1133 Melville Street Office Building Development REZONING APPLICATION SUBMISSION

Transcription

1 1133 Melville Office Building Development REZONING APPLICATION SUBMISSION MAY 22, 215 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY BUNT & ASSOCIATES - TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS oxford properties group kohn pedersen fox associates pc kasian architecture interior design & planning ltd. SHARP & DIAMOND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CORNELIA OBERLANDER

2 May 22 nd, Guy Taylor Senior Associate Kasian Architecture Interior Design and Planning Ltd 15 West Georgia, Suite 1685 Vancouver, BC V6G 2Z6 Dear Guy: Re: 1133 Melville Revised Bylaw Requirements Summary Letter The following letter briefly summarizes the revised parking, accessible parking, bike parking, and loading requirement calculations for Oxford Properties Group (Oxford) proposed mixed-use office tower development based on a slight increase in the Gross Floor Area () for 1133 Melville with the inclusion of covered at-grade plaza areas and roof decks in the area calculation which were previously excluded. This letter demonstrates that the inclusion of this additional area would not materially change the bylaw requirements or the impact of the development on the local street network, or the recommendations and conclusions outlined in Bunt s Transportation udy (January 215). We trust that this will be of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or require clarification. Sincerely, Bunt & Associates 1. REVISED BUILDING AREA STATISTICS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS The Gross Floor Area () for 1133 Melville has increased slightly with inclusion of covered at-grade plaza areas and roof decks in the area calculation which were previously excluded. The revised building area statistics are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Revised Building Area atistics Previous Gross Floor Area Revised Gross Floor Area Use Sq ft Sq m Sq ft Sq m 648,915 6,286 Office 628,99 58,435 (+19,925) (+1,851) Retail 11,72 1,9 9,772 (-1,948) 98 (-182) 658,687 61,194 Total 64,71 59,525 (+17,977) (+1,669) To understand if this change in area will result in a change in the overall parking, bicycle parking, or loading requirements for the development, the bylaw requirements have been revised accordingly and are summarized below. 2. REVISED BYLAW REQUIREMENTS Based on the revised building areas summarized in Table 1, the revised parking, accessible parking, bike parking and loading requirements are summarized in Tables 2 to 5. Table 2: Revised Parking By-Law Requirement Land Use (sq ft) (sq m) By-Law Requirements Previous alls Required (min/max) Revised all Required (min/max) Net Change (+/-) Office 648,915 6,286 Minimum: 1 parking space 43/59 416/ /+15 Retail 9, per 145 sq m and 8/1 6/8-2/-2 Total 658,687 61,194 Maximum: 1 parking space per 115 sq m 411/ / /+13 Tyler Thomson, M.Urb, PTP Transportation Planner 1133 Melville Revised Bylaw Requirements 2 bunt & associates Project No May Melville - Office Building Development - 2 -

3 Table 3: Revised Accessible Parking By-Law Requirement Land Use (sq ft) (sq m) Total 658,687 61,194 By-Law Requirements 1 space first 5 sq m plus.4 space for each additional 1, sq m alls Required (min/max) *Note: There is no change to the accessible parking requirement for the development with the revised floor areas. Table 4: Revised Bicycle By-Law Requirement Land Use (sq ft) (sq m) By-Law Requirements Previous Bicycle Parking Requirement Class A Class B Revised Bicycle Parking Requirement Class A Class B *25 Net Change (+/-) Class A Office 648,915 6,286 Class A: 1 bicycle space per 5 sq Retail 9, m Total 658,687 61,194 Class B: 6 spaces > 1, sq m retail and > 2, sq m Office Class B Table 5: Revised Loading By-Law Requirement Land Use (sq ft) (sq m) Office 648,915 6,286 Retail 9, By-Law Requirements Class A: (1) At least 4 spaces <2,-28, sq m (2) At least 1 additional space per additional 7,5 sq m Class B: (1) At least 3 spaces <1,-28, sq m (2) At least 1 additional space per additional 15, sq m Class A: No Requirement Class B: (1) 1 for first 465 sq m (2) 1 for any portion of next 1,86 sq m *Loading Requirement Class A Class B Total 658,687 61, *Note: There is no change to the loading requirement for the development with the revised floor areas. As shown in the above tables, the increase in the Gross Floor Area would result in the following changes to the bylaw requirements: Parking: +11 spaces (for bylaw minimum), and +13 spaces (for bylaw maximum) Accessible Parking: no change Bicycle Parking: +4 Class A spaces, and -6 Class B spaces Loading: no change 3. TRIP GENERATION Given that the trip generation for the development was estimated based on a per parking space trip rate, and the proposed parking supply of 287 spaces is still being proposed there is no change to the future trips expected for the development. Therefore, the conclusions from Bunt s January 215 Transportation udy remain the same. 4. SUMMARY The Gross Floor Area for 1133 Melville is proposed to increase by approximately 18, sq ft (1,669 sq m) which has resulted in a slight increase in the parking requirement (i.e. less than 15 spaces for both the minimum and maximum requirements). There was no change in the accessible parking 1133 Melville Revised Bylaw Requirements 3 bunt & associates Project No May Melville Revised Bylaw Requirements 4 bunt & associates Project No May Melville - Office Building Development - 3 -

