Technical Proposal for. Bicycle Network and Priority List. Technical Proposal for

Transcription

1 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking RequirementsPrinted (Schedule C) from VicMap Technical Proposal for Bicycle Network WORKING and Priority PAPER List NO.3 # Parking Demand Proposal Assessment Technical Proposal for Bicycle Network and Priority List Proposal # e same Douglas Street... Rendering by Chris Foyd July 30, 2015 September July 30, 2015 Prepared by Boulevard Transportation Prepared by Boulevard / Watt Consulting Group Submitted totransportation thetransportation Corporation of the City of Victoria Prepared by Boulevard Submitted to the Corporation CityCorporation of Victoria of the City of Victoria Submittedoftothethe Alternate option Meters This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not S be accurate, current, orand otherwise reliable.this plan should be field confirmed by the user prior to begi INCE 1983 FONT =H OF SEAN NAD_1983_CSRS_UTM_Zone_10N CONSULTING GROUP = FRANKLIN GOTHIC DEMI COND #201, 791 Goldstream Ave, Victoria, BC V9B 2X5 #201, 791 Goldstream Ave, T mskene@blvdgroup.ca Victoria, BC V9B 2X5 T mskene@blvdgroup.ca # Goldstream Avenue Victoria BC CANADA V9B 2X5 t

2

3 CONTENTS 1. Overview Location / Context Vehicle Ownership Approach Housing Types Results Vehicle Ownership, Overall Vehicle Ownership, by Housing Type Vehicle Ownership, by Location Vehicle Ownership, by Number of Bedrooms Affordable Housing Transit Proximity Observations Commercial, Retail Commercial, Office Commercial, Restaurant Multi-Residential Visitor Other Hotel Hospital Travel Survey Methodology Results Current Research Multi-Residential Parking Demand Location Housing Tenure + Resident Characteristics Unit Size Proximity to Transit Visitor Parking Impact of Transportation Demand Management on Parking Demand Carsharing Transit Pass Program Summary of Key Findings Summary Location... 21

4 6.2. Multi-Residential Housing Type / Tenure Location Size / Number of Bedrooms Multi-Residential Visitors Commercial / Other Hotel Hospital Appendix A: Summary of ICBC Vehicle Ownership Information Appendix B: Summary of Retail Observations Appendix C: Summary of Office Observations Appendix D: Summary of Restaurant Observations Appendix E: Summary of Residential Visitor Observations Appendix F: Summary of Hotel Observations Appendix G: Example of Travel Survey Appendix H: Summary of Travel Survey Results

5 1. Overview The City of Victoria is undertaking a comprehensive review of the off-street parking regulations contained in Schedule C of the Zoning Regulation Bylaw. The review seeks to better align parking regulations with the policies and objectives of the Official Community Plan (OCP), and revise the minimum parking supply rates required in Schedule C to be consistent with actual parking demand. Working Paper no.3 is the third of five working papers that will be prepared during the review process. It is a summary of the data collection and analysis work completed in understanding local parking demand and includes the following: Summary of vehicle ownership rates among multi-residential sites condominium (strata), apartment (rental), affordable; Summary of parking demand observations among commercial land uses (retail, office, restaurant) and multi-residential visitors; Summary of parking demand rates determined through a travel survey administered to commercial (retail, office, restaurant); and Summary of relevant, current research of parking demand in nearby or representative communities Location / Context Different locations of the City exhibit varying walkability, access to multi-modal travel options and affordability. All are factors known to influence parking demand. As such, the parking demand measures referred to in the following sections have been summarized based on location, where possible, and referred to as follows: 1. Downtown Area: Sites within the Core areas as defined by the OCP and identified urban residential areas immediately adjacent; 2. Village / Centre: Sites in Large Urban Villages or Town Centres as defined by the OCP; and 3. Remainder: Sites outside those areas defined above. A map of the proposed areas is included on the following page. See Figure 1. These locations are proposed as formal designations that would appear in Schedule C and to which locationspecific required parking supply rates are assigned to. WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 1

6 FIGURE 1. PROPOSED PARKING AREAS WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 2

7 2. Vehicle Ownership 2.1. Approach Vehicle ownership rates were developed for representative existing multi-residential sites in the City. Vehicle ownership data is obtained from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for each identified site through their Vehicle Ownership Information Request program. All information is from September 2013 to March. The number of units for each study site is established through Canada Post s Find a Postal Code 1 and cross-referenced using the Canadian Real Estate Association s Multiple Listing Service 2 (condominium sites) or apartment rental agency online listings. Vehicle ownership does not account for visitor parking demand, which is considered through observations and research (see Section 3.4) Housing Types Vehicle ownership data is considered for three multi-residential land use types. The terms are somewhat inconsistent in the current Schedule C, but have been defined for the purposes of this review and will likely be further refined in the updated Schedule C, as follows: 1. Condominium: Subject to strata title ownership, may or may not allow for rental; 2. Apartment: Owned by a single property owner or agency and rented to tenants at market rates; and 3. Affordable Housing: Housing sold or rented below market rates, or where land developers contribute to an affordable housing fund 3. 1 Available online at: 2 Available online at: 3 Mayor s Task Force on Housing Affordability Recommendations, pg. 8. Available online at: Mayor_s%20Task%20Force%20on%20Housing%20Affordability%20Recomm.pdf WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 3

8 2.2. Results Vehicle ownership information was analyzed using the approach outlined above. Results are presented in the following sections. See Appendix A for a summary of all ownership data Vehicle Ownership, Overall Vehicle ownership information was obtained for 126 multi-residential sites consisting of a total of 6,475 units. The average overall vehicle ownership rate was found to be 0.63 vehicles per unit. The average vehicle ownership rate was 0.65 vehicles per unit if filtered to exclude affordable housing sites Vehicle Ownership, by Housing Type Vehicle ownership rates were considered between Condominium (strata owned), Apartment (market rental), and Affordable sites. The average vehicle ownership rate among condominiums was found to be 0.74 vehicles per unit, where the rate among apartments was 0.49 vehicles per unit. See Table 1. This suggests that parking demand is approximately 50% higher in Condominiums as compared to Apartments. Vehicle ownership among Affordable sites was 0.50 vehicles per unit, approximately 30% lower than the average among Condominium and Apartment sites. Affordable sites are considered in more detail in Section TABLE 1. VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, BY HOUSING TYPE Housing Type Study Sites Average (per unit) Owned Vehicles 85 th Percentile (per unit) Range (per unit) Condominium Apartment Affordable Overall Information contained in Table 1 is based on vehicle ownership information from ICBC WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 4

