Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4 th 86, 98; Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) A lead agency may not reject an alternative unless the agency makes findings supported by substantial evidence showing that the alternative is infeasible. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081 (a), 21081.5; State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15091 (a)(3), 15092.) Rejected alternatives must be “truly infeasible.” ( County of Marina v. Bd of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.) Here, the Findings of Fact do not demonstrate, based on substantial evidence, that Alternative 3 is economically infeasible or otherwise. There is no data or evidence to show that development of Alternative 3 would render the Project economically infeasible in comparison to the proposed Project . Without such evidence, the City cannot legally approve the Project, and the City must adopt one of the environmentally superior alternatives.

IV. CONCLUSION
The size, scale, and intended use of the proposed Project are fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding residential community. The Project will degrade the character of the rural area and residents will be forever forced to endure the harmful effects of the Project’s intense industrial operations. Such a result should not be allowed in a city that values its residents and strives to make responsible land use decisions. For the reasons outlined in this letter, we strongly urge the City Council to uphold the denial of this Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Abigail Smith, Esq.

Enclosure (photographs)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 610

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1230 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 611

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1231 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 612

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1232 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 613

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1233 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 614

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1234 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 615

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1235 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 616

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1236 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 617

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1237 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 618

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1238 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 619

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1239 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 620

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1240 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 621

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1241 of 1562

Participating Residents of Floyd Avenue
Menifee, CA 92585
May 8, 2026
RE: Murrieta Warehouse — Additional Improvements
Dear Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Schafer:

We are writing in response to your May 4, 2026 letter regarding proposed modifications to the Murrieta Warehouse Project.

Many Floyd Avenue residents have reviewed the proposed changes outlined in your correspondence, including the proposed restriction preventing project-related traffic from utilizing the Floyd/Geary residential area, paving considerations for Floyd Avenue, additional landscaping, and the proposed property “allowance” concept.

Residents also want to emphasize that this project has created prolonged uncertainty for adjacent homeowners over multiple years. Many homeowners have remained in limbo regarding the future of their homes, neighborhood, and quality of life, affecting decisions involving property improvements, long-term planning, and investment into their homes while the project has remained unresolved. Residents also continue to deal with lingering impacts associated with prior construction activity along Geary Street related to the storm drain installation, including utility disruptions, improper restoration of residential improvements, and ongoing flooding concerns that residents believe were never adequately resolved.

While the proposed traffic modifications address one of the neighborhood’s major concerns, many participating residents remain apprehensive that the project continues to present substantial residential, environmental, and property value impacts that have not been comprehensively resolved. Residents also believe the current proposal places a disproportionate burden on homeowners located immediately adjacent to the project site, many of whose homes and families were established within the area long before the surrounding land was rezoned or warehouse operations of this intensity and proximity were ever contemplated adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood.

Furthermore, while certain mitigation measures — including increased landscaping — may reduce limited operational effects or partially screen portions of the project, such measures do not transform an inherently incompatible large-scale industrial land use into one that is compatible with immediately adjacent residential homes. Given the severity and permanence of these impacts — including residences located approximately 25 feet from the project boundary — many residents do not believe the current proposal adequately addresses the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 622

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1242 of 1562

broader long-term residential, property value, and neighborhood impacts associated with the project.

From the residents’ perspective, unresolved impacts associated with the project include:
 Residents remain deeply concerned that adjacency to a large-scale 24/7 warehouse and truck-intensive industrial operation will create measurable and permanent diminution in residential property values, marketability, refinancing potential, buyer demand, and long-term residential desirability for homes within the surrounding residential neighborhood.
 Significant environmental, operational, and residential compatibility concerns identified throughout the review process, including CEQA-related concerns raised within the comment letter submitted by The Law Office of Abigail Smith on behalf of residents.
 Concerns regarding future operational intensification, tenant changes, expanded logistics activity, increased truck frequency, and modifications to operational characteristics that could further increase impacts over time.  Concerns regarding long-term monitoring, enforcement, and accountability associated with any proposed operational restrictions, including truck-routing limitations and neighborhood protection measures.  Long-term impacts related to operational noise, lighting, truck activity, air quality concerns, diesel emissions, particulate exposure, vibration, privacy loss, pedestrian safety, emergency access concerns, and overall residential use, enjoyment, health, and quality of life within the surrounding neighborhood.  Construction-related disruption during buildout, including noise, dust, vibration, roadway wear, traffic disruption, and interference with normal residential living.

At this time, many participating residents remain generally aligned on the following principles:
 No project-related truck or vehicle traffic through the Floyd/Geary residential area, along with clear enforceability, monitoring, funding, and long-term accountability mechanisms associated with any such restrictions.
 The proposed “allowance”-based approach and limited property-level mitigation measures do not materially resolve the broader permanent residential, property value, and neighborhood impacts associated with the project.

Many participating residents do not believe limited mitigation measures or property-specific allowances constitute a meaningful resolution to the permanent impacts anticipated to affect residents along Floyd Avenue.

Residents instead believe any serious resolution framework must include monetary compensation proportionate Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 623

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1243 of 1562

to those impacts.
 Proposed roadway or infrastructure improvements do not resolve the broader land-use compatibility and residential impact concerns associated with the project. Any such proposed improvements would also require further clarification regarding project scope, implementation timing, maintenance obligations, and long-term responsibility.

Many participating residents remain opposed to the project and continue to believe the warehouse should not be approved or constructed adjacent to the existing Floyd Avenue residential neighborhood. Residents do not believe the current proposal resolves the significant concerns identified throughout the EIR process, public comment record, and ongoing resident discussions.

Accordingly, participating residents respectfully request that the project not be advanced for City Council consideration on May 20th unless and until the unresolved residential, environmental, operational, and property value impacts have been independently evaluated and meaningfully addressed. Many participating residents also do not believe the project should move forward absent a serious resolution framework that includes monetary compensation proportionate to the permanent impacts anticipated to affect adjacent homeowners.

If the project is nevertheless forced to continue moving forward, residents believe more time will be required for meaningful review, negotiation, and evaluation of any proposed operational changes, mitigation measures, infrastructure proposals, or compensation concepts prior to any approval consideration.

Sincerely,
Participating Residents of Floyd Avenue
Kimberly Tang & Moo Tang
Jessica DeChristopher & Kelly DeChristopher
Karin DeChristopher
Kim DeChristopher & Chris DeChristopher
Jackie Ferguson
Linda Fitzgerald
Robert Newton
Robert Powell & Sandi Powell
Lorene Rosa & Bobby Rosa
Kathy Smythe-Wiles & Glenn Wiles
Adrienne Vender
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 624

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1244 of 1562

Virginia Vender & Chris Vender
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 625

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1245 of 1562

Date:

October 23, 2024
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Alex Garber, Senior Technical Planner
To: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner
Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject:

Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)

Dear Mr. Fowler,
Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the D raft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens).) The City of Perris comment letter, dated O ctober 23, 2024, was received by the City of Menifee ( Lead Agency) after the public comment period for the DEIR ended on July 8, 2024. However, the City of Menifee has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alt ernative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final EIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Please find the letter and response to comments attached.

Respectfully,

Konnie Dobreva, JD

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 626

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1246 of 1562

LETTER 1: CITY OF PERRIS (3 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 627

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1247 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 628

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1248 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 629

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1249 of 1562

RESPONSE TO LETTER 1: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED OCTOBER 23, 2024
As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed public review period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Response 1.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR.

No further response is warranted.

Response 1.2: The comment states that the fails to address the replacement of residential units in compliance with Senate Bill 330. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses O3.2 to O3.4. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.3: The comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan, specifically Policy LU 1.10. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses O3.10. The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” ( Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).

Furthermore, the proposed Project provides a sufficient buffer to the nearest residential uses, and is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR . No further response is warranted.

Response 1.4: As indicated by the commenter, the Project is not required to comply with AB 98. This comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.

Response 1.5: The comment introduces the RK Engineering Group attachment to the City of Perris comment letter, as shown below, which addresses concerns over traffic safety issues. The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact . This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Fi nal EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments , within response to comment letter O3.

Additionally, please refer to responses 1 through 7 below, for a response from EPD’s senior technical planner Alex Garber to the RK Engineering Group Inc. comment letter. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.6: The comment states that the site-specific traffic study for the proposed Project is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts. This comment was Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 630

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1250 of 1562

thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses A3.5. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.7: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. This comment does not contain any new information. T herefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 631

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1251 of 1562

ATTACHMENT 1: RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC. (4 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 632

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1252 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 633

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1253 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 634

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1254 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 635

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1255 of 1562

RESPONSE TO ATTATCHMENT 1: RKA CONSULTING GROUP INC., DATED OCTOBER 23, 2024 Response 1: This comment is informative in nature and does not provide substantial evidence conflicting with the analysis or findings provided in the EIR.

Response 2: The scope of the proposed Project does not include the MEDC roadway improvement as the project is not dependent on the development of this project. It is speculative to assume that turning movements on specific intersections may change as a result of the MEDC roadway project; at such time that the MEDC study is complete, it would determine the impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that would apply to project in the area. The MEDC roadway project is not guaranteed, and can be rejected by the City Council, making any analysis relying on the construction of it speculative and opening up the project to legal challenges.

The TIA prepared for the proposed Project is technically adequate to analyze the intersections west of Case Road and Barnett Road, in the worst case scenario, analyzing 100% of Truck trips , as well as the realistic circulation of the project based on the existing roadway infrastructure. No additional analysi s is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.

Response 3: The Project-specific TIA analyzed all of the Cumulative Projects and information associated with those projects made available at the time the Notice of Preparation was released. Additionally, based on the City of Perris ’ own Traffic Study guidance, only intersections that are anticipated to experience 50 or more Project -generated trips should be analyzed. Green Valley Parkway/Murrieta Road would experience less than 50 project generated trips, therefore, was and is not be required to be analyzed as part of the TIA. No additional analysis is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.

Response 4: The statements claiming to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are two intersections that should be analyzed separately are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split phase for the north and south movements. Additionally , the accidents identified by TIMS for 2020 -2023 do not meet the criteria for a significant design safety concern, which require 5 accidents over a 12 -month period, not a three -year period. These years are more appropriate than the 2015-2017 timeframe as they are more representative of the existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation.

Response 5: The TIA analyzed the Intersections of Ethanac Road and I -215 NB/SB ramps, identifying improvements to the intersections greatly reducing the intersections LOS significantly below baseline as shown in table 6.1 and 6.2.

Response 6: A subsequent Queuing Analysis was prepared for the project analyzing the driveway queueing impacts, Truck Turning, and on-site storage capacity.

Response 7: As stated in response 4, th e statements related to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split p hase for the north and south movements.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 636

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1256 of 1562

Date:

December 4, 2024
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Alex Garber, Senior Technical Planner
To: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner
Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject:

Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)

Dear Mr. Fowler,
Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the D raft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a le ad agency does not have an obligation to respond. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens).) The City of Perris comment letter, dated December 4 , 2024, was received by the City of Menifee ( Lead Agency) after the public comment period for the DEIR ended on July 8, 2024. However, the City of Menifee has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed t he letter and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final EIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Please find the letter and response to comments attached.

Respectfully,

Konnie Dobreva, JD

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 637

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1257 of 1562

LETTER 1: CITY OF PERRIS (4 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 638

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1258 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 639

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1259 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 640

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1260 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 641

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1261 of 1562

RESPONSE TO LETTER 1: CITY OF PERRIS, DATED DECEMBER 4, 2024 As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed public review period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Response 1.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines , § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR.

No further response is warranted.

Response 1.2: The comment raises concerns regarding the proposed P roject's compliance with Senate Bill 330 (Government Code § 66300(b)(1)), specifically the replacement of residential units lost. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses O3.2 to O3.4. The EIR sufficiently addresses the land use and housing considerations raised in the comment. The proposed Project does not displace existing residential units or conflict with the overall vision for the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway. The proposed Project complies with applicable state and local land use policies, including SB 330 and the no net loss requirements. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.3: The comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan, specifically Policy LU 1.10. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses O3.10. The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and ever y policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” ( Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).

Furthermore, the proposed Project provides a sufficient buffer to the nearest residential uses and is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.4: The comment discusses significant and unavoidable noise impacts identified in the EIR, specifically regarding potential impacts from 24-hour operations on nearby residences.

CEQA requires that an EIR fully disclose and analyze potential environmental impacts, including cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors such as nearby residences. The EIR complies with CEQA by acknowledging that the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable offsite traffic noise impacts, as outlined in Section 5.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The EIR provides detailed modeling and quantitative data on noise levels. Impacts exceeding thresholds are appropriately identified as significant and unavoidable, with findings supported by substantial evidence (e.g., noise modeling, proximity to receptors, and the characteristics of 24-hour operations).

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 642

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1262 of 1562

The EIR does not downplay impacts; rather, it adheres to CEQA’s disclosure requirements by transparently discussing the nature, extent, and duration of these impacts. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.5: As indicated by the commenter, the Project is not required to comply with AB 98. This comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.

Response 1.6: The comment introduces the RK Engineering Group response attachment to the City of Perris comment letter, which addresses concerns over traffic safety issues. The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments , within response to comment letter O3.

Additionally, please refer to responses 1 through 7 in Attachme nt 1 below, for a response from EPD’s
senior technical planner Alex Garber to the RK Engineering Group Inc. comment letter. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warrante d.

Response 1.7: The comment states that the site-s pecific traffic study for the proposed P roject is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses A3.5. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Response 1.8: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. This comment does not contain any new information. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 643

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1263 of 1562

ATTACHMENT 1: RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC. (4 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 644

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1264 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 645

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1265 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 646

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1266 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 647

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1267 of 1562

RESPONSE TO ATTATCHMENT 1: RK CONSULTING GROUP INC., DATED OCTOBER 15, 2024 Response 1: This comment is informative in nature and does not provide substantial evidence conflicting with the analysis or findings provided in the EIR.

Response 2: The scope of the proposed Project does not include the MEDC roadway improvement as the project is not dependent on the development of this project. It is speculative to assume that turning movements on specific intersections may change as a result of the MEDC roadway project; at such time that the MEDC study is complete, it would determine the impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that would apply to project in the area. The MEDC roadway project is not guaranteed, and can be rejected by the City Council, making any analysis relying on the construction of it speculative and opening up the project to legal challenges.

The TIA prepared for the proposed Project is technically adequate to analyze the intersections west of Case Road and Barnett Road, in the worst case scenario, analyzing 100% of Truck trips , as well as the realistic circulation of the project based on the existing roadway infrastructure. No additional analysis is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.

Response 3: The Project-specific TIA analyzed all of the Cumulative Projects and information associated with those projects made available at the time the Notice of Preparation was released. Additionally, based on the City of Perris ’ own Traffic Study guidance , only intersections that are anticipated to experience 50 or more Project -generated trips should be analyzed. Green Valley Parkway/Murrieta Road would experience less than 50 project generated trips, therefore, was and is not be required to be analyzed as part of the TIA. No additional analysis is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.

Response 4: The statements claiming to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are two intersections that should be analyzed separately are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split phase for the north and south movements. Additionally , the accidents identified by TIMS for 2020 -2023 do not meet the criteria for a significant design safety con cern, which requir e 5 accidents over a 12 -month period, not a three -year period. These years are more appropriate than the 2015-2017 timeframe as they are more representative of the existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation.

Response 5: The TIA analyzed the Intersections of Ethanac Road and I -215 NB/SB ramps, identifying improvements to the intersections greatly reducing the intersections LOS significantly below baseline as shown in table 6.1 and 6.2.

Response 6: A subsequent Queuing Analysis was prepared for the project analyzing the driveway queueing impacts, Truck Turning, and on-site storage capacity.

Response 7: As stated in response 4, the statements related to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split p hase for the north and south movements.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 648

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1268 of 1562

Date:

February 5, 2025
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning To: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner
Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject: Late Comment Letter on the Final EIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)

Dear Mr. Fowler,
The 45-day public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project began May 24, 2024, and ended on July 8 , 2024, as documented on the City of Menifee’s website, Riverside County Clerk’s website, and State Clearinghouse.

Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the DEIR and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens).)
The Floyd Avenue Residents comment letter, dated January 30, 2025 , was received by the Lead Agency after the 45-day public comment period for the DEIR ended on July 8, 2024. However, the City of Menifee has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

Please find the letter and response to comments attached.

Respectfully,

Konnie Dobreva

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 649

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1269 of 1562

LETTER 1: FLOYD AVENUE RESIDENTS (4 PAGES) LATE COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 650

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1270 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 651

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1271 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 652

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1272 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 653

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1273 of 1562

RESPONSE TO LETTER 1 : FLOYD AVENUE RESIDENTS , DATED JANUARY 30, 2025
This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (May 24, 2024, through July 8, 2024). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Comment 1: This comment states that the residents of Floyd Avenue submit this comment letter regarding the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project, to the City of Menifee to reconsider the approval of the Project due to the environmental, traffic, noise, and visual impact it will have on the health and safety of the residents of Floyd Avenue.

Response 1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Concerns regarding impacts related to traffic, noise, and visual impact are addressed below in Responses 3 through 7. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment 2: The commenter expresses concern about the significant increase in traffic generated by the proposed warehouse, specifically 1,135 truck trips and 1,489 passenger vehicle trips daily, totaling 2,624 trips. The commenter highlights the safety risks posed by the dramatic increase in truck traffic, particularly for pedestrians, cyclists, and children, as these streets are used for daily activities and as play areas.

Response 2: This comment has been previously responded to in Response A3.2 and I3.2 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The DEIR and the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Project have thoroughly analyzed the potential transportation and safety impacts associated with the projected increase in truck and passenger vehicle trips. As stated in Section 5.12, Transportation, of the DEIR, the proposed Project includes roadway improvements designed to accommodate projected traffic volumes and enhance safety measures. Specifically, Geary Street would be improved and paved to a 36-foot width, and Murrieta Road would undergo frontage improvements to ensure compliance with City standards.

Truck routing has been planned to minimize conflicts with residential areas. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily use Ethanac Road westbound to Murrieta Road southbound, utilizing designated truck routes, as shown within Appendix B of the FEIR. The proposed Project also includes a private truck-only driveway along the southern portion of the site to reduce truck circulation on local streets. Furthermore, all trucks exiting the site onto Murrieta Road would do so via a signalized intersection to enhance traffic flow and safety.

Regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety, the City of Menifee’s review process ensures that roadway improvements comply with applicable safety standards. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction and grading permits to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. As stated in the DEIR, truck movements would be regulated through on-site signage, striping, and access control measures to avoid potential conflicts between heavy vehicles and non-motorized road users. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would comp ly with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses; protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities.

While the proposed Project would contribute to an increase in traffic along Geary Street and Murrieta Road, the DEIR has adequately disclosed and assessed these impacts, and measures have been incorporated Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 654

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1274 of 1562

where feasible. Thus , the proposed Project's transportation and safety impacts have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA requirements, and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The City will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with all applicable standards to avoid potential effects on the community. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 3: The commenter expresses concern that the EIR does not fully address the potential health impacts of increased diesel truck traffic. They note that the EIR assessed air pollution at a regional level rather than a project-specific level, excluding residents of Floyd Avenue and surrounding homes from consideration. The commenter highlights the health risks of diesel particulate matter ( DPM), particularly for those living within 300 to 500 feet of the Project site. Additionally, they argue that the Project conflicts with Menifee General Plan Policy LU-1.10, which calls for buffering sensitive land uses from major air pollutant sources.

Response 3: This comment has been addressed in Responses O3.7, A 3.2, and A6.4 of the FEIR. The DEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality and health risk impacts associated with the proposed Project. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and supported by the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G of the DEIR), potential health risks from DPM emissions have been analyzed at both the construction and operational phases, for both regional and local impacts.

The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) evaluated exposure to DPM from heavy- duty truck traffic and on- site operations. The results indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction-related DPM emissions is 0.77 in one million, well b elow the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) cancer risk significance threshold of 10 in one million. For operational emissions, the maximum estimated cancer risk is 3.02 in one million under Scenario 1 and 3.04 in one million under Scen ario 2— again, significantly below the SCAQMD threshold . Additionally, non-cancer risks were found to be ≤ 0.01, well below the applicable significance threshold of 1.0.

The EIR also assesses cumulative air quality impacts, including potential combined effects from other industrial projects in the region. Based on SCAQMD guidance, projects that do not exceed individual significance thresholds are generally considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact. The cumulative cancer risk assessment demonstrates that even when accounting for other industrial projects in the vicinity, the total estimated risk remains below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ) standard cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million.

As described in Section 5.9, Land Use of the DEIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with Menifee’s General Plan Land Use Policy LU-I.10, which states that sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, and similar uses shall be buffered. The proposed Project would provide a buffer between the proposed Project and residence s located north of the Project site through the implementation of a 14-foot-high retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern truck court which would be outside facing 8-feet high for the residences to the north. Further, the proposed Project would also be setback from the residences to the north with landscaping and parking.

In conclusion, the air quality and health risk impacts have been adequately analyzed in compliance with CEQA and SCAQMD methodologies. The proposed Project’s emissions, including DPM, have been determined to be less than significant, and appropriate measures have been incorporated where feasible. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the FEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment L.4:

The commenter notes that the Staff Report dated October 23, 2024, acknowledges significant and unavoidable noise impacts along Murrieta Road and Geary Street. The commenter express es concern that the Noise & Vibration Analysis dated July 15, 2024, only evaluated A-weighted noise levels and did Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 655

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1275 of 1562

not account for C-weighted low-frequency noise, which can be more disruptive to residents and more difficult to mitigate.

Response 4: The DEIR has thoroughly analyzed the noise impacts associated with the proposed Project.

Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR, which determined that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI -1 and PPP NOI-2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant . However, the analysis determined that off -site traffic noise increases along Murrieta Road and Geary Street would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to increased vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project. The DEIR evaluated both the cumulative noise increase over existing conditions and the incremental increase due to the proposed Project itself. Table 5.10- 24 of the DEIR identifies roadway segments where noise levels are expected to exceed applicable thresholds.

Regarding the use of A -weighted (dBA) versus C -weighted (dBC) measurements, standard environmental noise analyses, including those conducted under CEQA, rely on A -weighting because it aligns with human hearing sensitivity and regulatory thresholds set by agencies such as the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). While C-weighted measurements capture low-frequency noise more effectively, regulatory noise limits and mitigation strategies are typically based on A-weighted levels.

The DEIR also considered feasible mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt, but determined that these would not be sufficient to reduce traffic noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Consequently, the proposed Project’s off-site traffic noise impacts remain significant and unavoidable.

In summary, the noise analysis in the D EIR follows CEQA guidelines and industry standards, utilizing methodologies that provide a reliable assessment of potential impacts. While the proposed Project includes design features to minimize noise where feasible, the off -site traffic noise impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the F EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 5: The commenter raises concerns about the visual impact of the proposed 55-foot-tall warehouse on residents of Floyd Avenue. The commenter states that structures may be visible from backyards and second-floor bedrooms. Additionally, they express concern over the lack of details regarding on -site and off-site lighting design, which could impact privacy and disrupt the residential environment. The commenter also states that the project does not align with Menifee General Plan Policy LU -1.4, as it lac ks a well - designed transition between the residential neighborhood and the industrial development.

Response 5: The DEIR fully evaluated the visual impacts of the proposed warehouse, including building height, massing, and potential effects on surrounding residential areas and determined impacts would be less than significant. As stated in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project incorporates design measures to minimize visual disruption, including setbacks, landscape buffering, and architectural treatments to reduce the perception of mass and scale.

Furthermore, under CEQA, visual impacts are analyzed based on public viewpoints rather than private residential views. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) states that economic or social effects, including impacts on private views, are not considered environmental impacts unless they result in a significant physical change to the environment. Courts have consistently held that CEQA does not protect private views, as its purpose is to assess broader community and environmental impacts rather than individual prop erty concerns (e.g., Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720).

