HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-18 Item 08 Additional Information - Chen Ryan CHEN RYAN
MEMORANDUM
Addition llnfo
Item # j rmation
TO: Curt Smith
HomeFed Village 8, LLC
FROM: Phuong Nguyen, PE
DATE: February 16, 2020
RE: Village 8 West—Trip Generation Analysis Comparison
Background
Chen Ryan prepared the Village 8 West — Trip Generation Analysis, Internal ADT Estimation and Traffic
Signal Warrant Analysis technical memorandum dated December 9, 2019 (December 2019 Memo). The
December 2019 Memo compared the proposed project to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (2013 TIS)
approved by the City of Chula Vista in December 2013(Approved Project). It should be noted that the 2013
TIS used different rates for two land use categories: schools (middle and elementary) and multi-family
residences (>20 DU/acre) than are defined in the San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)Not So
Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation in the San Diego Region. When Chen Ryan prepared the
December 2019 Memo,the SANDAG recommended trip generation assumptions from the SANDAG Not So
Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region were applied to the proposed
Village 8 West project and resulted in a 2,507 ADT reduction between the Approved Project and the
proposed project. See Table 1,Trip Generation Rate Comparison below.
Table 1—Trip Generation Rate Comparison
Multi-Family(>20 DU/acre) 6/DU 8/DU
Elementary School 90/acre 100/acre
Middle School 50/acre 105/acre
Trips Generation Comparison
Upon further review, the City requested that Chen Ryan also analyze the proposed project by applying the
same trip generation rates as the 2013 TIS. Table 2 provides the trip generation comparison between the
land uses studied in the 2013 TIS and the proposed Village 8 West project land uses, using the conservative
trip generation rates documented in the 2013 TIS.The internal trip capture was calculated using the same
methodology as the 2013 TIS.
3900 5`t'Avenue,Suite 310•San Diego,CA 92103•619-795-6086
www.ChenRyanMobility.com
2 Page CHEM 'RYAN
Table 2—Village 8 West Trip Generation
Adopted Land Uses (2013 TIS)vs. Proposed Land Uses
1 r r J it A• H74=5 - . .
TiTiM M
• Trips Generation(EIR) Trips Generation(EIR)
Amount _ADT(AM/PM) Amount _ADT(AM/PM)
Park(Active Recreation) 50/Acre 17.4 Acres 870(35/70) 15.1 Acres 755(99/68)
---------- ___......_ _.__ ___ _-__ . _. __ _ . _w._..___ _ _--------- -----.------_____._.----.._ -------------_
Urban&Neighborhood 5/Acre 10.6 Acres 53(2/4) 8.3 Acres 42(2/4)
Pa rk
Single Family Residential 10/DU 621 DU 6,210(497/621) 561 DU 5,610(449/561)
_. _. . - _. ...____ —___... __ r_ __ .. __ __----------------
Multi-Family Residential 8/DU 1,429 DU 11,432(915/1,143) 1,773 DU 14,184(1,136/1,419)
(<20 du per AC) _ __._ ....__._
Elementary School 100/Acre 11.4 Acres 1,140(365/103) 11.1 Acres 1,110(356/100)
____. __-____.._. _ _.__ --- _. —_ _ ..._ ____. _.._�._ _ ..__ _.__..
Middle School 105/Acre 21.0 Acres 2,205(706/198) 0 Acres------------------ _.. _.__--- ------___.
------
Office(<100 KSF) 20/KSF 50 KSF 1,000(140/130) 50 KSF 1,000(140/130)
__..—. _.. ... __. ____ . ._____ _.___ _ _-___ _ ____ ___ ___ _
Commercial Retail 80/KSF 250 KSF 20,000(800/2,000) 250 KSF 20,000(800/2,000)
(Community)
Community Purpose 30/Acre 5.8 Acres 174(7/14) 5.5 Acres 165 (9/14)
Facility
Subtotal 43,084(3,467/4,283) 42,866(2,991/4,296)
Internal Capture -14,826(-632/-1,300) -14,939(-663/-1,376)
Transit Reduction -2,154(-173/-214) -2,143(-150/-215)
-__
Total 26,104(2,662/2,769) 25,784(2,178/2,705)
Trip Reduction for Proposed Project -320(-484/-64)
When comparing the total trip generation between the Approved Project and the Proposed Project, the
Proposed Project would generate 320 fewer daily trips than the Approved Project. The Proposed Project
would also generate fewer trips than the Approved Project during both the AM and PM peak hours. This
result is consistent with the findings of the December 2019 memo, although the amount of the trip
generation reduction is lower due to the use of the trip rates from the 2013 TIS.