HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Development - Phase I Parking Study Prepared by L Lsa
THE WATERFRONT
PHASE 1 PARKING STUDY
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
PREPARED BY
LSA
1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500
IRVINE, CA 92714
June 15, 1988
Lsa
an' 85% occupancy factor. This factor is representative of a conservative
estimate of hotel occupancy in the Coastal Orange County area. A discussion
of Orange County regional hotel occupancy rates is included in the Appen-
dices.
The primary conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that
although these hotel sites contain more guest rooms and amenities than the
proposed Phase 1 Waterfront hotel , the average parking rate per room for
these accommodation facilities approximates the 1.1 parking space per room
rate assumed in the Phase 1 hotel project. The conclusions of the AFA resort
hotel study confirm these results, and state that the utilization of a park-
ing rate of "around or just over 1.0 space per room would appear to be rea-
sonably representative of resort hotels".
OTHER MUNICIPAL�ARKING-EXPERIENCES
To determine the appropriate supply of parking to adequately serve the
proposed Phase 1 hotel project, technical applications of industry standards
have been presented in the form of the original LSA work effort. In addition
to these numerical applications, observed characteristics of other destina-
tion resort hotels have been included from the Austin-Foust resort hotel
study. The final measure is examples of parking supplied and policies adop-
ted with regards to hotel projects approved in the local region. To ac-
complish this objective, LSA has contacted the cities of Santa Ana, Long
Beach and Palm Desert to document their experiences with hotel parking issues
and approvals.
Table B illustrates the results of this effort. In the City of Santa
Ana, the hotel complex recently approved near the corner of Dyer Road and
Grand Avenue was researched. This site includes three hotels: an Embassy
Suites, a Petite Suites and a Quality Inn, comprising 1,100 guest rooms and
ancillary uses. The parking supply approved and provided at this site is
approximately 1,100 spaces. This is equivalent to a parking demand rate of
1.0 spaces per guest room. Discussions with the City staff indicate that no
adverse parking impacts have been identified subsequent to the project's
opening.
Three sites were examined in the City of Long Beach. These include the
Hyatt Regency adjacent to the Long Beach Arena, the Ramada Renaissance
located at the northeast corner of Ocean Boulevard and Pine Street, and the
proposed Sheraton Shoreline located in the Long Beach World Trade Center.
The Sheraton Shoreline is currently under construction, and is part of an
overall mixed use development, including 400,000 square feet of office use.
7
Frr '
------------------- -------------------- ------------------- ----------
I SURVEY I LAND IPARKINGIPARKINGI
I SITE I USE MIX ISUPPLY I RATE I
-
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- --
SANTA ANA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ifmbassy Suites, Petite 11,100 rooms, 14 TSF meeting rooms, ) 1,100 1 I.00 I
I Suites, Quality Inn J 7.7 TSF rests. 1 I I
._---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
LONG BEACH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IHyatt Regency 1521 rooms, 14 TSF meeting rooms, 526 I 1.0D
18.5 TSF ballroom, 16 TSF rests. ; }
1Ramada Renaissance 1380 rooms, 19 TSF meeting rooms, 1 380 I I.00 1
1 114 TSF rests.
I I I I I
{Sheraton Shoreline 1500 rooms, 14 TSF ballroom, 10 TSFI500(1) 1 1.00 1
I I meeting rooms, 5 TSF rests. , I I I
1 12.3 TSF lounge I { I
PALM DESERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------_---------
JPalm Desert Marriott 1891 rooms, 25 TSF conf., 5.8 TSF 11,45D I 1.63 I
I I meeting rooms, 12 TSF retail , I I I
I 1 23 TSF health club, 2 1S hole 1 I I
I I golf course, 16 tennis courts,
I 1 1 4,000 seat tennis stadium J
(1) This project -is part of a mixed use project including 400,000 square
feet of office use. The total parking supply is 1,402 spaces. The
Barton Aschman parking study indicated -that 500 spaces is adequate for
the 500 room hotel project.
TABLE B
MUNICIPAL HOTEL RESEARCH SURVEY SUMMARY
�sa
Lsa
The total approved parking supply at this location is 1,402 spaces, however
the Barton-Ashman parking study conducted for this project indicated that 500
parking spaces of the total would be adequate to accommodate the forecast
parking demand of the 500 room hotel project.
As seen in the Table, each Long Beach hotel project was approved based
on a parking rate of 1.0 spaces per guest room. As a condition of approval
of the Sheraton Shoreline project, a mitigation measure was included that
created a monitoring program exercised by the Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Agency. The Shoreline Sheraton will be monitored for a one
year period to assess the parking supply adequacy. In the event that prob-
lems arise within the one year period, the Executive Director will recommend
additional mitigations to ameliorate these problems.
At the request of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, the Palm
Desert Marriott was also examined. This hotel includes the traditional
conference and meeting facilities; however, the property also contains a
23,000 square foot health club, two 18 hole championship golf courses and 16
tennis courts with a 4,000 seat tennis stadium. The Palm Desert Marriott's
facilities are unlike the proposed Phase 1 Waterfront hotel due to the num-
ber, characteristic and extent of the ancillary uses. Therefore, a com-
parison between the two locations is not accurate.
RELATIONSNiP BETWEEN ANCILLARY SERVICESAND PARKING PER ROOM
Throughout all of the research for hotel parking, one factor identified
that continues to affect the parking per number of rooms is the ancillary
uses. These ancillary uses include meeting rooms, restaurants and lounges,
tennis courts/health clubs and golf courses. The relationship between number
of rooms and the amount of ancillary services is critical as these ancillary
uses, themselves, generate parking above the needs of the hotel rooms.
. In order to provide some overall comparison between the proposed Water-
front Phase 1 hotel and the hotels researched in this report, Table C has
been prepared. This Table identifies the observed 100 percent room occupancy
parking demand or parking per room required as per development approval .
These spaces per room are compared to the 1.1 parking spaces per room pro-
posed for the Waterfront hotel. In addition, this Table calculates the
various ancillary uses per room for the proposed hotel and those included in
the research effort.
As Table C indicates, a general relationship between the size of the
ancillary uses and the parking per room exists. As an example the highest
9
I RATIO PER HOTEL QXST ROOMS I
.........................................................................................
.... .�
I IQXST IPARKING RATEI MEETING ROOMS { REST./LOUNGE I TENNIS I GOLF 1
!PROJECT !ROOMS I PER ROOM I (S.F./ROOM) ' I (S.F./ROOK) ((CRT./ROOM)I(CRS./ROOM)!
..................................................................................................
THE WATERFRONT
!Phase 1 Waterfront 1 300 1 1.10 1 35 1 22 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
A.F.A STUDY _
1De1 Coronado 1 689 1 M7 1 so 1 26 1 0.0 1 0.0 I
[Le Costa 1 376 I 1.63 1 133 1 62 1 0.1 1 0.0 I
! ! I 1 I ! I I
{Newport Marriott 1 4,00 1 0.95 1 ' SO I 15 1 0.0 I 0.0 1
I { l ! I { I {
(Hyatt Hilton Need 1 359 1 0.94 - 1 33 1 20 1 0.1 1 0.0 1
SANTA AXA
I I I I 1 I I I
1ERbassy Suites 11,100 1 1.00 1 13 1 7 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
..................................................................................................
LONG BEACH
I 1 I I I I I I
111yett Regency 1 521 { 1.00 1 21 1 66 { 0.0 1 0.0 {
1 1 I I I { I
!Ramada Renaissance I 380'1 1.00 1 30 I 22 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
1 1 I 1 1 I I 1
ISheraton Shoreline 1 500 I 1.00 1 20 1 5 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
PALM DESERT
I 1 1 l I 1
!Palm Desert Marriott) 891 1 1.63 1 35 I el 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
------.........................--.---.......------------......------------------------......---'--
TABLE C
HOTEL GUEST ROOM AND
HOTEL ANCILLARY USE RELATIONSHIP
�s
Lsa
parking per room demand, La Costa, also has the highest square feet of meet-
ing rooms, tennis courts and near the highest for restaurants and golf cour-
ses. As would be expected the parking demand per room would be significantly
greater than what is proposed for the Waterfront Phase 1 hotel .
Further review of the Table illustrates that the proposed 1.1 parking
spaces per room for the Waterfront hotel with corresponding ancillary uses
are generally equal to or greater in parking supply when compared to com-
parable facilities. As an example, the Hyatt Hilton Head and the Ramada
Renaissance have similar meeting room and restaurant square footage per room,
yet these comparables have less parking per room than proposed for the Water-
front.
In conclusion, the 1.1 parking spaces per room proposed for the Water-
front is comparable to similar facilities, in consideration of the proposed
number of rooms and ancillary uses based on the relationship of the size of
the ancillary uses to the number of rooms.
PHASE -1 HOTEL PARKING RATE REC"ENDATION
Based on the results of the technical applications, the empirical obser-
vations and the actual municipal experiences, it is recommended that the
parking supply for the Phase 1 hotel be based on the current City of Hun-
tington Beach Parking Code for hotel uses of 1.1 space per guest room. This
would result in a parking supply of 330 spaces. It should also be pointed
out that the hotel operator, Signet Hotels, has submitted a statement that
the proposed parking supply is adequate based on their experience in the
hotel industry. This letter is included in the Appendices.
It is also recommended that a monitoring program be established similar
to the Sheraton Shoreline parking monitoring program. The monitoring program
should be established for a one year period subsequent to project occupancy,
by the Director of Community Development. In the event that parking problems
arise, a reciprocal parking agreement should be negotiated between the opera-
tor of the Phase I hotel and the Phase 2 tennis center.
This reciprocal parking agreement would be effective due to the dif-
ferent peak parking periods of the two facilities. Industry standards for
hotel parking accumulation indicate that, assuming full utilization of all
hotel facilities, the peak demand will occur in the evening hours at ap-
proximately 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. This is due to hotel guest arrivals, as
well as anticipated utilization of the dining room and lounge facilities.
The survey conducted at the John Wayne Tennis Club resulted in a peak parking
demand occurring in the late morning, early afternoon hours. Therefore, the
11
Lsa
two uses are expected to exhibit peak parking demands at different times of
the day. Conversely, as one facility reaches its peak parking utilization,
the other will have residual parking available. Therefore, the opportunity
to share parking and exercise a reciprocal parking agreement exists in the
event that the Phase 1 hotel parking demand would exceed the proposed parking
supply.
12
Lsa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PHASE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PARKING PROVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES RESORT HOTEL STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OTHER MUNICIPAL PARKING EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANCILLARY SERVICES AND PARKING PER ROOM . . . . . . . 9
PHASE 1 HOTEL PARKING RATE RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED TENNIS AND HEALTH CENTER
APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED RESORT HOTEL USES
APPENDIX C - STATEMENT OF PHASE 1 HOTEL OPERATOR
APPENDIX D - LSA MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E - AUSTIN-FOUST RESORT HOTEL STUDY
i
Lsa
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
PAGE
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - PHASE I SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIGURE 2 - PARKING LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TABLES
TABLE A - AUSTIN-FOUST RESORT HOTEL STUDY SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE B - MUNICIPAL HOTEL RESEARCH SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLE C - HOTEL GUEST ROOM AND HOTEL ANCILLARY USE
RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii
Lsa
THE WATERFRONT
CHASE I ARKING STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to identify the parking needs for the
proposed Phase 1 waterfront hotel project. This analysis is being provided
in fulfillment of required mitigation included in Final Supplemental EIR 82-2
certified by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 8,
1988. This study presents the original parking analysis as reported in the
Final Supplemental EIR 82-2, as well as additional archival research and
empirical data in support of the currently proposed parking supply of 330
spaces based on the City Parking Code rate of I.1 spaces per room.
RASE I PROJECT D SCRIPT ON AND-PARKING PROVISTON
The Waterfront project site consists of 47 net acres, which is currently
developed with a 239 unit mobile home park, a 144 room motel (with supporting
restaurants, bar, and conference style meeting facilities), a coffee shop,
and a 9 hole golf course. A portion of the site is vacant, and a portion of
the site is utilized as a City owned and operated maintenance yard.
