HomeMy WebLinkAbout835 Airport Blvd - Technical StudyFEHR�PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Consultants
255 North Market Street, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
408 278-1700 • Fax 408 278-1717
www. fehrandpeers. com
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 6, 2001
To: Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame
`� Ruben Hurin, City of Burlingame
Syed Murtuza, City of Burlingame
Copy To: Paul Gumbinger, Gumbinger Avram Architects
Paul Zen, Today's III Inc.
Peter Marshall, DoubleTree Hotel
From: Jane Bierstedt/Norman Wong
Subject: Parking and Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Expansion of the
DoubleTree Hotel Meeting Areas 1005-325
This memorandum presents the results of the parking and traffic analysis for the proposed
expansion of the meeting areas at the DoubleTree Hotel located at Airport Boulevard and
Anza Boulevard in Burlingame, California. The purpose of the parking analysis is to
determine whether a sufficient number of parking spaces are provided to accommodate the
parking demands of the existing uses plus the proposed uses. The purpose of the traffic
analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the added traffic generated by the new meeting areas on
key intersections in the surrounding transportation system.
Project Description
The hotel currently contains 390 rooms, 9,350 square feet of ineeting space, 2,500 square
feet of restaurant space. The proposed project would expand the meeting space by 4,350
square feet. The hotel provides 277 parking spaces on-site. The hotel has an agreement with
the City of Burlingame to utilize 115 of the 230 spaces in an adjacent lot. The adjacent lot
provides parking for a golf-dxiving range and a soccer field. Access to the site is provided via
two driveways, one on Anza Boulevard and one on Airport Boulevard.
������:��.�
AUG 1 0 i��01
CITY OF BURI_++J::AtJiE
PLANNING DEFT.
The proposed expansion of the meeting rooms is estimated to displace 15 parking spaces.
Three spaces will l�e replaced. Thus, the number of spaces in the main lot will be 265 spaces
after the expansion. The proposed expansion would not affect the on-site circulation system
and the existing parking control system (parking gates at the enirances). A site plan is
presented in Figure l. �
Parking Analysis
The. purpose of the paxking analysis is to determine whether the 265 spaces in the main lot
plus the 115 spaces in the adjacent lot, or a total of 380 spaces, is sufficient to meet the peak
parking demand of the hotel with the added meeting space. First, parking surveys were
conducted at on a weekday and on a weekend day to measure the existing parking demand of
the various uses at the hotel. ,
The survey results were adjusted to estimate the parking generated by the hotel rooms versus
the meetings rooms, and to account for variations in the hotel room occupancies from the
survey days to a peak day (100 percent for weekdays and 90 percent for Saturdays). The
surveyed number of ineeting room attendees on Saturday and percent meeting room
occupancy for weekday wexe also adjusted to reflect pealc use of ineeting rooms (240
attendees for Saturday and 85 percent meeting room occupancy for weekday). Parking
demand rates for the hotel rooms and for the meeting space were developed. The meeting
space parking rates were then used to estimate the parking demand generated by the
increased space.
Pa�king Survey Results
Parking sur'veys were �conducted to determine the number of parlced cars and available
parking spaces in the ma.in lot and in the adjacent lot. Surveys were conducted on Saturday,
January 6, 2001, from 6:00 am to midnight and on Thursday, January 11, -2001, from 6:00
am to 5:00 am and from noon to midnight. The parking surveys included spaces utilized by
hotel employees, restaurant patrons, and meeting room attendees. The hotel occupancy on
Saiurday was 60 percent and approximately 20 percent of the meeting rooms were utilized.
Several meeting rooms were reserved for a holiday party that�evening with approximately
160 guests. The hotel rooms were 100 percent occupied and the meeting rooms were
approximately 50 percent occupied on Thursday.