Regarding concerns about the availability of detailed plans, CEQA does not require final design plans to be included in an EIR, only that sufficient information is provided for public and agency review (pursuant to Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 656

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1276 of 1562

CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). The DEIR includes conceptual site plans, elevations, and simulations that illustrate the anticipated visual character of the proposed Project. Further refinements to the building design and landscaping w ould be subject to the City of Menifee’s site development review process to ensure compliance with applicable design standards.

In response to concerns about lighting impacts, the DEIR includes an analysis of lighting design in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates light spillover and glare. The proposed Project w ould incorporate downward-shielded LED fixtures to minimize light trespass onto adjacent properties. In addition, final design review would be required to confirm compliance with City standards, including height and placement of lighting fixtures.

With respect to Menifee General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1.4, the DEIR concludes that the proposed Project is consistent with the intent of this policy. The proposed P roject integrates transitional design elements such as landscaping, setbacks, and screening to buffer the residential areas along Floyd Avenue.

In conclusion, the DEIR fully discloses the proposed Project's potential aesthetic and lighting impacts. The City would ensure compliance with all applicable design and lighting regulations through the final review and approval process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 6: The commenter expresses concerns about the potential negative impact of the proposed development on property values.

Response 6: Under CEQA, economic and social effects, including potential changes in property values, are not considered environmental impacts unless they lead to or are caused by a physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15131). The DEIR evaluates the proposed Project's potential environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetics, including measures to mitigate significant effects where feasible. However, CEQA does not require an analysis of potential changes in property values unless they directly result in a significant environmental impact.

The DEIR has already disclosed and analyzed environmental factors such as air quality, noise, and aesthetics, including identifying significant and unavoidable offsite traffic noise impacts. While concerns about property values are acknowledged, CEQA focuses on physical environmental changes rather than economic speculation.

The City Council may consider economic and social factors outside the CEQA process when making a final decision on the proposed P roject. However, within the scope of CEQA review, the D EIR has adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and incorporated mitigation measures where required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 7: The commenter requests that the Project be denied, stating that the only acceptable solution is to wait until the properties along Floyd Avenue are bought out. The commenter expresses dissatisfaction with proposed alternatives, stating that they do not adequately address their concerns. The commenter emphasizes that their health, safety, and property values should take priority over the project, and they urge the City of Menifee to reconsider the approval.

Response 7: The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR and has been previously addressed in Response O3.33 of the FEIR. The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 657

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1277 of 1562

Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.

DEIR page 8 -1 states that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this EIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project”. As detailed in DEIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning, a 30 percent Reduced Project Alternative, a 51 percent Reduce d Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative were selected for further analysis. As such, the alternatives utilized by the DEIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the proposed Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8 -5 provides a comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project, to a less than significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. We recognize that the impacts of the proposed Project are a source of concern for the community, and the City of Menifee will continue to consider these concerns as part of the decision-making process.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 658

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1278 of 1562

Date: May 18, 2026
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Sam Kelley, Assistant Environmental Planner
Prepared for: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject: Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)

Dear Mr. Fowler,
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088) .

When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c) (“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”)). Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens)).

The People of Floyd Avenue comment letter, dated April 17 , 2026, was received by the City of Menifee (Lead Agency) after the public comment period for the DEIR ended on July 8, 2024. However, the City of Menifee has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the Project. The number desi gnations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the City Council’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the DEIR and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) are not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature.

Respectfully,
Konnie Dobreva
VP of Environmental Planning
EPD Solutions, Inc.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 659

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1279 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK COMPLETED
Summary of Previous Response to Comments
Many of the comments raised in the People of Floyd Avenue comment letter have been previously addressed in prior response letters. Where applicable, the responses below incorporate and rely on those prior responses, as identified in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1, Comments Received on the DEIR , identifies the public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review and comment period (May 24, 2024 through July 8, 2024). All comment letters received on the DEIR, and the corresponding responses, are included in the FEIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments.

Table 1: Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 City of Perris (14 comments) received October 23, 2024. July 3, 2024 A2 Airport Land Use Commission May 28, 2024
A3 City of Perris July 8, 2024
A4 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources July 3, 2024 A5 Southern California Gas May 24, 2024
A6 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 24, 2024 Organizations
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 2, 2024
O2 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice July 8, 2024 O3 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 3, 2024 O4 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 5, 2024 Individuals
I1 Adrienne Vendor May 28, 2024
I2 Bob Powell May 28, 2024
I3 Kimberly and Moo Tang June 26, 2024

In addition to the comments submitted on the DEIR during the public review and comment period, Table 2 , Comments Received on the FEIR, identifies late comment letters received outside of the formal comment period, including comments on the FEIR. All such comment letters, and the corresponding responses, are included in the Staff Reports and administrative record for the Planning Commission hearing on October 23, 2024, and the City Council hearing on December 4, 2024.

Table 2: Comments Received on the FEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
Late City of Perris October 23, 2024
Late City of Perris December 4, 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 660

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1280 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
3 Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Organizations
Late Advocates for the Environment July 15, 2024
Late Golen State Environmental Justice October 16, 2024 Late Floyd Avenue Residents January 30, 2025

Summary of the Interim Traffic Scenario
The applicant for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project has proposed an Interim Traffic Scenario in response to coordination with members of the surrounding community following the City Council hearing held on December 4, 2024, and the Community Meeting held on April 17, 2025 . Concerns were raised regarding truck traffic circulation along Geary Street at full buildout, particularly related to safety and potential cut- through traffic effects within the adjacent residential neighborhood. To address these concerns in the near term, the applicant has proposed an interim condition under which the Geary Street connection to Ethanac Road would not be constructed. Under this interim condition , Project traffic would instead be routed alon g the Project’s frontage to Murrieta Road, as described in further detail below.

A CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162), was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated March 4, 2026. The purpose of the memorandum is to evaluate whether the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, thereby requiring revisions to the DEIR, or recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA. In addition, th e memorandum evaluates whether the D EIR, together with the F EIR and supplemental technical analyses, adequately and comprehensively analyzes the Project as proposed, inclusive of the Interim Traffic Scenario, consistent with CEQA.

As explained in further detail within the CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project, a new interim traffic scenario has been proposed. Under this scenario, Geary Street would not be improved north of the Project site to Ethanac Road and Project traffic would no longer utilize Geary Street north of the site for connection to Ethanac Road. Under the Interim Traffic Scenario both passenger vehicles and trucks would utilize Ethanac Road southbound to Murrieta Road for all inbound movements and Murrieta Road northbound to Ethanac Road for all outbound movements. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Geary Street to access the new private truck -only driveway along the southern portion of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Geary Street to access the new private truck- only driveway along the southern boundary of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Importantly, there is no change in the total trip generation, only redistribution of trips within the existing study area roadway network. The Interim Traffic Scenario does not increase total trip generation and is consistent with the total trip generation analyzed in the D EIR; therefore, the environmental baseline and analytical assumptions remain valid.

A Supplemental Traffic Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated September 2, 2025, confirms that study intersections, roadway segments, and cumulative conditions were re -evaluated under the Interim Traffic Scenario using consistent methodologies and significance thresholds as applied in the DEIR. The results demonstrate that the redistribution of trips does not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts.

Furthermore, a Supplemental Noise Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 27, 2026, applied the same modeling assumptions, traffic volumes, and significance thresholds used in the DEIR. The results demonstrate that while certain impacts remain significant and unavoidable as prev iously disclosed, Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 661

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1281 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
4 no new roadway segment would experience a significant increase in traffic noise as a result of the redistributed traffic pattern, and no previously identified impact would substantially increase in severity. The supplemental analysis concluded that the Int erim Traffic Scenario does not result in new significant off -site traffic noise impacts and does not increase the severity of previously identified impacts along Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road or Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road. Under the Interim T raffic Scenario, the previously identified significant and unavoidable impact along Geary Street south of Ethanac Road would be reduced to less -than-significant level. Off -site traffic noise impacts along Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the findings of the DEIR. In addition, the impacts previously identified in the DEIR associated with the ultimate buildout of Geary Street would remain unchanged.

As discussed above, the total trip volumes remain unchanged and the construction and operational characteristics are identical to those analyzed in the D EIR. Therefore, impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and all other resource areas evaluated in the EIR remain unchanged.

Buildout of Geary Street north of the Project site to Ethanac Road would still occur in the ultimate condition, and impacts associated with the ultimate buildout have been fully evaluated in the D EIR. Accordingly, no new air quality or GHG impacts are created, and no revisions to the prior environmental analysis are required.

As described above, the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario does not alter the proposed Project’s characteristics or design and does not result in new or increased environmental impacts compared to those analyzed in the D EIR. The Supplemental Traffic and Noise Assessments demonstrate that impacts would remain consistent with, or in certain instances be less than, those previously evaluated.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 662

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1282 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
5 LETTER 1: PEOPLE OF FLOYD AVENUE (25 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 663

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1283 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
6 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 664

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1284 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
7 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 665

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1285 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
8 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 666

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1286 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
9 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 667

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1287 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
10 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 668

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1288 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
11 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 669

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1289 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
12 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 670

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1290 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
13 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 671

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1291 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
14 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 672

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1292 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
15 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 673

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1293 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
16 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 674

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1294 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
17 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 675

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1295 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
18 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 676

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1296 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
19 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 677

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1297 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
20 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 678

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1298 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
21 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 679

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1299 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
22 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 680

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1300 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
23 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 681

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1301 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
24 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 682

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1302 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
25 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 683

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1303 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
26 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 684

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1304 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
27 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 685

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1305 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
28 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 686

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1306 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
29 Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 687

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1307 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
30 RESPONSE TO LETTER 1: PEOPLE OF FLOYD AVENUE , DATED APRIL 17, 2026
As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed public review period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Many of the comments raised in the People of Floyd Avenue comment letter have been previously addressed in prior response letters. Where applicable, the responses below incorporate and rely on those prior responses, as identified in Tables 1 and 2 above. In addition, an Interim Traffic Scenario has been proposed and evaluated in the memorandum titled CEQA Memorandum Evaluating an Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162) , prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated Mar ch 4, 2026, and is referenced herein.
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated May 2024.
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated September 2024.
• CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated March 4, 2026.

Comment 1.1: This comment explains the commenter represents the People of Floyd and states they will provide comments on the Project and DEIR. The commenter notes the City’s Planning Commission voted to deny the Project in October 2024 and expressed concerns regarding land use compatibility and the amount of warehouse and distribution facilities being developed. The commenter also explains the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council and on December 4, 2024, the City Council voted to continue the item.

Response 1.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment 1.2: The comment explains the proposed warehouse would be within 25 feet of existing single- family homes along Floyd Street and that the dock doors and truck trailer parking spaces proposed on the northern side would result in adverse, long-term impacts such as around-the-clock noise, harmful air emissions and nighttime lighting.

Response 1.2: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential uses located approximately 47 feet north of the Project site, measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas, as shown in DEIR Figure

5.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations , and DEIR Figure 5.10 -3, Sensitive Receptor Locations . As part of the environmental analysis, operational activities associated with the Project were specifically identified and incorporated into the technical studies and modeling assumptions used to evaluate impacts. This includes truck court activity, truck circulation within drive aisles, loading and unloading at dock doors, parking, maneuvering, backing movements (including backup alarms), nighttime lighting and headlights, and other associated on-site operational activit y. The DEIR documents these operatio nal sources in multiple sections, including Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 5.2-3, Onsite Operational Emissions Sources , and Figure

5.10-5, Operational Noise Sources, which identify the locations and nature of the modeled emissions, lighting, and noise -generating activities. The corresponding analyses evaluate these activities under conservative assumptions in order to disclose potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, as described in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the Project analyzed the introduction of new sources of light from Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 688

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1308 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
31 new building security lighting, streetlights within the Project area, interior lights shining through building windows, and specifically, headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated from the Project. These operational characteristics were not omitted from the analysis but rather were expressly considered as part of the Project’s impact assessment.

As discussed in prior Response to Comment documents identified in Tables 1 and 2 above, these issues have been addressed in detail and are further clarified in Response 1 .9 below. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 1.3: The comment urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and that the EIR be revised and incorporate additional mitigation measures consistent with public commentary.

Response 1.3: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses general concerns regarding the DEIR.

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence” . Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the F EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issu es addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts do es not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) the adequacy of an EIR is evaluated based on its completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure, not perfection. The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to. Thus, no further response is required or provided.

Comment 1.4: The commenter asserts that the Project’s dock doors, trailer parking, and truck circulation on both the north and south sides of the building exposes nearby residences to operational impacts and contends that this design prioritizes operational capabilities at the expense of resident’s health and quality of life .

The commenter requests that alternative site designs be evaluated to reduce impacts and recommends consideration of alternatives consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 98 as feasible mitigation or alternatives under CEQA.

Response 1.4: Please refer to Response 0.39, Response 0.40, and Response 1.3 from the City of Perris Letter dated December 4, 2024. As acknowledged by the commentor, AB 98 is not applicable to the Project.

Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) introduced Government [BHFS1] Code section 65098 including Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), which states, “notwithstanding any other provision of law, if, by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter.” Furthermore, Senate Bill 415 (SB 415) amended Government Code Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), to read as “notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in Section 65098.1.6, if by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use development, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 689

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1309 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
32 chapter,” and added Section 65098.1.6(a) which specifies, “notwithstanding any other law, this chapter shall not apply to any logistics use development that was subject to a local entitlement process that began before September 30, 2024.” The proposed Project entered the local entitlement process with the City of Menifee prior to September 30, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65098.1.5(a)(3) and 65098.1.6(a), the requirements established by AB 98 do not apply to the proposed Project and are not required to be evaluated as mitigation measures or alternatives under CEQA.

As described in DEIR Section 5.12, Land Use , including Table 5.9 -3, Good Neighbor Guidelines Consistency Analysis, the Project has been designed to be fully consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies. These policies are intended to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect public health, safety, and welfare through regulation of the design, location , and operation of warehouse, logistics, and distribution facilities, and preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent communities. The Project would also comply with applicable environmental policies, laws, ordinances, and regulations, as well as required fees and measures to reduce impacts where appropriate. In addition, the Project provides an adequate buffer to the nearest residential uses and is consistent with the applicable zoning and land use designations for the site. A comprehensive analysis of the Project’s consistency with relevant Menifee General Plan goals and policies is provided in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.

The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).

The Project’s potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, including residences, are fully disclosed and analyzed throughout the DEIR, including in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and Transportation sections. As summarized in DEIR Section 1.0, Executive Summary, air quality impacts would be less than significant, greenhouse gas impacts would be significant and unavoidable, noise impacts would be less than significant with the exception of offsite traffic noise, which would be significant and unavoidable, and transportation-related safety impacts would be less than significant. With respect to sensitive receptors specifically, DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality , concludes that localized significance threshold (LST) impacts and health risks would be less than significant based on applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds, including regional and localized criteria pollutant thresholds and c ancer risk thresholds. A Construction and Operational Health Risk Assessment, included in DEIR Appendix B, determined that health risks to nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Furthermore, as shown in DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, Table 5.10-3, Significance Criteria Summary, the Project was evaluated using the applicable thresholds for noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors.

In addition, Project alternatives have been fully evaluated within DEIR Section 8.0, Alternatives. CEQA does not require the EIR to analyze every conceivable alternative, nor does it require that all alternatives meet all project objectives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only thos e alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 690

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1310 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
33 to a project. The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further changes to the DEIR are warranted.

Comment 1.5: The commenter states that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Policy OCS 9 -2 because it does not buffer sensitive land uses due to only 25 feet between the Project’s truck court and adjacent residences. The comment explains that policies from the City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies should apply and that the Project directly conflicts with these standards. The commenter also states that Geary Street is a residential street and should not be used for truck traffic.

Response 1.5: Please refer to Response 1.4 above. The Project has been designed in conformance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies, applicable General Plan policies, and the relevant zoning and land use designations and standards. A comprehensive table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, together with the Project’s consistency analysis, is provided in DEIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.

In addition, as demonstrated in DEIR Table 5.9-3, Good Neighbor Guidelines Consistency Analysis, the Project has been designed to be fully consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. These standards specifically address site design, setbacks, landscaping, and operational separation from sensitive receptors. The Project’s design incorporates the required setbacks and buffering measures, thereby providing adequate separation from nearby residential uses.

Relevant Good Neighbor Policies and Standards related to buffering and setbacks include the following, all of which the Project is consistent with:
• Buildings shall be set back a minimum of one foot for every one foot of building height, but no less than 25 feet, when adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
• Dock high doors shall be a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors. • Front setbacks shall include a minimum 25 -foot landscape planter. For property lines adjacent to a sensitive receptor, side setbacks shall include a minimum 10-foot landscape planter, and rear setbacks shall include a minimum 5-foot landscape planter.

Regarding the commenter’s concerns about the use of Geary Street, as described above, under the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario, the Geary Street connection to Ethanac Road would not be constructed. Under this interim condition, Project traffic would instead be routed along the Project frontage to Murrieta Road. The Interim Traffic Scenario does not alter the fundamental characteristics or design of the proposed Project and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the D EIR.

Supplemental traffic and noise assessments prepared for the Interim Traffic Scenario demonstrate that impacts would remain consistent with, and in some instances less than, those previously disclosed in the EIR.

The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions t o the EIR.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.6: The commenter emphasizes that the Project’s design does not comply with the City’s Industrial Design Standards because the 25-foot separation is not an appropriate buffer.

Response 1.6: Please refer to Responses 1.4 and 1.5 above. The City’s Industrial Design Standards include the following standards for setbacks and buffers:
• Buildings shall be set back a minimum of one foot for every one foot of building height, but no less than 25 feet, when adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
• Dock high doors shall be a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 691

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1311 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
34 • Front setbacks shall include a minimum 25 -foot landscape planter. For property lines adjacent to a sensitive receptor, side setbacks shall include a minimum 10-foot landscape planter, and rear setbacks shall include a minimum 5-foot landscape planter.

As described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project provides a building setback of approximately 205 feet from the northern property line, which is adjacent to sensitive receptors. With a proposed building height of 55 feet at the parapet, the City’s Industrial Design Standards require a minimum setback of 55 feet; therefore, the Project exceeds this requirement by a substantial margin. In addition, loading dock doors are set back approximately 265 feet from the northern property line, which exceeds the 250-foot setback standard. The Project also includes a 25-foot landscaped setback between the screen wall and the residences to the north, which would effectively screen the truck court and loading areas, consistent with the City’s Industrial Design Standards.

Accordingly, the Project is consistent with applicable design standards, and the comment does not identify any new substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 1.7: The commenter states that access would be provided via multiple driveways on Geary Street and Murrieta Road, resulting in daily interaction between residents and heavy -duty truck traffic. The commenter cites the EIR’s traffic analysis, noting an estimated 1,135 daily vehicle trips (or 1,489 passenger car equivalent trips) and asserts that most traffic, including 100 percent of inbound truck trips, would travel via Murrieta Road. The commenter also expresses concern regarding 24 -hour Project operations and resulting traffic noise impacts on nearby residences. Additionally, the commenter notes the lack of nearby public transit and argues that the absence of transit access exacerbates vehicle dependency and project incompatibility with the site.

Response 1.7: Please refer to Response 1.5 above. The comment does not identify a deficiency in the DEIR but instead reiterates concerns regarding Project operations and circulation that have already been evaluated and disclosed within the DEIR and thoroughly responded to within the FEIR.

The DEIR includes a comprehensive transportation analysis of Project -generated traffic. That analysis evaluated truck routing and site access, including circulation via Geary Street and Murrieta Road, as part of the Project’s operational characteristics. I n addition, as referenced in Response 1.5, a supplemental memorandum was prepared to evaluate the Interim Traffic Scenario, including analysis of truck routing under those conditions. With respect to potential conflicts between truck and passenger vehicle traffic at Project driveways, the DEIR specifically evaluates site access and circulation design features intended to manage vehicle interactions in a controlled manner. As described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project provides five total driveways, including three along Murrieta Road and two along Geary Street, which are designed to distribute site traffic and separate inbound and outbound movements by direction and vehicle type. Truck access is primarily directed to Murrieta Road, with trucks traveling to and from I-215 and SR-74 routed along Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road, consistent with designated truck routes. In addition, Geary Street operations are limited in part to specific truck types and movements, including restrictions on cert ain truck access to the southern Geary Street driveway, thereby reducing potential interaction with passenger vehicles on local residential-serving streets. It should also be noted that under the Interim Traffic Scenario, Geary Street would not be improved north of the Project site to Ethanac Road and Project traffic would no longer utilize Geary Street north of the site for connection to Ethanac Road.

The DEIR further identifies that off-site roadway improvements, including widening, paving, and installation of a signalized northern Murrieta Road driveway, are incorporated into the Project design to improve traffic operations and safety at Project acces s points. On-site circulation, driveway geometry, sight distance, and signing and striping would be reviewed through the City’s final improvement plan and permitting process to ensure compliance with City standards, including the Menifee General Plan Circu lation Element and Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 692

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1312 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
35 applicable design requirements. These design and operational features collectively reduce and manage potential conflicts between passenger vehicles and truck traffic at Project driveways.

With respect to traffic-related noise, these impacts were fully analyzed in the DEIR. As disclosed within DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, off-site traffic noise associated with Project operations was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The DEIR therefore fully acknowledges and discloses these impacts in accordance with CEQA’s informational requirements.

The commenter’s concerns regarding transit accessibility are also addressed in the DEIR. As described in DEIR Section 5.12, Transportation , the Project would not conflict with any existing or proposed program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The nearest Riverside Transit Authority bus stop is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site. In addition, the Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line includes a station approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the Project site on Case Road near Perris Crossing, providing regional commuter rail service.

The nearest bicycle facility is a Class II bike lane on Ethanac Road, located approximately 0.2 mile s north of the site. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element also identifies Murrieta Road east of the Project site as a proposed Class II bike lane. The Project would also provide on -site long-term and short-term bicycle parking, including bike racks, to support alternative transportation options. Implementation of the Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned transit or bicycle facilities.

The comment does not provide new substantial evidence demonstrating that the transportation or noise analyses are inadequate. Rather, the issues raised have already been addressed and disclosed in the DEIR and supplemental analyses. Accordingly, no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.8: The comment states the proposed Project represents poor land use planning and significant environmental impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. The comment further explains that the EIR does not fully and appropriately evaluate these and other areas, states that the proposed mitigation is not adequate, and states this letter identifies feasible measures that should be adopted.

Response 1.8: This comment is introductory in nature and presents general concerns regarding the DEIR’s analysis of environmental topics that are addressed in greater detail in subsequent comments, including discussions related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and mi tigation measures. T he comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis requiring a substantive response.

The commenter provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the identified impact areas, that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate, or that the suggested additional measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s impacts. General disagreement with the conclusions of the EIR does not, in itself, constitute evidence of inadequacy under CEQA.

The concerns raised herein have also been addressed in prior responses, including Response O2.2, Responses O3.51 and O3.52, Response I3.3, and Responses L.6, L.7, and L.9 from the Advocates for the Environment late comment letter. Those responses explain in detail the analytical basis for the DEIR’s conclusions and the rationale supporting the selected mitigation framework. Accordingly, no additional response is required beyond the clarifications provided herein.

As a part of the environmental review for the Project, the City reviewed and included mitigation measures feasible to reduce GHG emissions and off-site traffic noise impacts from the proposed Project. However, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project ap proval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 693

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1313 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
36 nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (Ibid.). Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). The DEIR provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the r ecord, the Project’s EIR discusses all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s off -site traffic noise and greenhouse gas impacts and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.

Comment 1.9: The comment states that the Project Description is misleading because while the building is setback 205 or 265 feet from residential homes, the Project is separated by only 25 feet with truck trailer parking within 25 feet and the truck drive aisle within 85 feet of residential homes.

Response 1.9: Please refer to Response 1.2 above. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed f or the evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design. The Project is described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description , which includes detailed information regarding site layout, operational features, and setbacks, including the 25-foot setback between the proposed screen wall and the residences located north of the site. In addition, DEIR Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Site Plan, clearly identifies the Project’s setbacks, truck circulation areas, and drive aisle locations.

