HomeMy WebLinkAboutISEA-041709
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 8 – RIV – 15, KP 8.9/15.4 (PM 5.5/9.607); 215 KP R13.5/R15.7 (PM R8.430/R9.756) 08-432700 Initial
Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Prepared by the City of Temecula and State of California Department of Transportation The environmental review,
consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable Federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 April 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT What’s in this document: The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Department), as assigned by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have prepared this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA), which examines the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives being
considered for the proposed project located in Riverside County, California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, alternatives for the project, the existing environment
that could be affected by the project, the potential impacts from each of the alternatives, and the proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures. What you should do: Please
read this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Additional copies of this document as well as the technical studies are available for review at the City of Temecula, Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92589-9033. The document is also available at the following locations: Grace Mellman Community Library 41000 County Center Drive Temecula,
California 92589-9033 Temecula Public Library 30600 Pauba Road Temecula, California 92592 City of Murrieta Planning Department One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, California
92562-7022 Murrieta Public Library 39589 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, California 92563-5026 Attend the public open house scheduled on May 7, 2009, from 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM, at the City of
Temecula – Field Operations Center located at 43200 Business Park Drive. We welcome your comments. If you have any comments regarding the proposed project, please attend the public open
house on May 7, 2009 and/or send your written comments to the City of Temecula by May 22, 2009. Submit comments via postal mail to: Attn: Mr. Patrick Richardson City Planner City of
Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Submit comments via email to: FrenchValley.EnvDoc@CityofTemecula.org. Submit comments by the deadline: May 22, 2009. What happens
next: After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, the Department, as assigned by the FHWA, may: (1) give environmental approval to the proposed project; (2) undertake
additional environmental studies; or (3) abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is appropriated, the Department could provide Design oversight
and construct all or part of the project. For individuals with disabilities, the City of Temecula will make necessary accommodations to provide the document in a suitable format. To
obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call 951-694-6400 or write to Patrick Richardson, City Planner, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
′or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice).
This page intentionally left blank
SCH#: __________ 08-RIV-15, KP 8.9/15.4 (PM 5.5/9.607); 08-RIV-215 KP R13.5/R15.7 (PM R8.430/R9.756) EA 08-432700 Construction of a new interchange, French Valley Parkway at Interstate
15 (I-15), between the existing Winchester Road (State Route 79, SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction, along with enhancements to facilitate improved operations on the
existing mainline facility, on a portion of I-15 between the existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (including related improvements to the related
portion of I-215 from the I-15/I-215 juncture to just south of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-215 Interchange), within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in Riverside County, California.
INITIAL STUDY WITH PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2)(C)
THE CITY OF TEMECULA in cooperation with THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation ______________________ ______________________ Date of Approval Patrick Richardson City Planner
City of Temecula ______________________ ______________________ Date of Approval Gina Moran Deputy District Director (Acting) District 8 Division of Environmental Planning California
Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank
SCH No._____________ 08-RIV-15, KP 8.9/15.4 (PM 5.5/9.607); 08-RIV-215 KP R13.5/R15.7 (PM R8.430/R9.756) French Valley Parkway Improvements EA 08-432700 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Description The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Department) proposes improvements on
a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15) between the existing Winchester Road (State Route 79, SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the vicinity of the I-15/Interstate 215
(I-215) junction (including related improvements to the related portion of I-215 from the I-15/I-215 juncture to just south of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-215 Interchange), within
the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in Riverside County, California, in an effort to relieve traffic congestion and to improve safety and operational efficiency within the project limits.
The proposed project features construction of a new interchange, French Valley Parkway at I-15, between the existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction,
along with enhancements to facilitate improved operations on the existing mainline facility. French Valley Parkway would be constructed as a six-lane arterial highway from Jefferson
to Ynez. Auxiliary lanes would be provided in both the northbound and southbound directions. An up to three-lane collector distributor (C/D) system would be constructed parallel to I-15
between the I-15/I-215 confluence and Winchester Road in both the northbound and southbound directions. Determination This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is included to
give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is the City of Temecula’s intent, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation, to adopt an MND for this
project. This does not mean that the City’s decision regarding the project is final. This proposed MND is subject to modification based on comments received by interested agencies and
the public. The City of Temecula has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have
a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: • The proposed project would have no effect on the coastal zone; wild and scenic rivers; parks and recreation facilities;
farmlands and timberlands; water supply, wastewater, and solid waste; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These resources are either not in the study area or would not be affected
by the proposed project. • There would be a less than significant effect on future land uses; community character and cohesion within the community; and cultural resources. The proposed
project is reflected in the current General Plans and other local documents and is located within an existing major transportation corridor. • In addition, the proposed project would
have less than significant effects on the following because of the incorporation of best management practices, standard provisions, and implementation of applicable rules and regulations:
existing land use and relocation; utilities and emergency services; traffic and transportation; visual resources; hydrology and floodplain; water quality and storm water runoff; geology,
soils, seismicity, and topography; paleontological resources; hazardous waste/materials; noise; and, natural resources, including sensitive species and wetlands. • The proposed project
would have no significantly adverse effect on Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat (up to 2.85 hectares may be affected by the project) or riparian vegetation (up to 0.89 hectare may be
affected by the project) because the following mitigation measures would reduce potential effects to less than significant: Mitigation for impacts on the Los Angeles pocket mouse includes
the purchase of high quality habitat along the San Jacinto River to provide “core” or “live-in” habitat. A riparian mitigation approach has been developed that includes riparian habitat
creation or payment of in-lieu fees to a regional conservation authority that will use these fees for ongoing restoration and management of existing riparian resources in the region.
Name: ________________________________ Date: __________________ PATRICK RICHARDSON City Planner City of Temecula
This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 1 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study SUMMARY UOverview of the Project Area Interstate 15 (I-15) is a north-south freeway that provides
regional access for the cities of Murrieta and Temecula and adjacent portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The I-15 provides access to the San Diego metropolitan area to the south,
which is a large employment center for residents of the area. To the north, the freeway provides access to employment centers in the city of Corona and in the Los Angeles metropolitan
area via State Route 60 and Interstate 10. To the north, the freeway also provides access to employment opportunities in the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino via Interstate 215
(I-215), which has a junction with I-15 in the city of Murrieta. The project site is located in an urbanized area of Riverside County, California, in the vicinity of I-15, a major transportation
corridor. Existing development in the project area includes office, commercial, and light industrial uses as well as scattered residential uses along both sides of the I-15 (see Figure
2-1, Land Use Designations). The current land use designation for the portion of the project study area that occurs within the city of Temecula is commercial with two exceptions: (1)
Santa Gertrudis Creek is designated as “open space” and (2) the property immediately south of Overland Drive and east of I-15 is designated for industrial use. The portion of the project
study area that occurs within the city of Murrieta is designated with a mix of land uses, including Commercial, MultI-Use, Industrial-Business Park, and Residential. The triangular-shaped
area associated with the junction of I-15 and I-215 and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north is designated on the city of Murrieta General Plan as Specific Plan Area 276 and is approved
for a regional shopping mall. The area west of I-15 has a General Plan designation of “MultI-Use.” This land use designation is broad and allows the flexibility to respond to market
and location considerations. The General Plan anticipated this area to be developed as Business Park and freeway-serving commercial. Currently, the area is not completely built out consistent
with the ultimate land use designation and is undeveloped land, interspersed with occasional single-family housing units. The General Plan land use designation for the portion of the
project study area that occurs east of I-15 is Regional Commercial, Residential, and Industrial Business Park. The Regional Commercial area is adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
has been developed as a shopping center. The area south of the commercial use is designated for residential use and has been developed with single-family residential homes. The majority
of the area, designated “Industrial Business Park,” has not been developed. It is noted that this area includes a mobile home park, which is located off Jackson Avenue and Elm Street,
adjacent to Warm Springs Creek. I-15 is included in the National Network for Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) for oversized trucks. I-15 is also on the Single Interstate
Routing System. I-15 is a major truck and passenger route. I-15 starts as an interstate, at the junction of I-15 and Interstate 8 (I-8) in San Diego, and ends at the U.S./Canadian border
in Montana.
2 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The Route Concept Fact Sheet for I-15 (Caltrans 1999) specifies that the concept facility for
the I-15 in the vicinity of the Winchester Road interchange consists of eight mixed-flow lanes plus two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) includes both phases of the proposed project. Phase I is identified in the RTIP as the design and construction of French Valley Parkway from the I-15 to Jefferson; the
southbound exit ramp; the southbound auxiliary lane from French Valley Parkway to Winchester Road; and the widening of the Winchester Road southbound exit ramp (Project ID No. 991202).
Phase II is identified as (1) the construction of the six-lane interchange of French Valley Parkway from Ynez to Jefferson, including the ramps, the northbound and southbound auxiliary
lanes and collector/distributor lanes (three northbound and three southbound) and (2) modification of of the Winchester Road Interchange (Project ID No. RIV031215). Purpose and Need
Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to accomplish the following specific objectives: • To reduce current and projected traffic congestion on the ramps and freeway mainline
in the project area. • To improve safety and operations between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 Junction. • To provide alternative vehicular access to I-15 that will also provide
operational improvement to the I-15/Winchester Road interchange. • To provide improvements to accommodate projected growth and to facilitate local circulation consistent with the General
Plans of the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Need Based on field observations (LSA Associates 2004), there are two existing operational deficiencies in the project area. During the
AM peak hour of traffic, the queue on the southbound I-15 off-ramp for Winchester Road extends well back onto the freeway mainline, sometimes as far as the I-15/I-215 junction. This
first deficiency occurs because the intersection at the ramp terminus cannot accommodate the number of vehicles that the freeway on-ramp feeds to it. The second operational deficiency,
which occurs on the northbound I-15 during the PM peak hour of traffic, occurs at the Winchester Road direct on-ramp. Traffic in this area breaks down and causes queuing back to the
intersection at the ramp terminus. The inadequate gaps for on-ramp traffic results in heavy proportions of mainline traffic in the right lanes and, in turn, the merge area becomes congested
to the extent that it fails to operate efficiently. A review of the growth projections for the area indicates continuing growth in the region served by the Project. According to the
Southern California Association of
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 3 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Governments (SCAG), southern California has been growing eastward and is projected to continue
to grow toward fringe areas (2008). Riverside County has been a main recipient of this growth trend. The population in Riverside County is projected to increase from 1.5 million in 2000
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000) to 2.87 million in 2020 (County of Riverside 2002), an increase of 86.0 percent. The Route Concept Fact Sheet for I-15 (California Department of Transportation,
District 8 March 1999) projects that daily traffic volume on the segment of I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-215 junction will reach 193,000 vehicles by 2015, up from 100,000 in
the base year of 1996. With this growth, there will be a continuing deterioration in the level of service within the study area. In addition to existing and projected deficient level
of service, the Department’s Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) has identified that overall, the accident rate for the southbound I-15 in the study area is above
the state average. The highest percent of accidents on the I-15 mainline were categorized as rear-end type collisions for both the northbound and southbound directions. These collisions
were not associated with any adverse weather factors as they took place during daylight in clear, dry conditions. Therefore, these accidents seem to be congestion related. The proposed
improvements would relieve traffic congestion and consequently reduce those accidents related to traffic congestion. The proposed project addresses (1) the inadequate weaving distance
and interchange spacing between the two interchanges and (2) the spacing between French Valley Parkway and the I-15/I-215 Junction with a C/D system. This will alleviate traffic congestion,
improve mainline operation and safety, and reduce accident frequency. Proposed Action The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the Department, is proposing improvements, featuring construction
of a new interchange, on a portion of Interstate 15 between the existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the vicinity of the I-15/I-215 junction
(including improvements to the related portion of I-215), within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in Riverside County, California, in an effort to relieve traffic congestion and to
improve safety and operational efficiency within the project limits (see Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity; Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map; and Figure 1-3, Aerial View of Study Area). The proposed
project limits are identified in relation to I-15, from approximately Kilopost (KP) 8.9 (Postmile, PM 5.5) which is south of the Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange, to KP 15.4
(PM 9.607), in the vicinity of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed project will include improvements to the related portion of I-215, from the I-15/I-215 Juncture
to just south of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-215 interchange (KP R13.5/R15.7 [PM R8.430/R9.756]). Better levels of service are expected for motorists traveling through this area
as a result of the interchange improvements. Alternatives Considered This IS/EA evaluates a No Action Alternative and a Build Alternative, also referred to as “the proposed project,”
which is the locally preferred alternative. Though other build alternatives were evaluated through the planning process, only one proposed build alternative was determined to meet the
operational requirements and therefore
4 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study only one build alternative was carried forward into this IS/EA. This determination was made through
two study processes. The project requires a formal Value Analysis (VA) Study, which is a specialized examination of a proposed project. The VA Study for this proposed project (performed
between July and October of 2003) focused on alternatives that would minimize or eliminate weaving problems between interchanges and possible cost savings strategies. In addition, the
proposed project was evaluated as part of an FHWA Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop. At this three-day workshop (December 9 to 11, 2003), experts from all
disciplines representing the federal government, State governments, and consultant firms met to discuss and share their ideas on project concepts and how to accelerate the delivery of
the project. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is considered the base case scenario scenario and proposes that no improvements be implemented at this time. There would
be no new interchange or modifications to the existing Winchester Road interchange. The mainline inside shoulders would remain non-standard. Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally
Preferred Alternative) The Build Alternative, Proposed Project (Locally Preferred Alternative), features construction of a new interchange, French Valley Parkway at I-15, between the
existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction, and also includes modifications of the existing Winchester Road interchange; modifications to the non-standard
mainline inside shoulders; auxiliary lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions; construction of a C/D road system; and changes to local roads. An up to three-lane C/D roadway
system would be constructed parallel to I-15. In the southbound direction, the C/D system would start north of the I-15/I-215 confluence and would provide access to both French Valley
Parkway and Winchester Road. The southbound I-215 connector splits to provide access to the I-15 southbound mainline and the southbound C/D system. The southbound I-15 mainline would
split north of the I-15/I-215 connector in order to provide access to the southbound C/D system. In the northbound direction, this system would start at Winchester Road and would provide
direct access from the mainline to French Valley Parkway. The loop on-ramp, in combination with the direct on-ramp, from Winchester Road provides two-lanes northbound to French Valley
Parkway. A third lane is added at French Valley Parkway, which then splits to provide two lanes to both the northbound I-215 and the northbound I-15. The C/D system is being proposed
in order to relieve mainline congestion in this area, caused by weaving. This system would remove large numbers of commuters who are entering or exiting the freeway in this area from
the mainline. French Valley Parkway would be constructed as a six-lane arterial highway from Jefferson to Ynez. Throughout this environmental document, the proposed new interchange will
be referred to as the “French Valley Parkway Interchange.” The design of the proposed project would be in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The cost for this alternative is currently projected to be $140.846 million. The construction of the project would be phased with the auxiliary lane at the southbound Winchester Road
off-ramp to provide a two-lane off-ramp, including widening of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge and the
National Angeles Forest Camp Pendleton Cleveland National Forest Lake Mathews Los Angeles San Bernardino Orange San Diego Riverside [ Project Location §¨15 §¨215 §¨405 §¨105 §¨10 §¨5
§¨710 §¨210 §¨110 §¨605 §¨10 §¨15 §¨15 §¨10 §¨5 §¨210 ST1 ST138 ST18 ST173 ST38 ST14 ST60 ST73 ST79ST74 ST330 ST22 ST91 ST2 ST30 ST19 ST241 ST247 ST90 ST261ST142 ST39 ST72 ST110 ST213
ST71 ST55 ST133 ST134 ST57 ST710 ST241 ST138 ST79 ST18 ST91 ST74 ST2 ST18 ST60 ST79 tu395 Corona Irvine Anaheim Temecula Palmdale Pasadena Riverside Long Beach Los Angeles Moreno Valley
San Bernardino San Lake Apple Viejo Beach Santa Rancho Valley Rialto Perris Rancho Downey Carson Ontario Yucaipa Mission Elsinore Hesperia Redlands San Juan Whittier Clemente Lakewood
Glendale Cucamonga Margarita Lancaster Santa Ana Hawthorne Capistrano Huntington Costa Mesa Buena Park Seal Beach Victorville Canyon Lake Westminster Yorba Linda West Covina Laguna Beach
Lucerne Valley P A C I F I C O C E A N Regional Location French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 1-1 ² 10 5 0 10Miles R:/Projects/Moffatt/J004/Graphics/June2006/Figure1-1_RL_RIR_062006.pdf
D:/Projects/Moffatt/J004/Ex_RL_winchester_081705.mxd
Local Vicinity French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 1-2 R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Ex1-2_LV_061808.pdf Hayes Jefferson Ynez Diaz Washington Madison Winchester
Fig Solana Date Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson Monroe Zevo Rancho California State Douglass Rio Nedo Overland Whitewood Los Alamos a Del Rio Hoover Via Taffia Oak Cliff Sky Canyon Rockcrest
Daphne Augusta Via Industria Vista Murrieta Pradera Avenida Alvarado Bonaire Cara Wildflower Cherry Marian Pear Shoshone Roripaugh Remington Via la Vida Shaw Corning Highbury Miles Ada
Parkside Stanford Odessa Elm Rustic Glen Rodeo St Michel Birchtree mprano Eastman Rycrest Knollridge Via Princessa Moraga orne Enterprise Chantemar Cristo del Reyo General Kearny Santa
Cec Lyndie Lucille Willow Crest Nick Rancho Addison Commerce Center Corte Cantera Equity Senna Creative La Colima Plaza Alond go Pearl Walsh Center Business Park Sarah Montseratt Via
Montalvo Old Spring Symeron Stonewood Jon Christian Valle Olvera Eleanora Regan Mira Loma Calle del Lago Rider June Buckley Skypark Via Las Flores Via de Cristo Avoyer Swallow Los Nogales
Lomas Brownestone County Center Hobie Anguilla Via Puesta del Sol Catalina Papaya Skywood Barclay Starling Bahama Kucera Motor Car Park Plaza Rainbow Creek Myers Monserate Carmelita
Madrone Bolandra Golden Gate Carrigan Alta Murrieta Evergreen Ridgeplume Shadescale Rosebay Ramshorn Courtney Avenida Cima del Sol Calle Patron Bostik Via la Paloma Via de Larga Vida
Medical Center Tec Colt April Carleton Barbados Cedarwood Palermo Blackdeer Via Las Colinas Calle Madero Corte Coelho Brandy Kim Wh Alcalde Via Vueltas Ramsey Buecking Beckman Calle
del Buho Avenida del Sol Old Carriage Majello Naples Las Haciendas Street F Springtime Tamarisk Mimulus Rancho Club Rising Hill Shorewood Georgetown Vail Brook Monte Carlo Raintree Larchmont
Calle Montecello Camino Seco Kelvin Primrose Corte Tolano Monte Verde McCabe Palamino Windwood Street D Aqua Vista Woodside Sanborn Pinehurst Via Montezuma Kasot Warbler Jan Valerie
Via Roja Roja Levan Willow Via Escarlata Calle Empleado Sondra Brandeis Sweetbrier Avenida Vista Ladera Sandalwood Willowick Raye ras Calle Pantano Avenida Verde Rancho Highland Via
Dos Picos Ginko e Las Via Chacras Paseo de Oro Corporate Center Cedar Calle Pina Colada Calle Cisne Pasada Tierra Vista Camino Verdes Tanager Terrill Center Elgin Eternity Canyon Rim
Laurel Creek Milos Via la Espalda Meadowlark Ridge n Irving M Lark Valle Verde Luz del Sol Madison Winchester Date Hawthorn Rancho California Fig Avenida del Oro Jackson Elm Brown Date
Elm A Fig Guava Cherry Willows Monroe Elm ¨§¦1 5 ¨§¦1 5 Murrietta Creek De Luz Creek Margarita Road Temecula Murrieta Temecula Murrieta Hot Springs Riverside County (Unincorporated)
Warm Springs Creek Santa Gertrudis Creek Ranchwood Buffy Stacy Summer Hill Double Eagle Golf Center The Promenade of Temecula Palm Plaza Shopping Center Winchester Square Shopping Center
CHP DMV Fire Station Plaza Seville Murrieta Spring Plaza Winchester Marketplace Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Fire Station Murrieta City Hall Murrieta Town Center Rancho Temecula Plaza
Riverside County Library Riverside County Courthouse Rancho Springs Medical Center D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\LV_061808.mxd 0.5 0.25 0 0.5Miles ² Source: US Census Bureau Tiger 2000 Project
Limits
1,500 750 0 1,500 Feet ² D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Ex_aerial_view_122005.mxd Aerial View of Project Limits French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 1-3 R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/ex1-3_a
erial_041309.pdf Source: Aerials Express, March 2008 Project Limits
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 5 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study construction of the southbound French Valley Parkway off-ramp as part of the first phase of the
project. In conjunction with these improvements, five bridges (or bridge widenings), two sound walls, and a number of retaining walls would be constructed. Construction of the first
phase of the project is expected to start in 2009 and take approximately 18 months to complete. The start date for the project’s second phase will be determined based on the availability
of funding, but is anticipated to commence in late 2010 and take 24 months to complete. UJoint CEQA/NEPA Document The City of Temecula is the project proponent and the lead agency under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU (codified at 23 U.S.C. 327[a][2][A]), effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA has assigned and the California
Department of Transportation (Department) has assumed, all the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary’s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Accordingly, the Department is the NEPA lead agency. UESummary of Potential Impacts The following matrix provides a summary of the potential impacts associated with the Build
Alternative,
“Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) and the No Action Alternative. Table S.1 Summary of Potential Impacts Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred Alternative) No Action
Alternative Land Use Existing and Future Land Use No impact. No measures necessary. The proposed project represents an important component of the planned circulation network that is
required to serve planned land uses. This alternative could lead to ineffective land development patterns. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans No impact. No measures necessary.
The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with local and regional planning programs. The General Plans for both cities, as well as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and RTIP
recognize the proposed project as a planned activity. Growth The project would serve the adopted growth projections for the region. No measures necessary. By not providing an important
component of the planned circulation network, the No Action Alternative could potentially adversely impact growth distribution in the region. Community Impacts Community Character/Cohesion
No impact. No measures necessary. No impact. No measures necessary. Relocation The proposed project would affect 42 parcels. Two of these would be full acquisitions, and the remaining
40 would be No impact. No measures necessary.
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) 6 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative partial acquisitions. Compensation for full and partial acquisitions will be required, and provided, consistent with the requirements of the Department’s
Relocation Assistance Program, which is consistent with the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. Environmental Justice The proposed project would not disproportionately impact low-income
or minority populations. No measures necessary. No impact. No measures necessary. Utilities/Emergency Services A modified storm drain system has been incorporated as part of project
design, which would accommodate anticipated flows. No long-term or short-term impacts to emergency services are anticipated. Coordination with the emergency service providers during
the preparation of the Traffic Management Plan would ensure continued emergency access during construction. No impact. No measures necessary. Traffic and Transportation (short term)
During construction, brief overnight freeway closures, traffic detours, and slower traffic are expected to occur. A Traffic Management Plan (which will be prepared during Final Design)
would be part of the project, and would minimize construction impacts. No mitigation measures will be required. No impact. No measures necessary. Traffic and Transportation (long term)
The proposed project would provide long-term beneficial effects by improving the overall traffic level of service in the study area. In 2012 there would be 9 ramp locations that are
projected to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS) in the AM peak hour and 23 ramp locations in the PM peak hour (Tables 2.14 and 2.15) with the proposed project.* The arterial
highway network would also experience deficiencies. In 2012, there would be no deficient intersections in the AM peak hour and 5 deficient intersections in the PM peak hour that operate
at deficient levels of of service (Table 2.13). In 2030, this would increase on both freeways (22 deficient locations in the AM peak hour and 44 deficient locations in the PM peak hour)
and arterial highways (5 deficient locations in the AM peak hour and 8 deficient locations in the PM peak hour) (Tables 2.18 and 2.20). * A deficient LOS is a Level F. Without the proposed
improvements, the LOS in the study area would deteriorate. In 2012, there would be 8 ramp locations that are projected to operate at a deficient LOS in the AM peak hour and 31 ramp locations
in the PM peak hour with the No Action Alternative (Tables 2.16 and 2.17). The arterial highway network would experience deficiencies. In 2012, there would be 2 locations in the AM peak
hour and 5 locations in the PM peak hour that would operate at a deficient LOS (Table 2.13). In 2030, this would increase on both the freeways (28 deficient locations in the AM peak
hour and 55 deficient locations in the PM peak hour); the arterial highways would have 6 deficient locations in in the AM peak hour and 10 deficient locations in the PM peak hour) (Tables
2.18, 2.21, and 2.22).
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 7 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative Visual/Aesthetics The project elements that would create the greatest degree of visual contrast would be the new sound wall, the retaining walls, and
the new bridge structures. The project would remove existing vegetation, which serves as a visual buffer in the corridor. Use of design features, colors, texture, and landscaping would
soften the effect of project features, such as walls. Consideration of columns, rather than retaining walls, to support the ramps and C/D system would reduce view blockage. No impact.
No measures necessary. Cultural Resources No historic resources or known archaeological resources would be impacted by the Project. No mitigation measures necessary. No impact. No measures
necessary. Physical Environment Hydrology and Floodplain The proposed project’s location within Warm Springs Creek would increase the base floodplain elevation by 0.18 meter (0.6 foot);
the increase can be contained within the existing creek channel. The Project would have no adverse effects on hydrology or the floodplain. No impact. No measures necessary. Water Quality
and Storm Water Runoff A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared prior to grading, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated to ensure that the
project would not adversely affect water quality. Project design includes treatment BMPs to protect water quality in the creeks. No impact. No measures necessary. Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
BMPs would be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation. The Project is in an area subject to earthquakes. Localized liquefaction could occur at the creek crossings. Project design
and construction would comply with the Department’s Standard Specifications per the Department’s Highway Design Manual. No impact. No measures necessary. Paleontology The project would
traverse areas designated as being highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Implementation of monitoring and collection would minimize project effects. No impact. No measures
necessary. Hazardous Waste/Materials Construction vehicles would transport materials classified as hazardous materials or waste to and from the project study area. Though not identified
as an adverse impact, the effect would be further minimized with the development of a Health and Safety Contingency Plan. Adherence to federal regulations and screening for asbestos-containing
materials No construction-related impacts. This segment of freeway has a higher than average accident rate. As a result, there would be an incremental increase in the risk of upset due
to vehicle accidents.
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) 8 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative and lead-based paint would ensure no adverse effects due to project implementation. Air Quality No substantial air quality impacts were identified.
The project would be required to follow the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust. Additionally, standard provisions would minimize
ozone precursors (NOx and ROC). No construction impacts. Noise There are 13 locations where noise levels approach the noise-abatement criteria. The sound wall evaluation identified 2
sound walls that would meet the criteria for reasonableness and feasibility. These sound walls are incorporated as project design features. The sound walls would be located adjacent
to the existing mobile home park on the eastern side of the I-15 (north of the proposed French Valley Parkway) and adjacent to the development west of the I-15 (south of Winchester Road).
No construction-related impacts; however sound levels at the mobile home park would continue to exceed noise-abatement criteria. Biological Environment Biological Resources There would
be impacts on up to 7.52 hectares (18.62 acres) of coastal sage scrub vegetation. These impacts are covered by the Lead Agency’s participation in the Western Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A qualified Biologist will monitor the removal of coastal sage scrub vegetation. No impact. No measures necessary.
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 9 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative There would be impacts on up to 0.89 hectare (2.20 acres) of riparian vegetation. Of this, 0.31 hectare (0.78 acre) occurs along Warm Springs Creek
and is occupied by the least Bell’s vireo. Resource agency review of the project’s consistency with the MSHCP will be provided through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or
Superior Preservation (DBESP) process. A mitigation approach has been developed in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure no net loss of habitat values from the Project.
The approach includes riparian habitat creation or payment of in-lieu mitigation fees to a regional conservation authority that will use these fees for ongoing restoration and management
of existing riparian resources in the region. Also, a qualified Biologist will monitor the removal of riparian vegetation, which is restricted to the non-breeding season. (See Chapter
3 for the “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination from USFWS for the least Bell’s vireo.) No impact. No measures necessary. There would be impact on up to 0.88 hectare (2.16 acres)
of land within the jurisdiction of the USACE. Of this, 0.08 hectare (0.19 acre) would be permanent and 0.80 hectare (1.97 acres) would be temporary. The project would need to obtain
a Section 404 permit from the USACE to address effects on riparian resources. A mitigation approach has been developed in consultation with the USFWS, the CDFG, the USACE and the RWQCB
to ensure no net loss of habitat values from the Project. This approach includes riparian habitat creation and payment of in-lieu mitigation fees to a regional conservation authority
that will use these fees for ongoing restoration and management of existing wetlands resources in the region. Preparation of the SWPPP, together with permit requirements, would ensure
the project’s effects were properly addressed. No impact. No measures necessary.
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) 10 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative Biological Resources (cont.) There would be impact on up to 0.99 hectare (2.46 acres) under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Of this, 0.78 hectare (1.93
acres) would be permanent and 0.21 hectare (0.53 acre) would be temporary. The Project would need to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG for riparian resource impacts.
Preparation of an SWPPP, together with permit requirements, would ensure project effects would be minimal. No impact. No measures necessary. There would be impact on up to 2.85 hectares
(7.05 acres) of occupied or potentially occupied habitat of the Los Angeles pocket mouse. Resource agency review of the Project’s consistency with the MSHCP will be conducted through
the DBESP process. Current consultation efforts have identified purchase of high quality habitat along the San Jacinto River to provide “core” or “live-in” habitat as suitable mitigation.
No impact. No measures necessary. There is suitable habitat for burrowing owls within the project study area. The burrowing owl may move in the study area prior to the start of construction.
In accordance with the mitigation measures, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey will be conducted prior to initiation of construction to avoid direct impacts on this species. No
impact. No measures necessary. There is suitable habitat for nesting raptors in the study area. There would be impacts should a nest occur within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project
construction area. A raptor nesting survey would be required if construction is initiated between February 1 and June 30 to identify any active raptor nests within 152 meters (500 feet)
of the impact area. If any active nests are detected, the Biological Monitor will establish the need for avoidance measures. No impact. No measures necessary. Increased runoff could
impact water quality. Implementation of the MSHCP’s construction minimization measures, the preparation of an SWPPP, and the use of BMPs would ensure impacts would be less than substantial.
No impact. No measures necessary. Night lighting could affect wildlife movement along Warm Springs Creek. Project design would use shields, if necessary, to direct night lighting away
from the habitat along Warm Springs Creek. No impact. No measures necessary.
Table S.1 Summary of IS-MND/EA Findings (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 11 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Topic Proposed Project (Locally Preferred
Alternative) No Action Alternative Biological Resources (cont.) If ornamental plant species are used in landscape plans, these species could escape into natural areas. The landscaping
plan is to be reviewed by a qualified Biologist to ensure any ornamental plant species are contained. In addition, invasive species will be controlled upstream and downstream of the
project impact area during the construction period and following completion of construction. No impact. No measures necessary.
12 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 13 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...................................................................................
................................. 1 Chapter 1 Proposed Project ............................................................................. 19 Purpose and Need ......................................
....................................... 20 Project Description............................................................................. 34 Decision Making Process ................................
.................................. 41 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Discussion .... 41 Permits and Approvals Needed .........................................................
45 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ................ 49 Human Environment ..........................................
................................ 50 Land Use ................................................................................ 50 Growth ...............................................................
.................... 55 Community Impacts ............................................................... 58 Environmental Justice ............................................................
79 Utilities and Emergency Services .......................................... 81 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities ......................................................
........................... 84 Bicycles and Pedestrians ..................................................... 124 Visual Resources .................................................................
125 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 132 Physical Environment ......................................................................
134 Hydrology and Floodplain .................................................... 134 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff ............................... 138 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
..................................... 141 Paleontology ........................................................................ 145 Hazardous Waste Materials .........................................
........ 148 Air Quality ............................................................................ 154 Noise ....................................................................................
166 Biological Environment .................................................................... 179 Natural Communities ........................................................... 179
Wetlands and Other Waters ................................................. 186 Plant Species ....................................................................... 191 Animal Species
.................................................................... 194 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................. 205 Invasive Species .....................................
............................. 209 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... 210 Climate Change .....................................................
.......................... 215 Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination ....................................................... 219 Agency Consultation ....................................................
.................... 219 Public Coordination.......................................................................... 221 Chapter 4 List of Preparers ................................................
............................ 225 Chapter 5 Distribution List ............................................................................. 227
14 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study LIST OF TABLES S.1 Summary of IS-Proposed MND/EA Findings ..................................................
5 1.1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... 22 1.2 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour ......
23 1.3 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour ...... 25 1.4 Actual and Average Accident Rates at Winchester Road–January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004 ...................
...................... 30 1.5 Accident Summary and Comparison for I-15--January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004 .......................................................................................
30 1.6 Permits and Approvals .................................................................................. 45 2.1 Cities of Temecula and Murrieta Demographic Projections ........................
.. 56 2.2 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for Riverside County and the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, Year 2000 ............................................................... 63
2.3 Race and Ethnicity Demographics by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000 ...................................................................... 64 2.4 Age Distribution
Data for Riverside County, City Of Murrieta, and City of Temecula, Year 2000 .................................................................................... 65 2.5 Age Distribution
Data by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000 ...................................................................................................... 66 2.6 Population Gender
Information for the County of Riverside and the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Year 2000 ................................................. 67 2.7 Population Gender Information by Census
Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000 .................................................................................. 68 2.8 2.8 Annual Household Income for Riverside County
and the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, Year 2000 ................................................. 68 2.9 Annual Household Income by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000
............................................................................................ 69 2.10 Required Property Acquisitions ...................................................................
.. 74 2.11 Existing Freeway Interchanges Within the Limits of Temecula and Murrieta ..................................................................................................
85 2.12 Level of Service Descriptions Showing Volume to Capacity Relationships ................................................................................................. 86 2.13
Year 2012 Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... 89 2.14 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour
........................................................................................... 91 2.15 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour ..................
......................................................................... 95 2.16 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour ...............................
............................................... 99 2.17 Year 2012 No Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour ....................................................................
..................... 102 2.18 Year 2030 Intersection Levels of Service .................................................... 108 2.19 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels
of Service in the AM Peak Hour ...................................................................... 109 2.20 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the
PM Peak Hour ..................................................................... 113 2.21 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour
...................................................................... 117 2.22 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour .............................
......................................... 120 2.23 Comparison of Proposed Project and No Action Alternative ....................... 123
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 15 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study 2.24 Landscape Unit Summary ......................................................
..................... 126 2.25 Viewer Group Summary .............................................................................. 127 2.26 Visual Impact Summary for Key Views........................
................................ 128 2.27 Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies Within the Project Vicinity ........................ 136 2.28 Definition of Beneficial Use Categories .......................
................................ 136 2.29 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................ 145 2.30 Maximum Pollutant Concentrations
Measured at the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station ....................................................................................... 156 2.31 National and State Attainment Designations
for the SoCAB ....................... 157 2.32 Noise Abatement Criteria ............................................................................ 166 2.33 Common Noise Sources and
A-Weighted Noise Levels ............................. 167 2.34 Existing Noise Levels .................................................................................. 169 2.35 Predicted
Traffic Noise Levels ..................................................................... 172 2.36 Typical Construction Equipment Noise With and Without Mitigation ........... 173 2.37
Predicted Noise Levels, Leq(h), and Insertion Loss (I.L., Noise Reduction), dBA for Sound Walls ................................................................ 175 2.38 Determination
of Reasonableness of Recommended Sound Walls ............ 177 2.39 Vegetation Types Within the Project Area ................................................... 181 2.40 Vegetation Types
Within the Detention Basins ........................................... 182 2.41 USACE Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. .................................................... 188 2.42
CDFG Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................ 188 2.43 Special Status Plant Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area ....
193 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area ...................................................................................................
196 2.45 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Habitat Within the Study Area ......................... 204
16 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study LIST OF FIGURES Following Page 1-1 Regional Location ........................................................
.................................... 4 1-2 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 4 1-3 Aerial View of Study
Area ................................................................................ 4 1-4a Project Plans of the Locally Preferred Alternative .........................................
36 1-4b Project Plans of the Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................... 36 1-5a Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................
36 1-5b Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative ...................................... 36 1-5c Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................
36 1-5d Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative ...................................... 36 1.6a Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans .................................................
.. 36 1.6b Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ................................................... 36 1.6c Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ..........................................
......... 36 1.6d Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ................................................... 36 1.6e Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ...................................
................ 36 1.6f Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ................................................... 36 1.6g Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ............................
....................... 36 1.6i Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ................................................... 36 1.6j Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans .....................
.............................. 36 1.6k Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans ................................................... 36 1.6l Locally Preferred Alternative Layout Plans
................................................... 36 1-7a No Project Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7b No Project
Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7c No Project Layout Plan .........................................................................
......... 40 1-7d No Project Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7e No Project Layout Plan ............................................
...................................... 40 1-7f No Project Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7g No Project Layout Plan
.................................................................................. 40 1-7h No Project Layout Plan ..................................................................................
40 1-7i No Project Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7j No Project Layout
Plan .................................................................................. 40 1-7k No Project Layout Plan ................................................................................
.. 40 1-7l No Project Layout Plan .................................................................................. 40 2-1 Land Use Designations .....................................................
............................ 50 2-2 City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Designations ............................... 52 2-3 City of Murrieta General Plan Land Use Designations ....................
.............. 52 2-4 Census Tracts Adjacent to the Proposed Project .......................................... 62 2-5 Business Relocations ...........................................................
......................... 78 2-6 Levels of Service ........................................................................................... 86 2-7 Study Area Intersection Locations
................................................................. 88 2-8 Landscape Units .......................................................................................... 126
2-9 Location of Key Views ................................................................................. 128 2-10a Wireframe Model 1 ...............................................................
....................... 128 2-10b Wireframe Model 6 ...................................................................................... 128 2-10c Wireframe Model 2 ................................
...................................................... 128 2-10d Wireframe Model 7 ...................................................................................... 128 2-10e Wireframe
Model 8 ...................................................................................... 128 2-10f Wireframe Model 9 ............................................................................
.......... 128 2-10g Wireframe Model 15 .................................................................................... 128 2-10h Wireframe Model 17 .............................................
....................................... 128
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Following Page I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 17 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study 2-10i Wireframe Model 18 .........................................
........................................... 128 2-11a Key View 4 .................................................................................................. 128 2-11b Key View
16 ................................................................................................ 128 2-11c Key View 20 .............................................................................
................... 128 2-12a Wall Cross-Sections .................................................................................... 128 2-12b Wall Cross Sections ..................................
.................................................. 128 2-13 100-Year Floodplain .................................................................................... 136 2-14 Reference
Points for Air Quality Analysis .................................................... 162 2-15a Noise Receptor Locations ...........................................................................
168 2-15b Noise Receptor Locations ........................................................................... 168 2-15c Noise Receptor Locations .....................................................
...................... 168 2-15d Noise Receptor Locations ........................................................................... 168 2-15e Noise Receptor Locations ..............................
............................................. 168 2-15f Noise Receptor Locations ........................................................................... 168 2-15g Noise Receptor
Locations ........................................................................... 168 2-16 Vegetation Types .......................................................................................
. 180 2-17 Jurisdictional Impacts .................................................................................. 190 2-18 Tarplant Locations ......................................................
................................. 194 2-19 Occupied Habitats ....................................................................................... 202 2-20 Fleet CO2 Emissions vs.
Speed (Highway) ................................................. 217
18 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDICES A CEQA Checklist .................................................................................
.......... 233 B Title VI Policy Statement ............................................................................. 251 C Summary of Relocation Benefits .........................................
........................ 255 D Glossary of Technical Terms ....................................................................... 275 E Environmental Commitments Record .............................
............................. 285 F List of Acronyms .......................................................................................... 313 List of Technical Studies .........................
.................................................... 319
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 19 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Chapter 1—Proposed Project Introduction The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation (Department) proposes improvements on a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15) between the existing Winchester Road (State Route 79, SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the vicinity of the I-15/Interstate 215 (I-215) Junction (including improvements to the related portion of I-215), within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta
in Riverside County, California (see Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity; Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map; and Figure 1-3, Aerial View of Study Area), in an effort to relieve traffic congestion and
to improve safety and operational efficiency within the project limits. The proposed project features construction of a new interchange, the French Valley Parkway at I-15, between the
existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction, along with enhancements to facilitate improved operations on the existing mainline facility. The proposed
project limits are identified in relation to I-15, from approximately Kilopost KP 8.9 (Postmile, PM 5.5) which is south of the Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange, to KP 15.4 (PM
9.607), in the vicinity of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-15 Interchange. The proposed project would include improvements to the related portion of I-215, from the I-15/I-215 juncture
to just south of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/I-215 interchange (KP R13.5/R15.7 [PM R8.430/R9.756]). French Valley Parkway would be constructed as a six-lane arterial highway from Jefferson
to Ynez. Auxiliary lanes would be provided in both the northbound and southbound directions. An up to three-lane collector distributor (C/D) system would be constructed parallel to I-15
between the I-15/I-215 confluence and Winchester Road in both the northbound and southbound directions. I-15 is a major truck and passenger route. I-15 starts as an interstate, at the
junction of I-15 and Interstate 8 (I-8) in San Diego, and ends at the U.S./Canadian border in Montana. I-15 is included in the National Network for Federal Surface Transportation Assistance
Act (STAA) for oversized trucks and is also on the Single Interstate Routing System. The I-15 is a north-south freeway that provides regional access for the cities of Murrieta and Temecula
and adjacent portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The I-15 provides access to the San Diego metropolitan area to the south, which is a large employment center for residents of
the area. To the north, the freeway provides access to employment centers in the city of Corona and in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, via State Route 60 and Interstate 10. To the
north, the freeway also provides access to employment opportunities in the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino via I-215, which has a junction with the I-15 in the city of Murrieta.
The proposed project faces limitations due to the proximity of the existing Winchester Road Interchange to the I-15/I-215 Junction, which limits the ability to add a new interchange
and still meet the Department’s design criteria.
20 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The Route Concept Fact Sheet for I-15 (Caltrans 1999), which specifies that the I-15 concept
facility is in the vicinity of the Winchester Road Interchange, consists of eight mixed-flow lanes plus two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The proposed project is included in the
2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) in two listings. Project ID # 991202 specifies Phase I, the design and construction of French Valley Parkway from the I-15 to
Jefferson; the southbound exit ramp; the southbound auxiliary lane from French Valley Parkway to Winchester Road; and the widening of the Winchester Road southbound exit ramp. Project
ID # RIV031215 describes the other primary elements of the proposed project, planned to be constructed as a second phase: the construction of the six-lane interchange of French Valley
Parkway from Ynez to Jefferson, including ramps; the northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes and collector/distributor lanes (three northbound and three southbound); and the modification
of the Winchester Road Interchange. Funding for the Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) phase and the Project’s subsequent phases is anticipated to come from State and
Federal funds in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and contributions from local funds. This Project is eligible for programming in the STIP under the HE-11 Program.
The performance indicator has been determined by the Project Study Report (PSR, dated April 2002) to be 20.20.201.315. This Project is included in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) (see page 56 of the Project Listing Report for Riverside County RTIP projects on the State Highway system). The 2008 RTP, Amendment No. 1 received the required air quality conformity
determination from the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on January 14, 2009. The project is fully funded and is included in the adopted 2008 RTIP, which was adopted
by SCAG on July July 17, 2008, and received the required air quality conformity determination from FHWA and FTA on November 17, 2008. The project is on page 5 of 18 of the listing of
State Highway Projects for Riverside County. PURPOSE AND NEED Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to accomplish the following specific objectives: • To reduce current and
projected traffic congestion on the ramps and freeway mainline in the project area. • To improve safety and operations between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 Junctions. • To provide
alternative vehicular access to I-15 that will also provide operational improvement to the I-15/Winchester Road interchange. • To provide improvements to accommodate projected growth
and to facilitate local circulation consistent with the General Plans of the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. These objectives are used to compare alternatives and to select the preferred
alternatives. This purpose is a proposed solution to the deficiency identified below in the need statement.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 21 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Need UProject Background The need for circulation improvements, including a new interchange,
has been part of previous studies. Previous studies for the project study area include the I-15 Route Concept Report (1984), the Date Street Project Study Report (PSR, 1988), the Winchester
Road Interchange Project Study Report (1992), the Initial Interchange Study on Interstate 15 (1993), and the Winchester Road−Interchange Improvement Project Report (1994). The Date Street
PSR did not gain approval due to the proximity of the proposed interchange to the I-15/I-215 junction. Therefore, the current project is proposing an interchange south of Date Street
to improve existing traffic operations, enhance traffic safety, and provide an additional east-west connection over I-15. The proposed changes should reduce traffic congestion for both
Winchester and Rancho California Roads. The Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP) Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
identifies alternatives for two new transportation corridors (one north-south and one east-west) to meet future transportation needs of western Riverside County. The Riverside County
Integrated Project Draft EIS/EIR for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor (RCIP 2002) would preserve right-of-way for the north-south multimodal transportation corridor from Winchester
to Temecula in Riverside County. The corridor study includes the proposed I-15/French Valley Interchange Project area. While this EIS/EIR does not specifically address the proposed I-15/French
Valley Interchange Project, implementation of the corridor project would not preclude development of the interchange, and vice versa. Existing Deficiencies Traffic data for existing
conditions are shown in Tables 1.1 through 1.3, presented below. Table 1.1 provides the level of service (LOS) and delay times at key intersections close to the proposed project. There
are are seven arterial highway locations that are currently operating at a deficient LOS in the PM peak hour (deficient includes LOS E or F). Tables 1.2 and 1.3 represent the freeway
segments in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on LOS, there is one deficient ramp location in the AM peak period, which is the southbound off-ramp at Rancho California Road.
However, based on field observations (LSA Associates 2008), there are two existing operational deficiencies in the project area. During the AM peak hour, the queue on the southbound
off-ramp at Winchester Road extends well back onto the freeway mainline, sometimes as far as the I-15/I-215 junction. This first deficiency is the result of the fact that the intersection
at the ramp terminus cannot accommodate the number of vehicles that the freeway off-ramp feeds to it.
22 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 1.1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak
Hour Delay (in seconds) LOS Delay (in seconds) LOS 1. Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd AWSC 40.6 D 59.4 F* 2. I-15 SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 9.3 A 12.9 B 3. I-15 NB
Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 9.5 A 33.4 C 4. Hancock Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 8.3 A 10.1 B 5. I-215 SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 6.8 A 8.8 A 6. I-215 NB
Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 3.3 A 138.2 F* 7. Alta Murrieta Dr/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 18.2 B 35.6 D 8. Jefferson Ave/French Valley Pkwy Proposed Intersection Proposed
Intersection 9. I-15 SB Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Proposed Intersection Proposed Intersection 10. I-15 NB Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Proposed Intersection Proposed Intersection 11. Ynez
Road/French Valley Parkway Proposed Intersection Proposed Intersection 12. Jefferson Ave/Winchester Rd Signal 33.7 C 58.3 E* 13. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Rd Signal 15.8 B 20.7 C 14.
I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd Signal 7.6 A 10.1 B 15. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd Signal 34.3 C 78.8 E* 16. Old Town Front St/Rancho California Rd Signal 28.6 C 110.3 F* 17. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho
California Rd Signal 41.1 D 52.4 D 18. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Rd Signal 36.3 D 79.9 E* 19. Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd Signal 50.1 D 57.2 E* 20. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Signal 3.3 A 8.1 A *Exceeds the Department’s LOS standard of LOS D. Notes: V/C = Volume/capacity ratio Delay = Average control delay in seconds LOS= Level of Service Source: January
2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis The second operational deficiency, which occurs northbound during the PM peak hour, occurs at the Winchester Road direct on-ramp. Traffic in
this area breaks down and causes queuing back to the ramp terminus intersection. Based on traffic volumes, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures suggest that this merge should operate
at LOS C. However, HCM procedures do not account for the large number of vehicles in the adjacent upstream loop on-ramp and the I-215’s downstream junction, which both cause a high proportion
of vehicles in the right lanes of the mainline. The inadequate gaps for on-ramp traffic cause heavy proportions of mainline traffic in the right lanes and, in turn, cause the merge area
to fail.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 23 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 1.2 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour Segment Type Mainline
Lanes AM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic
4 3,032 108 7.4 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 3,032 740 90 11.6 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 2,292 108 5.6 A Rancho California
Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 2,292 430 98 7.1 B Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 2,722 1,010 97 9.5 B Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 3,732
108 9.1 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 3,732 900 89 3.5 A Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 2,832 108 6.9 A Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 2,832
375 97 7.8 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 3,207 600 97 9.1 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition 1 Basic 4 3,807 108 9.3 B Lane Addition 1 to Lane Addition 2 Basic
5 3,807 110 7.3 B Lane Addition 2 to I-15/215 Junction Basic 6 3,807 110 6.1 A I-15/215 Junction Major Diverge 6 3,807 6.9 B Junction to Lane Drop Basic 4 2,170 108 5.3 A Lane Drop to
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 2,170 105 7.2 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 3 2,170 218 92 12.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
On-Ramp Basic 3 1,952 105 6.5 A Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 1,952 834 97 11.0 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 2,786 105 9.3 B
I-215 Northbound Junction to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 1,637 103 8.4 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 2 1,637 159 92 2.0 A Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 1,478 103 7.6 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 1,478 86 97 9.0 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 1,564
376 97 10.7 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 1,940 103 9.9 B
Table 1.2 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) 24 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Segment
Type Mainline Lanes AM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp
Basic 3 4,537 105 15.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 3 4,537 1,111 88 19.3 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 3,426 105
11.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 3,426 20 95 14.7 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 3,446 191 96 12.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to
I-15/215 Junction Basic 3 3,637 105 12.1 C I-15/215 Junction Major merge # I-15/215 Junction To Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 5 6,380 110 12.2 C Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Lane Drop 4 6,380
1,872 85 15.8 C Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 4,508 108 11.0 C Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 4,508 722 97 11.4 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1
Lane on 4 5,230 133 97 11.7 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 5,363 108 13.1 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 5,363 2,050 84 21.4 F* Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 3,313 108 8.1 B Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 3,313 850 89 12.6 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front
St Off-Ramp Basic 4 4,163 108 10.2 B I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 2,991 103 15.3 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 2
2,991 769 90 18.6 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 2,222 103 11.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,222 456 95 14.5
C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,678 65 95 15.0 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction Basic 2 2,743 103 14.1 C # No effective models of performance
for for major merge areas * *Exceeds the Department’s LOS standard of LOS D. pc/km/ln = density = passenger cars/kilometer/lane Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 25 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 1.3 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour Segment Type Mainline
Lanes PM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic
4 5,266 108 12.9 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 5,266 1,020 89 17.9 D Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 4,246 108 10.4 B Rancho California
Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 4,246 990 97 11.5 B Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 5,236 1,280 96 13.2 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,516
107 16.1 D Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 6,516 1,001 89 8.0 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 5,515 108 13.5 C Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on
4 5,515 841 96 13.0 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 6,356 1,060 95 14.4 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition 1 Basic 4 7,416 103 19.0 D Lane Addition 1 to Lane Addition
2 Basic 5 7,416 110 14.2 C Lane Addition 2 to I-15/215 Junction Basic 6 7,416 110 11.8 C I-15/215 Junction Major Diverge 6 7,416 13.5 C Junction to Lane Drop Basic 4 4,227 108 10.3 B
Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 4,227 105 14.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 3 4,227 378 91 21.9 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 3,849 105 12.8 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 3,849 1,197 92 18.4 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic
3 5,046 104 17.0 D I-215 Northbound Junction to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 3,189 103 16.4 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 2 3,189 740 90 12.2 C Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 2,449 103 12.6 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,449 197 95 14.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip
On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,646 300 94 15.9 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 2,946 103 15.1 C
Table 1.3 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) 26 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Segment
Type Mainline Lanes PM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp
Basic 3 3,762 105 12.5 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 3 3,762 977 89 16.9 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 2,785 105
9.3 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 2,785 42 96 12.0 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 3 2,827 316 97 11.1 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to
I-15/215 Junction Basic 3 3,143 105 10.5 B I-15/215 Junction Major merge # I-15/215 Junction To Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 5 5,514 110 10.6 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Lane Drop 4 5,514
1,757 86 13.3 C Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 3,757 108 9.2 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 3,757 661 97 10.1 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane
on 4 4,418 192 97 10.3 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 4,610 108 11.3 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 4,610 1,800 85 18.8 D Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 2,810 108 6.9 A Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane on 4 2,810 790 90 11.2 B Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front
St Off-Ramp Basic 4 3,600 108 8.8 B I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 2,803 103 14.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane off 2
2,803 668 90 17.5 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 2,135 103 10.9 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,135 130 96 12.5
C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane on 2 2,265 106 96 13.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction Basic 2 2,371 103 12.2 C # No effective models of performance
for major merge areas pc/km/ln = passenger cars/kilometer/lane (density) Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 27 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The operational deficiencies in the ramp influence areas on the freeway mainline are primarily
the result of crossing streams of traffic between the I-15/I-215 junction and the Winchester Road interchange. To achieve satisfactory operations in the ramp influence areas, it is necessary
to separate merging and diverging traffic at the Winchester Road Interchange from freeway mainline traffic through the I-15/I-215 junction. In the northbound direction, the conflict
between the high traffic volume entering the freeway at Winchester Road and the mainline traffic accessing I-215 will cause the merge area to fail unless these streams are separated.
In the southbound direction, the projected volume exiting the freeway at the Winchester Road interchange is too great for a single ramp or even a two-lane ramp to accommodate. The operational
deficiencies at the Winchester Road ramp terminus intersections are primarily the result of excessive demand for access to I-15 via Winchester Road, as well as access to Winchester Road
from I-15. To achieve satisfactory operations at the Winchester Road intersections, it is necessary to provide an additional access point to the freeway. The Winchester Road intersections
are unable to process the traffic accessing the freeway at the I-15 interchange. Much of the projected 2030 increase in traffic volume will be between the Winchester Road interchange
and the Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchange. This is the location of the proposed French Valley Parkway Interchange. Social Demands or Economic Development A review of the growth projections
for the area indicates continuing growth in the region served by the project. According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), southern California has been growing
eastward and is projected to continue to grow toward fringe areas (2001). Riverside County has been a main recipient of this growth trend. The population in Riverside County is projected
to increase from 1.5 million in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000) to 2.87 million in 2020 (County of Riverside 2002), an increase of 86.0 percent. For land use and policy analysis, Riverside
County is divided into 19 area plans. Area 19⎯Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)⎯as its name implies, is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. Area 19 encompasses the incorporated
cities of Murrieta and Temecula; the unincorporated communities of Glen Oaks Hills and the Pauba/Wolf Valley and Pechanga Indian Reservation; and the unincorporated areas near the Santa
Rosa Plateau Ecological Area, French Valley, and the Cleveland National Forest. Orange County and the Santa Ana Mountains, San Diego County, and the Santa Margarita Mountains and Agua
Tibia ranges bind Area 19 on the southwest, and the Black Hills are located to the east. “Riverside County Population and Employment Forecasts”1 (Hoffman 2000), prepared for the Riverside
County General Plan Update (County of Riverside
2002) provides population, population, household, and employment projections through the year 2020. The projection forecasts indicate that the population within the SWAP will increase
from 15,353 in 1994 to 79,656 in 2020, a 418.8 percent increase. 1 The “Riverside County Population and Employment Forecasts” presents three sets of countywide projections in order to
test alternative scenarios for the Riverside County General Plan update. These projects are based in whole or in part on recent SCAG projections, WRCOG, and Coachella Valley Association
of Governments (CVAG) projections and employment trend analysis. The projections presented in this section are for Scenario 1, which uses SCAG population and employment projections.
28 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The Need and Purpose Report (LSA Associates 2004) cites a 1998 study conducted by the cities
of Temecula and Murrieta that found that 68.2 percent of the residents of these cities are employed outside the Murrieta and Temecula areas. Most residents commute either to San Diego
County, to which area residents would travel via I-15, or to other communities in Riverside County, with the cities of Riverside and Corona being the largest employment destinations.
Residents would travel via the I-215 to access the city of Riverside and travel via the I-15 to the city of Corona. The projected growth increases would heighten the demand on these
facilities. The local General Plans assume an interchange in the vicinity of French Valley Parkway, which would function to meet these needs. Within the city of Temecula, the Harveston
Specific Plan has been approved adjacent to and east of the I-15 and it reflects a future interchange at this location. The Development Agreement with the City of Temecula requires the
Developer to dedicate the right-of-way for the interchange and to construct French Valley Parkway (the arterial highway) in conjunction with the development of the Harveston Specific
Plan. The development and the construction of the arterial highway is currently underway. Both the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta support the proposed build alternative. Future Circulation
and System Deficiencies The Route Concept Fact Sheet for the I-15 (California Department of Transportation, District 8 March 1999) projected that daily traffic volume on the I-15 segment
between Winchester Road and the I-215 junction will reach 193,000 vehicles by 2015, up from 100,000 in the base year of 1996. This represented an increase in 93,000 vehicles over a 19-year
timeframe. The Year 2002 daily traffic volume on this segment was 155,000 vehicles. The traffic volumes reached a daily volume of 193,000 vehicles in 2006, rather than the projected
year of 2015. The projected traffic data for year 2030 identifies deterioration in the LOS at Winchester Road. Specifically, the following problems are projected: • Winchester Road Southbound
Off-Ramp. Under 2030 conditions, the diverge area on the freeway mainline in the vicinity of this ramp is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. This deficiency will
affect the operations of the diverge area itself, independent of the effect of vehicles queued at the intersection’s ramp terminus. • Winchester Road Northbound On-Ramp. This merge area
is observed to fail under existing PM peak hour conditions. With 2030 conditions, the volume of both the mainline mixed-flow lanes and the ramp will be higher; therefore, it is expected
that this merge area will continue to fail. • Winchester Road Ramp Terminus Intersections. Under existing conditions, the queue at the Winchester Road southbound off-ramp spills back
into the mainline. With 2030 conditions, the intersections at the ramp termini on Winchester Road are projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. Queues at these
ramp terminus intersections will spill back onto the mainline in both the northbound and southbound directions.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 29 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The operational deficiencies in the ramp-influence areas in the freeway mainline are primarily
the result of (1) crossing streams of traffic between the I-15/I-215 Junction and the Winchester Road Interchange and (2) excessive demand for access to the I-15 via Winchester Road.
To achieve satisfactory operations in the ramp influence areas, it is necessary to separate merging and diverging traffic at the Winchester Road Interchange from freeway mainline traffic
through the I-15/I-215 Junction. Unless the streams of traffic are separated, the merge area in the northbound direction will fail because of the conflict between the high traffic volumes
entering the freeway at Winchester Road and the mainline traffic moving to the right to access I-215 at the junction. In the southbound direction, the projected volume exiting the freeway
at the Winchester Road Interchange is expected to be greater than what a single ramp, or even a two-lane ramp, could accommodate. The Winchester Road intersections are unable to process
the traffic accessing the freeway at the I-15 interchange. Thus, in order to achieve satisfactory operations at the Winchester Road intersections, it is necessary to provide an additional
access point to the freeway. Much of the projected increase in traffic volumes will be in an area between the Winchester Road and the Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchanges. The proposed
location of the French Valley Parkway interchange is between these two interchanges. Utilizing the regional growth projections, the future travel demand will result in a decrease in
the LOS on the I-15. As discussed in Chapter 2, Traffic and Transportation, in 2012 with no improvements in the AM peak hour there would be two intersections that operate at a deficient
LOS. In the PM peak hour there are five intersections that would operate at a deficient level of service. Delay times would be as great as 314.3 seconds at the Ynez Road/Winchester Road
Road intersection. In this same time period, there are 8 freeway ramp locations that are projected to operate at a deficient LOS in the AM peak hour and 31 ramp locations in the PM peak
hour. The intersections that are projected to be operating at a deficient LOS in 2012 are predominately those that serve as major collector streets to provide access to I-15 and/or I-215.
Both Winchester Road and Rancho California Road provide access to I-15. Murrieta Hot Springs Road provides access to both I-15 and I-215. Ynez Road, Alta Murrieta, and Jefferson Avenue/Old
Town Front Street all provide access to major employment and retail areas within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Traffic would deteriorate even further by 2030, the design year
for the proposed project. This is due to the projected local and regional growth in the area. Without improvements the deficient number of intersections increases to six locations in
the AM peak hour and nine locations in the PM peak hour. Delay times would be as great as 574.3 seconds at Ynez Road/Winchester Road. The freeway system will also experience a greater
number of deficiencies in 2030 without improvements. There are 28 locations projected to be deficient in the AM peak hour and 55 deficient locations in the PM peak hour. Reducing the
current and projected level of congestion has been identified as a primary purpose of this project. Improvements in rail and mass transit will aid in congestion management. Currently,
the Riverside Transit Authority provides bus service throughout Riverside County, including the cities of Murrieta and Temecula.