The proposed project will be developed in seven phases, with construc-
tion beginning in 1988. The first phase of project development, which is
planned for completion by 1991, will consist ' of a 300 room hotel, 5,700
square foot restaurant/lounge, retail uses, 4,500 square feet of conference
rooms, 6,00D square foot ballroom, health/exercise facilities, administrative
and housekeeping services. Figure I illustrates the proposed site plan for
Phase I of The Waterfront development.
Development of Phase I will result in'the removal of the 48 room western
wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn. The remainder of the Huntington
Beach Inn will be removed prior to construction of Phase 2. The existing
golf course and mobile homes will be removed consistent with construction of
each phase of project development.
Vehicular access to the Phase 1 development will be provided by two
driveways off of Walnut Avenue. The first driveway is approximately 150 feet
east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street. This location is planned as a
right in/out access. The second driveway is located approximately 400 feet
east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street, and will provide full access
to the Phase 1 project. In addition, a driveway is planned along Huntington
Street approximately 150 feet from the northern curb of Pacific Coast High-
way. This driveway will accommodate service vehicles only. No hotel patron
traffic is allowed at this location.
---mft.
LU
W ,
Cc
. ..... . - - - .
Conference Rooms
+fit BallroomEX.
rL
Lobby
0
.:..
r " . Guest Rooms
RestautaNU
Kitchen::: :
20
_ PHASE I
HOTEL
FIGURE 1
SCALE IN FEET
0 s0 100
PHASE I SITE PLAN
�sa � srlrtea:o4 .
Lsa
Parking for the Phase I development will be provided in a parking struc-
ture under the hotel (see Figure 2). The City of Huntington Beach Parking
Code indicates that I parking space per hotel room for guests and I parking
space per 10 rooms for employees is required. Based on this City Parking
Code rate, the Phase 1 hotel has provided for the required number of parking
spaces.
TASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS
For purposes of comparison and disclosure, the results of the Master
Plan parking analysis have also been included in this Phase 1 parking analy-
sis. The Master Plan Waterfront commercial project includes four hotels with
1,600 rooms, a 40,000 square foot tennis center and 99,000 square feet of
retail land use. In addition, the seventh, and final , phase of development
includes approximately 895 multi-family residential units located north of
Walnut Avenue. These units would be independently parked and, therefore,
were not considered as part of the Master Plan parking analysis. This sec-
tion provides a summary of the analysis methodology and results found in the
Final Supplemental EIR, Appendix C, pages 41-45. In essence, a parking
demand analysis was conducted which forecasts the hourly parking demand for
each land use component in the proposed Waterfront Master Plan project.
Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand:
the peak parking demand by land use, and the percent parking accumulation by
time of day for each land use. To arrive at the parking demand by time of
day, the maximum parking demand is multiplied by the percent utilization by
time of day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking character-
istics of each land use during their operating hours: The maximum parking
utilization is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most
vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed waterfront project and to�park
on-site. This number of parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize
the parking facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking spaces
needed to accommodate the proposed project.
The parking rates used to determine the peak demand for each land use
are primarily based on the City of Huntington Beach Parking Code. It should
be pointed out that using the City parking rate for peak demand presents a
worst case analysis of parking accumulation. That is, City parking rates are
based on a maximum parking accumulation plus some buffer to insure that
adequate parking is available for the specific land use. The actual peak
parking demand for the land uses is less than the City rates. Therefore, the
use of the City parking rates as peak parking demand rates represents a worst
case analysis.
3
_ - PMKMG 1ASUUTIOM
__ 1 . • • • • • • • a _ -
LL
11 _.
71 . _
Entry Level 14.0'
1-7
o o —Ts
Parking Level 5.0'
FIGURE 2
PARKING LAYOUT
t6/17/88:GD
�/
The hourly percentage accumulations for each land use type are based on
the Urban Land Institute document Shared Parking. As a tennis center parking
accumulation is not included in the Shared Parking document, surveys were
conducted to determine the hourly percent accumulation for this land use.
This survey was conducted at the John Wayne Racquet Club in Newport Beach.
The location was selected as it best represents the type of facility planned
for the Waterfront project. A detailed project description of the Waterfront
Tennis and Health Center is presented in the Appendices.
The results of this analysis indicated that a required parking supply of
2,455 spaces per the City code for individual land uses, if shared parking
were not possible. However, the results of the forecast parking demand
analysis indicated that, due to the nature of the proposed land uses and
their individual hours of operation, the opportunity to share parking exists.
Based on the results of the original parking demand analysis, the maxi-
mum parking accumulation for the Waterfront Master Plan is expected to occur
at 8:00 p.m. and will include 2,015 spaces. The primary contributors to this
peak accumulation are the retail and hotel land uses. The proposed plan
indicates that the total parking supply on site is 2,190 spaces. Therefore,
the proposed plan's parking supply is 175 spaces in excess of the peak
accumulation.
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES RESORT.„MOTEL ,STUDY
To conduct the original Waterfront circulation and parking analysis,
many sources were consulted. One primary source of information regarding
resort hotel trip generation and parking characteristics is the Austin Foust
Associates, Inc. Resort_Hotel_Traffic Study, December, 1986. In this study,
four resort hotel sites were surveyed in an effort to determine trip genera-
tion and parking statistics representative of this type of accommodation
facility. The four hotel sites and their representative parking statistics
are presented in Table A. This data is taken from the AFA report, and has
been verified for accuracy.
The parking rates illustrated in the Table are based on the maximum
parking accumulation observed divided by the number of rooms occupied during
the survey. The parking accumulation, or number of parked vehicles per hour,
is the maximum expected to utilize the parking facilities, and is equivalent
to the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the hotel facilities on
a per occupied room basis. As pointed out in the AFA report, however, hotel
occupancy must be considered to define the parking rate based on a per room
.schedule. Based on hotel industry occupancy standards, the AFA study assumed
5
------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SURVEY I LAND IPERCENT IPARKINGIPEAK IPARKING185% OCC. 1
1 SITE j USE MIX IOCCUPIEDISUPPLY jACCUMIRATE(l)j RATE I
1-------------------------------- - -----------------------------------------:------------I
10e1 Coronado 1689 rooms, 55 TSF meeting rooms, 1 87%1 848 1 700 1 1. 17 1 0.99 1
13.8 TSF rests., 3.8 TSF lounge i
ILa Costa 1376 rooms, 50 TSF meeting rooms, 1 65%1 620 1 400 1 1.64 1 1.39 1
15.8 TSF rests., 7•.6 TSF lounge
I 1 2 golf courses, 23 tennis courts
jNewport Marriott 1400 rooms, 20 TSF meeting rooms, 1 787.1 628 1 309 1 0.99 1 0.84 1
j 1 3.9 TSF rests. , 2.1 TSF lounge j I I I I
1"yatt Hilton Head 1359 rooms, 12 TSF meeting rooms, 1 86%1 331 1 292 1 0.94 1 0.80
1 ( 7.2 TSF rests., lounge, I
I 12 golf courses, 25 tennis courts I I I ) I I
1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
1WEIGHTED AVERAGE PARKING RATE . I I 1 1 1.18 1 1.00 1
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
(AVERAGE RATE APPLIED TO 300 ROOM PHASE 1 HOTEL I ' 1 j 1 355 1 301 1
--------------------------------------- -- -
(1) As reported in Austin-Foust study, the parking rate is based on maximum accumulation
divided by occupied rooms.
TABLE A
AUSTIN-FOUST, RESORT HOTEL STUDY
�s SURVEY SUMMARY
Lsa
APP DIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED TENNIS AND HEALTH CENT
The Waterfront -Phase II
Tennis & Health Center
Summary of Facilities:
9 Tennis courts (night-lighted)
25,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. Clubhouse and Health Center
25 Meter Lap Pool & Jacuzzi
Ball Machine Practice Alley(Tennis)
Amenities & Services:
The Clubhouse/Health Center is projected to include the following amenities and
services:
Locker Room (Men's, Women's, Children's)
Tennis Pro Shop/Sports Clothing Store
Snack Shop/Juice Bar
Event Club Room with Cocktail Bar (overlooking Tennis Court)
Private Massage Rooms with Staff Masseuse
Facials
Salon
Sauna (dry heat)
Steam Room
Special Hydrotherapy Facilities such as Mineral Baths, Herbal Wraps,
Thalassotherapy (seawater/seaweed treatments), and Swiss Showers
(invigorating high-pressure showers that rapidly alternate between hot and
cold).
Facilities for Physician-Monitored Nutritional, Weight-Reduction and
Cardiac-Monitored Exercise Programs. It is expected that one or more of
the hotels at The Waterfront will provide a specialized dietary regimen in
coordination with this program.
Necessary"Back of House" such as Offices, Laundry, Kitchen, Maintenance,
HVAC and Employee Services.
1
The Waterfront - Pha :I
Tennis &Health Cen
Marketing Concept:
The facilities described above break into two basic categories:
1. Tennis Courts & Basic Clubhouse Facilities
(lockers, pros op,—snack shop, club room & bar)
Typical membership tennis clubs maintain an average of about 60 dues
paying members per tennis court. However, due to the subject facility's large
reliance on hotel and other transient visitors, the primary fee structure for
individuals will be based on per-use fees, rather than on continuin
membership dues. Individual membership (on a non-discrimination basis
will be available but would be expected to total only 200 to 300 persons,
mostly from the on-site residential. Hours of operation are projected to be
7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays, to 9:00 p.m. on weekends.
Projected uses from the following market segments are based on resort hotel
experience which typically runs 60-70% peak usage of two tennis courts for a
400 room hotel, therefore a peak demand of 4 to 5 tennis courts from on-site
hotels.
Projected Tennis Facility Usage:
On-site Hotel Visitors 55%
On-site Residential Users 10%
On-site Beach Visitors 15%
Off-site Users (Vehicular trip generators) 20%
2. Resort Health Center
(massage, facials, salon, sauna, steam room, hydrotherapy and
nutritional/weight reduction programs)
These amenities and services can be expected to appeal almost exclusively to
transient hotel visitors. Such programs are often run in conjunction with
destination resort hotel complexes, or as primary destination facilities
themselves. It can be conservatively projected that 80`l"c of the users will
come from hotel visitors, and 50% of those visitors will have hotel stays in
excess of four days with an average daily visit to the resort health center of
three to four hours per day.
Further, the typical peak usage of such facilities occurs in the mid-morning
and early afternoon, and therefore it is expected that the resort health
center's effect on local peak a.m. and peak p.m. traffic is insignificant.
2
The Waterfront - Pha II
Tennis& Health Cer.
Analysis of Contrast to Urban Fitness Centers:
(Holiday Spa Health Club)
Typical urban fitness centers differ from the proposed Tennis & Health Center in
several ways which all affect vehicular traffic generation:
1. Occupancy Load
An urban fitness center normally emphasizes circuit weight training and
aerobic exercise on stationary bicycle equipment or in organized aerobic
classes. As a result, the average occupancy load (user per sq. ft.) at peak
periods is typically very high. In contrast, the subject Tennis & Health
Center provides amenities and services in which the limiting factors are the
court availability and the personalized nature of the services in the resort
health center such as facials, massage, physician-monitored programs, etc.;
therefore, the facility will experience a significantly lower occupancy load.
2. Period of Visit
Users of urban fitness centers, by virtue of the circuit training regimen, have
average visits of appproximately 30 minutes to one and one-quarter hour.
Users of the tennis/clubhouse facilities typically have average visits of two
and one half hours, and resort health center clientele would typically have
stays of three to four hours.
3. User Profile
The typical member of a urban fitness center is 18 - 35 years of age, and is a
working individual who will visit the facility at least two to three times per
week either before or after work and therefore during the peak a.m. or peak
p.m. traffic periods. This is greatly facilitated by the high occupancy load
and short period of visit possible in urban fitness centers as discussed
previously. However, in a tennis/clubhouse facility the use is moderated by
court availability tending to spread traffic generation over more hours per
day. Also, tennis is often a family activity, lending itself to off-peak and
weekend use, in this case in conjunction with beach visits. Further, the
typical tennis player will span an older age profile than an urban fitness
center member, which often translates into a more flexible work schedule
and thus greater off-peak usage.