Existing Parking De�nand
The survey results were adjusted to estimate the parking generated by the hotel rooms versus
the meetings rooms, and to account for variations in the hotel room occupancies from the
survey days to a peak day (100 percent for weekdays and 90 percent for Saturdays). The
number of ineeting room attendees on Saturday and meeting room occupancy for weekday
were adjusted to reflect peak day use.
u
� TEffi2&P��RS ASSOCIATES,INC.
Transporletion GonsuJtants
August2001
325-71-01 •
�
N
Not to Scale
DoubleTree Hotel
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 'I
Weekend Day (Saturday)
Table 1 presents the parking demand by use for the surveyed weekend- day (Saturday). The
highest total hotel demand (215 spaces) occurred at 8:00 pm. The total parlcing. dernand was
separated into spaces generated by hotel use and spaces generated by the meeting rooms. The
nurnbers of spaces generated by the meeting rooms were estimated based on the number of
attendees and assuming an average auto-occupancy of two guests per vehicle. Table 1 shows
the breakdown of the total parking demand by hotel guests and meeting room guests.
According to hotel management, the pea.k weekend day hotel occupancy during the month of
October is 90 percent. Therefore, the surveyed weekend parking demands �generated by the
hotel rooms were factored to estimate peak weekend parking demand. As shown in Table l,
the highest hotel room parking demand based on 90 percent occupancy is 233 spaces at 6:00
am. The meeting room parlcing demand in October was based upon the number of attendees
assuming an average auto-occupancy of two guests per vehicle. One hundred twenty (120)
attendees used the meeting rooms from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and 240 people used the meeting
rooms from 5:00 pm to midnighi. This translates into a parking demand of 60 spaces (8:00
am to 5:00 pm) and 120 spaces (5:00 pm to midnight). The highest total hotel peak demand
(guest rooms plus meeting rooms) occurs at 8:00 pm (323 spaces).
Weekday
Table 2 presents the parking demand by use for the surveyed weekday. The hotel rooms were
100 percent occupied and the meeting rooms were 46 percent occupied. The results of the
survey indicated that ihe highest total demand, 237 spaces, occurred at 7:00 am.
To adjust the parking demand from the meeting rooxns to reflect a peak occupancy of 85
percent; the surveyed demand was also separated into spaces used by hotel guests and spaces
used by the meeting rooms: The meeting room parking demand at 46 percent occupancy was
factored to reflect parking demand at 85 percent occupancy. The hotel guest demand was not
factored since the rooms were 100 percent occupied during the survey. As shown in Table 2,
the total peak weekday demand is 261 spaces at 12:00 noon.
P�ojected Pa�lcing Demand
The proposed project would increase the meeting space size by 4,350 square feet for a total
of .13,700 square feet. To estimate the parking demand generated by the increased square
footage, the meeting room parking demand was multiplied by a ratio of the proposed square
footage (13,700 s.f.) to the existing square footage (9,350 s.f.). The projected meeting room
demands for the weekend day and weekday axe shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively:
4
Table 1
Surveyed Parking Demand for Weekend Day (Saturday)
Peak Projected Projected
Main Lot Adjacent Lot Total Hotel Hotel Room Meeting Room Hotel Meeting Room Total Mtg Room Total Shortage?'