30 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study There are bus connections to various Metrolink Stations, including Oceanside and Corona. There
are nine Park-N-Ride facilities located within the city limits of Temecula, several of which serve the Winchester Corridor. The regional circulation model assumes a transit component
as part of the long-range traffic projections. However, these elements in and of themselves would not adequately address the operational deficiencies. UAccident Rates The Department’s
Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) provides accident data based on million vehicle miles traveled. This allows a comparison of the project facility to other similar
facilities in the state. The Department’s District 8 provided the data, which is based on a three-year period between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, for the Winchester Road
interchange and the I-15 mainline. This data is summarized in the Table 1.4. Table 1.4 Actual and Average Accident Rates at Winchester Road January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004 Location
Total Accidents Actual State Average Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I Total Winchester Rd – SB On 8 0.000 0.83 3.32 0.003 0.22 0.60 Winchester Rd – NB Off 24 0.000 0.41 2.46 0.006 0.35 0.90
Winchester Rd – SB On 1 0.000 0.18 0.18 0.001 0.24 0.70 Winchester Rd – NB On 16 0.000 0.38 1.22 0.003 0.17 0.45 Winchester Rd – NB On (Loop) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
No Data No Data Winchester Rd – SB Off 35 0.000 0.71 1.77 0.005 0.61 1.50 Total 84 F+I – Fatality and Injury Source: New Connection Report (August 2008) This information has been further
defined to show totals for the I-15 southbound and northbound directions in the project study area, as shown in Table 1.5. Table 1.5 Accident Summary and Comparison for I-15 January
1, 2002, and December 31, 2004 Year 2002–2004 Total Accidents Actual State Average Fatal F + I Total Total Southbound Direction 319 0.004 0.55 1.36 0.87 Northbound Direction 155 0.013
0.26 0.66 0.87 Total 474 F+I – Fatality and Injury
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 31 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study According to the TASAS-derived data, the southbound I-15 freeway segment within the project
study area was the scene of 319 traffic accidents. These accidents resulted in 1 fatality and 128 injuries. This translated to an accident rate of 1.36 versus the state average of 0.87
for similar facilities. For the mainline freeway, the highest concentration of accidents was located in the segment between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 Junction. Overall, the
accident rate for this segment of the I-15 is greater than the state average for both the northbound and southbound directions. The highest number of incidents took place on the southbound
off-ramp to Winchester Road. A large number of accidents were concentrated during weekdays for the duration of winter and spring months. The detailed accident reports note no unusual
conditions contributing to the accidents. The high volumes existing at Winchester Road cause a back up that reaches back to the I-215 connector. Due to the high number of accidents,
the California Highway Patrol has requested help in alleviating the situation. The phasing of the project, with the early implementation of the Winchester Road southbound off-ramp improvements
and the southbound French Valley Parkway off-ramp, would help to alleviate the situation. The Department has identified this early phase as being eligible for emergency funding. In the
northbound direction, the actual accident rate was 0.66 versus the state average of 0.87. Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, the northbound I-15 freeway segment within the
area of this project was the scene of 155 traffic accidents; these accidents resulted in 3 fatalities and 128 injuries. For the mainline freeway in the northbound direction, the locations
of accidents are more evenly distributed than in the southbound direction, which were concentrated in the area approaching Winchester Road. Out of 155 total accidents, 133 were multI-car
collisions, and the majority of these took place during daylight hours; 57 of the 155 accidents resulted in injuries. Overall, the accident rate in the northbound direction is below
the state average. The detailed accident reports note no unusual conditions contributing to the accidents. The highest percent of accidents on mainline I-15 were categorized as rear-end
type collisions for both the northbound and southbound directions. These collisions were not associated with any adverse weather factors as they took place during daylight in clear,
dry conditions. Therefore, these accidents seem to be congestion-related. The proposed improvements would relieve traffic congestion and would consequently reduce accidents related to
traffic congestion. The Collector-Distributor (C/D) system proposed as part of the project mitigates the inadequate weaving distance and interchange spacing between the Winchester Road
and French Valley Parkway interchanges and the French Valley Parkway and the I-15/I-215 Junction. This would would alleviate traffic congestion, improve mainline operation and safety,
and reduce accident frequency.
32 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Alternative Development Process This IS/EA evaluates a No Action Alternative and a Build Alternative.
The Build Alternative, also referred to as “the Proposed Project,” is the Locally Preferred Alternative. Though other alternatives were evaluated through the planning process, only one
alternative was determined to meet the operational requirements and was carried forward in this IS/EA. This determination was made through the Project Development Team (PDT) in conjunction
with two study processes. To ensure stakeholder concerns have been and continue to be addressed, monthly PDT meetings have been conducted. PDT members include representatives from Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Department, the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and representatives from the City of
Temecula’s engineering and environmental consultant team. This team has contributed to and has been instrumental in the development of alternatives. In addition, PDT members have participated
in the Value Analysis (VA) process and the Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop. The proposed project requires a formal VA Study, which is a specialized examination
of a project. The VA Study for this proposed project (performed between July and October of 2003) focuses on alternatives that would minimize or eliminate weaving problems between two
interchanges on I-15 and identifies possible cost savings strategies. A total of eight alternatives were evaluated as part of the VA Study for the proposed project. Each alternative
was evaluated using key performance criteria that were developed in cooperation with stakeholders and designers. Performance ratings for each of the alternatives were compared against
the original project concept. Performance criteria are described below. The relative weight of each of these criteria is included in parentheses. 1. Mainline Traffic Operations ((40
percent of total score): This refers to the efficiency of traffic operations as they relate directly to the mainline alignment. This includes the effects of on-and off-ramps, weaves
and C/D Systems on mainline traffic based on a 20-year projected traffic forecast. 2. Access (30 percent of total score): This is an approximation of the facility’s degree of ingress
and egress between the local roadway infrastructure and the highway system and includes the quantity (number of on-and off-ramps) and quality (directness) of access. This criterion also
considers how well the facility meets driver expectations. 3. Local Traffic Operations (20 percent of total score): This is a measure of efficiency of traffic operations as they relate
to the local roadway, based on a 20-year projected traffic forecast. 4. Environmental Impacts (10 percent of total score): This refers to an approximation of the concept’s overall effect
on the surrounding environment, and includes Natural Environment, Community Issues, and Cultural Resources.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 33 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Each alternative was evaluated on overall project performance. The alternative’s ability to
meet each Performance Criteria was determined based on a ten-point scale. This total was then compared to the original project concept. Ultimately, only one Value Analysis alternative
was accepted. This alternative, which is the proposed project, was referred to in the Value Analysis Report as VA 1.1. In the Draft Project Report (August 2006) and in the New Connection
Report (August 2008), the Build Alternative “Proposed Project” is identified as Alternative 4. The Build Alternative “Proposed Project” alternative was selected because mainline traffic
operations would be improved by the construction of a C/D System that eliminates weaving between interchanges and provides storage space for potential vehicle queuing, specifically on
the southbound off-ramp of Winchester Road. The other alternatives were rejected for a variety of reasons including incompatibility with existing or future local circulation and isolated
ramp design having the potential for wrong way movements. As part of the Value Analysis process, the proposed extension of improvements beyond construction of just an additional interchange
was reviewed to ensure safe accommodation of increased traffic volumes into the system. The results of the Value Analysis supported the associated project limits. The proposed project
was also the subject of an FHWA Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop. At this three-day workshop (December 9 to 11, 2003), experts from a variety of disciplines
representing the federal government, State governments, and consultant firms met to discuss and share their ideas on project concepts and how to accelerate the delivery of the project.
During the ACTT Workshop, project ideas and implementation strategies were discussed in the context of the following ten skill sets: 1. Innovative Financing – Analyzing the financing
options in the context of the project’s goals by matching anticipated cash flow with project management, while recognizing competing priorities for existing resources. 2. Right-of-Way/Utilities/Railr
oad Coordination – Evaluating innovative solutions to coordination with right-of-way, utility, and railroads to reduce delays. 3. Geotechnical/Materials/Accelerated Testing – Exploring
subsurface conditions and issues to assess their impacts on the project. 4. Traffic Engineering/Safety/ITS – Considering corridor contracting to provide enhanced safety and improved
traffic. Developing and evaluating contract models may illustrate the best use of incentives to enhance safety and to improve traffic flow during and after construction. 5. Structures
(bridges, retaining walls, culverts, miscellaneous) – Evaluating the acceleration of constructing structures to identify the most accommodating system while minimizing adverse project
impacts. 6. Innovative contracting – Exploring the state-of-the art in contracting practices and obtaining a better knowledge of how these techniques could be
34 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study selected, organized, and assembled to match the specific situations needed on this project.
7. Roadway/Geometric Design – Identifying the most accommodating design while minimizing adverse impacts. 8. Long life pavements/Maintenance – Identifying communicating pavement performance
goals and objectives in order to determine the appropriate methodology. 9. Construction (Techniques, Automation, and Constructability) – Evaluating accelerated construction management
strategies while maintaining and protecting traffic-flow patterns. 10. Environment – Ensuring that the scope-of-work and construction activities reflect environmental concerns to ensure
the most accommodating and cost effective product while minimizing natural and socio-economic impacts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The locally preferred alternative, hereafter identified as
the “proposed project” is located in Riverside County on the I-15 between the existing Winchester Road (SR-79)/I-15 Interchange and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the vicinity of the I-15/I-215
Junction in the cities of Temecula and Murrieta (I-15 KP 8.9/15.4 [PM 5.5/9.607] and I-215 KP R13.5/R15.7 [PM R8.430/R9.756]). The Project covers a distance of 6.5 kilometers (km, 4.1
miles [mi]). Within the limits of the proposed project, the I-15 is an 8-lane divided urban freeway with four 3.66-meter (m, [12-foot]) lanes in each direction. The inside and outside
shoulders are 2.44 m (8 feet [ft]) and 3.05 m (10 ft), respectively. The existing median is 16.5 m (54.1 ft) wide and is unpaved beyond the shoulders. North of Winchester Road, auxiliary
lanes are provided in both directions as the freeway approaches the I-15/I-215 junction. North of the junction, the I-15 is a six-lane facility, and the I-215 is a four-lane facility.
The project’s purpose is to improve traffic flow and to enhance safety by reducing congestion. The construction of the proposed French Valley Parkway Interchange would help reduce travel
delays by providing increased opportunities for access to and from the mainline facility, thereby alleviating congestion on the adjacent Winchester ramps and traffic that backs up onto
the I-15 mainline. However, with the construction of a new interchange and the limited distance between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 Junction, standard spacing between interchanges
is not possible. Without special provisions in the design, the new interchange would contribute to an increase in weaving movements. Build Alternative “Proposed Project”(Locally Preferred
Alternative) The Locally Preferred Alternative proposes the construction of a new interchange (French Valley Parkway) on the I-15 between the existing Winchester Road Interchange and
the I-15/I-215 Junction. The new interchange and its associated improvements are proposed to better accommodate future traffic demand, which is anticipated from the continued growth
within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta and in nearby portions of unincorporated Riverside County.
County. I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 35 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The proposed interchange would split the volume of traffic accessing the freeway and
would provide a better LOS for intersections within the project vicinity. The proposed project strives to improve safety and to reduce accidents by improving the LOS on the I-15 mainline
and interchange ramps. The proposed project would not be dependent on any other improvements to operate effectively. To alleviate increased and conflicting weaving movements, the C/D
system was incorporated into the project design. To ensure the project meets the FHWA criteria for logical termini and independent utility,2 the project’s effect on the adjacent interchanges
and on freeway-to-freeway junction was evaluated. The goal was to ensure that the project would not result in adverse operational effects on the mainline or ramps and that the improvements
extended to the full extent necessary so as to accommodate and safely integrate the traffic volumes being introduced to the mainline facility. Therefore, the improvements were extended
to south of the Winchester Road Interchange and north of the I-15/I-215 Junction. The Value Analysis process confirms the appropriateness of the project limits. The Locally Preferred
Alternative proposes a partial cloverleaf interchange at French Valley Parkway with loop on-ramps in the northwestern and southeastern quadrants and direct on-ramps in the southwestern
and northeastern quadrants similar to the existing Winchester Road interchange configuration. Figures 1-4a and 1-4b depict the project plans, and cross-sections are provided in Figures
1-5a through 1-5d. In addition, the layout sheets for the proposed project are included as Figures 1-6a through 1-6l. French Valley Parkway is proposed to be an overcrossing that would
span the I-15 mainline facility and C/D road system. The ramps between French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road are braided in both northbound and southbound directions due to insufficient
insufficient weaving distances. Therefore, new structures over the Santa Gertrudis Creek are required. All ramps are proposed to have provisions for ramp metering and enforcement areas
for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). A C/D system is being proposed in order to relieve the mainline congestion that is caused by weaving in this area. This system would remove large
numbers of commuters who are entering or exiting the freeway in this area from the mainline and would provide better levels of service to travelers who are traveling through this area.
Through the project limits (which include the I-15/I-215 confluence) the C/D system would add three lanes in each direction, which would result in seven lanes in each direction. South
and north of the project limits, the freeway would remain four lanes in each direction. In the southbound direction, the C/D system would start north of the I-15/I-215 confluence and
would provide access to both French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road. The southbound I-15 mainline would provide access to the C/D system north of the Murrieta Hot Springs Interchange.
The southbound I-215 connector splits to provide access to the I-15 southbound mainline and the southbound C/D system. 2 FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771.111[f]) require that the action
evaluated (1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be
usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and (3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
36 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study In the northbound direction, this system would start at Winchester Road and would provide direct
access from the mainline to French Valley Parkway via a braided ramp. The loop on-ramp from Winchester Road and the direct on-ramp would provide two-lanes northbound past French Valley
Parkway. A third lane would be added by the loop on-ramp from French Valley Parkway. The C/D system would then split to provide one lane to the northbound I-215 and two lanes to the
northbound I-15. These two connectors would also be braided. In order to fully utilize the width of the existing median, the proposed project would shift the northbound I-15 lanes to
the east. Such a shift would require re-striping of the mainline lanes. The remaining open space in the median would accommodate the future HOV lanes with no mainline shift needed and
no wasted space. This shift also provides a full-width inside mainline shoulder for northbound traffic. In the southbound direction, the mainline lanes would also shift to the east,
which would require the reconstruction of the inside shoulder, but would accommodate the existing overcrossings at Winchester Road and Overland Drive. The future HOV connector would
require a shift of the mainline lanes in the southbound direction. In order to minimize the right-of-way impacts, bridges over Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek would have
to be widened. Warm Springs Creek would require a 14.52-m (47.62-ft.) widening to the east and a 3.12-m (10.22-ft.) widening to the west. Santa Gertrudis Creek requires a 0.938-m (3.08-ft.)
widening to the west and a 3.13-m (10.26-ft.) widening to the east. French Valley Parkway is designated as an urban arterial in the City of Temecula Circulation Plan. The proposed French
Valley Parkway overcrossing would be 37.2 m (122 ft) wide, which would accommodate a 4.2-m (13.8-foot) median, two 4.3-m (14.1-foot) lanes, four 3.7-m (12.1-foot) lanes, 3.0-m (9.8-foot)
shoulders, and one 1.8-m (5.9-ft) sidewalk on both sides. The arterial improvements would extend from Jefferson Road (west of I-15) to Ynez Road (east of I-15). Intersection improvements
at Jefferson Road would be required to accommodate the connection to French Valley Parkway. At Winchester Road, the direct southbound on-ramp is proposed to be realigned to better accommodate
the sidewalk and the tie-in to the loop on-ramp and C/D traffic merging on to I-15. The southbound loop on-ramp would merge with the southbound C/D road prior to joining the I-15 mainline.
The northbound off-ramp would remain unchanged. The northbound loop on-ramp is proposed to be reconfigured in order to accommodate the beginning of the northbound C/D system. The northbound
direct on-ramp
is proposed to be reconfigured as a right-turn only lane (from westbound Winchester Road) and widened from one to two lanes. The conceptual design identifies the need for up to 16 retaining
walls (including a tie-back wall), 2 sound walls, 5 new bridge locations and replacements, and 4 bridge widenings. The locations of these project features are depicted on Figures 1-4a
and 1-4b. Estimated heights of the retaining walls range from 3.3 feet to nearly 48 feet. The first sound wall is proposed on the west side of I-15, south of Winchester Road. Based on
the noise impact analysis, the sound wall would be 3 m (9.8 ft) high and would extend for 683 m (2,240.9 ft). The second sound wall would be located on the east side of I-15 from the
beginning of the mobile home park to Elm Street, a distance of 395 m (1,296 ft). This wall would range in height from 4.3 to 4.9 m (14.1-16.1 ft). The bridge locations are:
Project Elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-4a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/fig.1-4a_061908.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Gra
phics/Fig.1-4a.pdf #107 #105#106 #108 #109 #115 #117#118 A B C Retaining Wall Sound Wall Collector/Distributor Road New Ramps Existing Ramp Reconfiguration Freeway to Freeway Connector
Mainline Improvements Structures French Valley Parkway #95 Wall Location Length Length Number meter s feet 95 95+95 -102+78 683 2240.9 3.0 3.0 9.8 9.8 105 105+40 -106+10 75 246.1 1.5
4.1 4.9 13.5 106 106+00 -106+25 25 82.0 2.7 5.9 8.9 19.4 107 105+00 -107+00 140 459.3 1.4 4.3 4.6 14.1 108 108+90 -111+00 210 689.0 6.3 8.1 20.7 26.6 109 108+40 -113+60 515 1689.7 3.8
14.5 12.5 47.6 115 11+20 -13+70 250 820.3 1.3 7.7 4.3 25.3 117 117+80 -118+60 80 262.5 1.0 1.7 3.3 5.6 118 118+60 -120+00 145 475.7 1.0 2.0 3.3 6.6 119 120+40 -121+20 75 246.1 3.3 3.4
10.8 11.2 121 120+60 -122+75 180 590.6 2.6 3.9 8.5 12.8 122 121+60 -122+75 50 164.1 6.2 6.2 8.9 20.3 29.2 123 125+00 -127+00 200 656.2 1.0 3.5 3.3 11.5 124 124+00 -128+00 395 1296.0
4.3 4.9 14.1 16.1 128 128+20 -137+00 900 2952.9 1.0 13.8 3.3 45.3 129 129+80 -131+40 160 525.0 1.0 2.5 3.3 8.2 135 136+15 -137+95 165 541.4 1.6 7.5 5.2 24.6 Height Rang e meter s Height
Rang e feet Bridg e Location Length Length meter s feet A 107+76 -108+63 100 328.1 4.8 7.5 15.7 24.6 B 112+00 -113+00 100 328.1 4.8 7.5 15.7 24.6 C 14+60 -15+70 110 360.9 4.8 7.5 15.7
24.6 D 124+00 -125+00 100 328.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A E 136+50 -138+00 120 393.7 4.8 7.5 15.7 24.6 Height Rang e Height Rang e meter s feet Source: Graphic by KTU+A Source: Moffatt & Nichol,
2004 for design data Project End I-15 KP 8.9/PM 5.5
Project Elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative Fi gu re 1-4 b F re nc h V a ll e y P a r k w ay Im p ro v em en ts P ro je c t R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/fig.1-4b_062008.pdf
D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/Fig.1-4b_062106.ai # 12 3 #1 2 4 #1 2 8 # 1 2 9 # 1 35 # 11 9 # 12 2 #1 2 1 R e t a in in g W al l S ou nd W al l C o ll e c to r/Di s t ri bu t or Ro
a d N e w Ra m ps E xi st i ng Ra m p R e c o nf ig u ra t i on F re ew a y t o F re e wa y Co n ne c t or M a in l in e I mp ro v em e nt s St r uc t ur es F re nc h Va l le y Pa rk
w a y D E F ig u re 1 b Vi s i bl e P ro je c t E le m en t s NORTH Not to Scale Wa l l L o c at i o n L en g th L en g t h Nu m b e r me t er s f ee t 9 5 9 5 + 9 5 -1 0 2 + 7 8 6 8
3 2 2 4 0 .9 3 .0 3 .0 9 .8 9 .8 10 5 1 0 5 + 4 0 -1 0 6 + 10 7 5 2 4 6 .1 1. 5 4 .1 4 .9 13 .5 1 0 6 10 6 + 0 0 -10 6 + 2 5 2 5 8 2 . 0 2 .7 5 . 9 8 .9 1 9 .4 10 7 10 5 + 0 0 -10 7
+ 0 0 14 0 4 5 9 .3 1. 4 4 .3 4 . 6 14 . 1 10 8 10 8 + 9 0 -11 1 + 0 0 2 10 6 8 9 .0 6 . 3 8 . 1 2 0 .7 .7 2 6 .6 10 9 10 8 + 4 0 -11 3 + 6 0 5 1 5 16 8 9 .7 3 . 8 14 . 5 12 . 5 4 7
. 6 115 11+20 -13+70 250 820.3 1.3 7.7 4.3 25.3 117 117+80 -118+60 80 262.5 1.0 1.7 3.3 5.6118 118+60 -120+00 145 475.7 1.0 2.0 3.3 6.6119 120+40 -121+20 75 246.1 3.3 3.4 10.8 11.2121
120+60 -122+75 180 590.6 2.6 3.9 8.5 12.8122 121+60 -122+75 50 164.1 6.2 8.9 20.3 29.2123 125+00 -127+00 200 656.2 1.0 3.5 3.3 11.5124 124+00 -128+00 395 1296.0 4.3 4.9 14.1 16.1128
128+20 -137+00 900 2952.9 1.0 13.8 3.3 45.3 129 129+80 -131+40 160 525.0 1.0 2.5 3.3 8.2135 136+15 -137+95 165 541.4 1.6 7.5 5.2 24.6 He i g h t R a n g e me t e r s H ei g ht Ra ng
e f ee t B ri d g e L o c at i o n L e ng th L en g th m et e r s f e et A 10 7 + 7 6 -1 0 8 + 6 3 1 0 0 3 2 8 . 1 4 . 8 7 . 5 15 . 7 2 4 . 6 B 11 2 + 0 0 -1 1 3 + 0 0 10 0 3 2 8 . 1
4 . 8 7 . 5 15 . 7 2 4 . 6 C 14 + 6 0 -15 + 7 0 1 10 3 6 0 .9 4 . 8 7 . 5 15 . 7 2 4 . 6 D 12 4 + 0 0 -12 5 + 0 0 10 0 3 2 8 .1 N/A N/A N/A N/A E 13 6 + 5 0 -13 8 + 0 0 12 0 3 9 3 .
7 4 . 8 7 . 5 15 . 7 2 4 . 6 He He i g h t R an g e H e ig ht Ra ng e m et er s f e et Aerial Photo Source: Moffatt & Nichol, 2004 Source: Graphic by KTU+A I-215 KPR 15.7/PMR 9.756 I-15
KP 15.4/PM 9.706 Project Start
Cross Sections French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 1-5a R:/Projects/Moffatt/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig1-5a_sections_060908.pdf Figure 1-5b Figure 1-5c Figure 1-5d D:/Projects/Moffatt/J
004/Ex5_sections_012005.mxd 1,500 750 0 1,500 Feet ² Source: Aerials Express April 2006
Typical Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: Moffatt & Nichol, 2005. R:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\Graphics/June_2006/Figure1-5b_xsec_012208.pdf
Figure 1-5b D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\ex5b_xsec_012005.ai
Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: Moffatt & Nichol, 2005. R:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\Graphics/June_2006/Figure1-5C_xsec_012208.pdf
Figure 1-5c D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\ex5b_xsec_012005.ai
Cross Sections of the Locally Preferred Alternative French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: Moffatt & Nichol, 2005. R:\Projects\M offatt\J004\Graphics/June_2006/Figure1-5d_xsec_012208.pdf
Figure 1-5d D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\ex5d_xsec_012005.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA\Ex1-6a_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/
J024/graphics/ex__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6b French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex1-6b_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/
J024/graphics/ex2__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6c French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex1-6c_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/
J024/graphics/ex3__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6d French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6d_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex4__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6e French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6e_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex5__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6f French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6f_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex6__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6g French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6g_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex7__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6h French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6h_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex8__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6i French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6i_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex9__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6j French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6j_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex10__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6k French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6k_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex11__LPAP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Locally Preferred Alternative Figure 1-6l French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-6l_LPAP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/gr
aphics/ex12__LPAP_032609.ai
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 37 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • Route 79/I-15 Separation, west tie back wall; • Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge widening, I-15
bridges southbound and northbound; • Winchester Road southbound off-ramp widening; • Winchester Road northbound on-ramp replacement; • Santa Gertrudis Creek southbound C/D over the Winchester
southbound off-ramp; • French Valley Parkway northbound off-ramp, over the northbound on-ramp from Winchester Road; • French Valley Parkway overcrossing; • Warm Springs Creek bridge
widening, I-15 bridges southbound and northbound; • Northbound I-15 C/D connector over I-215. Right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for this alternative and is expected to affect
42 parcels and a total of 8.87 hectares (25.73 acres). The proposed project is expected to provide for treatment of approximately 80 percent of the runoff from the freeway. Currently,
only a portion of the runoff from the existing facility is being treated within the project area. Modification to existing drainage facilities is anticipated to be necessary. During
Final Design applicable treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be determined. The existing utilities include a Southern California Edison distribution line and vault, a Rancho
California Water District pipeline, Verizon telephone lines, and Eastern Municipal Water District water and sewer lines. A water line on the west side of I-15 in Madison Avenue would
likely need to be relocated where it traverses the proposed interchange. Three modifications to the existing storm drain system are required at the French Valley Parkway Interchange:
1. In the Interchange’s southwest quadrant, approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) of a 2,438 millimeter (mm, 8 ft) diameter concrete pipe would be relocated to avoid the proposed southbound
on-ramp. The pipe would require an easement along the eastern side of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 910-272-002 and APN 910-272-001. A manhole would be constructed outside the Department’s
right-of-way (ROW) to allow maintenance access. 2. In the northwest quadrant, approximately 50 m (164 ft) of 2,134 mm (7 foot) diameter concrete pipe would be relocated to avoid the
proposed southbound loop on-ramp. An approximate 40-m (131-foot) concrete transition structure would be required to connect the existing double storm drain pipes under the I-15 to the
new 2,134 mm (7 ft) diameter concrete pipe. No new ROW would be required. A manhole would be constructed inside the loop ramp to allow maintenance access. 3. In the northeast quadrant,
an approximate 30 m (98 ft) long concrete transition structure would be constructed to support the proposed northbound C/D lanes.
38 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No new ROW would be required. A manhole would be constructed outside the northbound on-ramp
to allow maintenance access. All improvements would be constructed outside the existing travel lanes and would not require freeway lane closures. It is estimated that construction of
the improvements would require the excavation of approximately 68,219 cubic meters (89,227 cubic yards) of cut and the importation of approximately 228,949 cubic meters (299,454 cubic
yards) of imported borrow material. At this time, a borrow site has not been identified. This decision is typically made closer to construction, during the plans, specifications, and
estimates (PS&E) phase. At that time, impacts associated with the borrow site would require environmental clearance. Traffic-control devices would also need to be modified and new signals
installed. New traffic signals would be located at the ramps’ intersections and French Valley Parkway. Parkway. Additionally, the northbound ramp signals at the Winchester Road interchange
would need to be relocated because of the realignment of these ramps. The area surrounding the new interchange and locations disturbed by construction (including the project staging
area), would be revegetated upon completion of construction. Construction staging would be located on the west side of I-15, south of the I-15/I-215 Junction, within the existing ROW,
as shown in Figure 1-4a. Access to the staging area would be taken directly off the C/D system. Construction activities would be staged and may require one or two brief, overnight freeway
closures when falsework is constructed and removed. There are two construction detour scenarios. The first concept is that the C/D roadways would be constructed first. Traffic would
continue to use the mainline facility when the falsework is erected and removed over the C/D roadways. Traffic would then be diverted to the C/D roadways and the mainline would be closed
while erecting and removing the falsework over the mainline facility. Should this approach not be feasible, the second detour concept would be to force the closure of the freeway at
Murrieta Hot Springs Road, direct the traffic to Jefferson Road, and then allow traffic to access the freeway at Winchester Road. Given the late night hours and short duration (only
during the erection and removal of falsework), no improvements would be required to any of the facilities. Detour signing would be done with freestanding signage (i.e., no posts in the
ground). A Mandatory Design Standard Exception Fact Sheet for the following non-standard features is required by this alternative: • Interchange Spacing from Winchester Road to French
Valley Parkway. • Interchange Spacing from French Valley Parkway to the I-15/I-215 Interchange. • Median shoulder cross slope along southbound lanes. • Superelevation rate at various
locations. • Shoulder width at various locations. Project implementation cost for this alternative is approximately $140.846 million and is listed in the amended 2008 RTIP. The project
is fully funded. This amount
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 39 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study represents the cost of both phases of the project. The 2008 RTIP specifies Phase I as the design
and construction of French Valley Parkway from I-15 to Jefferson; the southbound exit ramp; southbound auxiliary lane from French Valley Parkway to Winchester Road; and widening of the
Winchester Road southbound exit ramp (Project ID No. 991202). Phase II is described as the construction of the six-lane interchange of French Valley Parkway from Ynez to Jefferson, including
the ramps, northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes and C/D lanes (three northbound and three southbound), and modification of the Winchester Road Interchange (Project ID No. RIV031215).
Construction of the project’s first phase is expected to start in 2009 and take approximately 18 months to complete. The start date for the second phase of the project will be determined
based on the availability of funding, but is anticipated to commence in late 2010 and take 24 months to complete, with an anticipated 2012 opening date. The project would provide additional
single-occupant-vehicle capacity, and it would be consistent with the State Congestion Management Plan. The project has been incorporated into the RTP, which is a component of the State
Congestion Management Plan. As such, the emissions have been accounted for in the statewide planning programs. The approved RTP identifies the ultimate corridor for this segment as a
14-lane facility. The future ultimate condition includes the addition of HOV lanes in the median. The project would not result in additional single-occupancy trips being generated, but
would improve the mobility of the trips associated with the adopted growth projections. By better accommodating the trips, traffic bottlenecks would be reduced and emissions would be
lessened. Construction Phasing Due to the size of the proposed project, implementation would be phased. This would allow improvements to be implemented early to provide immediate congestion
relief and to facilitate the implementation of the ultimate improvements. Currently, back-ups onto the mainline facility in the southbound direction at the Winchester Road off-ramp has
resulted in above-average accident rates, which has included fatalities. By providing the early implementation of the southbound off-ramp at French Valley Parkway and by providing improvements
to the Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, traffic congestion both on the mainline and the off-ramp could be alleviated and safety enhanced. UPhase I The first phase of the proposed
project consists of the construction of the new southbound off-ramp at French Valley Parkway and the provision of a second lane on the Winchester Road off-ramp. An auxiliary lane prior
to the Winchester Road off-ramp would be provided. Both the French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road off-ramps would be constructed at their ultimate locations so only minor adjustments
would be required as part of the ultimate project. All components of early construction would be integrated into the proposed project. As a result, there would be no “throw-away” components3
from the proposed project’s first phase. The French Valley Parkway 3 “Throw away” components refer to improvements that would need to be demolished or reconstructed when the ultimate
improvements are constructed.
40 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study ramp would be shorter and the core area would become a part of the C/D roadway. Also, the bridge
widening over Santa Gertrudis would match the ultimate lane configuration so that from a stage construction point of view, constructing the French Valley ramp first would help relieve
the congestion while the Winchester ramp is widened. Phase I is listed in the 2008 RTIP as including the design and construction of French Valley Parkway from the I-15 to Jefferson,
the southbound exit ramp, the southbound auxiliary lane from French Valley Parkway to Winchester Road, and the widening of the Winchester Road southbound exit ramp (Project ID # 991202;
Model No. R316; Program CAX66; Route I-15; PM 6.6 to 7.6). The cost for Phase I implementation is estimated at approximately $18.142 million. As indicated above, construction of Phase
I is expected to be initiated in 2009 and take approximately 18 months to complete. UPhase II Design of Phase II of the project would be initiated while Phase I is under construction.
This would allow the construction of Phase II to be initiated at approximately the same time as the construction of Phase I is completed. Phase II would include the remainder of all
improvements described as part of the project. The full French Valley Parkway Interchange and overcrossing would be completed and the C/D system would be constructed. The design elements
identified above (e.g., retaining walls, sound walls, treatment BMPs, landscaping) would be constructed during Phase II of the project. Construction of Phase II is anticipated to commence
in late 2010 and take 24 months to complete, with an anticipated 2012 opening date. Phase II is listed in the 2008 RTIP as the construction of the sixlane interchange of French Valley
Parkway from Ynez to Jefferson, including ramps, northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes and C/D lanes (three northbound and three southbound) and modification of the Winchester Road
Interchange ((Project ID #RIV031215; Model No. R324; Program CAX70; Route I-15; PM 5.5 to 9.6; Route I-215 PM 8.43 to 9.75). Phase II implementation cost is estimated at $122.704 million.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is considered the base case scenario and proposes that no improvements be implemented at this time. There would be no new interchange
or modifications to the existing Winchester Road Interchange. The mainline inside shoulders would remain non-standard. Though not part of the project, it should be noted that the City
of Temecula will implement improvements to the local circulation network. These improvements will include the extension of Ynez Road north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road where it will
align with Whitewood Road. For purposes of the No Action Alternative analysis, no other improvements are assumed. A set of the project lay-out sheets for the No Action Alternative are
included as Figure 1-7a through 1-7l. While no other improvements are proposed to address the existing and projected safety, capacity and operational deficiencies, the No Action Alternative
does not preclude the construction of future improvements.
No Action Alternative Figure 1-7a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7a_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/ex_LNPP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7b French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7b_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x2_LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7c French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7c_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x3__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7d French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7d_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x4__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7e French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7e_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x5__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7f French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7f_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x6__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7g French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7g_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x7__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7h French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7h_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x8__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Figure 1-7i French Valley Parkway Improvements Project No Action Alternative R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7i_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x9__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7j French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7j_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x10__LNPP_032609.ai Existing Right of Way
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 Existing Right of Way No Action Alternative Figure 1-7k French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7k_LNPP_041309.pdf
D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/ex11__LNPP_032609.ai
Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2008 No Action Alternative Figure 1-7l French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex1-7l_LNPP_041309.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/graphics/e
x12__LNPP_032609.ai
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 41 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study DECISION MAKING PROCESS After the public circulation period, all comments will be considered;
the City of Temecula and the Department will make final determinations of the Project’s effect on the environment and a Preferred Alternative will be selected. In accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if no unmitigable significant adverse impacts are identified, the City in cooperation with the Department, will prepare a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). Similarly, if the Department determines the action does not significantly impact the environment, the Department, as assigned by the FHWA, will issue a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) in accordance with NEPA. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DISCUSSION Throughout the project study process a number of alternatives have
been considered but not carried forward because they did not meet the project objectives or posed design constraints. Alternatives were developed during the original Project Study Report
(PSR) process in 2002. As discussed above, during the VA process, variations of the PSR alternatives were re-evaluated. In early December of 2004, the PDT group agreed that the Traffic
Operations Report should discuss three build alternatives: Alternatives 2 and 3 from the PSR and Alternative 4 (Locally Preferred Alternative) developed for the Project Report. Alternatives
2 and 3 were considered viable from an engineering perspective. Both Alternatives proposed the construction of an interchange on I-15 at French Valley Parkway and would accommodate future
planned improvements to the I-15 and I-215 mainlines. However, they did not provide satisfactory levels of service and were therefore not advanced for study in the 2008 Traffic Operations
Analysis or in the Environmental Document. This is further discussed below. Alternative 4, the Locally Preferred Alternative, was the only build alternative that met the identified purpose
and need, therefore, the PDT determined that it would be the only build alternative evaluated. Following the discussion of Alternatives 2 and 3, a summary of the alternatives eliminated
at the early planning phase is provided. Alternative 2 – Braided Partial Cloverleaf Interchange This alternative was carried forward from the PSR dated April 2002, but in light of the
updated traffic analysis was subsequently found not to be operationally viable. This alternative proposed a braided partial cloverleaf interchange at French Valley Parkway with loop
on-ramps in the northwestern and southeastern quadrants and direct on-ramps in the southwestern and northeastern quadrants, similar to the existing Winchester Road interchange configuration.
French Valley Parkway was proposed as an overcrossing. The ramps between French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road would have been braided in both the northbound and southbound directions
due to insufficient weaving distances. The weaving distance between the French Valley Parkway Interchange and the I-15/I-215 junction is 1,364 m (4,475 ft) in the northbound
42 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study direction and 885 m (2,903.5 ft) in the southbound direction. The design standard is 3 km (9,842.5
ft). This alternative does not propose any improvements to the I-15/I-215 freeway-to-freeway interchange. The proposed French Valley Parkway overcrossing would have accommodated a variable
width median with 2 turning lanes, 6 through lanes, 2.4-m (7.9-ft) shoulders, and 1.8-m (5.9-ft) sidewalks on both sides, consistent with the City of Temecula’s designation of an “Urban
Arterial.” At Winchester Road, the southbound off-ramp would have been reconfigured to accommodate widening of the southbound loop on-ramp from one to two lanes. The southbound on-ramp
would also have been widened from one to two lanes, but one of the lanes was proposed to be dropped before the merge with the I-15 mainline. The northbound off-ramp would have remained
unchanged and the northbound on-ramps, both the loop and the direct on, would widen from from one to two lanes. The traffic analyses carried forward from the Need and Purpose document
concluded that the existing and projected operational deficiencies at the Winchester Road Interchange on I-15 are primarily the result of exceptionally high demand for access to and
from the north via I-15. The operational deficiencies in the ramp influence areas on the freeway mainline are primarily the result of crossing streams of traffic between the I-15/I-215
junction and the Winchester Road interchange. The analyses also concluded
that, in order to achieve satisfactory operations in the ramp influence areas, it is necessary to separate merging and diverging traffic at the Winchester Road Interchange from freeway
mainline traffic through the I-15/I-215 Junction. In the northbound direction, the conflict between the high traffic volumes entering the freeway at Winchester Road and the mainline
traffic moving to the right to access the I-215 at the junction would continue to cause the merge area to fail unless these streams of traffic are separated. In the southbound direction,
the projected volume exiting the freeway at the Winchester Road Interchange is just too great for a single ramp, even a two-lane ramp, to accommodate. Only the Locally Preferred Alternative
addresses and solves the merge/diverge issues and improves mainline operations through the proposed C/D system. The Closeout VA Study Report validated the conclusion that only the Locally
Preferred Alternative solves the current and future operational deficiencies. The VA accepted only one alternative (Alternative 4, the Locally Preferred Alternative) because it was the
only alternative that improved the mainline operations with the construction of the C/D system. During the study, a braided partial cloverleaf interchange (Alternative 2) was used as
the baseline concept and the VA team concluded that the Locally Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) shows performance improvements of 16 percent when compared to Alternative 2. Right-of-way
impacts of Alternative 2 and the Locally Preferred Alternative are comparable. Both alternatives would also require full acquisition of the same two properties, though there would be
fewer partial acquisitions. Construction and right-of-way cost for Alternative 2 is estimated at $90,980,058 plus $22,745,015 for support.4 4 At the time cost estimates were developed
for Alternatives 2 and 3 the estimated construction and right-of-way cost for Alternative 4 was $107,977,953 with $26,994,488 for support. The increase in cost for Alternative 4 is due
to more detailed evaluation and cost escalation. Similar increases would be expected with Alternatives 2 and 3 had they moved for forward for more detailed consideration.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 43 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Alternative 3 – Modified Braided Diamond Interchange This alternative was also carried forward
from the PSR dated April 2002, but in light of the updated traffic analysis was subsequently found not be operationally viable. It proposed a braided modified diamond interchange at
French Valley Parkway with direct on-and off-ramps and an additional loop off-ramp from the southbound I-15 to French Valley Parkway eastbound. French Valley Parkway itself is proposed
to be an overcrossing. The ramps between French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road were to be braided in both the northbound and southbound directions due to insufficient weaving distances.
Therefore, new structures over Santa Gertrudis Creek would have been required. All ramps were proposed to have two lanes with provisions for ramp metering and CHP enforcement areas.
This alternative does not propose any improvements to the I-15/I-215 Junction. French Valley Parkway is designated as an Urban Arterial in the City of Temecula’s Circulation Plan. Therefore,
the proposed French Valley Parkway overcrossing would have accommodated a variable width median, two 4.2-m (13.8-ft) lanes, four 3.6-m (11.8-ft) lanes, 2.4-m (7.9-ft) shoulders, and
1.8-m (5.9-ft) sidewalks on both sides. At Winchester Road, the improvements were the same as those proposed for the braided partial cloverleaf interchange alternative. From an operational
perspective, this alternative was similar to Alternative 2, discussed above. Since the operational deficiencies in the ramp influence areas on the freeway mainline are primarily the
result of crossing streams of traffic between the I-15/I-215 Junction and the Winchester Road Interchange, this alternative would not achieve satisfactory operations in the ramp influence
areas because it does not separate merging and diverging traffic at the Winchester Road Interchange or the I-15/I-215 Junction. In the southbound direction, the projected volume exiting
the the freeway at the Winchester Road interchange is just too great for a single ramp, even a two-lane ramp, to accommodate. Given that performance improves 16 percent for the Locally
Preferred Alternative when compared to the braided partial cloverleaf interchange and the fact that this alternative is similar from an operational perspective to the braided partial
cloverleaf interchange, it can be determined that the Locally Preferred Alternative is superior from an operational function. The rightof-way impacts of this alternative and the Locally
Preferred Alternative are also comparable. Both alternatives would require full acquisition of the same two properties, though there would be fewer partial acquisitions. Construction
and rightof-way cost is $85,379,053 with $21,344,763 for support. Full Standard Interchange Spacing An alternative not carried forward in the Project Study Report (PSR) was the development
of an interchange with full standard spacing. As previously discussed, the spacing between the existing I-15/Winchester Road Interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction is approximately
3.4 km (2.11 mi). The Department’s current mandatory spacing between a local street interchange and a freeway-to-freeway interchange is 3.0 km (1.9 mi). Therefore, it is not feasible
to add a new interchange and maintain the required spacing. To provide the standard interchange spacing, the existing I-15/Winchester Road Interchange would need to be relocated. Modification
44 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study of such magnitude to the local infrastructure would have drastic impacts on the socioeconomic
vitality of the area. As a result, this alternative was dropped from further consideration. Split Diamond Interchange The second alternative not carried forward in the PSR consisted
primarily of constructing a modified split diamond interchange approximately 0.98 km (0.6 mi) north of the existing I-15/Winchester Road Interchange. The alternative would require the
removal of the southbound exit ramp and northbound entrance ramp at Winchester Road, and the construction of the C/D road between the I-15/Winchester Road Interchange and the proposed
French Valley Parkway in both directions. Under this proposed alternative, traffic volumes would be concentrated in substantially larger numbers at all the exit and entrance ramps. Of
particular concern is the potential increase in congestion at the southbound and northbound exit ramps. The operation of the southbound exit would be particularly compromised due to
the close proximity of the I-15/I-215 Junction with the proposed interchange. It was determined that additional improvements (such as the addition of C/D roads and the reconfiguration
of the existing I-15/I-215 interchange) would be required to ensure the operational efficiency of a split diamond interchange. Therefore, this alternative was dropped from further consideration.
Single-Point Interchange The third alternative dropped from consideration in the PSR consisted primarily of constructing a single-point interchange approximately 0.98 km (0.6 mi) north
of the existing I-15/Winchester Road Interchange. The governing design criteria for this type of an interchange when it is proposed for an overcrossing is the decision-sight distance
for vertical curves. In this case, the length of vertical curve required to provide this distance would have to be over 900 m (2,952.7 ft). This is longer than the distance between the
intersections intersections of French Valley Parkway with Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road. The construction and maintenance costs associated with the single-point interchange are as high
as a partial cloverleaf or split diamond interchange. The advantages of a single-point interchange are its compact configuration, high capacity, and minimum right-of-way requirements.
However, it was determined that a partial cloverleaf interchange would provide an LOS that would be acceptable at a much lower facility construction cost. Therefore, this alternative
was dropped from further consideration. Interchange at Elm Street Instead Of French Valley Parkway This alternative improved the interchange spacing between the new interchange and the
Winchester Road interchange, but the spacing between Elm Street and the I-15/I-215 Junction would be decreased. A new structure would be required at Warm Springs Creek, but structures
on Santa Gertrudis Creek would not be needed. Due to the inadequate weaving distance between the proposed interchange and the I-15/I-215 junction, this alternative was not carried forward.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 45 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED Table 1.6 below, provides a summary of the permits and/or approvals
that are, or may be, required prior to or during construction of the proposed project: Table 1.6 Permits and Approvals Agency Permit/Approval Status U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California
Department of Fish and Game Participation in the MSHCP consistency review. USFWS and CDFG will be required to make a Determination of a Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
(DBESP) finding that (1) the proposed riparian mitigation is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and mitigates for the loss of habitat for the least Bell’s vireo and (2) the proposed
Los Angeles pocket mouse mitigation is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP and mitigates for the loss of habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse. A draft DBESP was prepared by
the Department and submitted to USFWS and CDFG on January 25, 2006. A joint letter from the two agencies was received on August 22, 2006, providing an Initial MSHCP Consistency Evaluation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation for the least Bell’s vireo. In November 2006, the Department requested informal Section 7 consultation with USFWS pertaining to
potential impacts to the least Bell’s vireo. On December 16, 2006, the USFWS issued a letter, providing concurrence on the recommended “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination.
Table 1.6 Permits and Approvals (Continued) 46 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Agency Permit/Approval Status U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Section 404 Permit for filling or dredging waters of the United States. A pre-application field meeting was held in January 2006. In addition, on February 4, 2009,
a meeting was held with the City of Temecula, which also included a field visit. Permit application will be submitted upon approval of the NEPA document. California Department of Fish
and Game 1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration. A pre-application field meeting was held in January 2006. The permit application will be submitted upon approval of the CEQA document.
California Water Resources Control Board—San Diego Region Water Quality Certification A pre-application field meeting was held in January 2006. There has been ongoing coordination with
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. A permit application will be submitted upon approval of the CEQA document. Compliance will be required with the Statewide permits
that have been issued for Department of Transportation Projects. This includes: (1) Statewide Storm Water Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the State of California (Order
No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and (2) the General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (Order
No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) California Transportation Commission (CTC) New Connection to the State Highway System Upon project approval and local agency execution of the Superseding
Freeway Agreement, the Department will prepare and submit a report requesting approval of the new connection. FHWA Air Quality Conformity Determination Subsequent to the public review
of the draft environmental document and selection of the preferred alternative, the Department will request that FHWA concur on the finding that the project is consistent with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Prior to approval of the final environmental document, the FHWA will need to issue an air quality conformity determination letter.
Table 1.6 Permits and Approvals (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 47 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Agency Permit/Approval Status FHWA New Connection
Report On July 9, 2008, the FHWA made a finding of “acceptability” on the Draft New Connection Report. The report will be submitted to FHWA for final approval after the approval of the
final NEPA document. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) City of Temecula Superseding Freeway Agreement A draft Superseding Freeway Agreement has been prepared
and will be executed between the Department and the City of Temecula after the Final Project Report. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) City of Murrieta Superseding
Freeway Agreement A draft Superseding Freeway Agreement has been prepared and will be executed between the Department and the city of Murrieta after the Final Project Report.
48 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 49 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Chapter 2—Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures INTRODUCTION As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for the project, the following environmental resources were considered, but no potential
for adverse impacts to these resources was identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these resources in this document. Land Use • Parks and Recreational Facilities.
There are no parks or recreational facilities located within the project limits. In the city of Temecula, the land uses adjacent to the project limits are designated as Service Commercial,
Community Commercial, and Industrial Park. In the city of Murrieta the land uses adjacent to the project limits are designated as Professional Commercial, Business Park, Regional Commercial,
Community Commercial, Specific Plan, and Single-Family Residential. The closest park park or recreational facility is Harvest Community Park, which is located approximately 0.2 mile
(mi) from the intersection of Jackson Avenue and French Valley Parkway and approximately 0.33 mi from the proposed improvements on the Interstate 15 (I-15) freeway. In addition, the
General Plans for the cities do not designate park or public recreational use as a planned activity adjacent to either the I-15 or the Interstate 215 (I-215) freeways. The project would
not have any direct or indirect (constructive use) impacts on parkland. • Coastal Zone Impacts. The proposed project does not lie within an area designated as a Coastal Zone, which precludes
its inclusion in a Coastal Zone Management Plan. • Wild and Scenic Rivers. According to the National Park Service (which is responsible for the administration of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System), there are no water resources that have been designated as a wild or scenic river in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, there are no natural landmarks
located within the vicinity of the proposed project. Farmland and Timberland • Farmland and Timberland. The California Department of Conservation has not designated any Important Farmland
within or adjacent to the project study area. Additionally, there are no lands covered by Williamson Act contracts within the project study area, nor are there no timberland areas within
the project study area.
50 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Land Use Existing and Future Land Use Land use planning within the proposed
project study area occurs within the context of the City of Murrieta General Plan, the City of Temecula General Plan, and each City’s zoning ordinances. In accordance with State law,
all proposed construction activities should be consistent with these plans and ordinances. The project site is located in an urbanized area of Riverside County, California, in the vicinity
of I-15, a major transportation corridor. As shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Designations), existing development in the project area includes office, commercial, and light industrial uses
as well as scattered residential uses along both sides of the I-15. The current land use designation for the portion of the project study area that occurs within the city of Temecula
is commercial with two exceptions: (1) Santa Gertrudis Creek is designated as “open space” and (2) the property immediately south of Overland Drive and east of I-15 is designated for
industrial use. The current land use designation for the portion of the project study area that occurs within the city of Murrieta, west of I-15, allows for multiple uses. This area
includes a mix of industrial and commercial uses as well as the occasional single-family housing unit. North of this, near Murrieta Hot Springs Road, is a designated retail corridor.
Specific Plan Area 276 designated in the City of Murrieta General Plan is located within the triangular-shaped area created by I-15, I-215, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This area includes
commercial, multiple use, and industrial land use designations. It should be noted that the industrial area includes one mobile home, which is located off Jackson Avenue, adjacent to
Warm Springs Creek. The portion of the project study area where Warm Springs Creek crosses the I-15 is designated as a creek. UCommute Patterns The following information about commute
patterns in the the project study area was obtained from the Draft Project Report (August 2006) and the French Valley Need and Purpose Report (2004). The I-15 is a north-south freeway
that provides regional access to the cities of Temecula and Murrieta and the adjacent portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The freeway provides access to the San Diego metropolitan
area to the south, which is a large employment center for residents in the project study area. To the north, the freeway provides access to employment centers in the city of Corona and
in the Los Angeles metropolitan area via State Route 60 and the Interstate 10 freeway. Also to the north, the freeway provides access to employment opportunities in the cities of Riverside
and San Bernardino, via the I-215, which has a junction with the I-15 in the city of Murrieta.
Land Use Designations French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 2-1 R:\Projects\Moffatt\J024\Graphics\IS-ESA\ex2-1_LandUse_041309.pdf T e m e c u l a M u r r i e t a §¨¦15 Jackson
Ave. Date St. Ynez Rd. Jefferson Ave. Winchester Rd. Solana Way Margarita Rd. Overland Dr. ·|}þ79 Diaz Rd. §¨¦ §¨¦ 15 215 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. Jefferson Ave. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000Feet
² D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\land_use_061808.mxd Project Limits City Boundary Land Use Boundary City of Temecula Community Commercial High Density Residential Highway Tourist Commercial
Industrial Park Low Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Open Space Professional Office Public Institutional Facilities Service Commercial Transportation City of Murrieta
Business Park Civic/Institutional Community Commercial Estate Residential Industrial Multi-Family Residential Multiple Use Neighborhood Commercial Open Space Professional Commercial
Single-Family Residential Specific Plan Transportation Source: Murrieta General Plan, Temecula Temecula General Plan
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 51 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Winchester Road (State Route [SR] 79) is a major north-south arterial through western Riverside
County that connects the cities of Murrieta and Temecula to the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto to the north. The Winchester Road Interchange serves a large volume of regional traffic
that moves between SR-79 and the I-15. In the city of Temecula, Winchester Road turns west and functions as an east-west arterial. The primary east-west arterials in the cities of Murrieta
and Temecula have interchanges on the I-15 and the I-215 and also serve to carry traffic between the freeways and the surrounding areas. Several north-south arterials parallel to the
I-15 and the I-215 that carry local traffic either exist or are planned for future use. On the west side of the I-15, Jefferson Avenue exists as a continuous roadway from the California
Oaks Road Interchange to Old Town Temecula, south of Rancho California Road. On the east side of the I-15, Ynez Road exists as a continuous roadway from Winchester Road south to the
vicinity of the SR-79 Interchange on the I-15. In late 1998, the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula jointly commissioned a study that examined the locations in which residents of the two
cities were employed. The study found that 68.2 percent of the residents are employed outside the Murrieta and Temecula area. The largest number and percentage of workers were employed
in other cities in Riverside County, although some commuted outside Riverside County to work. Access to these employment centers is gained via the I-15 and the I-215. UHousing Prices
The following information about housing prices in the project study area was obtained from the Socioeconomic Analysis (December 2005, amended March 2009). In September 2005, according
to DataQuick, Murrieta’s median home prices were in the range of $450,000 to $460,000. Between September 2004 and September 2005, median home prices increased by 4.7 percent and 14.9
percent in the city’s two zip codes. Most of Temecula’s home sales happened in two of its three zip code areas. In these two areas, the median home prices were in the range of $437,000
to $455,000. During the one-year period, median home prices increased by 2.9 percent and 8.9 percent in Temecula’s two zip code areas. As with all southern California, the cities of
Temecula and Murrieta have experienced a decrease in home prices between April 2007 and April 2008 (DataQuick) due to the most recent downturn in the economy. The median prices in the
communities still exceeded those of the Riverside/San Bernardino County area, as compiled by the California Association of Realtors. While the home prices have decreased in both Temecula
and Murrieta, as is the case for southern California in its entirety, there is an adequate number, type, and price range of residential uses in both Temecula and Murrieta. UJobs The
following information about jobs in the project study area was obtained from the Socioeconomic Analysis. Between 2000 and 2005, Murrieta’s labor force grew by an estimated 5,500 persons.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate dropped from 4.6 percent to 3.4 percent.
52 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Temecula’s labor force grew by about 7,000 persons during the same 5-year time period. In 2007,
Temecula’s job base reached a high of 58,136 jobs. This represents a 44 percent growth in employment since 2003, when Temecula had a job base of 40,263 jobs and a 93 percent growth since
2000. The largest employment sector was retail trade with nearly 53 percent of the jobs being in this sector. Consumer services and manufacturing were the next largest sectors. Rapid
growth in the consumer services, hotel and amusement sector. Smaller firms dominate Temecula, with the number of average workers growing from 11.6 in 1991 to a high of 19.6 in 2007.
UDevelopment Trends According to the Socioeconomic Analysis, Murrieta and Temecula have both experienced large population increases during the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005, as has
Riverside County as a whole. Murrieta’s population grew by 65,012 persons (from 20,090 in 1990 to 85,102 in 2005), a percentage increase of nearly 423 percent. Temecula’s population
grew by 54,298 (from 27,099 in 1990 to 81,397 in 2005), a percentage increase of just over 300 percent. Initially, this rapid rise in population was fueled by an abundance of relatively
affordable housing in the project study area; however, the number of people moving to Murrieta and Temecula has stimulated both retail commercial and office development. The Murrieta
Retail Corridor (the Corridor), as an example, contains numerous retail sites within its 300 acres. Murrieta Hot Springs Road passes through the heart of the Corridor and features prime
freeway access as the road crosses both the I-15 and the I-215. Some of the major shopping areas located in Murrieta include Cal Oaks Plaza, Murrieta Springs Plaza, Sierra Vista Plaza,
and Murrieta Town Center. Murrieta is emerging as an important industrial location due to a diverse housing supply and many sites visible and/or accessible to and from the freeway network.
For instance, the Jefferson Business Corridor is an area comprised of 700 acres of commercial, business park, and industrial land. The Corridor is served by Jefferson Avenue and some
sites have freeway visibility and interstate access. As of mid-2004, Temecula had 12.5 million square feet of manufacturing space in existence or under development. This commercial and
retail development contributes greatly to the City’s fiscal health. Temecula’s retail trade has increased every year since its incorporation in 1989. New retail outlets are added every
year to fill gaps in particular retail sectors. The city of Temecula’s housing stock is comprised of just over 32,000 housing units. New residential developments such as the Harveston
Project continue to add to the city’s housing supply. In the city of Murrieta, in the general vicinity of the I-215 and Clinton Keith Road, there are several new home developments such
as Pacific Oaks, Paseo Verde, Andalusia, Estrella Hills, Saratoga, Oakmont, and Chesapeake. Future land uses are depicted in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, which reflect the General Plans for
the cities of Temecula and Murrieta respectively.
City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 2-2 French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Ex2-2_061808.pdf Source: Temecula
GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/Ex_LU_Temec_061808.ai Project Limits (Approximate) Project Limits Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
City of Murrieta General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 2-3 French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: City of Murrieta, Sept. 2005 R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Figure2-3_LU_
Murr_060408.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/Ex_LU_Murr_060408.ai Project Limits (Approximate) Project Limits
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 53 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The proposed project would
support the existing and future land uses by providing an improved circulation network. By improving circulation in the study area, the proposed project would support the land uses envisioned
by the General Plans for the local jurisdictions. The project would improve the existing and projected level of service in the study area (this is further discussed under “Traffic and
Transportation”); however, the project’s magnitude would not be sufficient to alter the established commuting. The proposed project would require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, which
would alter site-specific land uses; however, it would not alter land use patterns or long-range development concepts. The French Valley Parkway Interchange and its associated improvements
have been incorporated into the local jurisdictions’ land use planning concepts. More specific information on the required acquisitions is provided below in the “Community Impacts” section.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would potentially impede the implementation of planned land uses by constraining the circulation network. The General Plans for the Cities
of Temecula and Murrieta both assume the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, if the project were not implemented, a critical link in the local and regional circulation
network would be missing. However, development is not conditioned on the construction of the proposed facility, and it would be speculative to assume that development
(both approved and planned) would not occur because the improvements are not implemented. It may require the Cities to reevaluate the circulation network and implement alternative improvements
to support planned land uses. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans As discussed above, the general plans and zoning ordinances of the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula are
the primary guidance documents for land use activities in the project study area. However, a number of other planning documents influence local land use decisions. These include the
Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG reviews projects to ensure they are consistent
with the RCP and RTP core and ancillary policies that apply to each specific project. Then, SCAG makes an assessment about whether a project is consistent with and/or supports those
specific policies as some of them are more advisory in nature. In addition, a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) has been adopted to address habitat conservation and
species protection. The plan and the project’s consistency with the various elements of the MSHCP are included in the evaluation of Biological Environment. Local Plans As depicted in
Figures 2-2 and 2-3, both the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula reflect the French Valley Parkway Interchange on their their respective General Plans. Land use planning has assumed the
construction of the interchange to meet the Cities’ long-term transportation goals. Within the city of Temecula, the Harveston Specific Plan has been approved adjacent to and east of
the I-15. This specific plan reflects a
54 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study future interchange at this location. The Development Agreement with the City requires the Developer
to dedicate the ROW for the interchange. Regional Planning Programs SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Ventura, and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 15 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates
SCAG to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Most applicable to this project are the RCP and the RTP/Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). SCAG has prepared the 2008 RCP. The RCP is a major advisory plan prepared that addresses important regional issues like housing, traffic/transportation,
water, and air quality. The Plan is intended to provide policy guidance for local planners. The Plan consists of nine chapters that each incorporate the applicable policies for specific
areas of planning and resource management. The transportation chapter of the 2008 RCP is a compendium of actions and policies based on the adopted 2008 RTP. It offers an action plan
for implementing strategies in support of the policies adopted by the SCAG Regional Council. Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Local Plans Both the
Cities of Murrieta and Temecula reflect the French Valley Parkway Interchange in their respective General Plans. Land use and transportation policies have been established within the
plans to ensure there is a balance between adopted land uses and the transportation facilities provided. By being incorporated into the Cities’ General Plans, the Proposed Project has
been assumed as an integral part of the long-range transportation network. As such, the proposed project is required to ensure compatibility between the land use and transportation elements
of the General Plans. As previously indicated, the project has been incorporated into the local land use planning efforts for the Harveston Specific Plan, and the City of Temecula has
required its Developer to dedicate the ROW for the proposed French Valley Parkway Interchange. Regional Planning Programs The proposed project is consistent with Statewide, regional,
and local mobility goals and is being coordinated with affected governmental, regulatory, and private agencies in the area to ensure consistency with specific local goals and objectives.
The proposed project is also included in the Riverside County Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP); it is listed under the Winchester to Temecula Corridor
as “Alternative 4.” The proposed project was originally funded by the 2000 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) and was included in Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation
Plan. The project is also included in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making Connections (RTP), which SCAG adopted in May 2008 and was found to be conforming by both FHWA and
FTA on June 5, 2008. It is also included in
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 55 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study SCAG’s financially constrained 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which
was adopted by SCAG on July 17, 2008, and received the required air quality conformity determination from FHWA and FTA on November 17, 2008. As previously mentioned, the RCP contains
actions and policies related to various planning issues, including regional transportation. These policies support those contained in the RTP. Specifically, these policies are designed
to enhance vehicle flow and highway capacity. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with SCAG’s RCP. No Action Alternative Local Plans The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent
with the above-mentioned local and regional planning efforts. As previously indicated, the proposed project has been incorporated into the local General Plans and is a critical circulation
link to support existing and planned land uses. In addition, the Harveston Specific Plan Plan has been approved with the provisions for the French Valley Parkway Interchange. Regional
Planning Programs The proposed project has been assumed as part of the 2008 RTP and has been included in the 2008 RTIP. The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with these regional
planning documents. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative would not be consistent with the RCP, since this document is closely aligned with the RTP and RTIP. Growth Regulatory Setting
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), require evaluation of the potential environmental consequences
of all proposed federal activities and programs. This provision includes a requirement to examine indirect consequences, which may occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a
proposed action and at some time in the future. The CEQ regulations, 40 CFR 1508.8, refer to these consequences as secondary impacts. Secondary impacts may include changes in land use,
economic vitality, and population density, which are all elements of growth. CEQA also requires the analysis of a project’s potential to induce growth. CEQA guidelines, Section 15126.2(d),
require that environmental documents “…discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment…” The Department, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the federal Environmental Protection Agency, developed a guidance
which was prepared to address California’s specific challenges relating to growth-related impacts, focusing on the influence that transportation projects may have on growth and development.