9 Vehicle Ownership, by Location Vehicle ownership rates were considered by geographic area Downtown Area, Village / Centre, Remainder. Refer to Section 1.1 for definition of each area. The average vehicle ownership rate among Downtown Area sites was found to be 0.57 vehicles per unit, approximately 25% to 30% lower than rates among sites in the Village / Centre or Remainder areas. See Table 2. The difference between Downtown Area and non-downtown Area sites was greater among Apartments (approximately 40%). Vehicle ownership rates among sites in the Village / Centre area were marginally higher than those in the Remainder areas for condominium, but not apartments. TABLE 2. AVERAGE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, BY AREA / LOCATION Location Condominium + Apartment Avg. (per unit) 85 th Percentile (per unit) Condominium Only Avg. (per unit) 85 th Percentile (per unit) Avg. (per unit) Apartment Only 85 th Percentile (per unit) Downtown Area (1) Village / Centre (2) Remainder (3) Overall Information contained in Table 2 is based on vehicle ownership information from ICBC Vehicle Ownership, by Number of Bedrooms Vehicle ownership data was assessed based on number of bedrooms, as it is understood that larger units and/or those with a greater number of bedrooms exhibit higher parking demand. Parking demand ratios between multi-residential units of differing number of bedrooms are indicated in numerous studies in Metro Vancouver, Toronto, and King County. Local ratios were calculated by a small number of sites (six sites in total), and are most representative of the radios included in the King County study 4. See Table 3. Those ratios applied to the average vehicle ownership rates found for the Victoria sites 5 result in rates ranging from 0.31 vehicles per unit among bachelor / studio units to 1.04 vehicles per unit among three-bedroom units. 4 King County Metro. (2013). Right Size Parking Model Code. Table 2, page 21. Available online at: 5 Assumed breakdown of units is 10% bachelor, 40% one-bedroom, 40% two-bedroom, 10% three-bedroom WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 5

10 TABLE 3. AVERAGE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Location Demand Ratio 6 Condominium + Apartment Avg. (per unit) 85 th Percentile (per unit) Condominium Only Avg. (per unit) 85 th Percentile (per unit) Avg. (per unit) Apartment Only 85 th Percentile (per unit) Bachelor / Studio One-Bedroom +20% Two-Bedroom +60% Three-Bedroom+ +15% Information contained in Table 3 is based on vehicle ownership information from ICBC Affordable Housing Vehicle ownership rates for Affordable sites have been considered in detail. As noted above, average vehicle ownership among Affordable sites was found to be 0.50 vehicles per unit (approximately 30% less than non-affordable sites). The majority of the Affordable sites surveyed contain two-bedroom, three-bedroom or townhouse units that are assumed to be larger than typical Condominium and Apartment units that were surveyed. If the demand ratio between bachelor and two-bedroom units (per Section 2.2.4) were applied to the average ownership rate among Affordable site, the resulting vehicle ownership rate would be approximately 0.27 vehicles per unit among Affordable bachelor units. Vehicle ownership rates were considered for subsidized versus non-subsidized sites 7. Rates vary only slightly, where subsidized sites (n=16) average 0.50 vehicles per unit and nonsubsidized sites (n=7) average 0.52 vehicles per unit. Vehicle ownership rates were considered based on the targeted tenant group. Results found that vehicle ownership rates were nearly double among sites targeting families as compared to those targeting seniors Transit Proximity Vehicle ownership was assessed based on proximity to higher order transit routes 8. No significant variation in vehicle ownership was observed among sites directly adjacent or within 200m of a higher order route as compared to those beyond 200m of a higher order route. Established research suggests that sites close to transit exhibit reduced parking demand. See Section Demand ratio based on findings from Metro Vancouver study, Table 21, page 44 7 Non-subsidized includes supported, non-subsidized, market and affordable housing as identified on the respective management companies website 8 Higher order transit routes are the Rapid and Frequent Transit routes identified in the Official Community Plan, pg 57, Map 5 WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 6

11 3. Observations Observations were conducted at select sites in the City of Victoria for Retail, Office, Restaurant and Multi-Residential Visitor land uses. Sites were selected that have a discrete off-street parking area deemed to accommodate all (or the majority) of the site s parking demand and, as a result, the majority of sites are located in the Remainder area (i.e., outside the Downtown Area and Village / Centre areas). Results identified include average parking demand and 85 th percentile parking demand. A survey was also distributed to understand commercial parking demand among Downtown Area and Village / Centre sites. See Section Commercial, Retail Observations of parking demand were completed at 17 retail sites that are believed to accommodate employee and customer vehicles on site (rather than on-street or elsewhere) and provide a full account of parking demand. Sites selected included larger big box stores (i.e. furniture stores) and small specialized stores (i.e. bike shop, paint store). Observations were completed over three time periods representing peak periods for retail as follows (see Table 4): 1. 1:00pm on Wednesday, March :30pm on Saturday, March :30pm on Saturday, April 16 The Saturday mid-day observation yielded the highest parking demand with an average rate of 1 vehicle per 76m² among the 17 sites and ranging from 1 vehicle per 294m² to 1 vehicle per 33m². The 85 th percentile was 1 vehicle per 50m². A comprehensive summary of retail parking observations is included in Appendix B. TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RETAIL OBSERVATIONS Wednesday March 09, 1:00pm Number of Sites Demand Rate (Average) Demand Rate (85 th Percentile) 1 / 85m² 1 / 50m² Saturday March 12, 1:30pm 17 1 / 88m² 1 / 52m² Saturday April 16, 1:30pm 1 / 76m² 1 / 50m² Information contained in Table 4 is based on observations at retail sites WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 7

12 3.2. Commercial, Office Observations of parking demand were completed at 15 office sites that are believed to accommodate employee and customer vehicles on site (rather than on-street or elsewhere) and provide a full account of parking demand. Sites selected included government and private offices. Observations were completed over three time periods representing peak periods for office as follows (see Table 5): 1. 10:00am on Wednesday, March :00pm on Wednesday, March :00am on Tuesday, April 18 The Tuesday mid-day observation yielded the highest parking demand with an average rate of one vehicle per 56m² among the 15 sites. The 85 th percentile was one vehicle per 34m². A comprehensive summary of office parking observations is included in Appendix C. TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF OFFICE OBSERVATIONS Wednesday March 09, 10:00am Number of Sites Demand Rate (Average) Demand Rate (85 th Percentile) 1 / 60m² 1 / 40m² Wednesday March 09, 2:00pm 15 1 / 74m² 1 / 51m² Tuesday April 18, 10:00am 1 / 56m² 1 / 34m² Information contained in Table 5 is based on observations at office sites WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 8

