HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis
Rancho Vista Village
Rancho Vista Village
Rancho Vista Village Rancho Vista Village. Rancho Vista Village
Rancho Vista Village
Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 1-1 A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
1-1 B. Site Location and Study Area 1-1 C. Development Project Description 1-2 2.0 Area Conditions .....................................................................................
2-1 A. Study Area 2-1 B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics 2-1 C. Existing Traffic Volumes 2-1 D. Existing Level of Service 2-1 E. General Plan Circulation Element
2-2 3.0 Projected Traffic .................................................................................... 3-1 A. Project Traffic Conditions 3-1 1. Trip Generation 3-1 2. Trip Distribution
and Assignment 3-2 3. Modal Split 3-2 4. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-3 5. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-3 B. Background Traffic 3-3 1. Method of Projection
3-3 2. Cumulative Projects Traffic 3-3 3. Background Traffic Growth Rate 3-4 C. Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Traffic Volumes 3-4 D. Project Completion (Year 2014) With
Project Traffic Volumes 3-5 E. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Traffic Volumes 3-5 F. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project Traffic Volumes 3-5 4.0 Traffic
Analysis....................................................................................... 4-1 A. Capacity and Level of Service Improvement Analysis 4-1 1. Level of Service for
Existing Plus Project Conditions 4-1 2. Level of Service for Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Conditions 4-1 3. Level of Service for Project Completion (Year 2014) With
Project Conditions 4-2 4. Level of Service for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Conditions 4-3 5. Level of Service for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project
Conditions 4-3 6. Traffic Signal Warrants 4-4
Table of Contents (continued) Section Page 5.0 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................... 5-1 A. Intersection Analysis Summary 5-1 B. Proposed
Mitigation Measures 5-2 C. Circulation Recommendations 5-3 1. On-Site 5-3 2. Area-Wide 5-3 D. Safety and Operational Improvements 5-3 E. Regional Funding Mechanisms 5-4 F. Project Fair-Share
Traffic Contribution 5-4 G. Conclusions 5-4
List of Attachments Exhibits Location Map ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Site Plan ...................................
................................................................................ 1-2 Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls..............................................................
2-1 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 2-2 City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element .......................
............................. 2-3 City of Temecula Roadway Cross Sections.................................................................. 2-4 Project Trip Distribution .............................
............................................................... 3-1 Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................
3-2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.......................................................................... 3-3 Cumulative Developments Location Map...........................................
........................ 3-4 Cumulative Developments Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 3-5 Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project
Traffic Volumes ............................... 3-6 Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project Traffic Volumes .................................... 3-7 General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)
Without Project Traffic Volumes ........................... 3-8 General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project Traffic Volumes ................................ 3-9 General Plan Circulation
Element Ultimate Buildout Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls............................................... 4-1 Recommendations........................................................................
............................ 5-1
List of Attachments (continued) Tables Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions .............................................................. 2-1 Trip Generation Rates .........................
...................................................................... 3-1 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................
3-2 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation.......................................................................... 3-3 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions ......................
...................... 4-1 Intersection Analysis for Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Conditions . 4-2 Intersection Analysis for Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project
Conditions ...... 4-3 Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Conditions 4-4 Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project
Conditions... 4-5 Existing Conditions Summary Intersection Intersection Analysis .................................................... 5-1 Project Completion (Year 2014) Conditions Summary
Intersection Analysis ................ 5-2 General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Conditions Summary Intersection Analysis ............ 5-3 Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution....................
........................................... 5-4
List of Attachments (continued) Appendices Traffic Count Worksheets ......................................................................................... A Highway Capacity Manual
Level of Service Definitions ............................................... B Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets .................................................
C General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Traffic Volumes and Forecasting Methodology ..... D Cumulative Projects Information ...............................................................................
E Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets............................... F Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets .....
G Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets .......... H General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets . I General
Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets....... J Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets............................................... K
1-2 C. Development Project Description The proposed project would consist of 120 apartment units. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the site plan. The proposed project will access to the adjoining
roadway network via two (2) full access driveways on Mira Loma Drive. A Street will serve as the main entrance to the site, and B Street will serve as the secondary access point.