A “first cut screening” is performed to help determine the likely growth
56 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study potential effect of a proposed project and also to determine whether further analysis of issues
is warranted. The “first cut screening” asks the following questions: To what extent would travel times, travel cost, or accessibility to employment, shopping, or other destinations
be changed? Would this change affect travel behavior, trip patterns, or the attractiveness of some areas to development over others? To what extent would change in accessibility affect
growth or land use change—its location, rate, type, or amount? To what extent would resources of concern be affected by this growth or land use change? Travel and Accessibility The proposed
project is located within the urban core of the Temecula Valley. I-15 provides access to the San Diego metropolitan area to the south, which is a large employment center for residents
of the area. To the north, I-15 provides access to employment centers in the city of Corona and and in the Los Angeles metropolitan area via State Route 60 and Interstate 10. To the
north, the freeway also provides access to employment centers in the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino via I-215. The Temecula Valley region has experienced substantial growth over
the past decade and is projected to continue to be one of the faster growing areas in southern California. SCAG, in conjunction with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
and the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, has planned for substantial growth in the region. The planned growth assumes an influx of population, housing, and jobs to the region. The intent
is to provide housing to help meet the projected southern California housing demand and to provide an employment base that would serve the local communities. SCAG policy emphasizes the
need for a jobs-housing balance as a means of reducing the impact on the circulation network and achieves air quality goals. The planned growth is intended to help meet this goal. As
discussed discussed in the Land Use section above, the cities of Murrieta and Temecula have both experienced large population increases during the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005. More
recently, their job bases have grown. Table 2.1 provides the Riverside County Projections (WRCOG 2006) for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in five-year increments between 2005 and
2030. Table 2.1 Cities of Temecula and Murrieta Demographic Projections 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population Temecula 92,382 99,387 103,150 112,551 117,800 121,495 Murrieta 89,785
103,726 109,715 114,370 119,689 123,549 Employment Temecula 47,284 53,738 60,098 66,929 73,777 80,806 Murrieta 18,894 21,019 23,008 25,181 27,364 29,616 Housing Temecula 29,490 32,970
34,567 36,364 37,763 38,939 Murrieta 30,246 36,203 39,705 41,200 42,499 44,001 Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments 2006.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 57 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The proposed project would improve access to existing and planned land uses along the I-15 corridor
in the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. The Draft Project Report (2006) states that, without the proposed project, under 2030 conditions the Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, northbound
on-ramp, and ramp terminus intersections would operate at a level of service (LOS) F and queues at the ramp terminus intersections would spill back on the mainline in both the northbound
and southbound directions. The proposed project would improve these conditions, and thus improve accessibility. Existing and planned land uses in this area include employment, retail,
and residential uses. The Harveston Specific Plan is a planned development in the city of Temecula comprised of approximately 550 acres on the east side of I-15, immediately adjacent
to the proposed French Valley Parkway Interchange. The Harveston Specific Plan provides for a mix of land uses, including residential and commercial uses. The approximate 110 acres adjacent
to the proposed project site is designated for Service Commercial. The Specific Plan describes this designation as providing “for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing
uses, that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park use.” The improved access would not only be for the area immediately adjacent to the proposed French Valley
Parkway Interchange, it would also improve access at the adjacent interchanges because they would experience less congestion as traffic is redirected to French Valley Parkway. Overall,
the proposed project is anticipated to positively affect travel and access in two ways. First, the anticipated operational improvements to the Winchester Interchange and the additional
access to the existing and planned development provided by the French Valley Parkway interchange should result in reduced time (and therefore cost) for travelers with destinations in
this area. Second, the anticipated improvement in the operational performance of ramps in this area should allow through travel on the interstates to be completed in less time. Affect
of Accessibility Change(s) The improved and additional accessibility that would result from the proposed project would not substantially influence growth. As demonstrated through the
Riverside County Projections, there will be substantial growth in the project vicinity between now and the project design year (2030). The land uses adjacent to the southern part of
the proposed project are fairly developed immediately adjacent to I-15, with in-fill opportunities as you move away from the freeway. The northern portion of the study area is less intensely
developed with relatively large areas of undeveloped land; however, a review of the Cities’ respective General Plans (Figures 2-2 and 2-3) indicates that these areas have already been
designated for urban development and the associated growth is accounted for in the regional and local growth projections. The growth that would result has been addressed through SCAG’s
RCP and the local General Plans. Though the Proposed Project would provide an important component of the transportation infrastructure for the area, the overall effect on planned growth
is not expected to be substantial because the local and regional planning has specifically included a new interchange in this area as part of long-range planning efforts.
58 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Previous planning studies to address congestion through the construction of an interchange in
this vicinity date back to 1993. The proposed project would respond to planned growth in the project area by providing additional access to the I-15 between Winchester Road and Murrieta
Hot Springs Road. Though an additional interchange would be provided within the cities of Murrieta and Temecula, the proposed project would not provide access to new areas not currently
planned for development. Within the city of Murrieta where there are large areas that are undeveloped, west of I-15 is designated for Multiple Use (Industrial Development), east of I-15
is designated for Business Park and, as previously mentioned, the area between I-15 and I-215 has been approved for a regional shopping center. The Harveston Specific Plan in the city
of Temecula has been only partially constructed. Though the Proposed Project would provide improved access to these areas, future development consistent with these land use designations
would not be precluded if the proposed project were not constructed. Development would be required to rely on alternative access through the existing interchanges and arterial highways.
Though traffic level of service would deteriorate, neither General Plan policies nor existing development approvals have placed restrictions or conditions on land development projects
requiring the French Valley Parkway Interchange to be constructed prior to moving forward. The Harveston Specific Plan has been required to provide for the proposed project through the
preservation of right-of-way; however, the City of Temecula has not made development contingent upon the implementation of any component of the French Valley Parkway project. The proposed
project would not provide excess capacity that would support further intensification of the land uses in the vicinity; instead, existing congestion would be alleviated as a result of
improved operational performance. Impacts on Resources of Concern Based on the IS/EA prepared, biological features are the primary resource of concern. The impacts are not substantial
and they are being addressed with measures. The proposed project is expected to alleviate both existing congestion and anticipated increased traffic associated with the growth already
planned. Resources of concern are not anticipated to be affected in this context. Based on the above first cut screening analysis, no further analysis with respect to growth is required
for this project. Community Impacts Community Character and Cohesion Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA), established that the federal
government will use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans’ safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings [42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(2)]. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C. 109[h]), directs that final decisions regarding projects be made in the best overall public interest.
This requires taking into account
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 59 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study adverse environmental impacts, such as destruction or disruption of human-made resources, community
cohesion, and the availability of public facilities and services. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an economic or social change by itself is not to be considered a significant
effect on the environment. However, if a social or economic change is related to a physical change, then social or economic change may be considered in determining whether the physical
change is significant. Since this project would result in physical change to the environment, it is appropriate to consider changes to community character and cohesion in assessing the
significance of the project’s effects. Affected Environment A Socioeconomics Analysis (December 2005, Amended April 7, 2008 and April 9, 2009) was prepared. City Background and History
Murrieta The valley bears the name of Don Juan Murrieta who arrived in California from from Spain in 1863. The Murrieta townsite was established in 1885 and grew slowly until the mid-1980s.
Rapid growth occurred in Murrieta between 1980 and 1990 (from about 3,000 to almost 19,000), which was attributed to the affordability of housing, the natural beauty of the area, and
the quality of life found in the community. On July 1, 1991, Murrieta incorporated as a city. Temecula Through the mid-1960s the economy of Temecula Valley centered on the Vail Ranch;
the cattle business and agriculture, which were the stimuli for most business ventures. On December 4, 1964, the Vail Ranch was sold to Kaiser Development Company, which launched the
transformation of the Temecula Valley. The last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the beginnings of dramatic change in the Temecula Valley. The Kaiser Land Development Company
marketed the valley’s attractions actively. Soon, the area became known as Rancho California. The I-15 corridor was completed in the early 1980s and the subdivision land boom began.
When Rancho California incorporated in December 1989, the voters chose Temecula as the official city name. Temecula is said to mean, “Where the sun breaks through the mist.” Land Use
Characteristics Murrieta The Murrieta Land Use Element was last updated on July 20, 1999. Residential land uses include eight designations ranging from one housing unit per every 2.5
acres to 15.1 to 18 dwelling units per acre, which is intended for townhomes, stacked flat apartments, and condominium developments. Commercial and industrial land uses are assigned
designations based upon intensity of uses. For instance, the Land Use Plan provides for five commercial designations – regional, community, neighborhood,
60 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study recreational/resort, and professional. The General Plan provides for Business Park and General
Industrial designations. A mix of old and new development characterizes Murrieta’s urbanized area, according to its current General Plan. Rural, low-density development is generally
located west of I-15. Substantial new planned residential developments are the dominant land use in the central portion of the City, spanning between the I-15 and I-215 freeways, and
extending into a portion of the eastern General Plan Area. The northern portion, which includes Sphere of Influence lands to the east, is developed with low density residential land
uses. In January 2004, the City kicked-off a General Plan Update that will focus on the Land Use Element, Circulation, and Economic Development Elements. The General Plan Update also
will focus on four geographic areas: (1) west of the I-15; (2) the Murrieta Hot Springs Annexation area; (3) east of the I-215; and (4) between the I-15 and I-215. Residential development
is continuing in the city. For instance, in the general vicinity of the I-215/Clinton Keith Road there are several new home developments such as Pacific Oaks, Paseo Verde, Andalusia,
Estrella Hills, Saratoga, Oakmont, and Chesapeake. The number of people moving to Murrieta has stimulated both retail commercial and office development. The Murrieta Retail Corridor,
as an example, contains numerous retail sites within the 300 acres located in the Corridor. Murrieta Hot Springs Road passes through the heart of the Corridor and features prime freeway
access, as the Road crosses both the I-15 and I-215. Some of the major shopping areas located in Murrieta include Cal Oaks Plaza, Murrieta Spring Plaza, Sierra Vista Plaza, and Murrieta
Town Center. Murrieta is emerging as a significant industrial location due to a diverse housing supply and many sites visible and/or accessible to and from the freeway network. For instance,
the Jefferson Jefferson Business Corridor is an area comprised of 700 acres of commercial, business park and industrial land. The Corridor is served by Jefferson Avenue and some sites
have freeway visibility and interstate access. Temecula Its comprehensive General Plan has guided Temecula’s land use development. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses all
are located within the community. As of mid-year 2004, Temecula had 12.5 million square feet of manufacturing space in existence or under development. The commercial and retail development
contributes greatly to the City’s fiscal health. The community’s retail trade has increased every year since incorporation in 1989. New retail outlets are added every year to fill gaps
in particular retail sectors. For example, the opening two years ago of Lowe’s Home Improvement and Home Depot filled a gap in building materials. The City’s housing stock is comprised
of just over 26,000 housing units. New residential developments such as the Harveston Project continue to add add to the City’s housing supply.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 61 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The City’s General Plan EIR states: “Directing how and where development occurs has great impact
on the quality of life and economic well–being of the community. To accommodate the anticipated population increase over the next 20 years, the General Plan Land Use Element directs
most of the new development into the French Valley Future Growth Area. The Land Use Element includes policies that encourage development of mixed– use projects within three established
Mixed-Use Overlay Areas to promote infill development and redevelopment of vacant/underutilized sites and aging commercial developments.” [p. 5.11-2] A key feature of the General Plan
Roadway Plan is the French Valley Parkway Interchange. The Roadway Plan states that this interchange will provide freeway access for a new north-south principal arterial roadway (French
Valley Parkway) extending from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Diaz Road. A part of the right-of-way area is situated within a Temecula Redevelopment Project Area. The Temecula Redevelopment
Agency, according to the Economic Development Element, was formed to provide a tool to eliminate blighting conditions and ensure that the City’s economic base would grow and remain healthy
through new public improvements, commercial development and affordable housing. The City’s General Plan allows for a variety of land uses. For instance, the Plan provides for seven residential
land use designations, five commercial categories, and one industrial land use designation. In addition, land use is guided by several approved specific plans. SP-13 is the Harveston
Specific Plan, a plan that encompasses a 557-acre area. Located generally between Margarita Road, and I-15, along the City limits, the Specific Plan provides a mix of land uses with
higher density residential close to commercial and employment uses, and open space links between residential, public, and commercial uses. Currently for sale, constructed or under construction
are several residential home communities, including Walden, Sausalito, Auburn Lane, Ashville, Savannah, Aberdeen, and Charleston. The majority of growth and development in the project
study area has occurred since I-15 was extended in the early 1980s. As discussed above, substantial population and job growth occurred soon thereafter. The following sections provide
a discussion of the demographic data for Riverside County, the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and the census tracts within the project study area. Race and Ethnicity The U.S. Census
Bureau, in the Year 2000 Census Summary File, provides race and ethnicity data for Riverside County as a whole and for the individual cities of Murrieta and Temecula. These data are
also identified by census tract. Table 2.2 shows both race and ethnicity characteristics for Riverside County as a whole, as well as for the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. It is noted
that “Hispanic” is considered an ethnic group, not a race category. Thus, if a person is identified as “Hispanic,” they also must be identified by at least one of the six race categories.
The numbers provided in the Percent column have been rounded up to the nearest tenth which may cause for some columns to add up to a number greater than 100 percent.
62 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Based on the information in Table 2.2, approximately 96 percent of the individuals in Riverside
County in 2000 identify themselves in one of the six race categories listed in the table. The remaining 4 percent of the County’s population identify themselves in the category of “2
or more races.” The Census Data also indicate that approximately 36 percent of Riverside County’s population identifies as Hispanic. Further aggregation of the census data shows similar
population demographics for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Similar to county demographics, the table shows that approximately 95 percent of individuals in the cities of Murrieta
and Temecula classify themselves in one of the 6 identified race categories, with the remaining 5 percent of individuals being classified in the category of “2 or more Races.” Additionally,
the percentage of individuals classified as Hispanic is approximately 17.5 percent for Murrieta and 19 percent for Temecula. Both values are less than that which is reported for the
County as a whole. Lastly, data is also aggregated by census tract. Table 2.3 provides the race demographic data for the census tracts in the project vicinity. The locations of these
census tracts in relationship to the proposed project are depicted in Figure 2-4. Census Tracts 432.06, 432.11, 432.16 and 432.23 show similar demographics in terms of classification
of individuals within the six race categories. In addition, each of these four census tracts reports the population to be approximately 16 to 19 percent Hispanic, which is relatively
consistent with the overall population for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Census Tracts 432.10 and 432.15 also show similarities in demographics in that they each report a higher
percentage of the population to be Hispanic than found in the other census tracts or in the overall population for the cities. Age Distribution Table 2.4 provides age distribution data
for the County of Riverside, city of Murrieta, and city of Temecula. Table 2.5 provides this information by the census tracts within the project study area respectively.
This information is based on the U.S. Census 2000 data. The data show that approximately 29 percent of the population in both Murrieta and Temecula was of school-age (5 to 19 years),
which is slightly higher than the 25 percent for the County of Riverside. Demographic characteristics are fairly similar in other age brackets for both cities and the County of Riverside,
with the largest percentage of the population for both cities falling within the 35 to 44 year age bracket.
Census Tracts Adjacent to the Proposed Project French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 2-4 R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/ex2-4_censustracts_032609.pdf Temecula Valley
Freeway §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 432.15 432.10 432.23 432.06 432.11 432.16 4,000 2,000 0 4,000Feet ² D:/Projects/Moffat/J024/census_tracts_032609.mxd Census Tracts Project Limits
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 63 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.2 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for Riverside County and the Cities of Murrieta
and Temecula, Year 2000 County of Riverside City of Murrieta City of Temecula No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage Summary 1 Race 1,477,791 95.6 42,371 95.7 55,204 95.6 2 or
more Races 67,596 4.4 1,911 4.3 2,512 4.4 Total 1,545,387 100.0 44,282 100.0 57,716 100.0 Race White 1,013,478 65.6 36,152 81.6 45,555 78.9 Black or AA 96,421 6.2 1,500 3.4 1,974 3.4
AIAN* 18,168 1.2 293 0.7 497 0.9 Asian 56,954 3.7 1,775 4.0 2,728 4.7 Native Hawaiian 3,902 0.3 98 0.2 174 0.3 Other 288,868 18.7 2,553 5.8 4,276 7.4 Ethnicity Hispanic 559,575 36.2
7,739 17.5 10,974 19.0 * AIAN=American Indian/American Native
64 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.3 Race and Ethnicity Demographics by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000
Census Tract 432.06 Census Tract 432.10 Census Tract 432.11 Census Tract 432.15 Census Tract 432.16 Census Tract 432.23 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No.
Percent Summary 1 Race 5,270 87.8 4,245 94.0 5,306 95.5 2,779 96.2 6,187 95.4 5,620 97.4 2+ Races 280 4.7 269 6.0 250 4.5 110 3.8 300 4.6 149 2.6 Total 6,000 92.5 4,514 100.0 5,556 100.0
2,889 100.0 6,487 100.0 5,769 100.0 Race White 4,773 79.6 2,798 62.0 4,467 80.4 1,988 68.8 5,037 77.6 4,846 84.0 Black or AA 235 3.9 231 5.1 216 3.9 53 1.8 283 4.4 194 3.4 AIAN* 28 0.5
43 1.0 33 0.6 52 1.8 54 0.8 34 0.6 Asian 307 5.1 282 6.2 243 4.4 88 3.0 273 4.2 136 2.4 Native Hawaiian 1 0.0 10 0.2 27 0.5 3 0.1 19 0.3 10 0.2 Other 376 6.3 881 19.5 320 5.8 595 20.6
521 8.0 400 6.9 Ethnicity Hispanic 1,063 17.7 1,540 34.1 923 16.6 1,213 42.0 1,258 19.4 1,102 19.1 * AIAN=American Indian/American Native Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1, DP-1 Profile
of General Demographic Characteristics.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 65 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.4 Age Distribution Data for Riverside County, City of Murrieta, and City of Temecula,
Year 2000 Age (years) County of Riverside City of Murrieta City of Temecula No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 0–4 121,629 7.9 3,338 7.5 5,115 8.9 5–9 139,468 9.0 4,644 10.5 6,083 10.6
10–14 133,886 8.7 4,656 10.5 5,830 10.1 15–19 119,725 7.7 3,384 7.6 4,597 8.0 20–24 96,374 6.2 1,734 3.9 2,893 5.0 25–34 204,223 13.2 4,822 10.9 7,811 13.6 35–44 242,170 15.7 8,832 19.9
11,392 19.8 45–54 176,022 11.4 4,891 11.0 6,717 11.7 55–59 61,880 4.0 1,506 3.4 1,784 3.1 60–64 54,046 3.5 1,412 3.2 1,399 2.4 65–74 103,154 6.7 3,145 7.1 2,526 4.4 75–84 71,726 4.6
1,575 3.6 1,292 2.2 85 and over 21,084 1.4 343 0.8 277 0.5 Total 1,545,384 100.0 44,282 99.9 57,439 100.3 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding Source: Census 2000, Summary
File 1, DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics.
66 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.5 Age Distribution Data by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000 Age (years)
Census Tract 432.06 Census Tract 432.10 Census Tract 432.11 Census Tract 432.15 Census Tract 432.16 Census Tract 432.23 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No.
Percent 0–4 444 7.4 506 11.2 423 7.6 274 9.5 572 8.8 457 7.9 5–9 602 10.0 551 12.2 631 11.4 303 10.5 554 8.5 609 10.6 10–14 667 11.1 445 9.9 653 11.8 230 8.0 526 8.1 660 11.4 15–19 472
7.9 372 8.2 461 8.3 216 7.5 560 8.6 472 8.2 20–24 250 4.2 343 7.6 177 3.2 221 7.6 626 9.7 230 4.0 25–34 639 10.7 822 18.2 560 10.1 396 13.7 1,058 16.3 558 9.7 35–44 1,144 19.1 820 18.2
1,223 22.0 422 14.6 1,086 16.7 1,169 20.3 45–54 677 11.3 343 7.6 643 11.6 332 11.5 801 12.3 761 13.2 55–59 204 3.4 103 2.3 172 3.1 119 4.1 163 2.5 229 4.0 60–64 188 3.1 63 1.4 145 2.6
110 3.8 136 2.1 175 3.0 65–74 393 6.6 99 2.2 312 5.6 168 5.8 229 3.5 266 4.6 75–84 260 4.3 42 0.9 131 2.4 77 2.7 136 2.1 139 2.4 85 and over 60 1.0 5 0.1 25 0.4 21 0.7 40 0.6 44 0.8
Total 6,000 100.1 4,514 100.0 5,556 100.0 2,889 100.0 6,487 99.8 5,769 100.1 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 67 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Gender Distribution Table 2.6 provides population information by gender for the County of Riverside,
the city of Temecula and the city of Murrieta. The data shows relatively equal gender distribution at the County and City levels. Table 2.7 provides the gender information for the various
census tracts within the project area. Each of the census tracts shows relatively equal percentages of males and females. In all cases except Census Tract 432.15, the data show a slightly
higher percentage of females than males, which is consistent with the data provided for the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula and for Riverside County as a whole. Table 2.6 Population
Gender Information for the County of Riverside and the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Year 2000 Gender County of Riverside City of Temecula City of Murrieta No. Percent No. Percent
No. Percent Male 769,384 49.8 28,510 49.4 21,704 49.0 Female 776,003 50.2 29,206 50.6 22,578 51.0 Total 1,545,387 100.0 57,716 100.0 44,282 100.0 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1,
DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Income Distribution The Cities of Murrieta and Temecula have each adopted a Housing Element, which is one of the State-mandated General
Plan elements. The State housing element law defines four income groups based on different percentages of each County’s median income. These income classifications are shown below: Very
Low 0–50.0 percent of the median income Low 50.1–80.0 percent of the median income Moderate 80.0–120.0 percent of the median income Above Moderate 120.1+ percent of the median income
The very low and low-income limits are the same as those used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine eligibility for federally assisted housing programs.
Table 2.8 provides income demographics for the County of Riverside and the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. These data reflect U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 data. The data indicate
indicate that both the cities of Murrieta and Temecula have a higher median income than does the County of Riverside as a whole. Table 2.9 provides this data for the census tracts within
the project study area. The median income for census tracts in the project area ranges from a low of $27,757 to a high of $69,755 per year. Census Tract 432.15 has the lowest median
income reported ($27,757). Four of the six census tracts have median incomes below the median income of the applicable city. Most notably, census tract 432.15 has a median income of
less than half of the city median income. Census Tract 432.23 reports a median income of $69,755. This median income is more than twice as much as the lowest median income for census
tracts within the project area, and more than $14,000 more annually than the next highest reported median income.
68 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.7 Population Gender Information by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000
Gender Census Tract 432.06 Census Tract 432.10 Census Tract 432.11 Census Tract 432.15 Census Tract 432.16 Census Tract 432.23 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
No. Percent Male 2,868 47.8 2,238 49.6 2,734 49.2 1,487 51.5 3,144 48.5 2,830 49.1 Female 3,132 52.2 2,276 50.4 2,822 50.8 1,402 48.5 3,343 51.5 2,939 50.9 Total 6,000 100.0 4,514 100.0
5,556 100.0 2,889 100.0 6,487 100.0 5,769 100.0 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1, DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Table 2.8 Annual Household Income for Riverside
County and the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, Year 2000 Household Income County of Riverside City of Murrieta City of Temecula No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Less than $10,000
43,183 8.5 537 3.7 877 4.8 $10,000– $14,999 32,150 6.3 481 3.4 495 2.7 $15,000– $24,999 67,446 13.3 1,004 7.0 1,278 7.0 $25,000– $34,999 62,801 12.4 1,380 9.6 1,717 9.4 $35,000–$49,999
82,700 16.3 2,139 14.9 2,857 15.7 $50,000–$74,999 100,840 19.9 3,459 24.1 4,595 25.2 $75,000–$99,999 56,058 11.1 2,468 17.2 3,321 18.2 $100,000–$149,999 41,953 8.3 2,030 14.2 2,295 12.6
$150,000–$199,999 9,840 1.9 483 3.4 463 2.5 $200,000 or more 9,810 1.9 344 2.4 351 1.9 Total Households 506,781 99.9 14,325 99.9 18,249 100.0 Median income (dollars) $42,887 $60,911
$59,516 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding Source: Census 2000.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 69 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.9 Annual Household Income by Census Tract for the Project Study Area, Year 2000 Household
Income Census Tract 432.06 Census Tract 432.10 Census Tract 432.11 Census Tract 432.15 Census Tract 432.16 Census Tract 432.23 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
No. Percent Less than $10,000 158 7.9 62 4.8 83 5.0 160 15.8 280 11.9 53 3.1 $10,000–$14,999 145 7.2 59 4.6 16 1.0 135 13.4 65 2.8 61 3.6 $15,000–$24,999 215 10.7 85 6.6 84 5.1 182 18.0
223 9.5 109 6.4 $25,000–$34,999 160 8.0 218 16.9 186 11.3 90 8.9 302 12.8 184 10.8 $35,000–$49,999 229 11.4 204 15.8 184 11.2 99 9.8 432 18.4 186 10.9 $50,000–$74,999 478 23.8 348 27.0
409 24.8 70 6.9 540 22.9 349 20.5 $75,000–$99,999 259 12.9 181 14.0 354 21.5 81 8.0 266 11.3 324 19.0 $100,000–$149,999 288 14.3 121 9.4 242 14.7 82 8.1 188 8.0 281 16.5 $150,000–$199,999
55 2.7 8 0.6 53 3.2 39 3.9 29 1.2 71 4.2 $200,000 or more 21 1.0 5 0.4 35 2.1 73 7.2 28 1.2 87 5.1 Total Households 2,008 99.9 1,291 100.1 1,646 99.9 1,011 100.0 2,353 100.0 1,705 100.1
Median income (dollars) $52,644 $50,706 $66,797 $27,757 $46,110 $69,755 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: Census Data 2000.
70 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Community Services and Facilities Murrieta Among the services and facilities in this community
are 23 parks which encompass more than 1,160 acres. Park amenities include swimming pools; lit ball fields and tennis courts; horseshoe pits; and a catch-and-release fishing pond. The
Murrieta Senior Center is located at Juniper Street and Adams Avenue. The $2.5 million, 9,000-square-foot Senior Center provides services to the community’s senior residents. The City
of Murietta’s Police Department has 71 full-time employees. The Fire Department has 4 fire stations and 42 full-time employees. The fire budget is funded through the City-owned Murrieta
Fire District. The Murrieta Public Library is located at 39589 Los Alamos Road, near the I-215. A major near-term goal is to begin the construction process of adding the new Murrieta
Public Library to Town Square. None of these facilities are located within the project study area. Temecula Temecula has more than 30 parks and joint-use and community facilities, including
a skate park and roller hockey area. Community facilities include two recreation centers, an outdoor amphitheater, a gymnasium, two swimming pools, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, the
Temecula Museum, the Children’s Museum, sports fields, and picnic shelter areas. Community services and facilities located near the right-of-way area include Harveston Community Park,
Living Yoga Center, and Tumble Jungle. The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for Police Services. In addition, the City has a contract with the
County of Riverside for fire-protection services. Five fire stations serve the Temecula community. The fire station closest to the project area is Fire Station 73, which is located at
27415 Enterprise Circle West (near Winchester Road and Diaz Road). The Temecula Library is a full-service library that offers a wide range of materials, programs, and services for all
ages. It is located at 41000 County Center Drive (near Ynez Road). A full-service library, is located at 30600 Pauba Road in Temecula. Neighborhoods There is one residential area located
east of the right-of-way requirement area that is generally bound by the Santa Gertrudis Creek, Margarita Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Located within this area are the new Harveston
neighborhoods and established neighborhoods such as Weston Hills in Temecula and Vintage Reserve and Old School House in Murrieta. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed
Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Social impacts are those that in some way affect community cohesion. According to the Department’s Community Impact Assessment Handbook:
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 71 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a ‘sense of belonging’ to their neighborhood,
a level of commitment, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually a result of continued association over time. Cohesion refers to the degree of interaction
among the individuals, groups, and institutions that make up a community. Cohesive communities are associated with specific social characteristics which may include long average lengths
of residency, frequent personal contact, ethnic homogeneity, high levels of community activity, and shared goals. Community Services and Facilities The proposed project would generally
occur within the right-of-way of existing transportation facilities (I-15 and Winchester Road) in the project study area. Although implementation of the proposed project would require
property acquisitions, none of the affected properties are community facilities (i.e., school, park, library, fire or police station, community center). Additionally, the proposed project
would not limit access or redirect traffic circulation in a manner that would impede access to any of the existing facilities from the existing or planned residential neighborhoods.
Therefore, the proposed project would not separate residences from community facilities, nor would it decrease public access. No impacts to services and facilities that would affect
community cohesion would occur. Neighborhoods As previously indicated in Chapter 1, based on conceptual design, the proposed project is anticipated to potentially impact 42 parcels.
Of the 42 parcels potentially affected, 21 parcels are vacant land, 19 parcels are developed with commercial or office uses, and 2 parcels are residential uses. Very few partial and
full acquisitions impact developed land uses to the extent that they require relocation. Those land uses that may be displaced by the proposed project are discussed below in the Relocation
Section. Section. This discussion is focused on the extent to which the right-ofway acquisition and construction of the proposed project would impact neighborhoods. The majority of the
land uses adjacent to the proposed project have been developed since the construction of the I-15 and I-215 freeways. As such, the land uses have been developed to be compatible with
a major transportation facility (i.e., industrial, office, commercial, or freeway serving uses). Of the parcels that would be affected by acquisition, the majority are vacant and/or
would have minimal the conflict with existing land uses. Only two parcels that would be affected by implementation of the proposed project have existing residential land uses. However,
as noted below in the Relocations discussion, project-related property acquisition would not directly impact these residences. The proposed project would not bisect an established neighborhood.
The overall impact on neighborhoods and their contribution to community character and cohesion would not be substantial.
72 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not impact community cohesion. No facilities
would be displaced and no planned community facilities would be precluded with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The proposed project would not result
in any impacts to community character or cohesion. No minimization and/or mitigation measures would be required. Relocations Regulatory Setting The Department’s Relocation Assistance
Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
24. The purpose of RAP is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer
disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Please see Appendix C for a summary of the RAP. All relocation services and benefits
are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.). Please see Appendix B for a copy
of the Department’s Title VI Policy Statement. Affected Environment A Socioeconomics Analysis (December 2005, Amended April 7, 2008 and April 9, 2009) and a Draft Relocation Impact Statement
(April 2009) were prepared. According to the Department, a displaced person or displacee is: any person who moves from real property or moves personal property from real property as
a result of the acquisition of the real property, in whole or in part, as the result of a written notice from the agency to vacate the real property needed for a transportation project.
In the case of a partial acquisition, the Department shall determine if a person is displaced as a direct result of the acquisition. As discussed above under Land Uses, the uses adjacent
to the proposed project are predominately commercial, industrial, and undeveloped land. There are a few existing residential parcels in the northern portion of the study area; however,
these are technically located within an area designated MultI-Use (Industrial) and Business Park. In addition, a mobile home park is located on the east side of I-15.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 73 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative)
With implementation of the Proposed Project, existing land uses on two parcels would potentially need to be relocated. The potentially displaced land uses include a funeral home and
an industrial use. It is anticipated that there is sufficient space and land in the cities of Murrieta and Temecula to accommodate the functional needs of these displaced land uses.
Available parcels include developed space that is vacant, new space currently available for lease, approved space under construction, planned developments, and vacant land. Table 2.10
identifies those parcels that are anticipated to be directly affected by right-of-way acquisition or the need for a temporary construction easement (TCE). The table identifies the potential
amount of right-of-way that may be required from each parcel, as well as the size of the full parcels. Based on conceptual design, 3 to 4 of these 42 parcels are anticipated to be full
acquisitions and one is currently owned by the City of Murrieta. The remainder are anticipated to be partial acquisitions. A total of 10.41 hectares (25.73 acres) of land is anticipated
to be needed for the proposed project. In addition, temporary construction easements (TCEs) are anticipated to be needed on 5 parcels, affecting 0.13 hectare (0.32 acre) of land.
74 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.10 Potential Property Acquisitions Parcel Number Total Parcel Size Amount of Acquisition
Type of Acquisition* % of Parcel Being hectare acre hectare acre Acquired Acquisition Impacts 910-060-002 0.34 0.85 0.08 0.22 FEE 22.15 Access off of Jackson/Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Vacant hilltop, unpaved access. Possible billboard removal. Due to topography and access requirements, this parcel may convert to a full acquisition. 910-060-003 0.27 0.67 0.18 0.53
FEE 66.70 Vacant sliver against I-215. 910-060-004 0.40 1.00 0.01 0.03 FEE 2.54 Cell Tower affected— to be relocated elsewhere on site. 910-060-009 1.06 2.61 0.07 0.21 FEE 6.96 Vacant
sliver against I-215. 910-070-006 0.44 1.09 0.13 0.39 FEE 30.29 Mobile home on parcel with unpaved access. Home would not have to be moved. 910-100-010 8.21 20.30 0.23 0.66 FEE 2.76
Very large lot with home on the hilltop. Proposed acquisition would have little impact to usability of of the land. 910-100-014 1.73 4.27 0.07 0.22 FEE 4.29 Vacant. 910-262-003 0.55
1.37 0.47 1.37 FEE 85.00 Vacant. 910-262-004 0.47 1.17 0.40 1.17 FEE 85.00 Vacant. 910-262-005 0.39 0.96 0.24 0.69 FEE 61.67 Vacant. 910-262-006 0.50 1.25 0.15 0.44 FEE 30.07 England
Family Mortuary. Proposed acquisition removes nearly all their existing parking. 910-262-007 0.43 1.07 0.11 0.31 FEE 24.93 Vacant. Potential full acquisition to provide replacement parking
for the England Family Mortuary. 910-262-008 0.41 1.01 0.11 0.32 FEE 26.51 Developed manufacturing building. Occupant is Basics ETC. Assumed full acquisition. 910-262-009 0.66 1.64 0.19
0.54 FEE 27.89 Vacant. 910-262-010 0.62 1.53 0.20 0.58 FEE 32.39 Vacant. 910-262-031 2.03 5.03 0.15 0.43 FEE 7.22 Stretch Forming Company. Heavy industrial property. Proposed acquisition
affects portions of the visitors parking area. 910-262-039 0.60 1.48 0.16 0.46 FEE 26.09 Vacant. 910-262-040 1.08 2.68 0.92 2.68 FEE 85.00 Vacant. 910-262-041 0.56 1.38 0.03 0.10 FEE
5.88 Vacant. 910-262-042 0.67 1.65 0.00 0.00 FEE 0.08 Quality Trailer Sales. Site contains paved lot, 2 mobile offices, chain link fence, and moveable inventory. No exterior lighting
is installed.
Table 2.10 Potential Property Acquisitions (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 75 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Parcel Number Total Parcel Size Amount
of Acquisition Type of Acquisition* % of Parcel Being hectare acre hectare acre Acquired Acquisition Impacts 910-271-002 2.52 6.23 0.06 0.16 FEE 2.19 Vacant. 910-271-005 0.80 1.98 0.08
0.22 FEE 9.56 Part of Ynez Business Center. The topography of the proposed acquisition area is extremely steep and would be difficult to develop. 910-271-006 1.00 2.48 0.08 0.24 FEE
8.26 Part of Ynez Business Center. The topography of the proposed acquisition area is extremely steep and would be difficult to develop. 910-272-001 0.68 1.68 0.20 0.57 FEE 29.11 Vacant.
910-272-002 0.71 1.76 0.08 0.23 FEE 11.21 Vacant. 910-272-003 0.83 2.05 0.04 0.13 FEE 5.26 MultI-tenant industrial building appears to be paired with 910-272-004 to the north. There
is a single row of 60 parking spaces (approximately 30 on this property) that would be permanently affected. 910-272-003 0.83 2.05 0.02 0.07 TCE 3.01 Same as above. 910-272-004 0.77
1.89 0.04 0.11 FEE 5.00 MultI-tenant industrial building appears to be paired with 910-272-003 to the south. There is a single row of 60 parking spaces (approximately 30 on this property)
that would be permanently affected. 910-272-004 0.77 1.89 0.02 0.07 TCE 2.94 Same as above. 910-272-005 0.67 1.66 0.04 0.13 FEE 6.50 2-story office building with freeway visibility.
Proposed acquisition affects rear parking (likely 25 spaces along the freeway and potentially 18 more along the building for a total of 43 spaces). 910-272-005 0.67 1.66 0.02 0.06 TCE
2.96 Same as above. 910-272-006 0.69 1.71 0.10 0.28 FEE 13.91 2-story office building with freeway visibility. Proposed acquisition affects rear parking (likely 25 spaces along the freeway
and likely 18 more along the building for a total of 43 spaces). 910-272-006 0.69 1.71 0.02 0.06 TCE 2.86 Same as above. 910-281-001 3.10 7.65 0.01 0.02 FEE 0.24 Proposed acquisition
would affect 50–75 feet of a 4-foot-high block garden wall; would eliminate 5 parking spaces and 100 Iinear feet of concrete curbing.
Table 2.10 Potential Property Acquisitions (Continued) 76 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Parcel Number Total Parcel Size Amount
of Acquisition Type of Acquisition* % of Parcel Being hectare acre hectare acre Acquired Acquisition Impacts 910-282-011 0.87 2.15 0.10 0.30 FEE 11.87 Single-story multI-tenant freeway
commercial warehouse building. The proposed acquisition would affect the rear circulation and 42 stalls of parking from the concrete parking lot. 910-282-011 0.87 2.15 0.02 0.06 TCE
2.52 Same as above. 910-310-004 0.68 1.69 0.02 0.04 FEE 2.25 Richardson’s RV sales center. Proposed acquisition may affect paved display/landscaping area. 910-310-005 0.49 1.22 0.01
0.02 FEE 1.24 A fast food restaurant is located along Jefferson Avenue; however, the area to be acquired would affect the RV display/sales along the freeway. 910-310-006 1.10 2.73 0.02
0.06 FEE 1.93 Secure-it Self-Storage. Circulation to rear of lot may be affected. 7 units may be impacted. 910-310-007 1.01 2.50 0.01 0.02 FEE 0.77 Kia Temecula Valley Auto Dealership.
Proposed acquisition impacts landscape and relocation of 4 light standards. 910-310-015 0.75 1.86 0.00 0.00 FEE 0.10 Extended Stay America. Acquisition would affect monument signage
and satellite dish that serves motel. 916-400-001 0.66 1.62 0.16 0.46 FEE 24.07 Vacant land associated with Harveston Project. Land was set-aside as a condition of development. 916-400-006
1.85 4.57 0.11 0.32 FEE 6.02 Vacant land associated with Harveston Project. Land was setaside as a condition of development. 916-400-008 1.48 3.65 0.20 0.59 FEE 13.68 Vacant land associated
with Harveston Project. Land was setaside as a condition of development. 916-400-013 2.11 5.21 1.15 3.34 FEE 54.47 Vacant land associated with Harveston Project. Land was setaside as
a condition of development. 916-400-018 2.72 6.71 2.25 6.53 FEE 82.74 City-owned land 916-400-022 6.30 15.57 0.21 0.61 FEE 3.32 Vacant land associated with Harveston Project. Land was
setaside as a condition of development * Fee acquisition is purchase of the property. Temporary construction easement (TCE) is a temporary easement on the property during the construction
period; however, permanent use of the parcel would not be affected. Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2006.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 77 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Description of Partial and Full Acquisitions Requiring Relocation of Land Uses As previously
indicated, of the 42 parcels anticipated to be affected by the Proposed Project, 21 parcels are vacant land, 19 parcels are developed with commercial or office uses, and 2 parcels are
residential uses. The following list identifies the land uses that would require relocation. It should be noted that no residential land uses would require relocation as a result of
the proposed project. The locations of the anticipated full acquisition and business relocations are shown on Figure 2-5. 1. England Family Mortuary, located at 27135 Madison Avenue
is identified as a potential full acquisition. The right-of-way requirements for the Proposed Project would displace almost all existing parking spaces at the funeral home. Due to the
removal of parking, this is anticipated to be a full acquisition. However, there is the potential that during project design there may be an option to provide replacement parking. One
option for replacement parking would be on the residual parcel to the west of the funeral home. Another option would be directly east of the parcel, on an area of Madison Avenue that
will be vacated as part of the Preferred Alternative. This would necessitate the full acquisition of parcel APN 910-262-007, which is currently a vacant parcel. 2. Basics ETC Corporation,
an industrial use located at 41375 McCabe Court. A large percentage of the existing
building is located within the proposed right-of-way. Therefore, a full acquisition of the existing use is anticipated to be necessary. Relocation opportunities are available within
the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Both of these uses are within the city of Temecula. As discussed above, two resources for the relocation of lost parking for the England
Family Mortuary are the adjacent properties to the east and west. Should that not be feasible, there are other vacant parcels in the immediate vicinity that could be used as replacement
opportunities for the funeral home in the cities of Temecula and/or Murrieta. This is discussed further below. Acquisition requirements at the Basics ETC Corporation would sever a large
percentage of the building, causing the likely relocation of the business. The entire site is 44,046 square feet. Relocation resources for this use include the two adjacent vacant parcels,
which are located between Basics ETC Corporation and Jefferson Avenue. These 2 parcels are subject to acquisition involving partial acquisitions of an estimated 48,867 square feet of
138,154 square feet of vacant land (35 percent). Following the partial acquisitions, the 2 parcels would be 42,269 square feet and 48,018 square feet. Another option may be the vacant
parcel directly east, between the Basics ETC Corporation and the England Family Mortuary. Each of these parcels may be large enough to serve as a relocation resource for the Basics ETC
Corporation.
78 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Additional industrial land and appropriate space are available throughout the city of Temecula.
Temecula has over 12.5 million square feet of industrial/manufacturing space in existence or under construction. None of the developed land uses requiring relocation are located in Murrieta.
However, the City’s land resources may offer relocation and replacement opportunities for the land uses that require relocation. For instance, Murrieta’s special business corridors offer
hundreds of acres of prime business sites. The Jefferson Business Corridor is an area comprised of 700 acres of commercial, business park, and industrial land that is served by Jefferson
Avenue; some sites possess freeway visibility and interstate access. In addition to already constructed industrial land, there is enough undeveloped vacant space appropriately zoned
to accommodate the requirements of the land uses that may be subject to relocation. In addition to the two land uses identified for potential relocation, there is another parcel where
full acquisition may occur. Parcel 910-060-002, located by Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road may be a full acquisition. This parcel is currently vacant. Due to topography
and the probable requirement to provide access to parcel 910-060-004 to the south, full acquisition of this parcel may be required. Since it is vacant, no relocation would occur. In
addition to the parcels discussed above, the proposed project is also anticipated to require acquisition of right-of-way that would result in less than substantial effects on existing
uses. These impacts, which are also identified in Table 2.10, are summarized below: • Eight parcels, involving limited impacts to existing parking. • Four parcels, involving signage
and/or landscaping that may need to be modified. • Potential modifications required to a self-storage facility and a trailer sales lot. • Potential relocation of a cell-phone tower.
• Potential relocation or compensation for removal of a billboard. The precise impacts to adjacent land uses would be determined during final design when construction plans are developed.
With the greater level of design detail, it is possible that the impacts may be able to be minimized or avoided. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any
relocation impacts. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The Department has two programs to aid businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations that must be relocated due
partial or full acquisition. These two programs are:
Business Relocations French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 2-5 R:\Projects\Moffatt\J024\Graphics\IS-ESA\Ex2-5_business_relocation_032709.pdf Sanborn Avenue Buecking Drive
McCabe Court Jefferson Avenue Santa Gertrudis Creek Madison Avenue Temecula Valley Freeway §¨¦15 D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/business_relocation.mxd 500 250 0 500Feet ² 0 7,000 Feet Full
Acquisitions Project Limits Source: Aerials Express October 2008 !(79 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦15
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 79 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • The Relocation and Advisory Assistance Program, which aids displacees in locating a suitable
replacement property. • The Relocation Payments Program, which reimburses displacees for certain costs involved in relocating. These payments are classified as: -Moving and Related Expenses
(costs to move personal property not acquired). -Reestablishment Expenses (expenses related to the replacement property). -In-Lieu Payment (a fixed payment in lieu of moving and related
expenses and re-establishment expenses). These programs are explained in full detail in the Department’s publication: “Your Rights and Benefits as a Displaced Business, Farm or Nonprofit
Organization Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Program.” The following measure will be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project. R-1 In conjunction with right-of-way
acquisition, the City of Temecula shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the California Department of Transportation’s Relocation Assistance Program. In brief, the program
is described as follows: Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and businesses in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisition Policies Act, as amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible displacees will be entitled
to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all residential and business relocates without regard to race, color, religion, age, national origin, or disability
as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Environmental Justice Regulatory Setting All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. This
Executive Order directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health
or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Low income is defined based on the Department of Health and Human Services
poverty
80 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study guidelines. For 2009, this was $22,050 for a family of four in the 48 contiguous states and
Washington D.C.5 All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this Project. The Department’s commitment to upholding
the mandates of Title VI is evidenced by its Title VI Policy Statement, signed by the Director, which can be found in Appendix B of this document. Affected Environment A Socioeconomics
Analysis (December 2005, Amended April 7, 2008 and April 9, 2009) was prepared. As stated previously, the project is located within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta within Riverside
County. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 10.7 percent of the families of Riverside County were living below the poverty line in 2000.6 In Temecula and Murrieta, 5.6
percent and 3.0 percent of families, respectively, were living below the poverty line.7 According to U.S. Census Bureau data, approximately 9.0 percent of the population in the immediate
vicinity of the project site (which includes Census Tracts 432.06, 432.10, 432.11, 432.15, 432.16, and 432.23) were living below the poverty line in 2000.8 Table 2.9 in the Community
Character section of this document provides demographic data by census tract. This section utilizes the demographic data in Tables 2.2 through 2.9. Riverside County and the areas in
proximity to the project site have a high percentage of Hispanic or Latino population in comparison to the national average of 12.5 percent.9 Demographic data for Riverside County as
a whole is provided in Table 2.2. The population of Riverside County is approximately 36.2 percent Hispanic or Latino while the cities of Temecula and Murrieta are 19.0 and 17.5 percent
Hispanic or Latino, respectively.10 While these populations are located in proximity to the I-15, they are not concentrated within the project area. According to census tract data (Census
Tracts 432.06, 432.10, 432.11, 432.15, 432.16, and 432.23), approximately 24.8 percent of the population is Hispanic or Latino.11 Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed
Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The proposed project would not result in the displacement of any residential units. The neighborhood located nearest to the proposed project
would be the Warm Springs Mobile Home Park on Jackson Avenue. This area is within Census Tract 5 Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23, 2009, pp. 4199-4200. 6 U.S. Census Bureau.
“American FactFinder.” January 25, 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov>, accessed January 7, 2005. 7 Ibid. 8 U.S. Census Bureau. “American FactFinder.” January 25, 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov
>, accessed January 11, 2005. 9 U.S. Census Bureau. “American FactFinder.” January 25, 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov>, accessed January 7, 2005. 10 Ibid. 11 U.S. Census Bureau.
“American FactFinder.” January 25, 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov>, accessed January 11, 2005.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 81 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study 432.10, immediately east of the proposed alignment in the vicinity of Elm Street, in Murrieta.
Implementation of the proposed project would reduce the area separating the 2 uses, locating the freeway 12 m (40 ft) closer to the mobile home park than under existing conditions. However,
the project is not anticipated to require temporary or permanent acquisition of any part of the mobile home park. No mobile home units are anticipated to need to be relocated. The most
recent data on poverty rates at the census tract level, shows that 8.6 percent of families in Tract 432.10 were living below the poverty level in 2000; which is lower than that of the
County as a whole and lower than the 9.0 percent average of all tracts adjacent to the project As mentioned earlier, Census Data indicates that approximately 36 percent of Riverside
County’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. The percentage of individuals classified as Hispanic is approximately 17.5 percent for Murrieta and 19.0 percent for Temecula. Both
values are less than the number reported for the County of Riverside. As it pertains to the Census Tracts neighboring the proposed project, Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show similar numbers of
Hispanic population in four of the six tracts. Census Tracts 432.06, 432.11, 432.16, and 432.23 report population to be approximately 16 to 19 percent Hispanic. The percent of this minority
group in all tracts, with the exception of Tract 432.15, is lower than that of the County as a whole. The proposed project is not anticipated to have disproportionate impacts on areas
identified as including lower income and/or minority populations because these residents are not concentrated in any specific part of the area. A beneficial effect of the proposed project
is the provision of noise attenuation for the mobile home park. A project design feature is the construction of a 4.3-m (14-ft) sound wall between stations 125+00 and 128+00 (from approximately
Warm Springs Creek to Sugarberry Lane) which, if constructed to the full 4.3-m (14-ft) height, would reduce the noise levels at the mobile home park between 7 and 13 decibels (dB). Currently,
there are no noise attenuation measures in place. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any environmental justice impacts. However, construction of a sound
wall, which would provide noise attenuation for the mobile home park, would not take place with the No Action Alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Based on
the above discussion and analysis, the proposed project would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations as per E.O. 12898 regarding
environmental justice. Utilities and Emergency Services Affected Environment Utilities The project site is served by the following water, sewer, gas, electric, and telecommunications
systems providers:
82 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Water: Rancho California Water Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District Gas: The Gas Company
Electric: Southern California Edison Telecommunications: Verizon, Adelphia, Comcast, Time-Warner, Wholesale Air-Time These service providers have utilities within the proposed project’s
right-of-way. In addition, various utilities are located in portions of Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive, and Jackson Avenue in the project study area. Water and sewer
lines are also included within Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Springs Creek. The following utilities are located within the “project footprint” or area of disturbance for the proposed
project: • Water lines on both the east and west sides of I-15 and within Madison Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, and Cherry Street, • Electrical lines within Winchester Road, Madison Avenue,
Jefferson Avenue, and Cherry Street, • Gas lines in Madison Avenue and 102 mm (4.01 inch) gas lines lines in Jefferson Avenue and Cherry Street, • Telephone lines in Winchester Road,
Madison Avenue, Jefferson Avenue and Cherry Streets, • Fiber Optic lines within Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Cherry Streets. Emergency Services City of Murrieta The City of
Murrieta provides its own fire protection and police services. The Fire Department is the primary provider of fire suppression, pre-hospital emergency medical care, disaster preparedness
coordination, hazard mitigation, and fire prevention services. The Police Department provides a wide range of community services to ensure community safety. City of Temecula The City
of Temecula contracts with the County of Riverside for fire protection and with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for Police services. In addition, the City of Temecula operates
Paramedic Squads, which respond to all medical aids and traffic collisions within the city.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 83 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative)
Utilities The Rancho California Water District, has a 1,372 mm (54-inch) diameter water line along Madison Avenue, which would traverse the French Valley Parkway Interchange. It is anticipated
that this line would need to be relocated. Other smaller utilities are located within roadways that may be affected by the Proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed project would
require relocation of utilities outside of the Department’s right-of-way. This would likely affect utilities in Madison Avenue. The precise requirements for relocation of utility lines
would be evaluated during preparation of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) with the applicable utility providers. Standard engineering practices would allow the relocation
of all the utilities without interruption of service. During the preparation of preliminary design, there were two storm drains in the vicinity of Madison Avenue that were identified
as a constraint to the project. The storm drains are each 2,438 mm (96-inch) in diameter. The relocation of these facilities would have been costly and posed a constraint to project
design. With the redesign of the southbound C/D lanes between French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road, the storm drains were avoided. There are no other utilities within the construction
footprint that would pose such a constraint. Additionally, the construction of the French Valley Parkway Interchange would provide the opportunity for service providers to extend utilities
across the I-15 within the sidewalk or roadbed of the overcrossing. To facilitate the efficient installation of utilities within the French Valley Parkway right-of-way, coordination
with all pertinent utility service providers would occur during PS&E. Emergency Services Because the project would result in the construction on the State highway system, during construction,
access to roadways in the project study area could be temporarily affected. A Traffic Management Plan would be prepared, in accordance with Department requirements during the design
phase to ensure that emergency access is maintained. The Department is responsible for approving the Traffic Management Plan. This short-term impact would be less than substantial through
the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan, as discussed below under “Traffic and Transportation.” None of the roadways in the project study area are designated as emergency evacuation
routes. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not require the relocation of any utilities because no improvements would be implemented. The No Action Alternative may
have indirect impacts on emergency services because there would be a greater number of intersections and ramp locations that would operate at a deficient level of service. During peak
hours, this could result in an increase in response time for service providers.
84 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following are standard requirements
for construction projects, which serve to avoid or minimize impacts. Utilities U-1 During project design, the precise requirements for relocating the utilities and providing for the
extension of utilities within the right-of-way of French Valley Parkway will be evaluated in cooperation with all pertinent utility service providers during preparation of the PS&E.
It is anticipated that a dedicated conduit and steel casing would be provided in the bridge for water and gas lines. Emergency Services ES-1 Consistent with standard provisions in the
cities of Murrieta and Temecula, a Traffic Management Plan would be prepared to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction of the proposed project. A component of
the Traffic Management Plan would be to coordinate with the emergency service providers to ensure their operations can be adjusted. The Department is responsible for approving the Traffic
Management Plan for the project. No further avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required to address potential adverse affects on emergency services during construction.
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Regulatory Setting The Department, as assigned by FHWA, directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation
of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of federal-aid highway projects (see 23 CFR 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must
be considered in all federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle
traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. The Department is committed to carrying out the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) by building transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. The same degree of convenience, accessibility, and safety available to the general
public will be provided to persons with disabilities. Affected Environment The following were prepared, regarding the project’s potential effect on traffic and circulation, both during
construction and after completion of the project: • The Need and Purpose Report (October 2004), which discusses the circulation need of the facility in substantial detail; the report
is included in its entirety as Appendix B of the Draft Project Report (August 2006);
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 85 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • The Revised Traffic Operations Analysis Report (January 2008); and • The Volume Development
Methodology Report (June 2004), which contains the assumptions pertaining to the development of traffic volumes. The I-15 is a north-south freeway that provides regional access for the
cities of Murrieta and Temecula and adjacent portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The primary east-west arterials in the cities have interchanges on the I-15 or the I-215 and
also serve to carry traffic between the freeways and the surrounding areas. Table 2.11 lists the freeway interchanges that currently serve the cities of Murrieta and Temecula, as well
as the distances between adjacent interchanges. Table 2.11 Existing Freeway Interchanges Within the Limits of Murrieta and Temecula Interchange Kilopost Kilometers to Next Interchange
to the South I-215 at Clinton Keith Interchange 20.1 2.9 I-215 at Los Alamos Rd 17.2 1.9 I-215 at Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 15.3 4.6 I-15 at California Oaks Rd 17.1 1.8 I-15 at Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd 15.3 4.6 I-15 at Winchester Rd (SR-79 North) 10.7 2.7 I-15 at Rancho California Rd 8.0 2.5 I-15 at SR-79 South 5.5 – Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2008. The objective is
to provide an LOS within the theoretical capacity for the mainline facility and ramps. The LOS scale ranges from “A” to “F,” with LOS “A” representing free flow conditions and LOS “F”
representing severe traffic congestion. Table 2.12 describes traffic flow quality for different levels of service. This is also graphically depicted in Figure 2-6, Levels of Service.
Traffic volumes and LOS values for existing conditions were previously shown in Tables 1.1 through 1.3 in Chapter 1. Table 1.1 provides the information for existing intersection levels
of service. The table indicates that there are no intersections which show operational deficiencies during the AM peak hour under existing conditions. There are seven intersection locations
that are currently operating at a deficient level of service in the PM peak hour. Operational deficiency is defined as LOS E or F, as described in Table 2.12. The intersection of Madison
Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is not included in this analysis since it did not exist at the time the study was initiated in 2003 and it is not included in the 2025 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP) traffic model, which is maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Based on the traffic volumes on roadways intersecting Murrieta
Hot Springs Road, the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is more critical than the intersection of Madison Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Even if Madison
Avenue were to be included in the analysis, the signal timing bandwidths are likely to change little, if at all. It is anticipated that inclusion of the intersection of Madison Avenue/Murrieta
Hot Springs Road in this analysis would not change the findings of this analysis.
86 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.12 Level of Service Descriptions Showing Volume to Capacity Relationships Level of Service
Traffic Flow Quality V/C Value A Describes free-flow operations. Free-flow speeds prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream.
The effect of incidents or point breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. 0−0.60 B Represents reasonably free flow, and free-flow speeds are maintained. The ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. The effects of minor incidents and
point breakdowns are still easily absorbed. 0.61−0.70 C Provides for flow with speeds at or near the free-flow speed of the freeway. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is
noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service will
be substantial. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockage. 0.71−0.80 D The level at which speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows and density begins
to increase somewhat more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels.
Even minor incidents can be expected to create queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. 0.81−0.90 E At its highest density value, LOS E describes operation
at capacity. Operations at this level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Vehicles are closely spaced, leaving little room to maneuver within
the traffic stream at speeds that still exceed 49 miles per hour. Any disruption of the traffic stream, such as vehicles changing lanes, can establish a disruptive wave that propagates
throughout the upstream traffic flow. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious
breakdown with extensive queuing. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited, and the level of physical and psychological comfort afforded the driver is poor. 0.91−1.00
F Describes breakdowns in vehicular flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind breakdown points. LOS F operations within a queue are the result of a breakdown
or bottleneck at a downstream point. LOS F is also used to describe conditions at the point of the breakdown or bottleneck and the queue discharge flow that occurs at speeds lower than
the lowest speed for LOS E, as well as the operations within the queue that forms upstream. Whenever LOS F conditions exist, they have the potential to extend upstream for significant
distances. Above 1.00 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000. V/C = Volume/Capacity ratio Tables 1.2 and 1.3 (on pages 22–26
in Chapter 1) represent the freeway segments in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on level of service, there is one deficient ramp location (Rancho California Road southbound
off-ramp) in the AM peak period. As previously indicated in Chapter 1, based on LSA Associates’ field observations, there are two existing operational deficiencies in the project area.
These are identified as follows: • The first operational deficiency occurs during the AM peak hour when the queue on the southbound off-ramp at Winchester Road extends back onto the
freeway mainline, sometimes as far as the I-15/I-215 Junction. This is the result of the fact that the intersection at the ramp terminus cannot accommodate the number of vehicles fed
to it by the freeway off-ramp.
Levels of Service French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: Department of Transportation. Figure 2-6 R:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\Graphics\June_2006\figure2-6_levelsofservice_062006.pdf
D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\Graphics\fig2-2_levelsofservice_012105.ai
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 87 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • The second operational deficiency, which occurs northbound during the PM peak hour, occurs
at the Winchester Road direct on-ramp. Traffic in this area breaks down and causes queuing back to the intersection’s ramp terminus. Based on traffic volumes, Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) procedures suggest that this merge should operate at Level of Service (LOS) C. However, HCM procedures do not account for the large number of vehicles in the adjacent upstream
loop on-ramp and the I‑215’s downstream junction, which both cause a high proportion of vehicles in the right lanes of the mainline. The inadequate gaps for on-ramp traffic cause heavy
proportions
of mainline traffic in the right lanes and, in turn, cause the merge area to fail. • Lastly, in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour, the merge from the Winchester Road direct
on-ramp breaks down and causes queuing back to the intersection at the ramp terminus. Because there is a heavy proportion of mainline traffic concentrated in the right lanes, there are
inadequate gaps for on-ramp traffic. As a result of these inadequacies, the merge areas fail to function adequately. Environmental Consequences As the area experiences growth, the future
travel demand will decrease the LOS on the I-15. The projected traffic volumes would be the same both with the proposed project and with the No Action Alternative because the same growth
assumptions would apply in both cases. As discussed above under Growth, the proposed project would not change land uses or remove substantial constraints that limit the implementation
of approved land uses. However, with the proposed project, the level of service would improve because it would increase the capacity and the efficiency of the existing roadway. Two timeframes
were evaluated: 2012, which represents approximate completion of the proposed improvements and 2030, which is the long-range scenario. On July 12, 2007, a meeting was held with the FHWA,
the Department, and the City of Temecula. It was agreed that a 2012 opening date and a 2030 design year would be acceptable. A traffic sensitivity analysis was conducted and verified
that there would not be substantial differences in traffic between use of a 2010 and a 2012 opening date. A design exception was granted allowing the use of the 2030 design year. Year
2012 Intersection Evaluation Year 2012 represents the opening year for the proposed project. Table 2.13 provides the projected 2012 levels of service both with and without the proposed
project for various intersections within the project study area. These intersection locations are identified in Figure 2-7. The table indicates that no intersections are projected to
operate at a deficient level of service in the AM peak hour with the proposed project; however, there are two intersections that operate at a deficient level of service with the No Action
Alternative. In the PM peak hour, there are five intersections that operate at a deficient deficient level of service under both scenarios. The deficient LOS intersections are identified
as following:
88 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study AM Peak Hour (No Action Alternative Only) • Ynez Road/Winchester Road (LOS F) • Ynez Road/Rancho
California Road (LOS F) PM Peak Hour (Proposed Project Only) • Jefferson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road (LOS E) PM Peak Hour (Proposed Project and No Action Alternative) • Alta Murrieta
Drive and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (LOS E in both scenarios) • Ynez Road and Winchester Road (LOS E with Proposed Project/LOS F with No Action Alternative) • Old Town Front Street and
Rancho California Road (LOS F in both scenarios) • I-15 Southbound (SB) Ramps/Rancho California Road (LOS E with Proposed Project/LOS F with No Action Alternative) PM Peak Hour (No Action
Alternative Only) • Ynez Road/Rancho California Road (LOS E) It should also be noted, while the Alta Murrieta Drive/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection would operate at LOS E in the
PM peak hour for both scenarios, there is a decrease in delay from 78.8 seconds with the No Action Alternative to 71.6 seconds with the proposed project. The Old Town Front Street/Rancho
California Road intersection would operate at LOS F for both scenarios; however, there is a decrease in delay from 137.0 seconds for the No Action Alternative to 101.8 seconds for the
Proposed Project. There would be a substantial delay reduction at the Ynez Road/Winchester Road intersection. With the No Action Alternative, this intersection would operate at LOS F
and experience a 314.3-second delay. However, with the proposed project, this intersection would operate at LOS E and have a 67.6-second delay. The above discussion focuses on the intersections
that are projected to operate at deficient levels of service in the year 2012. It should also be noted that several intersections, though not identified as operating at a deficient level
of service, would operate at a decreased LOS and/or increased delays when comparing the No Action and Build Alternatives. The intersections that are projected to be operating at at deficient
levels of service in 2012 are predominately those that serve as major collector streets to provide access to I-15 and/or I-215. Both Winchester Road and Rancho California Road provide
access to I-15. Murrieta Hot Springs Road provides access to both I-15 and I-215. Ynez Road, Alta Murrieta, and Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street all provide access to major employment
and retail areas within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Improved LOS will facilitate access to these uses.