13 3.3. Commercial, Restaurant Observations of parking demand were completed at 11 restaurant sites that are believed to accommodate employee and customer vehicles on site (rather than on-street or elsewhere) and provide a full account of parking demand. The majority of sites are casual sit-down restaurants and include one fast food restaurant. Observations were completed over three time periods representing peak periods for restaurants as follows (see Table 6): 1. 6:00pm on Wednesday, March :00pm on Friday, March :00pm on Saturday, April 02 The Friday and Saturday evening observations yielded the highest parking demand with an average rate of one vehicle per 25m² among the 11 sites and ranging from one vehicle per 50m² to one vehicle per 11m². A comprehensive summary of restaurant parking observations is included in Appendix D. TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RESTAURANT OBSERVATIONS Wednesday March 09, 6:00pm Number of Sites Demand Rate (Average) Demand Rate (85 th Percentile) 1 / 29m² 1 / 20m² Friday March 11, 6:00pm 11 1 / 25m² 1 / 18m² Saturday April 02, 6:00pm 1 / 25m² 1 / 19m² Information contained in Table 6 is based on observations at restaurant sites WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 9

14 3.4. Multi-Residential Visitor Observations of visitor parking were completed at 16 multi-residential sites that are believed to accommodate visitor vehicles on-site (rather than on-street or elsewhere) and provide a full account of visitor parking demand. Observations were completed over three time periods representing peak periods for visitor parking, as follows: 1. 9:00pm on Wednesday, March :30pm on Friday, March :30pm on Saturday, April 11 The Friday evening observation yielded the highest visitor parking demand, with an average rate of 0.07 vehicles per unit among the 16 sites and ranging from 0.02 to 0.20 visitor vehicles per unit. See Table 7. Average visitor parking demand among condominium (strata owned) sites was approximately double that of apartment (market rental) sites during all observations. Only two of the 16 sites had visitor rates exceeding 0.1 vehicles per unit. A comprehensive summary of visitor parking observations is included in Appendix E. TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL VISITOR OBSERVATIONS 9 No. Sites Observed Visitor Parking Demand (vehicles per unit) Average Range Condominium Only (Strata owned) Apartment Only (Market rental) All Sites Information contained in Table 7 is based on observations at multi-family residential sites, visitor parking only 9 Summary is from the Friday, March 11 observation period WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 10

15 3.5. Other Hotel Observations of 25 hotel sites in Victoria were completed in September 10. Study sites were located in various locations / contexts throughout the City and consist of a combination of hotels (n=18) and motels (n=7). Only hotels with a dedicated off-street parking area where observed vehicles are deemed representative of the majority of site parking demand were observed. A comprehensive summary of hotel parking observations is included in Appendix F. Results suggest an average parking demand rate of 0.49 vehicles per room, with site-by-site rates ranging from 0.22 to 0.88 vehicles per room. There was little differentiation in parking demand rates between hotel (0.48 vehicles per room) and motel (0.51 vehicles per room) sites. Hotel parking demand was assessed based on proximity to downtown. Results found that sites within the Downtown (definition per OCP, bound by Chatham St, Blanshard St / Quadra St, Burdett Ave, Inner Harbour) experienced demand of 0.29 vehicles per room, which is about half the demand rate observed by non-downtown sites (0.51 vehicles per room). See Table 8. Sites adjacent downtown (defined as Core Area and Core Area Periphery) did not exhibit meaningfully lower parking demand than Outlying Areas. TABLE 8. HOTEL PARKING DEMAND, BY LOCATION Location No. Sites Parking Demand (vehicles per room) Downtown Core Area Core Area Periphery Outlying Areas Sites within the Core Historic and Core Business areas as defined by the OCP and Downtown Core Area Plan Sites within the Downtown Core Area as defined by the OCP and Downtown Core Area Plan, but excluding those included in the Downtown (above) Sites within 200m (+/-) of the defined Core Area (above) Sites outside those areas defined above, typically more than 1-km from downtown Information contained in Table 8 is based on observations at hotel sites Observations were completed on Thursday, September 4 th between 8:00pm and 11:00pm WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 11

16 Hospital A comprehensive transportation study was prepared for the Royal Jubilee Hospital (RJH) in August The purpose of the study, among other things, was to understand current parking demand in order to forecast site parking supply needs in the future. The study involved on-site parking observations over five time periods to identify peak period parking demand. Targeted off-site observations and a travel survey were undertaken to estimate the quantity of staff and visitor vehicles accommodated off-site. The study concluded that existing hospital parking demand is one vehicle per 80m 2 GFA, which includes vehicles on- and off-site. This rate has been included in the Master Campus Plan 12 as the agreed upon parking supply rate for future site development and endorsed by the City. There are other hospital sites in the City and consideration should be given to ensuring the parking rate developed for the RJH site is given appropriate consideration if it is to be applied for all hospital sites, as follows: 1. RJH has access to high-order transit service via Fort Street and Richmond Road 13 where other sites may not; 2. A successful transportation demand management (TDM) program has been executed at RJH over the past ten years that includes priced parking and subsidized employee transit passes; and 3. Required supply rates in representative communities are approximately 10 to 15% higher (one space per 71m 2 ) than the observed demand rate. Given the conditions at the RJH site (above) that may not be available at other hospitals, a rate more in line with required supply rates in other communities may be more appropriate. 11 Boulevard Transportation, Royal Jubilee Hospital Parking + Transportation Study, August Royal Jubilee Hospital Master Plan , available at: 13 BC Transit s Transit Future Plan identifies Fort Street as a Regional Route and Richmond Road as a Frequent Route WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 12

17 4. Travel Survey 4.1. Methodology A travel survey was administered among commercial land uses to supplement in-field observations (see Section ). The survey sought to understand travel mode choice among commercial land uses, which could then be applied against floor area and/or employee/customer populations to develop a parking demand rate. The survey is included in Appendix G. The survey was distributed to more than 100 businesses by and in hardcopy. The focus was on sites in the Downtown Area and Village / Centre areas, as these areas could not be captured effectively through in-field observations. The final response rate was very low, with only six surveys completed (two restaurants, two offices and two retail sites) Results Limited responses were received from the selected businesses, and therefore, results are not substantial enough to make valid conclusions. However, of responses received, parking demand rates were developed based on the mode share findings from the travel survey and estimates of the maximum number of employees and customers in each business at one time 14. Results suggest parking demand for each land use is as follows - one vehicle per 7m² for Restaurant, one vehicle per 16m² for Retail and one vehicle per 27 m² for Office. See Table 9. A full summary of survey results is included in Appendix H. TABLE 9. PARKING DEMAND, BASED ON TRAVEL SRUVEY RESULTS Land Use Parking Demand Restaurant 1 vehicle per 7m² Retail 1 vehicle per 16m² Office 1 vehicle per 27m² Information contained in Table 9 is based on results from the travel survey Note: Travel survey results are based on a limited number of survey responses and assumptions on the maximum number of employee/customers provided by business owners. As such, they do not present a reliable, comprehensive account of parking demand and should be relied on only to support conclusions derived through other sources (i.e., data collection, research, public feedback). 14 Based on phone conversations on July 25, to each business. WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 13