The DEIR also identifies the nearest sensitive receptors as the residential uses located approximately 47 feet north of the Project site boundary, measured to the outdoor living areas, as shown in DEIR Figure 5.2 -1, Sensitive Receptor Locations , and DEIR Figure 5.10 -3, Sensitive Receptor Locations . As part of the environmental analysis, operational activities associated with the Project were identified and incorporated into the technical studies and modeling assumptions used to evaluate impacts. This includes truck court activity, truck circulation within drive aisles, loading and unloading at dock doors, parking, maneuvering, backing movements (including backup alarms), nighttime lighting and headlights, and associated on-site operational activity. In addition, as described in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant , the Project analyzed the introduction of new sources of light from new building security lighting, streetlights within the Project area, interior lights shining through building windows, and specifically, headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated from the Project. These operational characteristics were not omitted from analysis but rather were expressly considered as part of the Project’s impact assessment.

The DEIR documents these operational sources in multiple sections, including Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 5.2-3, Onsite Operational Emissions Sources , and Figure 5.10 -5, Operational Noise Sources , which identify the locations and nature of the modeled emission s, lighting, and noise-generating activities. The corresponding analyses evaluate these activities under conservative assumptions in order to disclose potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Accordingly, the DEIR provides a clear and complete description of the Project’s operational characteristics and demonstrates that such activities were incorporated into the environmental analysis and modeling. The setbacks and operational areas are transp arently disclosed in the Project Description, and the resulting Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 694

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1314 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
37 impacts are fully evaluated within the DEIR. The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.10: The comment states the EIR’s Project Description must be updated to reflect that the homes are closer than 265 feet and that it be accurate, stable, and finite. The comment includes a photo showing 25 feet from the property line fence to a child.

Response 1.10: Please refer to Response 1.9 above. The commenter appears to reference the approximately 265-foot setback of the loading dock doors from the northern property line. The DEIR, including Section 3.0, Project Description, clearly identifies that this measurement is from the proposed dock doors to the northern property line and does not represent the distance between the Project and nearby residences. As described, the dock door setback exceeds the 250 -foot standard set fo rth in the City’s Industrial Design Standards.

As discussed in Response 1.9 above, the DEIR also discloses that sensitive receptors are located as close as approximately 47 feet from the Project site boundary. In addition, Section 3.0, Project Description provides detailed information regarding site layout, operational features, and setbacks, including the 25 -foot landscaped setback between the proposed screen wall and the north ern property line . DEIR Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, further illustrates the Project’s setbacks, truck circulation areas, and drive aisle locations.

Accordingly, the DEIR provides an accurate and stable Project Description that clearly identifies the relevant distances between the Project and nearby residences. The comment does not identify substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.11: The comment explains that truck and related operations will cause noise and lighting impacts much closer than 265 feet. The comment also states that the Project Description failed to include the single- family neighborhood south of the site when describing surrounding land uses.

Response 1.11: Please refer to Response 1.9 above. The DEIR fully evaluated surrounding land uses and expressly identified the single -family neighborhood south of the Project site, located south of McLaughlin Road, as part of the environmental analysis. As shown in DEIR Figure 5.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations, and DEIR Figure 5.10-3, Sensitive Receptor Locations, these residences were included as sensitive receptors in the DEIR, specifically as Receptors R4 and R5.

As documented in DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, and Appendix H, Noise Report, these receptors were described as follows:

R1 Location R1 represents existing noise sensitive residence at 25705 Floyd Avenue, approximately 63 feet northwest of the Project site (from property line) . R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2 Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25875 Floyd Avenue, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site (from property line). R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3 Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25955 Floyd Avenue, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site (from property line). R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4 Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25910 Camino Juarez, approximately 371 feet south of the Project site (from property line). A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 695

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1315 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
38 R5 Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25707 McLaughlin Road, approximately 428 feet southwest of the Project site (from property line). R5 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

These receptors were therefore not omitted from the analysis but were studied as part of the DEIR’s assessment of operational and ambient conditions. In addition, field measurements were collected at both residential neighborhoods north and south of the Project site to support the noise analysis.

Notably, these southern receptors are located at greater distances from Project operational areas than the nearest receptors north of the Project site, which are the closest sensitive receptors analyzed in the DEIR. In addition, as described in Responses 1.5 and 1.6 above, the Project exceeds the setback and buffer requirements included i n the City’s Industrial Design Standards by a substantial margin . Because environmental effects such as noise , air quality emissions, and lighting generally diminish with distance, impacts to the southern receptors are less pronounced than those experienced at the closer northern receptor locations. As such, the DEIR’s evaluation of the nearest receptors provides a conservative basis for assessing potential impacts.

Accordingly, the DEIR fully analyzed and disclosed impacts associated with surrounding land uses, including the single-family neighborhood to the south. The comment does not provide new substantial evidence or information demonstrating any deficiency in the analysis. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.12: The comment states the Project conflicts with adopted land use plans including policies of the City’s General Plan and lists the relevant policies.

Response 1.12: Please refer to Response O3.10. The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable g oals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).

Furthermore, as described in Response 1.5 above and Response O3.5, the Project is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in DEIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. Goals and Policies that are not applicable to the proposed Project are not included under Table 5.9-2 of the DEIR as they are City initiatives or do not include project speci fic criteria. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed Project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG emissions and off -site traffic noise , it does not equate to the Project impeding the implementation or achievement of these Goal s and Policies at a regional or local level. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment 1.13: The comment states the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and results in a potentially significant land use impact. The comment explains that the proposed Project is not designed to the “maximum extent feasible” for truck driveways and loading docks to be oriented away from sensitive receptors and that there is no demonstrated need for this design given no tenant is identified. Additionally, the comment states that the truck route goes past homes on Murrietta Road and is not oriented to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors. Lastly, the comment states the proposed Project is inconsistent with Air Quality Policy 2 (a) because trucks will queue in the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 696

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1316 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
39 Response 1.13: Please refer to Responses 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 above as well as Response A3.2 regarding the Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and related circulation considerations.

The Project’s site design reflects the physical characteristics and operational constraints of the Project site, including its location, parcel configuration, frontage conditions, and access points. Due to the site’s shape and roadway connections, access is necessary from both Murrieta Road and Geary Street in order to provide safe and functional circulation for passenger vehicles, service vehicles, and heavy-duty trucks. These access points are integral to maintaining operational efficiency and compliance with applicable roadway and engineering standards.

The orientation of truck courts, drive aisles, and loading areas is also influenced by the need to satisfy multiple development requirements, including setback standards, landscape buffers, fire access, internal circulation, screening requirements, and bui lding placement constraints. Collectively, these factors limit feasible alternative configurations and make reorienting dock doors in the manner suggested by the commenter impracticable without creating conflicts with other applicable standards. The final layout therefore represents a balanced design solution that addresses operational needs while remaining consistent with adopted development policies and standards.

The absence of a currently identified tenant does not alter the need for a functional industrial site layout.

The Project is evaluated based on its reasonably foreseeable operational characteristics and land use designation, rather than the identity of a future occupant. CEQA requires analysis of the proposed use and associated impacts, which the DEIR has fully disclosed.

With respect to truck routing, the DEIR and supporting transportation analyses evaluated circulation along Murrieta Road and Geary Street, including the relationship of those routes to nearby sensitive receptors.

The commenter has not provided substantial evidence demonstrating that an alternative routing configuration would be feasible or would materially reduce impacts. Regarding truck queuing, these operational considerations were reviewed as part of the Project’s design and plan check process and will continue to be addressed during permitting to ensure compliance with applicable standards. The Project must satisfy City review requirements related to queuing, access, and on-site maneuvering prior to implementation.

Accordingly, the Project has been designed in a manner responsive to site-specific constraints and applicable regulatory requirements, while maintaining consistency with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.14: The comment states the proposed Project is not consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s guidance that warehouses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors and that the closest receptors are within 25 feet.

Response 1.14: The referenced CARB recommendation is advisory guidance intended to inform land use planning decisions and does not constitute a binding regulatory requirement or CEQA threshold of significance for individual projects. While such guidance may be considered during project planning, it does not prohibit development within a specified distance of sensitive receptors, nor does it establish mandatory setback standards applicable to the Project. The referenced guidance states that siting of new sensitive land uses should be avoided within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. This recommendation is directed toward the siting of sensitive receptors, not the siting of new industrial uses. The Project does not propose new sensitive land uses, and therefore the cited recommendation is not applicable in the manner asserted. In addition, the 25-foot distance cited refers to the setback between the proposed screen wall and adjacent residences, not the distance between operational sources and sensitive receptors. As disclosed in the DEIR, the nearest sensitive receptors and associated operational areas were identified and incorporated into the air quality, noise, and all other applicable operational analyses using project-specific modeling assumptions.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 697

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1317 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
40 The DEIR fully evaluates potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, including operational emissions and noise associated with truck activity, loading areas, and on -site circulation. These analyses were conducted consistent with applicable methodologies and disclose the Project’s impacts based on actual site conditions, rather than reliance on generalized planning guidance alone. The DEIR evaluates the Project under the applicable local and regional regulatory framework, includ ing adopted land use designations, zoning standards, and environmental thresholds. The commenter has not identified any binding requirement with which the Project is inconsistent, nor provided substantial evidence demonstrating a deficiency in the DEIR’s analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required and no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.15: The comment states that consistency with regional planning documents has not been identified, specifically Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Response 1.15: Please refer to Response O3.9 . Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR. The consistency analysis within Table 5.9-1 of the DEIR provides justification for the Project’s consistency with each goal and strategy from the SCAG RTP/SCS. Additionally, as noted throughout the DEIR, the Project is also consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. Thus, the DEIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. The RTP/SCS Goal Statements are regional goals and are not project-specific. The DEIR accurately analyzes consistency with these goals as the Project would not impede in the regional attainment of them. Accordingly, the comment does not identify a deficiency in the DEIR’s analysis or a specific inconsistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.16: The comment states the proposed Project should be conditioned to provide setbacks and other design elements consistent with Assembly Bill 98.

Response 1.16: Please refer to Response 1.4 above. Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) introduced Government Code Section 65098 including Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), which states, “notwithstanding any other provision of law, if, by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter.” Furthermore, Senate Bill 415 (SB 415) amended Government Code section 65098.1.5(a)(3), to read as “notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in Section 65098.1.6, if by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use development, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter,” and added Section 65098.1.6(a) which specifies, “notwithstanding any other law, this chapter shall not apply to any logistics use development that was subject to a local entitlement process that began before September 30, 2024.” The proposed Project entered the local entitlement process with the City of Menifee prior to September 30, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65098.1.5(a)(3) and 65098.1.6(a), the requirements established by AB 98 do not apply to the proposed Project and are not required to be evaluated as mitigation measures or alternatives under CEQA. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.17: The comment states the Project does not evaluate potential impacts of Land Use Threshold LU-1 which asks if the Project would “physically divide an established community.” The comment states that the Project would bisect single-family homes on Floyd Avenue to the north of the site and the single- family Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 698

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1318 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
41 homes to the south of McLauglin Road , isolating residences in the north from residences in the south. The comment states that the conclusion of “no impact” is not supported by substantial evidence and that the land use section must be revised with mitigation.

Response 1.17: The commentor erroneously claims that the DEIR concludes “no impacts” under Threshold LU-

1. As shown within DEIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, and on page 68 within DEIR Appendix A, impacts related to physically dividing an established community were concluded to be less than significant and that the Project would not physically divide an established community. Under CEQA, Land Use Threshold LU-1 is evaluated based on whether a project would create a physical barrier that disrupts the cohesion, continuity, or accessibility of an existing, identifiable neighborhood or community. 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 t he community such that it divided the community. The environmental effe cts 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. Here, the residential areas referenced by the commenter are separated by approximately one- quarter mile of undeveloped land and an existing Southern California Edison easement corridor. As such, they do not function as a single continuous neighborhood or cohesive community for purposes of this analysis.

As analyzed in the DEIR under Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the Project would develop a vacant and undeveloped site with a warehousing building that is consistent with the site’s EDC -NG zoning designation. The Project would be integrated into the existing roadway network and would include off-site roadway improvements consisting of paving and widening portions of Geary Street along the Project frontage and north to Ethanac Road. Importantly, these roadway improvements would not create a new barrier or sever existing circulation patterns. Rather, they would improve an existing dirt roadway already used by residents north of the Project site. Under the Interim Traffic Scenario, Geary St reet north of the Project site to Ethanac Road would not be paved or improved, and Project trips would be routed away from Geary Street. The Project would not impede access to services, schools, shopping areas, or other community destinations, nor would it introduce infrastructure that physically separates a cohesive neighborhood. Instead, it would improve roadway conditions along an existing route while maintaining connectivity.

Accordingly, the DEIR’s conclusion of less -than-significant impacts under Threshold LU -1 is supported by substantial evidence. The commenter has not provided evidence demonstrating that the Project would physically divide an established community as define d under CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.18: The comment states the EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential for aesthetic or visual resources due to the permanent conversion of rural, unimproved lands to a large box- style structure with nighttime lighting. The comment states that the permanent conversion of the natural site to urban use constitutes a potentially significant impact.

Response 1.18: Under CEQA, aesthetic impacts are evaluated based on the Project’s effects on public views and visual character as experienced from publicly accessible vantage points, rather than on private views from residences or privately owned property. Consistent with this framework, the DEIR evaluates the Project’s potential effects on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

As disclosed in the DEIR, the Project would comply with applicable setback standards under Section

9.140.040 of the City Municipal Code, as well as landscaping standards, and would not obstruct views of neighboring mountains or foothills from public vantage points. In addition, no officially designated State scenic highways or county scenic corridors are adjacent to the Project site, from which the Project would be visible. Accordingly, the Project would not affect scenic resources within a designated scenic corridor.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 699

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1319 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
42 The Project site and surrounding areas are designated EDC and zoned Economic EDC-NG, which is intended to accommodate industrial development within the area. This designation is intended to accommodate most of the City’s new industrial development, in order to preserve other rural areas considered integral to the community character. While consistency with land use designations does not, by itself, eliminate the potential for environmental impacts, it is relevant to evaluating whether the Project would subs tantially degrade the visual character of an area planned for such development. The DEIR appropriately considered this context in concluding that the Project would not create a significant adverse visual effect.

With respect to nighttime lighting, the DEIR expressly acknowledges that the Project would introduce new light sources associated with building security, site operations, and vehicle activity. However, the Project would be subject to Sections 6.01.020 and 6.01.040 of the City Municipal Code, which require lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to on-site and off-site pedestrians and motorists. In addition, the Project would include a 25-foot landscape setback and a proposed retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern and southern truck courts, which would further reduce nighttime lighting to surrounding areas. The DEIR therefore evaluated light and glare as part of the environmental review and concluded impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with enforceable standards and substantial evidence.

The commenter’s assertion that additional renderings or simulations are required is not supported by CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, a Project Description need only include the detail necessary for informed environmental review and public disclosure; it is not required to provide extensive design-level materials beyond what is relevant to impact analysis. Courts have similarly recognized that an EIR need only describe a project’s main features and sufficient detail to evaluate environmental effects. Here, the Project is fully described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, including site layout, setbacks, building placement, and anticipated sources of light and glare . DEIR Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Site Plan , Figure 3 -8, Building Elevations, and Figure, 3 -9, Landscape Plan , further identify the Project’s lighting locations, setbacks, architectural design, landscaping, building massing, and overall visual character. Collectively, these materials provide sufficient detail for decision makers and the public to evaluate the Project’s aesthetic and visual impacts under CEQA.

Because the DEIR provides sufficient information for decision makers and the public to understand the Project’s visual characteristics and assess its environmental effects, additional renderings are not required for purposes of CEQA compliance. The cases cited by the commenter do not establish a categorical requirement for visual simulations but rather reinforce the broader principle that an EIR must contain sufficient information to support informed decision making, which the DEIR accomplishes here.

Accordingly, the DEIR adequately evaluates aesthetic, visual, and lighting -related impacts, and the commenter has not identified substantial evidence demonstrating a deficiency in the analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.19: The comment states that there are no renderings or simulations of the proposed Project building from relevant vantage points compared to the existing environment and the incomplete information renders the analysis incomplete. The comment notes that complia nce with a general plan (the site is zoned as industrial) does not eliminate the potential for environmental impacts as stated in the EIR. The comment sites Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 and East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5. Cal.App.4th 281, 303.

Response 1.19: Please refer to Response 1.18 above. As described above, impacts are evaluated based on the Project’s effects on public views and visual character as experienced from publicly accessible vantage points, rather than from private views from residences or privately owned property. A scenic vista, for example, can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 700

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1320 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
43 Important factors in determining whether a project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. The City of Menifee General Plan 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. Distant views of the surrounding foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, Santa Ana Mountains to the west, and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east are available from public vantage points on Geary Street and Murrieta Road, which border the Project site. The Project would develop a new warehouse totaling 533,252 SF and measure a maximum height of 55 feet. As described under Response 1.18 above, development of the Project would not encroach upon views of the neighboring mountains and foothills from pedestrians and motorists along public vantage points. As such, development of the Project would continue to allow for public views of scenic vistas and impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.20: The comment states that views of the mountains from the single -story homes north of the Project site would be entirely obstructed by the proposed building and states that the EIR improperly ignores this potential impact.

Response 1.20: Please refer to Response 1.18 and 1.19 above. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.21: The comment notes that the potential for adverse changes to the nighttime visual environment must be fully assessed and adherence to a lighting ordinance does not eliminate the need to evaluate the adverse impact.

Response 1.21 : Please refer to Response 1. 18 and 1.19 above. The commentor references submittal requirements for a photometric plan for the City of Malibu. The referenced citation is not applicable to the Project or for CEQA. Submittal requirements, such as photometric plans, grading plans, or detailed construction drawings, are typically prepared to demonstrate compliance with municipal codes and are reviewed through the local agency’s permitting process. These materials are part of project implementation and design review, not environmental analysis. CEQA does not require that such documents be included in the EIR unless they are necessary to evaluate a potentially significant environmental impact. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15147, an EIR may incorporate or rely on technical studies without reproducing every underlying document in full, provided the analysis adequately discloses the environmental effects. In practice, EIRs summarize relevant information (for exampl e, anticipated lighting levels or compliance with lighting standards) rather than including full photometric plans, which are more detailed than necessary for impact analysis.

Accordingly, the absence of specific submittal documents from the EIR does not render the analysis incomplete, so long as the EIR contains sufficient information to evaluate environmental impacts and demonstrates compliance with applicable standards. Detailed design materials remain subject to review and approval by the lead agency through the standard permitting and plan check process. A photometric plan has been prepared for the Project, submitted as part of the development application, and reviewed by City of Menifee staff. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.22: The comment states that the conclusion of less-than-significant environmental impact with no mitigation for air quality is not supported by substantial evidence and the EIR lacks critical analysis to form its conclusion.

Response 1.22: Please refer to Responses 1.23 through 1.31 below. This comment is introductory in nature and presents general concerns regarding the DEIR’s analysis of environmental topics that are addressed in Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 701

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1321 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
44 greater detail in subsequent comments, including discussions related to air quality and mitigation measures.

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, t he FEIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis requiring a substantive response.

Comment 1.23: The comment states the assumption of 34.51 miles for all truck trips underestimates air emissions due to heavy truck trips and that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provides more realistic trip length assumptions. The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the Project’s distance from the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. The comment states the air quality analysis should be updated according to the SCAQMD assumptions and that the worst case scenario must be evaluated to be consistent with CEQA.

Response 1.23: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within the SCAQMD comment letter, including Response A6.3, and within Appendix D of the FEIR.

It should be noted that the analysis utilizes truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which is the SCAQMD’s indirect source review program used to help control and minimize air quality impacts from mobile source emissions associated with trucks from warehouses. SCAQMD Rule 2305 recommends the use of a 14.2 -mile trip length for class 4 -7 trucks (light-heavy-duty truck 1/2 and medium-heavy-duty truck) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (heavy -heavy duty trucks). In addition, the

39.9-mile trip length was based on S CAQMD’s own research that concluded that the average heavy duty truck trip length in the entire South Coast Air Basin was approximately 39.9 miles. As described in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, 1.3 percent of vehicle trips would be 2-axle trucks, 2.5 percent would be 3-axle trucks, 3.8 percent would be 4- axle trucks, and 10.2 percent would be 5+ axle trucks, and the remaining vehicle trips would be passenger vehicles. As such, the majority of anticipated truck trips would be from heavy-heavy duty trucks and a weighted average truck trip distance of 34.51 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix and consistent with SCAQMD guidance.

Additionally, these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR provides a conservative analysis of the Project as the DEIR includes a development buffer in order to account for final design changes.

Therefore, the DEIR utilized a conservative approach and appropriately analyzed vehicle trip lengths based on SCAQMD guidance. Lastly, no follow-up comments have been received from SCAQMD since the comment letter dated June 24, 2024, or since preparation of the FEIR, including the response to comments process.

The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.24: Regarding Response to Comment A.6.3, the comment asserts that, absent specific tenant information, it is appropriate to assume a conservative scenario in which project-related truck trips travel to Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 702

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1322 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
45 and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, consistent with SCAQMD guidance. The comment notes that the F EIR’s statement that many trips would be shorter is unsupported without evidence of tenant operations. The commenter further cites City of Menifee promoting proximity to major ports as a key advantage for warehouse uses and states that the air quality analysis should reflect the likelihood that future warehouse users would rely on business from the Ports.

Response 1.24: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.6 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A3: City of Perris, dated July 8, 2024, including Response A6.3, as well as Response

1.23 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.25: The comment states that air quality analysis improperly assumes zero air emissions for energy sources and on -site equipment and states that these assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence. The comment states that the Project is not conditioned to require all electrically powered on -site equipment nor prohibit the use of natural gas, and the assumption that the proposed Project will generate zero GHG emissions is not supported by the record.

Response 1.25: The assumptions used in the DEIR are based on the Project as proposed and constitute part of the Project’s design parameters and operational envelope. As stated in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, based on information provided by the Project applicant, the building is not expected to utilize natural gas as part of the building envelope and would therefore not generate emissions associated with direct natural gas consumption. This operational chara cteristic was appropriate ly incorporated into the emissions modeling.

This comment has also been previously addressed in Response O3.35, O3.36, and O3.41. It is typical that default CalEEMod data is revised so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each proposed Project. In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information when available. Thus, modifications to CalEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline, the mix of equipment use, architectural coatings, and more. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were done in order to provide a n accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details.

Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report. Pages 35 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix 3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod.

Furthermore, in compliance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies , the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant equipment for all on-site cargo handling equipment, as included as PDF GHG-1 within the FEIR Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. As noted in the DEIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GHG-8, which requires that prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project does not include conveyance of natural gas utility lines and that the Project will not use natural gas cargo handling equipment. On-site cargo handling equipment shall be electric and non-diesel powered, per contemporary industry standards and as required City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted Comment 1.26: The comment states the Air Quality Study does not evaluate the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. The comment claims the Study was based on an outdated AQMD White Paper and notes that the conclusion that the Project cannot have cumulatively significant air quality impacts because the Project will purportedly result in less -than-significant air quality impacts on an individual basis . The comment states this conclusion is made despite mention of nu merous warehouses planned in the vicinity, and that the Traffic Impact Analysis included 56 cumulative development Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 703

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1323 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
46 impacts within the traffic analysis. The comment concludes that City should evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Response 1.26: As described in Response A3.2, Response O3.7, Response A6.4, and Appendix D from the FEIR, the DEIR provides an evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. Cumulative projects are properly included in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the DEIR. All previously constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the DEIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions. As described under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

In addition, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) . The Health Risk Assessment determined that the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity or operational activity. In summary, all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation and construction related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

As such, the Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, within the City of Menifee or the GVSP.

The comment states that the DEIR’s analysis does not consider cumulative impacts resulting from increased concentrations of air toxics in the region associated with cumulative projects. It should be noted that although SCAQMD has held several working group s aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no new recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impacts. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution , projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact as well.
1 As demonstrated in the DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and as described in Response O3.5, the Project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million or the non -cancer risk threshold of 1.0. As such, under this guidance the proposed Project would be considered to have a less-than- significant health risk impact both at the individual Project and cumulative levels.