Source: LSA, Inc. 2008 Study Area Intersection Locations Figure 2-7 French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Graphics/Ex2-7_InterLoca_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffatt/J024/Gr
aphics/Ex_InterLoca_032709.ai
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 89 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.13 Year 2012 Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Proposed Project No
Action Alternative AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 34.9 C 75.7 E* 27.4 C 45.8 D 2. I-15
SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 14.3 B 14.5 B 14.7 B 16.5 B 3. I-15 NB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 14.5 B 14.7 B 12.2 B 15.3 B 4. Hancock Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Signal 8.9 A 15.8 B 9.5 A 13.1 B 5. I-215 SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 12.4 B 12.4 B 14.6 B 12.9 B 6. I-215 NB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 2.7 A 9.9 A 3.0 A 10.1
B 7. Alta Murrieta Dr/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 33.8 C 71.6 E* 31.3 C 78.8 E* 8. Jefferson Ave/French Valley Pkwy Signal 23.6 C 26.6 C No Intersection No Intersection 9. I-15 SB
Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Signal 10.7 B 18.0 B No Intersection No Intersection 10. I-15 NB Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Signal 9.0 A 11.1 B No Intersection No Intersection 11. Ynez Rd/French
Valley Pkwy Signal 21.7 C 31.4 C No Intersection No Intersection 12. Jefferson Ave/Winchester Rd Signal 32.5 C 41.5 D 32.2 C 51.6 D 13. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Rd Signal 18.5 B 16.3
B 20.1 C 17.9 B 14. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd Signal 11.7 B 17.8 B 15.9 B 25.0 C 15. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd Signal 53.6 D 67.6 E* 88.9 F* 314.3 F* 16. Old Town Front St/Rancho California
Rd Signal 36.3 D 101.8 F* 35.1 D 137.0 F* 17. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Rd Signal 42.0 D 73.3 E* 47.0 D 80.7 F* 18. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Rd Signal 15.2 B 11.9 B 15.5
B 14.8 B 19. Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd Signal 35.3 D 51.7 D 96.1 F* 71.9 E* 20. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 12.3 B 16.7 B 11.9 B 21.1 C *Exceeds Caltrans level of service
standard of LOS D. Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds LOS = Level of Service NB = northbound SB = southbound Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis
90 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Ynez Road is the first major street east of I-15 and serves office, commercial, and industrial
uses. The Town Center Shopping Center, a major shopping mall, is located at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road in the city of Temecula. Old Town Front Street is the extension of Jefferson
Avenue south of Rancho California Road. In this location, Old Town Front Street/Jefferson Avenue provide access to commercial and industrial uses. Alta Murrieta Drive is the first street
east of I-215 and extends to the north. The road serves as a major collector, providing access to office and commercial uses as well as the Alta Murrieta residential development in the
city of Murrieta. The area surrounding the Jefferson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection is a mix of undeveloped land, residential uses, and office uses. By 2012, the regional
shopping center on Murrieta Hot Springs Road between I-15 and I-215 is expected to be constructed. Freeway Evaluation Tables 2.14 and 2.15 provide the 2012 freeway levels of service
with the proposed project for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These tables indicate that, with the proposed project, there are 9 ramp locations that are projected to operate
with a deficient LOS in the AM peak hour and 23 ramp locations that would experience a deficient LOS in the PM peak hour. Tables 2.16 and 2.17, provide projected 2012 levels of service
and freeway volumes for the No Action Alternative during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. With the No Action Alternative, there are 8 ramp locations in 2012 that are projected
to operate at a deficient LOS in the AM peak hour and 31 ramp locations in the PM peak hour. In Year 2012, the addition of the French Valley Parkway Improvements Project would generally
improve the traffic conditions compared to the No Action Alternative. In the AM peak hour, there are two locations where the level of service would be degraded with the Proposed Project
(i.e., when compared to the No Action Alternative). These locations are: • The I-15 northbound Murrieta Hot Springs Road slip on-ramp, which would worsen to LOS F with the proposed project
compared to LOS D with the No Action Alternative and • The I-15 southbound Murrieta Hot Springs Road off-ramp, which would worsen to LOS E with the proposed project compared to LOS D
with the No Action Alternative. However, with the implementation of the French Valley Parkway improvements, level of service at the Winchester Road southbound off-ramp would improve.
Under the No Action Alternative, this off-ramp is projected to operate at LOS F, whereas, with the Proposed Project the Winchester Road off-ramp from the C/D line would operate at LOS
B. Greater improvements would be realized in the PM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, the Proposed Project would operate at a better level of service at the following locations: • I-15
northbound Old Town Front Street on-ramp to Rancho California Road off-ramp: The proposed project would operate at LOS E (compared to LOS F with the No Action Alternative).
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 91 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.14 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour
Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume C/D Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp
to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 4,337 107.6 10.6 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 4,337 935 88.9 6.8 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 4 3,402 107.6 8.3 B Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 3,402 533 97.0 9.1 B Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 3,935
107.6 9.6 B Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 3,935 1,253 96.0 11.5 B Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 5,189 107.6 12.7 C Winchester Rd
Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 5,189 1,039 88.4 6.2 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp Basic 4 4,150 107.1 10.1 B French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 4,150 553 90.4
13.1 C French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 4 3,597 1,176 107.6 8.8 B Lane Addition-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 5 3,597 2,423 110.0 6.9 A I-15/I-215 Split Major Divergence
5 3,597 1,727 # I-15/215 Split to I-15 C/D Merge Basic 3 1,870 1,260 105.2 6.2 A I-15 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B Weave 5 3,129 295 93.8 7.0 B Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Off-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic 4 2,834 107.6 6.9 A Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 2,834 105.2 9.4 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 2,834 1,023 97.0
9.7 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 3,857 105.2 12.9 C I-215 Northbound I-215 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B Weave 3 2,890
85.0 11.9 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 2,698 102.7 13.8 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 2,698 133 95.0 15.6 C
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Basic 2 2,831 102.7 14.5 C
Table 2.14 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour (Continued) 92 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume C/D Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 2,831 572 81.0 23.2 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 3,403 101.8 17.6 D I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,850 97.3 21.2 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 5,850 1,238 87.6 22.0 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 3 4,612 105.1 15.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,612 24 92.0 18.6 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 4,636
105.1 15.5 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Off-Ramp Type B Weave 4 4,636 239 1,641 87.7 13.9 C I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 3,234 105.2 10.8 B
I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 3,234 2,987 # I-15/215 Junction to Lane Drop Basic 5 6,221 3,157 110.0 11.9 C Lane Drop to I-15 C/D Merge Basic 4 6,221 3,157 107.3 15.3 C I-15 C/D
Merge Major Merge 4 6,221 1,151 # I-15 C/D Merge to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 6 7,371 110.0 11.8 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 6 7,371 194 94.0 15.3 C Winchester Rd Slip
On-Ramp to Lane Drop 1 Basic 6 7,565 110.0 12.1 C Lane Drop 1 to Lane Drop 2 Basic 5 7,565 109.8 14.5 C Lane Drop 2 to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,565 101.4 19.6 D Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 7,565 2,249 83.5 14.7 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 5,317 107.6 13.0 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane
On 4 5,317 787 96.0 11.6 B Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,103 107.5 14.9 C
Table 2.14 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 93 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume C/D Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 4,903 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 4,903 882 88.9 28.6 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 4,021 93.6 22.6 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,021 416 79.0 24.4 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip
On-Ramp Basic 2 4,437 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,437 66 78.0 24.2 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition-Ramp Basic 2 4,503 † † F* Lane
Addition-Ramp to I-215(CD Split) Basic 3 4,503 105.2 15.0 C I-215 C/D Split 2 lane off 3 4,503 1,516 # I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Basic 2 2,987 1,516 102.7 15.3 C C/D
Line 1 –I-15 Northbound Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 399 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp C/D Line 1 399 399 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip
On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 399 399 777 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to French Valley Loop On-Ramp CD Line 2 1,176 1,176 103.0 6.0 A French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition
2 1,176 1,176 327 97.0 9.0 B French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp C/D Line 2 1,503 1,503 105.0 5.0 A French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane onto C/D 3 1,503
1,503 920 96.0 11.0 B French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to I-15/I-215 C/D Split C/D Line 3 2,423 2,423 105.0 8.0 B I-15/I-215 C/D Split C/D Divergence 3 2,423 2,423 1,260 # I-15/I-215
C/D Split to Lane Drop C/D Line 2 1,260 1,260 103.0 7.0 A
Table 2.14 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour (Continued) 94 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume C/D Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS C/D Line 1 – I-215 Northbound I-15/I-215
CD Split to C/D Lane Drop C/D Line 2 1,163 1,163 103.0 6.0 A Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge C/D Line 1 1,163 1,163 ‡ ‡ ‡ C/D Line 1 – Southbound I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-1-215 C/D Merge
C/D Line 2 1,641 1,641 103.0 8.4 B I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 C/D Merge Basic 2 1,516 1,516 103.0 7.8 B I-15/I-215 C/D Merge to Lane Drop C/D Line 4 3,157 3,157 108.0 7.7 B C/D Lane
Drop to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp C/D Line 3 3,157 3,157 105.0 11.0 B French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 3,157 3,157 1,044 88.0 5.5 A French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp C/D Line 2 2,113 2,113 103.0 11.0 B C/D Line 2 – Southbound French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 358 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley
Pkwy Slip On-Ramp C/D Line 3 358 358 103.0 1.8 A French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 358 358 58 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop C/D Line 2 416 416
102.7 2.1 A Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 C/D Lane Drop 2 2,113 2,113 2,113 84.1 6.2 B Lane Drop to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp C/D Line 1 416 416 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane
Addition 2 416 416 734 97.0 7.1 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Merge C/D Line 2 1,151 1,151 102.7 5.9 A † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment ‡ No HCM methodology
for 1-lane segments. Volume is within capacity # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds Caltrans level of service standard of LOS D. Source: January 2008
Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 95 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.15 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour
Segment Type PM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp
to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 8,429 91.4 24.3 E* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 8,429 1,067 88.3 13.3 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 4 7,361 103.0 18.8 D Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 7,361 1,134 95.0 15.0 C Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic
4 8,495 90.3 24.8 E* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 8,495 1,316 94.0 16.0 F* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 9,811 † † F* Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 9,811 1,045 88.4 13.0 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp Basic 4 8,766 85.7 26.9 E* French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 8,766 672
89.9 24.7 F* French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 4 8,093 1,936 96.0 22.2 E* Lane Addition-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 5 8,093 3,666 109.0 15.6 C I-15/I-215 Split Major
Divergence 5 8,093 3,886 # I-15/215 Split to I-15 C/D Merge Basic 3 4,207 1,906 105.2 14.0 C I-15 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B Weave 5 6,113 458 88.7 14.6 C Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic 4 5,655 107.6 13.8 C Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 5,655 100.0 19.8 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 5,655
1,322 96.0 13.7 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 6,978 † † F* I-215 Northbound I-215 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B Weave
3 5,646 74.4 26.1 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Basic 2 4,960 † † F*
Table 2.15 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour (Continued) 96 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,960 207 59.0 27.5 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 5,167 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip
On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 5,167 342 42.0 29.2 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,509 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,503 97.3 21.2 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 5,503 1,179 87.6 22.0 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic
3 4,323 105.2 14.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,323 67 92.0 18.6 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 4,390
105.2 14.6 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Off-Ramp Type B Weave 4 4,390 456 2,067 78.4 17.8 C I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 2,778 105.2 9.3 B I-15/215
Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 2,778 # I-15/215 Junction to Lane Drop Basic 5 5,345 3,976 110.0 10.2 B Lane Drop to I-15 C/D Merge Basic 4 5,345 3,976 107.6 13.1 C I-15 C/D Merge Major
Merge 4 5,345 1,499 # I-15 C/D Merge to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 6 6,844 110.0 10.9 B Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 6 6,844 359 94.0 15.3 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp
to Lane Drop 1 Basic 6 7,204 110.0 11.5 C Lane Drop 1 to Lane Drop 2 Basic 5 7,204 110.0 13.8 C Lane Drop 2 to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,204 104.0 18.2 D Rancho California
Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 7,204 2,293 83.5 14.7 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 4,911 107.2 12.0 C
Table 2.15 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 97 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane
On 4 4,911 850 96.0 11.6 B Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front Street Off-Ramp Basic 4 5,761 107.6 14.1 C I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,136 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 5,136 887 88.9 29.9 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 4,250
87.5 25.6 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,250 104 81.0 24.0 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 4,354 84.1 27.3
E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,354 122 79.0 24.1 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition-Ramp Basic 2 4,475 † † F* Lane Addition-Ramp to I-215
(C/D Split) Basic 3 4,475 105.2 14.9 C I-215 C/D Split 2 lane off 3 4,475 1,909 # I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 Junction Ramp Basic 2 2,566 1,909 102.7 13.2 C C/D Line 1 – I-15 Northbound
Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 721 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Road Slip On-Ramp C/D Line 1 721 721 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition
1 721 721 1,215 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp C/D Line 2 1,936 1,936 103.0 9.9 B French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 2 1,936 1,936
862 95.0 15.4 C French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp C/D Line 2 2,797 2,797 105.0 9.3 B French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane onto C/D 3 2,797 2,797 869
95.0 15.0 C French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to I-15/I-215 C/D Split C/D Line 3 3,666 3,666 105.0 12.0 I-15/I-215 C/D Split C/D Divergence 3 3,666 3,666 1,906 † #
Table 2.15 Year 2012 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour (Continued) 98 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15/I-215 C/D Split to Lane Drop C/D
Line 2 1,906 1,906 103.0 10.0 B CD Line 1 – I-215 Northbound I-15/I-215 C/D Split to C/D Lane Drop C/D Line 2 1,760 1,760 103.0 9.0 B Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge C/D Line 1 1,760 1,760
‡ ‡ ‡ CD Line 1 – Southbound I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-1-215 C/D Merge C/D Line 2 2,067 2,067 103.0 10.6 B I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 C/D Merge Basic 2 1,909 1,909 103.0 9.8 B I-15/I-215
C/D Merge to Lane Drop C/D Line 4 3,976 3,976 108.0 9.7 B C/D Lane Drop to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp C/D Line 3 3,976 3,976 105.0 13.0 C French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 3,976
3,976 1,903 88.0 5.5 A French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp C/D Line 2 2,073 2,073 2,073 103.0 11.0 B CD Line 2 – Southbound French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane
Addition 1 606 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Line 3 606 606 103.0 3.1 A French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 1 606 606 187
‡ ‡ A French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop CD Line 2 794 794 102.7 4.1 A Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 C/D Lane Drop 2 2,073 2,073 2,073 84.1 6.2 B Lane Drop to Winchester Rd Loop
On-Ramp C/D Line 1 794 794 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp C/D Lane Addition 2 794 794 706 97.0 7.2 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Merge C/D Line 2 1,499 1,499 102.7 7.7 B
† Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment ‡ No HCM methodology for 1-lane segments. Volume is within capacity # No effective models of performance for major merge areas
* Exceeds Caltrans level of service standard of LOS D Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 99 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.16 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak
Hour Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 4,680 107.6 11.4 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 4,680 936 88.9 7.3 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic
4 3,744 107.6 9.2 B Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 3,744 547 97.0 9.7 B Ranch California Loop On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 4,291 107.6 10.5 B Rancho
California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 4,291 1,331 96.0 12.0 B Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 5,622 107.6 13.7 C Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off
4 5,622 1,150 88.0 7.3 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 4,472 107.6 10.9 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 4,472 459 96.0 10.3 B Winchester Rd Loop
On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 4,931 107.6 12.1 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 4,931 995 96.0 15.6 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 4 5,927
107.6 14.5 C Lane Addition-Ramp 1 to Lane Addition Basic 5 5,927 110.0 11.3 C Lane Addition to I-15/215 Split Basic 6 5,927 110.0 9.5 B I-15/I-215 Split Major Diverge 6 5,927 2,846 I-15/215
Split to Lane Drop Basic 4 3,081 107.6 7.5 B Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 3,081 105.2 10.3 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 3,081 292 91.5 15.6
C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 2,789 105.2 9.3 B Murrieta Hot Slip Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 2,789 1,044 95.0 14.5 C Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 3,833 105.2 12.8 C
Table 2.16 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour (Continued) 100 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Northbound I-15/215 Split to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 2,846 102.7 14.6 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 2,846 195 91.9 10.3 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic
2 2,650 102.7 13.6 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 2,650 146 95.0 15.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 2,796 102.7 14.3 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 2,796 583 92.0 18.4 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos
Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 3,379 102.7 17.4 D I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,831 97.9 20.9 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 5,831
1,235 87.6 22.0 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 4,596 105.1 15.3 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,596 24 92.0 18.5
D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 4,619 105.1 15.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,619 238 94.0 16.6 C Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction Basic 3 4,858 104.7 16.3 D I15/I215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 4,858 I-15/215 Junction to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 5 9,345 103.8
18.9 D Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 9,345 2,358 83.1 54.6 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 6,986 105.2 17.5 D Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane
On 4 6,986 876 95.0 15.1 C Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 7,863 98.6 21.0 D Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 7,863 134 94.0 15.9 C
Table 2.16 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in AM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 101 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd
Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,997 97.1 21.7 D Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 7,997 2,303 83.3 15.5 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 5,694 107.6
13.9 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,694 787 96.0 12.0 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,481 106.9 16.0 C I-215 Southbound Los Alamos
Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 4,892 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 4,892 889 88.8 30.1 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 4,003 94.0 22.4 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,003 417 80.0 24.2 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 4,420 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,420 67 79.0 24.4 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction. Basic 2 4,487 †
† F* † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds Caltrans level of service standard of LOS D Source:
January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
102 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.17 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak
Hour Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 9,085 † † F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 9,085 1,058 88.4 14.2 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic
4 8,027 96.8 21.8 D Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 8,027 1,167 94.0 15.7 F* Ranch California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Ranch California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 9,194 † † F* Rancho
California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 9,194 1,318 93.0 16.7 F* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 10,512 † † F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4
10,512 1,217 87.7 14.7 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 9,295 † † F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 9,295 825 94.0 16.7 F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp
to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 10,120 † † F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 10,120 1,409 93.0 17.4 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 4 11,529 † † F*
Lane Addition-Ramp 1 to Lane Addition Basic 5 11,529 † † F* Lane Addition to I-15/215 Split Basic 6 11,529 101.9 19.8 D I-15/I-215 Split Major Diverge 6 11,529 5,536 # I-15/215 Split
to Lane Drop Basic 4 5,993 107.5 14.7 C Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,993 95.7 22.0 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 5,993 449 90.8 28.0 F* Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 5,544 101.0 19.3 D Murrieta Hot Slip Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 5,544 1,346 87.2 22.8 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 6,890 † † F*
Table 2.17 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 103 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Northbound I-15/215 Split to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,536 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 5,536 718 89.7 25.3 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2
4,818 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,818 217 64.0 26.7 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 5,035 † † F*
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 5,035 383 47.0 28.8 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,418 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,482 101.6 105.2 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 5,482 1,245 87.6 21.2 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 4,236 105.2 14.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,236 68 93.0 17.3 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 4,305 105.2 14.4 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,305 440 94.0 16.7 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction Basic 3 4,744
105.0 15.9 C I15/I215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 4,744 # I-15/215 Junction to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 5 9,126 105.2 18.3 D Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 9,126 2,413 82.8
24.2 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 6,712 106.3 16.6 D Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 6,712 886 95.0 14.7 C Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester
Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 7,599 101.1 19.8 D
Table 2.17 Year 2012 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in PM Peak Hour (Continued) 104 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM Peak Hour Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 7,599 334 95.0
15.4 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,933 97.8 21.3 D Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 7,933 2,280 83.4 15.4 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp
to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 5,652 107.6 13.8 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,652 887 96.0 12.1 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp Basic
4 6,539 106.8 16.1 D I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Ro On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,009 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 5,009 858 89.2 29.2
F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 2 4,150 90.4 24.2 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Ro Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,150 106 83.0 23.5 E* Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 4,256 87.3 25.7 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,256 126 81.0 23.6 F* Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction. Basic 2 4,382 83.1 27.7 E* † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment # No effective models of performance for major merge areas
* Exceeds Caltrans level of service standard of LOS D Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 105 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • I-15 northbound Rancho California Road off-ramp: The proposed project would operate at LOS
C (compared to LOS F with the No Action Alternative). • I-15 northbound Rancho California Road loop on-ramp: The proposed project would operate at LOS C (compared to LOS F with the No
Action Alternative). • I-15 northbound Rancho California Road loop on-ramp to Rancho California Road slip on-ramp: The proposed project would operate at LOS E (compared to LOS F with
the No Action Alternative). There is one location in the PM peak hour where LOS would degrade with proposed project (compared to the No Action Alternative). The I-15 southbound Murrieta
Hot Springs Road off-ramp would operate at a LOS E with the Proposed Project compared to a LOS D with the No Action Alternative. Although the LOS would remain at LOS E or LOS F in several
locations, there have been substantial volume reductions on the mainline which would improve operations. In addition, all segments on the C/D roadway system, including those connecting
to Winchester Road, are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2030 Intersection Evaluation In 2030, the level of service at intersections
in the project area deteriorates further. This is due to the projected local and regional growth in the area. Table 2.18 provides the projected 2030 level of service at arterial highway
intersections with and without the proposed project. With the proposed project, there are five locations in the AM peak hour that operate at a deficient LOS and eight locations in the
PM peak hour that operate at a deficient LOS. With the No Action Alternative, the deficient number of intersections increases to six locations in the AM peak hour and ten locations in
the PM peak hour. The following highlights the deficient intersections. AM Peak Hour Deficient Intersections • The Alta Murrieta Drive/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection would operate
at LOS E both with the proposed project and the No Action Alternative. However, with the proposed project, the projected delay time is 68 seconds compared to 72.1 seconds with the No
Action Alternative. • The I-15 northbound ramps/Winchester Road intersection would operate at LOS B with the proposed project and LOS F with the No Action Alternative. • The Ynez Road/Winchester
Road intersection would operate at LOS F with both with the proposed project and the No Action Alternative. The project delay time with proposed project is 157.6 seconds compared to
546.8 seconds with the No Action Alternative. • With the proposed project, the Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road intersection would operate at LOS E, with a 74.7-second delay
and LOS F with a 159.3-second delay under the No Action Alternative.
106 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • The I-15 southbound ramps/Rancho California Road intersection would operate at LOS E with
the Proposed Project and LOS F with the No Action Alternative. • With the proposed project, the Ynez Road/Rancho California Road intersection would operate at LOS E with a 69.6-second
delay and LOS F with a 258.9-second delay under the No Action Alternative. PM Peak Hour Deficient Intersections • The Jefferson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection would operate
at LOS F both with or without the proposed project. With the proposed project there would be 167.2 seconds of delay versus 115.1 seconds of delay with the No Action Alternative. • The
Alta Murrieta Drive/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection would operate at LOS F both with and without the proposed project. However, with the proposed project the projected delay time
is 181.8 seconds compared to 237.4 seconds with the No Action Alternative. • The Jefferson Avenue/Avenue/Winchester Road intersection would operate at LOS F both with and without the
proposed project. However, with the proposed project the projected delay time is 83.4 seconds compared to 479.3 seconds with the No Action Alternative. • The I-15 southbound ramps/Winchester
Road intersection would operate at LOS C with the proposed project and LOS E with the No Action Alternative. • The I-15 norththbound ramps/Winchester Road intersection would operate
at LOS D with the proposed project and at LOS F with a 175.2-second delay under the No Action Alternative. • The Ynez Road/Winchester Road intersection would operate at LOS F with both
with the proposed project and the No Action Alternative. The project delay time with proposed project is 226.4 seconds compared to 574.3 seconds with the No Action Alternative. • The
Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road intersection would operate at LOS F with a 250.8-second delay with the Proposed Project and at LOS F with a 236.4-second delay under the
No Action Alternative. • The I-15 southbound ramps/Rancho California Road intersection would operate at LOS F both with and without the proposed project. With the proposed project, drivers
would experience an average 158.4-second delay. Under the No Action Alternative, the project average delay is 180.2 seconds. • The Ynez Road/Rancho California Road intersection would
operate at LOS F with a 114.9-second delay with the proposed project and at LOS F with a 361.6-second delay under the No Action Alternative. • The Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs
Road intersection would operate at LOS F with a 128.4-second delay with the Proposed Project and at LOS F with a 136.8-second delay under the No Action Alternative.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 107 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Freeway Evaluation Tables 2.19 and 2.20 provide the projected 2030 level of service for the
freeways with the proposed project in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. With the proposed project, there would be 22 deficient locations in the AM peak hour and 44 deficient locations
in the PM peak hour. Tables 2.21 and 2.22 provide the No Action Alternative’s 2030 levels of service for the freeways in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. With the No Action Alternative,
there would be 28 deficient locations in the AM peak hour and 55 deficient locations in the PM peak hour. For design year 2030, conditions with the No Action Alternative, reasonable
improvements to adjacent interchanges at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road were included to ascertain if traffic operations can be improved without the implementation of
the French Valley Parkway Project. However, even with additional ramp improvements, traffic operations are worse than with the proposed project. In addition, under 2030 conditions, a
separate scenario was considered that included ramp metering along with the above improvements. Because the mainline I-15 is over capacity, all ramp merge areas would continue to operate
at unacceptable levels of service during at least one peak hour.
108 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.18 Year 2030 Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Proposed Project No
Action Alternative AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 37.4 D 167.2 F* 30.4 C
115.1 F* 2. I-15 SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 15.6 B 17.5 B 17.0 B 22.2 C 3. I-15 NB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 14.8 B 21.6 C 15.5 B 12.4 B 4. Hancock Ave/Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Signal 8.7 A 16.7 B 9.6 A 12.9 B 5 I-215 SB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 19.0 B 19.4 B 11.6 B 13.9 B 6. I-215 NB Ramps/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 3.9 A 7.2
A 3.8 A 9.9 A 7. Alta Murrieta Dr/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 68.0 E* 181.8 F* 72.1 E* 237.4 F* 8. Jefferson Ave/French Valley Pkwy Signal 23.3 C 32.2 C No Intersection No Intersection
9. I-15 SB Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Signal 10.5 B 10.3 B No Intersection No Intersection 10. I-15 NB NB Ramps/French Valley Pkwy Signal 10.0 A 7.9 A No Intersection No Intersection 11.
Ynez Road/French Valley Pkwy Signal 26.5 C 43.0 D No Intersection No Intersection 12. Jefferson Ave/Winchester Rd Signal 42.1 D 83.4 F* 51.1 D 479.3 F* 13. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Rd
Signal 22.1 C 21.3 C 51.2 D 73.6 E* 14. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd Signal 15.3 B 39.7 D 83.6 F* 175.2 F* 15. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd Signal 157.6 F* 226.4 F* 546.8 F* 574.3 F* 16. Old
Town Front St/Rancho California Rd Signal 74.7 E* 250.8 F* 159.3 F* 236.4 F* 17. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Rd Signal 64.1 E* 158.4 F* 81.0 F* 180.2 F* 18. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho
California Rd Signal 21.8 C 11.7 B 17.3 B 13.1 B 19. Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd Signal 69.6 E* 114.9 F* 258.9 F* 361.6 F* 20. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 20.1 C 128.4
F* 19.2 B 136.8 F* * Exceeds LOS standard Notes: Delay = Average control delay in seconds LOS= Level of Service Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 109 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.19 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak
Hour Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp
to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,375 107.1 15.7 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 6,375 1,286 87.3 11.3 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 4 5,089 107.0 12.4 C Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,089 725 96.0 11.9 B Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4
5,814 107.6 14.2 C Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,814 1,686 95.0 13.8 C Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,500 101.9 19.4 D Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 7,500 1,318 87.3 10.9 B Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,182 107.4 15.2 C French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 6,182 697 89.8
18.5 D French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Lane Addition-Ramp Basic 4 5,485 1,578 107.6 13.4 C Lane Addition-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 5 5,485 3,150 110.0 10.5 B I-15/I-215 Split Major
Divergence 5 5,485 2,633 # I-15/215 Split to I-15 C/D Merge Basic 3 2,851 1,638 105.2 9.5 B I-15 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B weave 5 4,489 450 89.8 10.5 B Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic 4 4,039 107.6 9.9 B Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 4,039 105.2 13.5 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,039
1,401 89.0 20.0 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,440 101.9 18.7 D I-215 Northbound I-215 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type
B Weave 3 4,146 80.9 17.9 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 3,887 96.3 21.3 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 3,887
227 85.0 22.1 E
* Table 2.19 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) 110 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 4,114 91.4 23.7 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,114 963 63.0 26.9 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos
Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,077 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 7,842 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 7,842 1,493
86.6 26.5 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 6,350 89.4 24.9 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 6,350 35 89.0 20.8 D
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 6,384 88.7 25.3 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Off-Ramp Type B Weave 4 6,384
333 2,034 84.4 19.9 D I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 4,683 105.0 15.6 C I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 4,683 4,325 # I-15/215 Junction-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic
5 9,008 3,914 105.9 17.9 D Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge Basic 4 9,008 3,914 † † F* I-215 C/D Merge Major Merge 4 9,008 1,422 # I-215 C/D Merge to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 6 10,430
107.2 17.1 D Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 6 10,430 177 56.0 24.4 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop 1 Basic 6 10,607 106.6 17.5 D Lane Drop 1 to Lane Drop 2 Basic 5 10,607
91.8 24.3 E* Lane Drop 2 to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 10,607 † † F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 10,607 2,606 82.1 20.6 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to
Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 8,001 97.7 21.7 D Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 8,001 672 95.0 14.5 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp Basic
4 8,673 87.4 26.1 E*
Table 2.19 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 111 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 6,909 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 6,909 1109 87.9 24.5 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 5,800 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 5,800 341 33.0 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1
Lane On 2 6,140 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,140 64 32.8 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 2 6,204 † † F* Lane Addition-Ramp
to I-215 (CD Split) Basic 3 6,204 92.2 23.6 E* I-215 CD Split 2 lane off 3 6,204 1,879 # I-215 CD Split to I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Basic 2 4,325 1,879 102.7 85.1 E* CD Line 1 -I-15 Northbound
Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 445 97.0 3.6 A Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp CD Line 1 445 445 103.0 2.3 A Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp CD Lane
Addition 1 445 445 1,133 97.0 9.2 B Winchester ad Slip On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Line 2 1,578 1,578 103.0 8.1 B French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 2
1,578 1,578 412 96.0 11.4 B French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Line 3 1,990 1,990 105.0 6.6 A French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane onto CD Line 3
1,990 1,990 1,160 95.0 14.0 C French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to I-15/I-215 C/D Split CD Line 3 3,150 3,150 105.0 11.0 B I-15/I-215 C/D Split CD Divergence 3 3,150 3,150 1,638 # I-15/I-215
C/D Split to I-15 C/D Merge CD Line 2 1,638 1,638 103.0 8.0 B
Table 2.19 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) 112 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type AM Peak Hour Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS CD Line 1 – I-215 Northbound I-15/I-215
C/D Split to C/D Lane Drop CD Line 2 1,513 1,513 103.0 7.8 B C/D Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge CD Line 1 1,513 1,513 ‡ ‡ ‡ CD Line 1 – Southbound I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-15/I-215 C/D Merge
CD Line 2 2,034 2,034 103.0 10.4 B I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 C/D Merge Basic 2 1,879 1,879 103.0 9.6 B I-15/I-215 C/D Merge to Lane Drop CD Line 4 3,914 3,914 108.0 9.6 B C/D Lane
Drop to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp CD Line 3 3,914 3,914 105.0 13.0 C French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 3,914 3,914 1,316 87.0 8.3 B French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp CD Line 2 2,597 2,597 103.0 13.0 C CD Line 2 – Southbound French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 452 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy
Slip On-Ramp CD Line 1 452 452 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 452 452 73 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop CD Line 2 525 525 102.7 2.7 A Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp 2 CD Lane Drop 2 2,597 2,597 2,597 82.1 8.9 B Lane Drop to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Line 1 525 525 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 2 525 525 898 97.0
8.4 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Merge CD Line 2 1,422 1,422 102.0 7.3 B † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment ‡ No HCM methodology for 1-lane segments.
Volume is within capacity. # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds LOS standards Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 113 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.20 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak
Hour Segment Type PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front StOn-Ramp
to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 13,177 † † F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 13,177 1,152 88.0 20.3 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 4 12,025 † † F* Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 12,025 1,384 90.0 19.2 F* Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 13,409
† † F* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 13,409 1,370 88.0 20.6 F* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 14,779 † † F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp
2 Lane Off 4 14,779 1,144 88.0 20.6 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp Basic 4 13,635 † † F* French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 4 13,635 796 89.4 36.9 F* French
Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp to Lane Addition-Ramp Basic 4 12,839 2,005 † † F* Lane Addition-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 5 12,839 4,053 † † F* I-15/I-215 Split Major Divergence 5 12,839 6,165
# I-15 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Typ B weave 5 8,782 618 88.7 20.8 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic 4 8,164 95.1 22.6 E* Lane Drop to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp Basic 3 8,164 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 8,164 1,573 33.2 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 9,737
† † F* I-215 Northbound I-215 C/D Merge to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Type B Weave 3 8,111 76.7 37.1 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
Basic 2 7,531 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 7,531 227 40.5 F*
Table 2.20 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) 114 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 7,758 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 7,758 426 42.7 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp
Basic 2 8,184 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 7,917 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 3 7,917 1,584 86.2 26.7 F*
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 6,333 89.8 21.8 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 6,333 122 88.0 21.1 D Murrieta Hot
Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 6,455 87.2 26.0 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Off-Ramp Type B Weave 4 6,455 729 2,577 74.4
22.8 E* I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 4,608 105.1 15.4 C I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 4,608 I-15/215 Junction-Ramp to Lane Drop Basic 5 8,863 4,957 106.5 17.5
D Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge Basic 4 8,863 4,957 83.9 27.8 E* I-215 C/D Merge Major Merge 4 8,863 1,927 # I-215 C/D Merge to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 6 10,791 105.9 17.9 D
Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 6 10,791 502 46.0 25.3 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop 1 Basic 6 11,292 103.4 19.2 D Lane Drop 1 to Lane Drop 2 Basic 5 11,292 † † F*
Lane Drop 2 to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 11,292 † †
F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 11,292 3,180 79.7 23.9 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 8,113 95.7 22.3 E* Rancho California Rd
On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 8,113 958 95.0 14.5 F* Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp Basic 4 9,070 † † F*
Table 2.20 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 115 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp
to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 7,761 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 1 Lane Off 2 7,761 1,330 87.0 26.4 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rad Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 6,431 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,431 73 35.0 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1
Lane On 2 6,504 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,504 132 35.0 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 2 6,636 † † F* Lane Addition-Ramp
to I-215 (C/D Split) Basic 3 6,636 † † F* I-215 C/D Split 2 lane off 3 6,636 2,380 # I-215 C/C/D Split to I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Basic 2 4,256 2,380 87.3 25.3 E* CD Line 1 -I-15 Northbound
Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 504 ‡ ‡ A Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp CD Line 1 504 504 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1
504 504 1,501 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Line 2 2,005 2,005 103.0 10.3 B French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 2 2,005 2,005 1,020
94.0 16.5 C French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp to French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Line 3 3,025 3,025 105.0 10.1 B French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane onto CD Line 3 3,025 3,025 1,029
94.0 16.0 C French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to I-15/I-215 C/D Split CD Line 3 4,053 4,053 105.0 14.0 C I-15/I-215 C/D Split CD Divergence 3 4,053 4,053 2,107 # I-15/I-215 C/D Split to
I-15 C/D Merge CD Line 2 2,107 2,107 103.0 11.0 B
Table 2.20 Year 2030 Proposed Project Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) 116 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Lanes Mainline Volume CD Line Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS CD Line 1 – I-215 Northbound I-15/I-215
CD Split to C/D Lane Drop CD Line 2 1,946 1,946 103.0 10.0 B CD Lane Drop to I-215 C/D Merge CD Line 1 1,946 1,946 103.0 10.0 B CD Line 1 – Southbound I-15 C/D Off-Ramp to I-15/I-215
C/D Merge CD Line 2 2,577 2,577 103.0 13.2 C I-215 C/D Split to I-15/215 C/D Merge Basic 2 2,380 2,380 12.0 102.7 C I-15/I-215 C/D Merge to Lane Drop CD Line 4 4,957 4,957 108.0 12.1
C C/D Lane Drop to French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp CD Line 3 4,957 4,957 105.0 17.0 D French Valley Pkwy Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 4,957 4,957 2,253 84.0 13.8 C French Valley O Pkwy ff-Ramp
to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp CD Line 2 2,704 2,704 103.0 14.0 C CD Line 2 – Southbound French Valley Pkwy Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 718 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley L Pkwy oop On-Ramp to French
Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Line 1 718 718 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp CD Lane Addition 1 718 718 222 ‡ ‡ ‡ French Valley Pkwy Slip On-Ramp to Lane Drop CD Line 2 940 940 102.7
4.8 A Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 CD Lane Drop 2 2,704 2,704 2,704 81.7 9.5 B Lane Drop to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Line 1 940 940 ‡ ‡ ‡ Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp CD Lane Addition
2 940 940 988 96.0 11.0 B Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to I-15 C/D Merge CD Line 2 1,927 1,927 102.7 9.9 B † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment ‡ No HCM methodology
for 1-lane segments. Volume is within capacity # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds LOS standards Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 117 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.21 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM
Peak Hour Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 6,292 107.2 15.4 C Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 6,292 1,287 87.4 11.4 B Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp
Basic 4 5,004 107.6 12.2 C Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,004 762 96.0 11.8 B Ranch California Rd Loop On-Ramp to Ranch California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 5,767 107.6
14.1 C Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 5,767 1,904 95.0 14.0 C Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 7,670 100.5 20.1 D Winchester Rd Off-Ramp
2 Lane Off 4 7,670 1,652 85.9 12.4 C Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 6,018 107.5 14.7 C Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 6,018 612 96.0 12.6 C Winchester
Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 6,631 106.5 16.4 D Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 2 Lane On 4 6,631 1,801 96.0 13.3 C Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic
4 8,432 107.6 13.3 C Lane Addition 1 to Lane Addition 2 Basic 5 8,432 108.2 16.4 D Lane Addition 2 On-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 6 8,432 110.0 13.4 C I-15/I-215 Split Major Diverge
6 8,432 4,049 # I-15/215 Split to Lane Drop Basic 4 4,383 107.6 10.7 B Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 4,383 105.2 14.6 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane
Off 3 4,383 442 90.9 6.8 B Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 3,942 105.2 13.1 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 3,942
258 95.0 14.8 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 4,200 105.2 14.0 C Murrieta Hot Slip Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 4,200 1,208 19.6
90.0 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to California Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 5,407 102.2 18.6 D I-215 Northbound I-15/215 Split to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 4,049 92.9
22.9 E*
Table 2.21 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) 118 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 4,049
269 91.6 17.0 C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 3,780 98.1 20.3 D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 3,780 271 86.0 21.8
D Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 4,051 92.9 23.0 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 4,051 990 64.0 26.7 F* Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 5,041 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia Street On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 7,798 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 7,798 1,483 86.6 18.5 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 3 6,315 90.1 24.6 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
1 Lane On 3 6,315 33 71.0 26.0 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 6,348 89.5 24.9 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane
On 3 6,348 331 85.0 22.2 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 6,679 † F* I15/I215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 6,679 # I-15/215 Junction. to Winchester
Road Off-Ramp Basic 5 12,848 † † F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 12,848 3,332 79.1 26.8 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 9,517 † † F* Winchester
Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 9,517 1,177 92.0 18.1 F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 10,694 † † F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 10,694 143
88.0 20.9 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 10,837 † † F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 10,837 2,758 81.4 21.5 F* Rancho California
Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 8,079 96.1 22.1 E* Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 8,079 674 95.0 14.6 C Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St
Off-Ramp Basic 4 8,752 86.0 26.8 E*
Table 2.21 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the AM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 119 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes AM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 6,890 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 6,890 1,129 88.1 32.8 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp
Basic 2 5,761 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 5,761 343 32.7 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs d Slip Basic 2 6,104 † † F* Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,104 65 32.6 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction Basic 2 6,169 † † F* † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity
segment # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds LOS standards Source: January 2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
120 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.22 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM
Peak Hour Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-15 Northbound Old Town Front St On-Ramp to Rancho
California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 13,400 † † F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 13,400 1,126 88.1 20.8 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic
4 12,274 † † F* Rancho California Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 12,274 1,488 91.0 19.1 F* Ranch California Loop On-Ramp to Ranch California Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 13,762 † † F* Rancho
California Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 13,762 1,384 88.0 20.8 F* Rancho California Rd Slip On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 15,146 † † F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4
15,146 1,656 85.9 23.2 F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 13,490 † † F* F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 13,490 807 87.0 21.6 F* Winchester Rd Loop
On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 4 14,297 † † F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 2 Lane On 4 14,297 2,093 66.0 22.8 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Lane Addition Basic 4 16,390
† † F* Lane Addition 1 to Lane Addition 2 Basic 5 16,390 † † F* Lane Addition 2 On-Ramp to I-15/215 Split Basic 6 16,390 † † F* I-15/I-215 Split Major Diverge 6 16,390 7,869 I-15/215
Split to Lane Drop Basic 4 8,520 88.9 24.9 E* Lane Drop to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 8,520 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 3 8,520 591 90.3 17.6 F*
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 7,929 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 7,929 610 90.2 25.1 F* Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 3 8,539 † † F* Murrieta Hot Slip Springs Rd On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 8,539 1,034 88.5 25.5 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp
to California Oaks Oaks Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 9,574 † † F*
Table 2.22 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 121 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS I-215 Northbound I-15/215 Split to Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 7,869 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 7,869 674 89.9 38.3 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2
7,196 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 7,196 254 38.9 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp Basic 2 7,450 † † F* Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 7,450 552 41.8 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd On-Ramp to Los Alamos Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 8,002 † † F* I-15 Southbound Kalmia St On-Ramp to Murrieta
Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 3 7,937 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Lane Off 3 7,937 1,781 85.4 19.8 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop
On-Ramp Basic 3 6,156 93.1 23.2 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 6,156 127 64.0 27.1 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp
Basic 3 6,283 90.7 24.3 E* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 3 6,283 680 81.0 23.7 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215 Junction-Ramp Basic 3 6,963 † † F*
I15/I215 Junction-Ramp Major Merge 3 6,963 I-15/215 Junction to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp Basic 5 13,394 † † F* Winchester Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 4 13,394 3,727 77.5 29.2 F* Winchester
Rd Off-Ramp to Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 4 9,667 † † F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 9,667 1,333 92.0 18.0 F* Winchester Rd Loop On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp
Basic 4 11,001 † † F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 4 11,001 621 89.0 20.2 F* Winchester Rd Slip On-Ramp to Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp Basic 4 11,622 † † F* Rancho California
Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane off 4 11,622 3,145 79.9 24.3 F* Rancho California Rd Off-Ramp to Rancho California Rd On-Ramp Basic 4 8,476 90.6 24.6 E* Rancho California Rd On-Ramp 1Lane On 4 8,476
1,062 95.0 14.8 F*
Table 2.22 Year 2030 No Action Alternative Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service in the PM Peak Hour (Continued) 122 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Segment Type Mainline Lanes PM PEAK HOUR Mainline Volume Entering Volume Exiting Volume Speed (km/hr) Density (pc/km/ln) LOS Rancho California Rd On-Ramp to Old Town Front St Off-Ramp
Basic 4 9,539 † † F* I-215 Southbound Los Alamos Rd On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp Basic 2 7,454 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp 2 Lane Off 2 7,454 1,245 87.6 27.8
F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Off-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp Basic 2 6,209 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Loop On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,209 77 33.7 F* Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd Loop On-Ramp to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip Basic 2 6,286 † † F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp 1 Lane On 2 6,286 145 33.9 F* Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Slip On-Ramp to I-15/215
Junction Basic 2 6,431 † † F* † Speed and density not defined for over-capacity segment # No effective models of performance for major merge areas * Exceeds LOS standards Source: January
2008 Revised Traffic Operations Analysis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 123 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.23 provides a summary comparison of the number of locations that would operate at a
deficient level of service in the AM and PM peak hour with the proposed project and the No Action Alternative. Table 2.23 Comparison of Proposed Project and No Action Alternative Time
of Day and Roadway Segment Number of Deficiencies Proposed Project No Action Alternative Arterial Intersections 2012 AM PM 0 5 2 5 Freeway Ramps 2012 AM PM 9 23 8 31 Arterial Intersections
2030 AM PM 5 8 6 10 Freeway Ramps 2030 AM PM 22 44 28 55 Source: LSA Associates 2008. Construction Impacts As indicated in the project description, construction activities would be staged
and would potentially require one or two brief, overnight freeway closures when falsework is constructed and removed. There are two construction detour scenarios. The first concept is
that the C/D roadways would be constructed first. Traffic would continue to use the mainline facility when the falsework is erected and removed over the C/D roadways. Traffic would then
be diverted to the C/D roadways and the mainline would be closed while erecting and removing the falsework over the mainline facility. Should this approach not be feasible, the second
detour concept would be to force the closure of the freeway at Murrieta Hot Springs Road, direct the traffic to Jefferson Road, then allow traffic to access the freeway at Winchester
Road. This area is primarily composed of commercial and light industrial uses, with scattered residential uses. Thus, noise impacts to residential areas would be minimal. Given the late
night hours and short duration of the closures (only during the construction and removal of falsework), no improvements would be required to any of the facilities to accommodate the
traffic using the detour. Consistent with the Department’s requirements, a Detour Plan would be developed and adequate signage provided. As with all construction work on the freeway,
it is expected that traffic would slow due to the distraction factor of ongoing work. However, the ability to separate the work on the C/D system would reduce this potential impact.
Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would further minimize the disruption that could occur during construction. The TMP would adhere to all Department specifications.
124 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following is a standard provision that
would be applicable to all projects requiring detouring or redirection of traffic. T-1 During the Final Design Phase, a Traffic Management Plan shall be developed to reduce potential
delays and conflicts associated with construction activities. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the Manager of the Department’s Traffic Operations. The plan shall identify
construction phasing and the associated Detour Plan and Signage Program to alert the public of ongoing construction activities. Bicycles and Pedestrians The City of Temecula would have
jurisdiction over the designation of bikeways and pedestrian paths along French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road, the local arterials with direct interface with the proposed project.
Policies in both the Circulation Element and the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan include measures to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation
by improving its bikeway and trail system. The City has placed a high priority on the development of trails that provide loops wherever possible and follow creeks and utility easements
where feasible. In an effort to provide connectivity with County bikeways, the City’s General Plan reflects the Class I bike paths designated on the County of Riverside General Plan
along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The City’s Circulation Plan is designed to promote the use of alternative modes such as transit, bicycling and walking. The benefits cited in the
General Plan for increasing use of alternative modes include “reduced traffic, less need for costly roadway improvement projects and improved air quality. Facilities constructed for
biking or walking provide important recreational opportunities as well. Crossings of Interstate 15 that do not include on-or off-ramps should incorporate additional bikeway and pedestrian
facilities.” The concern associated with the placement of bikeways on roadways with on-or off-ramps is the increased potential conflict of vehicles and bicyclists. In addition to the
General Plan, the city of Temecula has developed a MultI-Use Trails and Bicycles Master Plan. The Temecula MultI-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan is a separate document from the General
Plan that provides a number of options to implement the general policy direction established by the General Plan. Key aspects of the adopted Master Plan are incorporated within the Circulation
and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan. However, due to changes to the standard roadway cross-sections, the location and feasibility of providing future bike lanes
may need to be re-evaluated. There are no designated bikeways or sidewalks that cross I-15 at the Winchester Road Interchange. As the portion of the French Valley Parkway in the project
area has yet to be constructed, transport over the I-15 is also not currently available to pedestrian or bicycle traffic. A multI-purpose off-road trail, which crosses the I-15, is designated
north of Winchester Road, in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Additionally, the Murrieta Creek Trail, a pedestrian/bicycle trail with possible
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 125 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study pedestrian crossings and other amenities is located along Murrieta Creek. This trail runs parallel
to I-15, approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) west of the I-15. Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) As the proposed project includes on-and off-ramps at the I-15/French
Valley Parkway Interchange, the City of Temecula policy would be not to construct bicycle lanes on this facility. By encouraging bicyclists to use routes without on-and off-ramps, potential
conflict with vehicle turning movements and bicyclists are minimized. However, the French Valley Parkway overpass does provide for shoulders that could be used by bicyclists and sidewalks
on both sides that would facilitate safe passage over the I-15 for bicyclists and pedestrians. In all locations where the improvements interface with pedestrian facilities, the proposed
project would be in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and design standards would be met. This would allow wheelchairs to be accommodated on the sidewalks
on French Valley Parkway. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, without the French Valley Parkway overcrossing, the lack of movement of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
over I-15 would remain. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required. Visual Resources Regulatory Setting The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans’ safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically
(emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S.C. 4331[b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway Administration in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C.
109[h]) directs that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others,
the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values. Likewise, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary
to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities.” (CA Public Resources Code Section 21001[b]). Affected Environment
A Visual Impact Assessment (April 7, 2008) was prepared. Visually prominent elements of an interchange and freeway improvement project such as French Valley Parkway typically include
the roadway surface, retaining walls, sound walls, slopes, and other large areas of grading.
126 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Visual impacts are relative to the visual environment in which they occur. Visual impacts can
extend beyond the physical areas that result in disturbance. The regional landscape establishes the general visual environment. Specific impacts are determined by defining the visual
quality of the landscape units and the project viewshed. Visual quality and the viewshed are interrelated elements that occupy the same three-dimensional space, each space affecting
the adjacent space. The project setting is the I-15/I-215 corridor from just south of Winchester Road north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This setting has been divided into 15 landscape
units; a landscape unit is a definable area that contains consistent characteristics such as topography, vegetation, and land use. The visual quality of all landscape units ranges from
low to moderate. These ratings are based primarily on the presence of the freeway, light industrial and commercial buildings, and disturbed open space. None of the landscape units are
in a pristine, undisturbed natural condition, which would warrant a higher visual quality rating. The visual sensitivity of the landscape units, or the unit’s ability to absorb change,
is also rated low to moderate. A low to moderate visual sensitivity means that proposed project improvements would not strongly contrast with the visual quality of the existing setting.
Figure 2-8 depicts the location of the various landscape units. A description of the landscape units is provided in the Visual Impact Assessment (April 2008). Table 2.24 provides a summary
of the visual quality and visual sensitivity for each landscape unit. Table 2.24 Landscape Unit Summary Landscape Unit Visual Quality Visual Sensitivity 1. Interstate 15/215 Corridor
Low Low 2. Winchester Rd Low Low 3. I-15 East Temecula Commercial Low Low 4. San Gertrudis Creek Moderate Moderate 5. Temecula Business Park Low Low 6. Temecula Open Space Low Moderate
7. Warm Springs Creek Moderate Moderate 8. Murrieta Palms Mobile Home Park Low Low 9. Murrieta Open Space Low Moderate 10. Jackson Crossing Residential Development Low Low 11. Murrieta
Commercial Low Low 12. I-15/I-215 Junction Low Moderate 13. Rural Residential Low Moderate 14. Murrieta Light Industrial Low Moderate 15. I-15 West Temecula Commercial Low Low A viewshed
is a subset of the landscape unit and is composed of all surface areas visible from an observer’s viewpoint. The limits of the viewshed are defined as the visual limits of the views
from the proposed project. The viewshed also includes the locations of viewers likely to be affected by the visual changes as a result of project implementation. Based on the topography
and development in the French Valley
Landscape Units Figure 2-8 French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Ex2-8_LU_100207.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-5.pdf
Project Viewshed Limits Landscape Units 1 Interstate 15/215 Corridor 2 Winchester Road 3 I-15 East Temecula Commercial 4 San Gertrudis Creek 5 Temecula Business Park 6 Temecula Open
Space 7 Warm Springs Creek 8 Mobile Home Park 9 Murrieta Open Space 10 Residential Development 11 Murrieta Commercial 12 I-15/I-215 Junction 13 Rural Residential 14 Murrieta Light Industrial
15 I-15 West Temecula Commercial 15 15 14 8 9 10 13 12 11 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 6 7 5 LEGEND 4 Source: Moffatt & Nichol 2004, 7
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 127 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Parkway Interchange area, views into the area are primarily limited to the freeway corridor.
With the Temecula Valley surrounded by mountain peaks and ridgelines, distant views from the freeway corridor are a scenic resource. Identification of the viewers and the aspects of
the visual environment to which they are likely to respond are necessary to understand and predict viewer response to proposed projects. The response to the visual environment determines
the viewer exposure and is based on the different activities of the viewer groups, their sensitivity to the visual elements, and the duration of their view. Viewer groups in the French
Valley Parkway Interchange area have been divided into six categories: freeway drivers, local drivers, residents, commercial, office/light industrial employees, and open space users.
The quantity of viewers, their sensitivity to change, and the duration of their view are utilized to determine their response to change. A freeway driver passing through an area at 60–70
miles per hour (mph) is not going to be as sensitive to changes in the visual environment as a resident whose distant view of the mountains has been obstructed by a sound wall. Table
2.25 summarizes the viewer groups and their respective responses. Table 2.25 Viewer Group Summary Viewer group Quantity Sensitivity Duration Viewer Response Freeway Drivers High Moderate
Short Moderate Local Drivers High Moderate Short Moderate Residents Moderate High Extended High Commercial Moderate Low Short Low Office/Light Industrial Employees Moderate Moderate
Extended
Moderate Open Space Users Low High Moderate Moderate Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Overall, the visual impacts of the
French Valley Parkway Interchange project would be low to moderate. A low impact is where there is a minor adverse change to an existing visual resource and mitigation is generally not
required. A moderate impact is where there is a moderate change to visual resources and impacts can generally be mitigated within five years using conventional practices. To determine
the project’s visual impacts, the following factors were considered: visual quality, landform quality, view quality, and community character. Since it is not possible to analyze all
the views in which the proposed project would be seen, it is necessary to select a number of key viewpoints that most clearly display the visual effects of the proposed project. These
“key views” represent the primary viewer groups that would potentially be affected by the project. The locations of the key views are depicted in Figure 2-9, and the findings of the
analysis are presented in Table 2.26. Wireframe views and simulations have been provided for selected locations. The wireframes provide an understanding of the massing and general level
of visual change, and are
128 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study not intended to be simulations. The wireframes for nine locations are provided in Figures 2-10a–2-10i.
Simulations are provided in Figures 2-11a–2-11c for three additional locations. In addition, Figures 2-12a and 2-12b provide wall crosssections. The locations of the cross-sections,
identified as Sections A through Section F are depicted on Figure 2-9. Table 2.26 Visual Impact Summary for Key Views Key View Existing Conditions Proposed Impact Summary Location Proposed
Project Features Visual Quality Visual Sensitivity Viewer Response Visual Quality Landform Quality View Quality Community Character Visual Impact 1 View west on Winchester Rd at I-15
(widened onramp lanes, vegetation removal, slope regrading) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 2 View west from Santa Ynez Rd at San Gertrudis Creek (bridge widening, SB on-ramp from
French Valley Pkwy, tree removal) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate 3 View northwest from park-and-ride lot at Winchester Rd and I-15 (bridge widening, SB
onramp from French Valley Pkwy, tree removal) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate 4 View northbound I-15 north of Winchester Rd (C/D lanes, jersey barriers,
retaining wall, new bridge, tree removal) Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate 5 View northwest from the office building north of Winchester Rd (new overcrossing, retaining
walls, vegetation removal, flyover) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 6 View north on I-15 north of proposed French Valley Pkwy (retaining walls, vegetation removal, C/D lanes, jersey
barriers) Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate 7 View north on I-15 south of Warm Springs Creek (retaining walls, vegetation removal, c/d lanes, jersey barriers) Low Low Moderate
Low Low Moderate Low Moderate 8 View north on I-15 at the mobile home park (sound wall, vegetation removal, C/D lanes, jersey barriers) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 9 View west
towards I-15 from mobile home park (tree removal, sound wall, retaining wall) Low Low High Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
Key View Points Figure 2-9 French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/ex2-9_kvp_021709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-6.pdf
Key View Point Sections (See Figures 2-9a and 2-9b) Retaining Wall Sound Wall Collector/Distributor Road New Ramps Existing Ramp Reconfiguration Freeway to Freeway Connector Mainline
Improvements Structures French Valley Parkway 19 10 12 14 17 18 4 5 11 2 3 1 6 7 8 9 13 16 15 6 A B C D E F C Aerial Photo Source: Moffat & Nichol, 2004 Graphic Source: KTU+A 20 21 Visual
Simulation Locations Key View Points 4, 16 and 20
Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project. ../Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10a_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/fig.2-7a.ai Key
View 1 -View looking west on Winchester Road at northbound I-15 on-ramp. Slope to be regraded to accommodate realigned and widened northbound on-ramp. Existing Conditions REMOVAL OF
TREES SLOPE REGRADING MORE VISIBLE ON-RAMP LANE Source: KTU+A
Key View Wireframe Modeigure 2-b French Valley Parkway
Improvements Project Source: KTU+A R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10b_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-7b.ai Key View 2 -V iew west from Santa
Ynez Road at San Gertrudis Creek Existing Conditions REMOVAL OF TREES WIDENING OF EXISTING BRIDGE NEW ON-RAMP TO I-15 SOUTHBOUND
Key View Wireframe Modeigure 2-c French Valley Parkway
Improvements Project ...Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10c_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/fig2-7b_new.ai Source: KTU+A Key View 6 View north on I-15 north of proposed
French Valley Parkway Existing Conditions 3 LANE NORTHBOUND C/D PLUS MERGE LANE JERSEY BARRIER RETAINING WALL #118, 3.3-6.6’ HIGH RETAINING WALL #122 SIGN TO BE RELOCATED Exisiting Conditions
Key View Wireframe Modeligure 2-d French Valley Parkway
Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10d_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-7c.ai Key View 7 View north on I-15 south of Warm
Springs Creek Existing Conditions NEW JERSEY BARRIER REMOVE TREES RETAINING WALL #122 20-29’ HIGH 3 NEW C/D LANES RETAINING WALL #124 Source: KTU+A
Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10e French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10e_WF_032709.pdf D : /P r oj e c t s /M o ff a t /J 0 0
4 /G r a p hi c s /J u n e _ 2 0 0 6 /fi g. 2 -7 e_080906.ai Source: KTU+A SOUND WALL #124 14-16’ HIGH ON TOP OF 6-8’ RETAINING WALL 3 NEW C/D LANES Key View 8 View north on I-15 at
the mobile home park Existing Conditions NEW JERSEY BARRIERREMOVE TREES SOUND WALL #124 14-16’ HIGH ON TOP OF 6-8’ RETAINING WALL 3 NEW C/D LANES
Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10f French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10f_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-7d.ai
NEW JERSEY BARRIER RETAINING WALL #122 20-29’ HIGH C/D LANES RETAINING WALL Key View 9 View west towards I-15 from mobile home park Existing Conditions REMOVE TREES SOUND WALL #124 14-16’
HIGH ON TOP OF 6-8’ RETAINING WALL Source: KTU+A
Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10g French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10g_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-7g_new.
ai Source: KTU+A Key View 15 View south on I-15 at Warm Springs Creek Existing Conditions NEW JERSEY BARRIER 3 NEW S-B C/D LANES NEW FVP OVERPASS RETAINING WALL #122 RET’G WALL #121
RETAINING WALL #124 BEHIND TRAFFIC RETAINING WALL #123 3-12’ HIGH REMOVE TREES
Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10h French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10h_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/fig.2-7f.ai
NEW JERSEY BARRIER RETAINING WALL #122 20-29’ HIGH C/D LANES RETAINING WALL Key View 17 View north from Madison Avenue at McCabe Court Existing Conditions 1 LANE ON-RAMP FLYOVER FROM
FRENCH VALLEY PKWY FRENCH VALLEY PKWY OVERPASS Source: KTU+A
Source: KTU+A Key View Wireframe Model Figure 2-10i French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-10i_WF_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006
/fig.2-7g.ai Key View 18 View south from commercial center at Madison Avenue & Sanborn Avenue Existing Conditions 2 LANE SOUTHBOUND ON-RAMP FROM FRENCH VALLEY PKWY RETAINING WALL #109,
12-48’ HIGH EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PARKING TO BE REDUCED
Visual Simulation, Key View 4 Figure 2-11a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project .../Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-11a_KV4_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig.2-8a.pdf
Source: KTU+A
Visual Simulation, Key View 16 Figure 2-11b French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-11b_KV16_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/fig2-8b.ai Source:
KTU&A Figure 7: Visual Simulation -Key View 16 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Key View Photograph Location Simulation Notes: These simulations represent approximate renderings
of project elements based on currently available information. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures: View Quality Measures: • Analysis of individual wall locations
and siting adjustments during final design to maintain views. Retaining Wall Measures: • Final engineering design shall evaluate potential to reduce height of walls. • Design of walls
shall incorporate creative details to enhance visual character of area. Planting and Irrigation Measures: • Plant material replacement shall meet Caltrans standards and city guidelines.
Note: Freeway drivers on FCL line will have improved background views to mountains. Project Elements Seen: Primary Viewer Group: Visual Setting Information 1, 4, 6 A Potential Visual
Elements 1 -Road Surfaces/Jersey Barriers 2 -Interchanges 3 -Bridges 4 -Retaining Walls 5 -Sound Walls 6 -Vegetation Removal 7 -Cut/Fill Grading Potential Viewer Groups A -Freeway Drivers
B -Local Drivers C -Residents D -Commercial E -Office/Light Industrial Employees F -Open Space Users Visual Quality and Visual Sensitivity Ratings L -Low M -Moderate H -High Landscape
Unit: 1 Visual Quality: L Visual Sensitivity: L Existing Key View Assessment High Moderate Low Visibility Existing Quantity of Viewers Viewer Sensitivity Viewing Duration Physical Character
Perceptual Quality Sensitivty to Change Negative Contrast Low Contrast /Neutral Improved Condition Negative Contrast Low Contrast /Neutral Improved Condition Contrast Assessment Between
Setting & Project Elements Seen Unmitigated Visual Quality Vividness Intactness Unity Dominant Features Landform Quality Natural Forms Created Forms View Quality Viewing Point View Corridor
View Focus Community Character Design Character Landmark Features Goals, Plans & Policies Mitigated 16 Page 54
Visual Simulation, Key View 20 Figure 2-11c French Valley Parkway Improvements Project .../Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-11c_KV20_032709.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig.2-8c.pdf
Source: KTU+A Figure 8: Visual Simulation -Key View 20 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Key View Photograph Location 21 Simulation Notes: These simulations represent approximate
renderings of project elements based on currently available information. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures: View Quality Measures: • Analysis of individual wall
locations and siting adjustments during final design to maintain views. Retaining Wall Measures: • Final engineering design shall evaluate potential to reduce height of w all. • Design
of wal l shall incorporate creative details to enhance visual character of area. Planting and Ir rigation Measures: • Plant materi al replacement shall meet Caltrans standards and city
guidelines. Project Elements Seen: Primary Viewer Group: Visual Setting Information 1, 4, 6 E Potential Visual Elements 1 -Road Surfaces/Jersey Barriers 2 -Interchanges 3 -Bridges 4
-Retaining Walls 5 -Sound Walls 6 -Vegetation Removal 7 -Cut/Fill Grading Potential Viewer Groups A -Freeway Drivers B -Local Drivers C -Residents D -Commercial E -Office/Light Industrial
Employees F -Open Space Users Visual Quality and Visual Sensitivity Ratings L -Low M -Moderate H -High Landscape Unit: 14 Visual Quality: L Visual Sensitivity: L Existing Key View Assessment
High Moderate Low Visibility Existing Quantity of Viewers Viewer Sensitivity Viewing Duration Physical Character Perceptual Quality Sensitivty to Change Negative Contrast Low Contrast
/Neutral Improved Condition Negative Contrast Low Contrast /Neutral Improved Condition Contrast Assessment Between Setting & Project Elements Seen Unmitigated Visual Quality Vividness
Intactness Unity Dominant Features Landform Quality Natural Forms Created Forms View Quality Viewing Point View Corridor View Focus Community Character Design Character Landmark Features
Goals, Plans & Policies Mitigated Page 55 20 Source: KTU+A
Source: KTU+A 2008 Wall Cross Sections A through C Figure 2-12a French Valley Improvements Project R:\Projects\Moffat\J024\Graphics\IS-ESA\ex2-12a_visual_impact_021709.pdf D:\Projects\Moffat\J024\Gra
phics\ex_visual_impacts_021709.ai Section ‘A’ Section ‘B’ Section ‘C’ WALL #122 LANE LANE LANE SHLD SHLD LANE LANE LANE SHLD Maximum Height 8.9m SHLD LANE NORTHBOUND I-15 Sta 122+00
NORTHBOUND I-15 Sta 106+00 WALL #106 SHLD LANE LANE LANE LANE SHLD LANE SHLD SHLD Maximum Height 5.9m WALL #124 SHLD LANE LANE LANE LANE SHLD SHLD LANE LANE LANE SHLD Maximum Height
4.9m NORTHBOUND I-15 Sta 127+00
Source: KTU+A 2008 Wall Cross Sections D through F Figure 2-12b French Valley Improvements Project R:\Projects\Moffat\J024\Graphics\IS-ESA\ex2-12b_visual_impactsB_021709.pdf D:\Projects\Moffat\J024\G
raphics\ex_visual_impacts_021709.ai Section ‘D’ Section ‘E’ Section ‘F’ WALL #109 LANE LANE LANE SHLD LANE LANE SHLD SHLD ANE SHLD LANE LANE SHLD Maximum Height 14.5m SOUTHBOUND I-15
Sta 111+00 WALL #128 E LANE LANE LANE SHLD SHLD LANE SHLD SHLD LANE LANE SHLD Maximum Height 13.8m NORTHBOUND I-15 Sta 134+00 WALL #135 SHLD LANE LANE LANE SHLD SHLD LANE LANE SHLD SOUTHBOUND
CONNECTOR I-215 to I-15 Sta 138+00 Maximum Height 7.5M
Table 2.26 Visual Impact Summary for Key Views (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 129 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Key View Existing Conditions Proposed
Impact Summary Location Proposed Project Features Visual Quality Visual Sensitivity Viewer Response Visual Quality Landform Quality View Quality Community Character Visual Impact 10
View northwest from Jackson Ave towards I-215 flyover (retaining wall, C/D lanes, flyover) Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 11 View northwest from Jackson Ave towards I-215
flyover (flyover lanes) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 12 View north from Fig St at Monroe Ave towards I-215 flyover (regarded slope, vegetation removal, c/d lanes) Low Moderate
High Low Moderate Low Low Low-Moderate 13 View southbound on I-215 merge to I-15 (C/D lanes, retaining wall) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 14 View south on Monroe Ave at Elm St
(vegetation removal, retaining wall) Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low 15 View south on I-15 at Warm Springs Creek (C/D lanes, jersey barrier, overcrossing, retaining wall) Low Low
Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate 16 View south on I-15 north of Winchester Road (C/D lanes, jersey barrier, offramp, retaining walls) Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low
Moderate 17 View north from Madison Ave at McCabe Ct (retaining wall, roadway) Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate 18 View south from commercial center at Madison Ave
and Sanborn Ave (C/D lanes, jersey barriers, off-ramp, retaining wall) Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate 19 View northeast from Comfort Inn on Jefferson Ave north of
Winchester Rd (retaining wall, onramp, C/D lanes, widened bridge) Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate 20 View south from commercial center at Madison Ave and Sanborn
Ave (C/D lanes, jersey barriers, off-ramp, retaining wall) Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate 21 View west from Jackson Ave at Jackson Crossing Residential Development
(C/D lanes, flyover, retaining walls) Low Low High Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Source: KTU+A 2006.