4 requirement, and an increase in the requirement for Class A bicycle parking spaces (+4), yet there was a decrease in the Class B bicycle parking requirement of 6 spaces (given the decrease in retail floor area). Lastly, there was no change in the loading requirement for the development. These changes in the bylaw requirements will not have an impact on the conclusions and recommendations from Bunt s January 215 Transportation udy Melville Revised Bylaw Requirements 5 bunt & associates Project No May Melville - Office Building Development - 4 -

5 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 udy Context 1.3 ructure of Report 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Network 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 2.3 Existing Traffic Conditions 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Development Concept On-Site Loading 3.2 Site Traffic Generation 3.3 Traffic Distribution and Assignment 4. DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4.1 Future Traffic Volume 4.2 Future Traffic Condition 5. PARKING REVIEW 5.1 Off- Parking By-Law Requirement 5.2 Off- Bicycle By-Law Requirement 5.3 Off- Loading By-Law Requirement 5.4 Proposed Off- Parking Supply 5.5 Proposed Off- Loading Supply 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Existing Conditions - Traffic 6.2 Development Concept Review 6.3 Traffic Impact Review 6.4 Parking Assessment Review APPENDIX A Parking Review EXHIBITS Exhibit 1.1: udy Location Exhibit 2.1: Existing 214 Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.1: Proposed Development Concept Exhibit 3.2: Truck Turning Movement Review Exhibit 3.3: Estimated Peak Hour Site Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4.1: Projected 218 Opening Day Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4.2: Projected 223 Opening Day + 5 Years Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 6.1: Site Accessibility TABLES Table 2.1: udy Intersections Table 2.2: Existing Weekday Intersection Operation Performance Table 3.1: Development atistics Table 3.2: Weekday Vehicle Trip Rates Table 3.3: Estimated Weekday Net Site Traffic Summary Table 4.1: 218 Opening Day Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Table 4.2: 218 Opening Day Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Table 4.3: 223 Opening Day Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Table 4.4: 223 Opening Day Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Table 5.1: Parking By-Law Requirement Table 5.2: Accessible Parking By-Law Requirement Table 5.3: Bicycle By-Law Requirement Table 5.4: Loading By-Law Requirement Table 5.5: Observed Off- Loading Supply Rate Table 6.1: Nearby Transit Routes and Frequencies Melville - Office Building Development - 1 -

6 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Bunt & Associates Engineering (BC) Ltd. was commissioned by Oxford Properties Group to undertake a Transportation Impact udy for their planned office tower development located at 1133 Melville in the City of Vancouver, BC. A site map of the study location is shown in Exhibit 1.1. The proposal calls for the redevelopment of an existing mixed-use building (residential, commercial, and office) with public and private parking above grade and underground to accommodate a 33 storey office building with retail on the ground floor and 6 level underground parkade. A total of 287 parking stalls with 24 accessible stalls and 147 bicycle stalls will be included in the new development. Primary access to the underground parkade will be via the adjacent laneway intersecting at Bute and Thurlow. As part of the Rezoning Application package, the City of Vancouver requires that a Transportation Impact udy report be submitted to the City Planning Department for the proposed development. This report documents the analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the Transportation Impact udy for the proposed development. 1.2 udy Context Bunt & Associates Engineering (B.C) Ltd. was commissioned by The primary objectives of the Transportation Impact udy are as follows: Traffic Assessment: Examine the traffic impact of the proposed development on the adjacent road network in the context of assumed ongoing development growth in the area generally. Where potential impacts are identified, determine possible transportation system improvements to mitigate these impacts; Site Access: Verify the adequacy of the site access and traffic circulation system proposed for the project; Road Improvements: examine on/off-site improvement measures, where necessary, to enhance traffic movements and pedestrian safety in the vicinity; Parking & Loading: Review the parking and loading supply proposed in the Site Plan and verify the By- Law requirement for the proposed land uses; Green Mobility Plan review TDM strategies for the site to potentially reduce reliance on automobile trips and thereby lessen the new developmentrelated traffic and parking requirements. 1.3 ructure of Report Following this introductory section, Section 2 reviews the existing road network system and provides a summary of the existing traffic conditions within the study area. Section 3 provides an overview of the proposed development and reviews the on-site traffic circulation. Included is a review of the bicycle facilities impact and improvement. Section 4 covers the assumptions made in estimating the volumes of site traffic that the new development would generate and how this traffic would likely be distributed to the area road network Section 5 reviews the on-site parking and loading supply requirement and demand for the project. Section 6 concludes the report and summarizes key findings and recommendations Melville - Office Building Development - 2 -