Additionally, the typical resort health center client is over 35 years of age
and is primarily using the facility as a part of, or as the main reason of, his or
her hotel stay. Some users will come from the local area, but in such cases,
due to the relatively lengthy typical visit making it difficult to utilize
immediately before or after normal working hours, off-premise users are not
likely to generate traffic in the peak a.m. or peak p.m. period.
3
The Waterfront-Pha 'I
Tennis & Health Cer. >
4. Membership Turnover
Typical urban fitness centers maintain a large and active sales staff who
promote the sale of annual or longer lump-sum memberships. As a result
the operation profits from a high turnover of members who are initially very
active peak period users, but who then lose interest and are replaced with
new active members. The result of the enthusiastic use by a steady stream of
new members is the very high occupancy loads in peak periods as described
earlier. In contrast, the subject Tennis & Health Center will not rely
primarily on a high turn-over of annual membership fees. Revenue will be
based on fees for usage, and as stated elsewhere, the availability of courts
and the typical three to four hour resort health treatment will minimize the
vehicular trip generations at peak a.m. and peak p.m. traffic periods.
5. Demand Generators
As described earlier, the subject facility will be designed primarily for the
market created by The Waterfront's resort hotels, on-site residential and the
beach visitors. Therefore, the great majority of users are already on-site and
are not generators of vehicle trips. It is projected that only approximately
10-25% of the users of the tennis/clubhouse facility will be located
sufficiently off-site to create new vehicular traffic trips. Further, an even
lesser percentage of the users of the resort health center can be expected to
be located off-site, and even then the peak usage is not expected to coincide
with the peak a.m. and peak p.m. traffic periods.
6. Maximum Size of Facility
The maximum size of the Tennis & Health Center is not anticipated to
exceed 40,000 square feet and is currently planned at 25,000 square feet.
Typical urban fitness centers such as the Holiday Spa Health Club are
approximately 60,000 square feet, and some are even larger. Therefore, the
subject facility cannot be expected to generate as great an amount of
vehicular traffic as typical urban fitness centers.
Summary of Expected Vehicular Trip Generation:
The John Wayne Tennis Club in Newport Beach was surveyed. Results are
tabulated elsewhere in this report.
The John Wayne Tennis Club provides 16 courts (lighted), a pro shop with tennis
apparel sales, a sauna,jacuzzi, men's, women's and children's locker rooms, a snack
shop/restaurant, a club event room with bar, a ball machine practice alley, and the
club provides child care, a masseuse, facials and a salon.
4
The Waterfront - Ph,- iI
Tennis & Health Cen
For the reasons stated previously in this summary of the planned facilities, it can be
reasonably concluded that the subject facility will experience trip generation rates
of less than the above tennis club surveyed. However, to be conservative, the
figures used in the traffic analysis are based on the survey results and are adjusted
only on the basis of the square footage of the clubhouse (an upward adjustment)
rather than the number of tennis courts, the user profile or nature of the amenities
(a downward adjustment).
5
Lsa
APPENDIX B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED RESORT HOTEL USES
R Laventhol &Honvath 650 Town Center Drive
Suite 11,.E
Certified Public Accountants_ _ Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 556-4244
November 13, 1987
Mr. Steve Bone
The Robert Mayer Corporation.
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 9265S
Dear Mr. Bone:
At your request, we have gathered information on four hotels in
order to respond to the following question regarding your
proposed development 'program in Huntington Beach, California:
Would the prcposed hotels, in general , Nave
characteristics similar to the "resort" hotels
identified in the Resort Hotel Traffic Study, dated
December 29, 1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates^
Following are the four hotels identified in the Austin-Foust
study:
- Hotel del Coronado
- La Costa
- Marriott Hotel (Newport Beach)
- Hyatt at Hilton Head
In providing a response to your question, we evaluated your
proposed hotel development program in Huntington Beach in
comparison to the four identified hotels, utilizing the following
factors . The attached exhibit reflects the specifies of that
comparison.
- Market segmentation;
Facilities and meeting/conference space;
Recreational amenities; and
Proximity to demand generators .
Based on this evaluation, we conclude that the proposed hotels,
i n general , have characteristics similar t0 the "resort" hotels
identified in the Resort Hotel Traffic Study, Gated December 29,
1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates .
In particular, it should be noted that like the hotels identified
in the Austin-Foust study, the subjec- proposed development w-'Il
member of Hone-ati; S: Hor�•:ath ?nt_r.;ati.r :' .,rh sf;iliztra office: «o,lani e.
a
Mr. Steve Bone
The Robert Mayer Corporation
November 13, 1987
Page 2
provide significant facilities for meetings and conferences in
conjunction with important recreational amenities. As a result,
it is our opinion that the subject proposed development will
likely experience a similar average length of stay and relatively
low propensity of the hotel guest to travel off-premise ( to
business meetings or other recreational amenities ) as experienced
by the other "resort" hotels referenced in the Austin-Foust
study. Further, it is reasonable to expect that in comparison to
the singular hotels studied by Austin-Foust, the combination of
the four hotels on one site in the proposed development will give
the average hotel guest even more opportunities to remain on-site
for a longer period of time because of the multitude of dining,
shopping, recreational and meeting facilities provided at one
location.
This letter is intended for the information of the Robert Mayer
;rporation in your discussions with the City of Huntington
^ac::. Otherwise neither this letter nor any reference to
Laventhol & Horwath may be included or quoted in any offering
circular, registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure,
appraisal, loan or other agreement or document without our prior
written consent.
Very truly yours,
LAVENTHOL & HORWATH
'16r�
David R. Fcinkade
Manager
RNK/imk
cc: Richard N. Kipper
THE
ROB=RT
- M�YE? -
CORPORATION
January 6, 1988
Mr.Rob Balen
LSA Associates,Inc.
1 Park Plaza,Suite 500 -
Irvine, California 92714
Re: Maximum Hotel Occupancy Levels at The Waterfront
Dear Mr. Balen:
In response to your question regarding the maximum anticipated occupancy level
for the hotels planned at the Waterfront, let me begin by reciting the fact that
currently no first-class hotel property, in Orange County is operating at an average
nccupancv level above 80%. In fact, industry experts inform us that the NeAport
3cac Marriott Hotel, a destination resort project widely regarded as one of the
County's most successful and well-managed properties, last year achieved a 78Cc
average annual occupancy in the face of average occupancy levels in the Newport
Beach-Irvine hospitality market of approximately 60-65%.
The consulting firm of Laventhol & Horwath has prepared market studies and
financial estimates that have guided us in the planning of The Waterfront as a first-
class destination resort development, and these reports have been made available
to the City of Huntington Beach planning staff to assist them in analyzing the fiscal
impacts of this proposed project. Those studies projected occupancy levels
beginning in the high 607o range and stabilizing after several years of Riesr
ation at
70-7357o depending on the hotel) and we concur with those estimates. appears
reasonable as well when you contrast the lower 60-65 i'c occupancy levels in the
Newport Beach-Irvine market with industry trade figures that show that destination
resorts averaged approximately 75% occupancy on a nationAide basis in 1986. It
should also be noted that Southern California enjoys a more temperate and less
seasonal climate than most areas of the country.- Therefore, destination resort
properties in this area do not rely, upon exceptionally high occupancy rates in a few
summer months to reach annual averages like many other parts of the country,
instead the local industry enjoys a comparatively stable occupancy pattern
throughout the year.
Further, it must be understood that The Waterfront Ail] consist of four distinctly
different hotels (first-class, conference, all-suite and luxury) that each cater to
different market segments. The demand of each of these market segments varies
differently, over different periods of the year, and therefore it is clearll
unreasonable to ever expect that all of the hotels would operate at or near peak
rapacity at the same point in time. Further, as you know, hotels contain not only
guest rooms,but recreation, restaurant and meeting facilities as well. Each of these
650 New—,on Cenre--hive.Suite 1050
Box 86,60
Nev-,: r-Seoen Colilo is(;255S-89S0
(714)75q-80q1
Mr. Rob Balen
January 8, 19SS Page 2 '
are components to overall average traffic generation rates, and it is likcuise
unrealistic and simply not hospitality industry experience to expect all facilities
within a hotel to operate at peak capacities at the same time of the day or µ-eek.
For all these reasons I must conclude that the aggregate figure of 85% average
occupancy that you have assumed for the purpose of assessing traffic impacts is
clearly a worst-case scenario from the standpoint of traffic generation (on either an
annualized or short-term peak basis), because 85 io is dramatically higher than a
best-case occupancy figure from the standpoint of industry standards, our market
consultant's projections or our oAm expectations. -
Sincerely,
Shawn K.Millbern
Proiect Manager for
Waterfront
RESORT HOTr_[, CIIARACTEPI!-,
(A SUMMARY)
Myatt at Proposed Robert
Ctit:eria Hotel Del Coronaclo La Costa---- -Netir .;arriott _ Hilton Head _ Mayer llotels(l )
,l,irket Seginentat_ion
Commercial - - 45% - 25%
Croup Neetinq 704 35% 35 804 40
Tor r i st 30 65 %'0 20 35
1';,,ci1ities and fleeting 684 Rooms 482 Rooms 597 Rooms 505 Rooms 1 ,450 Rooms
:Dace 55,000 sq. ft:, of 50,000 sq.ft. of 20,000 sq.ft. of 26,411 sq.ft. of 52,000 sq.ft, of,
meeting space, 4 meeting space, 8 meetinq space, 2 meeting space, 4 meeting space, 12
restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, 8
3 lounges 3 lounges 2 lounges 3 lounges lounges
r,roximity to Demand On an island with Near ocean, Near business, and on an island with Next to ocean,
Goncrators a beach and ocean and freeway shopping. ocean a beach and ocean scenic highway.
views. Near Down,t:own views views Ocean views
f�c•reatir>nal Amenities 7 tQnnis courts, 23 tennis courts, EI tennis courts, 25 tennis courts, 9 tennis courts,
2 swimming pools, 5 swimming pools, swimming pool, health club, 3-18 clubhouse and
health club, sauna, mens/womens spas, health club, hole golf courses, resort health
beach with water fitness rooms, 36 adjacent golf beach with water center with lap
sports hole golf course, sports, swimming pool , 3 swimming
movie theatre pool pools (1 at each ,
of 3 of 4 Hotels) ,
fitness rooms at
each hotel, 75,000
sq.ft. retail
shopping plaza,
beach with water
sports.
( 1 ) Rased on preliminary development program.
r
RELATIONSHIP BMEEM ANCILLARY SERVICES AND PARKING PER ROOM
Throughout all of the research for hotel parking, one factor identifed
that continues to affect the parking per number 'of rooms is the ancillary
uses. These ancillary uses include meeting rooms, restaurants and lounges,
tennis courts/health clubs and golf courses. The relationship between number
of rooms and the amount of ancillary services is critical as these ancillary
uses, themselves, generate parking above the needs of the hotel rooms.
In order to provide some overall comparison between the proposed
Waterfront Phase I Hotel and the- Hotels researched in this report, Table C
r-� been prepared. This table identifies the observed 100 percent room
, kpancy parking demand or parking per room required - as per development
;approval . These spaces per room are compared to the 1.1 parking spaces per
room proposed for the Waterfront Hotel . In addition, this table calculates
the various ancillary uses per room for the proposed and researched hotels.
As the table indicates there is a general relationship between the size
of the ancillary uses and the parking per room. As an example the highest
parking per room demand, La Costa, also has the highest square feet of
meeting rooms, tennis courts and near the highest for restaurants and golf
courses. As would be expected the demand per room would be significantly
greater than what is proposed for the Waterfront Development.
Further review of the table illustrates that the proposed 1.1 parking
spaces per room for the Waterfront with corresponding ancillary uses are
generally equal to or greater in parking supply when compared to comparable
facilities. As an example the Hyatt Hilton Head and the Ramada Renaissance -
have similar meeting room and restaurant- square footage per room, yet. these
comparables have less parking per room than proposed for the Waterfront.
In conclusion, the 1.1 parking spaces per room proposed for the
Waterfront is sufficient to accomodate 'the proposed number of rooms and
ancillary uses based on the relationship of the size of the ancilary uses to
the number of rooms.