As discussed below, even if the potential health risk from the proposed Project as well as the six cumulative projects identified in C omment A3.6 are evaluated, the Project would still result in a less -than-significant cumulative health risk impact to the community.

The Northern Gateway Logistics Center is proposed to consist of approximately 398,252 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 2,700 feet east of the proposed Project site. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Health Risk Ass essment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), with mitigation , the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.13 per one million.

The CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project is proposed to consist of approximately 700,037 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the proposed Project site.

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts- working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 704

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1324 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
47 Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 1.80 per one million.

The Freedom Business Park is proposed to consist of approximately 283,746 square feet of industrial and commercial uses and is located approximately 34,000 feet or 6.43 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project is proposed to consist of approximately 491,393 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 10,600 feet or 2 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The Northern Gateway Commerce Center Project is proposed to consist of approximately 1,316,741 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet east of the proposed Project site.

Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered. Because a health risk assessment for this project is not available, the project risk has been estimated based on the cancer risk per square footage of the proposed Project and other cumulative projects identified, as these land uses are similar in nature. Based on this, the estimated cancer risk for this project was estimated at 3.45 per one million.

The Compass Northern Gateway Project is proposed to consist of approximately 461,237 square feet of warehouse space spread across three separate sites, with Project Sites 1 and 2 located approximately 2,700 feet west of the proposed Project site and Project Site 3 located approximately 2,700 feet northeast of the proposed Project. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project. Therefore, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was identified. Per the Compass Northern Gateway Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.87 in one million.

Table 3: Cumulative Cancer Risk
Project Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (risk per million) Proposed Project 3.04
Northern Gateway Logistics Center 0.13
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project 1.80
Northern Gateway Commerce Center 3.45
Compass Northern Gateway Project 0.87
Total Cancer Risk 9.29

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 705

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1325 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
48 The USEPA rules generally consider a cancer risk of 100 in one million at the community level to be within the acceptable range, and this level is considered by many lead agencies in California as a cumulative cancer risk threshold.2
As shown above in Table 3, even if the maximum cancer risk at the MEIR for each cumulative project in the vicinity of the proposed Project were totaled, the maximum risk would remain well below the EPA’s standard cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million. Additionally , the maximum incremental cancer risk shown above for each project represents the risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor for each project, and it should be noted that each of these receptors are in different locations. A s such, the total cumulative cancer risk of 9.29 in one million shown above is highly conservative, and the actual risk contributions from each Project would be less than this combined value. A quantitative analysis has been provided in this response for the cumulative impacts from air toxics in the region. As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would have a less -than-significant impact individually and cumulatively, therefore, additional Project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures are not required (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15126.4). Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.27: The comment states that the F EIR’s Response to Comments claim that the cumulative health risk impacts from combined projects are less than significant but does not address a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative exceedance of criteria pollutants, particularly NOx. The comment also notes The FEIR’s Appendix D, Response 2 does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Response 1.27: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. Although SCAQMD has held several working groups aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no new recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impacts. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less -than-significant cumulative impact as well. As described in DEIR Section 5.1, Air Quality , the Project would be below the SCAQMD regional, local, and cancer risk thresholds of significance . Since the Project does not exceed project-specific significance thresholds, the Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact as well. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.28: The comment states that the EIR does not contain a discussion of cumulative industrial projects or their associated air quality emissions and explains that the EIR does not adequately disclose the broader environmental consequences of the City’s land use decisions and therefore fails on an informational basis.

Response 1.28: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.29: The comment notes that SCAQMD is actively revising recommendations for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts. The comment emphasizes SCAQMD’s position that even projects with limited individual impacts may be cumulatively considerable. The comment argues that this ongoing policy

2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009, p. 67 (noting that “the 100 in a million excess cancer cases is also consistent wi th the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on the District’s recent regional modeling analysis.” Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 706

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1326 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
49 development underscores the importance of conducting a robust cumulative air quality analysis and suggests that the EIR should reflect evolving SCAQMD recommendations and standards for CEQA review.

Response 1.29: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.30: The comment explains that the discussion regarding cumulative air quality impacts does not identify any cumulative projects, rather there is a conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts do not need to be analyzed as there are no individually significan t air quality impacts. The commenter cites CEQA Guidelines defining cumulative impacts as effects that may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when combined. Based on this, the comment asserts the EIR does comply with CEQA’s informational mandates due to the absence of a proper cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Response 1.30: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.31: The commenter asserts that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate cumulative air quality impacts considering the concentration of warehouse and industrial development in the Inland Empire. The commenter contends that nearby warehouse growth and associated tr uck traffic contribute to elevated emissions and that the Project should be analyzed in the context of this broader industrial buildup. The commenter further states that the EIR should be revised to account for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future industrial development and associated air quality impacts.

Response 1.31: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.32: The comment states that the Project would result in significant greenhouse gas emissions exceeding the applicable threshold of significance despite mitigation , based on the FEIR’s emissions estimates. They argue that although the EIR includes a mitigation program, it does not implement all feasible measures required under CEQA to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The commenter specifically notes that the mitigation measures nominally reduce GHG emission and do not address mobile- source emissions. The comment concludes that additional feasible mitigation is required before Project approval to comply with CEQA’s requirements for reducing significant environmental impacts.

Response 1.32: This comment, and the subsequent comments, have been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52 specifically.

The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and was evaluated against SCAQMD’s thresholds and supported by substantial evidence. The Project was found to have a significant impact on GHG and the DEIR has adopted Mitigation Measures GHG -1 through GHG-8, which includes measures to reduce GHG emissions during operation of the Project. The Project would provide contemporary, energy - efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. In addition, the proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as discu ssed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 707

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1327 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
50 Emissions, on page 5.6-14 in the DEIR. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of a, 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279.

As described in DEIR Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a large majority of the GHG emissions from the Project would be generated from vehicle and truck emissions. As a part of the environmental review for the Project, the City reviewed and included feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the Project. However, the emissions from vehicles cannot be regulated by either the City or the Project Applicant.

The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governm ents or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large -scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel -powered vehicles and long charging times.

Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.

As of 2025, the use of zero -emission heavy-duty trucks in support of uses such as those proposed by the Project remains infeasible given the extremely limited commercial availability of zero-emission trucks, as well as infrastructure limitations, including limited truck-accessible charging/refueling stations and electrical grid capacity. While many heavy- duty truck manufacturers have released zero -emission battery electric and hydrogen-powered trucks, these vehicles have yet to reach large scale production, and their use remains extremely limited. Tesla first revealed the Tesla Semi in 2017, and an initial order for 100 trucks was placed by PepsiCo. However, the Tesla Semi did not enter production until 2022, and, as of April 2024, only 36 trucks have been delivered to PepsiCo, with additional orders placed by UPS, Walmart, Sysco, Schneider, and ASKO Norway remaining unfulfilled. Although the Tesla Semi was initially slated to begin production in 2019, with production expected to hit 50,000 units in 2024, bat tery production constraints have severely limited production, and it is uncertain at this time when these orders may be expected to be fulfilled. 3 Facing
delays with the Tesla Semi, several companies have turned to other vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler’s eCascadia. However, with a significantly shorter range of approximately 230 miles compared to the 500- mile range of the Tesla Semi, the eCascadia’s use case is significantly limited in comparison. As of late 2023, Schneider has taken delivery of 92 eCascadias
4, representing 0.9 percent of the company’s fleet of 10,600 tractors.5 To note, the typical range of diesel-fueled trucks is 1,300 to 1,800 miles on a full tank.6 The limited availability of zero -emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles is further detailed in CARB’s Emission Factor (EMFAC) Model, as well as data published by HVIP. EMFAC model outputs provide detailed information as to the vehicle fleet in California , including fuel types for various vehicle classes and vehicle populations. Per EMFAC data, in 2024, battery electric trucks made up 0.01 percent of California’s medium- duty truck fleet, and 0.21 percent of the heavy -duty truck fleet. 7 Similarly, based on HVIP’s Zero-Emission
Vehicle Population Dashboard,8 as of October 2024, there are currently 226 medium-duty and 197 heavy-

3 https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-semi-trucks-short-supply-pepsico-its-rivals-use-competing-ev-big- rigs-2024-04-19/
4 https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/schneider-1-million-emission-free-miles-freightliner-ecascadia-electric- trucks/
5 https://schneider.com/resources/infographic/schneider-by-the-numbers 6 https://conmet.com/extend-electric-truck-range/
7 https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
8 https://californiahvip.org/industryinitiatives/#cazevdashboard Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 708

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1328 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
51 duty zero -emission vehicles within the SCAQMD jurisdiction, which includes Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, as well as much of Los Angeles County. In 2023, statewide deliveries totaled 183 medium-duty vehicles and 121 heavy -duty vehicles, while in 2024 there have been no medium -duty truck vehicle deliveries and 13 heavy-duty truck deliveries.

Further, the availability of truck accessible vehicle charging stations and hydrogen refueling stations in California (and the United States as a whole) severely limits the feasibility of zero-emission trucks. Although the California Energy Commission esti mates that there are over 11,000 DC fast charging stations in California,9 the vast majority of these are intended to accommodate light duty passenger vehicles and lack the accessibility for medium - and heavy-duty trucks. California’s first publicly accessible DC fast charging station for medium- and heavy-duty trucks opened in M arch 2023 in Otay Mesa. 10 In addition, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, as of February 2025, there are currently 12 publicly accessible DC fast charging stations with a total of 129 EV charging ports across the United States an d Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy -duty (class 6 -8) trucks. 11 Therefore, at one time, only 129 heavy-duty trucks would be capable of charging across Canada and the United States. As of early 2024, medium - and heavy-duty truck DC fast charging depots are planned for three locations in California along Interstate (I) 5 in the Central Valley as well as in Blythe 12, the lack of charging stations severely limits the useful range of battery electric trucks, effectively restricting their use to local routes only.

Adoption and implementation of hydrogen fuel cell trucks face similar challenges. Based on data provided by the California Energy Commission, there are currently 68 light -duty vehicle hydrogen refueling stations in California. 13 However, similar to DC fast chargers, these stations are intended for use by light duty passenger vehicles and would not be capable of accommodating medium- and heavy-duty trucks. According to the United States Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, as of February 2025, there are five hydrogen refueling stations across the United States and Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy-duty (class 6-8) trucks.14
Although infrastructure improvements and the installation of medium- and heavy-duty truck capable DC fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations are currently in progress, the current state of charging and refueling infrastructure severely limits the feasi bility of ZEV trucks beyond local routes where charging or hydrogen refueling would not be necessary outside of the location where trucks would be domiciled.

Finally, according to SCAQMD, based on the current state of the electrical grid and the increasing adoption of electric vehicles in California, significant investments in the grid will need to occur in the coming decades to keep pace. However, these upgrad es will be spread out over a period of decades such that the costs, which would equate to billions of dollars, of infrastructure upgrades in any given year may be kept reasonable.15
As such, GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides various lists, in subsequent comments, of suggested mitigation measures and policies, many of which are already included in the DEIR and would be implemented by the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not

9 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/electric-vehicle 10 https://www.sempra.com/cas-first-public-dc-fast-chargers-electric-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles-truck-stop-open-public 11 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest
12 https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/ev-charging/big-electric-truck-charging-depots-are-coming-soon-to-california 12https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/hydrogen- refueling
14 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest
15 SCAQMD. (2021). Letter from Office of the Executive Officer to Partners in Environmental Justice and Environmental Health.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 709

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1329 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
52 require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002).

As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (Ibid.). Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v.

Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365).

The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, Mitigation Measure GHG-5 would require electric vehicle charging conduit would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are consid ered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions an d no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required. The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.33: The comment cites and summarizes Assembly Bill 1279 which requires the State to achieve net zero GHG as soon as possible. The comment notes that as the CEQA lead agency, the City must ensure land use decisions align with statewide emissions reduction mandates. Based on this, the commenter contends that the Project should be required to achieve net-zero emissions or establish equivalent performance targets.

The comment suggests on-site measures such as renewable energy generation and off-site investments.

Response 1.33: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.

In addition, Assembly Bill 1279 establishes statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals and planning -level targets for achieving carbon neutrality at the State level; it does not impose project-level mandates requiring individual development projects to achie ve net zero emissions. Under CEQA, consistency with statewide climate policy is evaluated through a project’s contribution to applicable thresholds of significance and adopted regulatory frameworks, rather than by requiring each project to independently ac hieve net zero emissions. The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.34: The comment states that the
EIR does not explain or show how the Project would comply with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions, especially relative to reductions of Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Response 1.34: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 and 1.33 above.

The Project would provide contemporary, energy -efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. In addition, the Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 710

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1330 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
53 with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022) .

Consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 5.6-14 in the DEIR, where it was concluded that the Project would be consistent with the State policies that were adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions . The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.35: The comment argues that the proposed Project does not align with California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those emphasizing sustainable transportation systems and reduced vehicle dependence. They note that the Project does not provide public transit access and does not incorporate rec ommended on -site design features such as renewable energy generation or all -electric building design and does not consider CARB -recommended local mitigation strategies. The comment contends that feasible on-site and off-site GHG reduction measures identified in state guidance were not incorporated into the Project’s mitigation framework.

Response 1.35: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.36: The comment states the proposed Project does not satisfy CARB’s VMT targets or adopt feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts.

Response 1.36: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.

As discussed in DEIR Section 5.12, Transportation, consistent with the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, the VMT screening thresholds were used to identify if the Project could have an impact on VMT. When a project fails to meet any of the outlined screening criteria, a more comprehensive VMT analysis is warranted. The Project failed to meet any of the screening criteria included in the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, and as such, a more comprehensive VMT analysis was prepared and included as DEIR Appendix L, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. The VMT analysis was conducted in accordance with the Riverside County Model (RIVCOM) for VMT analysis. The RIVCOM model utilizes socio -economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of commute VMT estimation. Project building square footage must first be converted to an appropriate employment type and employee estimate for input into RIVCOM. The threshold VMT/Service Population (SP) (which is equal to the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT/SP) is 35.68 VMT/SP. The VMT/SP was calculated by dividing project generated VMT by the Project’s employee estimate to obtain the efficiency metric of VMT per employee.

As shown in DEIR Table 5.12-4, VMT Analysis Summary, the Project VMT/SP would be 25.94 for the Baseline (2018) scenario and 27.12 for the Cumulative (2045) scenario. As such, the Projects VMT/SP would be below the threshold for both the Baseline (2018) and Cumulative (2045) scenarios. Therefore, Project VMT impacts were concluded to be less than significant.

Since the Project would result in less than significant VMT impacts, there is no nexus for mitigation, and the Project would not impede the achievement of the State’s GHG reduction goals as it relates to VMT. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.37: The comment states that the EIR references the County of Riverside’s VMT thresholds and should therefore consider mitigation measures within Riverside County’s Climate Action Plan. The commenter Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 711

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1331 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
54 also mentions encouraging local hiring to reduce VMT and recommends considering measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, et al.

Response 1.37: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.36 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1. 38: The comment cites the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan which explains that achieving carbon neutrality depends on reducing VMT and states that the proposed Project should adopt further VMT measures.

Response 1.38: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.36 above. The comment does not evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.39: The comment states that transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state and therefore the City must implement appropriate mitigation measures. The commenter recommends that the Project be conditioned to require future implementing projects to expand zero- emission vehicle infrastructure.

Response 1.39: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.40: The comment states the proposed Project should establish fleet-efficiency and zero-emission vehicle requirements The commenter further proposes a “Diesel Minimization Plan” that would phase in increasing percentages of zero -emission trucks over time until full electrification is achieved. The comment also notes that such measures would help reduce noise impacts.

Response 1.40: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.41: The commenter cites studies and agency data to support the feasibility and environmental benefits of zero-emission vehicles for the Project. The comment notes that requiring zero emission semi-trucks would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions and should be considered feasible mitigation.

Response 1.41: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.42: The comment lists numerous mitigation measures to reduce GHG.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 712

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1332 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
55 Response 1.42: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.

Several of the measures identified by the commenter are already required by existing regulations or are already incorporated through project-specific Design Features (PDF) and mitigation measures. For example, construction-related emissions controls, including the use of cleaner equipment, are regulated by applicable federal, State, and regional requirements, including CARB regulations and South Coast AQMD rules. In addition, the Project includes PDF GHG -1, which requires use of at minimum Tier 4 Interim co mpliant construction equipment (or electric equipment where feasible), consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies and federal off -road engine standards. PDF GHG -1 further includes compliance verification, recordkeeping requirements, and limits on exemptions, ensuring that lower-emission construction equipment is used to the maximum extent feasible during construction. Furthermore, the Project incorporates electrification measures through Mitigation Measure GHG-8, which requires that cargo handling equipment be electric and prohibits natural gas use, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. The Project also exceeds Title 24 energy requirements and incorporates renewable energy features through Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires installation of on-site solar PV or equivalent renewable energy measures, and Mitigation Measures GHG -5 and GHG -7, which provide EV -ready infrastructure and future electric truck charging capability , collectively reducing operational emissions beyond standard regulatory requirements.

Several additional measures identified by the commenter are either already addressed through applicable regulatory standards or incorporated into the Project’s mitigation framework. For example, building electrification requirements, EV infrastructure provisions, and renewable energy use are addressed through Mitigation Measures GHG- 1, GHG- 5, GHG -7, and GHG -8, which collectively require substantial electrification of building systems, transportation infrastructure, and cargo handling equipment. Similarly, requirements related to air quality-related construction practices, including low-VOC architectural coatings, are regulated through South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 and are already reflected in standard construction compliance obligations.

Other recommended measures, such as mandatory 100 percent solar energy self -sufficiency, enhanced parking lot shading percentages, strict truck model year restrictions, mandatory truck NOx performance standards beyond CARB requirements, limits on truck idling beyond applicable State and local regulations, and installation of high -capacity fast charging infrastructure beyond what is required in the DEIR, are not required under CEQA and are not supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that they are feasible or necessary to further reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts. Many of these measures would require operational control over third-party truck fleets or vehicle operators, which is not feasible for a speculative industrial facility and exceeds the reasonable control of the Project applicant.

Several of the commenter’s recommended measures, such as LEED certification, mandatory cool roof specifications beyond Title 24 requirements, or requiring 100 percent electrification of all construction tools, are not required under CEQA and are not suppor ted by substantial evidence demonstrating that they are necessary to further reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts beyond what is already required. CEQA does not require adoption of every possible mitigation measure, but only those that are feasible and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that they would further reduce a significant impact (Public Resources Code Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)).

In addition, certain proposed measures are infeasible or not practicable for a speculative industrial development. Construction equipment availability, contractor fleet composition, and project phasing constraints limit the ability to mandate absolute equipment standards or exclusive use of electric tools. The Project already requires Tier 4 Interim equipment where available and includes a structured exemption Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 713

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1333 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
56 process only where such equipment is demonstrated to be unavailable, ensuring emissions reductions are achieved to the maximum extent feasible.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.43: The comment lists numerous best practices for warehouse developments from the California Attorney General.

Response 1.43: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.

As discussed in Response 1.42 above, many of the measures identified in the comment are either already addressed through the Project’s mitigation measures and PDF, are not applicable to the Project as currently designed, or are not required under CEQA because they are not supported by substantial evidence.

The referenced Attorney General document provides general policy-oriented “best practices” guidance for warehouse facilities and does not establish mandatory CEQA mitigation requirements or project -specific performance standards that must be incorporated i nto an EIR. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be tied to identified significant environmental impacts and supported by substantial evidence in the record. In addition, mitigation must be feasible, enforceable, and reasonably related to the impact being addressed (i.e., supported by an essential nexus and proportionality between the impact and the required mitigation, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 and case law including Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard).

The Project already incorporates a range of regulatory compliance measures and project-specific mitigation, including requirements for Tier 4 Interim construction equipment (PDF GHG-1), renewable energy installation or procurement (MM GHG-1), EV infrastructure, truck routing and circulation controls, and other operational and design features intended to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. These measures reflect applicable regulatory requirements and feasible project-level GHG reduction strategies evaluated in the EIR.

To the extent the comment proposes additional measures beyond those already adopted, such measures are not required under CEQA where the measures lack demonstrated feasibility, enforceability, or a clear nexus to a project -specific environmental impact. CE QA does not require a lead agency to adopt generalized policy recommendations or every conceivable “best practice” measure in the absence of substantial evidence demonstrating that such measures are necessary to mitigate a significant environmental effect. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.44: The comment states that CEQA Appendix F requires EIRs to reduce inefficient energy use and reliance on fossil fuels and asserts the Project’s fuel and electricity consumption will create significant demand for energy resources.

Response 1.44: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment 1.45: The comment states that compliance with Title 24 and other regulatory requirements is not sufficient for CEQA compliance and the Project must adopt energy mitigation measures.

Response 1.45: Under CEQA, energy impacts are evaluated pursuant to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on whether a project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 714

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1334 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
57 consumption of energy resources. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines does not rely on a quantitative significance threshold based solely on total energy demand. Rather, it considers whether projected energy use is consistent with existing supply conditions, regulatory requirements, and the nature of the proposed land use.

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence” . Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the F EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the Project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The commenter does not present evidence that the Project would consume energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during construction or operation. Instead, the comment focuses on the overall magnitude of Projects energy demand. Under CEQA, however, increased energy demand alone does not constitute a significant impact absent evidence that such demand would result in inefficient use of resources or exceed available supply in a manner that creates environmental consequences.

Furthermore, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519) . “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (Ibid.).

Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365).

As described in DEIR Section 5.5, Energy, the Project would result in less -than-significant impacts related to energy use. Because no significant energy impact was identified, there is no legal basis to impose additional mitigation measures absent an essential nexus between the proposed condition and an identified environmental effect. CEQA mitigation must be tied to a specific significant impact and must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the measure would substantially lessen that imp act. Here, the requested measures exceed what is required to address the Project’s disclosed impacts and are not necessary to reduce a significant effect.

As discussed in Section 5.5, Energy, the proposed Project incorporates renewable energy beyond the requirements of Title 24, included as GHG Mitigation Measures. The Project would implement MM GHG-1, which requires the Project applicant to install a minimum 101.3 kW DC solar photovoltaic (PV) system or offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures. The solar photovoltaic system would supply 20 percent of the proposed Project’s yearly energy consumption , which exceeds the Title 24 requirement of 15 percent. The Project would also provide 20 percent of the employee parking stalls on -site as "EV ready" with all necessary Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 715

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1335 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
58 conduit installed, and equip 5 percent of these EV-ready stalls with working Level 2 Quickcharge EV charging stations.

It should also be noted that as of 2022, approximately one -third of the power generated by Southern California Edison is from renewable sources, and this is anticipated to continue to increase under the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 44 percent of total retail sales by 2024. The amount of retail electricity provided from renewable sources is expected to further increase significantly in order to meet the state goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Accordingly, the Project’s energy use is consistent with the characteristics of urban industrial development and would not involve extraordinary or inefficient consumption of energy resources. The Project already exceeds applicable Title 24 requirements and incorporates renewable energy commitments beyond baseline standards. Because impacts were determined to be less than significant, no additional mitigation is required under CEQA. The commenter has not identified substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.46: The comment states the EIR should propose measures that ensure compliance with Senate Bill 100 and states that the proposed Project much be conditioned so that 100 percent of its energy demand is met by solar PV. This comment concludes by saying MM GHG-1 is vague and unenforceable.

Response 1.46: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.

SB 100 establishes statewide renewable energy and carbon neutrality goals applicable to electricity providers and statewide energy planning; it does not impose project -level mandates requiring individual development projects to achieve 100 percent renewable energy or net-zero emissions. Under CEQA, energy and greenhouse gas impacts are evaluated based on whether a project would result in significant environmental effects and whether feasible mitigation measures are available to substantially lessen those effects. CEQA does not require individual projects to independently achieve statewide policy goals.