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
2-1 2.0 Area Conditions A. Study Area The study area includes the following intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road Ynez Road Rancho Vista
Road Mira Loma Drive (West) Rancho Vista Road Mira Loma Drive (East) Rancho Vista Road Margarita Road Rancho Vista Road B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics Exhibit
2-1 identifies the existing roadway conditions for the study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified.
C. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit 2-2. These volumes are based upon manual AM and PM peak
hour turning movement counts collected in June 2012. The traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A. Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for roadway segments within
the study area have been provided by the City of Temecula and are based on counts taken in Year 2011
. 2-2 D. Existing Level of Service Existing intersection level of service calculations are shown in Table 2-1 and are based on manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts. Definitions
of the Highway Capacity Manual’s Level of Service (LOS) standards are included in Appendix B. The City of Temecula requires a Level of Service D or better for all intersections. Under
Existing traffic conditions, all study area intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the peak hours, with the exception of Ynez Road (NS) at Rancho California
Road (EW). This intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. HCM calculation worksheets for Existing conditions are provided in Appendix C. E. General Plan Circulation
Element Exhibit 2-3 shows the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 2-4 shows the City of Temecula Roadway Cross Sections.
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 39.6 64.6 D E • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0> 46.7 34.1 D C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 10.5 11.4 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 22.4 21.9 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 29.0 32.6 C C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop TABLE 2-1 Level of Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection
Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection Analysis For Existing Conditions Traffic Intersection Control3 Ynez Road (NS) at Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 7. Per
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with
cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. When a right turn lane is designated, the
lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is
indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Margarita Road (NS)
at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
3-1 3.0 Projected Traffic A. Project Traffic Conditions 1. Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The trip
generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. This publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of
trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. Both daily and peak hour trip generation rates for the uses analyzed in this study are shown in Table 3-1. The traffic generation for
the proposed project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for the development. The project site is currently zoned for medium density residential land use, as
approved under the existing General Plan. The approved land use for this site would consist of 62 single family dwelling units. The proposed project is seeking a general plan amendment
to change the existing zoning to high density residential. The proposed project would consist of 120 apartment dwelling units. The project site is currently vacant and no trip credit
for an existing land use was taken. Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the previously approved land use and the proposed development are shown in Table 3-2. The previously
approved land use would generate approximately 593 total trip-ends per day, with 47 total vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 63 total trip ends per day during the PM peak hour.
The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 798 total trip-ends per day, with 61 total vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 74 total vehicles per hour during
the PM peak hour. The net trip increase as a result of the proposed project would be approximately 205 more trip-ends per day, with 14 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour
and 11 additional trips per day during the PM peak hour.
3-2 2. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the
geographical location of the site, the location of retail, employment, recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic
was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community. Trip distribution patterns for this study have been based upon near-term and general plan
buildout conditions, and are based upon those highway facilities that are either in place or will be contemplated over the next few years. The trip distribution patterns for the project
are graphically depicted on Exhibit 3-1. The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and
proposed arterial highway and local street systems that this traffic study assumes would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. 3. Modal Split Modal split denotes
the proportion of traffic generated by a project that would use any of the transportation modes, namely buses, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, trains, carpools, etc. The traffic reducing
potential of public transit and other modes is significant. However, the traffic projections in this study are conservative in that public transit and alternative transportation may
be able to reduce the traffic volumes. Thus no modal split reduction is applied to the projections. With the implementation of transit service and provision of alternative transportation
ideas and incentives, the automobile traffic demand can be reduced significantly.
3-3 4. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-2. 5. Existing Plus Project
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic includes existing traffic volumes, counted in June
2012, plus project traffic volumes. Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3-3. B. Background Traffic 1. Method of Projection To assess Project Completion (Year 2014)
traffic conditions, project traffic is combined with existing traffic, area-wide growth and cumulative projects’ traffic. Project Completion Year is expected to be in Year 2014. To assess
General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the project’s traffic is combined with traffic volumes obtained from FEHR & PEERS using the RivTAM traffic model for the City of Temecula area.