Time (occup. sp) (occup. sp) Demand � Demand (60°/a) Demand (20%) Demand (90°/a) Demand z Peak Demand Demand Demand
6:00 AM 142 13 155 155 0 233 0 233 0 233 No
7:00 AM 134 20 154 154 0 231 0 231 0 231 No
5:00 AM 134 27 161 131 30 197 60 257 88 285 No
9:00 AM 154 11 165 135 30 203 60 263 88 291 No
10:00 AM 151 28 179 149 30 224 60 284 88 312 No
11:00 AM 145 29 174 144 30 216 60 276 88 304 No
12:00 PM 143 27 770 140 30 210 60 270 88 298 No
1:00 PM 148 27 175 145 30 218 60 278 88 306 No
2:00 PM 143 26 169 139 30 209 60 269 88 297 No
3:00 PM 143 21 164 134 30 201 60 261 88 289 No
4:00 PM 139 21 160 130 30 195 60 255 88 283 No
5:00 PM 131 17 148 118 30 177 80 257 117 294 No
6:00 PM 140 78 158 88 70 132 120 252 176 308 No
7:00 PM 169 17 186 106 80 159 120 279 176 335 No
8:00 PM 199 16 215 135 80 203 120 323 176 379 No
9:00 PM 196 16 212 132 80 198 120 318 176 374 No
10:00 PM 187 17 204 124 80 186 120 306 176 362 No
11:00 PM 170 12 182 122 60 183 90 273 132 315 No
12:00 AM 147 11 158 128 30 192 45 237 66 258 No
Notes: ' Survey conducted on Saturday, 1/6I01; Hotel occupancy = 232 rooms (60%), meeting room occupancy (20%).
Z Peak meeting room demand based on number of attendees in October (assuming average occupancy of 2 people per vehicle).
3 380 spaces are available (265 in main lot + 115 in adjacent lot).
• Table 2
Surveyed Parking Demand for Weekday
Peak Projected Projected
Main Lot Adjacent Lot Total Hotei Hotel Room Meeting Room Hotel Meeting Room Total Mtg Room Total Shortage? Z
Time (occup. sp) (occup. sp) Demand Demand (700%) Demand (46%) Demand (100%) Demand (85%) Peak Demand Demand Demand
6:00 AM 217 17 234 234 0 234 0 234 0 234 No
7:00 AM 204 33 237 222 15 222 28 250 41 263 No
8:00 AM 172 43 215 170 45 170 83 253 122 292 No
9:00 AM - - - - - - - - - - -
10:00 AM - - - - - - - - - - -
11:00 AM - - - - - - - - - - -
12:00 PM 173 50 223 178 45 178 83 261 122 300 No
1:00 PM 172 50 222 177 45 177 83 260 122 299 No
Z:00 PM 151 48 199 154 45 154 83 237 122 276 No
3:00 PM 146 40 186 141 45 141 83 224 722 263 No
4:00 PM 147 41 188 143 45 143 83 226 122 265 No
5:00 PM 154 27 181 151 30 151 55 206 81 232 No
6:00 PM 146 25 171 151 20 151 37 188 54 205 No
7:00 PM 151 24 175 175 0 175 0 175 0 175 No
8:00 PM 160 22 182 182 0 182 0 182 0 182 No
9:00 PM 164 21 185 185 0 185 0 185 0 185 No
10:00 PM 169 17 186 186 0 186 0 186 0 186 No
11:00 PM 181 21 202 202 0 202 0 202 0 202 No
12:00 AM 184 12 196 196 0 196 0 196 0 196 No
Notes: Survey conducted on Thursday, 1/11/01; hotel occupancy = 390 rooms (100%), meeting room occupancy (46°l0).
2 380 spaces are available (265 in main lot + 115 in adjacent lot).
The projected meeting room demand was then added to the peak hotel guest room demand to
determine the projected peak total demand. The total demand was-compared to the available
parking supply of 380 spaces (265 spaces in main lot and 115 spaces in adjacent lot) and
any shortages were noted.
As shown in Table 1, the total weekend day peak parking demand is projected to result in a
. peak demand of 379 spaces at 8:00 pm. The impact to the recreational facility parking is
discussed in further detail in the following section.
Table 2 presents the total weekday parking demand with expansion of the meeting areas. The
available number of spaces (380) is projected to accommodate the maximum demand of 300
spaces at 1:00 pm.
Effect on Recreation Facility
The parking demand generated by the recreation facility was provided by the City of
Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department. The Saturday demand is estimated to be 110
vehicles from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, and 60 vehicles from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. The weekday
demand is estimated to be 30 vehicles from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, 50 vehicles from 3:00 pm to
6:00 pm, and 100 vehicles from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm.