7 Exhibit 1.1: udy Location N Scale: NTS ou gh to n Harbour Green Park Br Vancouver Convention Centre W Co Je rv is rdo W Ha stin W Pe gs Can ada Pl rs t Bu te nde va w lo ur rd Th Bu W rra el SITE vi lle M G eo rn by rn Ho ia be rg Al is so n Melville - Office Building Development -3- we Ho Burrard Skytrain ation ob t R

8 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Network In the vicinity of the development site, Melville operates as a westbound street. The road connects Thurlow to the east with Pender and Jervis to the west. The two lane road accommodates on-street parking on both sides with a dedicated bike lane along the north side between the traffic lane and street parking. It is noted that the four (4) signalized intersections feature mark marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal phases. In addition, the two (2) existing driveways to the site s parkade will be included in the analysis as follows: Melville & Main driveway (private and public parking), and; Laneway & Exit driveway (private parking). ratios, and a predicted delay based Level of Service (LOS) indicator for each traffic movement at the key intersections. West Pender operates as a two-way arterial route and connects West Georgia to the west and transitions to East Pender around Main to the east. West Pender intersects highly used arterial roads in the downtown district including Burrard. Pender has generally four lane cross section and accommodates on-street parking with time of day restrictions. Thurlow is a north-south route connecting Beach Avenue to the south with West Cordova and Burrard Place or Canada Place to the north. Thurlow operates as a two-way street between Melville and Burrard Place and one-way southbound between Melville and Pacific prior to its transition back to two-way. Thurlow has generally a four lane cross-section with curb side parking. Bute is a north-south route parallel to Thurlow. The roadway varies from a two to four lane cross-section with dedicated curb side parking. The posted speed on the road is 5km/hr. Bute is a continuous route between West Cordova to the north and Haro to the south; south of Haro there are traffic calming measures on Bute to ensure no through traffic flow through the Vancouver West End residential community. Eveleigh is an east-west local street ending in a cul-de-sac in the east. The roadway provides access to the Bentall Tower parkades and servicing/loading areas. The proposed study area includes seven (7) key intersections for analysis. Table 2.1 lists each study intersection and existing intersection traffic control type. 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes To document the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, traffic counts compiled from recent City of Vancouver count programs along with traffic count surveys conducted by Bunt & Associates in April 213 and December 214 during the peak morning and afternoon period were used for the study. To reflect the current conditions, the existing traffic volumes were adjusted after review of the traffic patterns in the vicinity. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates the 214 traffic volumes for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours traffic periods. 2.3 Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic operations at the street intersections within the study area were evaluated using the Synchro 8 traffic analysis software package. This operational analysis is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2 and includes calculations of volume-to-capacity (v/c) Intersection Control Type Configuration Melville & Thurlow Signalized Full Movement Melville & Bute Signalized Full Movement West Pender & Thurlow Signalized Full Movement West Pender & Bute Signalized Full Movement Thurlow & Eveleigh op Controlled (Eveleigh ) Full Movement Thurlow & laneway op Controlled (laneway) Full Movement Bute & laneway op Controlled (laneway) Full Movement Table 2.1 udy Intersections Melville - Office Building Development - 4 -

9 Exhibit 2.1: Existing 214 Traffic Volumes N 155 (375) a Sc 21 (38) 55 (8) 3 (45) 11 5 (25) 15 (155) (185) 19 (2) 2 (45) 1 (1) 9 5 (25) 6 (9) (75) ( ) ( e end WP r (51) 38 (2) 85 Eveleigh Laneway ) (45 55) (3 17 Thurlow (35) (315) 18 SITE In: 23 (1) Out: 2 (125) Total: 232 (135) t 1 1 ) 5 (11 (65) (12) (165) (3) 17 () (11) (655) (45) (565) 1 (155) (65) 2 15 (2) 23 (24) 2 (4) 23 (9) (1)1 625 (12) 27 (32) (3) (3) 1 14 (1) (9) (9)55 (26) (15) (11) 1 es lvill Me Bute 225(615) (55) 9 2 (95) (235) 265 (45) 6 (7) (335) ) (25) 55 (375) 775 (12) 165 (25) 75 (285) 935 (19) 18 (2) 25 (275) (4) 24 (2) (25) (12) (5) 115 (3) 2 15 TS :N le 5 (2) 25 (95) 45 (69) 31 (365) 23 (1) 32 (735) Unsignalized Traffic Signal Melville - Office Building Development -5- AM PM Intersection Volumes