1 _
Lsa
APPENOTX C
_TS ATEMENT OF PHASE 1 HOTEL OPERATOR
REtElIWEe
SIGNET LOTEL. _ JUN 06
CORPORATION
June 1 , 1968
Mr. Stephen K. Bone
Executive Director
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Box 8680
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680
RE: The Waterfront Hilton Hotel , Huntington Beach, California
Dear Steve:
This letter will serve as formal notice that Signet Hotel Corporation,
Operator of the above-referenced, proposed hotel, hereby approves your
proposed parking ratio of 1 . 1 spaces per room.
We have analyzed the site plan, the parking plan and the projected demand
for spaces, and have concluded the 1 . 1 ratio is adequate. Should a peak
condition exist, valet parking will easily alleviate the problem.
Very truly yours,
William D. Balsiger
President
BB/jg
15851 Dallas Parkway Suite 925 Dallas, Texas 75248 • ( 214 ) 450- 5800
4 '
Lsa
APPENDIX D
LSA MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS
Lsa
SECTION III: MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS
A parking demand analysis has been conducted which forecasts the hourly
parking demand for each land use component in' the proposed Waterfront Master
Plan project. The parking rates used to determine the peak demand for each
land use are primarily based on the City of Huntington Beach Parking Code.
It should be pointed out that using the City parking rate for peak demand
presents a worst case analysis of parking accumulation. That is, City park-
ing rates are based on a maximum parking accumulation plus some buffer to
insure that adequate parking is available for the specific land use. The
actual peak parking demand for the land uses _i s less than the City rates.
;^Yefore, the use of the City parking rates as peak parking demand rates
: ePresents a worst case analysis.
Where parking rates are not included for a particular land use, archival
research was conducted to determine an applicable rate. These rates are
sourced in the detailed description of this methodology. The hourly per-
centage accumulations for each land use type are based on the Urban Land
Institute document Shared Parking.The results of this analysis indicate that the opportunity for shared
parking exists for the proposed project based on the variety of land uses and
their respective periods of activity. The number of parking spaces provided
is adequate to accommodate the demand for parking throughout the day.
FORLCAST_ PARKING DEMAND
-Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand:
= � a peak. parking demand by land use, and the percent parking accumulation by
,ime of day for each land use. To arrive at the parking demand by time of
day, the peak parking demand is multiplied by the percent accumulation by
time of. day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking character-
istics of each land use during their operating hours. The maximum parking
utilization is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most
vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed Waterfront project and to park
on-site. This number of parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize
the parking facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking spaces
needed to accommodate the proposed project.
As mentioned previously, the peak parking demand figures for each land
use are primarily based on the City of Huntington Beach Parking Code. Park-
ing percentage accumulations by time of day are based on the ULI Shared
Parking document. _ For land uses that do not have parking rates defined in
41
r
Lsa
the code, or have a parking rate but are discretionary, archival research has
been conducted to determine the appropriate rate to be used -in this analysis.
Forecast parking demand for this site, therefore, is calculated based on
these sources and is summarized as f ol I ows-.-
Betail . The retail parking demand is based on the City of Huntington
Beach's Parking Code rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area. This• rate, multiplied by the total 99,000 square feet of
proposed retail use, indicates a peak demand of 495 spaces. The intent
of the parking ordinance is to provide a conservative parking supply for
a worst case condition. Therefore, this peak demand is representative
of a worst case scenario. The percent accumulation for the proposed
retail land use is based on the Shared Parking document.
Tennis Club. Parking surveys were conducted to determine appropriate
parking characteristics for 'the proposed Tennis and Health Center. One
survey was conducted at the Holiday Health Spa at the Charter Center in
Huntington Beach. Another survey was conducted at the John Wayne Rac-
quet Club in Newport Beach. The latter location was selected as it best
represents the type of facility planned for the Waterfront project. A
detailed project description of the Waterfront Tennis and health Center
is presented in the Appendix.
The results of these surveys were compared to each other, and to the
proposed facility, as a means of determining the appropriate parking
statistics to be used in this analysis. The peak parking demand at the
Holiday Health Spa was approximately five times greater than that Sur-
veyed at the John Wayne Racquet Club. . As the proposed Tennis and Health
Center -is planned to provide facilities similar to .the John Wayne Rac-
quet Club, and is not intended fcr use as a high turnover exercise spa
like the Holiday Health Club, the peak parking demand and percent park-
ing accumulations surveyed at the John Wayne Racquet Club were used in
this analysis.
The City's parking rate for health clubs is 5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet. Therefore, 200 spaces are necessary for a 40,000 square foot,
stand alone health center. However, the survey results indicate a peak
demand for a 40,000 square foot tennis club of 100 spaces. This peak
demand occurs at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. For purposes of this analysis,
however, the City parking rate and peak demand have been used to present
a worst case condition.
42
Ls
ate The hotel peak parking demand is based on the City rate for
hotel of one parking space per room for hotel patrons and one parking
space per ten rooms for employees. It should be noted that manager's
units will not be provided and, therefore, are not applicable for this
development. These rates are multiplied by the total 1,600 hotel rooms
to arrive at a peak demand, per City code, of 1,760 parking spaces.
This peak parking demand is multiplied by the percent hourly parking ac-
cumulations, as described in the ULI Shared Parking document, to arrive
at the forecast hourly hotel parking accumulation.
It should also be noted that the Resort Hotel Traffic Study by Austin-
Foust, Associates analyzes the parking needs experienced by destination
resort hotels. As stated previously, the hotels surveyed in that study
contained significant numbers of restaurant, meeting room and ballroom
facilities. The Faster Plan is commensurate with, and on the average
less than, the facilities at the other destination resort hotels. As
stated in the Austin-Foust study, "The overall conclusion is that a rate
of approximately, or just over, 1.0 parking spaces per room would appear
to be reasonably representative for the resort hotel defined here."
The results of this analysis are presented in Table E, and indicate a
required parking supply of 2,455 spaces per the City code for individual land
uses, if shared parking were not possible. However, the results of the
forecast parking demand analysis indicate that, due to the nature of the
proposed land uses and their individual hours of operation, the opportunity
to share parking exists.
Table E also illustrates the anticipated hourly accumulation for the
proposed Waterfront Master Plan buildout. The maximum accumulation is ex-
pected to occur at 8:00 p.m. and to include 2,015 spaces. The primary con-
tributors to this peak accumulation are the retail and hotel land uses. The
proposed plan indicates that the total, parking supply on site is 21190
spaces. Therefore, the proposed plan's parking supply is 175 spaces in
excess of the peak accumulation. This represents a nine percent residual
parking supply as a parking buffer. As noted earlier, this analysis is based
on the City rates as peak demand figures. Therefore, this worst case analy-
sis underestimates the actual parking buffer.
43
Table E
Master Plan -
Shared Parking Demand Asa
Retail Tennis Hotel
USE Club Rooms
--. - -- y----- ... . (Sq. Ft.) _ (Sq. Ft.) . (units)
Sq. Ft./ 1 1 Supply
I Room 1 99,000 40,000 1,600 ( _. Parking of 2,190
i I I Demand Minus
i I 1 by Hour Demand
JHB Code 1 5/1000 5/1000 1/40m*
1Parking pert 1
HB Code J 495 200 1,760 1 2,455
iWeekdays -
;6:00 AM ( 0 32 -1,760 1 1 1,792 1 398 1
17:00 AM 1 40 - 64 1,496 J 1 19600 1 590 1
18:00 AM 1 89 148 I,144 € ( 1,381 1 809 1
19:00 AM 1 208 - --200 968 1 1 1,376 1 814 I
110:00 AM 1 _ 337 . . . . . 116 792 1 1 1,245 1 945 1
111:00 AM 1 431 128 616 1 J 1,175 1 1,015 I
INOON 1 480 136 528 1 J 1,144 1 I,046 J
11:00 PM 1 --495 156 528 i 1 1,179 1 1,0I1 1
12:00 PM 1 480 156 616 i 1 1,252 1 938 1
13:00 PM 1 470 --200 616 1 1 1,286 1 904 1
14:00 PM 1 431 144 792 1 1 1,367 1 823 1
15:00 PM 1 391 120 1 ,056 1 1 1,567 1 623 1
16:00 PM 1 406 36 1,232 J 1,674 i 516 1
17:00 PM J 441 16 1,320 1 1 1,777 I 413 1
_ 18:00 PM 1 431 :_ 0 1.584 1 2.015 175
19:00 PEE 1 302� 0 1,672 1 1 1,974 1 216 1
110:00 PM 1 158 0 --1,760 J 1,918 1 272 1
111:00 PM 1 64 0 --1,760 1 J 1,824 1 366 I
]MIDNIGHT 1 0 0 --1,760 1 1 1,760 1 430 1
1 II I
2,015 175
* Hotel parking demand is comprised of guest room demand (1 space per
room), and employee demand (1 space per 10 rooms).
Peak Parking of individual Land Uses.
Lsa
Therefore, the opportunity for shared parking exists. The peak parking
demand occurs at 8:00 p.m. and is comprised of primarily hotel parking with
some retail parking. The tennis club does not contribute to the peak parking
demand. The proposed Waterfront Master Plan buildout parking supply exceeds
the forecast parking demand by 175 spaces. As each phase of the project is
designed in detail , a phase specific parking analysis will be undertaken to
ensure that the parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand.
It should be noted that, due to the proxioity of the beach areas to the
proposed project, the potential for beach users to attempt to park in The
Waterfront parking areas exist. To eliminate this potential , the developer
agreed to install gated security facilities at all parking area
<,:zrances. Therefore, .the parking supply proposed for The Waterfront project
will serve only the parking demand created by the proposed project.
45
APPEMIX
bUSITN-FOUST RESORT HOTEL STUDY
ail b: :�� • •
jd 911
,�,'14' M
�� i 11�11 It ti
IBM
ANN
• . r_� �ju f
• 1 Y' A P� �� MEN
�� Irr• rYr A i 1 L
Ukik
AV
1p
ad
•j a. IL�s .I
! � :,;,. :tic: `••._,, ��t.;:+ci ..
RESORT HOTEL TRAFFIC STUDY
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
December 29, 1986
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
Resort Hotel Definition 1
Hotel Survey 2
Survey Results '
I. INTRODUCTION
Background and Objectives I- 1
Study Scope 1- 2
II. RESORT HOTEL SURVEYS
Hotel del Coronado II- 1
La Costa II- 4
Marriott Hotel II- 9
Hyatt at Hilton Head II-14
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Typical Resort Hotel III- 1
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) III- 1
Peak Hour Trips III- 3
Representative Trip Rates III- 6
Parking III- 7
APPENDIX
SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of a survey carried out to derive the
traffic characteristics of resort hotels. The purpose of the study was to
establish representative trip generation rates and parking demand for this type
of accommodation facility.
RESORT HOTEL DEFINITION
Resort hotels have special characteristics that distinguish them from the
more traditional hotels typically referred to in trip generation analyses.
Underlying these is the basic 'destination resort' character of the facility.
.ther than the hotel merely serving as a convenient place for guests to stay
,while visiting the area, it is a primary attraction in itself because of the
attractiveness of the accommodation facility and the on-site amenities that are
available. The result is considerably lower trip generation than would be
experienced at a more traditional hotel where daily activities require using a
vehicle to travel to and from the hotel.
The typical resort hotel for which traffic characteristics are derived here
can be defined as follows:
1. Provides luxury accommodation with 'in house' restaurants, shops, etc.
2. Has on-site or adjacent amenities such as spa, golf course, tennis
courts, beach, and/or other recreational attractions.
3. Provides various forms of guest transportation services, particularly to
and from the nearest major airport.
4. For trip generation purposes, an average occupancy of 85 percent for
at least three months of the year is assumed. This allows trip generation rates
to be defined on a per room rather than 'per occupied room' basis. While the 85
1
percent is higher than a typical annual average (75 percent is more
representative) , it results in a trip generation rate that accounts for the high
end of the trip generation range for resort hotels.