The total peak hotel demand was added to the recreational facility demand to determine total
demand for the entire site (see Tables 3 and 4). The results were then compared to the total
available parking supply of 495 spaces (265 spaces in main lot plus 230 spaces in.adjacent
lot). The total number of available spaces is projected to accommodate the weekend day
demand of 439 spaces (8:00 pm) and weekday demand of 330 spaces (12:00 pm) as shown
on Tables 3 and 4.
Traffic Impacts to Surrounding Transportation System
The impacts of the proposed expansion were evaluated qualitatively for key intersections in
the vicinity of the project site. The two key intersections selected for evaluation are Airport
Boulevard/Anza Boulevard and Airport BoulevaxdBayshore Highway.
The proposed expansion is estimated to generate a parking demand of approxirnately 40
additional pazking spaces (122 projected meeting room demand spaces minus 83 existing
peak meeting room demand spaces). The vehicles using these spaces will arrive during the
Table 3
Project Parking Demand With Recreational Facility for Peak Weekend Day (Saturday)
Total Recreation Total
Hotel/Meeting Room Demand Demand Shortage? Z
Time Demand (spaces) (spaces) � (spaces)
6:00 AM 233 0 233 No
7:00 AM 231 0 231 No
8:00 AM 285 110 395 No
9:00 AM 291 110 401 No
10:00 AM 312 110 422 No
11:00 AM 304 110 414 No
12:00 PM 298 110 408 No
1:00 PM 306 110 416 No
2:00 PM 297 110 407 No
3:00 PM 289 110 399 No
4:00 PM 283 110 393 No
5:00 PM 294 110 404 No
6:00 PM 308 110 418 No
7:00 PM 335 60 395 No
8:00 PM 379 60 439 No
9:00 PM 374 60 434 No
10:00 PM 362 60 422 No
11:00 PM 315 0 315 No
12:00 AM 258 0 258 No
Notes: Estimated parking demand provided by City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department
Z 495 spaces available (265 main lot + 230 adjacent lot).
Table 4
Project Parking Demand With Recreational Facility for Peak Weekday
Total Recreation Total
Hotel/Meeting Room Demand Demand Shortage? _
Time Demand (spaces) (spaces)' (spaces)
6:00 AM 234 0 234 No
7:00 AM 263 0 263 No
8:00 AM 292 30 322 No
9:00 AM - - - -
10:00 AM - - - -
11:00 AM - - - -
12:00 PM 300 30 330 No
1:00 PM 299 30 329 No
2:00 PM 276 30 306 No
3:00 PM 263 50 313 No
4:00 PM 265 50 315 No
5:00 PM 232 50 282 No
6:00 PM 205 100 305 No
7:00 PM 175 100 275 Na
8:00 PM 182 100 282 No
9:00 PM 185 100 285 No
10:00 PM 186 100 286 No
11:00 PM 202 0 202 No
12:00 AM 196 0 196 No
Notes: Estimated parking demand provided by City of Buriingame Parks & Recreation Department
2 495 spaces available (265 main lot + 230 adjacent lot).
.! ,
AM peak hour and depart during the PM peak hour. Thus, it is anticipated that up to 40 peak-
hour trips will travel through the two adjacent intersections. '
These two intersections were analyzed as part of the 1999/2000 Update to the Land Use -
Transportation Impact Analyzer for Bayfront & Anza Areas (Fehr & Peers Associates, June
2000). The results of this update indicated that these two intersections are projected to
operate at LOS B or better (acceptable levels) during the PM peak hour under Near-term
Conditions. Near-term conditions represent existing traffic volumes plus traffic from
approved and pending developments in the area. Therefore, it is estimated that the addition of
up to 40 vehicles during the PM peak hour would have a negligible effect on the level of
service at these two intersections.