10 At signalized intersections, the v/c ratio is used as a measure of traffic congestion for individual traffic lanes and/or lane groups, and for the intersection as a whole. Volume/capacity values up to.85 are typically considered appropriate for an intersection, and up to.9 for individual lanes or lane groups. A v/c ratio of 1. or greater indicates that the traffic operation is at or beyond capacity. The traffic LOS indicator ranges from the ideal LOS A condition with minimal or no delay through to the LOS F condition with extensive delay. For urban conditions, particularly in densely developed downtown areas with heavy pedestrian flow and good public transit service, vehicle traffic operations at the higher end of the v/c and LOS range are typically considered to be tolerable during peak traffic periods. are capable of clearing the unsignalized intersection. Observations conducted in the field confirm the southbound vehicles exiting the driveway are able to clear the intersection with minimal delay during the PM peak traffic period. For unsignalized intersections, the LOS indicator is based on the estimated average control delay per vehicle for each critical movement. A control delay of less than 1 seconds per vehicle indicates sufficient capacity and good traffic conditions, considered LOS A. A calculated control delay value greater than 5 seconds per vehicle is assigned a LOS F performance measure. Operation results for the study intersection are summarized in Table 2.2. In general, all intersections analyzed are operating well within acceptable capacity thresholds with minimal traffic delay. Acceptable LOS B traffic operations is calculated in all cases and no specific operational problems are identified. Note that vehicles entering and exiting the laneways are capable of clearing the unsignalized intersections at the laneway connection at Thurlow and Bute. On-site observations indicate that minimum or no queue delay occurred during the proposed study peak hours for the entering or exiting movements. The Synchro analysis result for the existing Melville & Main Driveway intersection indicates a congested LOS F traffic operation during the PM peak period. This is based on the Synchro software program (using HCM formula calculations) not accounting for the vehicle gaps created by the existing up or downstream traffic signals located along Melville. Given the low traffic volumes for this movement, vehicles Intersection Existing AM Existing PM Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow West Pender & Bute Overall.33 B.53 B Overall.32 B.51 B Overall.66 B.43 B Overall.6 B.37 B Unsiganlized Movement v/c LOS v/c LOS Thurlow & Eveleigh WB - B - B Thurlow & Laneway EB - B - B Bute & Laneway WB - B - Melville & Main Driveway SB - C - F Laneway & Exit Driveway NB - A - A Table 2.2 Existing Weekday Intersection Operation Performance Melville - Office Building Development - 6 -

11 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Development Concept The proposed project site is located on the north side of Melville about midway between the Thurlow and Bute intersections. The development will accommodate 33 office floors including ground floor retail space and a total of 287 parking stalls that will be provided in a 6 level underground parkade. The new building as summarized in Table 3.1 will comprise of approximately 658,687 square feet (or 61,194 square metres) gross floor area. Currently, access to the existing building is provided via Melville and the laneway (outbound only). The new building plans to remove the driveway access on Melville and have all vehicle access via the the rear lane, which connects as well to Thurlow and Bute. The proposed development concept is illustrated in Exhibit On-Site Loading The development will accommodate 11 Class A and 4 Class B loading bays on-site. All Class A loading will be accommodated within the underground lower level parkade (Level B2) with access via the existing laneway. The Class B loading will be provided directly off the laneway. Vehicle turning templates are included in Exhibit 3.2 to demonstrate how the Class B loading spaces will be accessed. As indicated, there are no issues anticipated with the loading arrangements. 3.2 Site Traffic Generation To evaluate the impact of the traffic generated from the proposed development, future traffic conditions were assessed for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour periods. Trip generation rates report in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition for the proposed land use categories were reviewed however, given the unique nature of this project set in the area of downtown Vancouver, the generalized trip rate information provided in ITE are likely not suitable representatives. It is considered reasonable to base the vehicle trip generation rates on existing vehicle movements (inbound and outbound) and peak parking demand of observed office towers in the neighbouring area. As a result, the vehicle trip rates are expressed based on Trips per Occupied Parking Space. The following vehicle trip rates, as summarized in Table 3.2, were reviewed. The proposed development will accommodate 287 parking stalls. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the new parkade will be fully utilized, for i.e worst case scenario. The future vehicle trips estimated for the proposed development along with the net change in vehicle trips is summarized in Table 3.3. Overall, the new underground parkade will generate a total of 116 and 85 vehicles per hour during the weekday AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The new tower will generate a lower trip volume during the peak hour periods, which may reduce the potential impact along the adjacent road network. 3.3 Traffic Distribution and Assignment The assignment of the estimated future site traffic onto the street network is based on the observed existing turning movements at the study intersections and new driveway location for the site. The expected weekday morning and afternoon peak hour development generated traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.3. Location 19 West Pender Table 3.1: Development atistics Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) Office 628,99 648,915 58,435 6,286 Retail 11,72 9,772 1,9 98 Total 658,687 64,71 59,525 61,194 AM Trip Rates (trip/occupied stall) Table 3.2: Weekday Vehicle Trip Rates AM Trip Rates (trip/occupied stall) In Out 2-Way In Out 2-Way The ation West Hastings Average Use Proposed Development (287 alls) Existing Building (385 alls) Table 3.3: Estimated Weekday Net Site Traffic Summary AM PeakTraffic PM Peak Traffic In Out 2-Way In Out 2-Way Net Changes Melville - Office Building Development - 7 -

12 Exhibit 3.1: Proposed Development Concept N e: al Sc Laneway Melville Melville - Office Building Development -8- TS N

13 Exhibit 3.2: Truck Turning Movement Review Class B Inbound Class B Outbound Class B Inbound Class B Outbound Melville - Office Building Development - 9 -