HOTEL SURVEY
Four hotels were surveyed in this study as follows:
1. Hotel del Coronado - Coronado Island, California.
2. La Costa - San Diego County, California.
3. Marriott Hotel - Newport Beach, California.
4. Hyatt at Hilton Head, South Carolina.
While each of the four is unique in certain ways, the features that are
related to traffic characteristics exhibit many similarities. All four offer a
variety of recreational facilities, but at the same time they are not entirely
isolated and have surrounding features of sufficient interest to encourage some
off-site travel. They are therefore representative of a luxury resort hotel that
provides a range of recreational experiences, most of which are on-site and
which serves as a 'destination resort' as far as visitors are concerned.
SURVEY RESULTS
- A summary of the data collected in the survey is given in Table 1. This
lists the pertinent characteristics of each facility plus the total traffic and
parking count results. As can be seen here, the adjusted ADT trip rates vary
from 5.0 tripsldav to 6.4, indicating considerable consistency in the trip
generation characteristics of each facility. Peak hour rates show slightly more
variation, but are still sufficiently consistent to support the adequacy of the
sample size.
2
Table 1
SUMMARY OF RESORT HOTEL SURVEY
DEL NEWPORT HYATT AT
CORONADO LA COSTA MARRIOTT HILTON HEAD
Number of Rooms 689 376 400 359
Occupied Rooms at Time 599 244 312 310
of Survey
Amenities: Restaurants Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gift Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes
Spa Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tennis Yes Yes Yes Yes
Golf Nearby Yes Yes Yes
Beach Yes Yes
.ot Size 848 620 628 331
Traffic Count 3687 1718 i829 2332
(24 hour two-way)
Trips/Room 5.3 6.0 5.0 6.4
(adjusted to 85% occupancy)
Max. Parking/Room .99 1.39 .81 .80
(adjusted to 85% occupancy)
3
The recommended trip generation rates derived from the survey data can be
summarized as follows:
--AM PEAK HOUR- -PM PEAK HOUR--
ADT IB OB Total IB OB Total
Trips per room 6.0 .20 .10 .30 .19 .26 .45
These rates are higher than the averages from the sample data, and are
intended to be representative rates that would be unlikely to be exceeded by a
'resort hotel' of the type defined here. They can hence be applied in traffic
studies relative to these type of facilities with a reasonable expectation that the
actual trip rates will be lower.
4
I. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a traffic analysis of selected resort
hotels. The purpose was to establish representative trip generation rates for
these types of accommodation facilities.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The trip generation data that is currently available for hotels is somewhat
limited by both its sample size and its ability to categorize hotels into specific
types. Hotels differ widely with respect to the type of accommodation and
amenities offered, and consequently the trip generation rates also vary.
The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual gives an
.- ,7,rage trip rate for hotels of 10.5 trips per room, based on 5 studies.* The
highest observed rate was 13.4 trips per room and the lowest was 9.1. Data for
motels is also given in the ITE manual, in this case the average rate of 10.14
varying from 4.7 as a minimum to 14.6 as a maximum, based on 13 studies. The
manual notes a resort hotel rate (based on one study) , but the definition of a
resort hotel does not appear to be significantly different from a regular hotel,
the only discernable difference being that the sample location was Hawaii. The
observed trip generation rate was similar to that of regular hotels.
The type of hotel studied here and defined as a 'resort. hotel' has specific
characteristics with respect to the type of amenities that are available. Of
primary importance is that the facility acts as a primary "destination" with a
variety of recreational amenities on-site. Hence guests are primarily visiting the
hotel and not just seeking convenient accommodations in the area. This is
different from the more typical hotel whose guests are visiting an area for
business or recreation and have selected the particular hotel as a suitable place
to stay, and from which they undertake their various activities in the area.
"Trip Generation Manual: An Informational Report," Ord Edition) , Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Revised October 1983.
I-1
Because of the amenities provided by a resort hotel, the trip generation
characteristics are considerably different than for a regular hotel. In
particular, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the hotel on a daily basis
is significantly lower. Guests find most of their daily activities on-site rather
than off-site, and hence the resort hotel does not generate the type of daily
trips found at a regular hotel.
STUDY SCOPE
The study scope involved a comprehensive survey of a selected sample of
resort hotels. Each of the hotels in the sample can be considered a resort hotel
according to the definition given above.
Three hotels in the sample were surveyed in September 1986. A fourth
_.-f-ort hotel, located on the coastline of South Carolina, had been surveyed
previously in 1983, and data from that site was incorporated into the overall
analysis.
The sample of resort hotels used in the study was as follows:
1. Hotel Del Coronado - Coronado, California
2. La Costa - San Diego County, California
3. Marriott - Newport Beach, California
4. Hyatt - Hilton Head, South Carolina
The survey involved manual counts of all driveways providing access to the
hotels and regular counts of the parking lots within the hotel complex. Where
Possible, employee and non-employee traffic and/or parking were separated. As
part of the survey, information was obtained from hotel management on the
on-site amenities offered by each resort hotel, and data on room occupancy and
number of employees was also collected.
Chapter II of this report describes the survey results and Chapter III
provides an analysis of the data and presents the resulting traffic characteristics
of resort hotels based on the study data.
I-2
II. RESORT HOTEL SURVEYS
This chapter describes the surveys carried out for the three resort hotels
in California, and also summarizes data from the previously surveyed hotel in
Jouth Carolina. The information presented here is later analyzed in Chapter III
to give representative trip generation and parking rates for a typical resort
hotel.
HOTEL DEL CORONADO
The Hotel del Coronado is located on Coronado Island in San Diego Bay,
five miles from downtown San Diego via the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge (see
Figure 1I-1) . It is a unique accommodation facility both with respect to its
—an setting, and its distinctive architecture. As an historical building, it
..ttracts daily visitors to the hotel as sightseers, and the traffic generation
hence includes a significant proportion of 'non-guest' trips.
Table II-1 summarizes the attributes of the Hotel del Coronado that are of
interest to this traffic study. The hotel has 689 rooms with a typical occupancy
level of just over 85 percent. Two parking lots provide a total of 848 spaces
(1.23 per room) .
Amenities within the hotel complex include restaurants, health spa, gift
shops, conference facilities, tennis courts, and outdoor activities related to the
beach and the San Diego Bay. The Coronado Golf Course is close by, with
shuttle service to this facility being provided by the hotel.
- The hotel has around 1,2U0 employees, with the typical three shift operation
found in hotels of this type. Various transportation services are offered by the
hotel, with airport service and golf course shuttle being two examples.
Traffic Survey
Counts of traffic entering and exiting the two separate access driveways at
II-1
E
`J
vlsres s
OCEANSIDE
TQ
CARLSBAD B
• ESCONDIDO
LA COSTA
v^ '
n
O
n
F
s
IMIRAMAR
cp
SAN
DIEGO
CORONADO
Hotel s
del CHULa V I STA
Coronado
Figure II-1
rr LOCATION OF
MEW HOTEL DEL CORONADO
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
II-2
4
Table II-1
HOTEL DEL CORONADO
1. Number of Rooms: 689
2. Occupancy: 87% at time of survey (September 3,4, 1986)
Average: 86t
Seasonality: None
3. Size of Party: 87% double occupancy
4. Average Length of Stay: 2.7 days
5. Clientel: 70% Business/Convention; 30% Non-Business
6. Amenities: Restaurants
Health spa
Gift shops
Conference facilities
Tennis courts
Boat rentals
Bike rentals
Beach
7. Adjacent amenities: Golf (shuttle service provided by hotel)
S. Outside Users of Amenities: Restaurants 30% weekdays, 50% weekends
9. Transportation Services: Airport jitney, limo, taxi around City
10. Staff Size: Total - 1200
Shifts: 7-3 PM, 3-11 PM, 11-7 AM
Office workers - 9-5 PM
11. Mode of Arrival: Convention visitors: 75% air
25% car/bus
- - Other guests: 40% car
60% car/bus
12. Parking Lot Size: 848 spaces
General Comments
Museum/historical building visitors add to total traffic generation.
II-3
the Hotel del Coronado were made on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday,
September 3, 4, and 5. 1986. Vehicle occupancy of each car entering or exiting
the parking lot was recorded. Limousines, taxi cabs, and shuttle buses were
recorded separately from autos. Delivery truck arrivals and departures were
also noted.
The main driveway off Orange Avenue has valet parking and direct access
to self-parking areas that are not used by employees. The secondary parking
lot has its entrance along Dana Place and may be used by hotel guests and
visitors, although the lot is used mainly by hotel employees. Both lots charge a
parking fee.
The main parking lot was surveyed from 6:00 AM until 10:00 PM on
hursday, September 4, 1986. Beginning at 6:00 AM, counts of parked cars
were made every two hours. The parked car counts included the valet parking
area, but no distinction was made between valet and self-parking areas.
The secondary parking lot was surveyed on Wednesday, September 3, 1956
from 2:00 PM until 8:00 PM and on Friday. September 5, 1986 from 6:00 AM until
2:00 PM. Hotel management estimated that 75 percent of the vehicles using the
lot are employees.
The survey results are summarized in Table II-2. Total vehicles entering
and leaving the hotel over a 24-hour period was 3,687 which equates to 6.15
.rips per occupied room based on the 600 occupied rooms at the time of the
survey. Maximum parking utilization was 700 spaces, or 1.17 per occupied room.
LA COSTA
The La Costa Resort Hotel is located off Interstate 5 just south of Carlsbad
in San Diego County. It is just under three miles from the ocean, set in rolling
hills countryside adjacent to a small community that shares its name (see Figure
II-2). With international recognition for its spa, golf and tennis amenities, it in
II-4
Table II-I
HOTEL DEL CORONADO SURVEY RESL^..:5
1. TRAFFIC COL'!TS
TOTAL TOTAL TOM
VEH. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Truck/ VER. VEH. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Truck/ VEH. MI.ME IK 1 2 3+ Limo IN OUT 1 2 3+ Limo 0M IN+OL'T
6-7 AM 71 64 6 1 7 78 23 16 7 0 6 29 107
7-8 97 79 12 6 4 101 24 18 5 1 6 30 131
8-9 131 113 3.3 5 6 137 23 13 8 2 6 29 266
9-10 129 103 21 5 10 139 68 36 22 10 3.1 79 218
10-1.1 110 71 33 6 8 118 100 51 37 12 5 105 223
11-12 166 88 60 18 20 186 161 77 58 26 22 183 369
12-1 PM 128 63 48 17 15 143 131 59 49 23 12 143 286
I-2 155 72 55 28 9 164 155 8i 54 20 8 163 327
104 63 32 9 9 113 155 93 38 24 10 165 278
-�: 169 73 59 37 10 179 166 102 41 23 11 177 356
4-5 107 54 28 25 11 118 162 90 47 25 9 171 289
5-6 120 48 45 27 3 123 198 117 50 31 3 201 324
6-7 57 16 30 11 4 61 107 SO 35 22 3 110 171
7-8 73 21 31 21 2 75 79 30 33 16 5 84 239
8-9 45 19 20 6 5 50 50 24 19 7 4 54 104
9-10 53 25 17 IL 6 59 73 28 25 20 7 80 139
10-6 AM 10 4 4 2 0 10 35 35 0 0 0 - 35 45
TO'-AL 1725 976 514 235 129 1854 1710 920 528 262 128 1838 3692
II. PARKINC LOT USAGE -
II*Lr CARS PAPM -
600 400
800 534
1000 700
1200 687
1400 670
1600 665
1800 502
2000 449
2200 425
Date of Survey: September 3-5, 1986
OCEAaSIDE VISTA! - •- -
a
CARLSBAD
La Costa
Resort Hotel • ESCONDIDO
LA COSTA
f+ -
01
� ;r
� n
0
rx
N 1 0.ANAR
1\ I
s
0
s
- SAN sR.94
DIEGO
CORONADO
•
CNULA VISTA
Figure II-2
s�►� LOCATION OF LA COSTA
M E® RESORT HOTEL
AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIAT[S. INC.
_ II-6
many ways typifies the type of luxury destination resort being studied in this
survey.
The hotel facility has restaurants, conference and meeting facilities, and
gift shops. The spa, 36-hole golf course, and 23-court tennis facility all adjoin
the hotel as part of the overall resort complex. All three include professional
instructors as part of the staff.
Table II-3 summarizes the pertinent characteristics of La Costa for trip
generation purposes. At the time of the survey, the hotel had 376 rooms
(construction was underway for expansion) with 65 percent occupancy.