130 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study In summary, other than the freeway drivers, the number of other viewers is currently low to
moderate due to the lower elevation of the freeway as it travels through Temecula and Murrieta. The new interchange configuration would be similar to the design of the existing Winchester
Road Interchange, so this would not contrast with the existing conditions. The addition of the C/D lanes would also be consistent with the character of the existing freeways, thereby
lessening the contrast. The impact of these improvements would therefore be low. The project elements that would create the greatest degree of contrast would be the new sound wall and
retaining walls and the new bridge structures, resulting in a moderate level of visual change. The sound wall proposed near the mobile home park would block mid-range views of open space.
The quantity of viewers is low; however, their sensitivity is high and the viewing duration is extended. This would be considered moderately adverse. The presence of one retaining wall
would not strongly contrast with the visual setting; however multiple retaining and sound walls along the corridor would have the potential to create a continuous “walled” feeling for
the highway drivers and would eliminate or minimize their distant views to the surrounding mountains, which are identified in the various general plans as a visual resources. The proposed
bridge structures, required to cross over the proposed C/D lanes, would also have the potential to block distant views to the mountains. Vegetation in the corridor is not abundant; however,
the existing vegetation does serve as a visual buffer between the freeway corridor and the adjacent development. Removal of this vegetation would contrast with the existing setting and
would result in a moderate impact. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not impact visual resources. The views from and of the project area would remain the same. Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following standard measures would be applied to the proposed project. In conjunction with Final Design, measures to minimize the effect of
visual modifications shall be incorporated into the final design of walls required for project development. This shall include the measures listed below. VR-1 In conjunction with Final
Design, walls shall be sited and designed to minimize the size and visual encroachment of the wall. Background views to the mountains and foreground views of the open space and creek
corridors shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Analysis of individual wall locations and siting adjustments may be necessary to maintain these views. The use of a series
of small, stepped walls or an open structure is preferable in areas of high visibility over a single large masonry wall. VR-2 In conjunction with Final Design, wall colors, textures
and details shall complement and enhance the community character with the use of standard concrete kept to a minimum. Wall designs shall comply with the Department’s policies, standards
and guidelines.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 131 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study VR-3 In conjunction with Final Design, slopes adjacent to retaining walls shall be contour
graded to blend into existing grade. VR-4 In conjunction with Final Design, noise and retaining walls’ landscape buffers shall incorporate shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the
wall to the maximum extent feasible. Vines will be planted at the top of retaining walls and encouraged to spill down over the wall. Vines shall be planted approximately every six to
ten feet on center. If right-of-way is too narrow to incorporate landscape buffers, planting pockets shall be utilized. Landscaping shall be maximized in locations where right-of-way
is available. To preserve the existing character of both cities, additional right-of-way shall be acquired where adjacent properties have not been developed. VR-5 All wall surfaces shall
be treated with a water-based, VOC-compliant, graffitI-resistant coating to control graffiti. The coating shall have a low sheen finish and be clear in color. It shall be free of lead,
chromium, mercury, and similar heavy metals, and it shall comply with federal, State, and local VOC air quality regulations. In conjunction with Final Design, a Landscape Plan shall
be developed for the proposed project. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following provisions to ensure that no invasive, non-native plants are introduced to areas of biological
concern: VR-6 In conjunction with Final Design, a Landscape Plan shall be developed for the proposed project. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department's Biological
Studies and Permits Unit to ensure that no invasive, non-native plants are introduced to areas of biological concern. All plantable disturbed areas within the right-of-way shall be fully
improved with planting of vines, groundcover, shrubs and trees to provide 100 percent coverage within one year. VR-7 In conjunction with Final Design, replacement Highway Planting of
trees, shrubs and other vegetation will be replaced at a rate and size determined by the District Landscape Architect. VR-8 In conjunction with Final Design, all irrigation systems shall
be permanent and fully automatic and shall conform to the Department’s requirements. VR-9 Landscaping shall be installed during or immediately after the highway construction period.
A three-year plant establishment period shall be provided within the construction contract. VR-10 The three-year establishment period shall be reviewed annually by the Department and
the cities and may be terminated before the end of the third year if landscaping conditions are acceptable, or extended for an additional year if additional maintenance and monitoring
is required. VR-11 Separate monitoring requirements may be required in areas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or California Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction. In those
locations, the monitoring requirements associated with the applicable permits would prevail.
132 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study VR-12 The profile of the French Valley Parkway overcrossing shall be as thin as possible to
minimize foreground, middleground, and background view blockages. VR-13 All signage and large-scale advertising boards outside the State’s right of way shall be minimized to the greatest
extent possible to protect viewsheds. Cultural Resources Regulatory Setting “Cultural resources,” as used in this document, refers to all historical and archaeological resources, regardless
of significance. Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (NHPA) sets forth national policy and procedures
regarding historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of NHPA
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on such properties and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment
on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). On January 1, 2004, a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between
the Advisory Council, FHWA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Department went into effect for Department projects, both state and local, with FHWA involvement. The
PA implements the Advisory Council’s regulations, 36 CFR 800, streamlining the Section 106 process and delegating certain responsibilities to the Department. The FHWA’s responsibilities
under the PA have been assigned to the Department as part of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program (23 CFR 773) (July 1, 2007). Historic properties may also be covered
under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, which regulates the “use” of land from historic properties. Historical resources are considered under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, which established the California Register of Historical Resources. PRC Section 5024 requires
State agencies to identify and protect State-owned resources that meet National Register of Historic Places listing criteria. It further specifically requires the Department to inventory
State-owned structures in its rights-of-way. Affected Environment Cultural resources studies completed for the proposed project include a Historic Property Survey Report, HPSR (January
2006), which included reference to the California Historic Bridge Inventory and an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). The project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established in
consultation with the Department’s Dr. Dicken Everson, Principal Investigator, Prehistoric and Historical
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 133 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Archaeology and Bruce Ko, Project Manager, on December 29, 2005. The cultural resources APE
is designed to include the entirety of the construction footprint plus a sufficient buffer to allow construction vehicles to maneuver on site. Preparation of the HPSR included consultation
with various agencies and parties regarding knowledge of cultural resources within the APE. Consultation included the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and those individuals/organizations
listed by the NAHC as those “who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area.” Consultation included a letter summarizing the project and the known cultural resources
in its vicinity. The letter requested comment should additional information be available. Other parties consulted included the Lake Elsinore Historical Society, the Temecula Valley Museum,
and the Temecula Valley Historical Society. A records search was conducted with the Eastern Information Center at University of California, Riverside in 2003 and was updated in 2005.
The original records search concluded that 31 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the general study area, several of which overlap with the current project’s
APE. The 2005 update noted one additional study was completed within one-half mile of the APE for a total of 32 studies. The records searches revealed that two prehistoric archaeological
sites (CA-RIV-717 and CA-RIV-1730) have been recorded outside and immediately adjacent to the project APE, while ten additional archaeological sites have been previously recorded within
a one-half mile radius of the project APE. No resources were recorded within the APE. Additional evaluation studies included the bridge study. The Department has designated all bridges
in the APE as category 5, meaning that they are not eligible for the NRHP. The following bridges were included in the evaluation: • Route 79/15 Separation (West Tie-Back Wall) (bridge
number 56-0656), • Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge (Widen) (bridge numbers 56-0271 R/L), • Winchester Southbound (SB) Off-Ramp (Widen) (bridge number 56-0271K), • Winchester Northbound
(NB) On-Ramp (Replace) (bridge number 56-0271S), • Warm Spring Creek Bridge (Widen) (bridge number 56-0272 R/L). Applied EarthWorks conducted a cultural resources survey of the project
APE on August 9, 2005. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were identified as a result of the cultural resources survey. Section 106 compliance was completed under the Programmatic
Agreement on January 1, 2004. The HPSR (negative findings) was signed by the District Environmental Branch Chief (DEBC) on January 30, 2006. A First Supplemental HPSR dated March 12,
2009, was prepared by Department (District 8) staff to address the change in project post miles and design modifications that were not included in the original APE for the proposed project.
134 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative)
No cultural resources were identified within the proposed project’s APE; therefore, no impacts to known archaeological or historical resources are anticipated. Consequently, there would
be no “use” of a Section 4(f) historic resource.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in no impacts to cultural resources. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No historic properties will be affected
as a result of this project. No avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are necessary beyond the following regular requirements. CUL-1 If cultural materials are discovered during
construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified Archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the
find. CUL-2 If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area
suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner must be contacted, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5097.98. If the remains are thought to be Native American,
the Coroner will notify the NAHC, who will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains would contact the Department’s District 8
Environmental Branch so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Hydrology and Floodplain Regulatory Setting Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or
allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The FHWA’s requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. In order to comply, the following
must be analyzed: • The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments • Risks of the action • Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values • Support of incompatible
floodplain development • Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values impacted by the project.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 135 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The base floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having
a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” An encroachment is defined as “an action within the limits of the base floodplain.” Affected Environment A Floodplain and Scour
Analysis Report for Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek (December 2005), Location Hydraulics Study (July 2008) and Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (July 2008) were prepared.
These reports evaluated potential impacts associated with the expansion of the proposed bridges that cross the Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek, during a 100-year flood event.
The proposed project is located within the inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin. The proposed freeway improvements span the Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks, which
are the two major conveyance channels for the entire watershed located east of I-15. These creeks drain into Murrieta Creek, located approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) west of I-15. Murrieta
Creek eventually discharges the tributary runoff into the Santa Margarita River. The portion of Warm Springs Creek located within the project area consists of a natural soft-bottom channel
with minimal vegetative cover. However, vegetation within the streambed becomes dense upstream of the study limits. Warm Springs Creek has a drainage area of 141.9 square kilometers
(km2, 54.8 square miles [mi2]). The Santa Gertrudis Creek has been completely improved within the project area, and consists of a trapezoidal concrete channel from Murrieta Creek to
a point approximately 15 m (49.2 ft) downstream of the existing I-15 Bridge. The upstream portion of the trapezoidal concrete channel has been designed as a grade stabilizer in order
to prevent head cutting within the streambed. Beginning at this grade stabilizer and extending approximately 8 km (4.9 mi) upstream of the I-15 Bridge, Santa Gertrudis Creek consists
of a soft-bottom channel with Armorflex/concrete slope protection. The existing I-15 roadway crosses the base 100-year floodplain, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and as shown in Figure 2-13. The 100-year floodplain is defined as “…the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given
year.” In compliance with Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the San Diego Region Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin
Plan (1997) lists the beneficial uses of the water bodies located within the proposed project area. These are shown in Table 2.27, below. Definitions for the beneficial uses shown in
Table 2.27 are shown in Table 2.28.
136 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.27 Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies Within the Project Vicinity Beneficial Use Warm
Springs Creek Santa Gertrudis Creek Murrieta Creek MUN ● ● ● AGR ● ● ● IND ● ● ● PROC ● ● ● GWR ○ ● REC1 ○ ● ○ REC2 ● ● ● WARM ● ● ● WILD ● ● ● ● = Existing Beneficial Use ○ = Potential
Beneficial Use Source: San Diego Basin Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1997. Table 2.28 Definition of Beneficial Use Categories Abbreviation Name Definition MUN Municipal
and Domestic Supply Includes uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems, including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. AGR Agricultural Supply
Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching. IND Industrial Service Supply Includes uses of water for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality.
PROC Industrial Process Supply Includes uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality. GWR Ground Water Recharge Includes uses of water for natural
or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of salt water intrusion into freshwater aquifers. REC1 Contact Water
Recreation Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. REC2 Non-Contact Water Recreation Includes
the uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water. WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat Includes uses of water that
supply warm water ecosystems. WILD Wildlife Habitat Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems. Source: San Diego Basin Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1997.
Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The Department defines an encroachment as “an action within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.” “Significant encroachment,” as defined in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §650.105, is a highway encroachment and any direct
100-Year Floodplain French Valley Parkway Improvements Plan Figure 2-13 R:/Projects.Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-13_fema_032709.pdf Rancho Springs Medical Center Murrieta Spring Plaza
Murrieta Town Center Fire Station Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Murrieta City Hall Riverside County Courthouse Riverside County Library Winchester Marketplace The Promenade of Temecula
Palm Plaza Shopping Center Plaza Seville Rancho Temecula Plaza Fire Station Winchester Square Shopping Center CHP Double Eagle Golf Center §¨¦15 §¨¦215 UV79 Jefferson Ynez Winchester
Murrieta Hot Springs Ivy Solana Rancho California Whitewood Los Alamos Margarita Alta Murrieta Rancho California D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\ex_fema_032709.mxd 0.5 0.25 0 0.5Miles ²Project
Limits City Boundary FEMA Q3 Data 100-Year Floodplain Undetermined/Possible Flood Risk Outside Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 137 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following
construction-or flood-related impacts: • a significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community’s
only evacuation route; • a significant risk (to life or property); and/or • a significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values As discussed in the Floodplain and
Scour Analysis Report, the proposed project would be located within the Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek floodplains. Hydraulic modeling of the floodplain encroachment for
Warm Springs Creek determined that approximately 150 feet upstream of the I-15 Bridge, the water surface elevation is 0.05 meter (0.16 ft.). This defines the most westerly limits of
the existing mobile home community located northeast of Warm Springs Creek Bridge. This increase in water surface elevation should not have an adverse impact to the mobile home community
since the flows are contained within the channel overbanks. Hydraulic modeling of the Santa Gertrudis Creek showed no increase in the water surface elevation. The Project’s encroachment
into the Warm Springs Creek base floodplain would not result in the interruption or termination of transportation facilities. In fact, operation of the proposed project would improve
access for emergency vehicles and would provide another access point to I-15 for emergency purposes. Additionally, the encroachment would not result in incompatible floodplain development
because the proposed project is a transportation improvement project and would not construct housing or other development within the floodplain. As a result, there would not be a substantial
risk to life or property. There would be no encroachment into the base floodplain for the Santa Gertrudis Creek. As a result, there would be no adverse long-term operational impacts
to Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values. Construction of the proposed project could result in reduced water quality due to increased erosion and siltation. This would result from
construction activities and not from alteration of the course of the creek. Nevertheless, the increase in erosion and siltation (also discussed in the “Geology and Soils” section) could
affect warm freshwater habitat and wildlife habitat. Water quality impacts affecting Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values would be avoided to the maximum practicable extent by incorporating
Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. These BMPs are discussed in the “Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff” section, below. The proposed project would not result in
impacts to the remaining beneficial uses of these waters. As a result of implementing these BMPs, impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values are not expected to be substantial.
Three modifications to the existing storm drain system are required at French Valley Parkway: 1. In the southwest quadrant, approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) of a 2,438-mm (8-ft) diameter
concrete pipe would be relocated to avoid the proposed southbound on-ramp. The pipe would require an easement along the eastern sides of APN 910-272-002 and APN 910-272-001. A manhole
would be
138 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study constructed outside the Department’s right-of-way (ROW) to allow maintenance access. 2. In
the northwest quadrant, approximately 50 m (164 ft) of a 2,134-mm (7-ft) diameter concrete pipe would be relocated to avoid the proposed southbound loop on-ramp. An approximate 40-m
(131-ft) concrete transition structure would be required to connect the existing double storm drain pipes under the I-15 to the new 2,134-mm (7-ft) diameter concrete pipe. No new ROW
would be required. A manhole would be constructed inside the loop on-ramp to allow maintenance access. 3. In the northeast quadrant, an approximate 30-m-long (95-ft-long) concrete transition
structure would be constructed to support the proposed northbound C/D lanes. No new ROW would be required. A manhole would be constructed outside the northbound on-ramp to allow maintenance
access. All improvements would be constructed outside the existing traveled lanes and would not require freeway lane closures. The estimated construction cost for the above improvements
(including 10 percent mobilization and 25 percent contingency) is approximately $3,000,000. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in no floodplain encroachment,
no increase in the water surface elevation, and no impacts to Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures HF-1 There are no substantial
environmental impacts to the Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values. As a result, no mitigation measures are necessary other than the implementation of normal BMPs and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. To be covered by an NPDES permit, the contractor is required to implement structural and nonstructural non-point source pollution-control
measures known as BMPs. The BMPs required for this project would be identified in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to be on the project site at all
times during construction. The objective of the SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of storm water discharges from the site associated with construction
and to identify measures that can be implemented to reduce pollutants in the site’s storm water drainages. More information regarding NPDES permits requirements and the SWPPP is located
in the “Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff” section. Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff Regulatory Setting Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires water quality certification
from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or from a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) when the project requires a CWA Section 404
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 139 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study permit. Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Along with CWA Section 401, CWA Section 402 establishes the NPDES permit for the discharge of any pollutant into
waters of the United States. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has delegated administration of the NPDES program to the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB and RWQCB also regulate
other waste discharges to land within California through the issuance of waste discharge requirements under authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. The SWRCB has developed
and issued a statewide NPDES permit to regulate storm water discharges from all Department activities on its highways and facilities. Department construction projects are regulated under
the Statewide permit, and projects performed by other entities on Department right-of-way (encroachments) are regulated by the SWRCB’s Statewide General Construction Permit. All construction
projects over 1 acre require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared and implemented during construction. Department activities less than 1 acre require a Water
Pollution Control Program (WPCP). Affected Environment As discussed above in “Hydrology and Floodplain,” the proposed project is located within the inland portion of the Santa Margarita
River Basin. Water features crossing the project site are the Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. These creeks drain into Murrieta Creek, located approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) west
of I-15 Murrieta Creek, which eventually discharges the tributary runoff into the Santa Margarita River. Local water for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula
groundwater basin and supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Other sources include reclaimed water and untreated MWD water used for groundwater
recharge. The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) also serve the cities, which are members of MWD. The effects of urbanization, agriculture,
and ranching can result in increased levels of non-point source pollutants from storm water runoff. This runoff can have an effect on adjacent streams and receiving waters. Receiving
waters can naturally assimilate a limited quantity of various constituent pollutants, but there are thresholds beyond which the measured amount results in an undesirable impact. The
evaluation of a project includes whether it would impair the beneficial use of the receiving waters. Beneficial uses, as discussed above in “Hydrology and Floodplain,” include municipal
and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial service and process supply; groundwater recharge; contact and non-contact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; and wildlife
habitat. Water quality monitoring has been conducted for Murrieta Creek, the receiving water body body for both Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. The monitoring results are included
on the San Diego RWQCB Section 303(d) list for impaired water bodies. (Neither Warm Springs Creek nor Santa Gertrudis Creek are included on the RWQCB’s Section 303[d] list of impaired
water bodies.) The identified pollutant found
140 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study in Murrieta Creek is phosphorus. The source of this pollutant is listed as urban runoff, storm
sewers, and unknown point and non-point pollutant sources. Water bodies on the 303(d) list are ranked by their priority for exceeding the total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is a
calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. The
higher the ranking priority, the sooner the TMDL is to be established. The TMDL priority level for Murrieta Creek is “low.” Storm water draining from the I-15 is currently captured by
detention basins before it is released into the storm water drainage system. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Construction
of a large project typically produces potential pollutants such as suspended solids; nutrients; heavy heavy metals; pesticides and herbicides; toxic chemicals related to construction
and cleaning; waste materials, including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and sanitary waste; fuel; and lubricants. Pursuant to existing regulations, an SWPPP
(discussed above for “Hydrology and Floodplain”) would need to be prepared for the project prior to commencement of grading activities. The project would increase impervious areas, which
would incrementally increase runoff from the project site. The project could potentially increase pollutant loading immediately downstream of the site in Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis
Creeks, and possibly in Murrieta Creek, if not properly controlled. As previously discussed, the San Diego RWQCB has designated Murrieta Creek as impaired for phosphorus. Once grading
is underway, the disturbed soils would be subject to storm water flow during storm events. This could lead to erosion, downstream sedimentation, and urban storm water discharge affecting
downstream downstream storm water drains and, ultimately, Murrieta Creek. Cut and fill slopes would also be disturbed/created within the project site. To avoid impacts to the nearby
creeks that could result from storm events, the project includes temporary construction site BMPs. If construction scheduling permits, permanent treatment BMPs may be constructed early
so that they can be used for water pollution control during construction and after construction. Storm water from I-15 and the French Valley Parkway Interchange would be addressed by
permanent treatment BMPs that are then conveyed to Santa Gertrudis and Warm Springs Creeks. However, at certain locations, there is not sufficient room to construct treatment BMPs, particularly
in the southern portion of the study area. Therefore, storm water would drain into storm water drainage pipes, which would not filter the water. Drainage areas producing storm water
runoff that would not be treated via permanent treatment BMPs amount to approximately 19 percent of the total new project drainage areas. Therefore, approximately 80 percent of the flow
collected would be treated via the permanent treatment BMPs, which is an improvement over existing conditions. No Action Alternative There would not be a substantial change from current
conditions with the No Action Alternative. The water quality basins provided as part of the Project would not be
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 141 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study implemented. As a result, there could be an incremental deterioration of water quality associated
with petrochemicals from the increased number of vehicles using the facilities compared to current conditions. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following standard
provision, applicable to all projects constructed under the State General Construction NPDES Permit, will be implemented. WQ-1 The Construction Contractor shall be responsible for performing
and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Weekly inspections shall be performed on the BMPs called for in the SWPPP. The
Resident Engineer shall maintain monthly reports. The Contractor shall inspect BMP facilities (1) before and after every rainfall event that is predicted to produce observable runoff
and (2) at 24-hour intervals during extended rainfall events, except on days when there is no ongoing site activity. Pre-storm activities shall include inspection of the major storm
drain grate inlets and examination of other on-site surface flow channels and swales, including the removal of any debris that blocks the flow path. Post-storm activities will include
inspection of the grate inlets; looking for any ponded water on the site and determining the cause; and looking for surface erosion. The Contractor shall implement corrective actions
specified by the Resident Engineer, as necessary. Inspection records and compliance certification reports shall be submitted to the Resident Engineer on a monthly basis and shall be
maintained for a period of three years. Inspection schedules shall be monthly during the dry season and weekly during the wet season. Construction site BMPs are broken down into six
categories. The following are the categories of temporary construction site BMPs that will be implemented for the proposed project: 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization 2. Temporary Sediment
Control 3. Wind Erosion Control 4. Tracking Control 5. Non-Storm Water Management 6. Waste Management and Material Pollution Control Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography For geologic and
topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects “outstanding examples of major geological
features.” Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns
as they relate to public safety and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of structures. The Department’s Office of Earthquake Engineering is
responsible for assessing the seismic hazard for Department projects. The current policy is to use the anticipated Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) from young
142 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study faults in and near California. The MCE is defined as the largest earthquake that can be expected
to occur on a fault over a particular period of time. Affected Environment This section summarizes information provided in the Geology/Seismology of French Valley Parkway Temecula Area,
California (2004). Site Location The site is within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province, which comprises the ranges and valleys extending southeast from the Los Angeles-San
Bernardino region of California to the Baja Peninsula in Mexico. The ranges and valleys have a predominant northwest-southeast trend primarily due to separation of the province into
large fault blocks. The site area is located at the north-central part of the province between the Santa Ana Mountains in the west and the San Jacinto Mountains in the east. The region
between the mountains is known as the Perris Lowlands or Perris Block. A broad plain with scattered scattered low-relief hills and peaks generally characterizes topography in the province.
Topography in the site region, however, is dominated by a northwest-southeast trending Elsinore Trough, a linear valley bound by the high elevation of the Santa Ana Mountains on the
west and a low-elevation series of ridges on the east. The subject corridor crosses these ridges, which comprise a series of northeast-southwest trending, low-elevation ridges and intervening
valleys. The ridges on the northern end of the corridor rise to elevations of about 345 m (1,132 ft), and ridges at the southern end near Overland rise to about 335 m (1,099 ft). The
intervening northeast-southwest trending valleys are at elevations of 317 to 320 m (1,040 to 1,049 ft). Geologic Formation/Soils The geologic formations in the proposed project site
area are, in descending stratigraphic order: • Alluvium (Quaternary age), • Pauba Formation (Late Pleistocene age), • Unnamed Sandstone and Conglomerate (Pleistocene age), • Temecula
Arkose (Late Pliocene age), • Basement (Mesozoic age igneous and metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks). The valleys are underlain by non-indurated alluvium. The surficial formations
of the hills and ridges along most of the site are composed of the Pauba Formation overlying the Unnamed Formation. These formations are predominantly sand, but silts and gravels are
common. The formations are only weakly indurated, uncemented, and friable. The basement rocks are deep below the site and would not be a factor in site development. Seismicity The site
area is in seismically active southern California, but has a relatively low level of historical earthquake activity. Most earthquakes in the region occur in proximity to the major faults
that bind the Perris Block, the San Jacinto fault on the northeast, and
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 143 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study the Elsinore Fault on the southwest. Epicenters for earthquakes in the region generally are
east of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The Elsinore fault system consists of a series of northwest-southeast trending faults, which have many types of displacement (strike slip, normal, reverse).
However, this fault system is probably predominantly a right-lateral strike-slip fault with a normal component. Pre-historical fault ruptures documented along the Glen Ivy segment of
the Elsinore fault (north of the site area) suggest a recurrence interval on the order of 250 years for earthquakes of magnitude 6 to 7. The range of slip rates estimated for the Whitter-Elsinore
Fault is 2.6 to 9.3 mm/year (0.1 to 0.36 inch/year). The rate of slip on the Glen Ivy segment is estimated to be 5.3 to 5.9 mm/year (0.2 to 0.23 inch/year). In the project site area,
the Elsinore fault system comprises two major branches: the Willard Fault (along the base of the Santa Ana Mountains) and the Wildomar Fault (forming the linear southwestern edge of
the ridges and valleys). Both the Willard and the Wildomar faults are designated as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones by the California Geological Survey. The designated zone is
west of the site and no part of the site is within the zone. Groundwater The Elsinore Fault Zone is a groundwater barrier that largely confines ground water to the Murrieta Valley. Historically
(the past few decades), groundwater levels have been dropping substantially due to increased ground water pumping associated with agriculture and urban development. There are no major
rivers in the region. The principal stream is the southeasterly flowing Murrieta Creek. Secondary streams consist of small intermittent southwesterly flowing tributaries such as Warm
Springs Creek in the north and Santa Gertrudis Creek in the south near Overland. Boreholes drilled for previous investigations encountered ground water at very shallow depths (less than
than 10 m [less than 32.8 ft]). The deepest borehole extended to elevation of about 302
m (990.8 ft). However, depth to groundwater appears to be dropping with time. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Geologic
Formation and Soils The project site is located in an area where the underlain soils are mostly granular, well-graded, and in a relatively dense condition. As such, the potential for
substantial soil erosion would be considered relatively low during the operation of the project. However, construction of the project would be taking place near or within creeks and/or
creek beds. Construction would, therefore, result in the potential for substantial soil erosion due to grading. Soil erosion would, in turn, present the potential for sediment deposits
within the Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. Sedimentation can be best described as organic or inorganic materials that are carried by or suspended in water and that settle out
to form deposits in receiving waters. For this project, Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks are the receiving waters. This impact would be considered less than substantial with implementation
of BMPs for erosion and sediment control.
144 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Liquefaction Liquefaction may be a potential hazard at the project site because groundwater
is shallow at the creek crossings and sub-surface materials include uncemented granular soils (i.e., sands and silts). Because of this potential hazard, the project design would incorporate
features to minimize liquefaction impacts. Bridges and retaining walls proposed where there is a potential for liquefaction would be supported on pile foundations with the piles extending
below the liquefiable layers. Groundwater is not shallow enough that remedial removal of soils would be required for liquefaction mitigation. During project design, if it is determined
that remedial excavations below retaining walls or other structural footings are required, any native material removed that does not meet the gradation specification for structural backfill
or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) fill would be used as general embankment fill. As stated in Standard provision G-1 (below), standard construction practices would also minimize
or prevent liquefaction impacts. In so far as non-bridge project site elements are concerned, liquefaction mitigation would not be necessary as there is no widespread liquefaction concern
away from creek crossings. The potential for centralized liquefaction in these areas is less than substantial. However, there is the potential for localized liquefaction, which is fully
addressed through compliance with the Department’s Standard Specifications. Seismicity The principal geological constraint for the project site is the potential for ground shaking and
ground rupture associated with earthquakes that may occur along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault. As with southern California in its entirety, the project site is subject to the adverse effects
of seismic activity emanating from active faults, which include ground shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, and/or collapse. The principal faults that
might generate earthquakes that could affect project design according to the Department’s criteria are listed in Table 2.29 below along with their maximum credible earthquakes and expected
ground motions at the site. The accelerations are rounded upward to the nearest tenth. According to Table 2.29 and the Department’s Seismic Hazard Map, the fault controlling seismic
design is the Whittier-Elsinore Fault. The Department has combined all the small branch faults (e.g., the Willard, Wildomar) into one zone for seismic design purposes. Other known faults
in the region (e.g., the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault) were also analyzed, but found not to be capable of generating ground motion at the site in excess of that by the Whittier-Elsinore
Fault.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 145 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.29 Seismic Design Parameters Fault Name Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Distance
from Site (km) Acceleration (G)a Fault Typeb Whittier-Elsinore (WEE) 7.5 0.5 0.7 ST San Jacinto (SJO) 7.5 33 0.2 ST Murrieta Hot Springs (MHS) 6.0 1 0.6 XX a Accelerations from Mualchin,
1996. b XX= unknown; ST = strike-slip. Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2004. This particular project would not be subject to potential landslides as the proposed site consists of subdued
topography. Potential adverse effects associated with geotechnical constraints would be reduced to an acceptable level because the project would be required to comply with the design
and construction requirements of the California Highway Design Manual and with all applicable seismic standards, as described below. No Action Alternative There would be no change from
current conditions with the No Action Alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following are standard provisions, applicable to all Department projects,will
be implemented. G-1 The proposed project shall comply with the Department’s Standard Specifications related to design and construction, as delineated in the applicable version of the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Department’s Design Specifications during Final Design. G-2 In meeting the Department’s Design Specifications, foundations supporting proposed
bridges shall be designed to withstand the effects of soil liquefaction. Ground improvements at bridge and retaining wall locations shall be determined during final design. Paleontology
Regulatory Setting Paleontology is the study of life in past geologic time based on fossil plants and animals. A number of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources,
their treatment, and funding for mitigation as a part of federally authorized or funded projects (e.g., Antiquities Act of 1906 [16 USC 431-433], Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1935 [20
USC 78]). Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
146 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Division 3, Chapter 1, Sections 4307 and 4309, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. Affected
Environment Paleontological studies completed for the proposed project include a Paleontological Identification Report (PIR), approved by the Department in December 2005, and a Paleontological
Evaluation Report/Mitigation Plan (PER/MP), approved by the Department on May 2, 2006. An addendum to the technical study, dated April 2, 2009, was prepared by Department staff to address
the change in postmiles and design modifications that were not included in the 2006 PER/MP document prepared for the paleontological studies. The Project’s APE was established in consultation
with the Department’s Dicken Everson, Principal Investigator, Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology and Bruce Ko, Project Manager, on November 4, 2005. The paleontological APE mirrors
that of the cultural resources APE and is designed to include the entirety of the construction footprint plus a sufficient buffer to allow construction vehicles to maneuver on site.
Additionally, the APE includes the entire assessor’s parcel where potential resources were present within and directly adjacent to the construction footprint. Previous geologic mapping
of the Murrieta region indicates that the project’s APE traverses surface and subsurface exposures of three distinct lithologic units: an unnamed sandstone and conglomerate formation;
the sandstone member of the Pauba Formation; and Quaternary alluvium. Background research indicated numerous fossil localities directly adjacent, with four localities within the project
APE. A windshield Survey of the APE failed to locate any fossil localities. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The results
of the PIR and PER studies demonstrate that proposed excavation within the boundaries of the proposed project alignment in Murrieta and Temecula has potential to affect nonrenewable
fossil resources. This alignment is therefore assigned as being high for paleontologic sensitivity. The abundance of fossils from this area and the proximity of localities to the preferred
alternative alignment together demonstrate the high paleontologic sensitivity of the region. Additionally, more than 400 paleontologic resource localities are known from the unnamed
sandstone formation and the overlying Pauba Formation in the Murrieta and Temecula areas. These localities have produced fossil vertebrates including that of two species of ground sloth,
a mammoth, a mastodon, two species of horse, a tapir, a camel, a llama, a pronghorn, a dire wolf, a short-faced bear, and a sabre-toothed cat. The deposits have also yielded important
small vertebrate fossils including rodent, rabbit, bat, shrew, bird, lizard, turtle, and tortoise. Where cuts are required, there is the potential to affect paleontological resources;
however, impacts would not be expected to be substantial because the proposed
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 147 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study project would have very few locations that require cuts and the disturbed, developed nature
of the site and surrounding area. The area that would be affected by the project has experienced substantial disturbance with the initial construction of both the I-15 and the I-215,
as well as the adjacent urban development. Although the impact is not considered substantial, implementation of the PMP for recovery and preservation of fossil remains exposed by project-related
earth-moving activities would protect against impacts to important resources. No Action Alternative There would be no impacts to paleontological resources under the No Action Alternative.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following measure(s) will be implemented to ensure no impacts or minimal impacts to paleontological resources. P-1 A Paleontological
Mitigation Plan (PMP) will be prepared and will include at a minimum the following measures. The non-standard special provision for implementation of the Paleontological Mitigation Plan
will ensure that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on paleontological resources. P-1A The Locally Preferred Alternative includes little cut, if any; however some of
these cuts may extend into one or more of the three paleontologically sensitive (fossil-bearing) strata: an unnamed sandstone and conglomerate formation; the sandstone member of the
Pauba Formation; and Quaternary alluvium. Implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring Program shall be required where cuts exceed five feet in depth below the natural surface in previously
undisturbed areas and/or where sensitive strata are currently at grade or less than five feet deep. Where appropriate, the following standard provision shall be implemented: P-1B A qualified
Principal Paleontologist (graduate degree in paleontology or geology with demonstrated experience in paleontological procedures in California) shall be retained to be present at pre-grading
meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. At the direction of the Project Paleontologist, Paleontological Monitors shall be on site to inspect cuts for fossils at
all times during original grading involving sensitive geologic formations. If fossils are discovered, the Paleontologist (or Paleontological Monitor) shall recover them. If necessary,
construction work in these areas shall be halted or diverted to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. P-1C Up to 6,000 pounds of sediment or sedimentary rock will be collected
from each of the three formations. The samples will be processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains that are too small to be observed by the Monitor. P-1D Fossil remains
collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the program as a result of processing samples will be cleaned, prepared, sorted,
148 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists, and cataloged. Prepared
fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will then be deposited in an approved scientific institution with paleontological collections. A final report
will be completed that outlines the results of the program. P-2 During Final Design, the Project Engineer shall evaluate the feasibility of leaving selected road cuts finished slopes
in areas of critically interesting geology exposed so they can serve as important educational and scientific features. Hazardous Waste Materials Regulatory Setting Hazardous materials
and hazardous wastes are regulated by many State and federal laws. These include not only specific statutes governing hazardous waste, but also a variety of laws regulating air and water
quality, human health, and land use. The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund, is to clean up contaminated sites so that public health
and welfare are not compromised. RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Other federal laws include: • Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA)
of 1992; • Clean Water Act; • Clean Air Act; • Safe Drinking Water Act; • Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA); • Atomic Energy Act; • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); • Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control, mandates that necessary actions
be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved. Hazardous waste in California is regulated primarily under the authority
of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other California laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling,
storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials
that may affect human health and the environment. Proper disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 149 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Methodology The information in this section is based on an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for
the French Valley Interchange (June 2008). Source information for the ISA was taken from the documents listed below. • Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the French Valley Interchange,
California Department of Transportation District 8; January 27, 2001. • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; June 19, 2003. This document evaluates seven parcels of rough-graded and/or
undeveloped land within the project area. • EDR Corridor Study Report; April 30, 2003 and March 13, 2008. • French Valley Parkway Interchange Air Quality Report; August 2, 2005. The
ISA for the French Valley Interchange database reviews included, but were not limited to the following sources: • National Priorities List; • RCRA Corrective Action Report; • Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System; • RCRA Permitted Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities RCRA Registered Small of Large Generators of Hazardous
Waste; • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); • State Equivalent Priority List; • Toxic Release Inventory Database; •
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; • Solid Waste Landfill List; • RCRA Violations/Enforcement Actions; • Registered Underground or Aboveground Storage Tank Database; • ERNS and State
Lists (SPILLS). Affected Environment The terrain to the south of the site is generally flat with very low-density commercial structures present. To the east of the site, the terrain
is generally flat with very low-density commercial structures and a mobile home enclave. The terrain to the west of the site is generally flat with very low-density commercial structures.
Site reconnaissance performed on August 8, 2003, noted the following uses east and west within the general vicinity of the proposed project: • The staging area located east of the NB
I-215 connector ramp and west of Jackson Avenue; • A light industrial complex housing a Basics, ETC. store; • The England Family Mortuary; • Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks,
which transect the site and traverse under the I-15;
150 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • Open space; and • Native and non-native vegetation. On-Site Land Uses The project site is
dominated by the I-15 highway. The I-15 serves as a major transportation corridor, providing regional access to Corona, San Diego, and Los Angeles. This route is heavily traveled by
both commercial and private vehicles, including vehicles that transport hazardous materials. Within the project limits, there are no residential, commercial, or industrial structures
inside the Department’s existing right-of-way. However, there are two structures outside the right-of-way and within the Project limits. These structures consist of the England Family
Mortuary east of Madison Avenue and north of McCabe Court and a light manufacturing complex housing a Basics, ETC. store. Adjoining Property Aerial photographs supplied by Environmental
Data Resources, Inc. show that the area surrounding the subject locale is generally undeveloped open space with a few commercial and/or industrial structures. Available public records
were reviewed by EDR on March 13, 2008. The records identified that no listed regulatory sites are reported within the project site, and 155 listed regulatory sites within a half-mile
radius of the study area. Three of these sites have the potential of containing RECs. However, just one – Map Site 29 is located upgradient of the project site and is adjacent to the
study area. Because groundwater was impacted by MTBE and remediation is currently ongoing, it appears to be a potential environmental concern with regard to the project site due to its
location and proximity to the project site, should construction activities involve dewatering in the southern portion of the project limits. Site Conditions No visible evidence to suggest
the presence of a recognized environmental condition within the boundary of the subject site was observed during the August 8, 2003, site inspection performed. Two structures within
the limits of the subject site and the demolition of existing freeway facilities have the potential to contain lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials as a result of their
age. There is also the possibility of lead-based paint in areas where there would be paint removal from bridges and roadways. Testing done by APEX Environmental Recovery, Inc. in March
2001 did not identify the presence of aerially deposited lead along the I-15. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Use and
Transport of Hazardous Materials Due to the nature of the project as a transportation facility, it is expected that traffic using the proposed French Valley Interchange and the I-15
within the project vicinity may include vehicles transporting hazardous materials or waste. However, through
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 151 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study the use of standard design measures and compliance with the Department’s construction procedures,
the proposed project would not expose the public to a greater risk of an accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances than what exists under current conditions. During the
construction phase, project actions may require removal of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints, both of which may pose a health risk to construction workers. The potential
for exposure to asbestos-or lead-containing materials is discussed below. Asbestos-Containing Materials Asbestos is a known human carcinogen for which there is no known threshold level
of exposure at which adverse health effects are anticipated (SCAQMD September 14, 1989). Given this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified asbestos as a hazardous
air pollutant pursuant to Section 12 of the federal Clean Air Act. Further, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified asbestos as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) pursuant
to Section 39650 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code. Asbestos is also regulated as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). These rules and regulations (1) prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities; (2) require medical examinations and
monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos; (3) specify precautions and safe-work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release
of asbestos fibers; and (4) require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos. Demolition of a building
could expose construction personnel to asbestos-containing building materials. Because exposure can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, several regulations and
guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from asbestos exposure have been adopted for demolition activities. Regulations that will be followed during construction/demolition
activities include: (1) SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403); (2) Construction Safety Orders 1629 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining
to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations; Part 61, Subpart M of the Federal Code of Regulations pertaining to asbestos; and (3) lead exposure guidelines provided by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In accordance with Rule 1403, any demolition work involving asbestos-containing materials must be identified and potential
emissions from asbestos must be determined. In California, asbestos abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department
of Health Services (Cal/OSHA). In addition, Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use and management of such hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA enforces the hazard communication program
regulations. All demolition that could result in the release of lead and asbestos must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. These standards have been developed to protect the
general population and construction workers from hazards associated with exposure to these materials. Young children, the elderly, and people in poor health may be more susceptible to
adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos and lead released to environment.
152 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study There is the potential for asbestos-related materials to exist within businesses located within
the proposed right-of-way that would need to be relocated. There is the potential, although unlikely, for asbestos-containing materials to exist within the project site. If these materials
are not properly removed there is the potential for health-risk. However, the potential for asbestos-containing materials triggers implementation of the above federal and State regulations
concerning the use and management of asbestos. Screening for asbestos-containing materials and implementation of the above-mentioned regulations prior to and during project implementation
would provide adequate protection of the public, including construction workers. Lead-Based Paint Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element. In 1978, the federal government required
the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain
more than 0.06 percent lead. Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Inorganic lead is also regulated as a toxic air contaminant. Inspection, testing,
and removal of (abatement) lead-containing building materials must be performed by State-certified contractors who are required to comply with applicable health and safety and hazardous
materials regulations. As with asbestos-containing materials, demolition of a building could expose construction personnel to lead-based paint. The regulations and guidelines governing
asbestos-containing materials discussed above also pertain to the abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. Additionally, as with asbestos-containing materials,
the improper removal of lead could result in a health risk. There is the potential for lead-based paint to exist within businesses located within the proposed right-of-way that would
need to be relocated. However, as with asbestos-containing materials, the potential for lead-based paint triggers implementation of the above federal and State regulations. Screening
for lead-based paint and implementation of the above-mentioned regulations prior to and during project implementation would provide adequate protection of the public, including construction
workers. Lead-based paint may also be associated with paint removal from roadways and bridges. To determine the nature and extent of potential lead contamination in paint striping, limited
baseline sampling of the paint striping shall be performed during PS&E. If contamination is present, the paint stripes shall be removed and transported to an appropriate waste disposal
facility in accordance with current regulatory guidelines. Implementation of these standard practices would provide adequate protection of the public, including construction workers.
Aerially Deposited Lead Additionally, there is the potential for the soils along the length length of the I-15 to contain aerially deposited lead (ADL). This condition would be as a
result of the use of leaded gasoline in automobiles, which is now illegal and no longer used. Testing for ADL was performed by APEX Environmental Recovery, Inc., in March 2001. These
tests indicated lead is distributed lognormally and that the soil has been classified as non-hazardous according to Title 22 CCR.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 153 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No Action Alternative There would be no construction-related impacts associated with the No
Action Alternative; however, there would be a potential for an incremental increase in the risk of upset associated with vehicle accidents. This segment of I-15 has a higher than average
accident rate. Without the improvements, the congestion on this segment will increase. It is reasonable to assume the accident rate may increase as congestion increases. With a higher
accident rate there is a higher likelihood that fuel may be spilled or there could be release from vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures The following pre-construction measures are standard provisions that are routinely applied to projects to ensure that projects implement the applicable federal, State, and local
rules and regulations for the safe handling of hazardous materials. HZ-1 Prior to the initiation initiation of construction, the contractor shall develop an approved Health and Safety
Contingency Plan (HSCP) in the event that unanticipated/unknown environmental contaminants are encountered during construction. The plan shall be developed to protect workers, safeguard
the environment, and meet the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), “General Industry Safety Orders – Control of Hazardous Substances.” The HSCP shall
be prepared as a supplemental to the Contractor’s Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan, which should be prepared to meet the requirements of CCR Title 8, “Construction Safety Orders.”
HZ-2 Prior to the demolition of any on-site building constructed prior to 1973, the building shall be screened for lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is identified,
it shall be mitigated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements. HZ-3 Prior to the removal of paint from any bridges or roadways, the paint
shall be screened for lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is identified, it shall be mitigated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements.
HZ-4 Prior to the demolition of any on-site building constructed prior to 1980, the Applicant shall test for asbestos-containing materials. Should the building being demolished contain
asbestos, the Applicant shall comply with the notification and asbestos-removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health issues. HZ-5 Demolition activities
involving asbestos materials are subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
61, Subpart M). These regulations require an inspection or survey of the site that is to be demolished to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are present.
154 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study HZ-6 Prior to construction of Phase II work, it is recommended the City coordinate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain information on the progress of the remediation. If definitive information on the extent of the contamination plume cannot be ascertained
from the files on the remediation efforts, the City should conduct a groundwater investigation in the location where construction is proposed to determine if the contaminated groundwater
has migrated to the project site. Air Quality Regulatory Setting The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, is the federal law that governs air quality. Its counterpart in California is
the California Clean Air Act of 1988. These laws set standards for the quantity of pollutants that can be in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Standards have been established for six criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns; the criteria pollutants are: carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the U.S. Department of Transportation
cannot fund, authorize, or approve Federal actions to support programs or projects that are not first found to conform to State Implementation Plan for achieving the goals of the Clean
Air Act requirements. Conformity with the Clean Air Act takes place on two levels—first, at the regional level and second, at the project level. The proposed project must conform at
both levels to be approved. Regional level conformity in California is concerned with how well the region is meeting the standards set for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone (O3), and particulate matter (PM). California is in attainment for the other criteria pollutants. At the regional level, Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) are developed that
include all transportation projects planned for a region over a period of years, usually at least 20. Based on the projects included in the RTP, an air quality model is run to determine
whether or not the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests showing that attainment requirements of the Clean Air Act are met. If the conformity
analysis is successful, the regional planning organization (such as SCAG for Riverside County) and the appropriate federal agencies (such as the Federal Highway Administration) make
the determination that the RTP is in conformity with the State Implementation Plan for achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act. Prior to approval of the final environmental document,
FHWA will need to issue an air quality conformity determination letter. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design and scope of the
proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP, then the proposed project is deemed to meet regional conformity requirements for purposes of project-level analysis.
Conformity at the project-level also requires a “hot spot” analysis if an area is a “nonattainment” or “maintenance” area for carbon monoxide (CO) and/or particulate matter. A region
is a “nonattainment” area if one or more monitoring stations in the region fail to attain the relevant standard. Areas that were previously designated as nonattainment areas but have
recently met the standard are called “maintenance”
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 155 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study areas. A “hot spot” analysis is essentially the same, for technical purposes, as a CO or particulate
matter analysis performed for NEPA purposes. Conformity does include some specific standards for projects that require a hot spot analysis. In general, projects must not cause the CO
standard to be violated and, in “nonattainment” areas, the project must not cause any increase in the number and severity of violations. If a known CO or particulate matter violation
is located in the project vicinity, the project must include measures to reduce or eliminate the existing violation(s) as well. Affected Environment Information presented in this section
is based on the I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Air Quality Technical Report (April 2008). Meteorology and Topography The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin
(SoCAB), which consists of the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and Orange County in its entirety. The SoCAB covers an area of approximately
6,000 square miles and is bound on the west by the Pacific Ocean; on the north and east by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains; and on the south by the San Diego
County line. The climate around the project site, as with all southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific
Ocean. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity. The Pacific high pressure zone dominates the local weather patterns and creates a repetitive pattern
of frequent early morning cloudiness near the coast, hazy afternoon sunshine, and daytime onshore breezes. Precipitation is limited to a few storms during the wet winter season. Temperatures
are normally mild with occasional extremes above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or below freezing. The Temecula area is an interior valley of the SoCAB. During the warm summer months, the
daily sea breeze often penetrates the gaps in the coastal range to the west, bringing polluted air from the populated coastal areas into western Riverside County in the afternoon. The
frequent clear skies and warm temperatures in the interior valleys promote the formation of ozone, or photochemical smog. Ozone forms through a complex series of chemical reactions between
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. In addition, southern California is subject to frequent temperature inversions that limit the vertical
depth through which pollution can be mixed. In the summer, a marine subsidence inversion acts as a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but
becomes progressively more polluted inland as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. A second type of inversion forms on cold winter mornings.
These inversions are ground-based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions. Under conditions of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs and
pollutants concentrate near their sources (City of Temecula 2000).
156 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Local Air Quality Monitoring Levels The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
maintains a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the SoCAB to determine whether areas are meeting the standards. The project site is located in Source Receptor Area
(SRA) 26 (“Temecula Valley”), which currently has no ambient SCAQMD monitoring station. The closest and most representative air monitoring station to the project site is in SRA 25 (“Lake
Elsinore”), which is about 15 miles northwest of the project site along the I-15 corridor. Table 2.30 shows the highest pollutant concentrations recorded at the Lake Elsinore station
for 2006−2008, the latest three years of available data. For those pollutants that are not monitored at the Lake Elsinore station, data from other nearby stations are used. Table 2.30
Maximum Pollutant Concentrations Measured at the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Pollutant Averaging Period National Standard State Standard Highest Monitored Concentration 2006 2007
2008 Ozone (ppm) 1 hour None 0.09 0.142 0.129 0.139 8 hours 0.075 0.070 0.109 0.109 0.118 CO (ppm) 1 hour 35 20 1 2 N/A 8 hours 9 9.0 1.01 1.40 0.84 NO2 (ppm) 1 hour None 0.18 0.072
0.064 0.055 Annual 0.053 0.030 0.015 0.015 * SO2 (ppm) a 1 hour None 0.25 0.01 0.02 N/A 24 hours 0.14 0.04 0.003 0.004 0.004 Annual 0.030 None 0.001 0.002 0.001 PM10 b (μg/m3) 24 hours
150 50 125 1212/167 62 Annual None 20 62.3 66.6 * PM2.5 c (μg/m3) 24 hours 35 None 55.3 68.5 42.9 Annual 15 12 16.9 18.3 * Exceedances of the national or state standards are highlighted
in bold. The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded on 42 days in 2006, 26 days in 2007, and 48 days in 2008. The national 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded on 54 days in 2006, 35
days in 2007, and 67 days in 2008. The state 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded on 71 days in 2006, 56 days in 2007, and 88 days in 2008. a SO2 is not monitored at the Lake Elsinore
station. Therefore, SO2 SO2 data from the Riverside – Rubidoux Station (approximately 30 miles north of the project site) is reported in this table. b PM10 is not monitored at the Lake
Elsinore station. Therefore, PM10 data from the next closest station, the Perris Valley station (approximately 20 miles north of the project site) is reported in this table. The state
24-hour PM10 standard was exceeded on 18 sampled days in 2006, 31 sampled days in 2007, and 0 sampled days in 2008. The national PM10 standard was not exceeded in 2006 or 2008, and was
exceeded for 2 days in 2007. The exceedance in 2007 was on October 21 and was an exceptional event due to wildfires and high winds; therefore, the second highest value is also shown.
c PM2.5 is not monitored at the Lake Elsinore station. Therefore, PM2.5 data from the Riverside – Magnolia Station in the city of Riverside (approximately 30 miles north of the project
site) is reported in this table. The national 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded on 9 sampled days in 2006, 1 sampled day in 2007, and 2 sampled days in 2008. μg/m3 micrograms per cubic
meter of air ppm parts per million by volume * There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value N/A Data not available Sources: CARB (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgI-bin/db2www/ada
mtop4b.d2w/start) and SCAQMD (www.aqmd.gov).
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 157 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study As shown in the table, the following standards were exceeded in the project area over the 3-year
period: • Ozone (national and State 1-hour standards and the national 8-hour standard); • Particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) (State 24-hour and annual standards) • Particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) (national 24-hour standard, and national and State annual standards) No standards were exceeded for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
or sulfur dioxide (SO2). Table 2.31, below, shows the area designations for the SoCAB and the required attainment dates for the nonattainment pollutants. This table shows that the SoCAB
is in nonattainment for the national ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The SoCAB is also in nonattainment for the State ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The region was designated an
attainment area for CO standards on June 11, 2007. Table 2.31 National and State Attainment Designations for the SoCAB Pollutant National Designation State Designation Ozone 1-Hour No
Standard Nonattainment Ozone 8-Hour Nonattainment Severe-17 (2021) NO2 Attainment Attainment CO Attainment/Maintenance Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonattainment Serious
(2006) Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment (2015) Nonattainment Lead Attainment Attainment Note: Nonattainment classifications are indicated in italics. Required attainment dates for the
national standards are shown in parentheses. State standards are required to be met by the earliest practicable date. Source: South USEPA, Greenbook, http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html,;
CARB, Area Designations, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm,. Environmental Consequences Regional Air Quality Conformity Ozone The proposed project is fully funded and is in SCAG’s
2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was found to conform by SCAG on May 8, 2008, and the FHWA and FTA adopted the air quality conformity finding on June 5, 2008. The project
is also included in the most current update to SCAG’s financially constrained 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP, State Highway Projects for
158 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Riverside County, page 6 of 21). SCAG’s 2008 RTIP was found to conform by the FHWA and FTA
on November 17, 2008. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2008 RTP, the 2008 RTIP, and the assumptions in the SCAG
regional emissions analysis. The action by FHWA and FTA also indicates that the TIP conforms to the applicable SIP. The proposed project is identified as project numbers 991202 (Phase
I) and RIV031215 (Phase II) in the 2008 RTIP project listing and in the 2008 RTP. The analysis for ozone conformity is described in the 2008 RTP Transportation Conformity Report, and
includes the following: The SCAG travel demand models were estimated and calibrated using data from SCAG’s Year 2000 Post-Census Regional Travel Survey, the 2000 U.S. Census, the 2003
External Travel Survey, and various on-board Transit Surveys. The model was validated against 2003 ground counts and 2003 Highway Performance Monitoring System vehicle miles traveled
data. All land use, population, households, employment, and network-based model assumptions were updated for the 2008 RTP and documented in 2008 RTP Growth Forecast Report. Land development
and use are consistent with future transportation systems. The distribution of employment, population, and household is reasonable with respect to the transport systems. The SCAG travel
demand model includes separate multI-modal user equilibrium assignments for peak and off-peak time periods. The network assignments are capacity-sensitive. Link speeds are calculated
based on final assigned volumes. The SCAG travel demand model includes full feedback of travel time among trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment steps.
Both highway and transit times are included in the mode choice model. PM2.5 The FHWA and USEPA jointly released the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses
in PM2.5 and PM 10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (PM Guidance) on March 29, 2006. The Final Rule for transportation conformity was promulgated on March 10, 2006, and became effective
on April 5, 2006, for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The proposed project is located within a federal PM2.5 nonattainment area. Therefore, per 40 CFR Part 93 a PM2.5 hotspot analysis is
required for conformity purposes. However, the USEPA does not require a hot-spot analysis, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are determined to not be projects of air quality
concern (POAQC). The POAQC determination is based upon whether or not the project would result in an increase in PM2.5 emissions. Diesel exhaust emissions include PM2.5 pollutants. The
nature of this project is such that it is would not result in a significant overall increase in the number of motor vehicles, including diesel buses and trucks, utilizing the facility.
Thus, the project would not be classified as POAQC. The SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) concurred that the project is not a POAQC on May 23, 2006. The project would
primarily serve to provide access to I-15 and I-215 for automobiles from the residential communities of Temecula and Murrieta, which have minimal commercial and industrial uses. Further,
overall traffic volumes are expected to be the same with the project or under the No Action Alternative. Diesel trucks traveling
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 159 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study through the project area on I-15 and I-215 would not be expected to increase significantly
as a result of the project. The project would reduce congestion and improve flow on I-15 and I-215 resulting in higher travel speeds, but it is not expected that the project would have
a notable effect on traffic volumes. Diesel trucks produce fewer PM2.5 emissions at higher speeds, and the project would be expected reduce emissions from individual diesel trucks when
compared to conditions without the project due to improved traffic flow patterns. PM10 The PM10 hot spot analysis for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the screening
methodology in the Particulate Matter and Transportation Projects, an Analysis Protocol (PM10 Protocol) (UC Davis 2005). The PM10 Protocol includes a four-part methodology to screen
projects unlikely to contribute to exceedances of the PM10 air quality standards. The results of the Protocol analysis show that the TIP and RTIP regional conformity analyses passed
the PM10 emission budget test for milestone years 2006, 2010 (the project analysis year), 2020, and 2030. Because the TIP and RTIP met emission budgets from 2006 to 2030, by definition
future year background PM10 concentrations are projected to decrease enough to offset any rise in primary PM10 emissions from a modeled transportation facility. By comparing the proposed
project to a similar but existing facility with greater traffic volumes, it is assumed that the proposed project would likewise not cause an exceedance of the national PM10 standards.
According to the PM10 Protocol, the proposed project’s PM10 impacts are satisfactory and no further analysis is needed for project-level PM10 conformity. Carbon Monoxide The carbon monoxide
(CO) hot spot analysis for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the screening methodology in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol).
The CO Protocol analysis demonstrated that CO concentrations in the area affected by the project would be lower than at locations specifically modeled in the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP. Mobile
Source Air Toxics Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road
equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete
combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The USEPA is the lead Federal Agency for
administering the Clean Air Act (CAA) and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The USEPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 CFR 17229, March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority of Section 202 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, the USEPA examined the impacts
of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including
160 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program; its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards;
its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements; and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce
on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent. As a result, the USEPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs.
The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(l) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the 6 primary MSATs. Project Level
Conformity Attainment Designations The USEPA and the CARB have established national and California ambient air quality standards, respectively, for several common air pollutants. Air
quality standards are set at concentrations that provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Generally, State regulations have stricter standards than
those at the national level. The national and State ambient air quality standards are presented in Table 2.30 above. Construction Impacts Construction-related fugitive PM10 emissions
were assessed from a regional perspective in the 2008 RTIP conformity analysis. Section 93.122(d)(2) of the USEPA Transportation Conformity Rule requires that, in PM10 nonattainment
and maintenance areas (for which the SIPs identify construction-related fugitive dust as a contributor to the area problem), the RTIP should conduct a construction-related fugitive PM10
emission analysis. The 2008 RTIP PM10 regional emissions analysis includes construction and unpaved road emissions in the conformity finding. The Proposed Project would be subject to
SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control. The requirements of Rule 403 are summarized below under the Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures, section. Operational Impacts
When assessing the localized air quality impacts of roadway projects, the primary pollutants of concern are CO and PM10. High CO concentrations tend to occur near heavily congested intersections
with high traffic volumes and low average speeds. Cold temperatures and calm winds, particularly during periods with strong surface temperature inversions, further contribute to high
CO concentrations. When completed, the proposed project would reduce traffic congestion on the I-15 and on most of the affected surface streets. This is due to the redistribution of
traffic from more heavily congested areas to those areas which have the capacity to accommodate a greater number of motor vehicles. With the improved level of service, it is reasonable
to assume slightly higher average speeds with the proposed project relative to the No Action Alternative, and therefore, an incremental decrease in CO emissions
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 161 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Particulates (PM10 and PM 2.5) can be either directly emitted by motor vehicles (e.g., vehicle
exhaust, tire, and brake wear) or indirectly emitted (e.g., re-entrained road dust, dirt or other materials from vehicles). Large variations in particulate emissions occur because of
various factors such as vehicle type and condition, roadway type, and climate; however, indirect particulate emissions associated with vehicles traveling on paved roads is generally
considered minimal. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis A CO hot spot analysis for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the screening methodology in the Transportation
Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) (Caltrans 1997). Figure 2-14 provides the reference points for this analysis. This analysis was conducted because, at the time the
Air Quality Technical Study was initiated in fall 2004, the region was designated as not being in attainment for CO. As stated above, on June 11, 2007, the CO designation was changed
from nonattainment to attainment. The hot spot analysis can be found in the technical study. PM10 Hot Spot Analysis The proposed project’s PM10 hot spot analysis was conducted in accordance
with the screening methodology in the Particulate Matter and Transportation Projects, an Analysis Protocol (PM10 Protocol) (UC Davis 2005). The reference points for this analysis are
shown in Figure 2-14. The PM10 Protocol includes a four-part methodology to screen projects unlikely to contribute to exceedances of the PM10 air quality standards. The following steps
follow the methodology illustrated in Figure 1 of the PM10 Protocol and provide a rationale for each conclusion. The corresponding decision boxes in the PM10 Protocol are indicated with
each step: F1.1 Is the project analysis year during or after the region’s attainment year? Yes. The project analysis year, 2012, is after the PM10 attainment year for the national ambient
air quality standard, 2006. Proceed to F1.2. F1.2 Is the proposed project similar to or smaller than projects operating in the attainment year? As discussed in the PM10 Protocol, a comparison
project should be a pre-existing facility (not a project to be constructed) that is included in the RTIP or TIP for the attainment year. The comparison project must be similar in design
concept and scope to, and have similar or greater average daily traffic volumes than, the proposed project. In terms of the ability to generate PM10 emissions, the proposed project’s
primary three components include a mainline freeway, adjacent C/D lanes, and an arterial interchange. As such, the comparison project should be a pre-existing facility with these same
three components.