14 Exhibit 3.3: Estimated Peak Hour Site Traffic Volumes N (1) () 5 () () () (4) 35 () (4) 4 (1) () 1 () () () TS :N () le a Sc () 1 (1) () 1 (5) 1 (5) () () () () 1 () 1 (25) (5) 1 (1) 1 (15) t er S end WP (2) 2 () 1 (1) Eveleigh 1 (1) () Laneway SITE In: 12 (1) Out: 8 (75) Total: 128 (85) Thurlow t Bute () 7 (5) () 1 3 (5) (3) es lvill Me (2) 2 (5) 5 () () 35 (3) () (35)4 (15)2 (25) (5) 3 5 (5) (5) 1 () 1 () (15) () 2 () () () () 1 (1) 35 (3) () () () () Unsignalized Traffic Signal Melville - Office Building Development AM PM Intersection Volumes

15 4. DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4.1 Future Traffic Volume The traffic impact analysis includes an estimation of the future Background Traffic Volumes, and an assessment of the net traffic impact of future Total Traffic condition versus the future Background Traffic condition. For the purposes of this analysis, a total of two future horizon years were considered for the proposed office tower development, including: Opening Day (218); and, Opening Day + 5 Years (223) Allowing for on-going development growth in the area generally, existing peak period traffic volumes on the adjacent street system are expected to increase moderately over time. To account for this Background Traffic growth, a 1% (for conservative measure) per year traffic growth rate was applied to the observed traffic counts. The estimated Total Traffic Volumes upon completion of the development were then derived by superimposing the estimated increase in site traffic volumes onto the Background Traffic Volumes. 4.2 Future Traffic Condition Results of the capacity analysis for the 2 horizon years with and without the proposed development were compared and summarized in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the total traffic volume for 212 for all peak periods. Overall, the capacity analyses indicate that the study intersections and street network can readily accommodate the future traffic volumes. No improvements to the existing street network or intersection traffic control system are required to accommodate this added traffic. Table 4.1: 218 Opening Day Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Intersection Without Development With Development Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow Overall.35 B.27 B Overall.33 B.34 B Overall.69 B.69 B Intersection Without Development With Development Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow West Pender & Bute Overall.56 B.55 B Overall.53 B.51 B Overall.45 B.45 B Overall.39 B.38 B Unsiganlized Movement v/c LOS v/c LOS Thurlow & Eveleigh WB - B - B Thurlow & laneway EB - B - B Bute & laneway WB - B - B Laneway & Driveway NB A Melville - Office Building Development

16 Table 4.2: 218 Opening Day Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Intersection Without Development With Development Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow West Pender & Bute Overall.56 B.55 B Overall.53 B.51 B Overall.45 B.45 B Overall.39 B.38 B Unsiganlized Movement v/c LOS v/c LOS Thurlow & Eveleigh WB - B - B Thurlow & laneway EB - B - B Bute & laneway WB - B - B Laneway & Driveway NB A Table 4.3: 223 Opening Day Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Intersection Without Development With Development Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow West Pender & Bute Table 4.4: 223 Opening Day Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Overall.59 B.58 B Overall.56 B.53 B Overall.48 B.48 B Overall.41 B.4 B Unsiganlized Movement v/c LOS v/c LOS Thurlow & Eveleigh WB - B - B Thurlow & laneway EB - B - B Bute & laneway WB - B - B Laneway & Driveway NB A Intersection Without Development With Development Movement Signalized v/c LOS v/c LOS Melville & Thurlow Melville & Bute West Pender & Thurlow West Pender & Bute Overall.36 B.29 B Overall.35 B.36 B Overall.73 B.72 B Overall.66 B.68 B Unsiganlized Movement v/c LOS v/c LOS Thurlow & Eveleigh WB - B - B Thurlow & laneway EB - B - B Bute & laneway WB - B - B Laneway & Driveway NB A Melville - Office Building Development

17 Exhibit 4.1: Projected 218 Opening Day Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N TS :N 165 (395) 22 (4) 65 (85) 5) ( (2) 25 (35) 1 (2) (75) 16 der en WP ) ( (54) 38 (2) 85 Eveleigh Laneway 5) (46 5) 7 45(3 SITE 11 24(61) In: 12 (1) Out: 8 (75) Total: 128 (85) t 89 ) (12 (635) (15) (185) (4) 18 () 2 8 (11) (675) (45) (55) 1 (15) () 15 (2) 25 (255) 55 (5) 24 (95) (4)15 66(16) 28 (335) (25) (5) (15) (125) (85)5 (275) 265 (6) 9 1 (115) es lvill Me Bute 45 (15) 7 (5) (5) 5 Thurlow (4) (325) (1) (235) 275 (5) (25) 65 (12) (85) 35 (455) (25) 55 (38) (3) 155 (15) (185) (13) (45) (25) 8 (3) 97 (2) 185 (25) 65 (395) (4) 245(2) (25) (125) (5) 125 (3) 2 15 le a Sc 55 (2) 29 (1) 275 (715) 325 (385) () 335 (775) Unsignalized Traffic Signal Melville - Office Building Development AM PM Intersection Volumes