18 5. Current Research To supplement and corroborate the findings above, secondary research was undertaken to summarize parking demand analysis conducted elsewhere 15 and better understand the factors that influence parking demand. This review was focused on investigating the following items: 1. Parking demand differences among multi-residential sites including location, unit size, tenure, and proximity to transit; 2. Visitor parking demand; and 3. Impact of transportation demand management (TDM) on parking demand including carsharing, transit passes, and bike parking Multi-Residential Parking Demand There has been extensive research on the parking demand trends of multi-residential buildings in different jurisdictions in North America. Research has found that vehicle ownership / parking demand can vary based on housing tenure (rental vs condominium), resident characteristics (e.g., low-income, seniors), unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms) and location relative to downtown and/or transit. The key findings from the research are summarized below Location Parking demand among multi-residential tenants has been found to differ based on the location. For example, a parking study of multi-residential buildings in the City of Toronto found that at condominium sites, vehicle demand in downtown sites was half that of vehicle demand in areas outside of the downtown 16. Research from King County, Washington has confirmed this finding. The study examined 208 sites representing various types of multi-residential development around King County. It found that multi-residential sites in the Central Business District had a parking demand of 0.51 vehicles per occupied dwelling unit, compared with suburban sites where the rate was 1.18 vehicles per occupied dwelling unit, suggesting an increase of 57% in parking demand for suburban areas Representative municipalities were selected based on their usefulness of research findings. These municipalities are featured here to provide information on how parking is dynamic and why that would impact revising Schedule C. 16 City of Toronto. (2007). Parking Standards Review Phase Two Apartment Building/Multi-Unit Block Developments Component, New Zoning By-law Project. Available online at: environment/files/pdf/cansult_final_apart_stds.pdf 17 Rowe, D., McCourt, R.S., Morse, S., & P. Haas. (2013). Do Land Use, Transit, and Walk Access Affect Residential Parking Demand. The ITE Journal, pp Available online at: WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 14

19 Finally, some studies have explored differences in parking demand using Walkscore 18. In general, areas with greater access and proximity to amenities have a higher score which tend to be in more compact and built up areas. The King County, Washington study found an inverse relationship between Walk Score and vehicles per unit; as the number of vehicles per unit decreases, a higher Walk Score was observed Housing Tenure + Resident Characteristics Existing research has generally concluded that rental apartments have lower parking demand than strata condominiums. A study from Metro Vancouver found that for purpose-built market rental sites, the parking demand ranged from 0.58 to 0.72 vehicles per apartment unit. For strata condominium units, the rate was 1.14 vehicles per unit, suggesting that apartments have anywhere from 36-49% less parking demand than condominiums 20. The parking study from the City of Toronto had a similar finding; the city-wide average for surveyed condominiums was approximately 1.08 vehicles per unit compared to the average for market rental units of 0.73 vehicles per unit, suggesting that apartments have 33% less demand. However, inconsistencies were found depending on location. In suburban locations, market rental apartments and condominium units had the same vehicle ownership rates at 1.08 vehicles per unit. In addition, the study explored tenure within condominium buildings and found small differences in vehicle ownership between owners and renters. Owner-occupied 2 bedroom condominiums had an average of vehicles per unit compared to an average of vehicles per unit for tenant-occupied 2 bedroom units, which represents a marginal decrease of 3%. The study explains that a potential reason for this finding is that higher income renters might be more drawn to condo buildings than market rental buildings. The City of Toronto parking study also examined the vehicle ownership rates in targeted rental buildings which included Toronto Community Housing, seniors buildings, co-op apartments, and private sector buildings that include rent-geared-to-income units. The average reported vehicle ownership for these units was 0.31 vehicles per unit when controlling for location and unit size. This finding is also supported by King County s parking model code (Seattle, WA), which recommends that parking demand associated with very low-income and low-income residents be adjusted to 50% and 65% of the unit requirement, respectively. For units housing 18 Walk Score is a large-scale publically accessible walkability index that assigns a numerical walkability score to any address in the US, Canada, and Australia. More information about Walk Score is available online at: 19 Rowe, D., McCourt, R.S., Morse, S., & P. Haas. (2013). Do Land Use, Transit, and Walk Access Affect Residential Parking Demand. The ITE Journal, pp Available online at: 20 Metro Vancouver. (2012). Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study. Available online at: WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 15

20 seniors and assisted living, the parking demand can be adjusted to 50% and 33% of the unit requirement, respectively Unit Size The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study found that parking supply, demand, and the number of vehicles per households all increase with the number of bedrooms. Bachelor and one-bedroom units have at most one vehicle whereas two-bedroom units have, on average, fewer than 1.4 vehicles to park 22. Average parking demand in condominium sites includes the following: Bachelor Units 0.88 vehicles per dwelling unit 1-bedroom Units 1.09 vehicles per dwelling unit 2-bedroom Units 1.33 vehicles per dwelling unit 3-bedroom Units 1.57 vehicles per dwelling unit The City of Toronto parking study also found stark differences in vehicle ownership both by housing type and unit size. For condominiums, average parking demand rates are as follows: Bachelor Units 0.5 vehicles per dwelling unit 1-bedroom Units 0.85 vehicles per dwelling unit 2-bedroom Units 1.13 vehicles per dwelling unit 3-bedroom Units 1.27 vehicles per dwelling unit The rates presented above are for condominium strata owned units. The City of Toronto study also summarized vehicle ownership rates by unit size for rental apartments. In general, the rates for rental were found to be significantly lower than for condo where the difference was as small as 10% for 3-bedroom units to as large as 106% for bachelor units. Finally, the King County Parking Model Code acknowledges that parking demand differs based on unit size. The code recommends that parking demand associated with studio/bachelor units be 85% that of one-bedroom units. The anticipated demand rates for 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and three-bedroom units are 1.0, 1.6, and 1.8 vehicles per unit, respectively. 21 King County Metro. (2013). The King County Right Size Parking Project Model Code. Available online at: 22 Metro Vancouver. (2012). Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study. Available online at: WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 16