162 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study One example of a facility with a similar design concept and scope to the proposed project is
the Interstate 10 (I-10) freeway at Vermont Street near downtown Los Angeles. Similar to the proposed project, the I-10/Vermont interchange has a mainline freeway, adjacent C/D lanes,
and an arterial interchange. This is an existing facility that is included in the TIP and RTIP emissions model. The I-10 near Vermont Street carries a large daily volume of traffic.
In 2003, the average daily traffic along this portion of the I-10, including the C/D lanes, was 325,000 vehicles per day (the Department 2004b). Although the traffic volume estimated
for the attainment year of 2006 was not readily available from SCAG, it would certainly be even greater than 325,000 vehicles per day. In the proposed project analysis year of 2012,
the I-15 near French Valley Parkway would carry approximately 20,655 vehicles during the PM peak hour, including the C/D lanes (LSA Associates, October 2004, updated 2008). This equates
to an estimated daily volume of 259,811 vehicles per day, assuming a PM peak hour factor of 7.95 percent (the Department 2004). This volume is approximately 21 percent less than the
traffic volume on than I-10 near Vermont Street (328,000 in 2006). As a result, the proposed project is both similar to and smaller than projects operating in the attainment year. Proceed
to F1.3. F1.3 Did regional TIP/RTP conformity pass using an emission budget test covering the project analysis year? Yes. The TIP and RTIP regional conformity analyses passed the PM10
emission budget test for milestone years 2006, 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2035. This data is presented in the SCAG 2008 RTP Conformity Analysis in a table labeled “Required Regional Emissions
Test for 2008 RTP.” The proposed project would be implemented in 2012. Though not one of the years tested by SCAG, it is between the tested years and can be assumed to be consistent
with the emissions budget. Because the TIP and RTIP met emission budgets from 2006 to 2035, by definition future year background PM10 concentrations are projected to decrease enough
to offset any rise in primary PM10 emissions from a modeled transportation facility. By comparing the proposed project to a similar but existing facility with greater traffic volumes,
it is assumed that the proposed project would likewise not cause an exceedance of the national PM10 standards. According to the PM10 Protocol, an affirmative response to F1.3 demonstrates
that the proposed project’s PM10 impacts are satisfactory and no further analysis is needed for project-level PM10
conformity. While this analysis methodology is applicable to the national ambient air quality standards for PM10, no such guidance currently exists for
Reference Points for Air Quality Analysis French Valley Interchange Improvements Project Figure 2-14 R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-14_air_qual_062106.pdf §¨¦15 Limits for
PM-10 Analysis CO Hot Spot Analysis Location CO Hot Spot Analysis Location §¨¦15 §¨¦215 UV79 Jefferson Ynez 79 Ivy Winchester Murrieta Hot Springs Solana Rancho California Whitewood
Margarita Los Alamos Nicolas Kalmia Alta Murrieta Rancho California Alta Murrieta Diaz Adams Hayes Madison Margarita Fig Washington Date Jackson Monroe Capistrano Zevo Taffia Ynez Douglass
Winchester Alvarado Rio Nedo Overland Hancock Industria Hawthorn Guava Del Rio Del Oro Hoover Oak Cliff La Vida Rockcrest Daphne Juniper Princessa Wildflower Vista Murrieta Pradera Bonaire
Cherry Cara Brett Roripaugh Remington Highbury Corning Miles A Pear Ada Shaw Las Stanford Jefferson Brown Knollridge Birchtree Rustic Glen Del Lago Odessa Elm Rodeo Eastman De Luz Enterprise
La Colina Chantemar Mance Temprano Business Park Cristo Del Reyo Montalvo Lucille Seco Seco Lyndie Nick Willow Crest Alba Addison Patron Corveta De Cristo General Kearny Commerce Center
Rancho Las Flores Alondra Equity Patton Shoshone Saint Michel Montseratt Walsh Center Plaza Sarah Eleanora Del Sol Rider Vueltas Regan Skypark Buckley County Center Avoyer Anguilla Notting
Hill Hobie Zapata Starling Catalina Knight Roja De Larga Vida Skywood Cinife Kucera Montero Rainbow Creek Papaya Madrone Myers Azul Alcalde Park Plaza Las Lomas Carrigan Bolandra Monserate
Golden Gate Courtney Evergreen Cervato Tierra Vista De Oro Las Colinas Shadescale Empleado Bostik Colt Medical Center Boxelder Arjuna Carleton De Cuerno Montezuma Cedarwood Long Ridge
Barbados Blackdeer Kim Escarlata Parkcrest Majello Buecking Old Carriage Mimulus Beckman Rising HillNaples Georgetown Buffy Monte Carlo Larchmont Vail Brook Dos Picos De La Paz Raintree
Cielito Knollwood Sauza Arrebol Mccabe Frontera Firethorn Waynewood Aqua Vista Sanborn Jan Valerie Sondra Miras Sandalwood Del Sur Amwood Magnolia Via Cuesta Sanderling Pin Oak Corporate
Center Cedar Irving Meadowlark Ridge Via La Clements Madison Jan Valerie Monroe Fig Elm Date Patton Jackson Cherry Hawthorn Guava Fig Date Elm D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Ex_air_qual_122105.mxd
0.5 0.25 0 0.5Miles ²Camp Pendleton Lake Mathews Enlarged Area Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Temecula Lake Perris Elsinore Idyllw San Jacinto Canyon Lake §¨215 §¨15 §¨15 ST74 ST243
ST79ST371 ST79 ST74 ST79 0 20Miles
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 163 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study assessing PM10 impacts with respect to the State PM10 standards. However, because the proposed
project would not increase the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the project area relative to the No Action Alternative, it is unlikely that the proposed project would substantially
increase local PM10 levels, and it may even decrease PM10 levels. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to violate the state air quality standards or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation for PM10. PM2.5 Hot Spot Analysis The proposed project is located within a federal PM2.5 non-attainment area. Therefore, per 40 CFR
Part 93, a PM2.5 hotspot analysis is required for conformity purposes. However, the USEPA does not require a hot-spot analysis (qualitative or quantitative) for projects that are not
listed in §93.123(b)(1) as a project of air quality concern . As previously indicated, the project project is not identified as a POAQC. Therefore, a PM2.5 hotspot analysis is not required.
The SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group concurred with this finding on May 23, 2006. Diesel Particulate Matter Impacts In 2000, the SCAQMD conducted a study known as the Multiple
Air Toxics Exposure Study II (MATES II) and found that about 70 percent of the background airborne cancer risk in the SoCAB is due to particulate emissions from diesel-powered onand
off-road motor vehicles (SCAQMD 2000). The higher risk levels were found in urban core areas and along some freeway corridors. The proposed project would not increase the number of diesel
truck trips through the project area relative to the No Action Alternative. Furthermore, the average speed along the I-15 would increase through the project area. This would result in
a decrease in diesel particulate exhaust emissions on a per-mile basis. As previously mentioned, reduced vehicle speeds create a higher amount of air pollutant emissions. As vehicle
speeds increase, the amount of air pollutant emissions on a per mile basis decreases. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
when compared to the No Action Alternative. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) and Structural Asbestos The proposed project is not in a known or suspected asbestos area. No analysis
is required. The proposed project would not create any substantial air quality impacts during project operations; therefore, mitigation is not required. Mobile Source Air Toxics As discussed
in Appendix B of the Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis, there are technical limitations of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects of
MSAT and effects of this Project. However, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure
health impacts from MSATs, it can
164 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study provide a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT from the
various alternatives, if any. The amount of MSATs emitted is proportional to the VMT, assuming that other variables (such as speed and fleet mix) are the same. The proposed French Valley
Parkway Interchange would provide a more direct route to and from the I-15 for many local travelers and would result in a reduction of VMTs compared to the conditions under the No Action
Alternative. The proposed additional interchange, the improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange, and the new C/D lanes would increase operational efficiency in the project area,
resulting in less delay and higher average speeds during peak travel hours. Reduced delay and higher average speeds during congested periods result in additional reductions of MSAT.
Further, emissions would likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of the USEPA’s national control programs, which are projected to reduce MSAT by 57 to 87 percent
between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude
of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSATs in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. It
is expected that there would be reduced MSATs in the immediate project area (compared to the No Action Alternative) due to the reduced VMTs associated with more direct routing, higher
average speeds and reduced delay during peak travel hours. On a regional basis, the USEPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations coupled with fleet turnover will result in substantial reductions
in MSATs. Over time, this will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than current levels. A discussion of the MSAT analysis is included as an Appendix to the Air Quality
Report. It is possible that MSATs may be somewhat higher in the immediate vicinity of the French Valley Parkway Interchange with the proposed project than the conditions under the No
Action Alternative due to the fact that the interchange represents a new source of emissions for this location that would not exist without the project. However, MSAT in other localized
areas of the project would have a corresponding reduction that would cause an overall reduction in MSATs, as discussed above. Further, even if these increases do occur, they too would
be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of the USEPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations. It is expected that there would be reduced MSAT in the immediate Project area
(compared to the No Action Alternative) due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, higher average speeds and reduced delay during peak travel hours, and due to the USEPA’s
MSAT reduction programs. MSAT levels could be higher in some locations than in others, but current tools and science are not adequate to quantify them. However, on a regional basis,
the USEPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be
significantly lower than they are today. A discussion of the MSAT analysis is included as an Appendix to the Air Quality Report.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 165 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No Action Alternative As previously discussed, the No Action Alternative is considered the
base case scenario and proposes that no improvements be implemented at this time. Because no improvements would be constructed, there would be no construction-related air quality impacts.
However, without the proposed freeway and roadway improvements, local air quality would deteriorate due to increased vehicular congestion in the project study area. Avoidance, Minimization,
and/or Mitigation Measures The proposed project would not result in substantial air quality impacts during construction or operation; however, the proposed project would be subject to
the SCAQMD standard provisions to control fugitive dust and minimize emissions of the ozone precursors, NOx, and ROG. AQ-1 During construction operations, the Contractor shall comply
with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area, that remain visible beyond
the emission source property line. Active construction operations shall utilize one or more of the applicable best available control measures identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Rule 403
to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type. Examples of possible best available control measures include, but are not limited to: • Install and utilize a
wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. • Water active sites twice daily. • Replace ground cover (vegetation)
as quickly as possible. • Cover loads on haul trucks with tarps. • Suspend excavation and grading when the wind speed exceeds 25 mph or during first, second, or third stage smog alerts.
• Maintain a speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads on the construction site. AQ-2 During construction operations, the Contractor shall implement the following best practices to further
minimize emissions of the ozone precursors, NOx and ROG: • Prohibit truck idling in excess of two minutes. • Configure construction parking to minimize off-site traffic interference.
• Provide temporary traffic control as necessary to improve traffic flow (e.g., flag person). • Schedule construction activities that adversely affect traffic flow to occur during off-peak
hours (e.g., between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM).
166 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • Where feasible, minimize or avoid simultaneous construction activities where each activity
generates substantial amounts of construction vehicle exhaust. Noise Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the CEQA provide the broad basis for
analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements for noise analysis
and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation, however, differ between NEPA and CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a baseline versus build analysis to
assess whether a proposed project will have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures
must be incorporated into the project unless such measures are not feasible. National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772 For highway transportation projects with FHWA involvement
(and the Department, as assigned), the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts.
The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations contain noise abatement
criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67 A-weighted
decibels [dBA]) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table lists the noise-abatement criteria for use in the NEPA-23 CFR 772 analysis. Table 2.32 Noise
Abatement Criteria Activity Category NAC, Hourly A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA Leq(h) Description of Activities A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose B 67 Exterior Picnic areas, recreation
areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Exterior Developed lands, properties, or activities not included
in Categories A or B above D ⎯ Undeveloped lands. E 52 Interior Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 167 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.33, Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels, lists the noise levels of common
activities to enable readers to compare the actual and predicted highway noise-levels discussed in this section with common activities. Table 2.33 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted
Noise Levels In accordance with the Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (October 1998), a noise impact occurs when the
future noise level with the project would result in a substantial increase in noise level (defined as an increase of 12 dBA or more) or when the future noise level with the project would
approach or exceed the NAC. Approaching the NAC is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC. If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures
must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.
This environmental document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the Project.
168 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when
an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. A minimum 5 dBA reduction in the future noise level must be achieved
for an abatement measure to be considered feasible. Other considerations include topography, access requirements, other noise sources, and safety considerations. The reasonableness determination
is basically a cost-benefit analysis. Factors used in determining whether a proposed noise abatement measure is reasonable include: residents’ acceptance; the absolute noise level; build
versus existing noise; environmental impacts of abatement; public and local agencies’ input; newly constructed development versus development pre-dating 1978; and the cost per benefited
residence. Affected Environment The following discussion is based on the Noise Technical Study I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Improvements Project (2008). Existing Noise Environment
The land uses on the west side of the I-15 include about 15 single-family detached homes, a church, an educational facility, 3 hotels (2 of which have an exterior pool area) and several
commercial properties, many of which have outdoor sales or dining areas. Much of the land, particularly north of the I-15/I-215 Junction is sparsely developed. On the east side of the
I-15 and the I-215, the land uses include the Jackson Crossing single-family residential community, two single-family detached homes, a mobile home park and several commercial properties,
one of which has an outdoor sales area. The primary noise source affecting the properties in the study area is traffic on the I-15 and I-215 freeways. The topography in the study area
varies considerably, with generally flat terrain south of Winchester Road and hilly terrain north of Winchester Road. Thirteen noise-measurement locations and seven noise-modeling locations
were used in the study to characterize the existing noise environment. These are presented graphically in Figures 2-15a–2-15g; they are described in further detail in Table 2.34. This
table also identifies the measured or estimated peak noise hour sound energy equivalent noise level (Leq) at each location. The technical study provides the analysis of estimated existing
peak noise hour levels at all the receiver locations (measured and modeled). The Harveston Planned Community development on the east side of the I-15, north of Winchester Road has not
been considered in this study. This is due to the fact that the Harveston Planned Community Development has only commercial uses in the area adjacent to the project. In addition, it
is the Department’s policy not to consider traffic noise impacts until a project has received final development approval, generally considered to be a building permit, from the agency
with local jurisdiction (Caltrans 1998).
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15a French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Source: Wieland Associates R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15a_
061908.pdf PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-11a.ai �
� SW-1a 3.0m (10') 15 215
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15b French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15b_0619 08.pdf
PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-11b.ai Source: Wieland Associates 15 215
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15c French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15c_0619 08.pdf
PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-11c.ai Source: Wieland Associates
SW-1b 3.7m (12') SW-4 4.3m (14') SW-1c 3.0m (10') 15 215 215 SW-1(TOS)
1.83m (6') �
�
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15d French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15d _0619 08.pdf
PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-11d.ai Source: Wieland Associates SW-1c 3.0m (10')
�
� SW-1b 3.7m (12') SW-5 4.3m (14') SW-4 4.3m (14') 15 �
�
Source: Wieland Associates Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15e French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/figure2-15e_
061908.pdf D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/fig2-11e.ai SW-1c 3.0m (10') 15
�
�
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15f French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15f _0619 08.pdf
PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-11f.ai Source: Wieland Associates SW-2 3.0m (10') SW-1c
3.0m (10') 15
Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations, Analyzed Sound Walls Figure 2-15g French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2008/Figure2-15g _0619 08.pdf
PAS D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/Fig2-11g.ai �
�
SW-3 3.0m (10') 15 �
�
Source: Wieland Associates
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 169 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.34 Existing Noise Levels Receiver Location or Address Type of Development Number of
Units Represented Noise Abatement Category and Criterion Existing Worst Hour Noise Level, Leq(h), dBA Noise Level Measureda or Modeledb? 1 Adjacent to church, used for calibration of
Receivers 1a and 1b N/A N/A N/A 64 Measured 1a Church, 41051 Guava St Church 1 B (67) 67 Modeled 1b 25631 Addison Ln Residential 4 B (67) 61 Modeled 2 26055 Monroe Ave Residential 5
B (67) 57 Measured 3 Hilltop home on E. side of Monroe Ave Residential 1 B (67) 75 Measured 4 41035 Elm St Residential 5 B (67) 72 Measured 5 Volkswagen dealership, 41300 Auto Mall Dr
Commercial 9 C (72) 69 Measured 5ac “Broadway High” Children’s Academy Educational 1 E (52) 47 Modeled 6 Comfort Inn, 27338 Jefferson Ave Hotel 1 B (67) 67 Measured 7d Extended Stay
America, 27622 Jefferson Ave Hotel 5 E (52) 45 Measured 7a Kia Dealership, 27500 Jefferson Ave Commercial 2 C (72) 62 Modeled 7b Richardson’s RV Center, 27590 Jefferson Ave Commercial
3 C (72) 69 Modeled 8 Wendy’s, 27672 Jefferson Ave Commercial 3 C (72) 75 Measured 9 40720 La Salle Pl Residential 20 B (67) 61 Measured 10 26101 Jackson Ave, used for calibration of
Receiver 10a N/A N/A N/A N/A Measured 10a 26101 Jackson Ave Residential 1 B (67) 74 Modeled 11 Home north of Sugarberry Ln Residential 1 B (67) 70 Measured 12 1 Murrieta Palms Residential
8 B (67) 76 Measured 12a 17 Murrieta Palms Residential 8 B (67) 72 Modeled 13 Toyota dealership, 26631 Ynez Rd Commercial 13 C (72) 59 Measured a Unless otherwise indicated, all measurements
shown reflect worst hour noise levels (i.e., they were either measured during the noisiest hour or were adjusted to worst hour traffic characteristics). b Unless otherwise indicated,
modeled receivers include a calibration constant. The calibration constant is derived from the measured receiver of the same number (i.e., modeled Receivers 1a and 1b have the same calibration
constant as measured Receiver 1) c Assumes 20 dB of reduction from exterior to interior. d Includes the measured exterior-to-interior transmission loss of 34.1 dB. If the Harveston Project
is revised to include residential or outdoor dining areas in proximity to the project, the local agencies would require the incorporation of appropriate noise attenuation measures. An
EIR for the community has been submitted to, and approved by, the City of Temecula. The portion of the community immediately adjacent to the project study area is planned for commercial
use. However, as this portion of the community is still in the planning stages, specific uses for this area have not been approved. Potential noise impacts from the freeway,
170 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study including the improvements associated with the proposed project, will be evaluated by the City
of Temecula as part of the site plan review process. The planned commercial development south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between the I-15 and I-215 freeways is still in the planning
stages. As previously stated, it is the Department’s policy not to consider traffic noise impacts until a project has received final development approval, generally considered to be
a building permit, from the agency with local jurisdiction (Caltrans 1998). Since this development is still in the planning stages, an assessment of future impacts cannot reliably be
conducted. However, given the fact that the site is intended to be a regional shopping mall, noise impacts would not be anticipated. Potential noise impacts from the freeway, including
the improvements associated with the proposed project, will be evaluated by the City of Murrieta as part of the site plan review process. Sensitive Properties in the Project Study Area
A. West Side, North Project Limit to French Valley Parkway (Receivers 1a–5a) The sensitive properties in this part of the study area include 15 single-family homes, a church, an educational
facility, and several commercial properties with outdoor sales areas.
There are currently no barriers (other than the existing topography and buildings) that block the line-of-sight from the freeway to these properties. B. West Side, French Valley Parkway
to Winchester Road (Receiver 6) In this section of the study area, the only sensitive receiver is a hotel, which has outdoor usable space. There are currently no barriers (other than
the existing topography and buildings) that block the line-of-sight from the freeway to the hotel. C. West Side, South of Winchester Road (Receivers 7–8) The sensitive receivers in this
area include two hotels (one of which has exterior usable area), fast food restaurants with outdoor dining areas, and several commercial properties with outdoor sales areas. There are
no existing barriers (other than intermittent buildings) to block the line-of-sight between these properties and the freeway. D. East Side, North Project Limits to French Valley Parkway
(Receivers 9–12a) The sensitive receivers considered in this area include a single-family residential community, two single-family detached homes, and a mobile home park. The single-family
residential community is currently shielded from freeway noise by an existing sound wall that surrounds the community. There are no barriers, other than some topography, that block line
of sight from the remaining sensitive receivers to the freeway.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 171 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study E. East Side, South of Winchester Road (Receiver 13) The sensitive receivers in this area are
commercial properties with outdoor sales areas. There are no existing barriers (other than intermittent buildings) to block the line-of-sight between these properties and the freeway.
Environmental Consequences Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement The calibrated FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM Version 2.5) was used to calculate future traffic
noise levels, and Table 2.35 provides the predicted traffic noise levels at each receiver location. A design year of 2030 was used for analysis. On July 12, 2007, a meeting was held
with the FHWA, the Department, and the City of Temecula. It was agreed that a 2012 opening date and a 2030 design year would be acceptable. A traffic sensitivity analysis was conducted
and verified that there would not be substantial differences in traffic between use of a 2010 and a 2012 2012 opening date. A design exception was granted allowing the use of the 2030
design year. The following sections summarize the analysis of future traffic noise levels. A. West Side, North Project Limit to French Valley Parkway (Receivers 1a–5a) As indicated in
Table 2.35, the future peak-hour traffic noise levels for Receivers 1a through 5a are expected to be between 51 dBA and 80 dBA without additional abatement. The level at Receiver 2 is
below the FHWA criterion of 67 dBA for Category B land uses, while at Receivers 1a, 3 and 4, the levels exceed the FHWA criterion of 67 dBA for Category B12 land uses. At Receiver 1b,
the level approaches the FHWA criterion of 67 dBA for Category B land uses. The future peak-hour noise level is expected to exceed the FHWA criterion of 72 dBA for Category C land uses
at Receiver 5. At Receiver 5a, the future peak-hour noise level approaches the FHWA criterion of 52 dBA for Category E land uses. B. West Side, French Valley Parkway to Winchester Road
(Receiver 6) Table 2.35 indicates that the future peak-hour noise level for Receiver 6 will be 68 dBA. This level exceeds the FHWA criterion of 67 dBA for Category B land uses. C. West
Side, South of Winchester Road (Receivers 7–8) As indicated in Table 2.35, the future peak hour noise levels are expected to range from 47 to 78 dBA for Receivers 7 and 8. These levels
are below the FHWA criterion of 72 dBA for Category C land uses at Receiver 7a, but approach or exceed the criteria at Receivers 7b and 8. Finally, the future peak hour noise level is
expected to be below the FHWA criterion of 52 dBA for Category E land uses at Receiver 7. 12 See Table 2.32 for a definition of the land use categories.
172 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.35 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Rec. Location or Address Development Predates 1978
or Project is New Hwy. Construction Existing Noise Level, Leq(h), dBA Build Noise Level, Leq(h), dBA Noise Increase (+) or Decrease (-) Noise Abatement Category and Criterion Impact
Typea 1 Adjacent to church, used for calibration of Receivers 1a and 1b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1a Church, 41051 Guava St Yes 67 72 +5 B (67) A/E 1b 25631 Addison Ln Yes 61 66 +5 B (67)
A/E 2 26055 Monroe Ave Yes 57 62 +5 B (67) None 3 Hilltop home on east side of Monroe Ave Yes 75 80 +5 B (67) A/E 4 41035 Elm St Yes 72 76 +4 B (67) A/E 5 Volkswagen Dealership, 41300
Auto Mall Dr Yes 69 78 +9 C (72) A/E 5ab “Broadway High” Children’s Academy Yes 47 51 +4 E (52) A/E 6 Comfort Inn, 27338 Jefferson Ave Yes 67 68 +1 B (67) A/E 7c Extended Stay America,
27622 Jefferson Ave Yes 45 47 +2 E (52) None 7a Kia Dealership, 27500 Jefferson Ave Yes 62 65 +3 C (72) None 7b Richardson’s RV Center, 27590 Jefferson Ave Yes 69 72 +3 C (72) A/E 8
Wendy’s, 27672 Jefferson Ave Yes 75 78 +3 C (72) A/E 9 40720 La Salle Pl Yes 61 64 +3 B (67) None 10 26101 Jackson Ave, used for calibration of Receiver 10a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10a
26101 Jackson Ave Yes 74 78 +4 B (67) A/E 11 Home north of Sugarberry Ln Yes 70 75 +5 B (67) A/E 12 1 Murrieta Palms Yes 76 80 +4 B (67) A/E 12a 17 Murrieta Palms Yes 72 73 +1 B (67)
A/E 13 Toyota dealership, 26631 Ynez Rd Yes 59 61 +2 C (72) None a A/E = Approach of Exceed Noise Abatement Criteria. b Assumes 20 dB of reduction from exterior to interior. c Includes
the measured exterior to interior transmission loss of 34.1 dB. Source: Wieland Associates 2006. D. East Side, North Project Limits to French Valley Parkway (Receivers 9-12a) Table 2.35
indicates that the future peak-hour noise levels for Receivers 9 through 12a will be between 64 and 80 dBA. The level at Receiver 9 is below the FHWA criterion of 67 dBA for Category
B land uses, while the levels at Receivers 10a through 12a exceed the criterion. E. East Side, South of Winchester Road (Receiver 13) As indicated in Table 2.35, the future peak-hour
noise levels are estimated to be less than the FHWA criterion of 72 dBA for Category C land uses.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 173 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Based on the data contained in Table 2.35, the future noise levels associated with the proposed
project would approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA for Category B land uses at Receivers 1a, 1b, 3, 4, 6, and 10a–12a. The FHWA noise abatement criterion of
72 dBA for Category C land uses would be approached or exceeded at Receivers 5, 7b, and 8. The FHWA noise abatement criterion of 52 dBA for Category E land uses would be approached at
Receiver 5a. Construction-Related Noise Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term increase over current ambient noise levels. Receivers that would be affected by traffic noise
would be affected by construction noise as well. Typical construction equipment expected to be utilized during the construction of the project and their related noise levels are shown
in Table 2.36. Table 2.36 Typical Construction Equipment Noise With and Without Mitigation Equipment Mitigation Unmitigated Noise Level, dBA Mitigated Noise Level, dBA Distance (ft)
Pile Driver Sound barrier and muffler on exhaust 103 95 25 Pavement Breaker Muffler 105 100 3 Diesel Driven Electric Welder Mufflers and enclosure 93 76 23 Diesel Driven Air Compressor
Muffler 105 85 3 Air Tracked Drill Acoustical enclosure 104 83 23 Chain Saw Gasoline Electric None None 113 86 113 86 3 3 Sinker Drill Acoustical enclosure 95 78 3 Earth Movers Front
Loader Backhoe Dozer Grader Truck Paver Muffler Muffler Muffler Muffler Muffler Muffler 79 85 80 91 91 89 75 57 57 57 57 80 50 50 50 50 50 50 Material Handlers Concrete Mixer Crane Muffler
Muffler 85 83 75 75 50 50 Jack Hammer Muffler or acoustical enclosure 88 75 50 Source: Urban Mass Transportation Administration 1974; USEPA 1971. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Abatement
Measures Where traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement must be considered. The analysis for the Initial Study-Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment
results in preliminary recommendations for noise abatement. Final decisions on noise abatement are made following the final design and public involvement process.
174 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Tables 2.37 and 2.38, and Figures 2-15a–2-15g show the proposed sound wall heights, locations,
and anticipated noise reduction at receiver locations that would experience future noise levels that approach or exceed the federal and state NAC. The recommended barriers, which have
been incorporated as project design features, represent the height required to reduce noise levels to lower than the NAC where possible, with a minimum attenuation of 5 dBA at each front-row
noise-sensitive receiver. Pursuant to the Department’s requirements, all recommended sound walls must be “feasible” and “reasonable.” “Feasibility” is an engineering consideration that
states that the recommended sound walls must achieve a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA at the impacted receivers. Table 2-37 summarizes the analyses for feasibility. “Reasonableness,”
on the other hand, is a more subjective consideration. Using procedures in the Noise Protocol for a preliminary reasonableness determination, a sound wall would be considered reasonable
if it costs less than the reasonable allowance per “benefited residence.”13 Noise abatement was also considered for the commercial properties in the study area that have noise-sensitive
activities. At these locations, a sound wall would be considered reasonable for this project if it costs less than the reasonable allowance per 100 feet of frontage area. Table 2-38
summarizes the preliminary reasonableness analyses; in each analysis, the wall cost is calculated based on the wall area and a preliminary estimate of wall construction cost. The reasonable
allowance is developed from factors including but not limited to the absolute noise level, the noise reduction, and the date the receptor was constructed. Eight new sound walls were
considered. For each sound wall considered, an analysis was conducted using the Department’s procedures. The preliminary determination is that Sound Wall 3 (SW-3) and Sound Wall 5 (SW-5),
as described below, should be constructed. The remaining sound walls were found not to be reasonable. • SW-3 is located at the edge of the shoulder adjacent to the impacted receivers
south of the Winchester Road southbound on-ramp (Receivers 7b and 8). Based on the studies completed thus far, the Department intends to incorporate noise-abatement measures in the form
of a barrier at this location. The barrier will be designed with an average length of 681 m (2,234 ft) and an average height of 3 m (10 ft). Calculations based on preliminary design
data indicate that the barrier will reduce noise levels by between 6 dBA and 10 dBA for 11 receptors at an estimated cost of $456,871. This cost is considered reasonable since it is
less than the reasonable allowance maximum of $528,000. If, during final design, the project has substantially changed, noise barriers might not be provided. The final decision on the
noise barriers will be made after completion of the public involvement process during the final project design process. 13 A “benefited residence” is defined as a dwelling unit that
is expected to receive a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA from the sound wall.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 175 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.37 Predicted Noise Levels, Leq(h), and Insertion Loss (I.L., Noise Reduction), dBA
for Sound Walls Rec. Without Wall With Wall H = 1.8m (6') With Wall H = 2.4 m (8') With Wall H = 3.0 m (10') With Wall H = 3.7 m (12') With Wall H = 4.3 m (14') With Wall H = 4.9 m (16')
Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Notes 1 N/A Used for calibration of Receivers 1a and 1b. No barrier has been considered. 1a 72 68* 4 67 5 66 6
65 7 64 8 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 1b 66 63* 3 62 4 61 5 60 6 59 7 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 2 62 Does not approach or exceed exterior
NAC of 67 dBA. No barrier has been considered. 3 80 80 0 79 1 79 1 78 2 78 2 N/A Wall @ROW is not feasible. 3 80 70* 10 66 14 64 16 63 17 62 18 61 19 1.8 m (6') wall @TOS is feasible
but not reasonable. 4 76 74 2 73 3 71 5 70* 6 69 7 N/A 3.7 m (12') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 5 78 71 7 69 9 68* 10 67 11 66 12 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible but not reasonable.
5aa 51 45 6 44 7 41* 10 40 11 39 12 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 6 68 65 3 64 4 63* 5 63 5 63 5 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 7b 47 Does
not approach or exceed interior NAC of 52 dBA. Sound wall not required, but 3.0 m (10') wall will benefit the receiver. 7a 65 Does not approach or exceed exterior NAC of 72 dBA. No barrier
has been considered. 7b 72 68 4 67 5 66* 6 64 8 64 8 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible and reasonable. 8 78 71 7 69 9 68* 10 67 11 66 12 N/A 3.0 m (10') wall is feasible and reasonable.
9 64 Does not approach or exceed exterior NAC of 67 dBA. No barrier has been considered. 10 N/A Used for calibration of Receiver 10a. No barrier has been considered. 10a 78 75 3 73 5
71 7 70 8 69* 9 68 10 4.3 m (14') wall is feasible but not reasonable.
Table 2.37 Predicted Noise Levels, Leq(h), and Insertion Loss (I.L., Noise Reduction), dBA for Sound Walls (Continued) 176 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental
Assessment/Initial Study Rec. Without Wall With Wall H = 1.8m (6') With Wall H = 2.4 m (8') With Wall H = 3.0 m (10') With Wall H = 3.7 m (12') With Wall H = 4.3 m (14') With Wall H
= 4.9 m (16') Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L. Notes 11 75 70 5 68 7 68 7 67 8 66* 9 66 9 4.3 m (14') wall is feasible but not reasonable. 12 80
71 9 69* 11 68 12 67 13 67 13 N/A 4.3 m (14') wall is feasible and reasonable. 12a 73 68* 5 67 6 67 6 66 7 66 7 N/A 4.3 m (14') wall is feasible and reasonable. 13 61 Does not approach
or exceed exterior NAC of 72 dBA. No barrier has been considered. I.L. – Insertion Loss; ROW – right-of-way; NAC – Noise-abatement criteria; TOS – toe of slope * Breaks line of sight
between 3.5 m (11.5') high truck exhaust stack and 1.5 m (5') high receiver in the first row of residences. a Assumes 20 dB of reduction from exterior to interior. b Includes the measured
exterior to interior transmission loss of 34.1 dB.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 177 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.38 Determination of Reasonableness of Recommended Sound Walls Noise Barrier ID Location
Recommended Wall Height Approximate Length of Recommended Sound Wall Approximate Cost of Masonry Sound Wall at Recommended Height Approximate Cost of Recommended Sound Wall Reasonable
Allowance per Noise Barrier Recommended Sound Wall is Reasonable (Yes or No) SW-1a STA 141+45 to STA 148+24 3.0 m (10') 676 m (2,218') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $453,757 $220,000 NO
SW-1(TOS) At top of slope adjacent to residence 1.83 m (6') 142 m (466') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $57,389 $48,000 NO SW-1b STA 127+00 to STA 132+00 3.7 m (12') 503 m (1,650') $220
per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $404,990 $230,000 NO SW-1c STA 116+49 to STA 129+00 3.0 m (10') 1,273 m (4,177') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $854,285 $500,000 NO SW-2 STA 107+04 to STA 111+00
3.0 m (10') 426 m (1,398') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $285,700 $38,000 NO SW-3 STA 95+95 to STA 102+78 3.0 m (10') 681 m (2,234') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $456,871 $528,000 YES SW-4
STA 128+37 to STA 142+37 4.3 m (14') 798 m (2,618') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf) $749,314 $96,000 NO SW-5 STA 125+00 to STA 128+00 4.3 m (14') 300 m (984') $220 per m2 ($20.44 per sf)
$281,930 $832,000 YES m2 s – square meter; sf – square foot; TOS – toe of slope
178 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • SW-5 is located at the edge of the shoulder adjacent to the mobile home park on the east
side of the I-15 (Receivers 12 and 12a). Based on the studies completed thus far, the Department intends to incorporate noise-abatement measures in the form of a barrier at this location.
The barrier will be designed with an average length of 300 m (984 ft) and an average height of 4.3 m (14 ft). Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barrier
will reduce noise levels by between 7 dBA and 13 dBA for 16 receptors at an estimated cost of $281,930. This cost is considered reasonable since it is less than the reasonable allowance
maximum of $688,000. If, during final design, the project has substantially changed, noise barriers might not be provided. The final decision on the noise barriers will be made after
completion of the public involvement process during the final project design process. As illustrated in Tables 2.37 and 2.38, none of the other sound walls for which an analysis was
prepared met the Department’s “feasible” and “reasonable” test. Detailed information regarding the sound wall analysis is presented in its entirety in the Noise Technical Report. The
following minimization measure has been incorporated into the Project design: N-1 The locations and heights of the sound walls will be verified to demonstrate reasonableness and feasibleness
prior to conclusion of final design. The findings and final recommendations will also be documented in the Noise Abatement Decision Report. In addition, the feasibility of early construction
of the sound walls will be evaluated as a method of minimizing the impact of construction noise on adjacent land uses. Abatement Measures for Construction-Related Noise The following
abatement measure is recommended to minimize temporary noise levels associated with construction activities. This measure reflects the standard provisions that would apply to construction
projects with adjacent sensitive land uses: N-2 The contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances, which apply to any work performed
pursuant to the contract. Each internal combustion engine, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer.
No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without the muffler. The control of noise from construction activities shall conform to Section 5-1, “Sound Control Requirements,”
in the Department’s Standard Special Provisions. Sound control shall conform to the provisions in Section 7-1.011, “Sound Control Requirement,” of the Standard Specifications and these
special provisions: The noise level from the Contractor’s operations, between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 15 meters (50 feet). This requirement
shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise level.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 179 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The noise level requirement shall apply to the equipment on the job or related to the job,
including but not limited to trucks, transit mixers or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the Contractor. The use of loud sound signals shall be avoided in favor of
light warnings except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Natural Communities This section of the document discusses natural communities
of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation.
Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening
its biological value. Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed below in the Threatened and Endangered
Species section. Wetlands and other waters are also discussed below in a separate section. Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (April 2009) was prepared. The study area
includes the project site plus the habitat in any adjacent open space within 152 m (500 ft) of the roadways. Native vegetation types in the study area include California buckwheat scrub,
California buckwheat scrub-non-native grassland, California buckwheat scrub-ornamental, wildflower field, cattail wetland, 14Fremont cottonwood riparian forest, southern willow scrub,
mule fat scrub, and wash. Non-native vegetation types in the study area include non-native grassland, mowed non-native grassland, tilled non-native grassland, ruderal, and ornamental.
Other areas in the study area are developed, disturbed, and graded. Effects on these vegetation types are discussed below, with exception of riparian vegetation types, which are discussed
in the “Wetlands and Other Waters” section below. The amount of each vegetation type located within the study area is shown in Figure 2-16 and is summarized in Table 2.39. 14 This is
the name of a vegetation type and does not represent the limits of federal or state jurisdictional waters. The cattail wetland vegetation type does not meet the requirements for consideration
of Waters of the U.S. because it did not possess: (1) an ordinary high water mark; (2) bed, bank or stream; (3) was not connected to any hydrologic feature such as a stream course; and
(4) had no significant nexus to a traditional navigable waterway. In addition, this area does not possess bed, channel or bank of a lake or pond. Therefore, this area does meet the requirements
of Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
180 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative)
The project effects, both permanent and temporary, on each vegetation type are discussed below and are summarized in Tables 2.39 and 2.40. As indicated above, the proposed project is
within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), specifically within the Southwest Area Plan. Biological resources to be preserved under the plan are
mapped within “Cells”; the description of each Cell specifically lists resources to be preserved. The study area includes Subunit 1 Murrieta Creek (Cells 6782, 6783, and 6891) and Subunit
5 French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills (Cells 6299, 6407, 6409, and 6525). These cells have been identified for preservation because they may provide habitat for Covered Species, Narrow Endemic
species, and wildlife linkages. In addition, the study area contains Riparian/Riverine habitat, identified for preservation under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and potential habitat for
the Los Angeles pocket mouse and burrowing owl, identified for preservation under Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Focused surveys of the project site concluded that the study area is occupied
by the least Bell’s vireo and Los Angeles pocket mouse. The proposed project would impact habitat for these species, and as such, must provide mitigation that is considered “biologically
equivalent or superior” to the habitat that is being impacted by the proposed project. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report will be prepared
by the Department in coordination with Temecula and will be submitted to the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS and CDFG) for review and approval. The resource agencies will review the mitigation
described in the DBESP in order to make a finding that the proposed mitigation is biologically equivalent or superior to the habitat that is being impacted. The DBESP findings will also
include compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Coastal Sage Scrub: The proposed project would affect a total of 7.52 hectares (18.62 acres) of coastal sage
scrub vegetation (California buckwheat scrub and California buckwheat scrub-non-native grassland). This would primarily be within the temporary impact area that would be used for construction
staging. Coastal sage scrub is generally considered high quality because it provides habitat for many native plant and wildlife species. Effects on coastal sage scrub are addressed through
participation in the Western Riverside MSHCP by the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. However, because the proposed project would affect areas within Cells designated by the MSHCP, the
project will be reviewed by the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) as listed below in standard provision B-1. In addition, per the MSHCP, Construction Minimization Measures must be
followed as described in B-2. Individual Native Trees: One Fremont cottonwood tree (Populus fremontii) located along Jackson Avenue and one coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) located
along the I-15 are located within the temporary impact area. However, Project Engineers currently state that these trees would be avoided (Hale, pers. comm. 2005). Assuming these trees
are avoided, there would be no effect on this resource. However, if it is not possible to avoid these trees during construction activities or if the Biological Monitor determines that
construction activities have an effect on these trees, the effect on the oak tree would be considered a substantial effect.
Vegetation Types French Valley Interchange Figure 2-16 R:/Projects/Moffat/J024/Graphics/IS-ESA/Ex2-16_veg_040209.pdf 0.25 0.125 0 0.25Miles ² D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Ex_BR_091808.mxd
! Oak Tree # Cottonwood Tree Biological Study Area Vegetation California Buckwheat Scrub California Buckwheat Scrub -Non-native Grassland Ecotone California Buckwheat Scrub -Ornamental
Non-native Grassland Mowed Non-native Grassland Tilled Non-native Grassland Wildflower Field Ruderal Cattail Wetland* Fremont Cottonwood Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat
Scrub Wash Ornamental Developed Disturbed Graded Source: Aerials Express April 2006 *Note: This is a vegetation type and does not represent the limits of federal or State jurisdictional
waters.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 181 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.39 Vegetation Types Within the Project Area Vegetation Type Existing Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact Basin Impact* Total Impact (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) California Buckwheat Scrub 10.35 25.58 0.91 2.26 0.54 1.34 0.00 0.01 1.45 3.61 California
Buckwheat Scrub-Non-native Grassland 9.97 24.63 1.38 3.42 4.69 11.59 0.00 0.00 6.07 15.01 California Buckwheat Scrub-Ornamental 1.28 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-native
Grassland 33.01 81.57 3.01 7.45 2.13 5.26 0.50 1.23 5.64 13.94 Mowed Non-native Grassland 5.80 14.34 0.57 1.41 0.13 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.74 Tilled Non-native Grassland 0.41 1.01 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wildflower Field 11.40 28.16 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.38 Cattail Wetland 0.12 0.30 0.12 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.30 Fremont Cottonwood
Riparian Forest 1.06 2.62 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.36 Southern Willow Scrub 0.52 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mule Fat Scrub 0.45 1.11 0.11 0.28 0.04 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.15 0.39 Wash 1.90 4.69 0.22 0.55 0.25 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.17 Ruderal 23.93 59.13 0.93 2.31 0.34 0.84 0.00 0.00 1.27 3.15 Ornamental 17.02 42.05 7.49 18.52 3.41 8.43 0.01
0.00 10.91 26.95 Developed 164.47 406.42 39.76 98.25 5.80 14.32 0.00 0.00 45.56 112.57 Disturbed 9.60 23.73 1.63 4.02 0.23 0.57 0.00 0.00 1.86 4.59 Graded 52.45 129.61 4.98 12.30 1.08
2.67 0.31 0.77 6.37 15.74 Total 80.87 199.90 * These columns present impacts for all potential detention basins that may be constructed as part of the proposed project. Detail for each
basin is provided in Table 2.40 below.
182 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.40 Vegetation Types Within the Detention Basins* Vegetation Type Permanent Impact Basin
1 Permanent Impact Basin 2 Permanent Impact Basin 3** Permanent Impact Basin 4** (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) California Buckwheat Scrub 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Non-native
Grassland 0.50 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ornamental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.26 Graded 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.36 0.24 0.60 0.00 0.00 Total 0.50 1.24 0.15 0.36 0.24 0.61
0.11 0.26 * This table presents impacts for all potential detention basins. The actual basins implemented will include one or a combination of the basins presented in this table. **
This table presents the impact of the basins individually; however, some of these basins overlap with the temporary impact area for the widening/interchange (i.e., Basins 3 and 4). Therefore,
the total impact from all four basins in Table 2.39 does not directly correspond to the total impact of these four basins due to the adjustment for the overlap. Basin 3 would impact
0.08 hectare (0.20 acre) of graded areas within the temporary impact area. Basin 4 would impact 0.11 hectare (0.26 acre) of ornamental within the temporary impact areas.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 183 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Grassland and Ruderal: The proposed project would affect 7.76 hectares (19.21 acres) of non-native
grassland and ruderal vegetation types (non-native grassland, mowed non-native grassland, tilled non-native grassland, wildflower field, and ruderal). These areas are generally considered
lower in biological value than native vegetation types because they provide limited habitat for native wildlife species. However, many special status plant species may occur in non-native
grasslands, and grasslands provide foraging opportunities for native species, especially raptors. The proposed project impact would be considered adverse but less than substantial on
grassland and ruderal vegetation types. No mitigation would be required for impacts on these vegetation types. Ornamental, Developed, Disturbed, and Graded: The proposed project would
affect a total of 64.70 hectares (159.85 acres) of ornamental, developed, disturbed, and graded areas. Within the impact boundary or temporary buffer area, most developed areas within
the impact area would not be disturbed by the Proposed project. No permanent structures would be removed by the proposed project. Ornamental, disturbed, and developed areas are generally
low in biological value because they are composed of unvegetated areas or are vegetated with non-native species. These areas generally provide limited habitat for native plant and wildlife
species, although they may occasionally be used by native species. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than substantial effect on ornamental, developed, disturbed, and
graded areas. No mitigation would be required for impacts on these vegetation types. Wildlife Movement and Habitat Fragmentation: The study area is located primarily within the development
of the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Wildlife movement in this area is primarily limited to the creeks of the study area. Warm Springs Creek is expected to support wildlife movement
and provides a wildlife crossing under the I-15. However, Warm Springs Creek does not currently provide a direct, aboveground connection to Murrieta Creek to the west. East of the I-15,
Warm Springs Creek continues as a natural creek to open space areas to the east. Warm Springs Creek is part of lands proposed for wildlife movement reserve areas under the MSHCP. It
is designated as Proposed Constrained Linkage 15, which is defined as “a constricted connection expected to provide for movement of identified Planning Species between Core Areas, where
options for assembly of the connection are limited due to existing patterns of use” (Dudek 2003). Santa Gertrudis Creek is a concrete-walled, soft-bottom channel with a six-foot-tall
chain-link fence adjacent to both banks. It is expected to support only limited wildlife movement of urban-adapted wildlife (e.g., coyote [Canis latrans], opossum [Didelphis marsupialus],
skunk [Mephitis sp.], and raccoon [Procyon lotor]) or vagile organisms (e.g., birds). Although Although it supports riparian herb and cattail vegetation for a portion of the year, it
appears to be periodically cleared of vegetation so this cover is not present year-round. Therefore, Santa Gertrudis Creek is expected to provide only limited wildlife movement. The
northern portion of the study area is composed of some open space habitats, including coastal sage scrub and grassland vegetation types. Small-to medium-sized culverts (estimated at
three to six ft in diameter) are located along the I-15 in this area. These culverts may be used by some wildlife to cross between the eastern and western sides of the I-15/I-215. Wildlife
may use the open-space habitat in this area for foraging, but this habitat is not expected to be used for concentrated
184 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study movement because of the lack of topography to concentrate movement and because of the barrier
of the I-15/I-215. In addition, a large amount of grading and construction is currently occurring east of the I-15/I-215. Impacts on riparian vegetation types have been minimized to
the extent practicable, including placement of structures over Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. However, the proposed project would affect a limited amount of habitat along Lower
Warm Springs Creek immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 where the bridge would be widened by 15 m (50 ft). Following project construction, the impact of the I-15 on the creek would
be expected to be similar to its existing condition. Therefore, there the impact on wildlife movement is considered to be a less than substantial effect. The California Department of
Transportation’s (Department) participation in the acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands would mitigate for the species covered by the MSHCP. However, because the proposed project
would affect areas within Cells designated by the MSHCP, the project would require review by the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent
or Superior Preservation (DBESP) process. A DBESP will be provided to the agencies for review and comment to facilitate discussion of appropriate mitigation. Noise Impacts: Noise from
construction activities may indirectly affect breeding or foraging activities of birds and other wildlife. Noise levels in the study are already very high due to the high level of existing
and freeway traffic and construction traffic, primarily in the northeastern portion of the study area. During construction of the proposed project, noise levels may incrementally increase;
however, this increase is not expected to be substantial. Temporary increases in noise levels are unlikely to affect wildlife because resident animals are already acclimated to the high
noise levels associated with traffic along the I-15 and adjacent construction. In addition, only a limited portion of the effects would occur within the most sensitive area, Warm Springs
Creek, which provides for limited wildlife movement. Also, noise effects on the creek resulting from construction would be relatively short-term (a few months), and are expected to occur
primarily during daytime hours rather than at night when most wildlife movement occurs. Currently, the only nighttime work planned within the creek would be construction of the falsework,
which would only take a few nights. The project is not expected to result in displacement due to increased disturbance. Therefore, project-related noise effects would be considered less
than substantial and no mitigation would be required. Following project implementation, noise levels would presumably increase over present levels as the traffic increases. However,
noise levels are already high in the study area. The project is not expected to result in displacement due to increased disturbance. Therefore, the chronic (i.e., permanent) noise increase
would be considered a less than substantial effect and no mitigation would be required. Night Lighting: Night lighting is not expected to be appreciably different after the proposed
project is completed. Resident animals are already acclimated to current lighting associated with the freeway. The proposed project lighting is not expected to increase predation or
result in loss of habitat since there would be no substantial change in night lighting. Therefore, project-related night lighting would have a less than substantial effect on wildlife
species and no mitigation would be required.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 185 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study A portion of the construction may occur at night and may require night lighting. Spillover
of light into Warm Springs Creek would have an adverse effect on nocturnal species (such as bats and other small mammals), and could affect wildlife movement along the creek. The standard
design requirement to shield lighting along wildlife movement areas would adequately protect these resources. Human Activity: Widening the freeway where there is already a high amount
of traffic would not substantially change the nature of the study area. The area where there would be the largest change—at the proposed interchange—is the southern portion of the study
area, which is almost entirely developed. The higher quality biological resources are within the northern portion of the study area and along Warm Springs Creek, where there would be
an incremental increase in the traffic confined to where this land use already exists. Although any any new development in the study area would be expected to incrementally increase
human activity in it, this increase is not expected to be substantial due to the reasons mentioned above. Raptor Nesting: Impacts on an active raptor nest not authorized/covered by the
MSHCP would be considered a violation of the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. The proposed project has the potential to affect nesting raptors, including
the Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and long-eared owl, should they occur within 152 m (500 ft) of the proposed project’s impact area. Standard requirements, including
surveying for raptor nests prior to the initiation of construction and implementation of measures to protect active nests, would provide adequate protection for raptors. No Action Alternative
There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following minimization measures are reflective of permit
requirements and compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP, of which the California Department of Transportation (Department) is a signatory agency: B-1 During project planning,
the City of Temecula, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation will submit project information to the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) for review as required
for projects located within a Criteria Area. This process involves submittal of biological information for the proposed project (i.e., information contained within this NES) for review
so that the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) can confirm that the project is consistent with the MSHCP guidelines. B-2 The proposed project design will be consistent with the Guidelines
for Siting and Design of Planned Roads Within Criteria Area and Public/QuasI-Public Lands (Section 7.5.1 of MSHCP). To be consistent with these guidelines, the proposed project must
follow the construction minimization measure provided in Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP. During construction, all applicable construction minimization measures will be followed.
186 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study B-3 During project construction, protective fencing will be installed by the construction crew
around native trees within the temporary impact area. The fencing will either consist of silt fencing, orange snow fencing, or a 1.8-meter (6-foot) chainlink fence. The fencing will
be placed 4.6 meters (15 feet) outside of the dripline of the tree to ensure that the roots will not be impacted. A qualified biological monitor or an arborist will be present during
the installation of the protective fencing to ensure that it is properly placed. The fencing will be installed within 30 meters (100 feet) of the native tree prior to commencement of
construction. If it is not possible to avoid individual oak trees during construction activities, or if the Biological Monitor determines that construction activities have an effect
on these trees, the oak tree should be replaced and incorporated into the landscape plan. B-4 During construction, night lighting will be directed away from the habitat along Warm Springs
Creek to the extent practicable. Shielding will be incorporated in project designs to ensure that ambient lighting along Warm Springs Creek is limited to within 15 meters (50 feet) of
the temporary impact area. B-5 If construction commences during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a pre-construction nesting raptor survey will be required. At least
seven days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified Biologist will survey within and adjacent to the limits of project disturbance for the presence of any active raptor
nests (common or special status species not authorized/covered by the MSHCP). Any nest found during survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found,
no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys will be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active site will be protected
until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions on construction are
required between February 1 and June 30 (or until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist): (1) clearing limits will be established at a minimum of 91 meters
(300 feet) in any direction from any occupied nest; and (2) access and surveying will be restricted within 61 meters (200 feet) of any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the 91/61-meter
(300-/200-foot) buffer area around the known nest will only be allowed if it is determined by a qualified biologist that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction
during the non-nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. Wetlands and Other Waters Regulatory Setting Wetlands
and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is the primary law regulating wetlands and waters. The
Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Waters of the United
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 187 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study States include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas and other waters that
may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the presence of hydrophytic
(water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils subject to saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances, for an area
to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a regulatory program that provides that no discharge of dredged
or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be substantially degraded. The
Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with oversight by the US EPA. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates
the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this Executive Order states that a federal agency, such as the FHWA, cannot undertake or provide assistance for
new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: (1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and (2) the proposed project includes all practicable
measures to minimize harm. At the State level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the CDFG and the RWQCB. In certain circumstances, the Coastal Commission (or Bay Conservation
and Development Commission) may also be involved. Sections 1600–1607 of the Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the
natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFG before beginning construction. If CDFG determines that the project may substantially
and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFG jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or
lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration
Agreement obtained from the CDFG. The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. The RWQCB also issues water quality certifications
in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Please see the Water Quality section for additional details. Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (April 2009) was
prepared. The study area includes riparian vegetation and areas under the jurisdiction of federal and state regulatory agencies. Riparian vegetation is generally considered high quality
because it provides habitat for many native plant and wildlife species. Tables 2.41 and 2.42 show the amount of USACE and CDFG jurisdictional waters within the project study area and
the amount that would be affected by the proposed project.
188 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.41 USACE Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Drainage Temporary Impacts Hectares/(Acres)
Permanent Impacts Hectares/(Acres) Existing Area Hectares/(Acres) Santa Gertrudis Creeka 0.54 (1.33) 0.01 (0.02) 1.45 (3.59) Warms Springs Creeka 0.264 (0.64) 0.07 (0.17) 1.95 (4.82)
Other Minor Drainagesa 0.00c (0.00) 0.00c (0.00) 0.49 (1.2) Total 0.80 (1.97) 0.08 (0.19) 3.89 (9.61) a Acreage calculations are based on detailed construction plans in Appendix C of
the Jurisdictional Delineation. b Permanent structural impacts for Santa Gertrudis and Warm Springs creeks are associated with construction of the bridge abutments and columns; these
values were obtained from Moffatt & Nichol (2008). c Temporary and permanent impacts to Other Minor Drainages is less than 0.01 acre (0.004 hectare). Table 2.42 CDFG Jurisdictional Waters
Drainage Linear Meters/(Feet) CDFG Width Meters/(Feet) Total Impact In sq meters/(sq feet) Temporary Impacts In Hectares/(Acres) Permanent Impact Structural In Hectares/(Acres) Permanent
Impact Shade In Hectares/(Acres) Existing Area Hectares (Acres) Santa Gertrudis Creeka 30/(100) 60/(200) 4,524/(14,844) 0.13/(0.31) 0.14/(0.35) 0.39/(0.96) 4.928 1.994 Warm Springs Creeka
30/(100) Varies from 32 to 60 /(105 to 300) 5,362/(17,592) 0.09/(0.22) 0.07/(0.18) 0.18/(0.44) 6.400 2.590 Other Minor Drainagesa 30/(100) Varies from 3 to 50 /(1 to 15) 5,064/(16,615)
0.00/(0.00) 0.00/(0.00) 0.00/(0.00) 2.306 0.933 Total 90/(300) Varies 14,950/(49,051) 0.22/(0.53) 0.21/(0.53) 2.208 13.634 5.517 a Acreage calculations are based on detailed construction
plans in Appendix C of the Jurisdictional Delineation. b Permanent structural impacts for Santa Gertrudis and Warm Springs creeks are associated with construction of the bridge abutments
and columns; these values were obtained from Moffatt & Nichol (2008). c Temporary and permanent impacts to Other Minor Drainages is less than 0.01 acre (0.004 hectare). Environmental
Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Riparian Vegetation Impacts on riparian vegetation types have been minimized to the extent practicable,
including placement of structures over Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. The proposed project would affect a total of 0.89 hectare (2.22 acres) of riparian vegetation (cattail
wetland15, Fremont cottonwood riparian forest, mule fat scrub, and 15 This is the name of a vegetation type and does not represent the limits of federal or state jurisdictional waters.
The cattail wetland vegetation type does not meet the requirements for consideration of Waters of the U.S. because it did not possess: (1) an ordinary high water mark;
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 189 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study wash). Of this, 0.31 hectare (0.78 acre) occurs along Warm Springs Creek and is occupied by
the least Bell’s vireo. A DBESP will be prepared by the City of Temecula and Caltrans for review by the wildlife agencies to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with Section
6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Participation in the Western Riverside MSHCP requires that impacts on riparian vegetation be minimized to the extent practicable. Because the riparian vegetation
types cannot be completely avoided, the proposed project would be reviewed by the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG). In accordance with the MSHCP, the proposed project will be consistent
with the Land Use Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Jurisdictional Areas A formal alternatives analysis has not been conducted for
this project. As discussed in the Summary, the proposed project (Locally Preferred Alternative) is is the only alternative that could adequately meet operational requirements. This decision
was made through the Value Analysis and the Accelerated Technology Transfer workshop. In addition, the CDFG, the RWQCB, and the USACE have reviewed the project in the field and have
not objected to moving forward with only one build alternative for full evaluation. A description of the alternatives that were considered and eliminated can be found in the Project
Description section of this environmental document. The proposed project minimizes impacts on riparian areas because the roads and bridges are only being widened to meet the California
Department of Transportation’s minimum design standards. This includes ancillary structures (e.g., drop structures and energy dissipaters), which will only be included if they are deemed
necessary to meet the California Department of Transportation’s minimum design standards. Currently, jurisdictional areas function as wildlife habitat or for wildlife movement. Wildlife
movement for individual riparian areas was discussed above in the previous section (Natural Communities). Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the function and value
of the riparian areas because it would only incrementally increase the existing bridge structure. The proposed project would not substantially affect the function and value of the riparian
habitat. The USACE has jurisdictional control over a total of 0.88 hectare (2.16 acres total; 0.08 hectare [0.19 acre] of permanent and 0.80 hectare [1.97 acres] temporary), which would
be affected by the proposed project and CDFG has jurisdictional control over 0.99 hectare (2.46 acres total; 0.78 hectare [1.93 acres] permanent and 0.21 hectare [0.53 acre] temporary),
which would be affected by the proposed project (Figure 2-17; Tables 2.41 and 2.42). Some of the jurisdictional areas are vegetated with non-riparian vegetation types, which include
non-native grassland, ornamental, and graded. All of these impacts would be on “waters of the U.S.”; thus, no wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project. However, the proposed
project would be required to obtain a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act and to (2) bed, bank or stream; (3) was not connected to any hydrologic feature such as a stream
course; and (4) had no significant nexus to a traditional navigable waterway. In addition, this area does not possess bed, channel or bank of a lake or pond. Therefore, this area does
meet the requirements of Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
190 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study implement any permit conditions to ensure no adverse impacts to wetland resources would occur.
No Action Alternative There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure reflects
permit requirements and compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP, of which the California Department of Transportation is a signatory agency: B-6 Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant will obtain applicable USACE and CDFG permits for the proposed project. The proposed project would impact 0.88 hectare (2.16 acres) under the jurisdiction of the
USACE and 0.99 hectare (2.46 acres) under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Compensatory mitigation for the loss of wetland or riparian function and values is a fundamental component of
the applicable regulatory programs. Any compensation through restoration should be on-site or in the immediate vicinity, if possible, and in-kind. The exact requirements of any special
permit conditions established for the proposed project would be determined by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and/or the CDFG pursuant to Section 1600
of the Fish and Game Code, following review of the formally submitted project application after completion of the CEQA process. A mitigation approach has been developed that includes
either riparian habitat creation along Temecula Creek or purchase of credits in a mitigation bank. The objective of the mitigation plan will be to ensure no net loss of habitat values
from the project. Prior to implementation of any restoration, a detailed program will be submitted for approval by the City of Temecula, in conjunction with the California Department
of Transportation and will be approved by the USACE and the CDFG as part of the regulatory permitting processes. The City will implement the mitigation plan, as approved by the resource
agencies, and according to the guidelines and performance standards of the plan. The mitigation plan will contain the following items: a. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel
to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the landowner, project biologist or restoration ecologist, technical specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise
and implement the restoration plan will be specified. b. Site selection. The site for the mitigation will be determined in coordination with the City of Temecula and resource agencies.
The site will either be located on site, in the immediate vicinity, or in a dedicated open space area off site. Appropriate sites must have suitable hydrology and soils for the establishment
of riparian species. c. Site preparation and planting implementation. The site preparation will include: (1) protection of existing native species; (2) trash and weed
Mu r r i e t a C r e e k J e f f e r s o n A v e n u e T e m e c u l a V a l l e y F r e e w a y Wi n c h e s t e r R o a d O ve r l a n d D r i v eS a n t a G e r t r u d i s C r e
e k Wa rm S p r i n g s C r e e k MURRIETA TEMECULA 4 5 3 1 2 1,100 550 0 1,100 Feet ² D:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\Ex_juris_021309.mxd Impact Area Basin Permanent Temporary Jurisdictional
Areas Army Corps of Engineers CA Department of Fish and Game Other Features ! Pit Locations City Boundaries Jurisdictional Impacts French Valley Parkway Improvements Project R:\Projects\Moffatt\J004\
Graphics\IS-ESA\Ex2-17_juris_040209.pdf Figure 2-17
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 191 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study removal; (3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting,
decompacting); (5) temporary irrigation installation; (6) erosion control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (7) seed mix application; and (8) container species planting. Seeds
and plantings will be collected or grown from seeds previously collected from the project site or vicinity (i.e., within ten miles of the study). d. Schedule. A schedule will be developed
which requires planting to occur in late fall and early winter between October 1 and January 30. e. Maintenance plan/guidelines.
