A10
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: November 29, 1995
Dept. File No. 2122-13
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services
in consultation with
Director of Central Area Planning
SUBJECT: Downtown South Area Residential Parking Survey
and Application to International Village
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the International Village residential parking standard be
modified to set a maximum parking limit, set at 0.2 space per
dwelling unit higher than the minimum, to ensure that it does not
provide a pool of commuter parking.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Engineering Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing, and submits the following points for Council's
INFORMATION:
i) Based on the results of recent surveys in developing core
areas, the current parking standard for residential use in
Downtown South is not meeting the needs of residents, while
the standard for Yaletown Edge is appropriate.
ii) This survey indicates that the new bicycle parking standard
is adequate for needs, and provides room for the desired
growth in bicycle ownership.
iii) Based on this analysis, the existing residential parking
standard for International Village, based on the successful
Yaletown Edge standard but reduced by 0.1 space due to
proximity to transit, is appropriate.
COUNCIL POLICY
Relevant Council policy applies from:
1) Downtown South is intended to be developed as a high-density,
largely residential community with moderate-priced dwellings,
within walking distance of downtown.
2) The Comprehensive Development zoning schedules for Yaletown Edge
and International Village include the objective of providing
adequate on-site parking and loading spaces for all uses.
PURPOSE
This report presents the results of a car and bicycle ownership survey
of newly-occupied residential developments in the Downtown South area,
and comments on the appropriateness of pertinent parking standards
currently in effect. The information is also intended to assist
Council in deciding how to respond to the request by Henderson
Development for reductions in the parking requirements for
International Village.
BACKGROUND
The residential parking standards for emerging Downtown residential
areas, including Downtown South, International Village, and Yaletown
Edge, were developed in 1990-91 as a result of surveys of recently
occupied multiple-family dwellings spread throughout the Downtown
Peninsula. The minimum standard of 0.5 space per dwelling unit plus
1.0 space per 100 m2 gross floor area was developed, including enough
resident parking for the average building and 0.2 space per unit for
visitors. This standard was applied to Yaletown Edge; however, a 0.1
space per unit reduction was applied to International Village and to
City Gate on the basis of proximity to transit services. In 1991 this
standard was confirmed with a survey of two newly-occupied towers in
Downtown South.
On May 16, 1991, the Council Standing Committee on Planning and
Environment was advised that the parking standard proposed for Downtown
South was somewhat less than what existed for other neighbourhoods.
This was deliberate, in the interest of promoting an affordable
community that would not be car-oriented. The Committee requested that
staff monitor the parking situation as development progressed and
report back for adjustments, if necessary. The standard for Downtown
South remains unchanged since enactment: 0.5 space per unit up to 65m2
or 1.0 space per unit greater than or equal to 65m2 GFA. Since 1991
numerous new buildings have been built such that now is an appropriate
time for following up.
DISCUSSION
Downtown South Area Bicycle and Automobile Parking Survey
A survey of all major, newly-occupied, market residential buildings in
or bordering the Downtown South, along with three of the recently
occupied buildings of Yaletown Edge, was conducted in summer, 1995 (see
Figure I, Appendix A). From 1051 units surveyed a total of 240
responses were received (221 usable), constituting a sufficiently large
sample to determine parking demand accurately.
As well, one Yaletown conversion (1066 Hamilton) and the micro-suite
project (600 Drake) were surveyed. However, results from these sites
are considered separately as special cases.
The results from the 9 typical buildings show a relationship between
car ownership and dwelling size. Table I (see Appendix A) compares
parking requirement standards for different neighbourhoods with the
real "observed demand" based on this summer's survey. The significant
conclusions are:
* The "special" micro-suite project at 600 Drake was found to
have 14 vehicles owned for 24 dwelling units responding, for
an average of 0.58 vehicle per unit.
* For full-size units, more than 90% of respondents own a motor
vehicle, including 37% of respondents who own more than one
motor vehicle.
* Overall average motor vehicle ownership is 1.34 vehicle per
dwelling unit, with an average unit size of 90 m2.
* Overall bicycle ownership is 1.10 bicycle per dwelling unit.
* The Yaletown Edge standard is very accurate in matching
supply with demand.
* The standard currently in effect for Downtown South falls far
short of satisfying demand.
* Sites approved under the Downtown South standard routinely
supply some 20% extra car parking above the minimum required.
This provision still falls short of demand.
* A tally of parking provision including not only occupied
sites, but also buildings that are under construction or
approved for development, in the Downtown South area (20
buildings in all) reveals a cumulative shortfall of some 500
parking spaces to date.
* The "special" Yaletown conversion project from warehouse to
residential at 1066 Hamilton was found to have motor vehicle
ownership similar to that of full-size units in the areas
surrounding Yaletown.
It is evident that, should Downtown South continue developing with the
current parking standard and car ownership level, then serious
overspill and livability problems will develop as vacant lots disappear
and on-street parking becomes increasingly difficult. It may be argued
that residents coming downtown are likely to shed their vehicles once
they see how convenient it is to get to their destinations. Experience
has shown, however, that once residents overcome initial financial
requirements of their housing, they then turn to satisfying other
goals. These frequently include purchasing a car, or securing on-site
parking rather than continuing to put up with remote parking.
Residents may not use a car for the trip to work, but still own it for
other trips. In these developments, if adequate parking is not
provided on-site there is not the ability to make up the shortfalls on
the street.
Residents' Comments
Numerous comments were received from respondents to the parking survey
(see Appendix B). It was pointed out that adequacy of parking for
themselves and visitors was only temporary, as their building still had
a lot of vacant suites. In other cases, where the building was full or
nearly so, residents complained about the problems associated with
inadequate parking provision, such as having to park on-street blocks
away, visitor parking being co-opted by residents, or being subjected
to risks to personal safety and vehicle security. Clearly,
insufficient parking is a prime detractor from livability.
The few bicycle-related comments forwarded were concerned with the lack
of security or convenience of bicycle parking within the building.
Applicability to International Village
The recent residential development of the Downtown South area is the
most comparable community in the city with respect to the development
anticipated in International Village. The style of development and
proximity to jobs, shopping, recreation, and transit are similar.
Thus, the parking demand documented for the Downtown South area can be
considered representative of that anticipated for International
Village.
The existing International Village standard (0.4 space per dwelling
unit plus 1.0 space per 100m› GFA) is approximately 0.2 space per
dwelling unit below the measured demand. Thus, parking in
International Village will be in short supply, and residents and
visitors will be encouraged to seek alternative means of travel.
However, the applicant's proposal (0.2 space per dwelling unit plus 1.0
space per 100m› GFA) is seriously sub-standard, and would just supply
one space per dwelling. The applicant's proposal would incur a
shortfall of some 250 parking spaces. In contrast, the City's
(existing) standard would provide one stall for every unit, a modest
amount of visitor parking, and permit one out of fifteen dwelling units
to secure a second parking space.
Because of its proximity to Downtown, International Village has the
potential to act as a source of parking for commuters. An unlimited
residential parking standard could abet this should the applicant
provide parking too much in excess of the minimum requirement. For
this reason, a maximum standard, set at 0.2 space per dwelling unit
above the existing minimum standard, should be applied to residential
use in International Village.
Applicability of Bicycle Standard
Downtown South area residents were surveyed as to their bicycle
ownership. The ownership rate for standard market housing was 1.10
bicycle per dwelling unit. This is below the by-law rate of 1.25 space
per dwelling unit; however, the difference is not excessive and,
indeed, supports City objectives to promote growth in bicycling. This
will occur as new residents purchase bicycles and use them for trip-
making to jobs, shopping, and recreational amenities in close
proximity.
For the special micro-suite project, 24 responding units owned 18
bicycles, for an average of 0.75 bicycle per dwelling unit. This
precisely matches the by-law rate for such units. On-site provision is
substantially higher than the by-law standard such that parking space
is ample at 600 Drake. Bicycle ownership here may be fully attained as
the building has been occupied several years now, and its residents
apparently rely less on motor vehicles than other residents do. The
reduced bicycle parking standard also supports affordability, an
important objective for micro-suite housing. Until there is
documentation that the standard is inadequate, and for a greater number
of units, it should be retained.
CONCLUSION
The staff survey of recent Downtown South and Concord Pacific (Yaletown
Edge) residences demonstrates that the current parking standard for
Downtown South is inadequate, whereas the standard for Yaletown Edge is
appropriate. Also, the existing parking standard for International
Village is supported by this analysis. Indeed, the standard is
somewhat below expected real demand, but by an appropriate and
achievable amount. Any further reduction would threaten the livability
for residents and compound parking difficulties that already exist in
the area.
* * * * *