Requiring the Project to meet 100 percent of its energy demand through on-site solar PV systems would be infeasible. The Project is a speculative industrial development, and future tenant operations and associated energy demands are not known at this time; therefore, designing a system to fully offset unknown loads is not practicable. In addition, physical and operational constraints limit the feasibility of full on-site renewable generation, including available rooftop area relative to building energy demand, structural limitations, fire access requirements, and the need to accommodate rooftop mechanical equipment. Utility interconnection constraints under Southern California Edison’s Rule 21 may also limit the ability to export excess generation, further constraining system sizing. Accordingly, a requirement for 100 percent on -site renewable energy would not be technically or economically feasible. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.47: The comment states that use of on-site renewable energy system would help reduce GHG impacts and contribute to California’s renewable energy commitment.

Response 1.47: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.48: The comment states that the Project must take steps to reduce the Project’s field consumption and lists measures to do so.

Response 1.48: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 716

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1336 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
59 Comment 1.49: The comment states that the EIR’s conclusions regarding construction and operational noise impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.

Response 1.49: Please refer to Responses 1.50 through 1.52 below. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment 1.50: The comment asserts that construction noise would exceed applicable thresholds and should be considered significant. The comment contends the EIR relies on an unsupported threshold, that allowable construction hours do not reduce impacts, and that there is insufficient evidence to support conclusions regarding nighttime noise levels.

Response 1.50: The commenter’s interpretation of the analysis is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of DEIR Table 5.10 -4, Construction Reference Noise Levels . Table 5.10 -4 presents generalized reference noise levels for standard construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet, consistent with Federal Transit Administration guidance for general construction noise assessment. It reflects theoretical combined noise levels for the loudest equipment operating simultaneously and is intended as a reference point, not as a prediction of actual Project-specific noise exposure at nearby receptors.

Project-specific construction noise impacts were evaluated using the anticipated mix of equipment, construction phasing, and actual distances to the nearest sensitive receptors. As shown in DEIR Table 5.10-5, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, predicted construction noise levels at nearby receptor locations would range from 52.2 to 68.8 dBA Leq. These modeled levels reflect the actual conditions of Project construction and are substantially lower than the generalized reference values cited by the c ommenter.

Based on this Project -specific analysis, the nearest receptor locations would remain below the reasonable daytime construction significance threshold of 80 dBA Leq during construction activities. Accordingly, construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Furthermore, the 80 dBA Leq daytime threshold is supported by substantial evidence and reflects accepted practice in the absence of a City - adopted quantitative construction noise threshold. As disclosed in the DEIR, the t hreshold is based on established Federal Transit Administration guidance and represents a reasonable standard for evaluating temporary daytime construction activity.

With respect to nighttime concrete pouring, the DEIR evaluated such activities separately and concluded they would not exceed the applicable 70 dBA Leq threshold. Accordingly, the DEIR’s construction noise analysis is supported by substantial evidence, applies accepted methodologies, and provides a reasonable and accurate assessment of temporary construction impacts. The commenter has not identified any deficiency i n the analysis requiring revision to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.51: The comment states that the Noise Analysis omits information and did not include noise measurements at locations that would be the most impacted, rendering the analysis incomplete.

Response 1.51: Noise measurements were taken at representative sensitive receptor locations surrounding the Project site, as shown in DEIR Figure 5.10-1, Noise Measurement Locations. These locations were selected to characterize the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the Project and to establish baseline conditions for the analysis. As described in Response 1.11 above, 24-hour measurements were conducted at each location to document daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels.

The measurement locations are as follows:
• L1: Located north of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25815 Floyd Avenue • L2: Located north of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25955 Floyd Avenue • L3: Located east of the Project site near a construction company at 26414 Murrieta Road Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 717

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1337 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
60 • L4: Located south of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25910 Camino Juarez • L5: Located southwest of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25735 McLaughlin Road The L1 and L2 locations are situated along the Project site’s northern boundary at representative distances corresponding to the nearest northern receptors and are therefore appropriate for establishing existing ambient noise conditions. The L4 and L5 locations are situated near single family residences along McLauglin Road and are representative of the nearest southern sensitive receptors. DEIR Table 5.10-2, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, provides the equivalent noise levels used to characterize daytime and nighttime conditions at these locations, while Appendix 5.2 of DEIR Appendix H includes the detailed hourly measurement summaries.

The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general si te location guidelines which indicate that sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Caltrans recommends avoiding sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noi se exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community.

Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting refer ence ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels
and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

In addition, the commenter’s assertion conflates baseline ambient noise monitoring with Project operational impact modeling. Ambient measurements are intended to characterize the existing noise environment, not to replicate future operational conditions at every receptor location. The purpose of these measurements is to establish representative baseline conditions against which Project -generated noise can be evaluated.

Project-related operational impacts, including those associated with the truck court and loading dock activities, were separately analyzed using source- specific modeling at the identified sensitive receptors, including the nearest northern receptor locations. This analysis incorporated the most intensive operational activities and evaluated their effects at those receptors using conservative assumptions regarding equipment, activity levels, and proximity.

Accordingly, direct ambient monitoring adjacent to the truck court area is not required for a complete analysis, as operational impacts were independently modeled at the relevant receptors. The DEIR therefore provides both representative baseline measurements and a Project-specific assessment of future operational noise. The commenter has not demonstrated that the methodology is incomplete or inconsistent with accepted practice. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.52: The comment states that the Project’s nighttime operational noise would exceed applicable standards at all receptor locations and that noise increases would exceed the 3 dBA threshold. The Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 718

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1338 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
61 commenter also contends the analysis is inconsistent and unclear, including the use of daytime ambient noise levels in evaluating nighttime impacts.

Response 1.52: The commenter’s analysis conflates different noise standards that apply to distinct source types. The exterior 45 dBA Leq standard cited from City of Menifee Municipal Code Table 9.210.060 -1, Stationary Source Noise Standard, applies to stationary noise sources, such as HVAC systems, generators, or diesel fire pumps. It is not intended to regulate the full range of operational activities associated with a development, including mobile and intermittent sources such as loading dock activity, tr uck movements, parking lot circulation, or trash enclosure operations.

The operational noise analysis in the DEIR appropriately evaluated all relevant on -site Project -related sources, including loading dock activity, rooftop air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, diesel fire pump operation, trash enclosure act ivity, and truck movements. These sources were assessed using accepted acoustical modeling methods and compared against the appropriate significance criteria for operational noise increases, rather than solely against stationary source limits that are not applicable to all analyzed activities. As shown in DEIR Tables 5.10 -10 and 5.10 -11, the Project would not exceed the applicable thresholds for daytime or nighttime operational noise level increases at the analyzed receptors.

Accordingly, the DEIR concluded that operational noise impacts would be less than significant under the established criteria.

With respect to the commenter’s assertion regarding ambient noise references, the analysis in DEIR Appendix H, including Table 9 -5, correctly utilizes the applicable nighttime ambient noise levels for the nighttime operational noise increase evaluation. The commenter’s suggestion that daytime ambient levels were used for the nighttime analysis is not supported by the record. The reference ambient noise values in the technical report are consistent with the baseline measurements documented in DEIR Appendix H, and Table 5-1 of the Noise Report.

Accordingly, the commenter’s comparison of inapplicable standards and misunderstanding of the technical methodology do not demonstrate a deficiency in the DEIR. The operational noise analysis is supported by substantial evidence and uses the appropriate standards and baseline conditions for evaluation. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.53: The comment asserts that the EIR shows the Project would exceed City Noise Ordinance standards and result in significant permanent noise impacts. The commenter contends that additional analysis and mitigation are required.

Response 1.53: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Responses

1.50 through 1.52 . The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.54: The comment asserts that the Project would result in significant traffic impacts at the Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection and contends that reliance on a “fair share” fee-based mitigation program is inadequate. The comment also argues that the EIR does not demonstrate with substantial evidence that the mitigation program will ensure timely implementation of needed improvements, and therefore claims the mitigation is insufficient under CEQA.

Response 1.54: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation , where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non -CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 719

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1339 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
62 Comments 1.54 through 1.58 refer to the LOS analysis disclosed within the DEIR and therefore do not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.

The commenter’s assertion that the Project should be conditioned to fully construct the improvement at the Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road intersection is inconsistent with established nexus and proportionality principles. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) establishes that development conditions must bear an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” to the impacts of the project. The identified operational deficiency at that intersection is the result of cu mulative regional growth rather than the Project alone. As documented in the TIA , the Project contributes only a small percentage of total traffic at this location. Requiring the Project to fund or construct the entirety of an improvement addressing broader cumulative conditions would exceed the Project’s fair and proportional responsibility. In addition, California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code Sections 66001 and 66005) requires that any development exaction or fee be reasonably related to the impacts of the development and proportional to the burden created by that project. Requiring the Project to fully fund or construct an intersection improvement necessitated by cumulative regional growth, where the Project contributes only a minor percentage of total traffic, would exceed these proportionality requirements.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), recognizes that a project’s cumulative contribution may be addressed through fair share contributions toward planned improvements or mitigation programs, rather than requiring a single project to independently resolve c umulative impacts. For this reason, a fair share contribution is the appropriate mechanism to address the Project’s incremental contribution to future improvements. This approach is consistent with accepted transportation planning practice and ensures that the Project contributes proportionally toward local and regional infrastructure needs without imposing obligations unrelated to its actual impact. Fair share contributions are a recognized means of allocating responsibility for cumulative transportation improvements, particularly where multiple future developments contribute to the need for infrastructure upgrades.

The commenter further asserts that the absence of a specific fee program or identified implementation schedule renders the approach inadequate under CEQA. However, because LOS is not a CEQA significance criterion, the fair share contribution is not a CEQA mitigation measure. Rather, it is a planning -based improvement mechanism implemented through conditions of approval and local transportation funding structures. As such, it is not required to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which applies only to CEQA mitigation measures adopted to reduce significant environmental effects.

With respect to the Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue intersection, DEIR Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, followed the City of Menifee’s adopted TIA Guidelines in defining the study area. The analysis focused on signalized intersections and two -way stop -controlled intersections, consistent with those guidelines. The Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue intersection is unsignalized and does not operate as a two -way stop- controlled intersection; therefore, it was not required to be analyzed as a study intersection under the applicable methodology. Importantly, traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network were still evaluated through roadway segment analysis. Specifically, the Murrieta Road segment between Ethanac Road and McLaughlin Road was included as a study roadway segment, thereby capt uring Project-related travel effects along the corridor that serves access to the site. This segment -based analysis appropriately accounts for circulation conditions in the vicinity of Floyd Avenue. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR analysis, including Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, evaluated the northernmost driveway along Murrieta Road under scenarios both with and without the installation of a traffic signal. Under the signalized condition, truck traffic would exit the Project site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northernmost driveway. Accordingly, implementation of the traffic signal would be required should the Project operate under the signalized access configuration.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 720

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1340 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
63 Accordingly, the transportation analysis was prepared in conformance with current requirements and applicable local guidelines. The commenter has not identified a deficiency in the analysis, and no revisions to the EIR are required.

Comment 1.55: The commenter notes that the EIR identifies a specific roadway improvement to address increased delay at the Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection but does not require its implementation as a project condition. Instead, the commenter states the Project would only be responsible for a proportionate “fair share” of costs, which the commenter implies is inadequate mitigation.

Response 1.55: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.56: The comment states that the identified improvement at Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road is not part of any planned program and therefore lacks evidence of implementation. The commenter contends that, without such a program, the “fair share” mitigation is inadequate and unenforceable under CEQA.

Response 1.56: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.57: The comment states that the proposed Project’s “fair share” fee -based mitigation is unenforceable because it is not included in the MMRP and a program has not been established with respect to the improvement in question. The comment concludes that the mitigation is inadequate under CEQA without a defined and enforceable program committing to implementation.

Response 1.57: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.58: The comment asserts that the Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete because it does not include the Murrieta Road/Floyd Avenue intersection in the study area. The commenter contends this is a significant omission because all truck traffic is expected to u se this route and therefore impacts to this residential intersection were not properly analyzed.

Response 1.58: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.59: The comment asserts that the City’s rejection of the environmentally superior Alternative 3 is not supported by substantial evidence. The commenter notes that Alternative 3 would reduce project intensity, vehicle trips, and potentially significant GHG impa cts, and would provide greater setbacks and reduced development on the site. The commenter contends that the reasons for rejecting the alternative do not amount to substantial evidence under CEQA.

Response 1.59: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Response O3.33. The comment does not provide substantial evidence that the EIR’s alternatives analysis is inadequate. CEQA does not require the EIR to analyze every conceivable alternative, nor does it require that all alternatives meet all project objectives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only thos e alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 721

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1341 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
64 Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

DEIR page 8 -1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this DEIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted b y CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the Project. As detailed in DEIR Section 8.0, Alte rnatives, the Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative (Alternative 1), a 30 Percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2), a 51 Percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3), and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative (Alternative 4) were selected for further analysis.

As such, the alternatives utilized by the DEIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8-5 provides a comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the Pr oject. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3) and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the Project, to a less-than-significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093:
(a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its a ction based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

CEQA does not require the Lead Agency (the City of Menifee) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. The environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3 (51 Percent Reduced Project Alternative), was found to result in less economic gain and fewer employment opportunities than the Project. This alternative would also have the ability to attract less business activity and fewer employment opportunities for area residents. In addition, the smaller development would not fully develop an underutilized property. Fewer members of the local workforce would be able to obtain local employment.

In making this determination, the City found that when compared to the alternatives described and evaluated in the D EIR, the Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance b etween satisfying the Project Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 722

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1342 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
65 objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level. As such, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respec t to these impacts. The City has also examined alternatives to the Project, none of which meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed above.

Therefore, contrary to the comment’s statements, Alternative 3 was not rejected and was not found infeasible; the City has merely found that the benefits of the Project override the significant impacts. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.60: The commenter asserts that CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible alternatives that would reduce significant environmental impacts, and that rejected alternatives must be supported by substantial evidence of infeasibility. The commenter contends that the City has not provided evidence that Alternative 3 is economically or otherwise infeasible and argues that the environmentally superior alternative must be adopted.

Response 1.60: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.59.

The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment 1.61: The comment concludes the letter and states that the proposed Project is incompatible with the residential community, it will degrade the character, and that the City Council should uphold denial of the Project.

Response 1.61: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the DEIR analysis. This comment will be provided to City Council decisionmakers as part of the staff report for the Project. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 723

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1343 of 1562

D
ate: March 18, 2026
From: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Sam Kelley, Assistant Planner
To: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner
Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject: CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)
D
ear Mr. Fowler,
The applicant for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project has proposed an Interim Traffic Scenario in response to coordination with members of the surrounding community following the Community Meeting held on April 17, 2025. Concerns were raised regarding truck traffic circulation along Geary Street at full buildout, particularly related to safety and potential cut- through traffic effects within the adjacent residential neighborhood. To address these concerns in the near term, the applicant has proposed an interim condition under which the Geary Street connection to Ethanac Road would not be constructed. Under this interim condition, Project traffic would instead be routed along the Project’s frontage to Murrieta Road, as described in further detail below.

The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate whether the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, thereby requiring revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or recirculation of the EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, this memorandum evaluates whether the Draft EIR, together with the Final EIR and supplemental technical analyses , adequately and comprehensively analyzes the Project as proposed, inclusive of the Interim Traffic Scenario, consistent with CEQA.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of a Draft EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for review.

Significant new information includes, but is not limited to:
• A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
• A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant impacts and that the project proponents decline to adopt. • Information that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect.

This memorandum evaluates the Interim Traffic Scenario in this context and determines whether any of the above conditions are triggered. In addition, this memorandum is based on the following supplemental technical assessments prepared to analyze the Interim Traffic Scenario:

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 724

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1344 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
2 • Murrieta Road Warehouse Supplemental Traffic Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated September 2, 2025, Attachment A.
• Murrieta and Ethanac Supplemental Noise Assessment , prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 27, 2026, Attachment B.

These supplemental technical memoranda were prepared specifically to evaluate the redistribution of traffic associated with the Interim Traffic Scenario and to confirm whether the off -site routing would alter the environmental conclusions presented in the EIR. The Draft EIR, together with the Final EIR and the supplemental technical memoranda, collectively analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed Project under both the originally evaluated access configuration and the Interim Traffic Scenario.

Respectfully,
Konnie Dobreva
VP of Environmental Planning
EPD Solutions, Inc.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 725

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1345 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
3 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE
The Draft EIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project , SCH No. 2023110162, was circulated for public review beginning on May 24, 2024, and ending on July 8, 2024. A Final EIR and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations , including extensive Responses to Comments, were subsequently prepared and presented to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2024, at which time the Project was denied. The denial was appealed by the applicant, and the matter was heard by the City Council on December 4, 2024, where the item was continued.

The Final EIR responded to all comments received during public review and confirmed that the analysis contained in the Draft EIR was adequate and complete. The environmental impact determinations, mitigation measures, and Statement of Overriding Considerat ions were based on a full evaluation of the proposed Project’s development intensity, operational characteristics, and access configuration as originally proposed.

Following the City Council hearing, the applicant engaged in additional coordination with nearby residents, including a community meeting held on April 17, 2025. The primary concern expressed by residents related to truck traffic along Geary Street at its ultimate buildout and connection to Ethanac Road, as well as concerns related to safety and cut through traffic effects to the residential neighborhood and Floyd Avenue.

In response, the applicant has proposed an Interim Traffic Scenario where Geary Street to Ethanac Road is no longer built out in the interim condition and where vehicles and trucks are routed along the Project site frontage to Murrieta Road, as described in more detail below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED ACCESS
As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the applicant proposes development of a 517,720 -square-foot speculative high cube industrial warehouse facility on a 28.27 -acre site. The environmental analysis included a three percent development buffer, equivalent to 15,532 square feet, resulting in a potential total of 533,252 square feet and a floor area ratio of 0.50.

The Draft EIR evaluated a site access configuration that would include two driveways on Geary Street and three driveways on Murrieta Road (One of those being passenger vehicles only). Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet.

The proposed Project would also include construction of a new private truck -only driveway along the south portion of the site connecting Geary Street to Murrieta Road, approximately 32 feet in width, referred to as the Circulation Driveway. Under the analyzed condition, Geary Street would be improved north of the site to Ethanac Road.

In addition, the 2024 Traffic Study, included as Appendix K of the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR analyzed the following two scenarios for the proposed Project:
• Scenario 1: The northerly driveway on Murrieta Road would be restricted to right-in/right-out only and would be stop controlled for egress Project traffic.
• Scenario 2: The northerly driveway on Murrieta Road would be signalized and would allow for right - in/left-out only for trucks.

As shown in Figures 1 through 4 below, t ruck traffic distribution under Scenario 1 would direct all inbound truck movements to Murrieta Road and all outbound truck movements to Geary Street. Under Scenario 2, all inbound truck movements would continue to occur via Murrieta Road, while outbound truck movements would be split between Geary Street and Murrieta Road.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 726

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1346 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
4 INTERIM TRAFFIC SCENARIO
Under the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario, the proposed Project’s design remains unchanged except for the redistribution of trips off-site and on-site. There are no modifications to building size, square footage , land use, intensity, or operational characteristics. Driveway locations and i nternal circulation remain as evaluated in the Draft EIR and 2024 Traffic Study.

The trip distribution would change because Geary Street would not be improved north of the Project site to Ethanac Road and Project traffic would no longer utilize Geary Street north of the site for connection to Ethanac Road the interim condition. As shown in Figures 5 and 6 below, under the Interim Traffic Scenario both passenger vehicles and trucks would utilize Ethanac Road southbound to Murrieta Road for all inbound movements and Murrieta Road northbound to Ethanac Road for all outbound movements. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Gea ry Street to access the new private truck -only driveway along the southern portion of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Geary Street to access the new private truck- only driveway along the southern boundary of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Importantly, there is no change in the total trip generation, only redistribution of trips within the existing study area roadway network. The Interim Traffic Scenario does not increase total trip generation and is consistent with the total trip generation analyzed in the Draft EIR ; therefore, the environmental baseline and analytical assumptions remain valid.

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Supplemental Traffic Assessment and Supplemental Noise Assessment, Attachment A and B respectively, evaluates whether the redistribution of trips within the previously analyzed study area roadway network results in any new or more severe impacts.

Traffic
The Supplemental Traffic Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Attachment A, evaluates whether the elimination of the Geary Street improvements north of the site would alter the conclusions, recommendations, and fair share improvements identified in the 2024 Traffic Study.

The analysis concludes that the Interim Traffic Scenario can be supported by the Project’s planned improvements under both scenarios (Scenario 1 and 2 , as described above). The supplemental analysis concluded that no new off-site roadway improvements would be required beyond those previously identified in the Draft EIR and the 2024 Traffic Study. The proposed Project would continue to contribute its fair share toward identified improvements and applicable impact fee programs. Overall, the Interim Traffic Scenario would not result in the need for additional transportation improvements beyond those already analyzed, as identified in Attachment A.

The Supplemental Traffic Assessment confirms that study intersections, roadway segments, and cumulative conditions were re -evaluated under the Interim Traffic Scenario using consistent methodologies and significance thresholds as applied in the Draft EIR. The results demonstrate that the red istribution of trips does not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts.

Noise
On November 20, 2024, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared the Noise and Vibration Analysis for the proposed Project, included as Appendix H of the Draft EIR. The analysis evaluated existing noise conditions, off -site traffic noise levels, and potential constru ction and operational noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project. A Supplemental Noise Assessment was prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Attachment B herein, to evaluate off-site traffic noise impacts associated with the redistributed traffic pattern.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 727

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1347 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
5 As described in the Draft EIR, three of the study area roadway segments were identified as having significant and unavoidable off-site traffic noise increases due to the proposed Project traffic conditions. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience potentially significant noise level impacts at three road segments for Existing with Project Scenario 1: Geary Street south of Ethanac Road, Murrieta south of Ethanac Road , and Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road. Land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience potentially significant noise level impacts at one road segment for Existing with Project Scenario 2: Geary Street south of Ethanac Road.

As described in the Draft EIR, these significant and unavoidable impacts were primarily attributable to the substantial increase in traffic noise along roadway segments with either very low or comparatively lower existing noise environments. In particular, Geary Street south of Ethanac Road currently functions as a dirt road maintained by nearby residents and experiences minimal existing traffic. Because the roadway is currently undeveloped and experiences negligible traffic, any introduction of regular veh icular trips associated with Project buildout would represent a substantial increase over existing conditions, resulting in a significant change in the ambient noise environment. Although other roadway segments, including portions of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road, have higher existing ambient noise levels, the projected increases in traffic noise were still identified as significant. The Draft EIR evaluated potential mitigation measures to address these off-site traffic noise impacts; however, feasible mitigation was not identified, and the impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable.

Under the interim condition, Geary Street will not be extended to Ethanac Road and will only be constructed along the Project frontage. As a result, previously identified off -site traffic noise increases along that roadway segment would be eliminated in the interim and impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The Supplemental Noise Assessment applied the same modeling assumptions, traffic volumes, and significance thresholds used in the Draft EIR. The results demonstrate that while certain impacts remain significant and unavoidable as previously disclosed, no new roadway segment would experien ce a significant increase in traffic noise as a result of the redistributed traffic pattern, and no previously identified impact would substantially increase in severity.

The supplemental analysis concluded that the Interim Traffic Scenario does not result in new significant off - site traffic noise impacts and does not increase the severity of previously identified impacts along Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road or Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road. Under the Interim Traffic Scenario, the previously identified significant and unavoidable impact along Geary Street south of Ethanac Road would be reduced to less than significant level . Off-site traffic noise impacts along Mur rieta Road and Ethanac Road would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the findings of the Draft EIR. In addition, the impacts previously identified in the Draft EIR associated with the ultimate buildout of Geary Street would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the analysis demonstrates that the redistribution of trips under the Interim Traffic Scenario does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.

Noise (For Informational Purposes Only)
As discussed above, b ased on the methodology utilized for the Noise A nalysis included in the Draft EIR , impacts to three roadway segments near the Project site were identified as experiencing significant Project- related traffic noise increases. The Noise Analysis included in the Draft EIR utilized a conservative methodology by evaluating traffic noise levels at the property line of nearby sensitive receptors and incorporating additional factors such as the Project -related truck component in the traffic mix . These analytical assumptions represent a stringent and conservative approach to evaluating potential traffic noise Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 728

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1348 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
6 impacts and result in higher predicted noise levels when compared to methodologies that evaluate traffic noise at standardized distances from roadway centerlines.