Average occupancy is 75 percent, with weekends being higher than weekdays.
The parking lots (2) have a total of 620 spaces, which is equivalent to 1.65
rer room. It should be noted however, that usage of these lots is shared by
non-guest users of the spa, golf course, and tennis courts.
The hotel has a set of eight limousines plus two 11-passenger minibuses.
These make an average of 2.7 trips per day, primarily to San Diego Airport, but
also for other guest-related transportation needs.
Total staff size is 1,300, 20 percent which is related to the spa, tennis and
golf amenities. Typical three shift operation is used.
Traffic Survev
_ The main entrance to the hotel complex and the small back entrance road
are both located along El Camino Real. Counts of traffic entering and exiting
the La Costa Resort Hotel were made Thursday and Monday, August 21 and 25,
1986. The La Costa Hotel has a guest parking lot and a separate employee lot.
The employee lot is closest to the spa facilities and is used extensively by spa
guests.
The survey began Thursday, August 21, 1986 with the main entrance being
TT-7
Table II-3
HOTEL LA COSTA
1. Number of Rooms: 376
2. Occupancy: 65% at time of survey (August 21, 1986)
Average: 75%
Seasonality: Only minor variation
3. Size of Party: 1.74 for double occupancy rooms
4. Length of Stay: 3.4 days (lower on weekends)
5. Clientel: 40 percent is related to conference and meeting facilities;
remainder is recreational visitors
6. Amenities: Restaurant
Conference and meeting facilities
Gift shops
7, Adjacent amenities (on-site) : Spa
Golf
Tennis
8. Outside Users of Amenities:
Restaurant - 20%
S-0a - 10%
Golf & tennis - 30-40%
9. Transportation Services*: Eight stretch limos (5/6 passengers) , two
11-passenger vehicles. Vehicles make an average of 2.7 trips per day;
average distance of trip is 30 miles.
10. Staff Size: Total - 1300; 600 restaurant & hotel service facilities, 350
hotel administration, 250 spa & other maintenance activities.
Typical three-shift hotel staff operation - Restaurant related staff
operates on two shifts; first is 7:00 to 3:00 PM and second from 3:00 to
11:00 PM. Administration staff is 8:00-5:00 PM.
*The hotel vehicles are operated according to transportation needs of guests
with the primary area of travel being San Diego Airport. A charge is generally
made for use of the vehicles.
II-8
counted from 6:OU AM until 10:00 PM. A similar count was made at the employee
lot access point on Monday, August 25. Occupancy of vehicles entering and
exiting the main entrance were recorded. Construction vehicles were noted but
were kept separate. Counts of parked vehicles were made every two hours
beginning at 6:00 AM. Employee lot and guest lot counts were kept separate
(even though guests were observed to be parking in the employee lot) .
The survey results are summ; rized in Table II-4. A total 24-hour trip
generation of 2,003 vehicles was observed. This includes both hotel related
traffic and outside users of the recreational amenities. Maximum parking
utilization was 627 spaces.
The trip generation counts include trips made by non-guest users of the
These facilities are used on a regular basis by
tennis, and golf facilities.
::embers living in the surrounding area. To compensate for this traffic, the
following reduction was estimated based on patronage of these facilities:
Spa - 85 trips per day
Golf and tennis - 200 trips per day
Total - 285 trips per day
This is around 14 percent of the total, and gives a hotel-related trip
generation of 1,718 average daily vehicles. This is 7.0 trips per occupied room
for the 244 occupied rooms at the time of the survey.
MARRIOTT HOTEL
The Newport Marriott Hotel is located within Newport Center in Newport
Beach (see Figure II-3) . While not promoted as a destination resort hotel in the
same way as Hotel del Coronado or La Costa, it nevertheless tends to function as
a resort hotel by virtue of its amenities and setting.
Table II-5 summarizes the pertinent descriptive data for the Newport Beach
Marriott. The hotel had 400 rooms at the time of the survey (currently under
expansion) . Occupancy was 78 percent, with 80 percent being the average.
II-9
Table II-4
LA COSTA HOTEL SURVEY RESULTS
I. TRAFFIC COL'1'1'S
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
M. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Truck/ PER. VEH. WHICLE OCCUPANCY Truck/ VEH VER
2116.E IN 1 2 3+ Limo IN OLz 1 2 3+ Limo OUT IN++OLT
6-7 AM 129 116 . 13 0 1 330 32 26 4 2 1 33 163
7-8 91 73 17 1 0 91 50 43 5 2 2 52 143
8-9 26 24 2 0 0 26 11 9 2 0 0 11 37
9-10 52 47 5 0 1 53 34 26 5 3 1 35 88
10-11 62 53 8 1 2 64 34 25 8 1 3 37 101
'11-12 92 71 3.3 6 1 93 48 28 16 4 1 49 142
12-1 P4 100 74 '24 2 1 101 98 60 29 9 1 99 200
i-2 72 52 17 3 0 72 60 42 12 6 1 61 133
2 76 55 17 4 2 78 86 63 35 8 0 86 164
3-4 101 72 23 6 4 105 152 116 28 8 1 153 258
4-5 46 34 10 2 0 46 78 57 13 8 1 79 125
5-6 41 29 11 1 2 43 54 36 14 4 5 59 102
6-7 26 17 5 4 3 29 25 10 11 4 1 26 55
• 7.8 29 16 11 2 0 29 27 12 12 3 0 27 56
8-9 36 34 2 0 0 36 38 38 0 0 0 38 74
9-6 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 U6 34 L2 0 162 162
TOM 979 769 178 32 17 996 989 707 208 74 18 1007 2003
II. PARKING LOT USAGE
600 100 55 155
800 100 285 385
1000 142 377 519 _
1200 149 386 535
1400 188 439 627
1600 130 319 449
1800 228 260 388
2000 143 185 328
22DO 167 169 336
Date of Survey: August 21, 25, 1986
II-10
CAMP � Gy
A
BIRCH tR
ROCK
O�
Gt
K �O
A
r
z
c
Yl
J
m
' r
f Op0 RT'Y � S hr�<C
G,9 �
w �h
�
z o
m
sqINV
t9Trt �'
f
OP4 �
Newport ��-� ¢
Beach
17TH O ucdrriot A
eA�f.s+�E •
f
A
Off .
a
Figure II-3
LOCATION OF NE•k'PORT
w o® B£AOH M.F,F.RIO.T H-'fL-ZL
AUSTIM•FOUST ASSOCIATES. ODIC.
• _ II-lZ
Table II-5
NEWPORT BEACH MARRIOTT HOTEL
1. Number of Rooms: 400
2. Occupancy: 78% at time of survey
Average: 80%
Seasonality: Higher in summer
3. Average Size of Party: 1.2 persons
4. Average Length of Stay: 2 nights
5. Clientel: 70% Business; 30% Non-Business
6. Amenities: 8 tennis courts
complete health spa
2 restaurants
cocktail lounge
giftshop
conference facilities
7. Adjacent amenities (walking distance) : Golf course
Fashion Island retail center
8. Outside Users of Amenities: 175 tennis club memberships
100 health club memberships
50% restaurant business
9. Transportation Services: Hotel provides airport shuttle services
(pickup/delivery) ; Newport Beach shuttle
stops at hotel; OCTD bus service.
10. Staff Size: Total - 500
Shifts: 6 AM-2:30 PM, 3-11:30 PM, 11 PM-7 AM
11. Mode of Arrival: 60% air
40% car/bus
12. Parking Lot Size: Guests - 520 spaces
Employees - 108 spaces
II-12
The single parking lot (structure) has 628 spaces (1.57 per room) of which 108
are for staff. Total staff size is 500, with typical 3 shift operation.
The hotel complex has restaurants, gift shops, health spa, and tennis
courts. Within walking distance is a golf course and the Fashion Island retail
center (a 1.2 million square foot regional center) .
The hotel provides airport shuttle service, and local shuttle services
(Newport Center and Newport Beach) stop at the hotel.
Survey
Counts of traftic entering and exiting the Marriott Hotel were made on
dnesday and Thursday, August 27 and 28, 1986. The Marriott has one
parking lot consisting of five levels with free self-parking or valet parking.
Two entrances are located along Newport Center Drive and one entrance on
Santa Barbara Drive. The lowest level of the lot is designated as employee
parking.
The survey began on Wednesday, August 27, 1986 at 2:00 PM and continued
until 10: 00 PM. Counts of parked cars were made every two hours beginning at
2:00 PM. Employee cars were counted separately from guest cars. The hotel
was undergoing some expansion, so construction trucks were noted, but were
not included in the counts. Occupancy of vehicles entering and exiting the two
main driveways was recorded as part of the count data. Activity increased
between 9:00 PM and 9:30 PM due to a Miss Newport Beach contest and fashion
show held in the hotel's nightclub.
The survey was completed on Thursday, August 28, 1986. Counts of all
three driveways were made from 6:00 AM until 2:00 PM, and parked car counts
were made every two hours starting at 6:OU AM. At 2:00 PM, counts of the
third driveway were continued until 9: 00 PM to complete the 24-hour data
collection for all three access points. The third driveway was used mainly by
II-13
employees, and activity at the third driveway dropped considerably after 6:00
PM.
Table II-6 summarizes the results of the survey. A total of 1,829 vehicle
trips were generated by the facility on a 24-hour basis, which equates to 5.9
trips per occupied room, based on the 312 occupied rooms at the time of the
survey. Maximum parking lot count was 309 vehicles, which is .99 per occupied
room.
HYATT AT HILTON HEAD
Hilton Head is a barrier island at the southern tip of South Carolina. It is
approximately 40 miles from an Interstate Highway (95) via a U. S. highway
=.'or various State routes. Savannah, Georgia is approximately 31 miles away,
has an airport served by several commercial airlines. A small general
aviation airport exists on the island with connecting commuter service to Atlanta,
Georgia and to Charlotte, North Carolina.
The "Hyatt on Hilton Head Island" , as the resort hotel is called, is one
component of a total complex known as the Palmetto Dunes resort which is a
complete resort and residential community. The 359-room oceanfront Myatt
facility is part of a complex containing two 18-hole golf courses, and the Rod
Laver 'Tennis Center (25 courts) . It is adjacent to a sandy beach and its
on-site facilities include restaurants, meeting/banquet space, and shops. The
tennis center and 18-hole golf course are immediately adjacent off-site.
Table II-7 summarizes the pertinent descriptive data. The hotel has
greater seasonality than the California hotels that were surveyed, but otherwise
exhibit the typical characteristics of a resort hotel.
Survey
Counts of traffic entering and exiting the Hyatt on Hilton Head Island were
made on Monday and Tuesday, October 24 and 25, 1983, from 6:00 AM until
II-14
Table II-6
MARRIOTT HOTEL SURVEY RESULTS
I. TRAFFIC COUKTS
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
VEH. VEHI= OCCUPANCY Truck/ VEH. M. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Truck/ VER. VEH.
TIME IN 1 2 3+ Limo IN OUT 1 2 3+ Limo Ot'-' IN+OC:
6-7 AM 38 33 4 1 3 41 15 10 5 0 2 17 - 58
7-8 49 46 3 0 1 SO 44 37 7 0 1 45 95
8-9 39 29 9 1 2 41 49 37 11 1 1 50 91
9-10 33 -22 9 2 0 33 30 24 6 0 1 31 61
10-11 36 29 6 1 4 40 37 27 8 2 1 38 78
11-12 53 42 7 4 3 56 46 37 8 1 3 49 105
12-1 PH 25 20 3 2 3 28 23 17 5 1 3 26 54
1-2 - 39 22 12 5 2 41 36 23 10 3 3 39 80
2-3 48 34 10 4 5 53 47 28 15 4 5 52 105
3-4 82 54 16 12 6 86 73 50 17 6 3 76 162
4-5 77 54 10 L' 1 78 82 53 19 10 4 86 164
5-6 78 52 21 5 6 84 63 45 14 4 2 65 149
6-7 55 37 12 6 3 58 63 34 20 9 1 64 122
7-8 67 49 12 6 1 68 60 42 14 4 2 62 1.30
8-9 61 45 11 5 2 63 45 31 11 3 3 48 M
9-10 213 lass Newport Beach 9 122 48 33 1.1 4 7 55 177
Contest/Fashion Show
10-6 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 57 20 5 0 82 82
TOTAL 893 568 145 67 51 944 843 585 201 57 42 895 1829
II. PARKING LOT L'SACE
TIME CCES T E.".PLAYEE TOTAL
600 202 25 227
800 211 83 294
1000 290 98 288
1200 194 103 197
1400 201 100 301
1600 170 71 241
1800 194 Q 242
2000 152 42 194
2200 267 42 309
Date of Survey: August 27-28, 1986
II-15 _
Table II-7
HYATT HOTEL ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND
1. Number of Rooms: 359
2. Occupancy: 86% at time of survey
Average Occupancy: 85%
Seasonality: "Vacation Season" from March through November
3. Average Size of Party: 1.5 persons
4. Clientel: 90% Conference; 10% Other
5. Amenities: 12,000 sq ft meeting/banquet space
2 restaurants
3 lounge/bar/nightclubs
giftshops, art gallery, realty office, game room
_'_Jjacent amenities: 25 tennis courts
golf course
beach
7. Outside Users of Amenities: Restaurant usage relatively small. Some use of
golf and tennis facilities.