18 Exhibit 4.2: Projected 223 Opening Day +5 Years Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N TS :N 175 (415) 23 (42) 65 (9) 12 1 (3) 165 (16) (195) 165 (22) 25 (4) 1 (2) 35 t er S ) ( end WP 5) (5 (565) 4 (25) 9 Eveleigh Laneway ) (5 ) 5(4 SITE 12 25(64) In: 12 (1) Out: 8 (75) Total: 128 (85) t ) 6 2 (1 94 (67) (15) 36 5 (19) (4) 19 () 2 8 (115) (75) (5) (575) 15 (16) () 15 (25) 26 (27) 55 (5) 255 (1) (45)15 69(111) 295 (35) (25) (5) (15) (13) (85)55 (295) 275 (6) 9 1 (115) es lvill Me Bute 5 (15) 7 (5) (5) 5 Thurlow (4) (34) 25 2 (15) (135) 185 (55) 1 (8) (25) 7 (12) (85) 325 (475) (3) 6 (4) 855 (23) (5) (3) 85 (315) 12 (21) 195 (25) 65 (415) (4) 255 (2) (25) (13) (55) 13 (35) 2 15 le a Sc 55 (2) 31 (15) 29 (75) 34 (45) () 35 (815) Unsignalized Traffic Signal Melville - Office Building Development AM PM Intersection Volumes

19 5. PARKING REVIEW 5.1 Off- Parking By-Law Requirement Based on the parking supply standards set out in the City of Vancouver Parking By-Law (Section 4.3.1), the required on-site parking provision for the proposed 1133 Melville development is estimated to be a minimum of 411 stalls and a maximum of 518 parking stalls. With regard to accessible parking (Section 4.8.4), a total of 25 stalls are required for the proposed development. A breakdown of the parking requirement is summarized in Tables 5.1 and Off- Bicycle By-Law Requirement According to the City s Off- Bicycle Space Regulations (Section 6.2.4), a total of 119 Class A and 12 Class B bicycle spaces are required for the new development. Note that a Class A bicycle space is primarily designed to provide for long-term parking of employees of the building and Class B are used to provide short-term temporary parking for persons who are not employees of the building. The breakdown of the bicycle requirements are summarized in Table Off- Loading By-Law Requirement Under Section and of the City s By-Law, a total of 9 Class A and 8 Class B loading bays are required on-site for the proposed development. A summary table of the loading requirement is detailed in Table 5.4. Land Use Land Use (sq.ft) (sq.ft) (sq. m) Total 658,687 64,71 61,194 59,525 (sq. m) By-Law Requirements 1 space first 5 sq.m plus.4 space for each additional 1, sq.m alls Required (min/max) By-Law Requirements Class A Class B Office 648, ,99 6,286 58, Retail 9,772 11,72 1,9 98 Class A: 1 bicycle space per 5 sq.m Class B: 6 spaces > 1, sq.m retail 2 6 and > 2, sq.m Office Total 658,687 64,71 61,194 59, Land Use (sq.ft) (sq. m) Office 648, ,99 6,286 58,435 Retail 11,72 9,772 1,9 98 Land Use (sq ft) Class A: (1) At least 4 spaces <2,-28, sq.m (2) At least 1 additional space per additional 7,5 sq.m Class B: (1) At least 3 spaces <1,-28, sq.m (2) At least 1 additional space per additional 15, sq.m Class A: No Requirement (sq m) Office 648,915 6,286 Retail 9, Total 658,687 61,194 By-Law Requirements Minimum: 1 parking space per 145 sq m and Maximum: 1 parking space per 115 sq m Class B: (1) 1 for first 465 sq.m (2) 1 for any portion of next 1,86 sq.m Table 5.1: Parking By-Law Requirement Class A Revised all Required (min/max) 416/ Class B Total 658,687 64,71 61,194 59, /8 422/532 Table 5.2: Accessible Parking By-Law Requirement Table 5.3: Bicycle By-Law Requirement Table 5.4: Loading By-Law Requirement Melville - Office Building Development