The maintenance plan will include: (1) weed control; (2) herbivory control; (3) trash removal; (4) irrigation system maintenance; (5) maintenance training (if necessary); and (6) replacement
planting. f. Monitoring plan. The monitoring plan will include: (1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed
transects); (3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; (4) monthly reports for the first year and quarterly thereafter; and (5) annual reports for five years that
will be submitted to the California Department of Transportation and the resource agencies on an annual basis. The site will be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful
establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas. The site will be off irrigation for at least two years. If there is successful coverage prior to five years,
and the site has been off irrigation for at least two years, the City of Temecula may request to be released from monitoring requirements from the USACE and the CDFG. g. Long-term preservation.
Long-term preservation of the site will also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future development. Appropriate preservation
measures (e.g., performance bonds, easements, dedications) will be secured prior to final map recordation. Prior to any work within jurisdictional areas, the open space limits will be
marked by the construction supervisor and the project biologist. These limits will be identified on the grading plan. No earth-moving equipment will be allowed within the open space
area. During grading, earth-moving equipment will avoid maneuvering in areas outside the identified limits of grading in order to avoid disturbing open space areas which will remain
undeveloped. Plant Species Regulatory Setting The USFWS and the CDFG share regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. “Special-status” species are
selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are afforded varying levels of regulatory
protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as
192 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). Please see the Threatened and Endangered Species Section in this document for detailed information regarding these species. This section of the document
discusses all the other special-status plant species, including CDFG fully protected species and species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and non-listed CNPS rare and endangered
plants. The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at United States Code (USC) 16, Section 1531, et. seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402. The regulatory requirements for CESA can be
found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et. seq. Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at Fish and Game Code, Section 1900–1913,
and the CEQA, Public Resources Code, Sections 2100–21177. Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (April 2009) was prepared. Forty-three special status plant species are known
to occur in the region and were evaluated in the NES. Spring botanical surveys were conducted in the study area, and two special status plant species were observed. These are identified
in Table 2.43. The remainder of the species that were evaluated in the NES are not expected to occur due to either lack of suitable habitat or because they were not observed during focused
surveys. Table 2.43 also shows the MSHCP status of each plant species observed in the study area. Many, but not all, of the plants with potential to occur in the project region are covered
by the MSHCP. Some MSHCP species are covered and require no additional surveys because they are considered adequately conserved within the MSHCP reserves. The study area did not require
surveys for Narrow Endemic or Criteria Area species because it is outside the survey areas determined by the MSHCP. Therefore, Narrow Endemic and Criteria Area species would be considered
covered without conducting additional surveys for these species in the study area. Spring botanical surveys were conducted for species not covered by the MSHCP.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 193 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.43 Special Status Plant Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area Species Common
Names Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale (Potential for Species to USFWS CDFG CNPS Occur) Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis [Hemizonia pungens ssp. laevis]
smooth tarplant – – List 1B Criteria Area; study area outside required survey area P Observed in the study area Deinandra paniculata [Hemizonia paniculata] Paniculate tarplant – – List
4 Not covered P Observed in the study area LEGEND Federal (USFWS) State (CDFG) FE Endangered SE Endangered FT Threatened ST Threatened PE Proposed Endangered PE Proposed Endangered PT
Proposed Threatened PT Proposed Threatened California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and
Elsewhere 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California But More Common Elsewhere 3 Plants about which We Need More Information B A Review List 4 Plants of Limited Distribution
B A Watch List MSHCP Coverage Narrow Endemic – requires additional surveys in designated areas; if species is observed, may likely require avoidance and/or minimization Criteria Area
– requires additional surveys within a Criteria Area; if species is observed, may likely require avoidance and/or minimization Covered – take of this species is covered, no additional
surveys are required Not covered – take of this species is not covered by the MSHCP
194 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative)
Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis [Hemizonia pungens ssp. laevis]) was observed in the study area during spring botanical surveys. This species is a Criteria Area species
under the MSHCP. Approximately 5,685 individuals were observed at 7 localities within or adjacent to the study area (see Figure 2-18). The proposed project would incrementally affect
many of the localities within the study area. However, the study area is located outside the designated survey area for Criteria Area plant species and the MSHCP does not require additional
measures for this species outside of designated survey areas. Therefore, the project would have a less than substantial effect if it is consistent with the MSHCP. Standard provision
B-7 is recommended, but would not be required. Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata [Hemizonia paniculata]) was observed in the study area during spring botanical surveys. This
species is not covered by the MSHCP. Approximately 76,000 individuals of this species were observed at seven localities in the study area (see Figure 2-18). The proposed project would
incrementally affect many of the localities within the study area. This species is considered relatively common in the project region, and the proposed project would not impact a substantial
population of this species. Therefore, project impacts would be considered less than substantial on paniculate tarplant. Standard provision B-7 is recommended, but would not be required.
No Action Alternative There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following standard provision is
reflective of MSHCP recommendations, of which the California Department of Transportation is a signatory agency: B-7 It is recommended that the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, or other
appropriate entity, be notified so that seed can be collected for use in restoration or seed germination studies. The client will not incur any cost for the seed collection effort. Animal
Species Regulatory Setting Many State and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), and the CDFG are responsible for
implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with wildlife not listed or proposed for listing under the State or Federal Endangered
Species Acts. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed above. All other special-status animal species are discussed here, including CDFG fully
protected species and species of special concern, and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries candidate species.
Tarplant Locations French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 2-18 R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Fig2-18_ssPlants_060906.pdf 0.25 0.125 0 0.25Miles ² D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Ex_ss
Plants_090105.mxd Biological Study Area Boundary Special Status Plants Paniculate Tarplant -Deinandra paniculata Smooth Tarplant -Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis Source: Aerials Express
April 2006
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 195 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Federal laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: • National Environmental
Policy Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act State laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: • California Environmental Quality
Act • Sections 1600–1602 of the Fish and Game Code • Section 4150 and 4152 of the Fish and Game Code In addition to State and federal laws regulating impacts to wildlife, there are often
local regulations that need to be considered when developing projects. The Proposed Project is within the Western Riverside MSHCP. Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (April
2009) was prepared. Fifty-nine special status wildlife species are known to occur in the region, and were evaluated in the NES. Of these 59 special status wildlife species, 51 either
have potential to occur in the study area or were observed during focused surveys (Table 2.44). Seven of these species are formally listed as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and/or
CDFG and will be discussed below. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The total impact on vegetation types that provide habitat
for wildlife was evaluated to assess impacts on wildlife (Table 2.39). Special Status Fish Species: One special status fish species has limited potential to occur along Warm Springs
Creek in the study area: arroyo chub (Gila orcutti). Impacts on this creek have been minimized to the extent practicable; however, the proposed project would affect a limited amount
of suitable habitat for the arroyo chub. This species is covered by the MSHCP, and no additional surveys are required for this species. Project effects would be considered less than
substantial with implementation of the MSHCP. Standard provision B-8 addresses water quality within the creek to provide additional protection for the arroyo chub within or downstream
from the the study area. Special Status Amphibian Species: Two special status amphibian species not listed as Threatened or Endangered have potential to occur in the study area: the
coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) and the western spadefoot (Spea [Scaphiopus] hammondii). The proposed project would affect a limited amount of suitable habitat for these species.
However, these species are covered by the MSHCP, and no additional surveys are required. Project effects would be considered less than substantial with implementation of the MSHCP.
196 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area Scientific
Name Common Name Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale USFWS CDFG (Potential for Species to Occur) Invertebrates Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly
FE – Covered; no survey requirements P Limited potential to occur; suitable habitat; not observed during focused surveys on two adjacent project sites Fish Gila orcutti arroyo chub –
SSC Covered; no survey requirements P Limited potential to occur; potentially suitable habitat Amphibians Taricha torosa torosa coast range newt – SSC Covered; no survey requirement
P Limited potential to occur; potentially suitable habitat Spea [Scaphiopus] hammondii western spadefoot – SSC Covered; no survey requirements P Expected to occur; suitable habitat;
previously observed on adjacent project site Bufo californicus arroyo toad FE SSC Covered; study area outside required survey area P May occur; potentially suitable habitat; not observed
during focused surveys on adjacent project site Reptiles Actinemys [Emys] marmorata pallida southwestern pond turtle – SSC Covered; no survey requirements P Limited potential to occur;
potentially suitable habitat Coleonyx variegates abbotti San Diego banded gecko – – Covered; no survey requirements P Limited potential to occur; potentially suitable habitat Phrynosoma
coronatum [blainvillei population] coast [San Diego] horned lizard – SSC Covered; no survey requirements P May occur; suitable habitat Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis Coronado skink
– SSC Not Covered P May occur; potentially suitable habitat Aspidoscelis [Cnemidophorous] hyperythra [beldingi] [Belding’s] orangethroated whiptail – SSC Covered; no survey requirements
P May occur; suitable habitat Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri [Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus] coastal western whiptail – – Covered; no survey requirements P Expected to occur; suitable
habitat; previously observed on two adjacent project sites
Table 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 197 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Scientific Name Common Name Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale USFWS CDFG (Potential for Species to Occur) Anniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless
lizard – SSC Not covered P May occur; potentially suitable habitat Charina [Lichanura] trivirgata rosy boa – – Not covered P Limited potential to occur; potentially suitable habitat
Diadophus punctatus [modestus] [San Benardino] ringneck snake – – Not covered P May occur; suitable habitat Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake – SSC Not covered P
May occur; suitable habitat Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped garter snake – SSC Not covered P May occur; suitable habitat Crotalus ruber ruber [exsul] northern red-diamond rattlesnake
– SSC Covered; no survey requirements P Expected to occur; suitable habitat Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk – WL Covered; no survey requirements P Observed; suitable foraging
habitat; may occur for nesting; suitable nesting habitat Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk – WL Covered; no survey requirements P Expected to occur for foraging in winter only; suitable
foraging habitat; not expected to occur for nesting; does not nest in project region; previously observed on adjacent project site Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle – WL/FP No take of active
nests; no survey requirements P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; not expected to occur for nesting; no suitable nesting habitat Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk – WL
Covered; no survey requirements P May occur for foraging in winter only; suitable foraging habitat; not expected to occur for nesting; does not nest in project region Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk – ST Covered; no survey requirements P May occur as a migrant only; potentially suitable foraging habitat Circus cyaneus northern harrier – SSC Covered; no take of active
nests, no survey requirements P Expected to occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; limited potential to occur for nesting; limited potentially suitable nesting habitat; previously
observed on adjacent project site Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite – FP Covered; no take of active nests; no survey requirements P Expected to occur for foraging; suitable foraging
habitat; may occur for nesting; potentially suitable nesting habitat; previously observed on two adjacent project sites
Table 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area (Continued) 198 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Scientific Name Common Name Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale USFWS CDFG (Potential for Species to Occur) Falco columbarius Merlin – WL Covered; no
survey requirements P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; not expected to occur for nesting; does not nest in project region Falco mexicanus prairie falcon – WL Covered;
no survey requirements P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; not expected to occur for nesting; no suitable nesting habitat Asio otus long-eared owl – SSC Not covered
P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; limited potential to occur for nesting; limited potentially suitable nesting habitat Athene cunicularia burrowing owl – SSC Covered;
surveys required; study area within additional survey area P Not observed during focused surveys; may occur in winter; suitable habitat Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike – SSC Covered;
no surveys required P Observed; suitable habitat; previously observed on adjacent project site Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo FE SE Covered; surveys required P Observed during
focused surveys Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark – WL Covered; no surveys required P Observed; suitable habitat; previously observed on adjacent project site Polioptila
californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT SSC Covered; no surveys required P May occur; suitable habitat; previously observed on adjacent project site Dendroica petechia
brewsteri yellow warbler – SSC Covered; no surveys required P Observed; suitable habitat Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat – SSC Covered; no surveys required P May occur; suitable
habitat Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow – WL Covered; no surveys required P May occur; suitable habitat; previously observed on adjacent project
site Amphispiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow – WL Covered; no surveys required P May occur; potentially suitable habitat; previously observed on adjacent project site Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird – SSC Covered; no surveys required P May occur; potentially suitable habitat Mammals Macrotus californicus California leaf-nosed bat – SSC Not covered P May occur
for foraging; potentially suitable foraging habitat; may occur for roosting; potentially suitable roosting habitat Antrozous pallidus pallid bat – SSC Not covered P Limited potential
to occur for foraging; potentially suitable foraging habitat; limited potential to occur for roosting; limited suitable roosting habitat
Table 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area (Continued) I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 199 Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Scientific Name Common Name Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale USFWS CDFG (Potential for Species to Occur) Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens pale big-eared
bat – SSC Not covered P Limited potential to occur for foraging; potentially suitable foraging habitat; limited potential to occur for roosting; limited suitable roosting habitat Myotis
ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis – – Not covered P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; limited potential for roosting; limited suitable roosting habitat Myotis
yumanensis Yuma myotis – – Not covered P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; may occur for roosting; potentially suitable roosting habitat Eumops perotis western mastiff
bat – SSC Not covered P May occur for foraging; suitable foraging habitat; not expected to occur occur for roosting; no suitable roosting habitat Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego
black-tailed jackrabbit – SSC Covered; no surveys required P Observed; suitable habitat Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse – SSC Covered; no surveys required
P May occur; suitable habitat Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat FE SSC Covered; study area outside of additional survey area P Limited potential to occur; limited
suitable habitat Dipodomys stephensi Stephens’ kangaroo rat FE ST Covered; no surveys required P Observed during focused surveys Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket
mouse – SSC Covered, surveys required; study area within additional survey area P Observed during focused surveys Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat – SSC Covered; no
surveys required P Limited potential to occur; limited potentially suitable habitat Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse – SSC Not covered P May occur; potentially suitable
habitat Taxidea taxus American badger – SSC Not covered P Limited potential to occur; potentially suitable habitat
Table 2.44 Special Status Wildlife Species With Potential to Occur in the Study Area (Continued) 200 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial
Study Scientific Name Common Name Status MSHCP Coverage Habitat Present (P)/Absent (A) Rationale USFWS CDFG (Potential for Species to Occur) A= Absent P= Present Federal Designations
FE= Listed by the federal government as an Endangered species FT= Listed by the federal government as a Threatened species FPD= Proposed for delisting FC= Candidate for federal listing
as Threatened or Endangered State Designations SE= Listed as Endangered by the State of California ST= Listed as Threatened by the State of California SSC= Species of Special Concern
WL= Watch List FP= Fully Protected
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 201 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Special Status Reptile Species: Twelve special-status reptile species have potential to occur
in the study area. Of these 12 species, 6 species are covered by the MSHCP. These species are: southwestern pond turtle (Emys [Clemmys] marmorata pallida), San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx
variegates abbotti), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum [blainvillei population]), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis [Cnemidophorous] hyperthra [beldingi]), coastal western
whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri [Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus]), and northern red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber [exsul]). The proposed project would affect
a limited amount of suitable habitat for these species; however, these species are covered by the MSHCP so no additional surveys are required for these species. Project effects would
be considered less than substantial with implementation of the MSHCP. The remaining six reptile species (which are not covered by the MSHCP) that have potential to occur in the study
area include: Coronado skink (Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra); rosy boa (Charina [Lichanura] trivirgata); ringneck snake (Diadophus
punctatus [modestus]); coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea); and two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii). The proposed project would affect a limited amount
of suitable habitat for these species. Due to the limited amount of habitat loss relative to the availability of habitat for these species in the region, Project effects on these species
would be considered less than substantial and no mitigation would be required. Special Status Bird Species: Eight special-status raptor species not listed as Threatened or Endangered
have potential to forage in the study area and are covered by the MSHCP. These species include: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus).
Of these, Cooper’s hawk was observed in the study area. The proposed project would affect a limited amount of suitable habitat for these species. Project effects would be considered
less than substantial with implementation of the MSHCP. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is also covered by the MSHCP, and the study area is within an additional survey area for
this species. Focused surveys were completed for the burrowing owl during the breeding season, and none were observed in the study area. However, the burrowing owl has potential to move
into the study area prior to the start of construction. If present, avoidance and/or minimization under the MSHCP, as outlined in standard provision B-9, would be required. One raptor
species with potential to occur in the study area is not covered by the MSHCP: the long-eared owl (Asio otus). Effects on this species would be considered less than substantial due to
the limited amount of habitat loss relative to the availability of habitat for these species in the region. Four of the raptor species listed above also have potential to nest in the
study area: Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and long-eared owl. The MSHCP does not cover take of active raptor nests, as protected by the California Fish and Game
Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Standard provision B-5 addresses the requirements of the California Fish and Game Code.
202 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Seven other bird species that are not listed as Threatened or Endangered but have potential
to occur in the study area are: loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), yellow-breasted
chat (Icteria virens), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).
Loggerhead shrike, California horned lark, and yellow warbler were observed in the study area. The proposed project would affect a limited amount of suitable habitat for these species.
However, these species are covered by the MSHCP, and no additional surveys are required for these species. Project effects would be considered less than substantial with implementation
of the MSHCP. Special Status Mammal Species: Six bat species have potential to occur in the study area for foraging: California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus), pale big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis).
All except the western mastiff bat also have potential to roost in the study area. None of these species are covered by the MSHCP. The proposed project would affect a limited amount
of suitable foraging and roosting habitat for these species. Due to the limited amount of habitat loss relative to the availability of habitat for these species in the region, Project
effects on these species would be considered less than substantial so no mitigation would be required. Three mammal species have potential to occur in the study area, are covered by
the MSHCP, and require no additional surveys. These species are the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus
fallax fallax), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit was observed in the study area. The proposed project would affect a limited
amount of suitable habitat for these species. Project effects would be considered less than substantial with implementation of the MSHCP. One mammal species, the Los Angeles pocket mouse
(Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), is covered by the MSHCP but requires additional surveys. Focused surveys were conducted in summer 2005, and the Los Angeles pocket mouse was captured
at three locations east of the I-15 (see Figure 2-19). Therefore, this species is considered to be a resident in all similar stands of sage scrub and grassland vegetation in the study
area. A total
of 27.23 hectares (67.28 acres) within the study area are mapped as either occupied or potentially occupied Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat. A small number of individuals of this species
could feasibly occur in the triangular area between the I-215 and the I-15 at the far northern end of the study area (this was not included in the Los Angeles pocket mouse survey due
to restrictions on access to the site). From the aerial, it appears that approximately 3.20 hectares (7.91 acres) of this area consists of vegetation that may support the Los Angeles
pocket mouse and it was mapped as possible habitat. Access to this parcel was not granted so this could not be confirmed. A total of 2.85 hectares (7.05 acres) of the 27.23 hectares
(67.28 acres) of occupied or potentially occupied Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat in the study area would be affected (Table 2.45). The proposed project would also affect 0.79 hectare
(1.96 acres) of the 3.20 hectares (7.91 acres) of the possible habitat within the triangle between I-15 and I-215, which was not surveyed due to access issues. An additional area of
Occupied Habitats French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Figure 2-19 R:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Graphics/June_2006/Figure2-19_mouse_060908.pdf ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç çç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç
ç ç çç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç [_ [_ [_ §¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦15 3 1 2 4 6 11 9 14 5 16 13 7 8 12 17 15 10 800 400 0 800Feet ² D:/Projects/Moffat/J004/Ex_p_mouse_092105.mxd [_ LA Pocket Mouse
Capture Location çç Trap Line Project Area Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat -No LAPM Capture Possible Habitat -No Survey AREA SHOWN Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1 Miles Source: Aerials
Express April 2006
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 203 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study occupied habitat may be indirectly degraded through such factors as night lighting, noise,
and heavy dust during construction. The study area is within Subunit 5 of the Southwest Area Plan (French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills). One of the MSHCP objectives for this subunit is to
determine the presence of a potential core area for the Los Angeles pocket mouse along Warm Springs Creek. The focused trapping effort for this species confirmed its presence. This area
may be considered a core population of this species. The incremental effect of the proposed project is not expected to extirpate this species from the project vicinity. The MSHCP requires
preparation of a DBESP if the proposed project would impact more than ten percent of the habitat on the project site. A DBESP will be prepared by Caltrans in coordination with the City
of Temecula. Consultation with the resource agencies has been initiated and the USFWS has provided concurrence of the proposed mitigation approach (see Chapter 3). This concern is addressed
with implementation of standard provisions B-1 and B-10. Two other mammal species not listed as Threatened or Endangered, the southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) and
American badger (Taxidea taxus), have potential to occur in the study area and are not covered by the MSHCP. The proposed project would affect a limited amount of potentially suitable
habitat for these species. Due to the limited amount of habitat loss relative to the availability of habitat for this species in the region, project effects on these species would be
considered less than substantial so no mitigation would be required. No Action Alternative There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization,
and/or Mitigation Measures The following standard provisions reflect permit requirements or MSHCP requirement: B-8 As described in Section 4.4 of the NES, additional impacts to aquatic
species would be the result of decreased water quality from increased runoff. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Statewide Storm Water
Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (Order No. 99-08-DWQ,
NPDES No. CAS000002) would meet the requirements of the MSHCP.
204 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Table 2.45 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Habitat Within the Study Area Existing (hectares) Existing
(acres) Permanent Impact (hectares) Permanent Impact (acres) Temporary Impact (hectares) Temporary Impact (acres) Basin Impact (hectares) Basin Impact (acres) Total Impact (hectares)
Total Impact (acres) Occupied Habitat (East of I-15) 11.32 27.97 1.62 4.00 0.93 2.31 0.00 0.00 2.55 6.31 Potential Habitat (West of I-15) 15.91 39.31 0.30 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30
0.74 Total Occupied or Potentially Occupied Habitat 27.23 67.28 1.92 4.74 0.93 2.31 0.00 0.00 2.85 7.05 Possible Habitat (Between I-15 and I-215) 3.20 7.91 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.95 0.41 1.01
0.79 1.96
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 205 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study B-9 Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified Biologist will survey
within the limits of project disturbance for the presence of an active owl burrow. Any active burrow found during survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active
burrows are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys will be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present, the active nesting site will be protected
until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. Nesting activity for burrowing owls in the region of the proposed project normally occurs
from March 1 to August 31. To protect the nest site, the following restrictions on construction are required between March 1 and August 31 (or until nests are no longer active as determined
by a qualified biologist): (1) clearing limits will be established a minimum of 152 meters meters (500 feet) in any direction from any occupied nest and (2) access and surveying will
be restricted within 91 meters (300 feet) of any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the 152-/91-meter (500-/300-foot) buffer area around the known nest will only be allowed if it is
determined by a qualified biologist that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the non-nesting season can occur only if a qualified biologist
has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active burrow is observed during the non-nesting season, the Lead Agency will determine if passive relocation will be required.
B-10 The mitigation strategy developed with the resource agencies includes preservation of high quality habitat contiguous with the MSHCP Additional Reserve Lands in an area identified
in the MSHCP as “core” or “live-in” habitat for Los Angeles pocket mouse (USFWS 2006c). Land conserved under this mitigation measure is tentatively planned for Los Angeles pocket mouse
habitat along the San Jacinto River in the San Jacinto/Hemet area. In addition, the following measures will be implemented during the construction period: 1. The removal of sage scrub
and grassland vegetation will be monitored by a qualified Biologist. The monitoring Biologist will ensure that only the amount of sage scrub and grassland habitat approved during the
consultation process will be removed. 2. Sage scrub and grassland areas that will not be impacted will be delineated by the use of lath and ropes/flagging to ensure avoidance of these
areas. Threatened and Endangered Species Regulatory Setting The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the FESA: USC, Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 CFR
Part 402. This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act,
federal
206 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study agencies, such as the FHWA, are required to consult with the USFWS and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species
or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome
of consultation under Section 7 is a Biological Opinion or an incidental take permit. Section 3 of FESA defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture
or collect or any attempt at such conduct.” California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the CESA, California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early
consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset project caused losses of listed species populations
and their essential habitats. The CDFG is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits “take” of any species determined to be an endangered
species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions, an incidental take permit is issued by CDFG. For projects requiring a Biological Opinion
under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFG may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code. Affected Environment
A Natural Environment Study (April 2009) was prepared. Of the 43 special status plant species known to occur in the region and evaluated in the NES, 4 species are listed as Threatened
or Endangered. Endangered. Although all of the listed species are covered by the MSHCP and require no additional surveys, spring botanical surveys were conducted for other plant species
in the study area. During these surveys, none of the listed plant species were observed. Of the 59 special status wildlife species known to occur in the region and evaluated in the NES,
8 species are listed as Threatened or Endangered. One of these species, the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), was not observed during focused surveys conducted
during spring/summer 2005 and would not be expected to occur in the study area. The remaining seven species are discussed below. Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed
Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) Threatened or Endangered Plant Species: All four of these species are covered by the MSHCP. Although no focused surveys were required by the
MSHCP, surveys were conducted and no Threatened or Endangered plant species were observed in the study area. Therefore, there would be no impact on these species. Threatened or Endangered
Wildlife Species: All eight of the listed wildlife species are covered by the MSHCP; however, some of these species require additional
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 207 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study surveys. Six species (Quino checkerspot [Euphydryas editha quino], arroyo toad [Bufo californicus],
Swainson’s hawk [Buteo swainsoni], coastal California gnatcatcher [Polioptila californica californica], San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat [Dipodomys merriami parvus], and Stephens’
kangaroo rat [Dipodomys stephensi]) either require no additional surveys or the study area is outside the additional survey area for these species. Of these species, the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat was incidentally observed in the study area during trapping efforts for the Los Angeles pocket mouse. The proposed project would affect a limited amount of suitable habitat for these
species. Project effects would be considered less than substantial with implementation of the MSHCP for these six species. In addition to the MSHCP, the Stephens’ kangaroo rat is also
covered by the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). In conjunction with the SKR HCP, the County of Riverside adopted Ordinance 663.10, which established a fee
assessment program to provide mitigation for the Stephen’s kangaroo rat. Section 10(d) of the ordinance provides an exemption for “Development of any parcel used by local, State or federal
entities for governmental purposes.” Therefore, no further action is required. Two species that are covered by the MSHCP, southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus), required additional surveys because the project would affect riparian habitat suitable for these species. Least Bell’s vireo was observed immediately adjacent to the
study area during focused surveys conducted in spring/summer 2005. The proposed project would affect a total of approximately 0.31 hectare (0.78 acre) of riparian habitat along Warm
Springs Creek which could be occupied by the vireo. The MSHCP requires preparation of a DBESP for impacts on this species. A DBESP report will be prepared by the Department in coordination
with Temecula and will be submitted to the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS and CDFG) for review and approval. The resource agencies will review the mitigation described in the DBESP in
order to make a finding that the proposed mitigation is biologically equivalent or superior to the habitat that is being impacted. A component of the DBESP will provide compliance with
the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. No Action Alternative There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures The following minimization measure (B-11) reflects permit requirements or MSHCP requirements: B-11 Due to the presence of the least Bell’s vireo adjacent to the study area,
the effect on riparian habitat along Warm Springs Creek would be considered substantial. Prior to initiation of grading or any activity that involves the removal/disturbance of riparian
habitat (including clearing, grubbing, mowing, dicing, trenching, grading, or any other construction-related activity) within the study area, the City of Temecula, in conjunction with
the California Department of Transportation will obtain authorization from the resource agencies to affect this species. A DBESP report will be prepared by the Department in coordination
with the City of Temecula and will be submitted to the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS and CDFG) for review and approval. The
208 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study resource agencies will review the mitigation described in the DBESP in order to make a finding
that the proposed mitigation is biologically equivalent or superior to the habitat that is being impacted. In addition, the following measures will be implemented during the construction
period: 1. Riparian vegetation will be removed after September 15 and before March 15. 2. If riparian vegetation is removed prior to September 15, a series of preconstruction surveys
will be conducted to ensure that no vireo or other nesting birds are in the proposed area of impact. The pre-construction surveys will consist of a minimum of three focused surveys,
on separate days, to determine the presence of vireos within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project footprint. Surveys will begin a maximum of seven days prior to performing initial vegetation
clearing, and one survey will be conducted the day immediately prior to removing vegetation. If vireos are observed within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project footprint, the Service
will be contacted to determine if additional consultation and/or minimization measures are required. 3. A qualified biological monitor familiar with least Bell’s vireo will be present
during all activities involving removal of vegetation to ensure that impacts to wetland and riparian habitat do not exceed the limits of grading and to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent
impacts to potential vireo habitat. In addition, the biological monitor will monitor construction activities in or adjacent to Warm Springs Creek during the vireo breeding season (March
15 to September 15). If construction is occurring in or adjacent to Warm Springs Creek during the vireo breeding season, the biologist will conduct focused surveys in potential vireo
habitat within 152 meters (500 feet) of construction activities. Surveys will be conducted once every two weeks during the breeding season, although the surveys may be reduced in frequency
or halted with the approval of the Service if vireos are not observed after May 15. If vireos are observed within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project footprint, the Service will be
contacted to determine if additional consultation and/or minimization measures are required. 4. The limits of grading will be clearly marked, and temporary fencing or other appropriate
markers shall be placed around any sensitive habitat adjacent to work areas prior to the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity or native vegetation removal. No construction access,
parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 5. All of the measures described in Section 7.5.3 “Construction Guidelines” of the MSHCP will
be implemented. These measures are primarily designed to minimize potential pollution and sedimentation in the water course.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 209 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Invasive Species Regulatory Setting On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive
Order 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its
seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health.” FHWA guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the state’s noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered
as part of the NEPA analysis for a proposed project. Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (April 2009) was prepared. Invasive species in the study area are currently limited
to ornamental plantings within developed areas. A few individuals of tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) are present along Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. Other non-native species, such
as non-native grasses (Avena and Bromus spp.), tocalote (Centaurea militensis) and mustards (Brassica nigra and Hirschfeldia incana), are present within the non-native grassland areas.
Environmental Consequences Build Alternative “Proposed Project” (Locally Preferred Alternative) The proposed project includes landscaping of the slopes adjacent to the freeway improvements.
Although federal requirements prohibit planting of exotic species identified as invasive, landscaping may include planting of ornamental species that are invasive but have not been formally
listed as “invasive” by the California Invasive Plant Council. Seeds from these species may escape to natural areas and degrade the native vegetation; therefore, standard provision B-12
has been applied to this project. No Action Alternative There would be no change from existing conditions with this alternative. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The
following minimization measure reflects permit requirements or MSHCP requirement: B-12 Prior to construction, landscape designs will be submitted for review and approval by a qualified
Biologist. The review will determine that no invasive, exotic plant species are to be used in any proposed landscaping. Suitable substitutes will be recommended by the reviewing biologist.
Ideally, the slopes should be revegetated with native species.
210 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study In addition, the following measures would be required in riparian areas during construction:
1. Invasive plant species will be controlled upstream and downstream of the project impact area on a three-month "clean sweep" basis for the entire construction period. 2. Following
completion of construction, one last removal of invasive plant species will be conducted within the project impact area. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Regulatory Setting Cumulative impacts are
those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective
impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural development and the conversion
to more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of
habitats and populations; alteration of hydrology; contamination; erosion; sedimentation; disruption of migration corridors; changes in water quality; and introduction or promotion of
predators. They can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment.
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines describes when a cumulative impact analysis is warranted and what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition
of cumulative impacts, under CEQA, can be found in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A definition of cumulative impacts, under NEPA, can be found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 of the
CEQA Regulations. Community Resources The study area for community resources would be the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. This encompasses a large enough area to allow for assessment
of potential impacts in this context. Both these cities have experienced substantial growth over the past decade and could be characterized as transitioning from rural to urban communities.
Overall, the cities are well-functioning and have the resources to provide the necessary services for their respective communities. The evaluation of cumulative impacts to the community
considers a variety of issues such as potential direct and indirect effect on land uses, growth, community character, environmental justice, public services and utilities, as well as
air quality and noise. All these factors can contribute to potential impacts to the community.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 211 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study From a land use perspective, the community is projected to continue the transition to an urbanized
environment. As shown in Table 2.1, Cities of Temecula and Murrieta Demographic Projections, substantial growth is projected for the area. This will result in the development of open
space and extension of the urban footprint. As such, the growth would continue the transition of the community character from rural environment, to suburban community, to urban center.
This transition is consistent with the General Plan and regional growth assumptions. The proposed project would not impede the long-range planning efforts for the community. Since the
improvements are predominately within the existing transportation corridor, the proposed project would not have substantial direct impacts on the community. It would necessitate acquisition
of private property, including, potentially, relocation of two businesses. However, as discussed above, the overall impacts are not substantial and would not adversely affect the implementation
of the long-range planning (cumulative projects) for the community. As discussed above under Environmental Justice, the proposed project would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
effects on any minority or low-income population. Long-range planning programs, such as the local General Plans and the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan include provisions to accommodate
and protect all segments of the community, including low income families, minorities, and seniors. This is done through programs such as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The proposed
project may require the relocation of existing utilities to ensure they are outside the Department’s right-of-way; however, as discussed above, this would not interrupt or impede the
provision of service to any of the existing or future land uses. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative impact associated with increased demand for utilities or impede
the orderly extension of planned utility improvements. The proposed project would also provide an additional opportunity for utilities to cross I-15, potentially facilitating the provision
of service. The demand for public services (i.e., fire protection, police and emergency medical services) is expected to increase as the projected growth levels are achieved. The proposed
project would not result in any direct or indirect impact on these services. The proposed project would not add any land uses, however, by improving circulation, response times would
be expected to be affected beneficially. Additionally, the design is expected to address the higher than average accident rate on I-15, thereby, potentially having a beneficial effect
for service providers. The proposed project would have beneficial effects on the community associated with improved circulation. The long-range (2030) analyses conducted for traffic,
air quality, and noise were based on the data obtained from the SCAG regional model, which reflects growth and development consistent with the local General Plans. Thus, the 2030 analysis
is assumed to accurately reflect impacts that would be expected with implementation of planned projects. These analyses demonstrate that with improved circulation comes beneficial effects
on air quality from shorter vehicle queues and less idling time. Vehicle idling and stop/start actions contribute a disproportionally high amount of air emissions when compared to free-flowing
traffic. Thus, the reduction of vehicle queue length and idle time are anticipated to result in positive effects on air quality. The proposed project also proposes the construction of
sound walls, which would provide noise attenuation for sensitive receptors that are
212 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study currently exposed to high noise levels from the existing I-15, particularly the Warm Springs
Mobile Home Park. In summary, with the development of the long-range projections, the community resources in the cities of Murrieta and Temecula will experience change. The proposed
project is one component of this transition. As part of the long-range planning efforts for the region, provision of transportation improvements is critical to provide adequate infrastructure
to serve the planned land uses. However, the overall cumulative impacts on the community are not expected to be adverse. Visual Resources Visual impacts are relative to the visual environment
in which they occur. Visual impacts can extend beyond the physical areas of project construction. The study area with respect to potential cumulative impacts to visual resources would
be the same as the area evaluated for project impacts based on the viewshed of the proposed project. As previously noted, visually prominent elements of this project include roadways
surfaces, retaining walls, sound walls, slopes, and other large areas of grading. The visual analysis takes into account viewshed impacts associated with these elements. In order for
cumulative aesthetic impacts to occur, elements of cumulative projects would need to be located close to each other in order to assess cumulative impacts to the viewshed. If the projects
were not in proximity to each other, the viewer would not perceive them in the same scene. This visual study area , which encompasses the I-15/I-215 corridor from just south of Winchester
Road north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, has been described in the Visual Resources Section of this document. The proposed project would have the greatest potential to contribute
to cumulative visual impacts with projects in the immediate proximity of the I-15 corridor because they would be part of the same viewshed. As discussed previously in the Visual Resources
Section of this document, the visual study area has been divided into 15 landscape units. Each unit is a definable area that contains consistent characteristics such as topography, vegetation,
and land use. None of the landscape units are in pristine, undisturbed natural conditions. Thus, the visual sensitivity, defined as the ability to absorb change, of these areas is considered
to be either low or moderate. These ratings are based primarily on the presence of the freeway, light industrial and commercial buildings, and disturbed open space. A low to moderate
visual sensitivity means that the proposed project would not strongly contrast with the visual quality of the existing setting. The General Plans for the cities of Murrieta and Temecula
both identify urban land uses along the I-15 corridor. Most of this area is either already developed or under construction in the city of Temecula. The city of Murrieta has larger expanses
of undeveloped land. Based on the land use designations, it is reasonable to assume that the cumulative projects would be an extension of the office, commercial, industrial, and freeway-serving
uses that exist in the study area. The elements of the proposed project that would create the greatest degree of visual contrast to the existing conditions would be the new sound walls,
retaining walls, and
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 213 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study the new bridge structures. The proposed project would also remove existing vegetation, which
currently serves as a visual buffer in the corridor. Implementation of cumulative projects would reasonably result in the removal of existing vegetation and construction of buildings
that would also provide a contrast to the existing environment. When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, it is important to note that the context in which a project is being viewed
would also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. If most of an area becomes or is already urbanized, the contrast of the project with the natural surroundings would be
less since it would not stand out in contrast. The proposed project, when combined with the cumulative projects, would contribute to the ongoing urbanization of the area; however, it
is this urban context that would minimize the cumulative visual impact. This urban core is consistent with the land use and associated visual context of the local General Plans. The
cumulative projects would not be substantially different from the existing development surrounding the project site. As a result, cumulative visual impacts would not be adverse and correspondingly
no additional measures would be required. Water Resources The evaluation of water resources considers potential impacts to hydrology, floodplain, and water quality. The proposed freeway
improvements project spans the Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks, which are the two major conveyance channels for the entire watershed located east of I-15. These creeks drain
into Murrieta Creek, located approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) west of I-15. The study area for the cumulative analysis for water resources would include portions of these facilities within
the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. The analysis is focused on Warm Springs Creek because that is the only body of water that would be potentially affected by the proposed project.
The proposed project would increase the base floodplain elevation within Warm Springs Creek by 0.18 m (0.6 ft). There would be no encroachment into the base floodplain for Santa Gertrudis
Creek, and it was determined that there would be no adverse long-term operational impacts to Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values. Since the project would not have an effect on Santa
Gertrudis Creek, by definition, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact and no further evaluation of Santa Gertrudis Creek is required. The overall health and context of the resources
is considered satisfactory because neither creek has been identified on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s listing of impaired water bodies. Murrieta Creek is included on the
list, with phosphorus being the identified pollutant. The source of this pollutant is listed as urban runoff, storm sewers, and unknown point and non-point pollutant sources. The TMDL
priority level for Murrieta Creek is “low.” The portion of Warm Springs Creek located within the project project area consists of a natural soft-bottom channel with minimal vegetative
cover. Santa Gertrudis Creek has been completely improved within the project area, and consists of a trapezoidal concrete channel from Murrieta Creek to a point approximately 15 m (49.2
ft) downstream of the existing I-15 Bridge. Flooding has not been an issue in this location.
214 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study The same criteria (as defined in 23 CFR 650.105) used for determining project-related hydrology
and floodplain impacts would be used for determining if there would be cumulative impacts. Although the project would encroach on the floodplain for Warm Springs Creek, it would not
result in incompatible floodplain development because the proposed project would not construct housing or other development within the floodplain. As a result, there would not be a substantial
risk to life or property. Finally, though additional developmentmay occur in proximity to Warm Springs Creek or Santa Gertrudis Creek, each specific proposed project would be required
to address any potential impacts to the respective creeks (including any potential changes to their capacity or function). The local jurisdictions have required project design and/or
mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the beneficial values identified to each of the creeks in conjunction with past approvals, such as the Harveston Specific Plan. Development
of the proposed project along with other planned projects may result in increased amounts of impervious surfaces resulting in additional runoff. However, standard conditions would require
development to comply with the City and County flood-control engineering criteria and general storm water drainage requirements. Through implementation of standard conditions on planned
projects, cumulative impacts associated with flooding would be less than adverse. Cumulative impacts associated with degraded water quality, which would adversely impact floodplain values,
is discussed below under Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff. The proposed project would have a beneficial effect on water quality because a greater percentage of the runoff from I-15
would be directed to permanent treatment BMPs than that which currently exists. During construction, temporary BMPs would be in place to minimize impacts associated with erosion and
downstream sedimentation. With increased development associated with planned projects, there is the potential for urban runoff to carry pollutants to the creeks within the study area
for the cumulative analysis for water resources, however, it is expected that any future urban development must comply with the applicable municipal permits (Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System [MS4] permit) and must implement BMPs in compliance with applicable regulations. All but small projects would be required to develop a SWPPP prior to grading and to incorporate
BMPs to ensure the specific proposed project would not adversely affect water quality. Therefore, the cumulative effects on surface water quality would not be substantial. Paleontology
Resources The study area cumulative impacts to Paleontology includes the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. The abundance of fossils from this area and the proximity of localities to the
proposed project, suggest the high paleontologic sensitivity of the region. Planned growth would entail mostly land development projects. Accordingly, these types of projects have a
greater likelihood of uncovering fossils because construction would involve lands that have previously been undisturbed. The proposed project would traverse areas designated as being
highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Given the underlying soil types and a history of nonrenewable fossil
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 215 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study resources in the area, a planned project would likely also traverse areas that are designated
as having high sensitivity. Because paleontological resources are site-specific in nature, the City will implement standard conditions that require monitoring and collecting resources
to minimize adverse cumulative impacts. With implementation of monitoring and collection measures, the proposed project would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on paleontological
resources. No additional measures are required. Biological Resources The study area would be the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. Fifty-nine special status wildlife species and 23 special
status plant species have the potential to occur in the study area. Two of the plant species that were observed during spring botanical surveys are known to occur in the region. Both
of these are CNPS list 1B species. Seven of the wildlife species are formally listed as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and/or the CDFG. With development of planned projects, there
is potential for more habitat to be removed. However, the Western Riverside MSHCP has been designed to provide for the persistence of natural vegetation communities and special status
species in western Riverside County. The areas of special status vegetation types that contain concentrations of known locations or most key populations of species covered by the MSHCP
have been incorporated into reserve areas. Therefore, as long as planned projects are consistent with MSHCP requirements, cumulative effects are expected to be less than substantial.
Even for species not covered by the MSHCP, the purpose of the program is to ensure that sufficient protection is provided to habitat and species to ensure that the effects of planned
projects that are consistent with the MSHCP would not have a substantial cumulative impact. For species not covered by the MSHCP, the proposed project’s effect on the regional populations
is considered less than substantial because it would not impact a substantial quantity of potential habitat relative to the amount of habitat that is available for these species in the
project region. CLIMATE CHANGE Regulatory Setting While climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological
Organization’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas16 (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased
dramatically in recent years. In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate
change at the state level. AB 1493 requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement 16 Greenhouse gases related to human activity include: Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous
oxide, Tetrafluoromethane, Hexafluoroethane, Sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a.
216 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions; these regulations will apply
to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009 model year. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is
to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by the 2020, and (3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further
reinforced with the passage of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that ARB create a plan,
which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies
to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’s Climate Action Team. With Executive Order S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel
standard for California. Under this executive order, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020. Climate change and GHG
reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate
change. However, California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations and several other states, sued to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate
GHGs as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 05–1120. 549 U.S. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April
2, 2007). The court ruled that GHGs do fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant, and that EPA does have the authority to regulate GHGs. Despite the Supreme Court ruling,
there are no promulgated federal regulations to date limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Affected Environment According to a recent white paper by the Association of Environmental Professionals,17
“an individual project does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates
in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases.” The Department and its parent agency, the
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, have taken an active role in addressing GHG emission reduction and climate change. Recognizing that 98 percent of California’s GHG emissions
are from the burning of fossil fuels and 40 percent of all human made GHG emissions are from transportation, the Department has created and is implementing the Climate Action Program
at Caltrans (December 2006). Transportation’s contribution to GHG emissions is dependent on 3 factors: the types of vehicles on the road, the type of fuel the vehicles use, and the time/distance
the vehicles travel. One of the main strategies in the Department’s Climate Action Program to reduce GHG emissions is to make California’s transportation system more efficient. The 17
Hendrix, Michael and Wilson, Cori. Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) on How to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA
Documents (March 5, 2007), p. 2
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 217 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study highest levels of carbon dioxide from mobile sources, such as automobiles, occur at stop-and-go
speeds (0–25 miles per hour [mph]) and speeds over 55 mph. Figure 2-20 shows the relationship between vehicle speed and carbon dioxide emission. Lower vehicle speeds (often associated
with congestion) show disproportionately high carbon dioxide emissions. Relieving congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel corridors will
lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions. Figure 2-20 Source: Center for Clean Air Policy http://www.ccap.org/Presentations/Winkelman%20TRB%202004%20(1-13-04).pdf The locally-preferred
alternative proposes the construction of a new interchange at French Valley Parkway on I-15 between the existing Winchester Road interchange (SR-79) and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in
the vicinity of the I-15/I-215 Junction. The Proposed Project limits extend within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. The Project’s purpose is to improve traffic flow by reducing congestion
on the freeway mainline and the on-ramps, and to improve safety. A northbound and southbound C/D system is proposed which will provide 3 lanes of traffic that run parallel to the mainline
in each direction. The purpose of the C/D system is to relieve congestion in the mainline which is caused by the weaving of traffic due to the entering and departing of commuter vehicles.
By diverting most of the local traffic from the freeway onto the C/D System between the Winchester Road Interchange and the I-15/I-215 confluence, congestion and delays would be reduced
and the level of service would improve. Tables 2.13 through 2.22 provide data which shows reduced delays with construction of the Proposed Project in Years 2012 and 2030. The increased
improvement in the vehicle time traveled (Vehicle Hours Traveled) would reduce traffic idling on ramps and the mainline as well as carbon dioxide/GHG emissions, thus benefiting the environment.
Further discussion of vehicle emissions reductions associated with the Preferred
218 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Project may be found both in the Air Quality Section and the Traffic and Transportation Section
of this document. This proposed project is included in the RTP and RTIP for the region. Due to improved traffic flow, it is expected that there will be a reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions, since increased vehicle speed results in a reduction in GHG emissions. The Department recognizes the concern that carbon dioxide emissions raise for climate change. However,
accurate modeling of GHG emissions levels, including carbon dioxide at the project level, is not currently possible. No federal, State or regional regulatory agency has provided methodology
or criteria for GHG emission and climate change impact analysis. Therefore, the Department is unable to provide a scientific or regulatory based conclusion regarding whether the project’s
contribution to climate change is cumulatively considerable. The Department continues to be actively involved on the Governor’s Climate Action Team as ARB works to implement AB 1493
and AB 32. As part of the Climate Action Program at Caltrans (December 2006), the Department is supporting efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled by planning and implementing smart
land use strategies: job/housing proximity, developing transit-oriented communities, and high density housing along transit corridors. The Department is working closely with local jurisdictions
on planning activities; however, the Department does not have local land use planning authority. The Department is also supporting efforts to improve the energy efficiency of the transportation
sector by increasing vehicle fuel economy in new cars, and light and heavy-duty trucks. However it is important to note that the control of the fuel economy standards is held by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency and ARB. Lastly, the use of alternative fuels is also being considered; the Department is participating in funding for alternative fuel
research at the University of California Davis.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 219 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Chapter 3—Comments and Coordination AGENCY CONSULTATION Early and continuing coordination with
the participating public agencies has been an essential part of the environmental process to determine the scope of environmental documentation; the level of analysis; potential impacts
and mitigation measures; and related environmental requirements. This chapter summarizes the results of the Department’s efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project-related
issues through early and continuing coordination. Project Development Team During the preparation of this Environmental Document, monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings were
held. PDT members included representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Department, the Riverside Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Cities of Temecula
and Murrieta, along with members of the consultant team including Moffatt & Nichol, BonTerra Consulting, and LSA Associates, Inc. The teams discussed design options, factors to be considered
during the environmental study process, and scheduling issues. Value Analysis Review Process/Accelerated Construction and Technology Transfer Workshop The PDT was also involved in developing
the proposed alternatives. The project required a formal Value Analysis review, and a Value Analysis (VA) study was performed according to the Department’s guidelines; four alternatives
were evaluated. Two of these alternatives were carried forward from the Project Study Report. The VA team also introduced alternatives and interim improvements of its own. The results
of the VA Study are contained in the Closeout Value Analysis Report (2004). The Department also nominated the French Valley Interchange project to be a part of an FHWA Accelerated Construction
and Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop. Members of the PDT worked together in organizing a three-day workshop for the ACTT workshop. In this three-day workshop (December 9 through December
11, 2003), national experts spanning all disciplines and representing the federal government, other states, and consultant firms met to discuss and share their ideas on how the delivery
of the project can be accelerated. A separate report detailing the progress of the workshop, ACTT Workshop Draft Report, was prepared and submitted to FHWA in February 2004. The FHWA
prepared the Final ACTT Workshop Report for this project. The VA and ACTT processes were discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1. Agency Coordination The Department has coordinated
with regulatory and resource agencies regarding the permits required for the proposed project and potential mitigation. At the Department’s request, a list of species to be addressed
within the Natural
220 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Environment Study for the proposed project was transmitted from the USFWS on December 15, 2004.
In August 2008, the USFWS determined that an updated species list was not required. A pre-application field meeting was held in January 2006 with the USFWS, the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board, as well as staff from the Department, City of Temecula, and the consultant team. The Department submitted a draft Determination of a Biologically Equivalent or
Superior Preservation (DBESP) to the USFWS on January 25, 2006. An Initial MSHCP Consistency Evaluation was received from the USFWS on August 22, 2006. A revised DBESP was re-submitted
to the USFWS on November 29, 2006. The Department received a letter from the USFWS with respect to initiating Informal Section 7 Consultation for the proposed project on December 15,
2006. The impacts, acreages and approaches for addressing will be finalized prior to completion of of the Final Environmental Document. In an effort to identify mitigation areas, the
consultant, on behalf of the City of Temecula and the Department, has worked with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the USACE, the CDFG, and USFWS to determine the specific
requirements to mitigate impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources, least Bell’s vireo, and Los Angeles pocket mouse. The RCA and City of Temecula are currently preparing an agreement for
participation in the acquisition of habitat along the San Jacinto River to mitigate for impacts on the Los Angeles pocket mouse. In addition, the City is preparing the legal description
of the parcel where the riparian habitat creation is proposed along Temecula Creek. A Conceptual Riparian Habitat Mitigation And Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be prepared for submittal
with the USACE and CDFG permit applications. A meeting was held in the field on February 4, 2009, to review the limits of USACE jurisdiction. The jurisdictional sections of this document
reflect the discussion at the meeting. Permits Needed • A Nationwide Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for alterations to jurisdictional lands. • A Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the CDFG for any alterations to Warm Springs Creek and San Gertrudis Creek. • A water certification by the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. • DBESP
finding that the proposed riparian mitigation is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and mitigates for the loss of habitat for the least Bell’s vireo. Riparian/Riverine mitigation
includes creation of riparian habitat or purchase of in-lieu mitigation fee credits at a regional conservation bank. The USFWS has concurred with this mitigation approach (USFWS 2006;
letter from Jonathan Snyder).
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 221 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study • DBESP finding that the proposed Los Angeles pocket mouse mitigation is consistent with Section
6.3.2 of the MSHCP and mitigates for the loss of habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse. Proposed mitigation includes purchase of high quality habitat for this species along the San
Jacinto River. The USFWS has concurred with this mitigation approach (USFWS 2006; letter from Jonathan Snyder). • Approval of a new Connection Report by the California Transportation
Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In addition to consultation with participating agencies, the IS-proposed MND/EA process includes public participation in the form of public review of
the environmental document and a public hearing during the public review period. A Notice of Availability will be published in newspapers that are distributed in the Temecula Valley
area. In addition, copies of the Notice of Availability will be sent via U.S. mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project limits. For those parcels that would have a direct
impact (i.e., acquisition of right-of-way) the property owners will receive an electronic version (i.e., CD) with this IS-proposed MND/EA. As indicated in Chapter 1, copies of the IS-proposed
MND/EA will be available at the local public libraries for review. Public outreach regarding the project has also occurred in the context of the General Plan revisions recently processed
in the City of Temecula, as well as during preparation of the environmental documentation for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor (EIS/EIR) and the Harveston Planned Community Project.
The Mayor of Temecula has featured the Project in the annual State of the City Address and in August 2007, a public meeting was held to present the project’s background, need, purpose,
and status to elected officials, public agencies, general public, and the press.
222 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 223 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
224 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 225 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Chapter 4—List of Preparers FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Operational Engineer ............................
.....................................Bren I. George Senior Project Development Engineer ................................................Tay Dam Field Operations Engineer .............................
.................................... Jeff Lewis CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Manager .................................................................................
Bruce Ko Environmental ................................................................................. Marie Petry Environmental ....................................................................
....... James Shankel Environmental ..........................................................................Antonia Cooney Environmental ............................................................
......... Charlotte Sheehan Biology ................................................................................................ Russell Williams Biology .........................................
................................................... Alan Manee Cultural ......................................................................................... David Bricker Cultural
.................................................................................... Dicken Everson Paleontology .............................................................................
Dicken Everson Environmental Engineering ............................................................
Tony Louka Environmental Engineering ........................................................ Edison Jaffery Environmental Engineering .....................................................
John Candelaria Environmental Engineering ......................................................... Rosanna Roa CITY OF TEMECULA (CEQA Lead Agency) Department of Public Works ........................
..................................... Amer Attar Department of Public Works ........................................................... Avlin Odviar Department of Public Works .......................
.............................. Kavon Haghighi Planning Department ........................................................... Patrick Richardson Planning Department ..................................
................................... Steve Brown CITY OF MURRIETA Public Works & Engineering Department ...................................... Russ Napier Planning Department .........................
........................................ Jim Mackenzie MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS Senior Project Manager ................................................................. George Hale
Civil Engineer ....................................................................... Malgorzata Nichol BONTERRA CONSULTING Principal of Technical Services/Principal in Charge .......
Kathleen Brady, AICP Assistant Project Manager ............................................................ Diana Gould Environmental Planner .........................................................
............ Kim Quinn
226 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Water Quality, Hydrology, Floodplain ......................................... Jennifer Marks
Hazardous Materials Assessment, Geology/Soils ........................ Diane Barrett Senior Botanist .................................................................... Sandy Leatherman
Ecologist ....................................................................................... Amber Oneal Wetland Delineation ...................................................................
Gary Medeiros Cultural Resources ......................................................................... Brian Glenn GIS Analyst ....................................................................
........... Johnnie Garcia GIS Analyst ................................................................................. Chris Starbird Technical Editor ..............................................
.................................. Julia Smith Word Processor ............................................................................ Sheryl Kristal APPLIED EARTHWORKS Architectural
Historian ................................................................ Peggy Beedle Principal Investigator ................................................................. Melinda
Horne Historic Archaeologist ............................................................ Colleen Hamilton KTU+A Principal Planner/Landscape Architect ..............................
Michael L. Singleton Senior Associate/Landscape Architect .............................. Sharon A. Singleton Project Planner ..........................................................................
..... Robert Efird Graphic Designer .................................................................. Michael Johnston CASTLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING President/Air Quality Specialist
.............................................. John Castleberry LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Senior Traffic Engineer .............................................................. Steven Greene
Senior Transportation Planner ........................ Sandipan Bhattacharjee, AICP PALEO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES Principal Paleontologist ................................................
E. Bruce Lander, Ph.D. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM Curator of Paleontology ..................................................................... Eric Scott Senior Curator of Geological
Sciences ............................... Kathleen Springer WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Principal Consultant/Noise Analysis Specialist ...................... David L. Wieland Noise Analysis
Specialist .................................................. Jonathan Higginson
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 227 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Chapter 5—Distribution List The draft IS/EA was distributed to the following agencies, elected
officials, service providers, and utility companies. In addition, a copy of the document on compact disk has been sent to those property owners whose property may be directly affected
due to right-of-way requirements. Notices of Availability of the document have been sent to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the project limits. FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Project Planning Branch 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3401 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: William B.
Miller STATE AGENCIES State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5502 California Department of Fish and Game 4949 View Ridge Avenue San
Diego, CA 92123 California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation 1416 9th 9th Street, Room 1442 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Highway Patrol 27685 Commerce
Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Division 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3348 California Transportation Commission
1120 N. Street, Room 2221 (MS 52) Sacramento, CA 95814 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA. 92123-4340 Native American Heritage
Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LOCAL/REGIONAL AGENCIES County of Riverside
Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92376 Riverside County Transportation Commission County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92517-1968 City of Temecula Maryann Edwards, Mayor 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Jeff Comerchero,
Mayor Pro Tem 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590
228 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study City of Temecula Ron Roberts, Council Member 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City
of Temecula Mike Naggar, Council Member 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Chuck Washington, Council Member 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City
of Temecula Planning Commission John H. Telesio, Chairman 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Planning Commission Stanley A. Harter, Vice Chair 43200 Business
Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Planning Commission Carl R. Carey, Commissioner 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Planning Commission Dennis
W. Chiniaeff, Commissioner 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Temecula Planning Commission Ron Guerriero, Commissioner 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590
City of Temecula Department of Planning Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 City of Murrieta Department of Planning 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562
City of Murrieta Gary Thomasian, Mayor One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Kelly A. Bennett, Mayor Pro Tem One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Rick Gibbs, Councilmember One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Lane Randon, Councilmember One Town Square 24601
Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Douglas McAllister, Councilmember One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta CA 92562 City of Murrieta Planning Commission Michael
Fitzpatrick, Chairman One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Planning Commission Tom Butler, Commissioner One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta,
CA 92562
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 229 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study City of Murrieta Planning Commission Harley Cohen, Commissioner One Town Square 24601 Jefferson
Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Planning Commission Alan Long, Commissioner One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 City of Murrieta Planning Commission
Barbara Lupro, Vice Chairman One Town Square 24601 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 Murrieta Public Library 39589 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, CA 92563-5026 Temecula Public Library 41000
County Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 County of Riverside Board of Supervisors Roy Wilson – District 4, 4080 Lemon Street -4th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors Jeff Stone, Chairman – District 3 4080 Lemon Street -4th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 County of Riverside Board of Supervisors Bob Buster – District 1 4080 Lemon Street -4th
Floor Riverside, CA 92501 County of Riverside Board of Supervisors John F. Tavaglione – District 2 4080 Lemon Street -4th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
Marion Ashley Vice Chairman – District 5 4080 Lemon Street -4th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ELECTED OFFICIALS Senator Dennis Hollingsworth 36th California District 27555 Ynez Rd, Temecula,
CA 92591 Assemblyman John J. Benoit 1223 University Ave # 230 Riverside, CA 92507 Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries 41391 Kalmia St # 220 Murrieta, CA 92562 Congressman Ken Calvert 3400 Central
Ave # 200 Riverside, CA 92506 Congressman Darrell Issa P.O. Box 760 Vista, California 92085-0760 Senator Barbara Boxer 201 North E Street, Suite 210 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Senator
Dianne Feinstein 750 B Street, Suite 1030 San Diego, CA 92101 SoCAB Contact: Janet Laiblin 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Fire Chief Paul Christman City of Murrieta Fire Department
41825 Juniper St. Murrieta, CA 92562 Police Chief Mark Wright City of Murrieta Police Department 24701 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562
230 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Fire Chief Glenn Patterson City of Temecula Fire Department PO Box 9033 43200 Business Park
Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Police Chief Jerry Williams PO Box 892050 Temecula, CA 92590 ORGANIZATIONS Temecula Valley Museum 28315 Mercedes Street Temecula, CA 92590-1838 Temecula
Valley Historical Society c/o Temecula Valley Museum 28315 Mercedes Street Temecula, CA 92590-1838 Pechanga Band of Mission Indians P. O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593-1477 Attn: Mr. Mark
Macarro, Chairperson UTLITIES Ms. Tracy Escobedo Time Warner 3281 Guasti Road #350 Ontario, CA 91761 (951) 766-4270 Southern California Edison 26100 Menifee Road Romoland, CA 92585 Mr.
Keith Osborn Senior Program Manager Network Relocation 1025 Eldorado Boulevard Broomfield, Colorado 80021 (720) 888-2774 Southern California Gas Company Mr. Anthony Barrozo Planning
Associate 1981 W. Lugonia Redlands, CA 92374 Mr. Abe Mendoza Eastern Municipal Water District Project Engineer Headquarters: 270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92572-8300 Mr. Stuart McKibbin
Riverside County Flood Control District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 SBC/Pacific Bell Mr. Patrick McDonnell 1265 Van Buren St. #180 Anaheim, CA 92807 Mr. Russell Frear Verizon
Network Engineer 150 S. Juanita Street Hemet, CA 92543 (951) 929-9436 russell.frear@verizon.com Rancho California Water District Bud Jones Engineering Project Coordinator 42135 Winchester
Road Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 296-6900 Fax: (951) 296-6860 Western Municipal Water District Jeffrey Sims P.O. Box 5286 Riverside, CA 92517
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 231 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX A CEQA CHECKLIST
232 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 233 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study CEQA CHECKLIST Supporting documentation of all CEQA checklist determinations is provided in
Chapter 2 of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. Documentation of “No Impact” determinations is provided at the beginning of Chapter 2. Discussion of all impacts,
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures is under the appropriate topic headings in Chapter 2. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) No
Impact. The City of Temecula General Plan identifies scenic features within the area as the western ridgelines, hillsides to the north, and natural drainage courses, including the Santa
Margarita River. The City of Murrieta General Plan also identified the hillside resources in the area as offering visual and psychological benefits to viewers. However, no scenic vistas
are listed in either city’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed project would not be visible from the western ridgelines and hillsides to the north of the project, and the proposed
project would not have a substantial adverse effect on these features. The proposed project does cross natural drainage courses (i.e., Warms Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks) within
the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. However, views of the creek are limited to motorists driving on I-15 and Winchester Road and residents of mobile homes located east of I-15. The
project would not cross or otherwise affect the Santa Margarita River. Additionally, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the Warm Springs or Santa Gertrudis
Creeks. b) No Impact. I-15 corridor is included in the California Department of Transportation’s Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation. The City
of Murrieta or Temecula would need to process a submittal through the Department for finalization of this designation. However, there are no designated scenic resources within the area
or vicinity which would be adversely affected by the proposed project. As a result, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. c) Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project consists of widening an existing facility and constructing a new freeway interchange in a suburban area. The new French Valley Parkway Interchange and the portion
of the collector-distributor lanes near Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 junction would be raised above the grade of the existing roadway. However, the visual character and quality
of the project site and its surroundings would not be substantially changed or degraded. The overall visual character and quality would be consistent with the existing setting, which
is that of a major transportation corridor. The only sensitive receptors within the project vicinity are near the northern end of the project site where some residential units are sited.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in new sources of light and glare associated with the new interchange and C/D system. The proposed project would move
I-15 slightly closer to the mobile homes immediately east of the I-15. As a result, lighting would be incrementally
234 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact closer to the existing mobile homes. However, the sound wall proposed as part of the project would be constructed between I-15 and the mobile home park.