The traffic model details the projected traffic volumes at the study area intersections for the General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Conditions. These volumes reflect the latest future
traffic projections for the study area. Appendix D provides the forecasting methodology used by FEHR & PEERS and in-depth discussion regarding the RivTAM Model. 2. Cumulative Projects
Traffic Table 3-3 lists the proposed land uses for the nearby cumulative projects for Project Completion (Year 2014) With Cumulative Projects traffic conditions, known
3-4 at the time this study was prepared. Cumulative projects have been obtained from the City of Temecula Staff. Cumulative impacts analyzed in this traffic impact study were conservatively
assessed. Some of the cumulative projects may be downsized or may not be approved, and some approved projects may not be developed. In addition, many of the related projects have been
or will be subject to a variety of mitigation measures that will reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with those projects. However, those mitigation measures have not
been taken into account in projecting the environmental impact of the related projects. Therefore, the cumulative analyses set forth below are conservative and result in greater impacts
than actually anticipated. Developments that have been approved or are being processed concurrently in the study area, include the projects illustrated on Exhibit 3-4. The cumulative
development trip distributions are shown on Appendix E. Table 3-3 shows the peak hour and daily daily vehicle trips generated by the Cumulative Projects being processed concurrently
in the study area. Cumulative Projects AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-5. 3. Background Traffic Growth Rate
To account for area-wide growth on the roadways, future traffic volumes have been calculated based on a two percent (2%) annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a two-year
period for counts taken in Year 2012. The City of Temecula provided the area-wide growth rate. C. Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Traffic Volumes Project Completion (Year
2014) without project traffic conditions includes existing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, cumulative project traffic, and area-wide growth. The AM and PM peak hour intersection
turning movement volumes and
3-5 average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-6 for Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project traffic conditions. D. Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project Traffic Volumes
Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project traffic conditions includes existing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, project traffic, area-wide growth and cumulative projects. Project
Completion (Year 2014) With Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-7. E. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)
Without Project Traffic Volumes General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project traffic conditions consists of traffic volumes generated from the RivTAM Traffic Model. General Plan
Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-8. Post-processed Year 2035 traffic volumes
from the RivTAM traffic model for the City of Temecula are included in Appendix D. F. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project Traffic Volumes General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)
With Project traffic conditions consist of traffic volumes generated from the RivTAM Traffic Model and the proposed project’s traffic. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project
AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit 3-9. Post-processed Year 2035 traffic volumes from the RivTAM traffic model for
the City of Temecula are included in Appendix D.
3-6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
In Out Total In Out Total Medium Density (Approved General Plan Land Use) Single Family Detached 210 62 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 9.57 High Density (Proposed Land Use) Apartment
220 120 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.65 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 8th Edition, 2008. 2 DU =Dwelling Units Units2 AM TABLE 3-1
Trip Generation Rates1 Zoning PM Peak Hour ITE Trip Code Land Use Quantity Daily j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
In Out Total In Out Total Medium Density (Approved General Plan Land Use) Single Family Detached 62 DU 12 35 47 40 23 63 593 High Density (Proposed Land Use) Apartment 120 DU 12 49 61
48 26 74 798 0 14 14 8 3 11 205 1 DU = Dwelling Unit Project Trip Generation TABLE 3-2 Zoning Net Increase as a Result of Proposed Land Use Quantity Units1 Peak Hour Land Use AM PM Daily
j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
In Out In Out Assisted Living 254 99 Beds 12 5 15 14 271 12 5 15 14 271 Single Family Residential 210 16 DU 3 9 10 6 153 3 9 10 6 153 Single Family Residential 210 15 DU 3 8 10 6 144
3 8 10 6 144 Hotel 310 142 RM 48 31 44 40 1,160 Restaurant 932 6.000 TSF 36 33 39 27 763 84 64 83 67 1,923 Condo/Townhomes 230 23 DU 2 9 8 4 134 2 9 8 4 134 Hospital 230 566.160 TSF
374 260 272 374 9,342 374 260 272 374 9,342 Hotel 310 64 RM 22 14 20 18 523 22 14 20 18 523 Condo/Townhomes 230 210 DU 15 78 74 36 1,220 15 78 74 36 1,220 515 447 492 525 13,710 1 Source:
City Temecula Planning Department 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Units RM = Rooms 7 Comfort Suites Hotel Subtotal 8 Rancho Highlands Maravilla Subtotal 5 Tierra Vista Condo
Buildout Subtotal 6 Temecula Hospital Subtotal Simms TTM/GPA/ZC Subtotal 4 Temecula Heritage Hotel Subtotal Total Trip Generation for All Cumulative Projects Units2 Daily 1 Highgate
Senior Living Subtotal 2 TTM No. 30434 (Paine TTM) Subtotal 3 TABLE 3-3 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation1 Zone Project Peak Hour AM PM Land Use ITE Quantity j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls
JN:0518-2012-01
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
4-1 4.0 Traffic Analysis A. Capacity and Level of Service Improvement Analysis 1. Level of Service for Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection levels of service for the Existing
Plus Project conditions are shown in Table 4-1. For Existing Plus Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak
hours with the exception of the following intersection, which will continue to operate at an LOS “E”: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road This intersection
will continue to operate at LOS “E” under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. An increase in overall intersection delay of 1.6 seconds is expected to occur as a result of the project.