21 Proximity to Transit The relationship between transit proximity and parking demand has been well studied. Generally, residents who live near transit are less likely to own vehicles and therefore require less parking 23. This was confirmed by a technical study in King County, Washington which found that residents of a building in a downtown location with high levels of transit access and job access will require less parking than a building in a suburban location with few amenities or travel options 24. This finding has been confirmed in other studies, summarized below: The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study found that residential parking demand was 15% lower near TransLink s Frequent Transit Network (FTN). Parking demand for apartments in proximity to the FTN ranged from 0.89 to 1.06 vehicles per unit; apartments further from the FTN had a parking demand range of 1.10 to 1.25 vehicles per unit. A study from Santa Clara, California examined parking demand for multi-residential buildings within 800 metres and 1,600 metres of a rail station. It found that the parking supply (1.68 stalls per unit) exceeded parking demand (1.31 parked vehicles per unit) for all sites by an average of 22%. The study recommended that parking demand in transitoriented sites in Santa Clara County could support a parking requirement of 1.3 stalls per unit 25. A study from King County, Washington explored the impact of transit service on parking demand in two urban centres in the county. The study found that the First Hill Capitol Hill, which abuts downtown Seattle, exhibited higher levels of transit service and lower parking demand. Parking demand in this urban centre was 0.52 parking spaces per unit, or 50% less than the parking demand observed in Richmond, a growing mixed-use suburban centre The King County Right Size Parking Project Model Code is available online at: 24 Centre for Neighborhood Technology. (2013). The Right Size Parking Project King County Metro Transit. Technical Memo. Available online at: 25 San José State University & Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. (2010). A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County. SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project, Volume I: Technical Report, Rowe, D.H., Bae, C.H., & Q Sing. (2013). Evaluating the Impact of Transit Service on Parking Demand and Requirements. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2245, pp Available online at: WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 17

22 5.2. Visitor Parking The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study provided useful conclusions about how to approach visitor parking. Developers interviewed through the study reported that the commonlyused minimum visitor parking requirement of 0.2 stalls per apartment unit is excessive. Developers reported that in some cases, surplus visitor parking spaces were sold to tenants as privately assigned parking stalls rather than retained as designated visitor parking stalls. In addition, the research found that secured gates make visitor parking less accessible and result in under-use. The study found that across the region, visitor parking was oversupplied; observed parking demand rates were below 0.1 stall per unit. The City of Toronto parking study found that visitor parking demands for both condo and rental apartments are lower in the downtown core and highest in the outer suburbs where access to transit is limited. Based on the statistical results, the study recommended visitor parking rates of 0.1 stall per unit in the downtown core, central waterfront, and sites along transit. A rate of 0.2 stalls per unit was recommended for all remaining parts of the city. As part of a Community Improvement Plan, the City of Waterloo updated its minimum off-street parking requirements for the area bounded by the two universities and within the rapid transit corridor. The visitor parking rate for this area is 0.05 parking spaces per unit, which is the lowest rate found in this research thus far Impact of Transportation Demand Management on Parking Demand Carsharing Carsharing programs continue to grow in popularity in North America and research has found that these programs are having an impact on reducing vehicle ownership. Below is a summary of key findings: A comprehensive study in California found a decrease in average vehicle ownership from 0.47 to 0.24 vehicles per household among households that joined carshare services, an approximately 50% reduction in vehicle ownership 28. A study of carshare programs in the City of Toronto found that vehicle ownership rates at condominium sites without carshare vehicles was 1.07 vehicles per unit, whereas buildings with one or more carshare vehicles had significantly lower rates at To learn more about the off-street parking requirements in Kitchener and Waterloo, Ontario, visit the following study available online at: Street_Parking Loading_Study_Report_August_26_2015_MERGED.pdf 28 Martin & Shaheen. (2011). The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership. Access Magazine, Spring 2011 WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 18

23 vehicles per unit, which represents a 50% reduction in vehicle ownership rates 29. Note, the study controlled for variables such as walking distance to transit, number of carshare vehicles within 400 metres of a site, and Walkscore. A study of over 3,400 carshare households in Metro Vancouver 30 concluded two findings with direct relevance: o o On average, up to three private personal vehicles were shed per carshare vehicle; and The number of carshare vehicles within walking distance has a small but statistically significant relationship with apartment household vehicle holdings Transit Pass Program Research on the impact of transit passes on parking demand is limited in Canada. However, research from the US has found that transit passes at post-secondary institutions have been found to double or triple the portion of trips made by transit as college students are more sensitive to pricing adjustments 31. A study of the University of Washington found that after the introduction of the U-Pass (transit pass), the percentage of students driving to campus decreased from 25% to 14%. For faculty and staff, a reduction of 9% was observed 32. Another study explored the effects of a transit pass on parking demand at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The study found that the number of students who drove to campus decreased by 33% after the introduction of a transit pass. In addition, the number of students on a waitlist for parking decreased by 33% following the implementation of the transit pass 33. These results may not be applicable to general parking regulation rates as a captive student population is known to be more sensitive to price adjustments. 29 City of Toronto. (2009). Parking Standards Review: Examination of Potential Options and Impacts of Car Share Programs on Parking Standards. Available online at: environment/files/pdf/car_share_ pdf 30 Metro Vancouver. (). The Metro Vancouver Car Share Study: Technical Report. Available online at: 31 Litman, T. (2004). Transit Price Elasticities. Journal of Public Transportation, 7(2), pp Nuworsoo, C. (2015). Discounting Transit Prices. Access Magazine, Spring Available online at: 33 Ibid WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 19

24 5.4. Summary of Key Findings The most salient findings from the research are summarized as follows: At least three studies confirmed that proximity to transit has been shown to reduce parking demand. Victoria s Frequent Transit Network could be considered when evaluating the anticipated parking demand rates for sites along the FTN. Rental units tend to have lower parking demand than owner occupied condominium units. A rate of 0.1 visitor parking stalls per unit is an appropriate and realistic rate given the amount of research on this topic. The location of a multi-residential site matters for parking demand; the studies reviewed found a significant difference in demand rates among downtown / CBDs and other areas of a city including the suburbs. Based on available research, TDM tools such as carsharing programs and transit passes have been shown to have a measurable impact on reducing parking demand. WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 20

25 6. Summary The following is a brief overview of the findings of Working Paper no.3. These results will be cross-compared with research findings and feedback from stakeholders to help form the basis of recommendations related to minimum supply rates for Schedule C. The rates contained in this document (and in the summary) are not the recommended rates that will be included in Schedule C, they provide a summary of results from ICBC information, observations, surveys and research Location Different locations of the City exhibit varying walkability, access to multi-modal travel options and affordability that influence parking demand. Location designations include Downtown Area, Village / Centre and Remainder. These names will be confirmed with City staff / Council and potentially included in Schedule C for location-specific required parking supply rates Multi-Residential Housing Type / Tenure Average vehicle ownership rates were calculated by housing tenure / type, as follows: Condominium (strata owned) vehicles per unit Apartment (market rental) vehicles per unit Affordable vehicles per unit o Affordable rates were found to be similar to Apartment rates, although Affordable sites typically contain larger units and/or townhouses. Research findings are as follows: Location Market rental apartments have a 33-49% lower parking demand than condominiums (strata owned). Units that target seniors, co-op apartments, and rent geared to income have a parking demand that is approximately half of the conventional parking requirement. Average vehicle ownership rates were calculated by location, as follows: Downtown Area vehicles per unit Village / Centre vehicles per unit Remainder vehicles per unit WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 21

26 Research concludes that sites in a downtown core have approximately 50% lower parking demand than outside of the downtown. Parking demand was considered for proximity to public transit, as follows: No correlation was found between vehicle ownership rates and proximity to transit. Research from elsewhere suggests that sites with access to transit experience lower parking demand (up to 50% reduced). Size / Number of Bedrooms Research suggests the following parking demand ratios: One-bedroom units have a 24% higher demand than bachelor units; Two-bedroom units have a 22% higher demand than one-bedroom units; and Three-bedroom units have an 18% higher demand than two-bedroom units The following was conclusions were reached for Affordable Housing: Parking demand among affordable bachelor units is approximately 0.25 vehicles per unit if considered using ratios (above). Vehicle ownership rates were nearly double among Affordable sites targeting families as compared to those targeting seniors. The following expected parking demand rates by unit size were concluded in research from elsewhere: Bachelor to 0.88 vehicles per unit One-Bedroom to 1.09 vehicles per unit Two-Bedroom to 1.6 vehicles per unit Three-Bedroom to 1.8 vehicles per unit 6.3. Multi-Residential Visitors Visitor parking demand was observed at 0.07 vehicles per unit (16 sites). Visitor parking demand varies between Condominium sites (0.10 vehicles per unit) and Apartment sites (0.05 vehicles per unit). Summary of research from elsewhere concluded that expected visitor parking demand is 0.1 vehicles per unit in downtown and 0.2 vehicles per unit in locations outside of downtown with fewer transportation options. Research also concludes that typical visitor parking requirements greater than 0.2 spaces per unit is excessive. WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 22

27 6.4. Commercial / Other In-field observations concluded the following parking demand rates: Retail - 1 vehicle per 76m² (17 sites) Office 1 vehicle per 56m² (15 sites) Restaurant - 1 vehicle per 25m² (11 sites) A travel survey was administered among Downtown Area and Village / Centre businesses. The response rate was limited, but results suggest parking demand is greater than the rates concluded through observations. Hotel Average parking demand was 0.49 vehicles per room based on observations. Downtown sites experience approximately 50% of the parking demand experienced elsewhere in the City. Hospital Observations were conducted at an existing Royal Jubilee Hospital site (on- and off-site parking) and resulted in a parking demand of 1 vehicle per 80m². This is the most major hospital site in the City, but may not accurately represent parking demand at other hospital sites. WORKING PAPER no.3 PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) 23

28 APPENDIX A Summary of ICBC Vehicle Ownership Information

29 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 524 Yates Street "The Leiser" X X Pandora Avenue "Union" X X Herald Street "601 Herald" X X Broughton Street "The Sovereign" X X Herald Street "648 Herald" X X Burdett Avenue "The Falls" X X Yates Street "Era" X X Humboldt Street "Aria" X X Fisgard Street "The Hudson" X X Cormorant Street "Corazon" X X Yates Street "The Wave" X X Oct View Street "The Metropolitan" X X Oct View Street "860 View" X X Oct Johnson Street "The Juliet" X X Oct Johnson Street "The 834" X X Oct View Street "Regent's Park" X X Oct Yates Street "1030 Yates" X X Apr Johnson Street "The Urban" X X Apr Yates Street "The Manhattan" X X Oct Johnson Street "Brookman Place" X X Oct 31

30 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 1090 Johnson Street "The Mondrian" X X Oct Pandora Avenue "Pacific Monarch" X X Oct Fort Street "1022 Fort" X X Dec Michigan Street "Duet" X X Tyee Road "Balance" X X July Tyee Road "Balance" X X July Tyee Road "Synergy" X X July Tyee Road "Synergy" X X July Sitkum Road "The Edge" X X Apr Bay Street "Lexington Park" X X July Meares Street "1030 Meares" X X Dec Pandora Avenue "Stadacona Centre" X X Hillside Avenue "1025 Hillside" X X Hillside Avenue "Hillcrest Center" X X Waterfront Crescent "South Circle" X X Menzies Street "Carriage House" X X Cook Street "Essencia Verde" X X Park Boulevard "East Park" X X Dec Wilson Street "Parc Residences" X X Apr Menzies Street "The Vicino" X X Dec

31 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 118 Croft Street "Bramlea Court" X X Harrison Street "Lord Harrison" X X Morrison Street "1537 Morrison" X X Bay Street "Nova" X X Richmond Ave "The Oaks" X X Quadra Street "Maple Terrace" X X Washington Avenue "Carrington Court" X X Burnside Road East "331 Burnside" X X Toronto Street "Robert's House" X X Quadra Street "Sandpiper" X X Sept Sutlej Street "1035 Sutlej" X X Dec Southgate Street "The Fairhaven" X X Dec Southgate Street "Southgate Villa" X X Dec Oscar Street "The Midlands" X X Dec Oscar Street "Glenmuir Place" X X Dec Hilda Street "Castleholm Manor" X X Dec Maitland Road "Sea West Quay" X X July Maitland Road "Sea West Quay" X X July Gorge Road East "356 Gorge" X X Apr Waterfront Crescent "365 Waterfront" X X Apr 30

32 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 439 Cook Street "Village Park" X X Dec Tyee Road "Bond's Landing III" X X Apr Tyee Road "The Railyards" X X Apr Regatta Landing "The Railyards" X X Apr Pendergast Street "Edgemont Villa" X X Dec Fairfield Road "The Westfield" X X Dec Linden Avenue "Woodstone Place" X X Dec Yates Street "Wilden Lofts" X X Dec Cook Street "Sterling Park" X X Dec Yates Street "Renaissance Lofts" X X Feb Yates Street "The Churchill" X X Feb Johnson Street "Grand Central" X X Feb Douglas St "The Q" X X Balmoral Road "Camilin Manor" X X Sept Pandora Avenue "1022 Pandora" X X Sept View Street "Tara Place Apartments" X X Sept Pandora Avenue "Pandora Villa" X X Sept Simcoe Street "James Bay Square" X X North Park Street "Cubbon Apartments" X X Quadra Street "2559 Quadra" X X

33 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 1928 Lee Avenue "Cranmere Apartments" X X Linden Avenue "Cheateau Diane" X X Southgate Street "Southview Arms" X X Hillside Avenue Sansar Apartments X X Hillside Avenue "1317 Hillside" X X Pandora Avenue "Vista Royale Apartments" X X Pandora Avenue "Chateau Rembrandt" X X Harrison Street "1343 Harrison" X X Niagara Street "Niagara Court Aprts" X X Collinson Street "Buckingham Manor" X X Cook Street "Villa Mistral" X X Sept Pembroke Street "1020 Pembroke" X X Sept Quadra Street "Antrim Court" X X Sept Queens Avenue "Queenston Manor" X X Sept Queens Avenue "Queens Avenue Aprts" X X Sept Quadra Street "Forest Heights" X X Dec Balmoral Road "Braemore Manor" X X Sept Cook Street "Villa Mistral" X X Sept Dowler Place "2549 Dowler" X X Sept Ridge Road "Ridgemont" X X Sept

34 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 1147 View Street "Central View Manor" X X Sept Wark Street "Wark House" X X Sept Yates Street "1158 Yates" X X Sept Collinson Street "Campbell Lodge" X X subsidized, rent geared to income; seniors 1025 North Park Street "Centre Court" X X subsidized; townhomes; families, disabilities 510 Dalton Street "Seawind Corners" 749 Pandora Avenue "749 Pandora" 467 Swift Street "Swift House" X X X X X X subsidized; townhomes, apartments; families, individuals, disabilities subsidized, affordable housing for low income; urban singles with staff subsidized; homelessness 2105 Dowler Place "Dowler Lodge" X X subsidized, rent geared to income; seniors 3015 Jutland Rd "Manchester Corners" X X subsidized; families, disabilities; townhomes, apartments 35 Gorge Road E "35 Gorge Road" X X non-subsidized; low to moderate workforce 411 Sitkum Road "Sitkum Lodge" X X subsidized, rent geared to income; seniors 950 Humboldt Street "Camas Gardens" X X supported; individuals, disabilities 921 North Park Street "Balmoral Garden Court" X X Apr 30 subsidized, rent geared to income; families, seniors 1150 Yates Street "James Yates Gardens" X X Apr 30 subsidized; families, disabilities 1132 Johnson Street "Village on the Green" X X Apr 30 subsidized; families, disabilities; townhomes 1855 Quadra Street "Rotary House" 450 Superior Street "Kew Court" X X X X Apr 30 Apr 30 subsidized; families, individuals, disabilities; apartments, townhomes subsidized, market; families, disabilities 2980 Jutland Road "Leblond Place" X X Apr 30 subsidized; seniors

35 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Site / Address Condo. Apart. Affor. Type Location 1 No. Owned Vehicles I II III Units Total Rate (vehicles per unit) Date Notes 109 Wilson Street "The Wing" X X Dec market, affordable; families, indidivuals Government Street "Pembroke Mews" X X Dec non-subsidized; low to moderate workforce 21 Gorge Road East "Loreen Place" X X Dec non-subsidized; low to moderate workforce 1130 Fort Street "Langham Terrace" X X Dec subsidized; families, disabilities; apartments 1253 Johnson Street "Briarwood" X X Dec subsisidzed; families, disabilities; townhomes 829 Fisgard Street "The Pacifica" X X Dec market, affordable; families, individuals; apartments 1134 Queens Avenue "Queens Apartments" X X Dec market, affordable; families, individuals, disabilities Notes: 1 Locations represent increasing distance from downtown Victoria (I to III), as follows: I. Downtown Core: Sites within the Core Historic and Core Business areas as defined by the OCP and Downtown Core Area Plan III. Large Urban Villges/Town Centres: Sites in Large Urban Villages or Town Centres as defined by the OCP IV. Remainder: Sites outside those areas defined above

36 APPENDIX B Summary of Retail Observations

37 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS RETAIL Site 775 Finlayson St, 3080 Blanshard St "Bed Bath Beyond / Pennington's" 1720 Store Street "Chintz & Company" 1720 Cook Street "Cook Street Castle" 1136 Hillside Avenue "Courtside Sports" 715 Finlayson Street "Dodd's Furniture" 408 John Street "Fawcett Mattress" 3029 Nanaimo Street "Hillside Printing" 483 Burnside Road East "Lordco Autoparts" 3030 Jutland Road "Pacific Cabinets" 755 Finlayson Street "Pier 1 Imports" 2135 Government Street "Sherwin-Williams Paint" 2835 Douglas Street "The Brick" 2550 Turner Street "Torbram Electrical Supply" 338 Catherine Street "Trek Bicycle Store" 1058 Pandora Avenue "Wellburn's Food Market" 1031 Hillside Avenue "Pacific Paint" 650 Hillside Avenue "Russ Hay's The Bicycle Shop" Floor Area (m²) Total Spaces Parking Supply Supply Rate V Wednesday March 09, 1:00pm i Vehicles Demand Rate Observed Vehicles Observed Saturday March 12, 1:30pm Demand Rate Vehicles Observed Saturday April 16, 1:30pm Demand Rate 3, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 2, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 2, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 Average 85th Percentile 2.01 vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 50m 2 1 vehicle per 85m 2 1 vehicle per 88m 2 1 vehicle per 76m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 32m 2 1 vehicle per 50m 2 1 vehicle per 52m 2 1 vehicle per 50m 2

38 APPENDIX C Summary of Office Observations

39 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS OFFICE Site 2994 Douglas St "BC Govt + Service Employees Union" 3150 Napier Lane "BC SPCA" 420 William Street "BMS Integrated Services Inc" 2736 Quadra Street "CUPE 50" Harbour Road "Dockside Green Business Center" 775 Topaz Avenue "Geodigital" 1708 Vancouver Street "Hollis Wealth" 1012 North Park Street "Howe + Gramlich Wealth Management" 125 Skinner Street "Island Community Mental Health" 1004 North Park Street "MS Society of Canada / United Way" 1806 Vancouver Street "Parkes and Co Chartered Accountants" 1275 Bay Street "Rise Health" 2420 Douglas Street "The Co-operators" 1002 Wharf Street "Turnham Woodland / Waddell Rapona" 3035 Nanaimo Street "Victoria Real Estate Board" Floor Area (m²) Total Spaces Parking Supply Supply Rate V Wednesday March 09, 10:00am Wednesday March 09, 2:00pm Tuesday April 18, 10:00am i Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Demand Rate Demand Rate Demand Rate Observed Observed Observed 2, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1, vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 Average 85th Percentile Average (excludes sites near capacity) 2.63 vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 38m 2 1 vehicle per 60m 2 1 vehicle per 74m 2 1 vehicle per 56m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 25m 2 1 vehicle per 40m 2 1 vehicle per 51m 2 1 vehicle per 34m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 55m 2 1 vehicle per 69m 2 1 vehicle per 53m 2

40 APPENDIX D Summary of Restaurant Observations

41 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS RESTAURANT Site Floor Area (m²) Total Spaces Parking Supply V i Wednesday March 09, 6:00pm Friday March 11, 6:00pm Saturday April 02, 6:00pm Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Supply Rate Demand Rate Demand Rate Demand Rate Observed Observed Observed 1028 Hillside Avenue "5th Street Bar and Grill" 2900 Douglas Street "ABC Country Restaurant" 1739 Fort Street "Christie's Carriage House Pub" 405 Craigflower Road "Crown Palace Chinese Restaurant" 607 Oswego Street "Harbour House Restaurant" 980 Pandora Avenue "McDonald's" 1150 Cook Street "Pluto's" 308 Catherine Street "Spinnaker's Gastro Brewpub" 1871 Fort Street "Whitespot (Jubilee)" 720 Caledonia Avenue Whitespot (Douglas)" 2706 Government Street "Chiba Sushi" vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 Average 85th Percentile 5.61 vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 18m 2 1 vehicle per 29m 2 1 vehicle per 25m 2 1 vehicle per 25m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 1 vehicle per 12m 2 1 vehicle per 20m 2 1 vehicle per 18m 2 1 vehicle per 19m 2 Average 2.54 vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m vehicles per 100m 2 (excludes sites near capacity) 1 vehicle per 39m 2 1 vehicle per 32m 2 1 vehicle per 29m 2

42 APPENDIX E Summary of Residential Visitor Observations

43 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS RESIDENTIAL VISITORS Site 445 Cook Street "Sterling Heights" 1615 Bay Street "The Nova" 356 Gorge Road East "356 Gorge" 455 Sitkum Road "The Edge" 1041 Rockland Avenue "Chelmsford Manor" 1025 Meares Street "1025 Meares" 3225 Eldon Place "Eldon Place" 3187 Shelbourne Street "3187 Shelbourne" 243 Gorge Road East "Gorge Apartments" 2533 Dowler Place "Dowler Place" 535 Niagara Street "Niagara Court" 343 Simcoe Street "Simcoe/Whitecap" 655 Douglas Street "The Q" 1049 Southgate Street "Southview Arms" 921 North Park Street "Balmoral Garden Court" 1955 Ashgrove Street "Madrona Manor" Bldg Type No. Units PARKING SUPPLY Total (visitor only) Rate (spaces / unit) V i Wed March 09, 9:00pm Total OBSERVED VEHICLES (Visitor vehicles only) Rate (vehicles/unit) Fri March 11, 8:30pm Total Rate (vehicles/unit) Mon April 11, 8:30pm Total Rate (vehicles/unit) Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Average among All Sites Average among Condominium Sites Average among Apartment Sites

44 APPENDIX F Summary of Hotel Observations

45 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS City of Victoria Schedule C Parking Review Hotel Hotel Name Address Hotel/ Motel Facilities # of Rooms Proximity to Central Downtown (m) Structure? Parking Cost? Shuttle? Parking Supply Supply Rate (spaces/room) Thursday September 4, 8:00pm-11:00pm Observed Vehicles Demand Rate (vehicles/room) Occupancy Notes Abigail's Hotel 906 McClure St Hotel Spa % Accent Inn 3233 Maple St Motel Rest 118 2, % 8 buses and 8 cars on access road Admiral Inn + Suites 257 Belleville St Motel % Bike rentals Arbutus Inn 2898 Douglas St Hotel , % Capital City Center Hotel 1961 Douglas St Hotel Rest, Conf % Coast Harbourside Hotel 146 Kingston St Hotel Rest 132 1,100 X X % Days Inn 427 Belleville St Hotel Rest % Embassy Inn 520 Menzies St Hotel Rest X % Helms Inn 600 Douglas St Hotel X % 4 vehicles on street Hotel Rialto 653 Pandora Ave Hotel Rest X % Parking is off site Hotel Zed 3110 Douglas St Motel Rest 62 2,500 X % Bike rentals Howard Johnson Hotel 310 Gorge Rd Hotel Rest, Conf 80 2, % Island Travel Inn 1850 Douglas St Motel % James Bay Inn 270 Government St Hotel Rest 45 1, % 1 vehicle on street Magnolia Hotel 623 Courtenay St Hotel Rest, Spa X X % Mayfair Motel 650 Speed Ave Motel , % Metro Inn 680 Garbally Rd Motel , % Paul's Motor Inn 1900 Douglas St Motel Rest, Conf % Quality Inn 850 Blanshard St Hotel Rest, Conf X X % Ramada Hotel 123 Gorge Rd Hotel Rest, Conf 91 2, % Red Lion Inn 3366 Douglas St Hotel Rest, Conf 96 3, % Rosewood Inn 595 Michigan St Hotel % 3 vehicles on street Royal Scot Hotel 425 Quebec St Hotel Rest X X X % Sandman Hotel 2852 Douglas St Hotel Rest 100 1,800 X % Super 8 Hotel 2915 Douglas St Motel Rest 51 1, % Tally Ho Hotel 3020 Douglas St Hotel Rest, Conf 52 2, % Travelodge Hotel 229 Gorge Rd Hotel Rest, Conf 70 2, % 1 tour bus on site, 12 vehicles on street Average th Percentile

46 APPENDIX G Travel Survey

47 Business Name Address Contact Person TRAVEL SURVEY Day / Time (approx.) Employee Group Customer / Visitor Question: How did you travel here? Driver, Vehicle Driver, Passenger Walk Bike Transit Other Page 1 of 5

48 TRAVEL SURVEY Day / Time (approx.) Employee Group Customer / Visitor Question: How did you travel here? Driver, Vehicle Driver, Passenger Walk Bike Transit Other Page 2 of 5

49 TRAVEL SURVEY Day / Time (approx.) Employee Group Customer / Visitor Question: How did you travel here? Driver, Vehicle Driver, Passenger Walk Bike Transit Other Page 3 of 5

50 TRAVEL SURVEY Day / Time (approx.) Employee Group Customer / Visitor Question: How did you travel here? Driver, Vehicle Driver, Passenger Walk Bike Transit Other Page 4 of 5

51 TRAVEL SURVEY Day / Time (approx.) Employee Group Customer / Visitor Question: How did you travel here? Driver, Vehicle Driver, Passenger Walk Bike Transit Other Page 5 of 5