For example, two recently certified EIRs prepared for similar industrial projects with similar proximity to sensitive receptors in the City of Menifee were reviewed:
• Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090238), certified by the City of Menifee on May 14, 2024. • CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040622), certified by the City of Menifee in November 21, 2024.

Both EIRs determined that off-site traffic noise impacts were less than significant because the Noise Analyses prepared for the EIRs above utilized a traditional, less stringent methodology, which included measuring traffic noise levels at a standardized distance from the roadway centerline and not evaluating existing conditions on certain unpaved roadway segments. If the same methodology utilized in those certified EIRs were also applied to the EIR for the proposed Project, the resulting off -site traffic n oise increases would have also been considered less than significant. However, the Draft EIR for the proposed Project utilized a stricter methodology which resulted in higher predicted noise levels and a cautious impact determination.

The Noise Analysis included in the Draft EIR remains the basis for the environmental conclusions and impact determinations for the proposed Project (significant and unavoidable) remains unchanged. N o changes to the Draft EIR analysis or impact findings are proposed. This supplemental discussion is provided for informational purposes only , with a detailed explanation included in Appendix C, Noise Assessment , prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., in August 2025.

Air Quality and GHG
As discussed above, the total trip volumes remain unchanged and the construction and operational characteristics are identical to those analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and all other resource areas evaluated in the EIR remain unchanged.

Buildout of Geary Street north of the Project site to Ethanac Road would still occur in the ultimate condition, and impacts associated with the ultimate buildout have been fully evaluated in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no new air quality o r GHG impacts are created, and no revisions to the prior environmental analysis are required.

CEQA DETERMINATION
The Interim Traffic Scenario does not modify the proposed Project’s development intensity, square footage, operational characteristics, or total trip generation. The change is limited to redistribution of trips within the previously analyzed study area roadway network.

Based on the supplemental traffic and noise analyses, the Interim Traffic Scenario does not result in:
• A new significant environmental impact.
• A substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. • The identification of a new feasible mitigation measure or alternative that was previously infeasible. • Information that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect.

The Draft EIR, together with the Final EIR , Supplemental Traffic Assessment , and Supplemental Noise Assessment, fully analyze the environmental effects of the proposed Project, inclusive of the Interim Traffic Scenario. The supplemental analysis confirms that the impact determinations disclosed in the Draft EIR remain valid and that no new or more severe impacts would occur.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 729

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1349 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum
7 Accordingly, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR are met. No revisions to the impact determinations are required, and the EIR remains adequate for decision making purposes.

CONCLUSION
As described above, the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario does not alter the proposed Project’s characteristics or design, and does not result in new or increased environmental impacts compared to those analyzed in the Draft EIR. The Supplemental Traffic and Noise Assessments demonstrate that impacts would remain consistent with, or in certain instances be less than, those previously evaluated.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required, and no revisions to the EIR impact conclusions are necessary. The EIR remains adequate under CEQA to support Project consideration by the City Council.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 730

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1350 of 1562

Figure 1: Project Passenger Vehicle Trip Distribution (Scenario 1 – No Signal) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 731

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1351 of 1562

Figure 2: Project Passenger Vehicle Trip Distribution (Scenario 2 – With Signal) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 732

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1352 of 1562

Figure 3: Project Truck Trip Distribution (Scenario 1 - No Signal) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 733

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1353 of 1562

Figure 4: Project Truck Trip Distribution (Scenario 2 - With Signal) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 734

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1354 of 1562

Figure 5: Project (Scenario 1) Trip Distribution
N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:
= Percent To/From Project
= Trip Distribution
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
215
N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
TRUCKS

PASSENGER CARS
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 735

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1355 of 1562

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:
= Percent To/From Project
= Trip Distribution
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
TRUCKS

PASSENGER CARS
Figure 6: Project (Scenario 2) Trip Distribution
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 736

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1356 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum

Attachment A: Murrieta Road Warehouse Supplemental Traffic Assessment

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 737

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1357 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum

Attachment B: Murrieta and Ethanac Supplemental Noise Assessment

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 738

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1358 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project CEQA Memorandum

Attachment C: Murrieta and Ethanac Noise Assessment

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 739

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1359 of 1562

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
20341 SW Birch Street | Suite 230 | Newport Beach, CA 92660 | (949) 660-1994 | urbanxroads.com DATE: September 3, 2025
TO: Jaime McLaughlin, Ares Industrial Management
FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 16570-02 TA Memo
SUBJECT: MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC

ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared the following Supplemental Traffic Assessment for the Murrieta Road Warehouse (Project), which is located east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road in the City of Menifee. The following traffic assessment serves as a supplement to the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Analysis (dated January 25, 2024, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., referred to as 2024 Traffic Study), specifically evaluating an interim condition in which Geary Street is not improved north of the Project boundary north to Ethanac Road. Instead, Project traffic would have to utilize Geary Street, to the Circulation Driveway, and Murrieta Road.

The purpose is to determine whether the proposed interim Project access results in changes to the results and recommendations of the 2024 Traffic Study. The following assessment utilizes data presented in the 2024 Traffic Study and follows the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (dated January 2019).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study was a 533,252 square foot single warehouse building that included additional buffer square footage. There are two driveway s located on Geary Street assumed to have full access (Driveways 1 and 2) and three driveways located on Murrieta Road (Driveways 3 through 5). For the purposes of this assessment, no Project traffic will travel to or from Ethanac Road and the Project via Geary Street (all Project traffic directed to and from the south on Geary Street towards new Circulation Driveway). Driveway 5 (southerly driveway on Murrieta Road) would be restricted to right -in/right-out access only. All driveways would serve passenger cars, however, only Driveways 1, 2, 3, and 5 would serve trucks as well . The Project proposes a new Circulation Driveway along the southern boundary of the Project connecting Geary Street to Murrieta Road. The Project site plan is shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan shown is the same evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 740

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1360 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 2 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The 2024 Traffic Study evaluated two scenarios for the proposed Project:
• Scenario 1: Driveway 3 (northerly driveway on Murrieta Road) would be restricted to right - in/right-out only and would be stop controlled for egress Project traffic. • Scenario 2: Driveway 3 would be signalized and would allow for right -in/left-out only for trucks (right-out trucks would be prohibited).

PROJECT TRAFFIC

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 741

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1361 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 3 Murrieta Road Warehouse
The 2024 Traffic Study analyzed the development of a 533,252 square foot high -cube fulfillment center warehouse. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, trip -generation statistics (rates and vehicle mix) published in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ( TUMF) High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (dated January 29, 2019, prepared by WSP) were used to estimate the trip generation. Table 1 summarizes the Project trip generation as evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study and in the following supplemental traffic assessment which shows the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 1,135 two-way trips per day (actual vehicles) with 84 PCE AM peak hour trips and 105 PCE PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 1: 2024 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Fulfillment Center 533.252 TSF
Passenger Cars 42 13 55 22 55 77 933
2-Axle Trucks 1 0 1 0 0 0 15
3-Axle Trucks 1 0 1 1 1 2 28
4-Axle Trucks 2 0 2 1 2 3 43
5+-Axle Trucks 5 1 6 1 4 5 116
Project Total (Actual Vehicles) 51 14 65 25 62 87 1,135 PCE Calculations:

Passenger Cars 42 13 55 22 55 77 933
2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 1 1 2 1 0 1 22
3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 2 1 3 2 3 5 57
4-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 5 1 6 2 6 8 129
5+-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 14 4 18 3 12 15 347
Project Total (PCE) 64 20 84 30 76 106 1,488
Source: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Analysis, dated January 25, 2024, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. Exhibit 2 shows the Project’s trip distribution patterns for passenger cars and trucks for Scenario 1 which have been modified so no Project traffic travels to and from Ethanac Road along Geary Street towards the Project. In other words, with the right-in/right-out access at Driveway 3 on Murrieta Road, trucks would have to exit out onto Geary Street from the northern truck court and circulate around back to Murrieta Road via Geary Street to the new Circulation Driveway. This Scenario is only feasible if the building is not split (no multi-tenant) due to the access needed across the truck court.

Exhibit 3 shows the Project’s passenger car and truck trip distribution patterns for Scenario 2 which have been modified to send no Project traffic travels to and from Ethanac Road via Geary Street north of the Project boundary.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 742

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1362 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 4 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT (SCENARIO 1) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:
= Percent To/From Project
= Trip Distribution
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
215
N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
TRUCKS

PASSENGER CARS
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 743

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1363 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 5 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT (SCENARIO 2) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:
= Percent To/From Project
= Trip Distribution
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Ethanac Rd.

INTERSTATE
Hull St. Evans Rd. Barnett Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
215
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
SITE
TRUCKS

PASSENGER CARS
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 744

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1364 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 6 Murrieta Road Warehouse

PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 4 for Scenario 1 and Exhibit 5 for Scenario 2.

EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT ONLY (SCENARIO 1) VOLUMES

McLaughlin Rd.

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:

SITE
Ethanac Rd.
= Existing Intersection Analysis Location
= Future Intersection Analysis Location
= Peak Hour Volume AM(PM)
0 0
00(00)
4 2
3 5
6 7
Geary St.
& Driveway 1
2 0(0)7(3)
0(0)0(0)
11(40)0(0)
Geary St.
& Driveway 2
3 7(3)4(2)
0(0)11(40)
4(14)0(0)
Murrieta Rd.
& Ethanac Rd.
4 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 3
5 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 4
6 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 5
7 Murrietta Rd.
& Circulation Driveway
8 8
0(0)1(6)16(60)
0(0)4(2)0(0)
0(0)0(0)0(0)
51(23)0(0)0(0)
17(65)
32(15)24(11)
1(3)
8(4)15(54)
24(13)9(4)
3(11)1(3)
23(58)
13(11)12(5)
1(6)
0(0)8(4)
3(11)12(6)
15(54)0(0)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 745

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1365 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 7 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT ONLY (SCENARIO 2) VOLUMES

McLaughlin Rd.

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:

SITE
Ethanac Rd.
= Existing Intersection Analysis Location
= Future Intersection Analysis Location
= Peak Hour Volume AM(PM)
0 0
00(00)
4 2
3 5
6 7
Geary St.
& Driveway 1
2 0(0)8(3)
0(0)0(0)
2(8)0(0)
Geary St.
& Driveway 2
3 8(3)4(2)
0(0)2(8)
4(14)0(0)
Murrieta Rd.
& Ethanac Rd.
4 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 3
5 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 4
6 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 5
7 Murrietta Rd.
& Circulation Driveway
8 8
0(0)1(6)16(60)
0(0)4(2)0(0)
0(0)0(0)0(0)
51(23)0(0)0(0)
4(2)9(33)
32(15)24(11)
9(32)1(3)
4(2)10(24)
26(14)6(3)
3(11)1(3)
0(0)8(4)
3(11)12(6)
6(21)0(0)
14(26)
13(11)14(6)
1(6)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 746

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1366 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 8 Murrieta Road Warehouse

ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Study area intersections evaluated for this supplemental traffic assessment are listed in Table 1.

Specifically, all analysis locations overlap with those evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study, with the exception of the Circulation Driveway at Murrieta Road which was not evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study. Other intersections evaluated in the 2024 Traffic Study were not evaluated as they are not affected by the changes in trip distribution patterns or the Project was not anticipated to contribute traffic to those locations, such, as Geary Street at Ethanac Road.

TABLE 1: LIST OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS
# Intersection
2 Geary St. & Project Driveway 1
3 Geary St. & Project Driveway 2
4 Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.
5 Murrieta Rd. & Project Driveway 3
6 Murrieta Rd. & Project Driveway 4
7 Murrieta Rd. & Project Driveway 5
8 Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway
OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) CONDITIONS

VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Opening Year Cumulative ( 2026) traffic volumes are based on the manual addition of existing volumes and background (ambient growth) at 2% per year over 3 years . In addition, this supplemental traffic assessment includes cumulative project traffic consistent with the 2024 Traffic Study with the exception that no other industrial cumulative traffic has been included to/from the south on Murrieta Road. Project traffic has been added to/from Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road (per the Project volumes shown previously in Exhibit 4) along with Cumulative Projects #22, #23, and #24 from the 2024 Traffic Study. The weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for Opening Year Cumulative With Project traffic conditions are provided in Exhibit 6 for Scenario 1 and Exhibit 7 for Scenario 2.

INTERSECTIONS
Table 2 provides the summary of the intersection operations analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2026) With Project traffic conditions. Intersection operations have been evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours using the Synchro analysis software package using the HCM 7th Edition methodology.

As shown in Table 2, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2026) traffic conditions, with the exception of the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (consistent with the 2024 Traffic Study). The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative With Project traffic conditions for Scenarios 1 and 2 are provided in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 747

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1367 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 9 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 6: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 1)

McLaughlin Rd.

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:

SITE
Ethanac Rd.
= Existing Intersection Analysis Location
= Future Intersection Analysis Location
= Peak Hour Volume AM(PM)
0 0
00(00)
4 2
3 5
6 7
Geary St.
& Driveway 1
2 0(0)7(3)
0(0)0(0)
11(40)0(0)
Geary St.
& Driveway 2
3 7(3)4(2)
0(0)11(40)
4(14)0(0)
Murrieta Rd.
& Ethanac Rd.
4 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 3
5 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 4
6 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 5
7 Murrietta Rd.
& Circulation Driveway
8 8
106(134)115(124)183(225)
161(111)71(136)11(21)
7(8) 946(603)103(132)
153(245)537(716)146(171)8(4)420(496)
287(476)9(4)
3(11)1(3)
0(0)413(446)
266(474)12(6)
15(54)0(0)
428(500)
276(474)12(5)
1(6)
428(500)
276(474)12(5)
1(6)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 748

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1368 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 10 Murrieta Road Warehouse
EXHIBIT 7: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2)

N
Geary St.

Murrieta Rd.

Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
Dwy. 4
Dwy. 5
LEGEND:

SITE
Ethanac Rd.

McLaughlin Rd.
= Existing Intersection Analysis Location
= Future Intersection Analysis Location
= Peak Hour Volume AM(PM)
0 0
00(00)
4 2
3 5
6 7
Geary St.
& Driveway 1
2 0(0)8(3)
0(0)0(0)
2(8)0(0)
Geary St.
& Driveway 2
3 8(3)4(2)
0(0)2(8)
4(14)0(0)
Murrieta Rd.
& Ethanac Rd.
4 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 3
5 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 4
6 Murrietta Rd.
& Driveway 5
7 Murrietta Rd.
& Circulation Driveway
8 8
96(122)105(113)168(210)
151(106)65(124)10(19)
6(7) 864(552)94(120)
144(225)490(653)139(162)
4(2)379(437)
271(434)24(11)
9(32)1(3)
4(2)380(428)
265(433)6(3)
3(11)1(3)
0(0)378(408)
242(430)12(6)
6(21)0(0)
384(430)
252(430)14(6)
1(6)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 749

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1369 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 11 Murrieta Road Warehouse
TABLE 2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS # Intersection Traffic
Control2
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
(secs.) Service (secs.) Service

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
2 Geary St. & Driveway 1 CSS 8.6 8.7 A A 8.5 8.5 A A 3 Geary St. & Driveway 2 CSS 8.6 8.8 A A 8.6 8.6 A A 4 Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. TS 80.1 77.2 F E 64.9 62.9 E E 5 Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 3 CSS 10.1 11.5 B B 14.0 18.7 B C 6 Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 4 CSS 12.0 14.1 B B 11.6 13.3 B B 7 Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 5 CSS 9.9 11.5 A B 9.7 11.1 A B 8 Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway CSS 12.6 15.5 B C 12.0 13.8 B B * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.

2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; CSS = Improvement

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for all applicable study area intersections.

It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

There is no unsignalized study area intersection anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under Opening Year Cumulative (2026) With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 3). No traffic signal warrants have been evaluated for the right -in/right-out only access point at Driveway 5 at Murrieta Road.

Traffic signal warrants are not typically run for intersections with restricted access as the intersection likely does not meet spacing criteria (therefore requires access restrictions) and is not a suitable location for signalization (due to insufficient intersection spacing). It is also unlikely with the access restrictions that the side street volume would meet the minimum volume threshold to meet the peak hour warrant.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 750

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1370 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 12 Murrieta Road Warehouse
Although the intersection of Driveway 3 on Murrieta Road does not meet volume-based traffic signal warrants, the installation of a traffic signal at this location could help to minimize delays for through traffic along Murrieta Road and provide protected left-turning phase for Project trucks exiting the site to turn without conflicts with the through traffic. Specifically, the type of traffic signal that should be implemented is a semi -actuated control signal with detection (either inductive loops or video detectors) for the minor approach (Driveway 3) that would only provide a green phase if vehicles were detected. All other times, traffic flow along Murrieta Road would receive a fixed green and would not require any detection.

FINDINGS
The interim vehicular access for the site without Geary Street improvements between the Project and Ethanac Road can be supported by the Project’s planned improvements at/near the site (for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2). The intersection of Driveway 3 at Murrieta Road is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service as a stop -controlled intersection for the side -street traffic (Project egress) under Scenario 2 with full access. However, installation of a traffic signal would also maintain acceptable peak hour operations should one be installed.

Consistent with the 2024 Traffic Study, the intersection of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road requires improvements to address the peak hour deficiency under near-term cumulative traffic conditions .

The 2024 Traffic Study identified the widening of Murrieta Road to accommodate a northbound left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane for which the Project would contribute its fair share .

Analysis results summarizing the delay and LOS with the proposed improvements at Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road are presented in Table 3. No additional improvements are identified along Ethanac Road. Analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 4 for both Scenarios 1 and 2.

TABLE 3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE WITH IMPROVEMENTS # Intersection Traffic
Control 3
Intersection Approach Lanes 1 Delay2 Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
4 Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Scenario 1 TS 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 45.1 40.4 D D
Scenario 2 TS 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 36.3 33.2 D C
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 751

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1371 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 13 Murrieta Road Warehouse
Based on a review of the findings of the 2024 Traffic Study, the Project cumulatively effects the off- site intersections of Murrieta Road, Case Road/Barnett Road, and the I -215 Ramps along Ethanac Road, and would be required to contribute its fair share (fair share contribution) or participation in pre-existing fee programs, such as the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) or County-wide TUMF programs. The fair share for the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road is summarized in Table 4.

TABLE 4: PROJECT FAIR SHARE
# Intersection: Murrieta
Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Existing
(2024)
Project
Trips EAPC Fair
Share %1
4 Scenario 1
AM: 1,938 72 2,539 12.0%
PM: 1,995 91 2,626 14.4%
4 Scenario 2
AM: 1,938 72 2,332 18.3%
PM: 1,995 91 2,413 21.8%
1 BOLD = Highest fair share percentage is highlighted.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 752

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1372 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 14 Murrieta Road Warehouse
APPENDIX 1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT (SCENARIO 1)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 753

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1373 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
2: Geary St. & Driveway 1 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 0 0 7 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 11 0 0 7 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 12 0 0 8 0 0
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 5 - 0 0 - -
Stage 1 4 -----
Stage 2 1 -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y 6 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
F o l l o w - u p H d w y 3 . 5-----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 0 - - 0 -
Stage 1 1025 0 - - 0 -
Stage 2 1027 0 - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 -----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1022 -----
Stage 1 1025 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.56 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1022 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 754

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1374 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
3: Geary St. & Driveway 2 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 0 7 4 0 11
Future Vol, veh/h 4 0 7 4 0 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 0 8 4 0 12
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 22 10 0 0 12 0
Stage 1 10 -----
Stage 2 12 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1000 1078 - - 1620 -
Stage 1 1018 -----
Stage 2 1016 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1000 1078 - - 1620 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1000 -----
Stage 1 1018 -----
Stage 2 1016 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.62 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1000 1620 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 755

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1375 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 946 153 537 106 115 71 11
Future Volume (vph) 7 946 153 537 106 115 71 11
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 84
Permitted Phases 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52168844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 45.2 15.0 50.6 36.0 36.0 23.8 23.8
Total Split (%) 8.0% 37.7% 12.5% 42.2% 30.0% 30.0% 19.8% 19.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 39.0 10.4 52.1 30.2 18.0 18.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.09 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.11 1.05 1.14 0.52 1.20 0.98 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.6 79.8 163.7 25.7 147.5 101.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.6 79.8 163.7 25.7 147.5 101.1 0.2

LOS E E F C F F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 79.6 51.0 147.5 96.5
Approach LOS E D F F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.20
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 82.6 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 756

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1376 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 946 103 153 537 146 106 115 183 161 71 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 7 946 103 153 537 146 106 115 183 161 71 11 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 1100 120 178 624 170 123 134 213 187 83 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 18 1067 116 157 1127 307 114 125 198 191 85 242 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3283 358 1810 2805 763 454 495 787 1272 565 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 604 616 178 401 393 470 0 0 270 0 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1836 1810 1805 1763 1736 0 0 1836 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 39.0 39.0 10.4 20.5 20.6 30.2 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 39.0 39.0 10.4 20.5 20.6 30.2 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.43 0.26 0.45 0.69 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 18 587 597 157 725 708 437 0 0 275 0 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 1.03 1.03 1.14 0.55 0.55 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 75 587 597 157 725 708 437 0 0 275 0 242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.1 40.5 40.5 54.8 27.6 27.6 44.9 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 43.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 45.1 45.4 112.8 0.9 0.9 64.9 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 23.4 23.8 9.4 8.4 8.2 20.3 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 65.7 85.6 85.9 167.6 28.5 28.6 109.8 0.0 0.0 99.4 0.0 43.8 LnGrp LOS E F F F C C F F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1228 972 470 283
Approach Delay, s/veh 85.6 54.0 109.8 96.8
Approach LOS F D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.2 23.8 5.8 54.4 36.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.4 39.0 18.0 5.0 44.4 30.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.4 41.0 19.6 2.5 22.6 32.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 80.1
HCM 7th LOS F
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 757

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1377 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
5: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 3 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 422 295 24
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 422 295 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 1 0 459 321 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 334 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 713 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 713 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.06 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 713 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 758

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1378 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
6: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 4 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 1 8 420 287 9
Future Vol, veh/h 3 1 8 420 287 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 1 9 457 312 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 791 317 322 0 - 0
Stage 1 317 -----
Stage 2 474 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 361 728 1250 - - -
Stage 1 743 -----
Stage 2 631 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 359 728 1250 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 472 -----
Stage 1 738 -----
Stage 2 631 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 12.01 0.15 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1250 - 518 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.008 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.9 - 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 759

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1379 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
7: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 5 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 428 276 12
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 428 276 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 1 0 465 300 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 307 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 738 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 738 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.88 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 738 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.001 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 9.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 760

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1380 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
8: Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 0 0 413 266 12
Future Vol, veh/h 15 0 0 413 266 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 16 0 0 449 289 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 745 296 302 0 - 0
Stage 1 296 -----
Stage 2 449 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 385 748 1270 - - -
Stage 1 760 -----
Stage 2 647 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 385 748 1270 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 492 -----
Stage 1 760 -----
Stage 2 647 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 12.57 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1270 - 492 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - 12.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 761

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1381 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
2: Geary St. & Driveway 1 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 0 0 3 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 40 0 0 3 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 43 0 0 3 0 0
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 3 - 0 0 - -
Stage 1 2 -----
Stage 2 1 -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y 6 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
F o l l o w - u p H d w y 3 . 5-----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1025 0 - - 0 -
Stage 1 1027 0 - - 0 -
Stage 2 1027 0 - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1025 -----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1025 -----
Stage 1 1027 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.67 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1025 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.042 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 762

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1382 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
3: Geary St. & Driveway 2 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 3 2 0 40
Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 3 2 0 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 15 0 3 2 0 43
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 48 4 0 0 5 0
Stage 1 4 -----
Stage 2 43 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 967 1085 - - 1629 -
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 984 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 967 1085 - - 1629 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 967 -----
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 984 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.78 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 967 1629 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.016 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.8 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 763