Since the increase in delay is below the City’s 2.0 second threshold, the project’s impact at this intersection is considered insignificant. HCM calculation worksheets for Existing Plus
Project conditions are provided in Appendix F. 2. Level of Service for Project Completion ((Year 2014) Without Project Conditions Intersection levels of service for the Project Completion
(Year 2014) Without Project conditions are shown in Table 4-2. For Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate
at
4-2 LOS D or better during the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection, which is expected to operate at Los E. North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho
California Road HCM calculation worksheets for Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project conditions are provided in Appendix G. 3. Level of Service for Project Completion (Year
2014) With Project Conditions Intersection levels of service for Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project conditions are shown in Table 4-3. For Project Completion (Year 2014) With
Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours with the exception of the following intersection, which will
continue to operate at LOS “E”: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road This intersection will continue to operate at LOS “E” under Opening Year (2014) with
Project traffic conditions. An increase in overall intersection delay of 0.9 seconds is expected to occur as a result of the project. Since the increase in delay is below the City’s
2.0 second threshold, the project’s impact at this intersection is considered insignificant. HCM calculation worksheets for Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project conditions are
provided in Appendix H.
4-3 4. LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Conditions Intersection levels of service for the General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project conditions are shown
in Table 4-4. For General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project traffic conditions ultimate roadway widths and lane configurations have been assumed per the City of Temecula’s General
Plan Circulation Element, as shown in Exhibit 4-1. All study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours, with the exception of the following
intersection, which is expected to operate at LOS E: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road For future Year 2035 conditions, it has been assumed that the
intersection cycle length is 120 seconds. Table 4-4 shows the intersection delay with the future signal timing. HCM calculation worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without
Project conditions are provided in Appendix I. 5. LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With With Project Conditions Intersection levels of service for the General Plan Buildout
(Year 2035) With Project conditions are shown in Table 4-5. For General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project traffic conditions ultimate roadway widths and lane configurations have
been assumed per the City of Temecula’s General Plan Circulation Element, as shown in Exhibit 4-1. All study area intersections are projected to operate at an LOS D or better during
the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection, which is expected to continue to operate at LOS E:
4-4 North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road For future Year 2035 conditions, it has been assumed that the intersection cycle length is 120 seconds. Table
4-5 shows the intersection delay with future signal timing. Although this intersection will continue to operate at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour, the overall intersection delay as
a result of the project will be 1.9 seconds. Since the increase in delay is below the City’s 2.0 second threshold, the project’s impact at this intersection is considered insignificant
and no further mitigation would be required at this intersection. HCM calculation worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project conditions are provided in Appendix J.
6. Traffic Signal Warrants Peak hour traffic signal warrants have been analyzed at the following unsignalized study area intersection: North-South Street East-West Street Mira Loma Drive
Rancho Vista Road Traffic signal warrants have been performed at the above study area intersection for for all study scenario conditions. The intersection is projected to satisfy peak
hour traffic signal warrants starting in the General Plan Buildout With Project conditions during the PM peak hour. Although this intersection will meet the peak hour traffic volume
criteria under future conditions, a traffic signal is not required to improve level of service operation at this intersection. The traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are included
in Appendix K.
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 40.9 66.2 D E4 • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0> 47.5 34.6 D C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 11.3 12.9 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 22.0 21.6 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 29.0 33.3 C C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Traffic Intersection Control3 Ynez Road (NS) at Analysis
Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control.