20 5.4 Proposed Off- Parking Supply The proposed development will provide for 287 parking stalls of which 24 will be configured and dedicated as accessible stalls. While this is one fewer than the By-law requirement, the 24 accessible spaces will be approximately 8% of the total parking supply which is four times the more typical industry standard accessible parking provision of 2% of parking supply. As provided for the City s Parking By-Law, 1 accessible stall is counted as 2 regular parking stalls towads the supply requirement therefore the resulting parking supply is 311 parking stalls for By-law purposes which is 1 spaces fewer than the minimum requirement. In the City of Vancouver Transportation 24 Plan, there are a number of parking policies that aim to influence travel choices, including (1) support strategies that reduce the need for parking, and (2) design parking to be flexible and adaptable. These parking policies in effect acknowledge that future parking demand can and should be even lower than current levels. The parking supply strategy for this building is consistent with this philosophy and aims to avoid creating a parking oversupply condition that only serves to undermine efforts to encourage travel by non-automobile travel modes. For the purpose of this parking analysis, the project fully incorporates the parking supply reductions enabled with provision of car share stalls and bicycle storage that exceeds the minimum requirements of the Parking By-law. The development plans for 8 car share spaces, which according to the City will permit an allowance of 1 car share stall to replace 5 regular parking stalls. Bunt has been involved with other commercial office projects in the Vancouver downtown where this measure has been used. When applied to the 1133 Melville development, the provision of the 8 car share spaces translates to net 32 stall reduction to the By-law parking supply. As mentioned in Table 5.3, the City By-Law requires a total of 131 bicycle stalls (119 Class A and 12 Class B) be provided for the new development. The proposal project will accommodate 135 Class A and 15 Class B for a total of 15 bicycle stalls on-site. Based on Section 6.2A(a) of the Off-street Bicycle Space Regulations, for each additional 5 Class A bicycle spaces provided on a site (for i.e. office or retail use) there is an allowable reduction of 1 regular parking space required by By-Law. It is further noted that the total net bicycle stall calculation on-site is to not exceed 1 space per 3 square metres of of the total proposed development gross floor area. For example, the proposed 61,194 square metres development can potentially accommodate a maximum of 198 Class A bicycle stalls on-site. The site is currently proposing a total of 135 Class A bicycle stalls and a By-Law minimum of 119 Class A bicycle stalls is required. In summary, an additional 16 bicycle stalls are provided on-site, which enables a further reduction of 3 parking spaces from the By-Law requirement (i.e.5 bicycle stall to 1 regular parking stall). The proposed development has a potential of further reducing the total By-Law parking requirement by additional 13 parking spaces if an additional 63 Class A bicycle spaces are accommodated on-site. As noted, the project is proposing a total parking supply of 311 parking stalls on the site, which is 1 spaces fewer than the By-Law minimum requirement of 411. With the further eligible parking reductions on account of the car share stalls and additional Class A bicycle stalls, an additional 35 regular parking spaces can be reduced from the By-Law requirement. With this adjustment, the proposed development is 65 parking stalls short of the minimum By-Law requirement (refer to Appendix A for parking analysis summary). The Green Mobility Plan presented in the Rezoning Policy for Sustainability Large Development outlines a suite of sustainable transportation strategies being considered for the development plan, which will help support the proposed parking supply that targets the 24 plan for the Downtown District, and that is in line with the City s goals outlined in its Greenest City 22 Action Plan. It is further noted that parking supply utilization more generally in the Vancouver downtown area is more than 3% less than the transient parking supply available based on detailed parking study work completed by Bunt in recent years. The downward trend in parking activity in the downtown is evidence of a number of factors including increasing public transit service to the area and the rapidly growing use of car share vehicles Melville - Office Building Development

21 5.5 Proposed Off- Loading Supply As noted in Table 5.4, the City s By-Law requires 9 Class A and 8 Class B loading bays on the site. Given the proposed location, it is recommended the loading provision for this development be based on the observed loading supply rate of comparable office buildings. Existing loading data has been summarized in Table 5.5 and confirms the general average rate typically seen in the downtown district. Based on Table 5.5, it is recommended from a conservative perspective that the adjusted average rates (2), which removes the outliers (i.e. highest and lowest rates), be applied for this study s loading analysis. Given this, a total of 1 Class A loading spaces located in the underground parkade plus 4 Class B loading spaces located on street-level is proposed for the project. The proposed 1 Class A loading spaces currently exceeds that required by the City By-Law (9 Class A, Table 5.4). As most deliveries to downtown office buildings will be vehicles smaller than the Class B size (recent studies conducted by Bunt & Associates, which resulted in an average of 85% of loading activities associated with Class A vehicles) therefore it is a greater benefit to the development to provide more Class A loading compared to Class B loading bays. As a result, the proposed total of 4 Class B loading space provided on-site is considered sufficient. Location 1133 Melville 121 West Hastings & Guinness Tower 98 Vancouver Centre II 61 West Hastings ( sq.m) Existing Loading Bay Supply Existing Loading Bay Supply Rate (loading bay per sq.m ) Class A Class B Class A Class B 57,755 61, per 9,626 1 per 14,439 56, per 4,725 1 per 18,9 84, per 8,42 1 per 21,5 21, per 2,871 1 per 7,177 Telus Gardens 45, per 4,589 1 per 22,946 The ation 4, per 2,871 per 7,177 (2) Adjusted Average (without Highest & Lowest) Table 5.5: Observed Off- Loading Supply Rate (1) General Average 1 per 5,517 1 per 15,281 1 per 5,911 sq m 1 per 18,129 sq m Melville - Office Building Development