Valet Parking
The DoubleTree Hotel is proposing to provide valet parking in the northeast comer of the
main lot. Vehicles will be parallel-parked at the end of the parking stalls as shown on Figure
2. Approximately 14 to 16 vehicles can be accommodated on the main lot with the valet
parking.
Conclusions
The results of parking surveys conducted in January 2001 for a typical weekend day
(Saturday) and a typical weekday were adjusted to reflect peak hotel parking demand in
October. The projected total parking demand with the added meeting room space was
obtained by applying a ratio to the meeting room parking demand and the results were
compared to the available parking supply.
The results indicate that the proposed 4,350-s.f. meeting room expansion is not projected to
create a shortage of parking spaces for a peak weekend or weekday. An analysis of the
recreation facility parking demand indicated that sufficient parking is available to
accommodate the parking demand from the hotel expansion and from the recreation
facilities. Approximately 16 additional vehicles can be parked on the main lot with valet
parking.
Impacts of the hotel expansion were evaluated qualitatively for two key intersections, Airport
Boulevard/Anza Boulevard and Airport BoulevardlBayshore Highway. These two
intersections were analyzed in a study conducted for the City of Burlingame and were
projected to operate at good levels of service, LOS B, with addition of traffic from approved
and pending developments in the area. The addition of traffic generated by the proposed
expansion is not projected to degrade levels of service at these two intersections to an
unacceptable level, LOS D, E, or F. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact to the surrounding transportation system.
9
�
1 I i
� : t�
� i f
: 1 1
,� i �
j' i '
t , !
17r-+-
i i i
� � �
J ^IaI;IBIsISI:�3�:1 J � T
v
ta P� `�
K PANHG ,� ' .
��'��-�,
n. i ,
. m esroareu�
�
�i�3
�� smxr �q urascarm �
r
.. L�w�sr. ' wstt�wo L
(� � SIORtt fiUW16 (� l SifnY B�R➢�1� (
�
�
�
�
1�: (b �
�f�
— R7 maP[■�r ut nv.
� �`���
C$
7
/ � c3 � � . !.-•- NEIIDIE Qi ��N'f
� ,,.-� , � �-���. -,�,
Q „x •, m . s.�. � � ,�
� . � ""� �
� �,�
,;. �� , ' a, a � '� .
,�, ., %
an � �tr -
��: ma T—�-" ._— ''G 1 r?�i' � ,a . ,� � � 4
u� � j rie � ' i �y i J� e � 4 I .
�ro •�` :v -. _ ..._ . -- . .- i'' �' �
� cniarci[ �■w�jn•r �''� � i � � .
� EY �e g � ������� � �� ' { t� r°"a — �S X i �`��"I��.'"V �, 7� � 5 `��� p ^� .
tao r� �\ �"
� , �����, ��,,.
� �°° « . —a A�C PAMN6 °uu"°�� . '� `�"�� `�� r�'+ \ ��,�. '
i � �� UU
�� �
� �a _ �: � ,-� � ' ;�V:��i• �Li�IA �.r�sP$�������� �V �
io� 1 i � �� i J� �� 9v�t', \�� .
im o"s�9����9��sgSs8iTs�; �' � � O!�'S
� �a `—� ffl ►�mm� ' . � I ��� �
�a �
i � �p • i � + �e r�v�e . � �.�] ���� r� � i .
� t wlm sr os ss +� p u s��va e��aalai m es e� e� ei st �eo �f �e n�e �s �a .� 141��'�' �x� . '. .
\ '`T � '
`y (c) �� -- '` ' �
� ' — �q ca�[¢ �uxwY _ _ , f ' .
`. - - ------- ---- - — . — _. .._ .__ N
fi � "°" "` "°°""'6 �'" 9'"°`° � Not to Scale
. ,
DoubleTree Hotel
'F� ��&P��'T��''G SITE PLAN WITH VALET PARKING
TFansporlarion Consultantr
Au�t2oo, FIGURE 2
325-12-Ot •