For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. When a right turn lane
is designated, the lane can either be
striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through
movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East
(NS) at No mitigation is required for this intersection since the project contributes less than 2.0 seconds of delay. TABLE 4-1 Level of Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection
Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Project Conditions j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 42.7 65.3 D E • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0> 42.4 33.8 D C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 10.2 11.3 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 22.3 21.4 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 27.9 31.6 C C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be
striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through
movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Traffic Intersection Control3 Ynez Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive West (NS)
at Margarita Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are
shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TABLE 4-2 Level of Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection Analysis
for Project Completion (Year 2014) Without Project Conditions j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 44.3 66.2 D E4 • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0> 44.6 34.7 D C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 10.9 12.6 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 21.9 21.4 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 27.8 31.1 C C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 No mitigation is required for this intersection since the
project contributes less than 2.0 seconds of delay. TABLE 4-3 Level of Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection
Analysis for Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project Conditions Traffic Intersection Control3 Ynez Ynez Road (NS) at Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,
overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped.
To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s
are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls
JN:0518-2012-01
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW)4 TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 53.9 67.1 D E • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0> 26.4 36.3 C D • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 10.3 11.4 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 22.0 21.6 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 30.2 38.9 C D 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Buildout Year 2035 Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Future intersection timing is assumed
to be 120 seconds for both the AM and PM peak hours. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or
L turns are shared with the through movement. Traffic Intersection Control3 Ynez Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at Analysis
Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control.
For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TABLE 4-4 Level of
Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Without Project Conditions
j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW)4 TS 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0> 2.0 3.0 1.0> 1.0 3.0 1.0 53.5 69.0 D E • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0> 26.3 40.6 D D • Rancho Vista Road (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 11.2 12.8 B B • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 22.0 22.0 C C • Rancho Vista Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 30.3 39.2 C D 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap;
>> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Buildout Year 2035 Improvement ! = Indicates general purpose lane 23 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Future intersection timing is assumed
to be 120 seconds for both the AM and PM peak hours. TABLE 4-5 Level of Southbound Eastbound Westbound Service Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 Northbound (Seconds) Intersection
Analysis for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) With Project Conditions Traffic Control3 Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection
delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for
the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Intersection Ynez Road (NS) at When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped.
To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s
are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls
JN:0518-2012-01
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
5-1 5.0 Findings and Recommendations A. Intersection Analysis Summary A summary of the Existing Conditions level of service analysis for each condition is included in Table 5-1. Under
existing traffic conditions, all study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable conditions during the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection which
is currently operating at an LOS “E”: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road The proposed project will consist of 120 apartment units and it is projected
to generate approximately 798 trip-ends per day, with 61 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 74 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Intersection levels of service for
Project Completion (Year 2014) With Project Conditions are shown in Table 5-2. Traffic conditions include existing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, area wide growth and cumulative
projects traffic. All study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of of service during the peak hours, except for the following intersection, which is projected
to operate at an LOS “E”: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road
5-2 No mitigation is required for Project Completion (Year 2014) with project conditions, as the project does not increase the overall intersection delay by more than two (2) seconds.
Intersection levels of service for General Plan Buildout With Project Conditions are shown in Table 5-3. Traffic conditions in this scenario consist of traffic volumes generated from
RivTAM traffic model and were provided by FEHR & PEERS. All study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours except for the following
intersection, which is projected to operate at LOS E: North-South Street East-West Street Ynez Road Rancho California Road No mitigation is required for General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)
with project conditions, as the project does not increase the overall intersection delay by more than two (2) seconds. B. Proposed Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required
for the proposed project. A summary of the change in level of service with the addition of of the project is provided in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. The project is not expected to have
a significant impact at any of the study area intersections.
5-3 C. Circulation Recommendations 1. On-Site I. Construct the on-site circulation system per the detailed site plan. II. Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at all project
access points. On-site circulation recommendations are shown on Exhibit 5-1. 2. Area-Wide I. Complete any remaining parkway landscaping improvements for Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista
Road adjacent to the project. II. A traffic signal at the intersection of Mira Loma Drive at Rancho Vista Road is not required from a level of service standpoint. Area-wide recommendations
are summarized on Exhibit 5-1. D. Safety and Operational Improvements Sight distances at the project access points should be reviewed at the time of construction per the City of Temecula
standards. As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Temecula should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure
that the traffic operations are satisfactory.