This would provide shielding from vehicle lights extending into the mobile park. Therefore, the project would not be expected to have significant light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURE
RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes
in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? a-c) No Impact. Based on the California
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping, there is no designated Important Farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique or Farmland of Local Importance)
within the project study area. There are no active farmlands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts in the project study area. III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 235 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact a) No Impact. The project has been incorporated into the RTIP and the RTP. Therefore, it has been assumed as part of the regional South Coast Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). No impacts to applicable air plans would occur. b-c) Less than Significant Impact. The project would improve traffic flow within the project study. As a result
of the increased efficiency, emissions would be expected to be reduced. This issue will be fully assessed in the IS/EA for this project. d) Less than Significant Impact. Based on the
expected traffic volumes within the study area compared to the analysis conducted for the AQMP, it is unlikely that the project would produce any hot spots that would adversely impact
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. e) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction activities such as asphalt paving may generate short-term odors, which
may be noticed by adjacent land uses, including residents of the mobile home community located east of I-15 in the vicinity of Elm Street. These odors would be typical of roadway construction
work and would be temporary, lasting only for a limited duration. Odors generated by vehicles traveling on the additional travel lanes would not be substantially greater than those under
current conditions. As a result, any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
236 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact a-f) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have limited impacts to special status habitat or special status species. I-15/I-215 is depicted
in the Riverside County MultI-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as a transportation corridor. The project traverses through generally developed area. Though the project would
traverse across Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks, bridge structures are proposed. The project would require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance
with permit and MSHCP requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. To ensure the MSHCP provisions are incorporated and adequately monitored, they have been
listed as standard provisions in the Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures section of the IS/IS/EA for the proposed project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. Based on the literature review there are no designated historical resources in the project study area.
This potential impact will be fully assessed in the IS /EA for this project. b) Less than Significant Impact. There are no known archaeological resources within the project study area.
Should resources be identified during construction, The Department’s' policy is that work would be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of
the find and appropriate actions can be taken. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project study area has two areas classified as high paleontological importance.
The implementation of the Paleontological Mitigation Plan, prepared by the Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc., reduces the potentially significant impact to paleontological resources
to a less than a significant level. d) No Impact. The site has been disturbed as part of the original construction of I-15 and I-215, as well as adjacent development. Given the highly
disturbed nature of the project study area, the discovery of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries is remote. I-1I-2 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the
project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 237 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a (I-iii) Less than Significant Impact. All of southern California is subjected to
the adverse effects of seismicity; however, compliance with applicable building codes and state-of-the-art design standards minimizes potential impacts. The Whittier-Elsinore Fault lies
0.5 km (0.19 mi) from the site; the San Jacinto fault lies 33 km (12.74 mi) from the site; and the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault is situated approximately 1 km (0.38 mi) from the project
site. Seismic activity emanating from active faults has the potential to generate moderate to strong ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction at the project site. In addition,
the project site is located within the currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The proposed project is required to comply with design and construction requirements
of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the Department Design Specifications (2000, 1996 AASHTO with Interim Revision by the Department), and applicable seismic standards. Application
of these standards would reduce the level of impact due to seismic ground shaking or failure to less than significant. a (iv) Less than Significant Impact. The possibility of landslides
as a result of project implementation is less than significant. The proposed project area is located in a generally developed, urbanized area, and there is little possibility of a landslide
occurring. The topography of the project study area is relatively flat. As such, the likelihood of differential settlement on the project site is low, and compliance with the Department’s
design standards (listed above) would ensure that any impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by mostly granular soils
that are wellgraded and in relatively dense conditions. The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil in most areas of the project site would be low. However, construction
and grading near or within the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis and Warm Springs creeks has the potential potential to result in substantial soil erosion and sedimentation. Implementation
of best management practices and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would reduce these impacts to less than significant. A more detailed discussion of any impacts
and mitigation is discussed further within the body of the IS/EA. c) Less than Significant Impact. See the response to question a-i through a-iii, above.
238 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact d) Less than Significant Impact. Murrieta Valley soils are underlain by non-indurated alluvium, and the
surficial formations of the hills and ridges along the majority of the project site are composed of the Pauba Formation overlying the Sandstone and Conglomerate Formation. The formations
are predominantly sand, although silts and gravel are common. The soft, uncemented nature of these formations makes them difficult to distinguish from alluvium, especially in boreholes.
Basement rocks exist deep below the site and would not be a factor in the development of the project. It has been shown that if bearing soils consist of clay, which is classified as
an expansive soil, movement could come about if wetting and drying of the soils did not occur uniformly. However, no clay is present. As such, the soils on-site would not be considered
to be of the expansive type, and impacts are expected to be a less-than-significant impact. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not require the disposal of waste water. As a result,
no impacts would result from septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and no mitigation measures would be required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the
project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 239 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact a) No Impact. It is expected that traffic utilizing the proposed French Valley Interchange and other improvements on I-15 may include vehicles that are transporting
hazardous materials or waste. However, the proposed project would not expose the public to any greater risk of an accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances than currently
occurs along I-15. The project would potentially reduce the risk of upset because the project is intended to reduce weaving movements, thereby improving traffic safety. In addition,
there would also be the potential for impacts as a result of the removal of potential asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint from the project site. Paint-removal from bridges
and roadways during the pre-construction phase, as well as the restriping of roadways during the construction phase of the project would also present potential impacts. The potential
for release of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint within the project site would be minimized through the implementation of standard regulations. The development of an
approved Health and Safety Contingency Plan for the protection of workers and the environment would further reduce the level of impact should unanticipated materials are identified during
construction. The standard requirements of screening for asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints prior to project implementation would also reduce the level of impact to
less than significant. b) No Impact. The project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. To further insure the safety of the project site, a Health and Safety Contingency Plan would be developed prior to
construction, and any discovery during the construction phase would require compliance with same. As such, no impact is expected and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact.
There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. d) No Impact. According to a search
of government hazardous materials/waste databases (EDR, 2003), there are 203 listed regulatory sites located within a half-mile radius of the project which are listed in one or more
federal or state databases searched by EDR. However, no known hazardous materials/waste sites were identified on these databases as being located within the boundaries of the proposed
project site. As such, there would be no impact. e) No Impact. The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport, located at 37552 Winchester Road in Murrieta, approximately 2.89 miles
northeast of the project site. The project site is not located within the French Valley Airport land use plan. Additionally, the proposed project does not include any structures which
would disrupt take-off or landing activities at the airport. As a result, the proposed project would not adversely affect, or be affected by the French Valley Airport, and no mitigation
measures are required. f) No Impact. The nearest private airstrip is the Bear Creek Airfield, located approximately 2.65 miles northwest of the project site. While the Bear Creek Airfield,
also known as Thompson Field, is still intact, the Airfield closed in 1997 and is currently fenced, inaccessible from the ground, and closed to air traffic. As a result, the proposed
project would not adversely affect, or be affected by the Bear Creek Airfield, and no mitigation measures are required. g) No Impact. The proposed French Valley Interchange is not identified
as an existing or proposed emergency evacuation route in either the City of Temecula or City of Murrieta General Plans. The Emergency Services Coordinator for the City of Temecula stated
that neither Winchester Road nor I-15 are officially considered as emergency evacuation routes (Personal communication, Yates, 2005).
240 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact h) No Impact. According to the Riverside Operational Area MultI-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Riverside, 2004), the project site
and vicinity are located well outside of any area susceptible to wildland fire. Therefore, the project would not cause any increased risk of loss due to wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY
AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within
a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The
project would potentially increase the amount of pollutant levels in the form of runoff during construction activities. However, the project would be required to conform with established
water quality standards and be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit issued by the State Water Resources
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 241 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact Control Board to the Department in 1999 and the General Construction Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. b) Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would not result in an increased withdrawal of groundwater, such that the project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies. However, the proposed project
would increase the amount of impermeable surface, mainly in the form of ramps. This would have limited affect on groundwater recharge in the area. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The
Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks are the major drainage channels that collect runoff emanating from the Temecula and Murrieta areas. The proposed project would provide for water
quality basins for the collection and natural treatment of stormwater flow from the existing I-15 facility. However, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns
in the project study area. The project would construct additional bridge piers in the creek beds. However, these are not expected to substantially alter the flow of the water in the
creeks. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would incrementally alter the flow of stormwater draining from the freeway, which could affect the rate or amount of surface
runoff into Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis creeks. Analysis conducted as part of this IS/EA demonstrated that the existing channels could accommodate the anticipated post-project flows.
e & f) Less Than Significant Impact. The amount of surface runoff would incrementally increase as a result of project implementation. The amount of runoff would exceed the capacity of
the existing storm water drainage facility on I-15. As a result, the project proposes improvements to the storm water drainage facilities, including the drainage basins and bioswales.
These improvements would have the capacity to drain surface runoff during a storm event. g) No Impact. The project does not propose construction of housing uses; therefore, no impact
would occur. h) Less than Significant. The project corridor is located within the 100-year flood hazard areas of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Springs Creek, and the proposed project
would construct bridge structures within the 100-year flood hazard area. Floodplain and scour analysis (AEI CASC Engineering, 2004) performed for both creeks determined that construction
of the proposed project would increase the water surface elevation downstream of the new bridge structures by 0.18 meters (0. feet) for the Warm Springs Bridge, which would result in
the need for submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA. No increase would result for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge. The increased water surface at Warm Springs
Creek would fit under the bridges (i.e., sufficient freeboard). Additionally, the higher water surface elevation is contained within the existing channel, so it would not adversely affect
stream flow. i) Less than Significant Impact. The project corridor is located within the 100-year flood hazard areas of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Springs Creek, and would place
bridge structures for I-15 within the flood hazard area. Bridge structures are currently located in the flood hazard area, and bridge design would comply with the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual and the Department’s Design Specifications (2000, 1996 AASHTO with Interim Revision by the Department’s). As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. According to the City of Murrieta General Plan, the proposed project is located within the Lake Skinner Dam Inundation
Area. However, the project would comply with the Department’s requirements (listed above), and would not result in a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death should the dam break.
As a result, the project impact would be less than significant. j) No Impact. Seiches (oscillating waves) and tsunamis (earthquake-generated tidal waves) would have no impact on the
proposed project. Seiches and tsunamis are not a concern because the project site is
242 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact away from the open coast and there are no large water bodies within the project area. Additionally, the project site is located on fairly flat terrain and
would not be subject to mudflows. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) No Impact. The existing I-15 does not currently physically divide an established community. community. Widening the existing facility, constructing a new interchange at French
Valley Parkway, and realigning the existing on-and off-ramps at Winchester Road would not divide an established community because the development surrounding the I-15 has been freeway
oriented. b) No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with statewide, regional, and local mobility goals, and is included in the Riverside County Community Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process (CETAP) and 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The project is included in the City of Temecula General Plan and City of Murrieta General Plan and is consistent
with the goals and policies contained therein. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the Riverside County MultI-Species Habitat Conservation
Plan, of which the cities and the Department’s are signatory agencies. The alignment traverses several cells that necessitated further surveys, which were conducted as part of the IS/EA.
The MSHCP outlines mitigation protocols should sensitive resources be identified. Additionally, as part of the MSHCP the Department has committed to develop a mitigation bank to offset
impacts associated with transportation projects. These measures have been incorporated as standard provisions for the proposed project. X. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) No Impact. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the
project area has been classified by the State Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ-3a. This area contains sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete
and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value. There are no mineral classification zones listed within the
City of Murrieta General Plan. However, according to the County of Riverside General Plan, chapter 5, “Multipurpose Open Space Element,” the proposed project falls within the classification
MRZ-3a, which is an area where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist. The significance of that deposit is undetermined. The County of
Riverside established that there are no designated mining operations or known mineral resources within 1.3 kilometers (one-half mile) of the proposed project. Given the
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 243 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact limited area the project would disturb and the fact that the area is generally developed or zoned for future development, the project would not result in
the loss of availability of a mineral resource valuable to the region or state. b) No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project is located in an area where available geologic
information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist. However, the deposits are not of significant economic value. As a result, there would be no project impact. XI. NOISE
– Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within
the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a & c) Less than Significant Impact.
There is the potential for the proposed project to result in an incremental increase in noise impacts on adjacent land uses because the project would locate traffic in closer proximity
to developed areas. The project would provide sound walls adjacent to the mobile home park east of I-15 and on the west side of I-15 south of Winchester Road. The mobile home park is
the residential use in closest proximity to I-15. The IS/EA evaluates the feasibility and reasonableness of noise attenuation for all locations where sensitive land uses would be exposed
to noise levels in excess of the Department’s noise abatement criteria. b) No Impact. The proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial ground borne vibration or noise
levels. The project would be a continuation of the existing freeway use, which does not currently result in impacts of this nature. d) Less than Significant Impact. There is the potential
for the proposed project to result in a substantial adverse noise impacts during construction. However, this would be short-term in nature. Given the relatively high ambient noise levels
on the freeway, these impacts would not be expected to result in significant impacts. e & f) No Impact. The project site is not located within an existing or proposed airport land use
plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.
244 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) No Impact. The
proposed project has been planned in coordination with future land uses identified in the General Plans for the City of Temecula and City of Murrieta, as well as regional planning documents.
The project has been planned to accommodate existing and future planned growth in the area. It is not expected that the project would induce substantial growth over and above that anticipated
by the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required b & c) No Impact. The proposed project would not displace any housing
units or a substantial number of people. Less than 10 commercial uses would be affected. No replacement housing would be required and sufficient opportunities are available for the displaced
commercial uses. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?
Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) No Impact. No existing fire and police protection, schools, parks,
or other public services are located within the project site, or within the vicinity of the project study area. Beneficial indirect effects to fire and police protection services would
result through improved LOS along I-15, and within the vicinity of the proposed French Valley and existing Winchester Avenue interchanges. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no
mitigation measures would be required. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 245 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? a) No Impact. The proposed project is not a development project that would increase the use of existing parks, result in the need for additional
facilities, or result in the increased use of parks that could deteriorate existing facilities. As a result, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The proposed project does not include
a recreational facility component, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As a result, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures would be required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate
parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) No Impact.
The project would not result in the generation of any additional trips because no new land uses are proposed. The projected traffic volumes would be the same with or without the proposed
project because it would be serving the growth projected for the area as part of the local and regional planning programs. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not cause
roadways to exceed established levels of service when compared to the No Action Alternative. However, with cumulative growth several of the ramps in the study area would exceed level
of service standards. The project would serve to reduce the overall congestion on the roadway network; therefore, on this impact would be considered less than significant. c) No Impact.
This is a roadway widening and new interchange project. The proposed project would have no effect on air traffic patterns and would not increase the safety risk location around the French
Valley Airport, located 2.89 miles to the northeast of the project site.
246 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact d) Less than Significant Impact. Design features for the proposed project comply with the Department’s standards, or would be approved as non-standard features.
The Department’s review process would ensure non-standard features would not result in hazardous conditions. As a result, any impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures would be required. e) Less than Significant Impact. Emergency vehicles would not be impeded by the widened roadway. In fact, the proposed project would improve emergency access
by improving LOS on the mainline freeway, and preventing queuing at the on-and off-ramps. During project construction no freeway closures, other than those potentially required for erecting
and removing falsework, are proposed. As a result, emergency access would not be impeded. If freeway closures are required for falsework, emergency vehicles would be routed off I-15
at Winchester and Murrieta Hot Springs Roads, and traffic would be routed west to Jefferson Avenue. This would be a temporary impact and the project would be required to develop a detour
plan with adequate signage. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. f) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate any development
that would need additional parking facilities; however, it would displace parking at several of the businesses adjacent to the freeway. These potential impacts have been addressed though
project design by the acquisition or the provision of replacement parking. This issue will be evaluated as part of the IS/EA. g) No Impact. The project would not affect alternative transportation.
There are no current plans for alternative transportation
facilities within the I-15 corridor; however, the project would provide for improved transit and would not conflict with future implementation of HOV lanes within the median. No impact
would result, and no mitigation measures would be required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 247 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) No Impact. Because this is a roadway project, no
development is planned that would require additional demand for wastewater treatment facilities or systems. No impact would result, and no mitigation measures would be required. b) No
Impact. Because this is a roadway project, no development is planned that would require additional demand for wastewater treatment facilities or systems. No impact would result, and
no mitigation measures would be required. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities and these facilities
are being designed as part of the project. As a result, no mitigation is required. d) No Impact. Reclaimed water, rather than domestic water, would be used to irrigate the landscaped
median. There would be no impact on domestic water supplies, and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The project is not a development whereby additional housing units
or commercial, industrial, or office space would be constructed, that would generate the need for wastewater treatment. No impact would result, and no mitigation measures are required.
f & g) No Impact. The proposed project would generate solid waste due to demolition activities during construction; however, a standard provision is that these inert materials be recycled
rather than deposited in landfills. On a long-term basis, the project would not generate substantial solid waste during operation; the majority of waste generated is mainly litter. However,
as a result, the proposed project would have a negligible effect on landfill capacity, and no mitigation measures would be required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does
the project have have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
248 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have only minor incremental impacts on the quality of the environment. The project is located
in a transportation corridor that traverses an urban area. The proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The MSHCP, including the adopted minimization measures, has been designed to ensure that adequate protection is provided to sensitive
species. Standard provisions and permit requires would be applicable to the proposed project to ensure impacts are avoided or minimized. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The IS /EA addresses
the potential cumulative impacts associated with the project. Given the limited impacts associated with the proposed project,, it would not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts.
The nature of the impacts associated with planned growth in the area would primarily be associated with potential impacts on air quality and biological resources. The potential cumulative
impacts on these resources have been addressed through regional planning programs, specifically the RTP, the AQMP, and the MSHCP. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project
would not have substantial direct or indirect impacts on the human environment after mitigation. The project would result in incremental increases in noise and result in displacement
of several land uses; however, these would be reduced through the implementation of project design features or standard provisions (i.e., compliance with the Uniform Relocation Act of
1970).
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 249 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX B TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT
250 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 251 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
252 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 253 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RELOCATION BENEFITS
254 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 255 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study California Department of Transportation Relocation Assistance Program RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ADVISORY SERVICES The California Department of Transportation (the Department) will provide relocation advisory assistance to any person, business, farm or non-profit organization displaced
as a result of the Department’s acquisition of real property for public use. The Department will assist residential displacees in obtaining comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement
housing by providing current and continuing information on sales price and rental rates of available housing. Non-residential displacees will receive information on comparable properties
for lease or purchase. Residential replacement dwellings will be in equal or better neighborhoods, at prices within the financial means of the individuals and families displaced, and
reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Before any displacement occurs, displaces will be offered comparable replacement dwellings that are open to all persons regardless
of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and are consistent with the requirements of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This assistance will also include supplying
information concerning federal and state assisted housing programs, and any other known services being offered by public and private agencies in the area. The Business Relocation Assistance
Program ADDITIONAL INFORMATION No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility
or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law (except for any federal law providing low-income housing assistance).
Persons who are eligible for relocation payments and who are legally occupying the property required for the project will not be asked to move without being given at least 90 days advance
notice, in writing. Occupants of any type of dwelling eligible for relocation payments will not be required to move unless at least one comparable “decent, safe and sanitary” replacement
residence, open to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is available or has been made available to them by the state. Any person, business, farm or
non-profit organization, which has been refused a relocation payment by the Department, or believes that the payments are inadequate, may appeal for a hearing before a hearing officer
or the Department’s Relocation Assistance Appeals Board. No legal assistance is required; however, the displacee may choose to obtain legal counsel at his/her expense. Information about
the appeal procedure is available from the Department’s Relocation Advisors. The information above is not intended to be a complete statement of all of the Department's laws and regulations.
At the time of the first written offer to purchase, owner-occupants are given a more detailed explanation of the state's relocation services. Tenant occupants of properties to be acquired
are contacted immediately after the first written offer to purchase, and also given a more detailed explanation of the Department’s relocation programs.
256 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study IMPORTANT NOTICE To avoid loss of possible benefits, no individual, family, business, farm
or non-profit organization should commit to purchase or rent a replacement property without first contacting a Department of Transportation District 8 relocation advisor.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 257 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
258 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 259 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
260 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 261 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
262 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 263 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
264 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 265 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
266 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 267 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
268 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 269 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
270 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 271 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
272 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 273 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
274 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 275 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS Acoustics: The science of sound, including the generation, transmission,
and effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible. Air Basin: An area of the state designated by the Air Resources Board pursuant to Subdivision (a) of §39606 of the California
Health and Safety Code for air quality planning purposes. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): A plan prepared by an air pollution control district or agency to comply with either the
federal Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. An AQMP contains measures that will be taken to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air Quality
Model: An algorithmic relationship between pollutant emissions and pollutant concentrations used in the prediction of a project's pollutant impact. Air Quality Standards: Standards promulgated
by state or federal pollution control districts. The specified average concentration of an air pollutant in ambient air during a specified time period at or above which undesirable effects
may be produced. Aquifer: A natural underground formation that is saturated with water, and from which water can be withdrawn. A geologic formation of sand, rock, and gravel through
which water can pass and which can store, transmit, and yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. Arterial Road: A vehicular right-of-way whose primary function is
to carry through traffic in a continuous route across an urban area while also providing some access to abutting land. Attainment: Achieving and maintaining the air quality standards
(both state and federal) for a given air pollutant. Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The number of vehicles (trips) passing a given point on a road going in a direction during a 24-hour
period. Background Concentration: Air pollutant concentration due to natural sources and distant unidentified man-made sources. Base Flood: In any given year, a 100-year flood that has
a one percent likelihood of occurring, and is recognized as a standard for acceptable risk. Basin Plan: A water quality control plan developed by a RWQCB for a specific geographic area.
The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of waters, the water quality objectives needed to maintain these beneficial uses, and an implementation plan. Beneficial Uses: The resources,
services, and qualities of state waters that may be protected against quality degradation. Berm: An embankment, usually extended in a linear alignment. Berms can function as visual screens,
noise attenuators, and surface water diverters.
276 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Best Management Practice (BMP): A BMP is any program, technology, process, siting criteria,
operating method, measure, or device which controls, prevents, removes, or reduces pollution. Biotic Community: A group of living organisms characterized by a distinctive combination
of both animal and plant species in a particular habitat. Borrow Area: An area where soil, sand, gravel, or rock is extracted and removed for use as fill, grades, or embankments on property
of a different ownership or noncontiguous property of the same ownership. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS): Specified concentrations of air pollutants, recommended by
the California Department of Health Services and adopted into regulation by the Air Resources Board, which relate the intensity and composition of air pollution to undesirable effects.
CAAQS are the standards that must be met per the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. California Department of Transportation (the Department): The state government agency responsible
for the construction, maintenance, and operation of state and federal highways in California. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA): The state agency that incorporates
the State Water Resources Control Board, the Integrated Waste Management Board, and other agencies with environmental responsibilities. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The
California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15353). Channel: A water course with a definite bed and banks which
confine and conduct the normal continuous or intermittent flow of water. Clean Air Act (CAA): A federal law passed in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 that sets primary and secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for major air pollutants and forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A noise compatibility
level which represents a time-weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. The CNEL scale includes an additional 5 dB adjustment to sounds occurring in the evening
(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and a 10 dB adjustment to sound occurring in the late evening and early morning between (10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Conformity: A requirement of the federal Clean Air Act
that no department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal government shall engage in, support in any way, or provided financial assistance for license, permit, or approve any activity
that does not conform with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by causing or contributing to an increase in air pollution emissions, or violation of an air pollution standard, or frequency
of violating that standard. Criteria Pollutant: An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which a federal or state ambient air quality standard
or criteria for outdoor concentrations has been set in order to protect public health. Cumulative Impact: Those impacts that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions combined with the potential impacts of the project. They
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 277 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study can result from individually minor but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a
period of time. Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): The A-weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighing applied to nighttime sound levels (10
p.m. to 7 a.m.). This exposure method is similar to the CNEL, but deletes the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) as a separate factor. Decibel (dB): A unit for expressing the relative
intensity (loudness) of sounds. Decibel, A-Weighted (dBA): A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human
ear. Direct Effects: Effects which are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Drainage Swale: A storm drainage conveyance structure designed to intercept, divert,
and convey surface runoff (generally sheet flow) to prevent erosion and reduce pollution loading. Dripline: The outermost edge of the tree’s canopy. Encroachment: An action within the
limits of the 100-year floodplain. Endangered Species: A species of animal or plant is “Endangered” when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one
or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal
agency with primary responsibility for the implementation of federal environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq): A single-number representation of the fluctuating sound level in decibels over a specified period of time. It is a sound-energy average
of the fluctuating level. Erosion: The process by which material is removed from the earth's surface (including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most commonly
by wind or water. Expansive Soils: Soils that swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry. Fault: A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that
have shifted. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The federal agency under which the National Flood Insurance Program is administered. Flood, 100-Year: The area subject to flooding
by the flood or tide having a one percent change of being exceeded in any given year. Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source.
278 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Freeboard: An additional amount of height above the Base Flood Elevation (in the case of flood
control) used as a factor of safety (e.g., two feet above the Base Flood) in determining the level at which a structure’s lowest floor must be elevated or floodproofed to be in accordance
with state or community floodplain management regulations. General Plan: A compendium of City or County policies regarding long-term development, in the form of maps and accompanying
text. Geometric Improvements: Improvements to roads such as widening, adding signals to intersections, or adding turning lanes. These are required to mitigate traffic impacts and maintain
a required level of service (LOS). Ground Failure: Ground movement or rupture caused by strong shaking during an earthquake. Includes landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and
subsidence. Ground Shaking: Ground movement resulting from the transmission of seismic waves during an earthquake. Grubbed: Vegetation that has been removed by mechanical or manual methods.
Habitat: A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives or grows. Hertz: Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second. High-Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV): A motor vehicle that is carrying at least a minimum specified number of passengers (normally at least two or more, sometimes three or more). It can be a bus, a taxi with passengers,
or a car or van used for carpooling. Hot Spot: A localized concentration of an air pollutant associated with restricted dispersion conditions, often occurring in such places as street
intersections or close to the source of emissions. Hydrology: The study of the water cycle. Impact: The effect, influence, or imprint of an activity or the environment. Impacts include:
direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place; indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Impervious Surface: Ground surface that cannot be penetrated by water. Includes paved and compacted surfaces, as well
as those covered by buildings. Infrastructure: Permanent utility installations, including roads, water supply lines, sewage collection pipes, and power and communications lines. Initial
Study: Under CEQA, a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency to determine whether an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared, or to identify the significant environmental
effects to be analyzed in an EIR. Intersection Capacity: The maximum number of vehicles that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one direction during a
given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 279 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (ICU): A method of analyzing intersection level of
service by calculating a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for each governing “critical” movement during a traffic signal phase. Inversion Layer: A condition in the atmosphere through which
the temperature increases with altitude, holding cooler surface air down along with its pollutants. Land Use: The purpose or activity for which a piece of land or its buildings is designed,
arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. Lead Agency: The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Level
of Service (LOS): LOS is the qualitative measure that incorporates the collective factors of speed, travel time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and
convenience, and operating costs provided by a highway facility under a particular volume condition. Liquefaction: A geologic phenomenon in which surface and near-surface materials (soils,
alluvium, etc.) behave like a liquid during seismic shaking, often causing failure of soils to support structures. Local Agency: Local agency means any public agency other than a state
agency, board, or commission. Low-income Household: A household with an annual income usually no greater than 80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size,
as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a City or a County, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Median: A physical divider separating lanes of traffic that typically are traveling in opposite directions. Median Income: The annual income of
each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median. Mineral
Resource: Land on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated negative declaration means a negative declaration
prepared for a project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed
to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may
have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measure: Requirement developed for the project that would reduce or eliminate environmental impacts.
280 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Mobile Sources: A source of air pollution that is related to transportation vehicles, such
as automobiles or buses. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency for the maximum levels of air pollutants that can
exist in the ambient air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): NPDES is the national program for administering
and regulating discharges to waterways according to the Clean Water Act (CWA), Sections 401 and 402. Negative Declaration: Negative Declaration means a written statement by the Lead
Agency briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation
of an EIR. Noise: Annoying, harmful, or unwanted sound. Noise Barrier: A wall or other solid structure constructed with the objective of attenuating (i.e., reducing) noise behind the
barrier; commonly, a noise wall along a roadway. Noise Contour: A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour
(measured in dBA) require noise attenuation in residential development. Non-attainment: The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in
reference to air quality. Notice of Determination: A brief notice to be filed by a public agency after it approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements
of CEQA. Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used or built upon.
Particulate Matter (PM10): Any particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns. Peak Hour: The one hour period during which the roadway carries the greatest
number of vehicles. Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
(PS&E): The bid documents, including general design, specifications, and estimated costs. Project: Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in either
a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Public Agency: Public agency includes any state agency, board, or
commission and any local or regional agency, as defined in these Guidelines. Rare Species: A species of animal or plant is “Rare” when either: (a) although not presently threatened with
extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 281 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment
worsens; or (b) the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened.” Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP): The RTP is created by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or the regional planning commission. Responsible Agency: A public agency which proposes
to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency” includes
all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. Right-of-Way (ROW): That portion of property which is dedicated or over which
an easement is granted for public streets, utilities, or alleys. Sediment: Organic or inorganic material that is carried by or is suspended in water and that settles out to form deposits
in the storm drain system or receiving waters. Seismic: Caused by or subject to earthquakes or earth vibrations. Sensitive Receptors: Locations where individuals especially sensitive
to chemical exposure (such as children, the infirm, and the elderly) or are expected to be located on a regular basis. These sites include hospitals, daycare centers, and schools. Significant
Impact or Significant Effect: A substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB): A geographic area defined by the San Jacinto Mountains
to the east, the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD): The agency responsible for
protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies in the SoCAB. State Implementation Plan (SIP): A compilation
of all of a state’s air quality plans and rules that have been approved by the federal EPA. State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP): A capital improvement program of transportation
projects funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other sources. Storm Water: Storm water means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
Storm Water Drainage System: Streets, gutters, inlets, conduits, natural or artificial drains, channels and watercourses, or other facilities that are owned, operated, maintained, and
used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting, or disposing of storm water.
282 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Swale: An elongated or depressed landform within a landscaped area, which is designed to carry
storm or other runoff. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters
without exceeding applicable water quality criteria. Traffic Model: A mathematical representation of traffic movement within an area or region based on observed relationships between
the kind and intensity of development in specific areas. Trip Generation: The number of vehicle trip ends associated with (i.e., produced by) a particular land use or traffic study site.
A trip end is defined as a single vehicle movement. Roundtrips consist of two trip ends. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation;
the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geographical area (whether the entire country or a smaller area) over a given period of time. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C):
In reference to public services or transportation, ratio of peak hour use to capacity. Expressed as v/c, this is a measure of traffic demand on a facility (expressed as volume) compared
to its traffic-carrying capacity. Watershed: The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to a stream, estuary, or lake. Weaving: The process
of exiting a site and merging across multiple lanes “with traffic” to reach an intersection and go in a different direction. Wetlands: An area at least periodically wet or flooded; where
the water table stands at or above the land surface (bogs and marshes). Wildlife Corridor: A natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, that is frequently used by wildlife to travel
from one area to another. Zoning: The division of a municipality into districts for the purpose of regulating land use, types of buildings, required yards and setbacks, parking, and
and other prerequisites to development. Zones re generally shown on a map and the text of the zoning ordinance specifies requirements for each zoning category.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 283 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
284 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 285 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD District 8 – RIV – 15 and 215 KP 8.9/15.47(P.M. 5.5/9.607)/KP
R13.5/R15.7 (PM R8.430 /R9.756) 08-432700 Dist.-Co.Rte. (or Local Agency) K.P./K.P.(P.M./P.M.) E.A. (State Project) Proj. No. (Local project) (Fed. Prog. Prefix Proj. No., Agr.No.) Environmental
Commitments Report Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date R-1
Relocations In conjunction with right-of-way acquisition, the City of Temecula shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the California Department of Transportation Relocation
Assistance Program. In brief, the program is described as follows: Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and businesses in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act, as amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All
eligible displacees will be entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all residential and business relocates without regard to race, color,
religion, age, national origin, or disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department: Right of Way Engineering City of Temecula Planning Director
Prior to project implementation
Environmental Commitments Record 286 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date U-1 Utilities During project design, the precise requirements for relocating of the utilities
and providing for the extension of utilities within the right-of-way of French Valley Parkway will be evaluated in cooperation with all pertinent utility service providers during preparation
of the PS&E. It is anticipated that a dedicated conduit and steel casing would be provided in the bridge for water and gas lines. The Department: Right of Way Engineering All pertinent
utility providers During preparation of PS&E ES-1 Emergency Services Consistent with standard provisions in the cities of Murrieta and Temecula, a Traffic Management Plan would be prepared
to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction of the proposed project. A component of the Traffic Management Plan would be to coordinate with the emergency service
providers to ensure their operations can be adjusted. The Department is responsible for approving the Traffic Management Plan for the project. No further avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation measures would be required to address potential adverse affects on emergency services during construction. Manager of Traffic Operations for the City of Murrieta and the City
of Temecula The Department: Traffic Operations Manager of Department’s Traffic Operations for the City of Murrieta and the City of Temecula Caltrans—Traffic Operations Prior to project
implementation T-1 Traffic & Transportation During Final Design, a Traffic Management Plan shall be developed to reduce potential delays and conflicts associated with construction activities.
The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the Manager of the Department’s Traffic Operations. The plan shall identify construction phasing and the associated Detour Detour Plan
and Signage Program to alert the public of ongoing construction activities. Manager of the Department’s Traffic Operations The Department: Traffic Operations Department’s Traffic Operations
During PS&E
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 287 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date VR-1 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, walls shall be sited and designed
to minimize the size and visual encroachment of the wall. Background views to the mountains and foreground views of the open space and creek corridors shall be maintained to the greatest
extent possible. Analysis of individual wall locations and siting adjustments may be necessary to maintain these views. The use of a series of small, stepped walls or an open structure
is preferable in areas of high visibility over a single large masonry wall. Building and Grading Manager The Department: District Landscape Architect Building and Grading Manager During
PS&E VR-2 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, wall colors, textures and details shall complement and enhance the community character, with the use of standard concrete
kept to a minimum. Wall designs shall comply with the Department’s policies, standards and guidelines. Building and Grading Manager The Department: District Landscape Architect Building
and Grading Manager During PS&E VR-3 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, slopes adjacent to retaining walls shall be contour graded to blend into existing grade. Building
and Grading Manager The Department: District Landscape Architect Building and Grading Manager During PS&E VR-4 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, noise and retaining
walls landscape buffers shall incorporate shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the wall to the maximum extent feasible. Vines will be planted at the top of retaining walls and encouraged
to spill down over the wall. Vines shall be planted approximately every six to ten feet on center. If rightof-way is too narrow to incorporate landscape buffers, planting pockets shall
be utilized. Landscaping shall be maximized in locations where right of way is available. To preserve the cities’
Environmental Commitments Record 288 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date existing character, additional right-ofway shall be acquired where adjacent properties
have not been developed. VR-5 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, all wall surfaces shall be treated with a waterbased, VOC compliant, graffitI-resistant coating to control
graffiti. The coating shall have a low sheen finish and be clear in color. It shall be free of lead, chromium, mercury, and similar heavy metals, and comply with federal, State, and
local VOC air quality regulations. Building and Grading Manager The Department: District Landscape Architect Building and Grading Manager During PS&E VR-6 Visual Resources In conjunction
with Final Design, a landscape plan shall be developed for the proposed project. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department's Biological Studies and Permits
Unit to ensure that no invasive, non-native plants are introduced to areas of biological concern. All plantable disturbed areas within the right-of-way shall be fully improved with planting
of vines, groundcover, shrubs, and trees to provide 100 percent coverage within one year. The Department: Biological Studies and Permits Unit Landscape Architect/Biologist During PS&E
VR-7 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, replacement Highway Planting of trees, shrubs and other vegetation will be replaced at a rate and size determined by the District
Landscape Architect. The Department: District Landscape Architect Landscape Architect/Biologist During PS&E VR-8 Visual Resources In conjunction with Final Design, all irrigation systems
shall be permanent and fully automatic and shall conform to Caltrans requirements. The Department: District Landscape Architect Landscape Architect/Biologist During PS&E VR-9 Visual
Resources Landscaping shall be installed during or immediately after the highway construction period. A three-year plant establishment period shall be provided within the construction
contract. The Department: District Landscape Architect Landscape Architect/Biologist During PS&E
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 289 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date VR-10 Visual Resources The three-year establishment period shall be reviewed annually
by Caltrans and the cities and may be terminated before the end of the third year if landscaping conditions are acceptable, or extended for an additional year if additional maintenance
and monitoring is required. VR-11 Visual Resources Separate monitoring requirements may be required in areas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or California Department
of Fish and Game jurisdiction. In those locations the monitoring requirements associated with the applicable permits would prevail. VR-12 Visual Resources The profile of the French Valley
Parkway overcrossing shall be designed as thin as possible to minimize foreground, middleground, and background view blockages. Building and Grading Manager The Department: District
Landscape Architect Building and Grading Manager During PS&E VR-13 Visual Resources All signage and large-scale advertising boards outside the State’s right of way shall be minimized
to the greatest extent possible to protect viewsheds. Building and Grading Manager Building and Grading Manager During PS&E CUL-1 Cultural Resources If cultural materials are discovered
during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified Archaeologist can assess the nature and significance
of the find. Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction CUL-2 Cultural Resources If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 states that
further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner must be contacted, pursuant to California Public Resources
Code (PRC), Section 5097.98. If the remains are thought to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, who will Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction
Environmental Commitments Record 290 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered
the remains would contact the Department’s District 8 Environmental Branch so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions
of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. HF-1 Hydrology & Floodplain There are no substantially adverse environmental impacts to the Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values.
As a result, no mitigation measures are necessary other than the implementation of normal Best Management Practices (BMPs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit requirements. To be covered by an NPDES permit, the contractor is required to implement structural and non-structural non-point source pollution-control measures known as BMPs.
The BMPs required for this project would be identified in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to be on the project site at all times during construction.
The objective of the SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of storm water discharges from the site associated with construction and to identify measures
that can be implemented to reduce pollutants in the site’s storm water drainages. More information regarding NPDES permits requirements and the SWPPP is located in the “Water Quality
and Storm Water Runoff” section. The Department: Hydrology and Storm Water Contractor Prior to project grading WQ-1 Water Quality and Storm The Construction Contractor shall be responsible
for performing and Department’s Office of Stormwater Quality Construction Contractor Weekly inspections
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 291 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date Runoff documenting the application of BMPs identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). Weekly inspections shall be performed on the BMPs called for in the SWPPP. The Resident Engineer shall maintain monthly reports. The Contractor shall inspect BMP facilities
(1) before and after every rainfall event that is predicted to produce observable runoff and (2) at 24-hour intervals during extended rainfall events, except on days when there is no
ongoing site activity. Pre-storm activities shall include inspection of the major storm drain grate inlets and examination of other on-site surface flow channels and swales, including
the removal of any debris that blocks the flow path. Poststorm activities will include inspection of the grate inlets; looking for any ponded water on the site and determining the cause;
and looking for surface erosion. The Contractor shall implement corrective actions specified by the Resident Engineer, as necessary. Inspection records and compliance certification reports
shall be submitted to the Resident Engineer on a monthly basis and shall be maintained for a period of three years. Inspection schedules shall be monthly during the dry season and weekly
during the wet season. Construction Site BMPs are broken down into six categories. The following are the categories of temporary construction site BMPs that will be implemented for the
proposed project: 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization 2. Temporary Sediment Control 3. Wind Erosion Control (during Final Design), Resident Engineer (during Construction) during wet season;
monthly during dry season; weekly inspections on BMPs
Environmental Commitments Record 292 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date 4. Tracking Control 5. Non-Storm Water Management 6. Waste Management and Material Pollution
Control G-1 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography The proposed project shall comply with the Department’s Standard Specifications related to design and construction, as delineated in the
applicable version of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Department’s Design Specifications, during Final Design. The Department: Geology Building and Grading Manager During
Final Design G-2 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography In meeting the Department’s Design Specifications, foundations supporting proposed bridges shall be designed to withstand the effects
of soil liquefaction. Ground improvements at bridge and retaining wall locations shall be determined during final design Department: Project Engineer Department: Project Engineer During
Final Design P-1 Paleontology A Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) will be prepared and will include at a minimum the following measures. The Non-Standard Special Provision for implementation
of the Paleontological Mitigation Plan will ensure that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on paleontological resources. Department: Project Engineer, Environmental
Cultural Studies Department: Project Engineer During Final Design P-1A Paleontology The Locally Preferred Alternative includes little cut, if any; however some of these cuts may extend
into one or more of the three paleontologically sensitive (fossil-bearing) strata: an unnamed sandstone and conglomerate formation; the sandstone member of the Pauba Formation; and Quaternary
alluvium. Implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring Program shall be required where cuts exceed five feet in depth below the natural surface in previously undisturbed areas areas
and/or Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 293 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date where sensitive strata are currently at grade or less than five feet deep. Where appropriate,
the following standard provision shall be implemented: P-1B Paleontology A qualified Principal Paleontologist (graduate degree in paleontology or geology with demonstrated experience
in paleontological procedures in California) shall be retained to be present at pre-grading meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. At the direction of the Project
Paleontologist, Paleontological Monitors shall be on site to inspect cuts for fossils at all times during original grading involving sensitive geologic formations. If fossils are discovered,
the Paleontologist (or Paleontological Monitor) shall recover them. If necessary, construction work in these areas shall be halted or diverted to allow recovery of fossil remains in
a timely manner. Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction P-1C Paleontology Up to 6,000 pounds of sediment or sedimentary rock will be collected from each of the three formations.
The samples will be processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains that are too small to be observed by the Monitor. Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction P-1D
Paleontology Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the program as a result of processing samples will be cleaned, prepared, sorted, to the lowest taxonomic
level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists, and cataloged. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will then be deposited in an approved
scientific institution with paleontological Contractor Resident Engineer During Construction
Environmental Commitments Record 294 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date collections. A final report will be completed that outlines the results of the program.
P-2 Paleontology During Final Design, the Project Engineer shall evaluate the feasibility of leaving selected road cuts finished slopes in areas of critically interesting geology exposed
so they can serve as important educational and scientific features. Department: Project Engineer, Environmental Cultural Studies Department: Project Engineer During Final Design HZ-1
Hazardous Waste Prior to the initiation of construction, the contractor shall develop an approved Health and Safety Contingency Plan (HSCP) in the event that unanticipated/unknown environmental
contaminants are encountered during construction. The plan shall be developed to protect workers, safeguard the environment, and meet the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), “General Industry Safety Orders – Control of Hazardous Substances”. The Department: Environmental Contractor Prior to construction The HSCP shall be prepared as
a supplemental to the Contractor’s Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan, which should be prepared to meet the requirements of CCR Title 8, “Construction Safety Orders”. HZ-2 Hazardous
Waste Prior to the demolition of any on-site building constructed prior to 1973, the building shall be screened for lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is identified, it shall be mitigated
in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulatory requirements The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer Prior to demolition
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 295 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date HZ-3 Hazardous Waste Prior to the removal of paint from any bridges or roadways, the paint
shall be screened for lead-based paint. If leadbased paint is identified, it shall be mitigated in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulatory requirements. The
Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer Prior to removal of paint from bridges or roadways HZ-4 Hazardous Waste Prior to the demolition of any on-site building constructed
prior to 1980, the Applicant shall test for asbestoscontaining materials. Should the building being demolished contain asbestos, the Applicant shall comply with the notification and
asbestos-removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health issues. The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer Prior to demolition
of any on-site building constructed prior to 1980 HZ-5 Hazardous Waste Demolition activities involving asbestos materials are subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M). These regulations require an inspection or survey of the site that is to
be demolished to determine whether asbestoscontaining materials are present. The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer Inspection survey HZ-6 Hazardous Waste Prior
to construction of Phase II work, it is recommended the City coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain information on the progress of the remediation. If definitive
information on the extent of the contamination plume cannot be ascertained from the files on the remediation efforts, the City should conduct a groundwater investigation in the location
where construction is proposed to determine if the contaminated groundwater has migrated to the project site. The City of Temecula Project Engineer Pre-construction of Phase II
Environmental Commitments Record 296 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date AQ-1 Air Quality
During construction operations, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage
pile, or disturbed surface area, that remain visible beyond the emission source property line. Active construction operations shall utilize one or more of the applicable best available
control measures identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type. Examples of possible best available control measures
include, but are not limited to: • Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. • Water active
sites twice daily. • Replace ground cover (vegetation) as quickly as possible. • Cover loads on haul trucks with tarps. • Suspend excavation and grading when the wind speed exceeds 25
mph or during first, second, or third stage smog alerts. • Maintain a speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads on the construction site. The Department: Environmental The Department: Contractor
During Construction
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 297 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date AQ-2 Air Quality During construction operations, the contractor shall implement the following
best practices to further minimize emissions of ozone precursors, NOx and ROG: • Prohibit truck idling in excess of two minutes. • Configure construction parking to minimize off-site
traffic interference. • Provide temporary traffic control as necessary to improve traffic flow (e.g., flag person). • Schedule construction activities that adversely affect traffic flow
to occur during off-peak hours (e.g., between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM). • Where feasible, minimize or avoid simultaneous construction activities where each activity generates substantial
amounts of construction vehicle exhaust. The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer During Construction N-1 Noise In conjunction with PS&E, the locations and heights
of the sound walls will be verified to demonstrate reasonableness and feasibility based on final design. The findings and final recommendations will be documented in the Noise Abatement
Decision Report. In addition, the feasibility of early construction of the sound walls will be evaluated as a method of minimizing the impact of construction noise on adjacent land uses.
The Department: Environmental Engineering – Noise Department Contractor On-going N-2 Noise The control of noise from construction activities shall conform to Section 5-1, “Sound Control
Requirements”, in the Standard Special Provisions. Sound control shall conform to the provisions in Section 7-1.011, “Sound Control The Department: Environmental Engineering – Noise
Department The Department: Project Engineer Prior to construction of sound walls
Environmental Commitments Record 298 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date Requirement”, of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions: The noise level
from the Contractor’s operations, between the hours of 9:00 pm and 6:00 am shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 15 meters (50 feet). This requirement in no way relieves the Contractor
from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise level. Said noise level requirement shall apply to all equipment on the job or related to the job, including
but not limited to trucks, transit mixers or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the Contractor. The use of loud sound signals shall be avoided in favor of light warnings
except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. B-1 Biological Environment During project planning, the City of Temecula in conjunction with the California Department
of Transportation will submit project information to the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) for review as required for projects located within a Criteria Area. This process involves
submittal of biological information for the proposed project (i.e., information contained within this NES) for review so that the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) can confirm that
the project is consistent with the MSHCP guidelines. The Department: Environmental USFWS CDFG City of Temecula During project planning
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 299 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date B-2 Biological Environment The proposed project design will be consistent with the Guidelines
for Siting and Design of Planned Roads Within Criteria Area and Public/QuasI-Public Lands (Section 7.5.1 of MSHCP). To be consistent with these guidelines, the proposed project must
follow the construction minimization measure provided in Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP. During construction, all applicable construction minimization measures will be followed. The Department:
Environmental The Department: Project Engineer During construction B-3 Biological Environment During project construction, protective fencing will be installed by the construction crew
around native oak trees within the temporary impact area. The fencing will either consist of silt fencing, orange snow fencing, or a 1.8-meter (6-foot) chainlink fence. The fencing will
be placed 4.6 meters (15 feet) outside of the dripline of the tree to ensure that the roots will not be impacted. A qualified Biological Monitor or an Arborist will be present during
the installation of the protective fencing to ensure that it is properly placed. The fencing will be installed within 30 meters (100 feet) of the native tree prior to commencement of
construction. If it is not possible to avoid individual oak trees during construction activities, or if the Biological Monitor determines that construction activities have an effect
on these trees, the oak tree should be replaced and incorporated into the landscape plan. The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer During construction
Environmental Commitments Record 300 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date B-4 Biological Environment During construction, night lighting will be directed away from
the habitat along Warm Springs Creek to the extent practicable. Shielding will be incorporated in project designs to ensure that ambient lighting along Warm Springs Creek is limited
to within 15 meters (50 feet) of the temporary impact area. The Department: Environmental The Department: Project Engineer During construction B-5 Biological Environment If construction
commences during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a pre-construction nesting raptor survey will be required. At least seven days prior to the onset of construction
activities, a qualified Biologist will survey within and adjacent to the limits of project disturbance for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status species not
authorized/covered by the MSHCP). Any nest found during survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required.
Results of the surveys will be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure
compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions on construction are required between February 1 and June 30
(or until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist): (1) clearing limits will be established at a minimum of 61 meters (200 feet) in any direction from any occupied
nest; and (2) access and surveying will be restricted within 91 meters (300 feet) of any occupied nest. Qualified Biologist The Department: Environmental Qualified Biologist At least
seven days prior to construction
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 301 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date Any encroachment into the 91-meter/61-meter (300-/200-foot) buffer area around the known
nest will only be allowed if it is determined by a qualified biologist that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the non-nesting season can
occur only at the sites if a qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. B-6 Wetlands and Other Waters Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
will obtain applicable USACE and CDFG permits for the proposed project. The proposed project would impact 0.88 hectare (2.16 acres) under the jurisdiction of the USACE and 0.99 hectare
(2.46 acres) under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Compensatory mitigation for the loss of wetland or riparian function and values is a fundamental component of the applicable regulatory
programs. Any compensation through restoration should be on-site or in the immediate vicinity, if possible, and in-kind. The exact requirements of any special permit conditions established
for the proposed project would be determined by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and/or the CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, following
review of the formally submitted project application after completion of the CEQA process. A mitigation approach has been developed that includes either riparian habitat creation along
Temecula Creek or purchase of credits in a mitigation bank. The objective of the mitigation plan will be to ensure no net loss of habitat values from the project. Prior to The Department:
Environmental City of Temecula Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Environmental Commitments Record 302 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date implementation of any restoration, a detailed program will be submitted for approval by
the City of Temecula, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and will be approved by the USACE and CDFG as part of the regulatory permitting processes. The City
will implement the mitigation plan, as approved by the resource agencies, and according to the guidelines and performance standards of the plan. The mitigation plan will contain the
following items: a. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the Landowner, project biologist or restoration
ecologist, technical specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the restoration plan will be specified. b. Site selection. The site for the mitigation will
be determined in coordination with the project applicant and resource agencies. The site will either be located on site, in the immediate vicinity, or in a dedicated open space area
off site. Appropriate sites must have suitable hydrology and soils for the establishment of riparian species. c. Site preparation and planting implementation. The site preparation will
include: (1) protection of existing native species; (2) trash and weed removal; (3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting);
(5) temporary irrigation installation; (6) erosion
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 303 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (7) seed mix application; and (8) container
species planting. Seeds and plantings will be collected or grown from seeds previously collected from the project site or vicinity (i.e., within ten miles of the study area in western
Riverside County). d. Schedule. A schedule will be developed which requires planting to occur in late fall and early winter between October and January 30. e. Maintenance plan/guidelines.
The maintenance plan will include: (1) weed control; (2) herbivory control; (3) trash removal; (4) irrigation system maintenance; (5) maintenance training (if necessary); and (6) replacement
planting. f. Monitoring plan. The monitoring plan will include: (1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed
transects); (3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; (4) monthly reports for the first year and quarterly thereafter; and (5) annual reports for five years that
will be submitted to the Department and the resource agencies on an annual basis. The site will be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful
Environmental Commitments Record 304 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas. The site will
be off irrigation for at least two years. If there is successful coverage prior to five years, and the site has been off irrigation for at least two years, the project applicant may
request to be released from monitoring requirements from USACE and CDFG. g. Long-term preservation. Long-term preservation of the site will also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation
plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future development. Appropriate preservation measures (e.g., performance bonds, easements, dedications) will be secured prior to
final map recordation. Prior to any work within jurisdictional areas, the open space limits will be marked by the construction supervisor and the project biologist. These limits will
be identified on the grading plan. No earth-moving equipment will be allowed within the open space area. During grading, earth-moving equipment will avoid maneuvering in areas outside
the identified limits of grading in order to avoid disturbing open space areas which will remain undeveloped. B-7 Plant Species It is recommended that the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden,
or other appropriate entity, be notified so that seed can be collected for use in restoration or seed germination studies. The client will not incur any cost for the seed collection
effort. City of Temecula/Public Works Director The Department: Environmental City of Temecula/Public Works Director Prior to restoration
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 305 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date B-8 Animal Species As described in Section 4.4 of the NES, additional impacts to aquatic
species would be the result of decreased water quality from increased runoff. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Statewide Storm Water
Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (Order No. 99-08-DWQ,
NPDES No. CAS000002) would meet the requirements of the MSHCP. The Department: Environmental City of Temecula/Public Works Director Prior to construction B-9 Animal Species Seven days
prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified Biologist will survey within the limits of project disturbance for the presence of an active owl burrow. Any active burrow
found during survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active burrows are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys will be provided
to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present, the active nesting site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. Nesting
activity for burrowing owls in the region of the proposed project normally occurs from March 1 to August 31. To protect the nest site, the following restrictions on construction are
required between March 1 and August 31 (or until nests are no longer active as determined by a Qualified Biologist City of Temecula The Department: Environmental Qualified Biologist
City of Temecula/Public Works Director During project planning
Environmental Commitments Record 306 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date qualified biologist): (1) clearing limits will be established a minimum of 152 meters
(500 feet) in any direction from any occupied nest and (2) access and surveying will be restricted within 91 meters (300 feet) of any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the 152-/91-meter
(500-/300-foot) buffer area around the known nest will only be allowed if it is determined by a qualified biologist that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction
during the non-nesting season can occur only if a qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active burrow is observed during the non-nesting season,
the Lead Agency will determine if passive relocation will be required. B-10 Animal Species The mitigation strategy developed with the resource agencies includes preservation of high
quality habitat contiguous with the MSHCP Additional Reserve Lands in an area identified in the MSHCP as “core” or “live-in” habitat for Los Angeles pocket mouse (USFWS 2006c). Land
conserved under this mitigation measure is tentatively planned for Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat along the San Jacinto River in the San Jacinto/Hemet area. In addition, the following
measures would be implemented during the construction period: 1. The removal of sage scrub and grassland vegetation will be monitored by a qualified Biologist. The monitoring Biologist
will ensure that only the amount of sage scrub City of Temecula Resource Agencies City of Temecula/Public Works Director Prior to construction
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 307 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date and grassland habitat approved during the consultation process will be removed. 2. Sage
scrub and grassland areas that will not be impacted will be delineated by the use of lath and ropes/flagging to ensure avoidance of these areas. B-11 Threatened and Endangered Species
Due to the presence of the least Bell’s vireo adjacent to the study area, the effect on riparian habitat along Warm Springs Creek would be considered substantial. Prior to initiation
of grading or any activity that involves the removal/disturbance of riparian habitat (including clearing, grubbing, mowing, disking, trenching, grading, or any other construction-related
activity) within the study area, the City of Temecula, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation will obtain authorization from the resource agencies to affect
this specie. A DBESP will be prepared by Caltrans to develop a mitigation strategy according to procedures outlined in the MSHCP. The resource agencies have agreed that standard provision
B-6 will compensate for effects on the habitat of the vireo (USFWS 2006c). In addition, the following measures will be implemented during the construction period: 1. Riparian vegetation
will be removed after September 15 and before March 15. 2. If riparian vegetation is removed prior to September 15, a series of pre-construction surveys will be conducted to ensure that
no vireo or City of Temecula City of Temecula/Public Works Director Prior to project grading
Environmental Commitments Record 308 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date other nesting birds are in the proposed area of impact. The preconstruction surveys will
consist of a minimum of three focused surveys, on separate days, to determine the presence of vireos within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project footprint. Surveys will begin a maximum
of seven days prior to performing initial vegetation clearing, and one survey will be conducted the day immediately prior to removing vegetation. If vireos are observed within 152 meters
(500 feet) of the project footprint, the Service will be contacted to determine if additional consultation and/or minimization measures are required. 3. A qualified biological monitor
familiar with least Bell’s vireo will be present during all activities involving removal of of vegetation to ensure that impacts to wetland and riparian habitat do not exceed the limits
of grading and to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to potential vireo habitat. In addition, the biological monitor will monitor construction activities in or adjacent to
Warm Springs Creek during the vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15). If construction is occurring in or adjacent to Warm Springs Creek during the vireo breeding season, the
biologist will conduct focused surveys in potential vireo habitat within 152 meters (500 feet) of construction activities. Surveys will be conducted once every two weeks during the breeding
season, although the
Environmental Commitments Record I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 309 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date surveys may be reduced in frequency or halted with the approval of the Service if vireos
are not observed after May 15. If vireos are observed within 152 meters (500 feet) of the project footprint, the Service will be contacted to determine if additional consultation and/or
minimization measures are required. 4. The limits of grading will be clearly marked, and temporary fencing or other appropriate markers shall be placed around any sensitive habitat adjacent
to work areas prior to the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity or native vegetation removal. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted
within the marked areas. 5. All of the measures described in Section 7.5.3 “Construction Guidelines” of the MSHCP will be implemented. These measures are primarily designed to minimize
potential pollution and sedimentation in the water course. B-12 Invasive Species Prior to construction, landscape designs will be submitted for review and approval by a qualified biologist.
The review will determine that no invasive, exotic plant species are to be used in any proposed landscaping. Suitable substitutes will be recommended by the reviewing biologist. Ideally,
the slopes should be revegetated with native species. Qualified Biologist Qualified Biologist Prior to construction
Environmental Commitments Record 310 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Item # Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Review Responsibility Implementation Responsibility Timing/Phase Status Approval/Signature/Date In addition, the following measures would be required in riparian areas during construction:
1. Invasive plant species will be controlled upstream and downstream of the project impact area on a three-month “clean sweep” basis for the entire construction period; and 2. Following
completion of construction, one last removal of invasive plant species will be conducted within the project impact area.
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 311 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study APPENDIX F LIST OF ACRONYMS
312 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 313 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study LIST OF ACRONYMS A a.m. morning (before noon) AASHTO American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials Ac Acre ACTT Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer ADT average daily traffic (or average daily trips) APE Area of Potential Effects AQMD Air Quality
Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board ASR Archaeological Survey Report B BMPs Best Management Practices (or Programs) BO Biological Opinion C C/D
Collector/Distributor CAA Clean Air Act (federal) Cal EPPC California Exotic Pest Plant Control Council Cal OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration CARB California Air Resources
Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 CESA California Endangered Species Act CETAP Community Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program CFR Code of Federal
Regulations CHP California Highway Patrol CIP Capital Improvement Program (or Plan) CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revisions CMP Congestion Management Plan (or Program) CNDDB California
Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalency Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO Protocol Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments CWA Clean Water Act, Federal (1977)
314 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study D dB Decibel dBA decibel, A-weighted DMV Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation E EA Environmental Assessment (NEPA) EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESA Environmental Sensitive Area F FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significance FTA Federal Transit Administration H Ha Hectare HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HOV high-occupancy
vehicle lane HPSR Historic Property Survey Report HSCP Health and Safety Contingency Plan HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development I IS Initial Study (CEQA) ISA Initial Site Assessment
K Km Kilometer KP kilo post L Ldn Day-Night Sound Level Leq Equivalent Noise Level Lmax maximum noise level LOS Level of Service (traffic flow rating) M M Meter MATES II Multiple Air
Toxics Exposure Study Mi Miles MLD Most Likely Descendent MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 315 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study MND Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) Mph miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MWD Metropolitan Water District N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC noise abatement criteria NAHC Native American Heritage
Commission ND Negative Declaration (CEQA) NEPA National Environmental
Policy Act (of 1969) NES National Environment Study NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation
Act (of 1966) NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service NOx oxides of nitrogen (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O O3 Ozone OHP Office of Historic Preservation, State of California OPR Office of Planning and Research, State of California P PA Programmatic
Agreement PA/ED Project Approval/Environmental Documentation PDT Project Development Team PIR Paleontological Identification Report PM post mile PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5
micrometers in diameter PM10 respirable particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter Ppm parts per million PR Project Report PRC California Public Resources Code PS&E plans,
specifications, and estimates PSA Project Study Area PSR Project Study Report R RAP Relocation Assistance Program RCEM Roadway Construction Emissions Model RCHCA Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Authority RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project Draft EIS/EIR for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor RCP reinforced concrete pipe RCP SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan
ROG reactive organic gas
316 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study ROW Right of Way Rsa Resource Study Area RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTP
Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S SBCM San Bernardino County Museum SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMP South Coast Air Quality Management Plan SCH State Clearinghouse, State of California SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer,
State of California SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SO4 Sulfates Sox sulfur oxides SR State Route SRA subregional area SRF State Revolving Fund STAA Surface Transportation
Assistance Act STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SW-5 Sound Wall 5 SWAP Southwest Area Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control
Board T TAC toxic air contaminant TASAS Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System TCE Temporary Construction Easement TCM transportation control measure TCRP Traffic Congestion
Relief Program (2000) TDM Transportation Demand Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNM Traffic Noise Model TSM Transportation System Management
TTM Tentative Tract Map U U.S. United States of America UBC Uniform Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS
United States Geological Survey V V/C Volume-to-capacity ratio VMT vehicle miles traveled
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 317 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study W WMWD Western Municipal Water District WPCP Water Pollution Control Program WRCOG Western
Riverside Council of Governments
318 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank
I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project 319 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES The following technical studies were prepared in conjunction with
the IS /EA. Copies of the technical studies are available under separate cover. • Initial Site Assessment June 2008 • Natural Environment Study April 2009 • Historic Property Survey
Report/Archaeological Survey Report January 2006 • First Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report March 2009 • Paleontological Identification Report December 2005 • Paleontological
Evaluation Report/Paleontological Mitigation Plan May 2006 • Addendum to the Paleontological Evaluation Report/Paleontological Mitigation Plan March 2009 • Noise Impact Study April 2008
• Air Quality Report April 2008 • Socioeconomic Analysis April 2009 • Visual Impact Assessment April 2008 • Floodplain and Scour Analysis Report for Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis
Creek December 2005 • Location Hydraulics Study July 2008 • Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary July 2008 • Traffic Operations Analysis January 2008 • Draft Relocation Impact Statement
March 2009
320 I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This page intentionally left blank