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1383 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 8 603 245 716 134 124 136 21
Future Volume (vph) 8 603 245 716 134 124 136 21
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 84
Permitted Phases 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52168844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 33.2 21.0 44.6 42.0 42.0 23.8 23.8
Total Split (%) 8.0% 27.7% 17.5% 37.2% 35.0% 35.0% 19.8% 19.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 27.0 16.4 46.1 36.2 18.0 18.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.23 0.14 0.38 0.30 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.12 1.00 1.09 0.72 1.15 0.97 0.06
Control Delay (s/veh) 59.0 78.1 132.8 34.7 125.0 99.1 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 59.0 78.1 132.8 34.7 125.0 99.1 0.3

LOS E E F C F F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 77.8 55.9 125.0 91.4
Approach LOS E E F F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.15
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 78.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 764

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1384 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 603 132 245 716 171 134 124 225 111 136 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 603 132 245 716 171 134 124 225 111 136 21 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 663 145 269 787 188 147 136 247 122 149 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 20 663 145 247 1014 242 145 134 243 125 153 242 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 2946 644 1810 2890 690 480 444 807 837 1022 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 406 402 269 491 484 530 0 0 271 0 23 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1784 1810 1805 1776 1731 0 0 1858 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 27.0 27.0 16.4 29.1 29.1 36.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 27.0 27.0 16.4 29.1 29.1 36.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.39 0.28 0.47 0.45 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 20 406 401 247 633 623 522 0 0 279 0 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.78 0.78 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 75 406 401 247 633 623 522 0 0 279 0 242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.0 46.5 46.5 51.8 34.7 34.7 41.9 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 44.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 44.6 45.3 82.6 6.0 6.1 43.2 0.0 0.0 46.1 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 16.5 16.4 12.8 13.0 12.8 21.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 65.2 91.1 91.8 134.4 40.8 40.9 85.1 0.0 0.0 96.9 0.0 44.1 LnGrp LOS E F F F D D F F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 817 1244 530 294
Approach Delay, s/veh 91.1 61.1 85.1 92.8
Approach LOS F E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 33.2 23.8 5.9 48.3 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.4 27.0 18.0 5.0 38.4 36.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.4 29.0 19.4 2.6 31.1 38.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 77.2
HCM 7th LOS E
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 765

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1385 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
5: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 3 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 0 507 478 11
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 0 507 478 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 3 0 551 520 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 526 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 556 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 556 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.51 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 556 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.006 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 766

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1386 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
6: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 4 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 3 4 496 476 4
Future Vol, veh/h 11 3 4 496 476 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 12 3 4 539 517 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1067 520 522 0 - 0
Stage 1 520 -----
Stage 2 548 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 248 560 1055 - - -
Stage 1 601 -----
Stage 2 583 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 247 560 1055 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 382 -----
Stage 1 598 -----
Stage 2 583 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 14.11 0.07 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1055 - 410 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - 0.037 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.4 - 14.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 767

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1387 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
7: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 5 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 6 0 500 474 5
Future Vol, veh/h 0 6 0 500 474 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 7 0 543 515 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 518 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 562 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 562 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.49 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 562 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.012 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 768

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1388 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta R oad Warehouse (JN 16570)
8: Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway 08/21/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 0 0 446 474 6
Future Vol, veh/h 54 0 0 446 474 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 59 0 0 485 515 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1003 518 522 0 - 0
Stage 1 518 -----
Stage 2 485 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 271 561 1055 - - -
Stage 1 602 -----
Stage 2 623 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 271 561 1055 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 403 -----
Stage 1 602 -----
Stage 2 623 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 15.45 0 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1055 - 403 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.146 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - 15.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.5 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 769

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1389 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 15 Murrieta Road Warehouse
APPENDIX 2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT (SCENARIO 2)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 770

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1390 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
2: Geary St. & Driveway 1 08/22/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 0 8 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 0 8 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 2 0 0 9 0 0
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 5 4 0 0 9 0
Stage 1 4 -----
Stage 2 1 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 1085 - - 1625 -
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 1085 - - 1625 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1021 -----
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.53 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1021 1625 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 771

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1391 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
3: Geary St. & Driveway 2 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 0 8 4 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 4 0 8 4 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 0 9 4 0 2
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 13 11 0 0 13 0
Stage 1 11 -----
Stage 2 2 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1076 - - 1619 -
Stage 1 1017 -----
Stage 2 1026 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1076 - - 1619 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1011 -----
Stage 1 1017 -----
Stage 2 1026 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.57 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1011 1619 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 772

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1392 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 864 144 490 96 105 65 10
Future Volume (vph) 6 864 144 490 96 105 65 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 84
Permitted Phases 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52168844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 43.7 16.0 50.1 36.1 36.1 24.2 24.2
Total Split (%) 8.0% 36.4% 13.3% 41.8% 30.1% 30.1% 20.2% 20.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 37.5 11.4 51.6 30.3 18.0 18.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.10 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.99 0.97 0.48 1.08 0.91 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.2 66.2 116.5 25.1 106.3 86.2 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.2 66.2 116.5 25.1 106.3 86.2 0.2

LOS E E F C F F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 66.2 42.1 106.3 82.3
Approach LOS E D F F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 119.6
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 66.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 773

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1393 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 864 94 144 490 139 96 105 168 151 65 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 864 94 144 490 139 96 105 168 151 65 10 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 1005 109 167 570 162 112 122 195 176 76 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 16 1028 111 172 1109 314 115 125 200 195 84 245 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3285 356 1810 2777 787 453 494 789 1282 554 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 552 562 167 370 362 429 0 0 252 0 12 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1836 1810 1805 1758 1735 0 0 1836 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 36.3 36.3 11.0 18.5 18.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 36.3 36.3 11.0 18.5 18.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.45 0.26 0.45 0.70 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 16 565 575 172 721 703 439 0 0 279 0 245 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.51 0.52 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 76 565 575 172 721 703 439 0 0 282 0 247 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.1 40.7 40.7 54.0 27.2 27.2 44.4 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 43.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.2 32.0 31.8 59.2 0.6 0.7 36.9 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 20.0 20.3 7.6 7.6 7.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 66.3 72.7 72.6 113.2 27.8 27.9 81.3 0.0 0.0 79.8 0.0 43.5 LnGrp LOS E E E F C C F E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1121 899 429 264
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.6 43.7 81.3 78.2
Approach LOS E D F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 43.7 24.0 5.6 54.1 36.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.4 37.5 18.4 5.0 43.9 30.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 38.3 18.2 2.5 20.7 31.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 64.9
HCM 7th LOS E
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 774

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1394 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
5: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 3 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 1 4 379 271 24
Future Vol, veh/h 9 1 4 379 271 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 10 1 4 412 295 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 728 308 321 0 - 0
Stage 1 308 -----
Stage 2 421 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 393 737 1251 - - -
Stage 1 750 -----
Stage 2 667 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 392 737 1251 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 392 -----
Stage 1 748 -----
Stage 2 667 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 13.99 0.08 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1251 - 411 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.026 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.9 - 14 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 775

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1395 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
6: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 4 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 1 4 380 265 6
Future Vol, veh/h 3 1 4 380 265 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 1 4 413 288 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 713 291 295 0 - 0
Stage 1 291 -----
Stage 2 422 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 401 753 1278 - - -
Stage 1 763 -----
Stage 2 666 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 400 753 1278 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 505 -----
Stage 1 760 -----
Stage 2 666 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.6 0.08 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1278 - 550 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.008 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.8 - 11.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 776

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1396 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
7: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 5 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 384 252 14
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 0 384 252 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 1 0 417 274 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 282 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 762 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 762 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.73 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 762 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.001 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 777

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1397 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
8: Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 0 0 378 242 12
Future Vol, veh/h 6 0 0 378 242 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 7 0 0 411 263 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 680 270 276 0 - 0
Stage 1 270 -----
Stage 2 411 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 419 774 1299 - - -
Stage 1 780 -----
Stage 2 674 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 419 774 1299 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 519 -----
Stage 1 780 -----
Stage 2 674 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 12.02 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1299 - 519 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.013 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 778

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1398 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
2: Geary St. & Driveway 1 08/22/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 0 0 3 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 8 0 0 3 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 9 0 0 3 0 0
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 3 2 0 0 3 0
Stage 1 2 -----
Stage 2 1 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1025 1089 - - 1632 -
Stage 1 1027 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1025 1089 - - 1632 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1025 -----
Stage 1 1027 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.54 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1025 1632 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.008 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 779

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1399 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
3: Geary St. & Driveway 2 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 3 2 0 8
Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 3 2 0 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 15 0 3 2 0 9
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 13 4 0 0 5 0
Stage 1 4 -----
Stage 2 9 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 - - 1629 -
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 1020 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 - - 1629 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1011 -----
Stage 1 1024 -----
Stage 2 1020 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.61 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1011 1629 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.015 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 780

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1400 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 552 225 653 122 113 124 19
Future Volume (vph) 7 552 225 653 122 113 124 19
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 84
Permitted Phases 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52168844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 31.9 21.6 43.9 42.4 42.4 24.1 24.1
Total Split (%) 8.0% 26.6% 18.0% 36.6% 35.3% 35.3% 20.1% 20.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 25.7 17.0 45.4 36.6 17.9 17.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.14 0.38 0.31 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.96 0.96 0.67 1.03 0.91 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.6 69.3 99.5 33.5 87.5 85.4 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.6 69.3 99.5 33.5 87.5 85.4 0.3

LOS E E F C F F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 69.2 47.7 87.5 78.9
Approach LOS E D F E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 119.6
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 64.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 781

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1401 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 22) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 552 120 225 653 162 122 113 210 106 124 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 7 552 120 225 653 162 122 113 210 106 124 19 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 607 132 247 718 178 134 124 231 116 136 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 18 641 139 260 1008 250 141 131 244 129 151 243 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 2950 640 1810 2867 710 474 439 817 855 1002 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 371 368 247 452 444 489 0 0 252 0 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1785 1810 1805 1772 1729 0 0 1857 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 23.9 24.0 16.0 25.6 25.6 32.7 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 23.9 24.0 16.0 25.6 25.6 32.7 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.40 0.27 0.47 0.46 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 18 392 388 260 634 623 516 0 0 280 0 243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.71 0.71 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 77 392 388 260 634 623 535 0 0 288 0 249 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.2 45.6 45.6 50.2 33.2 33.2 40.6 0.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 43.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 31.7 32.6 41.5 3.8 3.8 26.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 13.6 13.6 9.9 11.1 10.9 17.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 64.8 77.2 78.2 91.7 36.9 37.0 66.5 0.0 0.0 77.7 0.0 43.3 LnGrp LOS E E E F D D E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 747 1143 489 273
Approach Delay, s/veh 77.6 48.8 66.5 75.1
Approach LOS E D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 31.9 23.6 5.8 47.7 41.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 25.7 18.3 5.0 37.7 36.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 26.0 17.8 2.5 27.6 34.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 62.9
HCM 7th LOS E
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 782

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1402 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
5: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 3 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 3 2 437 434 11
Future Vol, veh/h 32 3 2 437 434 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 35 3 2 475 472 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 957 478 484 0 - 0
Stage 1 478 -----
Stage 2 479 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 288 592 1090 - - -
Stage 1 628 -----
Stage 2 627 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 288 592 1090 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 -----
Stage 1 627 -----
Stage 2 627 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 18.69 0.04 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1090 - 301 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.126 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.3 - 18.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 783

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1403 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
6: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 4 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 3 2 428 433 3
Future Vol, veh/h 11 3 2 428 433 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 12 3 2 465 471 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 942 472 474 0 - 0
Stage 1 472 -----
Stage 2 470 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 294 596 1099 - - -
Stage 1 632 -----
Stage 2 633 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 294 596 1099 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 -----
Stage 1 630 -----
Stage 2 633 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 13.27 0.04 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1099 - 451 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.034 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.3 - 13.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 784

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1404 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
7: Murrieta Rd. & Driveway 5 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 6 0 430 430 6
Future Vol, veh/h 0 6 0 430 430 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 7 0 467 467 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 471 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
C r i t i c a l H d w y - 6 . 2----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 ------
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 ------
F o l l o w - u p H d w y - 3 . 3----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 597 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 597 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.1 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 597 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.011 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - 11.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 785

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1405 of 1562

HCM 7th TWSC Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
8: Murrieta Rd. & Circulation Driveway 08/21/2025
Synchro 12 ReportOpening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 408 430 6
Future Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 408 430 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 23 0 0 443 467 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 914 471 474 0 - 0
Stage 1 471 -----
Stage 2 443 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 1 5 . 4-----
C r i t i c a l H d w y S t g 2 5 . 4-----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 306 597 1099 - - -
Stage 1 633 -----
Stage 2 651 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 306 597 1099 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 432 -----
Stage 1 633 -----
Stage 2 651 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 13.79 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1099 - 432 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.053 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - 13.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 786

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1406 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 16 Murrieta Road Warehouse
APPENDIX 3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL

WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 787

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1407 of 1562

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = 2026 With Project (Scenario 1) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Geary St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =3 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Driveway 1 High Volume Approach (VPH) =40 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 0100200300400500300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 788

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1408 of 1562

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = 2026 With Project (Scenario 1) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Geary St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =45 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Driveway 2 High Volume Approach (VPH) =14 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 0100200300400500300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 789

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1409 of 1562

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = 2026 With Project (Scenario 2) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Murrieta Rd. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =884 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Driveway 3 High Volume Approach (VPH) =35 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 884350100200300400500300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 790

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1410 of 1562

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = 2026 With Project (Scenario 1) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Murrieta Rd. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =980 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Driveway 4 High Volume Approach (VPH) =14 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 980140100200300400500300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 791

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1411 of 1562

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = 2026 With Project (Scenario 1) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Murrieta Rd. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =926 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Circulation Driveway High Volume Approach (VPH) =54 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 926540100200300400500300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 792

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1412 of 1562

16570-02 TA Memo 17 Murrieta Road Warehouse
APPENDIX 4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2026) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS (SCENARIOS 1 & 2) Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 793

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1413 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 946 153 537 106 115 183 71 11
Future Volume (vph) 7 946 153 537 106 115 183 71 11
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 521688844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 51.2 19.0 60.6 23.8 23.8 23.8 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 8.0% 42.7% 15.8% 50.5% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 21.7% 21.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.1 42.4 13.5 58.7 15.8 15.8 15.8 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.37 0.12 0.52 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.91 0.83 0.44 0.79 0.51 0.52 0.87 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.3 45.6 80.7 17.8 81.4 53.8 11.1 74.6 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.3 45.6 80.7 17.8 81.4 53.8 11.1 74.6 0.2

L O S EDFBFDBEA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.7 29.3 41.6 71.2
Approach LOS D C D E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 113.5
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 42.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 794

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1414 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 946 103 153 537 146 106 115 183 161 71 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 7 946 103 153 537 146 106 115 183 161 71 11 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 1100 120 178 624 170 123 134 213 187 83 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 18 1218 133 207 1334 363 272 285 242 209 93 265 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3283 358 1810 2805 763 1810 1900 1610 1272 565 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 604 616 178 401 393 123 134 213 270 0 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1836 1810 1805 1763 1810 1900 1610 1836 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 35.4 35.5 10.8 16.8 16.8 6.9 7.2 14.5 16.1 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 35.4 35.5 10.8 16.8 16.8 6.9 7.2 14.5 16.1 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 18 670 681 207 858 838 272 285 242 302 0 265 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.88 0.89 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 81 726 738 233 877 857 291 306 259 331 0 291 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 33.3 33.3 48.7 19.8 19.8 43.4 43.5 46.6 45.8 0.0 39.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 13.9 14.0 22.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2 26.6 23.8 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 16.7 17.1 5.9 6.4 6.3 3.1 3.4 7.4 9.1 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 61.6 47.2 47.3 71.1 20.2 20.2 44.6 44.7 73.2 69.6 0.0 39.5 L n G r p L O S EDDECCDDEE D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1228 972 470 283
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.4 29.5 57.6 68.2
Approach LOS D C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 47.7 24.2 5.7 59.4 22.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.4 45.0 20.2 5.0 54.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.8 37.5 18.1 2.5 18.8 16.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 45.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 795

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1415 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 8 603 245 716 134 124 225 136 21
Future Volume (vph) 8 603 245 716 134 124 225 136 21
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
P r o t e c t e d P h a s e s 5216 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 521688844
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 37.9 27.4 55.7 26.6 26.6 26.6 28.1 28.1 Total Split (%) 8.0% 31.6% 22.8% 46.4% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 23.4% 23.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.1 28.7 19.6 51.3 17.9 17.9 17.9 19.6 19.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.26 0.18 0.47 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.86 0.83 0.58 0.79 0.44 0.52 0.81 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.3 48.5 66.2 23.0 75.7 47.8 9.8 63.8 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.3 48.5 66.2 23.0 75.7 47.8 9.8 63.8 0.2

L O S EDECEDAEA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 48.6 32.4 37.8 58.9
Approach LOS D C D E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 108.8
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 40.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 796

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1416 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 1) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 603 132 245 716 171 134 124 225 111 136 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 603 132 245 716 171 134 124 225 111 136 21 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 663 145 269 787 188 147 136 247 122 149 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 20 773 169 303 1210 289 320 336 285 142 173 272 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 2946 644 1810 2890 690 1810 1900 1610 837 1022 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 406 402 269 491 484 147 136 247 271 0 23 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1784 1810 1805 1776 1810 1900 1610 1858 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 21.4 21.4 14.5 21.7 21.7 7.3 6.3 14.9 14.2 0.0 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 21.4 21.4 14.5 21.7 21.7 7.3 6.3 14.9 14.2 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 20 474 468 303 756 743 320 336 285 314 0 272 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.65 0.65 0.46 0.40 0.87 0.86 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 91 573 566 413 894 880 377 395 335 415 0 359 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.1 35.1 35.1 40.7 23.2 23.2 36.8 36.5 40.0 40.4 0.0 35.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 10.6 10.9 13.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.8 18.5 13.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 10.0 10.0 7.2 8.4 8.3 3.2 2.9 7.1 7.4 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 54.9 45.7 46.0 54.1 24.5 24.5 37.9 37.2 58.4 53.8 0.0 35.1 L n G r p L O S DDDDCCDDED D
Approach Vol, veh/h 817 1244 530 294
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.9 30.9 47.3 52.4
A p p r o a c h L O S DCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.3 32.4 22.7 5.7 48.0 23.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.8 31.7 22.3 5.0 49.5 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.5 23.4 16.2 2.5 23.7 16.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.8 0.7 0.0 5.8 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 40.4
HCM 7th LOS D
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 797

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1417 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 864 144 490 96 105 168 65 10
Future Volume (vph) 6 864 144 490 96 105 168 65 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52 1688844
Switch Phase
M i n i m u m I n i t i a l ( s ) 5 . 01 0 . 0 5 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 49.0 20.0 59.4 24.0 24.0 24.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (%) 8.0% 40.8% 16.7% 49.5% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 22.5% 22.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
A l l - R e d T i m e ( s ) 1 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.1 38.6 13.3 54.9 15.2 15.2 15.2 18.7 18.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.35 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.88 0.76 0.41 0.70 0.46 0.50 0.80 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 57.5 42.5 70.1 17.6 70.8 51.4 11.1 64.3 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 57.5 42.5 70.1 17.6 70.8 51.4 11.1 64.3 0.1

LOS E D E B E D B E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.6 27.3 38.1 61.4
Approach LOS D C D E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 108.8
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 38.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 798

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1418 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 864 94 144 490 139 96 105 168 151 65 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 864 94 144 490 139 96 105 168 151 65 10 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 19 00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 1005 109 167 570 162 112 122 195 176 76 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 16 1171 127 200 1271 360 263 276 234 206 89 258 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3285 356 1810 2777 787 1810 1900 1610 1282 554 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 552 562 167 370 362 112 122 195 252 0 12 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1836 1810 1805 1758 1810 19 00 1610 1836 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 27.9 27.9 8.9 13.8 13.8 5.6 5.8 11.6 13.1 0.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 27.9 27.9 8.9 13.8 13.8 5.6 5.8 11.6 13.1 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 16 643 654 200 827 805 263 276 234 295 0 258 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.83 0.86 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 92 785 798 283 976 951 335 351 298 396 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 29.4 29.4 42.9 18.2 18.2 38.3 38.4 40.9 40.2 0.0 34.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.8 8.0 8.0 9.9 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.1 14.8 13.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 12.2 12.5 4.3 5.1 5.0 2.4 2.7 5.4 6.7 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 55.3 37.4 37.3 5 2.8 18.6 18.6 39.4 39.5 55.7 53.2 0.0 35.0 L n G r p L O S EDDDBBDDED D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1121 899 429 264
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 24.9 46.9 52.4
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.5 41.3 21.6 5.5 51.3 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.4 42.8 21.2 5.0 53.2 18.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 29.9 15.1 2.4 15.8 13.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.6 0.0 4.2 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.3
HCM 7th LOS D
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 799

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1419 of 1562

Timings Murrieta Road Warehouse (JN 16570)
4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 552 225 653 122 113 210 124 19
Future Volume (vph) 7 552 225 653 122 113 210 124 19
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4
D e t e c t o r P h a s e 52 1688844
Switch Phase
M i n i m u m I n i t i a l ( s ) 5 . 01 0 . 0 5 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 24.2 9.6 33.2 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Total Split (s) 9.6 39.0 27.0 56.4 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split (%) 8.0% 32.5% 22.5% 47.0% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 23.3% 23.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.2 3.6 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
A l l - R e d T i m e ( s ) 1 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.2 26.7 18.0 47.8 16.6 16.6 16.6 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.26 0.17 0.46 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.80 0.78 0.55 0.73 0.41 0.51 0.76 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 57.0 43.0 61.1 21.5 67.7 46.4 10.0 58.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 57.0 43.0 61.1 21.5 67.7 46.4 10.0 58.1 0.2

LOS E D E C E D B E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.2 30.1 35.1 53.7
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 103
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 37.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 800

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1420 of 1562

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Murrieta Road War ehouse (JN 16570) 4: Murrieta Rd. & Ethanac Rd. 08/22/2025
Opening Year With Project (OPTION 2) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTSSynchro 12 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 552 120 225 653 162 122 113 210 106 124 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 7 552 120 225 653 162 122 113 210 106 124 19 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 19 00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 607 132 247 718 178 134 124 231 116 136 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 18 749 162 285 1151 285 311 327 277 140 164 263 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 2950 640 1810 2867 710 1810 1900 1610 855 1002 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 371 368 247 452 444 134 124 231 252 0 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1785 1810 1805 1772 1810 1900 1610 1857 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 17.1 17.2 11.8 17.7 17.7 5.9 5.1 12.3 11.6 0.0 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 17.1 17.2 11.8 17.7 17.7 5.9 5.1 12.3 11.6 0.0 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 18 458 453 285 725 711 311 327 277 303 0 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.81 0.81 0.87 0.62 0.62 0.43 0.38 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 102 669 661 458 1023 1005 413 434 367 466 0 404 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.6 31.0 31.1 36.4 21.2 21.2 32.8 32.5 35.4 35.8 0.0 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 4.8 5.0 5.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 11.8 7.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 7.3 7.3 5.2 6.6 6.5 2.5 2.3 5.4 5.6 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.6 35.8 36.0 42.0 22.0 22.1 33.7 33.2 47.2 43.3 0.0 31.5 LnGrp LOS DDDD CCCCDD C
Approach Vol, veh/h 747 1143 489 273
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.1 26.4 39.9 42.4
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.6 28.7 20.3 5.5 41.7 21.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 5.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.4 32.8 22.2 5.0 50.2 20.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 19.2 13.6 2.4 19.7 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.3 0.8 0.0 5.4 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 33.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 801

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1421 of 1562

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
20341 SW Birch Street | Suite 230 | Newport Beach, CA 92660 | (949) 660-1994 | urbanxroads.com DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Jamie McLaughlin, Ares Industrial Management
FROM: Bill Lawson, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 16570-06 NA
SUBJECT: MURRIETA AND ETHANAC SUPPLEMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT Urban Crossroads, Inc. has completed the following Supplemental Noise Assessment for the Murrieta and Ethanac (Project), which is located east of Geary Street, south of Ethanac Road and west of Murrieta Road in the City of Menifee. The proposed Project is to consist of an approximately 517,720 square foot (SF) industrial warehouse building.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
On November 20, 2024, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared the Noise and Vibration Analysis (NA) for the Project. (1) The Noise Analysis evaluated the existing noise conditions, the off -site traffic noise levels as well as the Project construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. The NA determined that three segments near the Project site will experience Potentially Significant Project- related off-site traffic noise increases. The purpose of this work effort is to evaluate the interim condition in which Geary Street is not improved north of the Project boundary to Ethanac Road.