22 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On behalf of Oxford Properties Group, Bunt & Associates has undertaken a Transportation Impact udy for the proposed office tower development at 1133 Melville in Vancouver, BC. The study examined the traffic and parking implications of the proposed development and reviewed the proposed site plan to confirm that the anticipated site traffic volume can be adequately accommodated both on site and on the area street system. 6.1 Existing Conditions - Traffic The traffic study considered the following 4 signalized and 5 unsignalized intersections: Signalized: Melville & Thurlow ; Melville & Bute ; West Pender & Thurlow, and; West Pender & Bute. Unsignalized: Thurlow & Eveleigh ; Thurlow & laneway; Bute & laneway; Melville & Main driveway (private and public parking), and; Laneway & Exit driveway (private parking). In general, all intersections analyzed are operating within acceptable capacity thresholds and with minimal traffic delay. No specific operational problems were identified and on-site observations indicate that minimal queues and delays are evident during peak traffic periods. 6.2 Development Concept Review As part of the development plan, the existing driveway access on Melville will be removed and full access for the underground parkade will be provided via the rear laneway on the north side of the development site. 6.3 Traffic Impact Review To evaluate the impact of the traffic generated from the proposed development, future traffic conditions were assessed for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour periods. For the purpose of this analysis, it is considered reasonable to base the vehicle trip generation rates on Trips per Occupied Parking Space. Based on the proposed 287 parking stalls (i.e. worst case scenario), the development is anticipated to generate approximately 116 and 85 vehicles per hour (2-way) during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour periods, respectively. Overall, the new office tower will generate a lower trip volume than the existing building during the peak hour traffic periods. The capacity analyses indicate that all study intersections will operate satisfactorily. No improvements to the existing street network or intersection traffic control system are required in the future. 6.4 Parking Assessment Review According to parking supply standards outlined in the City of Vancouver Parking By-Law, the proposed development requires a minimum of 411 and a maximum of 518 parking stalls to be provided on the site. The new parkade will provide 287 parking spaces of which 24 will be configured as accessible parking. This translates to a total parking supply of 311 spaces for By-law tabulation purposes as each of the 24 accessible spaces can be counted as two parking spaces. Overall, the on-site parking supply provision is 1 spaces less than the Parking By-law minimum supply requirement. As part of City of Vancouver Transportation 24 Plan, there are a number of parking policies in place that aim to influence travel mode choice hence reduce the peak parking demand particularly in the Central Business District. The development project recognizes the potential parking reduction and is proposing a total of 9 car share stalls and an additional 14 Class A bicycle stalls on the site over and above the Parking By-law minimum requirement for bike storage. With the car share spaces and the additional Class A bicycle parking spaces, the Parking By-law minimum parking supply for vehicles can be reduced by a total of 39 spaces down to 383 stalls from the otherwise required 422 spaces. As a result, the proposed development with 311 spaces is 72 parking stalls short of the minimum By-Law requirement Melville - Office Building Development

23 APPENDIX A: PARKING REVIEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STATS: Total 61,194 sq.m = 658,687 sq.ft Retail 98 sq.m = 9,774 sq.ft Office 6,286 sq.m = 648,913 sq.ft Parking alls 287 includes 24 (H/C) Bicycle alls 135 (Class A) 15 (Class B) BYLAW REQUIREMENTS: Off Parking Bylaw Requirement Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) Parking Rate Total Required Accessible (H/C) Parking Rate H/C Required Total 658,687 61,194 1: 145 sqm (Min) 422 1: 115 sqm (Max) 533 Retail Office 9, , ,286 1: 145 sqm (Min) 1: 145 sqm (Min) space > 5 sq.m : 115 sqm (Max) 1: 115 sqm (Max) space for each 1 sq.m Bicycle Parking Bylaw Requirement Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) Class A Total Class A Class B Total Class B Total Class A + B Total 658,687 61,194 1: 5 sqm Retail 9, : 5 sqm 2 6 spaces >1, sq.m 2 Office 648,913 6,286 1: 5 sqm spaces >2, sq.m PARKING REDUCTION ANALYSIS Accessible Parking alls Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) H/C alls Ratio H/C Proposed Net Additional Parking alls Total 658,687 61,194 1 H/C = 2 andard Car Share Parking Analysis Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) Car Share to Office Ratio Recommended Car Share Space City's Allowance Net Parking Reduction Office 648,913 6,286 1: 7 (see note) 9 1:5 36 Note: Average rate based on 753 Seymour (1:684) & 61 W. Hastings (1:75) Bicycle to Parking Reduction Land Use Area (sq.ft) Area (sq.m) Bylaw Exemption Bicycle alls Bicycle all Range Parking Reduction Range Total 658,687 61,194 5Excess Bicycle alls = 1 Parking all Proposed Bylaw Max (1:3 sq.m) PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMARY Bylaw Requires: 422 Parking Reduction Proposed Potential H/C (1:2) Car Share (1:5) Bicycle (5:1) 3 16 Total Proposed Development andard 263 H/C 24 Total 287 Proposed Total 35 (with parking reduction) Potential Total 363 (with parking reduction) Melville - Office Building Development

24 Melville - Office Building Development - 2 -