6. Transportation Services: Local shuttle system
9. Mode of Arrival: Private or rental car primarily
10. Parking Lot Size: 331 spaces
II-16
12:00 midnight both days. Field studies o2 auto occupancy were made from 11:00
AM to 6:00 PM on Tuesday, October 25.
Counts of parked cars were made every hour from 11:00 AM until midnight
on both Monday and Tuesday. License data was recorded to assess parking
duration and State of vehicle origin.
Table II-8 summarizes the survey results. Total trip generation was 2,332
vehicles for a 24-hour period, which is 7.2 per occupied room, based on the 309
occupied rooms at the time of the survey. Maximum parking utilization was 267
cars (.86 per room) .
II-17
Table 11-8
MIT A2 HILTON HEAD TRAFFIC SURVEY RESMTS
I. TRAFFIC COW-rS
DELIVERIES
PRIVATE VEHICLES LIMOS, TAXIS TOM= VEHICLES
TIPS• INJOLT INIOLT IN/OLT
6-7 An 36 7 43
7-8 71 13 84
8-9 78 . 1S 93
9-10 81 15 96
10-11 97 19 116
11-12 117 22 139
12-1 PM 158 30 188
1-2 124 24 148
2-3 133 25 158
'•-6 148 28 176
• 143 27 170
114 22 136
6-7 13.6 22 2.38
7-8 99 19 us
8-9 74 14 88
9-10 66 12 78
Remainder 305 58 363
MAL 1960 372 2332
Average auto occupancy: 1.75 persons/car
II. PARKING LOT USAGE
Time Cars Parked
_ 12 noon 267 _
2 258
4 23O
6 234
8 216
10 221
Date of Survey; October 23-26, 1983
II-18
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
This chapter discusses the results of the survey data presented in the
previous chapter. Characteristics of the various resort hotels in the sample are
examined and representative rates derived for a typical 'resort hotel'.
TYPICAL RESORT HOTEL
The typical resort hotel for which traffic characteristics are derived here
can be defined as follows:
1. Provides luxury accommodation with 'in house' restaurants, bar, shops,
etc.
2. Has on-site or adjacent amenities such as spa, golf course, tennis
:.;sLirts, beach, and/or other recreational attractions.
3. Provides various forms of guest transportation services, particularly to
and from the nearest major airport.
4. Has an average occupancy of 85 percent for at least three months of
the year.
The last of these is related to the need to derive trip generation rates on a
per room rather than 'per occupied room' basis. While the 85 percent is
probably high for an annual average (75 percent is more typical) , it provides a
trip generation rate that accounts for the high end of the trip generation range
for a resort hotel.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
A summary of the average daily vehicle trip generation for each hotel in the
survey sample is given in Table III-1. Trip rates are expressed as trips per
occupied room, and trips per total rooms, the latter being based on 85 percent
occupancy.
III-1
Table III-1
ADT TRIP GENERATION St,': URY
TOTAL OCCUPIED TRIPS/ 85% OCC.
HOTEL TRIPS ROOMS OCC. ROOM RATE
Hotel del Coronado 3687 599 6.2 5.3
La Costa 2003 (1718)* 2" 8.2 (7.0)* 7.0 (6.0)*
Marriott 1829 312 5.9 5.0
Hyatt on Hilton Head 2332 310 7.5 6.4
Average 7.0 (6.7) 5.9 (5.7)
Standard deviation 0.9 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6)
*Adyusted to account for membership users of spa and golf course who are not guests at the hotel.
T
TTT-1
In the case of La Costa, two rates are listed here. The first is derived
directly from the survey data and the second is adjusted for the non-hotel
generated trips (outside membership users of the spa and golf course) as was
discussed in Chapter IL
The ADT trip rate for 85 percent occupancy is 5.7 trips per room, with a
standard deviation of 0.6. Standard deviation as a proportion of the average is
- 10 percent,
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Table III-2 summarizes the Ate! and PM peak hour trips for two separate one
hour periods in each case. These are not the peak times with respect to the
h-tels, but rather the typical times at which the peaks occur on the highway
., .item. They are therefore the times that are of interest as far as trip
generation rates are concerned.
The standard deviations for the peak hour trips are generally less than 25
percent of the average except for the 8:00-9:00 data where the standard
deviation is around 40 percent of the mean. This is largely due to the La Costa
data which has a substantial number of staff working between 8:00 and 5:00, a
large proportion which are related to the recreational facilities. The other three
hotels have more of a spread between 7:00 and 9:00 for administrative staff
arrivals, and do not have the recreational facility staff.
'Phi departures show considerably less variation, with means and standard
deviations that are similar for each of the one hour periods summarized here.
Note that neither the AM or PM La Costa trips shown here are adjusted for
club membership trips as were the ADT totals given above, and hence this data
slightly overestimates the hotel-related trips.
Table III-3 lists the directionality characteristics for the count data (this
information was collected for the three California hotels, but was not available
for the previously surveyed South Carolina data). These rates reflect the
III-3
Table III-2
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUFNARY
AM PEAK HOUR
--------7:00 - 8:00 AM-------- -......8:00 - 9:00 JLM---------
Trips/ 85% Trips/ 85%
RO"TZL ^� Trips Occ. Room Occ. Trips Occ.Roofr Occ.
Hotel del Coronado 132 .22 .19 166 .28 .24
La Costa* 143 .59 .50 37 .15 .13
Marriott 95 .30 .26 91 .29 .25
Hyatt on Hilton Head 96 .31 .26 108 .35 .30
Average .36 .30 .27 .23
:.::ndard deviatior .14 .12 .07 .06
PM PEAK HOUR
--------4:00 - 5:00 PM-------- -------5:00 - 6:00 P`!---------
Trips/ 85% Trips/ 85%
Trips Occ. R000 Occ. Trips Occ.Room Oct.
Hotel del Coronado 289 .48 .41 324 .54 .46
La Costa* 125 .51 .43 102 .4. .36
Marriott 164 .52 .44 149 .48 .41
Hyatt on Hilton Head 172 .55 .47 141 .45 .38
Average _ .52 .44 .47 .40
Standard deviation .03 .02 .04 .04
*Volumes for La Costa are not adjusted for non-guest club membership trips.
III-4
Table III-3
HCTEL PEAK fi0t.'R DIRECTzo.,gA.iTY si.'!.wy
X4 PEAK HOLM
-----------7:00 - 8:00 &M---------- --------8:00 - 9:00 L4----------
H= In 85% Rate Out 85% Rate In 85% Rate Out 85% Rate
Hotel del Coronado 101 .14 30 .04 137 .19 29 .M
La Costa* 91 .32 52 .18 26 .09 12 .04
karriott 50 .14 45 .12 41 .11 50 .14
Average .20 .I1 .13 .07
Standard deviation .10 .07 .05 .06
P!7 PEAK HOUR
-----------4:00 - 5:00 PM---------- --------5:00 - 6:00 PM----------
H=L In 85%. Rate Out M Rate In M Rate out 85% Rate
Hotel del Coronado 118 .17 171 .24 123 .17 201 .28
La Costa* 46 .16 79 .28 43 .15 59 .20
Marriott 78 .21 86 .23 84 .23 64 .17
Average .18 .25 J4 .18 .22
Standard deviation .03 .03 .04 - .06
Note: Directional count data was not available from the Hrat; at Hilton Head.
*Volumes for La Costa are not adjusted for non-guest club membership trips.
III-5
comments made above regarding the La Costa employee trips, with a heavy
inbound orientation between 7:00 and 8:00 AM and a relatively low rate between
8:00 and 9:00.
REPRESENTATIVE TRIP RATES
Based on the data presented, the following rates are considered to ,be
representative for the 'resort hotel' defined at the beginning of this chapter.
-AM PEAK HOUR- -PM PEAK HOUR-
AD' IB OB Total IB OB Total
Trips per room 6.0 .20 .10 .30 .19 .26 .45
The ADT rate of 6.0 was selected as being as high as or higher than the
rate for all three California hotels and slightly lower than the Hilton Head rate.
It is slightly higher than the overall average rate of 5.9.
The AM rate was taken from the 7:00 to 8:00 data, the highest of the two
AM hourly periods. Only La Costa was higher than this rate, and as noted
previously, this was Because of work hour characteristics specific to this
facility. and it also includes a significant proportion of non-guest trips. An
adjusted rate would likely be below the 0.3 trip rate, in which case the 0.3 rate
represents the upper range of representative trip rates.
-The Phl rate is taken as .45, slightly higher than the .40 average for 5:00
to 6:00 (the highest of the two one-hour peak periods). This is to again have a
rate ,that is in the upper range by being just over one standard deviation from
the mean.
As can be seen from this discussion, these rates are higher than the
averages from the sample data, and are intended to be representative rates that
would be unlikely to be exceeded by a 'resort hotel' of the type defined here.
They can hence be applied in traffic studies relative to these type of facilities
with a reasonable expectation that the actual trip rates will be lower.
III-6
PARKING
Table III-4 summarizes the results of the parking data collected in the
survey. Maximum occupied spaces per room vary from .81 for the Marriott to
1.39 for La Costa (the latter being adjusted for non-guests). The adjustment at
La Costa was estimated rather than counted, and it is probable that the adjusted
value is still somewhat high if only those trips related to the hotel complex are
considered. Also, some construction worker cars (not trucks) would have been
included in the count, again inflating the total usage.
The overall conclusion is that a rate of around or just over 1.0 spaces per
room would appear to be reasonably representative for the resort hotel defined
here. This is consistent with commonly used parking standards for hotels, and
_..::.icates that the parking requirements of a resort hotel are similar to that of a
traditional hotel.
III-7
Sable II1-4
HOTEL PARKING SUMiARY
DEL CORONADO IA COSTA MARRIO:T HYATT, HILTON HEAD
GUEST PARKINC
6:00 280 100 202
8:00 291 100 211
10:00 294 . 142 190
12:00 282 149 194 -
2:00 266 188 201
4:00 294 130 170 -
6:00 265 128 194 -
8:00 262 143 152 -
10:00 270 167 267 -
t
EFFLOYEE PARKING
6:00 120 55 25 -
e:oo 243 198 83 -
:0 406 290 98
00 405 314 103
2:00 404 352 100
4.0G 371 312 71 -
6:00 237 260 48
8:00 187 185 42
10:00 155 169 42 -
Ti TA-1 PARKING
• 6.00 400 155 227 -
8:00 534 298 294 -
10:0C 700 432 288 292 (11:00 A.M)
12:00 687 468 297 258
2:00 670 540 201 227
4:00 665 442 241 205
6:00 502 388 242 2+3
8:00 449 32e 194 261
i0.0.^, 425 326 309 229
HAXIM[.'M PARKING
Time 10:00 2:00 12:00 11:00
Cars Parked 700 540 (400) 297 2922
Cars/Occ Room 1.17 2.21 (1.64) 0.95 .94
85% Car/Room 0.99 1.88 (1.39) 0.81 .80
Notes: 1. Parriott employee lot was the only one not used by guests.
2. La Costa employee parking included non-guest membership users of the spa, tennis
courts, and golf facilities. Parenthesized maximum figure adjusts for this.
APPENDIX
SURVEY DATA - 15 MINUTE COUNT SUMMARIES
TABLE A-1
LaCoste
15 MINUTE BREAKDOWN
--------- IN BOUND ---------- ••-------- OUT BOUND ----------
TIME TOTAL 1 2 3* TRUCKS, TOTAL 1 2 3* TRUCKS,
TAXIS.ETC TAXIS.ETC
6:00 AM 29 26 2 0 1 7_ . 6 0 0 1
6: 15 26 22 t 0 0 12 11 1 0 0
6:30 32 28 4 0 0 7 5 1 1 0
6:45 33 30 3 0 0 7 4 2 1 0
7:00 24 17 6 1 0 1t 10 2 1 1
7:15 16 15 1 0 0 10 9 1 0 0
7:30 24 19 5 0 0 19 16 2 0 1
7:45 27 22 5 0 0 9 8 0 1 0
8: 15 7 7 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0
•30 8 7 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 0
. 45 11 10 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0
):00 10 7 2 0 1 11 E 1 2 0
9: 15 10 10 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 1
9:30 21 19 2 0 0 14 11 2 1 0
9:45 12 11 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0
10-00 - - - - - - - -
10: 15 23 18 t 0 1 10 7 2 0 1
10:30 23 19 2 1 1 16 11 3 0 2
• 10:45 18 16 2 0 0 11 7 3 1 0
11 :00 23 21 0 2 0 7 4 3 0 0
11 : 15 22 19 2 1 0 8 7 0 1 0
11 :30 20 17 3 0 0 16 7 6 3 0
11 :45 25 14 B 3 0 18 10 7 0 1
12:00 PM - - - - - - - - - -
12: 15 28 20 8 0 0 30 17 10 3 0 -
12:30 36 _ 26 7 2 - 1 36 24 8 3 1
� •4t5 37 28 9 0 0 33 19 11 3 0
1 :00 8 7 1 0 0 21 15 4 2 0
1 :15 9 8 1 0 0 18 10 5 3 0
1-:30 7 4 3 0 0 10 8 1 0 1
t :t5 12 10 2 0 0 12 9 2 1 O
2:00 - - - - - - - - - -
2: 15 7 5 2 0 0 2E 22 4 2 0
2:30 11 8 2 0 1 30 23 4 3 0
2:45 12 10 1 0 1 28 18 7 3 0
3:00 24 22 6 0 1 41 30 9 1 1
3: 15 20 12 5 3 0 40 29 8 3 0
3:30 24 13 8 2 1 A 38 6 3 0
3:45 32 25 4 1 2 25 39 5 1 0
4:00 - - - - - - - - - -
,_ 4: 15 16 11 3 2 0 22 14 5 3 0
4:30 15 12 3 0 0 28 22 3 3 0
4 .45 15 .11 t 0 0 29 21 5 2 1
5:00 10 7 3 0 0 11 9 1 1 0
1
I
5: 15 9 6 2 1 0 i8 8 5 2 3
5:30 11 0 3 0 0 13 9 3 0 1
5:4S 13 8 3 0 2 17 10 5 1 1
6:00 - - - - -
6:15 4 3 1 0 0 6 2 3 1 0
6:30 11 6 1 1 1 11 6 5 0 0
6:45 14 6 3 3 2 9 2
3
7:00 10 3 1
5 4 1 o a 4 . o 0
7: 15 3 3 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0
7:30 4 1 3 0 0 6 2 2 2 0
7:45 12 7 4 1 0 9 3 5 1 0
8:00 - - - - - - - - - -
8:15 13 12 1 0 0 13 13 0 0 0
8:30 11 11 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0
8:45 12 11 1 0 0 15 lS 0 0 0
10:00¢M-6:OOAM 0 0 0 0 0 162 116 34 12 0
(ESTIMATED)
TOTAL 945 769 178 32 16 1007 707 208 74 18
2
TABLE A-2
MARRIOTT
15 MINUTE BREAKDOWN
--------- IN BOUND ---------- ---- ---- OUT BOUND ----------
TIME TOTAL 1 2 3+ TRUCKS, TOTAL 1 2 3+ TRUCKS,
TAXIS.ETC TAXIS.ETC
6:00 AM 6 6 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0
6:15 - 7 6 0 0 1 4 1 3 0 0
6:30 11 9 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
6:45 17 12 3 0 2 7 3 2 0 2
7:00 18 17 1 0 0 7 5 2 0 0
7: 15 15 14 1 0 0 15 12 2 0 1
7;30 10 s 1 0 1 10 9 1 0 0
7:45 7 7 0 0 0 13 11 2 0 0
8:00 - - - - - - - - - -
8: i5 23 17 6 0 0 23 16 5 1 1
7 : 30 9 7 0 1 1 19 16 3 0 0
: 4^ 9 5 3 0 1 8 5 3 0 0
�,• 6 3 2 1 0 7 5 1 0 1
9:15 e 5 3 0 0 10 7 3 0 0
9:30 10 7 3 0 0 6 6 0 0 0
9:45 9 7 1 1 0 8 6 2 0 0
10:00 - - - - - - - - - -
10: 15 7 3 2 0 2 10
10:30 14 10 3 0 1 10 7 2 1 C
10:45 19 16 1 1 1 i8 14 3 0 1
11 :00 13 12 0 1 0' 13 11 2 0 0
11 :15 15 11 1 2 1 13 9 1 1 2
11 :30 14 10 2 0 2 14 10 3 0 1
11 :45 14 9 4 1 0 9 7 2 0 0
12:00 PM - - - - - - - - - -
12: 15 - 8 5 1 0 2 g 6 2 0 1
12:30 11 8 - 2 1 - 0 8 5 1 1 1
12:45 9 7 0" 1 1 9 6 2 0 1
` :OG 10 5 2 2 1 10 6 3 1 0
1 : 15 11 4 5 2 0 12 7 3 0 2
1 :30 9 5 2 1 1 10 5 3 1 1
1 :45 11 8 3 0 0 7 5 1 1 0
2:00 - - - - - -
2: 15 26 16 S 3 2 15 6 7 1 1
2:30 11 B 2 0 1 15 7 6 2 0
2:45 16 B 3 1 2 22 15 2 1 4
3:00 23 11 4 5 3 22 12 5 4 1
3: 15 18 11 3 4 0 B 4 3 1 C
3:30 22 12 7 1 2 26 19 5 0 2
3:45 25 20 2 2 1 20 15 4 1 0
4:00 - - - - - - - -
4: 15 23 14 b 2 1 29 19 6 3 1
4:30 24 17 4 3 0 31 18 7 3 3
4;45 31 25 5 1 0 26 16 6 4 0
5:00 21 11 B 1 1. 20 12 5 . 3 0
1
5: 15 16 10 2 1 3 13 10 2 0 1
5:30 27 20 5 2 0 16 11 4 1 0
5:45 20 11 6 1 2 16 12 3 0 1
6:00 - - - - - - -6: 15 26 16 6 3 1 22 16 4 2 0
6:30 16 10 3 1 2 20 8 10 2 0
6:45 16 11 3 2 0 22 is 6 5 1
7:00 16 ii 3 2 0 18 li 4 2 1
705 18 15 2 1 0 17 11 3 2 1
7:30 15 10 3 1 1 15 10 4 1 0
7:45 19 13 4 2 0 12. . 8 3 1 0
8:00 - - - - - - - - - -
8: 15 19 14 3 2 0 15 8 4 2 1
0:30 15 11 3 1 0 12 8 3 1 0
6:4 5 29 20 5 2 2 21 13 4 2 2
9:00 39 22 6 8 3 18 11 4 1 2
9:15 30 17 6 4 3 13 7 2 2 2
9:30 30 21 5 3 1 15 9 2 2 2
9:45 23 15 4 2 2 9 6 2 0 1
10. ^OA4 0 0 0 0 0 82 57 20 5 0
{ES: . i
TOTAL, 944 640 166 85 ' 51 885 585 201 57 42
2
TABLE A-3
DEL CORONADO
15 MINUTE BREAKDOWN
--------- IN BOUND ---------- ---------- OUT BOUND ----------
TIME TOTAL 1 2 34 TRUCKS, TOTAL 1 2 3• TRUCKS,
TAXIS.ETC TAXIS.ETC
6:00 AM 12 10 1 0 1 8 3 2 0 3
' 6: 15 18 12 3 1 2 6 4 2 0 2
6:30 20 19 0 0 1 8 5 2 0 1
6:45 28 23 2 0 3 5 4 1 0 0
7:00 18 15 0 2 1 6 2 1 0 3
705 23 17 4 1 1 5 3 1 0 1
7:30 24 17 4 2 1 9 7 1 1 0
7:45 36 30 4 1 1 i0 6 2 0 2
8:00 - - - - - - - - - -
8: 15 47 .42 2 3 0 6 3 2 0 1
e:30 35 2E 5 0 2 13 5 5 0 3
sa 43 6 2 4 10 5 i 2 2
S2 39 9 0 4 20 7 7 0 6
9: 15 32 24 3 3 2 20 9 2 5 4
9:30 27 19 6 0 2 23 10 6 4 1
9:45 28 21 3 2 2 16 1O 5 1 0
10:00 - - - - - - - - - -
10: 15 35 16 11 3 3 32 14 9 7 2
10:30 34 2C 11 1 2 35 19 12 2 2
10:45 49 33 11 2 3 38 18 16 3 1
11 :00 33 16 9 3 5 46 .19 9 9 9
11 : 15 46 2C 17 3 6 51 22 19 6 4
11 :30 49 19 19 6 5 54 20 '19 6 9
11 *45 S1: 33 15 6 4 37 16 11 5 5
12:00 Pw - - - - - - - - - -
12: 15 45 18 17 7 3 50 19 19 8 4
12:30 49 26 17 2 4 49 22 17 B 2
12:45 49 19 14 8 8 44 18 13 7 6
1 :00 47 24 11 9 3 35 19 11 3 2
105 41 17 11 10 3 42 18 16 6 2
1 :30 35 13 17 3 2 41 22 10 8 1
1 :45 A 18 16 6 1 45 ;2 17 3 3
2.00 - - - - - - - - - -
2: 15 42 25 8 4 5 63 35 13 9 6
2:30 31 17 10 3 1 55 34 13 7 1
2:45 40 21 14 2 3 47 24 12 8 3
3:00 a1 15 12 12 2 41 26 9 5 1
3: 15 48 23 12 11 2 47 27 9 7 4
3 :30 50 18 19 8 5 39 23 11 1 2
3:45 40 17 16 6 1 52 26 12 10 4
4 :00 - - - - - - - - - -
4: 15 44 18 10 11 5 57 31 15 7 4
4:30 3�2 16 E 4 4 67 39 14 12 2
4:45 42 20 1C 10 2 40 27 7 3 3
5:c0 37 16 11 10 0 1.13 33 12 5 3
1
5: 15 26 t0 10 5 1 50 32 13 5 0
5:30 26 11 `9 6 0 65 38 14 13 0
5:40 34 11 15 6 2 33 14 11 8 0
6:00 - - - - - -
6: 15 20 11 7 2 0 43 20 13 10 0
6:30 26 2 16 6 2 32 16 5 9 2
6:45 15 3 7 3 2 35 14 1 7 3 1
7:00 20 4 11 5 0 29 10 12 3 4
7: 15 t3 2 4 6 1 17 5 8 4 0
7:30 23 7 9 6 1 21 7 10 4 0
7:45 18 9 5 4 0 17 B 3 5 1
8:00 - - - - - - - - - -
8: 15 16 6 7 3 0 14 9 3 1 i
8:30 15 8 5 1 1 15 9 3 3 0
8:45 i9 5 8 2 4 25 6 13 3 3
9:00 11 5 4 2 0 14 6 3 4 1
9: 1 5 16 7 5 2 2 25- 8 9 6 2
9:30 19 5 5 6 - 3 25 6 9 7 -3
9:45 13 8 3 1 1 16 e 4 3 - 1
O:OOPS+-f. :OOAM 10 4 4 2 0 35 35 0 0 0
,ESP
OTAL 1854 976 514 235 129 1836 927 517 259 133
a -
2