Instead, Project traffic will utilize Geary Street, and the Circulation Driveway to access the west side of the Project.

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of noise -sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the FICON significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Table 4 -1 of the NA , three of the study area roadway segments were shown to experience potentially significant off-site traffic noise increases due to the proposed Project traffic conditions. The segments are described below. • Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1)
• Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road (Segment #3)
• Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road (Segment #8)
Table 1 presents a summary of the existing conditions incremental noise increases by roadway segment outlined in the NA.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 802

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1422 of 1562

16570-06 NA 2 Murrieta and Ethanac
TABLE 1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 65.9 17.6 5.0 Yes 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 64.9 0.0 3.0 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 69.9 1.8 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation Dwy. Non-Sensitive 68.2 69.3 1.1 n/a No 5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin Rd. Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.2 0.0 n/a No 6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 73.6 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 73.8 74.8 1.0 1.5 No 8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 76.0 1.6 1.5 Yes 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 76.0 1.7 3.0 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 77.2 1.2 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right -of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4 -1)? Table 1 shows that Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) will experience noise level increases of up to 17.6 dBA. However, a review of the existing conditions shows that this roadway segment is currently an unpaved dirt road that passes three existing homes located on Floyd Avenue.

With little to no existing traffic on Geary Street, the existing off-site traffic noise levels on Geary Street south of Ethanac Road were calculated at 48.3 dBA CNEL. The addition of the Project traffic including medium and heavy trucks shows that the off-site traffic noise levels at the right-of-way on Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) are estimated at 65.9 dBA CNEL.

Based on the FICON significance criteria, this impact or perceived increase in noise levels for the homes adjacent to Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) is considered potentially significant. In addition, the NA fully accounts for the Project related truck trips recognizing that the trucks disproportionately influence traffic noise due to their size, weight, engine characteristics, and tire-road interactions, which generate significantly higher noise levels when compared to lighter vehicles like passenger cars.

INTERIM PROJECT ACCESS OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
The purpose of this work effort is to determine whether the proposed interim Project access results in changes to the off-site traffic noise increases and the potentially significant impacts outlined above in Table 1 of the NA. Table 2 presents a summary of the interim off-site traffic noise increases based on the project trip distributions provided in the October 20, 2025, Murrieta Road Warehouse Supplemental Traffic Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2) that sends Project traffic south on Geary Street east on the Circulation Driveway to access the west side of the Project and Murrieta Road. Table 2 shows that interim conditions will eliminate the off-site traffic noise impacts on Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1). In effect, for the interim conditions, no Project traffic will utilize Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1), and therefore, the off-site traffic noise impacts on this segment are considered less than significant.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 803

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1423 of 1562

16570-06 NA 3 Murrieta and Ethanac
TABLE 2 INTERIM OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 48.3 0.0 5.0 No 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 64.9 0.0 3.0 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 71.2 3.1 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation Dwy. Non-Sensitive 68.2 71.3 3.1 n/a No 5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin Rd. Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.2 0.0 n/a No 6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 73.6 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 73.8 73.8 0.0 1.5 No 8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 76.0 1.6 1.5 Yes 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 76.0 1.7 3.0 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 77.2 1.2 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right -of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4 -1)? Table 2 shows that the off-site traffic noise level increases on Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road (Segment #3) and Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road (Segment #8) will remain potentially significant, however, the increase of 1.6 dBA does not change due to the added interim Project traffic conditions on Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road (Segment #8) . Appendix 1 includes the interim off-site traffic noise analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Murrieta Road Warehouse. November 20, 2024.

2. —. Murrieta Road Warehouse Supplemental Traffic Assessment. October 20, 2025.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 804

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1424 of 1562

16570-06 NA Murrieta and Ethanac
This page intentionally left blank
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 805

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1425 of 1562

16570-06 NA Murrieta and Ethanac
APPENDIX 1:

INTERIM OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CALCULATIONS

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 806

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1426 of 1562

16570-06 NA Murrieta and Ethanac
This page intentionally left blank
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 807

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1427 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: EP1
80 10.00%

37.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 8 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

37.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-22.41
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

1.88 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -39.65 1.93 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -43.60 1.92 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.56
-4.87
-5.61
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.851

36.610

36.634
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

44.8 42.8 41.5 35.5 44.543.9

38.8 40.1

34.9 27.4 36.1 42.442.3

36.1 32.7 37.3 43.643.5
Vehicle Noise: 46.8 44.2 42.2 41.1 48.348.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
1 3 136
1 3 136
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 808

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1428 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
3,823

10.00%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 382 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.12
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.48%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.80%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.72%

0.59 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -23.47 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -27.43 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.931

44.733

44.752
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

61.7 59.7 58.4 52.4 61.460.8

55.4 56.2

51.5 44.0 52.8 59.058.9

52.2 48.8 53.4 59.759.6
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.0 59.0 57.7 64.964.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
22 47 220102
23 50 230107
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 809

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1429 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
8,658

10.00%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 866 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.67
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 95.37%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.80%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 2.83%

0.59 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.91 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -17.95 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.931

44.733

44.752
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

65.2 63.2 61.9 55.9 64.964.3

59.0 65.7

55.1 47.6 56.3 62.562.5

61.7 58.3 62.9 69.269.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.9 65.9 63.6 64.4 71.271.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
58 126 584271
60 130 603280
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 810

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1430 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
8,702

10.00%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 870 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.65
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 95.32%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 2.83%

0.59 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.79 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -17.92 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.931

44.733

44.752
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

65.2 63.2 61.9 55.9 64.964.3

59.1 65.8

55.2 47.7 56.4 62.662.6

61.7 58.3 63.0 69.369.2
Vehicle Noise: 69.0 65.9 63.6 64.5 71.371.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 127 588273
61 131 607282
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 811

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1431 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: n/o Mclaughlin Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
8,127

10.00%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 813 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.85
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.48%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.80%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.72%

0.59 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.19 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.15 0.62 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

44.931

44.733

44.752
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

65.0 63.0 61.7 55.7 64.764.1

58.7 59.5

54.8 47.3 56.0 62.262.2

55.5 52.1 56.7 63.062.9
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 64.2 62.3 60.9 68.267.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
36 78 363169
38 82 381177
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 812

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1432 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: w/o Geary St.

Road Name: Ethanac Rd.

Scenario: EP1
12,430

10.00%

53.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,243 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
55 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.88
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

1.99 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

82.40 -19.12 2.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000

86.40 -23.07 2.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.66
-4.87
-5.40
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.235

35.990

36.014
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

70.7 68.7 67.4 61.4 70.469.8

64.1 64.2

60.2 52.7 61.5 67.767.6

60.1 56.7 61.4 67.767.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 69.8 67.9 66.2 73.673.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
87 187 870404
92 197 915425
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 813

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1433 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: w/o Murrieta Rd.

Road Name: Ethanac Rd.

Scenario: EP1
13,200

10.00%

53.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,320 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
55 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.62
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

1.99 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

82.40 -18.86 2.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000

86.40 -22.81 2.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.66
-4.87
-5.40
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.235

35.990

36.014
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

71.0 68.9 67.6 61.6 70.770.0

64.4 64.4

60.5 53.0 61.7 67.967.9

60.4 57.0 61.6 67.967.8
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 70.0 68.1 66.4 73.873.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
91 195 906420
95 205 953442
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 814

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1434 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: e/o Murrieta Rd.

Road Name: Ethanac Rd.

Scenario: EP1
15,462

10.00%

53.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,546 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
55 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.99
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 96.15%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.91%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 1.95%

1.99 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

82.40 -18.01 2.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000

86.40 -17.93 2.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.66
-4.87
-5.40
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.235

35.990

36.014
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

71.6 69.6 68.3 62.3 71.370.7

65.2 69.3

61.3 53.8 62.6 68.868.8

65.3 61.9 66.5 72.872.7
Vehicle Noise: 74.2 71.4 69.3 69.0 76.075.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
129 277 1,287597
134 288 1,339621
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 815

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1435 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: w/o Barnett Rd.

Road Name: Ethanac Rd.

Scenario: EP1
15,505

10.00%

53.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,551 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
55 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.97
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 96.26%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.83%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 1.91%

1.99 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

82.40 -18.18 2.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000

86.40 -17.99 2.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.66
-4.87
-5.40
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.235

35.990

36.014
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

71.6 69.6 68.3 62.3 71.370.7

65.1 69.2

61.2 53.7 62.4 68.668.6

65.2 61.8 66.4 72.772.6
Vehicle Noise: 74.2 71.4 69.3 68.9 76.075.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
128 275 1,275592
133 286 1,327616
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 816

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1436 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 16570
Road Segment: e/o Barnett Rd.

Road Name: Ethanac Rd.

Scenario: EP1
22,455

10.00%

53.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,246 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
55 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.65 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 96.62%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.83%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 1.55%

1.99 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

82.40 -16.56 2.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000

86.40 -17.30 2.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.66
-4.87
-5.40
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

36.235

35.990

36.014
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

73.2 71.2 69.9 63.9 72.972.3

66.7 69.9

62.8 55.3 64.0 70.270.2

65.9 62.5 67.1 73.473.3
Vehicle Noise: 75.5 72.8 70.8 70.1 77.276.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
153 330 1,531711
160 344 1,597741
Monday, January 26, 2026
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 817

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1437 of 1562

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
20341 SW Birch Street | Suite 230 | Newport Beach, CA 92660 | (949) 660-1994 | urbanxroads.com DATE: August 4, 2025
TO: Jamie McLaughlin, Ares Industrial Management
FROM: Bill Lawson, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 16570-04 Noise Eval
SUBJECT: MURRIETA AND ETHANAC NOISE ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has completed the following Noise Assessment for the Murrieta and Ethanac (Project), which is located at east of Geary Street, south of Ethanac Road and west of Murrieta Road in the City of Menifee. The proposed Project is to consist of an approximately 517,720 square foot (SF) industrial warehouse building.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
On November 20, 2024, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared the Noise and Vibration Analysis (NA) for the Project. (1) The Noise Analysis evaluated the existing noise conditions, the off -site traffic noise levels as well as the Project construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. The NA determined that three segments near the Project site will experience Potentially Significant Project- related traffic noise increases. The purpose of this work effort is to explore why this Project triggers significant impacts when the off-site traffic noise impacts for other recently approved Projects were less than significant. For this evaluation, we reviewed the following recently approved noise studies completed by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
• Northern Gateway Logistics Center Acoustical Assessment, April 2024. • CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Acoustical Assessment, March 2024

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The analysis shows that using the same assumptions as the Kimley Horn Acoustical Assessments, the Murrieta and Ethanac off-site traffic noise impacts would be considered less than significant for the study area roadway segments

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 818

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1438 of 1562

16570-05 Noise Eval 2 Murrieta and Ethanac

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of noise -sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the FICON significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Table 4 -1 of the NA , three of the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant off -site traffic noise increases due to the proposed Project traffic conditions. The segments are described below. • Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1)
• Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road (Segment #3)
• Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road (Segment #8)
Table 1 presents a summary of the existing conditions incremental noise increases by roadway segment outlined in the NA.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 65.9 17.6 5.0 Yes 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 64.9 0.0 3.0 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 69.9 1.8 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation Dwy. Non-Sensitive 68.2 69.3 1.1 n/a No 5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin Rd. Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.2 0.0 n/a No 6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 73.6 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 73.8 74.8 1.0 1.5 No 8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 76.0 1.6 1.5 Yes 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 76.0 1.7 3.0 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 77.2 1.2 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? Table 1 shows that Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) will experience noise level increases of up to 17.6 dBA. However, a review of the existing conditions show that this roadway segment is currently an unpaved dirt road that passes three existing homes located on Floyd Avenue.

With little to no existing traffic on Geary Street, the off-site traffic noise levels on Geary Street south of Ethanac Road were calculated at 48.3 dBA CNEL. The addition of the Project traffic including medium and heavy trucks shows that the off-site traffic noise levels at the right-of-way are estimated at 65.9 dBA CNEL.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 819

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1439 of 1562

16570-05 Noise Eval 3 Murrieta and Ethanac
Based on the FICON significance criteria, this impact or perceived increase in noise levels for the homes adjacent to Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) is considered potentially significant. In addition, the NA fully accounts for the Project related truck trips recognizing that the trucks disproportionately influence traffic noise due to their size, weight, engine characteristics, and tire-road interactions, which generate significantly higher noise levels compared to lighter vehicles like passenger cars.

ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
A review of the recently approved Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., Acoustical Assessments (AA) (2) shows that the off-site traffic noise analysis assumptions differ substantially from those used in the NA. Both studies rely on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108 (19) with adjustments for the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels (21). However, a comparison of the AA and the NA shows the following key differences.

1. The AA does not evaluate the existing without project conditions. On page 18 of the CADO Acoustical Assessment, the dirt roads are not analyzed and are simply labeled as “N/A”.

2. All off-site traffic noise levels in the AA are measured at a uniform distance of 100 feet from the centerline. The NA evaluates the traffic noise levels at the edge of the right -of-way of the adjacent land use. For Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1), this places the receiver at 37 feet from the centerline, substantially closer than the AA.

3. The AA does not account for the heavy truck component of the Project. The NA recognizes that the addition of the Project related truck trips increases the percentage of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix.

4. The AA suggests that vehicles traveling on unpaved and gravel roads are 4-dBA louder than vehicles on paved roads.

Table 2 presents a summary of the off -site traffic noise levels using the same assumptions outlined in the AA. Using the AA assumptions, the calculations included in Appendix 1 show that the Project related off-site traffic noise increases will range from 0.0 to 6.7 dBA CNEL. Only Geary Street south of Ethanac Road (Segment #1) is shown to experience potentially significant off-site traffic noise impacts using the AA methodology. However, if we include the 4 dBA reduction to reflect the paved road consistent with AA, the Project noise increase is reduced to 2.7 dBA CNEL. The analysis shows that using the same approved off-site traffic methodology from AA, the Project impacts would be considered less than significant on all the study area roadway segments.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 820

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1440 of 1562

16570-05 Noise Eval 4 Murrieta and Ethanac
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 41.8 48.5 2.74 5.0 No 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 59.8 59.9 0.1 5.0 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 63.0 63.3 0.3 3.0 No 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation Dwy. Non-Sensitive 63.1 63.3 0.2 n/a No 5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin Rd. Non-Sensitive 63.1 63.2 0.1 n/a No 6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 67.5 67.5 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 67.7 67.8 0.1 1.5 No 8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 68.3 68.4 0.1 1.5 No 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.4 0.2 n/a No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 69.9 70.0 0.1 n/a No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 4 Includes the 4 dBA reduction to reflect the paved road consistent with AA.

REFERENCES

1. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Murrieta Road Warehouse. November 20, 2024.

2. Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project. March 2024.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.

4. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 821

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1441 of 1562

16570-05 Noise Eval Murrieta and Ethanac
This page intentionally left blank
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 822

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1442 of 1562

16570-05 Noise Eval Murrieta and Ethanac
APPENDIX 1:

AA OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CALCULATIONS

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 823

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1443 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: E
80 10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 8 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-22.41
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -39.65 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -43.60 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

38.3 36.3 35.0 29.0 38.037.4

32.3 33.6

28.4 20.9 29.6 35.835.8

29.5 26.1 30.8 37.137.0
Vehicle Noise: 40.3 37.7 35.6 34.6 41.841.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
1 3 136
1 3 136
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: EP1
368

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 37 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-15.79
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -33.02 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -36.98 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

44.9 42.9 41.6 35.6 44.644.0

38.9 40.2

35.0 27.5 36.2 42.442.4

36.2 32.8 37.4 43.743.6
Vehicle Noise: 46.9 44.3 42.3 41.2 48.548.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
3 8 3516
4 8 3717
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: EP2
332

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 33 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-16.22
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -33.46 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -37.42 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

44.5 42.5 41.1 35.1 44.243.6

38.4 39.8

34.5 27.0 35.8 42.042.0

35.7 32.3 37.0 43.343.2
Vehicle Noise: 46.5 43.8 41.8 40.8 48.047.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
3 7 3315
3 7 3416
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: OY
86 10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 9 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-22.09
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -39.33 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -43.29 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

38.6 36.6 35.3 29.3 38.337.7

32.6 33.9

28.7 21.2 29.9 36.136.1

29.9 26.4 31.1 37.437.3
Vehicle Noise: 40.6 38.0 36.0 34.9 42.141.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
1 3 136
1 3 146
Friday, August 1, 2025
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 824

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1444 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: OYP1
374

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 37 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-15.72
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -32.95 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -36.91 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

45.0 43.0 41.7 35.6 44.744.1

39.0 40.3

35.1 27.5 36.3 42.542.5

36.2 32.8 37.5 43.843.7
Vehicle Noise: 47.0 44.3 42.3 41.3 48.548.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
4 8 3516
4 8 3717
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Geary St.

Scenario: OYP2
338

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 34 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-16.15
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.62
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -33.39 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -37.34 -4.61 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

99.945

99.856

99.865
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

44.5 42.5 41.2 35.2 44.343.6

38.5 39.8

34.6 27.1 35.9 42.142.0

35.8 32.4 37.0 43.343.2
Vehicle Noise: 46.6 43.9 41.9 40.9 48.147.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
3 7 3315
3 7 3516
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: E
3,730

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 373 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.23
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -23.47 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -27.43 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

56.6 54.6 53.2 47.2 56.355.7

50.3 51.2

46.4 38.9 47.7 53.953.8

47.1 43.7 48.4 54.754.6
Vehicle Noise: 58.4 55.8 53.8 52.6 59.859.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 43 20093
21 45 21097
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
3,823

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 382 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.13
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -23.36 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -27.32 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

56.7 54.7 53.4 47.3 56.455.8

50.4 51.3

46.5 39.0 47.8 54.054.0

47.2 43.8 48.5 54.854.7
Vehicle Noise: 58.5 55.9 54.0 52.7 59.959.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 44 20495
21 46 21499
Friday, August 1, 2025
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 825

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1445 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP2
3,823

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 382 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.13
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -23.36 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -27.32 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

56.7 54.7 53.4 47.3 56.455.8

50.4 51.3

46.5 39.0 47.8 54.054.0

47.2 43.8 48.5 54.854.7
Vehicle Noise: 58.5 55.9 54.0 52.7 59.959.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 44 20495
21 46 21499
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OY
16,710

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,671 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.96 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.92 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

63.1 61.1 59.8 53.7 62.862.2

56.8 57.7

52.9 45.4 54.2 60.460.4

53.6 50.2 54.9 61.261.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.9 62.3 60.4 59.1 66.366.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 117 545253
57 123 571265
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP1
16,803

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,680 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.30 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.94 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.89 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

63.1 61.1 59.8 53.8 62.862.2

56.9 57.7

53.0 45.5 54.2 60.460.4

53.7 50.3 54.9 61.261.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.9 62.3 60.4 59.1 66.466.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 118 547254
57 123 573266
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP2
16,803

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,680 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.30 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.94 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.89 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

63.1 61.1 59.8 53.8 62.862.2

56.9 57.7

53.0 45.5 54.2 60.460.4

53.7 50.3 54.9 61.261.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.9 62.3 60.4 59.1 66.466.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 118 547254
57 123 573266
Friday, August 1, 2025
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 826

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1446 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: E
7,710

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 771 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.08
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.32 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.27 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

59.7 57.7 56.4 50.4 59.458.8

53.5 54.3

49.6 42.1 50.8 57.057.0

50.3 46.9 51.5 57.857.7
Vehicle Noise: 61.6 59.0 57.0 55.7 63.062.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
33 70 325151
34 73 341158
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
8,371

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 837 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.72
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.96 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.92 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.1 58.1 56.8 50.7 59.859.2

53.8 54.7

49.9 42.4 51.2 57.457.4

50.6 47.2 51.9 58.258.1
Vehicle Noise: 61.9 59.3 57.4 56.1 63.363.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 74 343159
36 78 360167
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP2
8,406

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 841 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.71
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.94 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.90 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.1 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.859.2

53.9 54.7

50.0 42.4 51.2 57.457.4

50.7 47.3 51.9 58.258.1
Vehicle Noise: 61.9 59.3 57.4 56.1 63.463.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 74 344160
36 78 361168
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OY
8,730

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 873 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.54
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.78 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.74 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.3 58.3 56.9 50.9 60.059.3

54.0 54.9

50.1 42.6 51.4 57.657.5

50.8 47.4 52.1 58.458.3
Vehicle Noise: 62.1 59.5 57.5 56.3 63.563.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
35 76 353164
37 80 370172
Friday, August 1, 2025
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 827

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1447 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP1
9,391

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 939 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.22
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.46 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.42 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.6 58.6 57.3 51.2 60.359.7

54.3 55.2

50.4 42.9 51.7 57.957.9

51.1 47.7 52.4 58.758.6
Vehicle Noise: 62.4 59.8 57.9 56.6 63.863.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 80 371172
39 84 389180
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: s/o Ethanac Rd.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP2
9,426

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 943 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.21
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.45 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.40 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.6 58.6 57.3 51.3 60.359.7

54.4 55.2

50.5 42.9 51.7 57.957.9

51.2 47.8 52.4 58.758.6
Vehicle Noise: 62.4 59.8 57.9 56.6 63.963.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 80 372173
39 84 390181
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: E
7,940

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 794 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.95
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.19 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.15 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

59.8 57.8 56.5 50.5 59.658.9

53.6 54.5

49.7 42.2 51.0 57.257.1

50.4 47.0 51.7 58.057.9
Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.1 57.1 55.8 63.162.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
33 71 332154
35 75 348161
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP1
8,205

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 821 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.81
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.05 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.00 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.0 58.0 56.7 50.7 59.759.1

53.7 54.6

49.9 42.3 51.1 57.357.3

50.6 47.1 51.8 58.158.0
Vehicle Noise: 61.8 59.2 57.3 56.0 63.363.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 73 339157
36 77 355165
Friday, August 1, 2025
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 828

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
1448 of 1562

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: EP2
8,185

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 819 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.82
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.06 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.01 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.0 58.0 56.7 50.6 59.759.1

53.7 54.6

49.8 42.3 51.1 57.357.3

50.5 47.1 51.8 58.158.0
Vehicle Noise: 61.8 59.2 57.3 56.0 63.262.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 73 338157
35 76 355165
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OY
9,120

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 912 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.35
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.59 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.55 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.5 58.4 57.1 51.1 60.259.5

54.2 55.1

50.3 42.8 51.6 57.857.7

51.0 47.6 52.3 58.658.5
Vehicle Noise: 62.3 59.7 57.7 56.4 63.763.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
36 78 364169
38 82 381177
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP1
9,385

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 939 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.23
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.46 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.42 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

97.564

97.473

97.482
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn

60.6 58.6 57.3 51.2 60.359.7

54.3 55.2

50.4 42.9 51.7 57.957.9

51.1 47.7 52.4 58.758.6
Vehicle Noise: 62.4 59.8 57.9 56.6 63.863.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 80 371172
39 84 389180
Friday, August 1, 2025
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Murrieta Road Warehouse
Job Number: 15382
Road Segment: n/o Circulation Dwy.

Road Name: Murrieta Rd.

Scenario: OYP2
9,365

10.00%
100.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 937 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
100.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
45 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 45 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.24
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.6% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
-4.46
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.47 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.43 -4.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.77
-4.88
-5.16
Medium Trucks: