HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B_- PIF_Traffic_3rd sub_MBI CommentsAPPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 1 of 4
A
The first page of the Project Information Form (PIF) is to be completed by the applicant. If the project meets the exemption
criteria shown below (subject to verification by City staff), then no further analysis is required and the PIF may be submitted with
only the first page completed. If none of the boxes are checked, the remaining sections of the PIF (pages 2-4) must be completed
by a consultant meeting professional qualifications described in Section 1.5 of the TSG (see “Consultant” section below). The PIF
is subject to change as new project information arises.
General Project Information and Description
Owner/Applicant Information
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
Project Information
Project Name:
Project Address:
APN:
Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation:
Project Description
Land Uses and Intensities
(units, square feet, etc.):
Gross and Developable Acreage:
Vehicle Parking Required (per relevant City
planning document (e.g., CVMC, SPA Plan, etc.):
Vehicle Parking Spaces
Proposed:
Accessible Spaces: Bicycle Storage Capacity
(racks and secure storage):
Motorcycle Spaces: EV Parking Spaces:
Exemptions
Check the box that applies to your project:
☐
Intensification of residential development on a
residential parcel with a net increase of no more
than 20 multi-family units (does not apply if non-
residential uses are proposed).
☐
Review or approval of a project that is strictly
consistent with the land uses evaluated in the
recently certified CEQA document within 5 years
(attach documentation).
☐
Conditional use permit for alcohol and temporary
sales offices. ☐
Zoning variance for deviations from zoning
standards only.
☐
Facilities for the exclusive use of an existing
residential development that are located within or
immediately adjacent to that project, such as a
clubhouse, a pool, or multi-purpose room.
☐
Historic designation or Certificate of
Appropriateness, provided there is no change in
land use.
☐ Cell phone sites or towers. ☐
Minor restaurant expansion, provided there is no
increase in seating or drive-through lanes.
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 2 of 4
A
Consultant (CA Licensed Traffic Engineer or CA Licensed Civil Engineer with Traffic Engineering Expertise)
Name of Firm:
Project Manager: License(s):
Email Address:
Telephone:
Trip Generation (Attach Traffic Generation Table with Rates and Daily and Peak Hour Volumes)
[Use the SANDAG (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation]
Total Daily Trips: Pass-by Trips:
(Driveway count or published
SANDAG/ITE rate at City’s
discretion):
Alternative Mode
Reduction: Net Daily Trips:
Site Plan
Attach 11x17 copies of the project location/vicinity map and site plan containing the following:
• Driveway locations and access type
• Pedestrian access, bicycle access, and on-site pedestrian circulation
• Location and distance to closest existing transit stop (measure as walking distance to project
entrance or middle of parcel)
• Location of any planned sidewalks or bikeways identified in the City of Chula Vista Active
Transportation Plan within ½ mile of the project
CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening
To determine if your project is screened from VMT analysis, review the Project Type Screening and the Project Location
Screening tables below. If “No” is checked for any project type or land use applicable to your project, the project is not screened
out and must complete VMT analysis in accordance with the analysis requirements outline in the City of Chula Vista
Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG) Chapter 3.
Project Type Screening
1. Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2. Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to your project
(if “Yes” is indicated in any land use category below, then that land use (or a
portion of the land use) is screened from CEQA Transportation Analysis)
Note: All responses must be documented and supported by substantial
evidence.
Yes No
1. Locally Serving Retail Project
a. Is the project less than 125,000 square feet and serving the local
community? The City may request a market capture study that
identifies local market capture to the City’s satisfaction.
2. Locally Serving Public Facility or Community Purpose Facility
a. Is the project a public facility or Community Purpose Facility that
serves the local community? (see TSG Section 3.3)
Previous Use Credits:
Internal Capture:
Screened Out?
(Mark Yes or No)
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 3 of 4
A
3. Small Residential and/or Employment Project
a. Does the project generate less than 200 net daily trips?
4. Infill Affordable Housing
a. Is the project composed of deed-restricted affordable housing
units, and has the following characteristics:
i. Is an infill project;
ii. Is close to a transit stop or station; and
iii. Project-provided parking does not exceed parking
required by the Chula Vista Municipal Code?
5. Redevelopment Project
a. Does the project result in a net decrease in total Project VMT than
the existing use?
Project Location Screening
1. Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2. Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to your project
(if “Yes” is indicated in any land use category below, then that land use (or a portion
of the land use) is screened from CEQA Transportation Analysis) Yes No
1. Residential
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (15% or more below
the regional average) using the Chula Vista screening maps for
VMT/Capita?
View VMT/Capita map here:
https://cvgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f
0d05a4a014841d588bb66891500b34d
2. Employment (not including Industrial Employment)
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (15% or more below
the regional average) using the City of Chula Vista screening maps
for VMT/Employee?
View VMT/Employee map here:
https://cvgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d
80a3cddc1964f8c88dafef234147e98
3. Industrial Employment
a. Is the project located in a VMT-efficient area (at or below the
regional average) using the City of Chula Vista screening maps for
VMT/Employee?
4. Within a transit buffer
a. Is the project in a transit priority area or within ½ mile of a stop
along a high quality transit corridor, and has the following project
characteristics?
i. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75
ii. Includes no more than the minimum parking for use by
residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the jurisdiction
iii. Is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan
iv. Does not include a smaller number of units that
previously on the project site
v. Does not replace affordable residential units with
moderate- or high-income residential units.
Screened Out?
(Mark Yes or No)
APPENDIX A
Project Information Form for Transportation Studies
Page 4 of 4
A
Local Mobility Analysis Screening
Does this project generate less than 200
daily trips (after adjustments)?
Yes No
If yes, the project does not need to complete an LMA. If no, continue to next question to determine
study extents.
Is this project consistent with Relevant City
Planning Documents (e.g., General Plan, SPA
Plan, Specific Plan)?
Yes No
Refer to the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG), Chapter 4, to determine study
extents based on the project’s trip generation and consistency with the General Plan.
Provide attach a list or map of proposed study intersections in accordance with the requirements
outlined in the TSG, Chapter 4.
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
Attachment A
Trip Generation Calculation and Site Plan
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
CEQA Transportation Analysis and Local Mobility Analysis
In 2004, the City of Chula Vista approved the Village 7 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and
Tentative Map, along with the Environmental Impact Report (2004 EIR) and associated Traffic Impact
Study (2004 TIS). The project Applicant subsequently filed an application for amendments to the Chula
Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Village 7 SPA, and a rezone.
The Village Seven FEIR (FEIR) analyzed potential traffic impacts utilizing Level of Service (LOS)
methodology at various intersections, roadway segments, and freeways under several future year
study scenarios. The FEIR, SPA Plan Overall Conceptual Village Plan, and the EIR Traffic Impact
Analysis 1 (TIA) were all based on the assumption that the SPA would encompass up to 1,053 single-
family dwelling units, 448 multi-family dwelling units, 3.7 acres dedicated to commercial space, 7.6
acres for a public park, 4.1 acres allocated for a Community Purpose Facility, 11.1 acres for an
elementary school, and a high school designed to accommodate 2,950 students. At the time of the
approval, the SPA Site Utilization Plan and EIR Project Description assumed a development of up to
1,204 residential dwelling units instead of the 1,501 residential dwelling units studied in the FEIR and
TIA.
The Village Seven FEIR, determined that the project would generate 25,079 average daily trips and
result in direct impacts to the intersection of Rock Mountain Road/La Media Road, and to the street
segment of Rock Mountain Road from La Media Road to SR-125. It was also determined that the
project would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts at the intersections of Telegraph Canyon
Road/I805 southbound ramps, and at Rock Mountain Road/La Media. Additionally, the project would
contribute incrementally to cumulative roadway segment impacts along Telegraph Canyon Road from
I-805 to Oleander Avenue, and along Rock Mountain Road from Main Street to SR-125 and from SR-
125 to Eastlake Parkway. The project plans to address its cumulative effects on these facilities, which
are part of the City of Chula Vista Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) program,
through the payment of the relevant TDIF fees.
The purpose of this comprehensive PIF is to track the intensity transfer proposed by the Project
Applicant and provide a tracking mechanism for the City to ensure that future projects remain
consistent with the 2004 EIR. Since the approval of the 2004 EIR, the property that was originally
intended for a Middle School site (neighborhood S-2) was sold and incorporated into the boundary of
Village 8 West and the associated Village 8 West EIR in 2013, as well as the Village 8 West SPA,
rezone, and new Tentative Map in 2020. The Chula Vista City Council approved these amendments
and entitlement for Village 8 West on February 18, 2020. Thus, the Middle School site is shown in
Table 1 for documentation only as it was originally studied as part of Village 7.
Table 1 displays a trip generation studied in the 2004 EIR. Excerpt of the 2004 TIS is provided later
as Attachment B.
1 (Village Seven FEIR, Appendix B – Traffic Impact Analysis Village 7 City of Chula Vista – Table 10,
California, June 7, 2004, by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers)
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
Table 1 - Village 7 Trip Generation – Adopted Land Uses (2004 TIS)
Land Use Trip Generation Rates
from 2004 TIS Amount ADT AM
(In/Out)
PM
(In/Out)
Single Family 10/DU 1,053 DU 10,530 842
(253/ 590)
1,053
(737/316)
Multi-Family 8/DU 448 DU 3,584 287
(57/229)
358
(251/108)
Commercial 700/Acres 3.7 Acre 2,590 104
(62/41)
259
(130/130)
Public Park 5/Acre 7.6 Acre 38 2
(1/1)
3
(2/2)
CPF 30/Acre 4.1 Acre 123 5
(2/2)
10
(5/5)
Elementary School 90/Acre 11.1 Acre 999 320
(192/128)
90
(36/54)
High School 2/Student 2,950
Student 5,900 1,180
(825/355)
590
(235/355)
Total (without Middle School) 23,764 2,738
(1,392/1,346)
2,364
(1,395/968)
Middle School 50/Acre 26.3 Acre 1,315 395
(237/158)
118
(47/71)
Total (with Middle School) 25,079 3,133
(1,629/1,504)
2,482
(1,442/1,039)
Source: Village 7 Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG – 2004)
As shown in Table 1, the total trips analyzed in the 2004 EIR are 25,079 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with
3,133 trips (1,629-in/1,504-out) during the AM peak hour and 2,482 trips (1,442-in/1,039-out)
during the PM peak hour. The total trips without the Middle School Site is 23,764 ADT with 2,738
(1,395-in/1,346-out) during the AM peak hour and 2,364 (1,395-in/968-out) during the PM peak
hour.
Table 2 displays the trip generation for the proposed Village 7 site utilization. This table reflects the
following changes:
Split Neighborhood R-3 into two neighborhoods, R-3 and R-8 (new).
Convert the Single Family Residential in Neighborhoods R-3, R-4, and R-8 to Multi-Family
Residential
Reassign 287 dwellng units (out of the total 1,456 dwelling units currently entitled) to the
neighborhoods as follows:
o R-3: 43 units
o R-4: 121 units
o R-8: 123 units
As shown in Table 2, the land use associated with the proposed Village 7 site utilization is anticipated
to generate 22,701 ADT, with 2,658 (1,351-in/1,307-out) trips during the AM peak hour, and 2,257
(1,323-in/934-out) trips during the PM peak hour. Which is 1,063 less ADT, 80 less (41-in/39-out) AM
trips, and 107 less (70-in/36-out) PM trips, when compared to the 2004 EIR without the Middle
School. Therefore, the therefore the proposed project is consistent with the EIR in terms of traffic
generation and impacts.
Because the proposed project would generate fewer trips (both daily and during the peak hours) than
the approved project and the trip distribution patterns would remain the same as those studied in the
Village Seven FEIR, it can be concluded that the proposed project would add fewer trips to the
surrounding transportation network, including all study area roadways, intersections, freeways, and
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
ramp meters. As a result, the approved project represents a worst-case scenario. In addition, identified
mitigation measures (4.3-1 through 4.3-7 in the Village Seven FEIR) remain applicable. Therefore, no
additional traffic analysis would be required. Table 3 compares the proposed and approved land uses.
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
Table 2 - Village 7 Proposed Trip Generation
Planning
Area Land Use Units Trip Rate ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips Split In Out % Trips Split In Out
Residential
R-1 Single Family 346 DU 10/DU 3460 8% 277 3:7 83 194 10% 346 7:3 242 104
R-2 Single Family 375 DU 10/DU 3750 8% 300 3:7 90 210 10% 375 7:3 263 112
R-3 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC)* 43 DU 8/DU 344 8% 28 2:8 8 20 10% 34 7:3 24 10
R-4 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC)* 121 DU 8/DU 968 8% 77 2:8 23 54 10% 97 7:3 68 29
R-5 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 132 DU 8/DU 1056 8% 84 2:8 25 59 10% 106 7:3 74 32
R-6 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 193 DU 8/DU 1544 8% 124 2:8 37 87 10% 154 7:3 108 46
R-7 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 123 DU 8/DU 984 8% 79 2:8 24 55 10% 98 7:3 69 29
R-8 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 123 DU 8/DU 984 8% 79 2:8 24 55 10% 98 7:3 69 29
Subtotal 1,456 DU - 13,090 - 1048 - 314 734 - 1308 - 917 391
Commercial
MU-1 Commercial 3.7 Acres 700/Acre 2,590 4% 104 6:4 62 42 10% 259 5:5 130 129
Subtotal 3.7 Acres - 2,590 - 104 - 62 42 - 259 - 130 129
School, Park, Community Public Facility
P-1 Urban & Neighborhood Park 7.6 Acres 5/Acre 38 4.0% 2 5:5 1 1 8% 3 5:5 2 2
CPF-1 Community Purpose Facility 1.1 Acres 30/Acre 33 5% 2 5:5 1 1 8% 3 5:5 1 2
CPF-2a Community Purpose Facility 0.7 Acres 30/Acre 21 5% 1 5:5 1 0 8% 2 5:5 1 1
CPF-2b Community Purpose Facility 1.0 Acres 30/Acre 30 5% 2 5:5 1 1 8% 2 5:5 1 1
S-3 Elementary School 11.1 Acres 90/Acre 999 32% 320 6:4 192 128 9% 90 4:6 36 54
S-1 High School 2,950 Students 2/Student 5,900 20% 1,180 7:3 826 354 10% 590 4:6 236 354
Subtotal 7,021 - 1,507 - 1,022 485 - 690 - 276 414
Total 22,701 - 2,658
1,351 1,307 - 2,257
1,323 934
Approved (2004 EIR) without Middle School 23,764 - 2,738 - 1,392 1,346 - 2,364 - 1,395 968
Net Trip Generation (1,063) - (80) (41) (39) - (107) (70) (36)
Source: CR Associates (2022)
Note: Some slight discrepancy occurs due to rounding assumption in the 2004 EIR for the CPF land uses
*Per the SANDAG Not so Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, Multi-Family Residential with a density greater than 20 du per acre would generate 6 trips
per DU. For a conservative analysis, the 8 trips per DU was utilized for R-4.
Village 7 SPA
Project Information Form
Table 3 - Proposed and Approved Land Uses
Planning
Area Acres Proposed Land Use Approved Land Use
Unit Type Units Unit Type Units
Residential
R-1 50.7 Single Family Residential 346 DU Single Family Residential 346 DU
R-2 50.5 Single Family Residential 375 DU Single Family Residential 375 DU
R-3 3.1 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 43 DU
(-229 DU) Single Family Residential 272 DU
R-4 3.1 Multi-Family Residential 121 DU
(+61DU) Single Family Residential 60 DU
R-5 17.4 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 132 DU Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 132 DU
R-6 12.5 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 193 DU Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 193 DU
R-7 8.0 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 123 DU Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 123 DU
R-8 8.3 Multi-Family Residential (<20 du per AC) 123 DU
(+123 DU) - -
- 153.6 Residential Subtotal 1,456 DU
(-45 DU) Residential Subtotal 1,501 DU
Mixed-Use
MU-1 3.7 Commercial Retail (Community) 3.7 Acres Commercial Retail (Community) 3.7 Acres
School, Park, Community Public Facility
P-1 7.6 Urban & Neighborhood Park 7.6 Acres Urban & Neighborhood Park 7.6 Acres
CPF-1 1.1 Community Purpose Facility 2.8 Acres
(-1.3 Acres) Community Purpose Facility 4.1 Acres CPF-2a 0.7 Community Purpose Facility
CPF-2b 1.0 Community Purpose Facility
S-3 11.5 Elementary School 11.1 Acres Elementary School 11.1 Acres
S-1 53.9 High School 2,950
Students High School 2,950
Students
Source: Otay Ranch Village 7 SPA Plan (2004); CR Associates (2022)
Notes:
Green indicates net decrease in proposed land use units (DU or KSF) compared to proposed planning area's previously approved land use quantity
Red indicates net increase in proposed land use units (DU or KSF) compared to proposed planning area's previously approved land use quantity
Attachment B
Excerpt of Previous Land Uses
Attachment C
Site Plan
Village 8 West
Village 8 East
Village 4
Village 6
UNDESIGNATED
Overall Conceptual Village Plan.
Exhibit 1.6
Attachment D
Vicinity Map
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
BIRCH RD
LA MEDIA RD
E
A
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
W
O L Y M P I C P W
H U N T E P W
SANTA LUNA ST
E P A L O M A R S T
Project
Ha lf Mile
!(Tra nsit
Miss ing
Exis ting Bikeways
Clas s II - Bike
Vicinity MapOtay Ranch Villa ge South
Project Infor mation For m
N 0 1,000500 Feet
#