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) 39.6 64.6 D E 40.9 66.2 D E4 1.3 1.6 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 46.7 34.1 D C 47.5 34.6 D C 0.8 0.5 NC NC • Rancho
Vista Road (EW) 10.5 11.4 B B 11.3 12.9 B B 0.8 1.5 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 22.4 21.9 C C 22.0 21.6 C C -0.4 -0.3 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 29.0 32.6 C C 29.0 33.3 C C 0.0
0.7 NC NC 12 LOS = Level of Service 34 TABLE 5-1 Existing Conditions Summary Intersection Analysis Intersection Existing Plus Project Conditions Delay1 (Seconds) LOS Delay 2 1 (Seconds)
Change as Result of Project LOS2 No mitigation is required for this intersection since the project contributes less than 2.0 seconds of delay. LOS2 Existing Conditions Delay1 (Seconds)
See Table 4-1 for mitigation recommendations. Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for
intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements
sharing a single lane) are shown. Ynez Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) 42.7 65.3 D E 44.3 66.2 D E4 1.6 0.9 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 42.4 33.8 D C 44.6 34.7 D C 2.2 0.9 NC NC • Rancho
Vista Road (EW) 10.2 11.3 B B 10.9 12.6 B B 0.7 1.3 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 27.9 31.6 C C 27.8 31.1 C C -0.1 -0.5 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 NC NC
12 LOS = Level of Service 34 TABLE 5-2 Change as Result of Project Delay1 (Seconds) Project Completion (Year 2014) Conditions Summary Intersection Analysis Delay1 (Seconds) LOS2 LOS2
Delay1 (Seconds) Project Buildout (Year 2014) Without Project Conditions No mitigation is required for this intersection since the project contributes less than 2.0 seconds of delay.
LOS2 Intersection See Table 4-3 for mitigation recommendations. Project Buildout (Year 2014) With Project Conditions Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,
overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Ynez Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at Mira Loma Drive East (NS)
at Margarita Road (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW)3 53.9 67.1 D E 53.5 69.0 D E -0.4 1.9 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 26.4 36.3 C D 26.3 40.6 D D -0.1 4.3 NC NC • Rancho
Vista Road (EW) 10.3 11.4 B B 11.2 12.8 B B 0.9 1.4 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 22.0 21.6 C C 22.0 22.0 C C 0.0 0.4 NC NC • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 30.2 38.9 C D 30.3 39.2 C D 0.1
0.3 NC NC 12 LOS = Level of Service 3 TABLE 5-3 General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Conditions Summary Intersection Analysis Change as Result of Project LOS Delay 2 1 (Seconds) LOS2 Intersection
Year 2035 With Project Conditions Year 2035 Without Project Conditions Delay1 (Seconds) Delay1 (Seconds) LOS2 Analysis Software: Synchro 7. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall
average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and
level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. See Tables 4-4 and 4-5 for recommended cycle lengths. Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at
Margarita Road (NS) at Ynez Road (NS) at Mira Loma Drive West (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM • Rancho California Road (EW) 4,132 6,681 5,373 8,142 1,241 1,461 33 42 2.7% 2.9% • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 1,416 2,737 2,540 3,998 1,124 1,261 40 48 3.6%
3.8% • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 472 773 821 1,204 349 431 61 74 17.5% 17.2% • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 434 717 761 1,136 327 419 21 26 6.4% 6.2% • Rancho Vista Road (EW) 1,095 2,302 2,121
3,236 1,026 934 21 26 2.0% 2.8% 1 Intersection Ynez Road (NS) at TABLE 5-4 Project Fair-Share Intersection Traffic Contribution Existing Traffic Year 2035 With Project Traffic Project
Traffic Project % of Year 2035 With Project Growth in Traffic Growth in Traffic Project Fair-Share Traffic Contribution represents the project's traffic contribution at each study are
intersection as a percentage of the overall growth in traffic for Year 2035 conditions. The fair-share contribution is not tied to the mitigation measures. Mira Loma Drive West (NS)
at Mira Loma Drive East (NS) at Margarita Road (NS) at j:\rktables\RK9511TB.xls JN:0518-2012-01
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Count Worksheets
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rancho Vista Village Rancho Vista Village
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS