In August 2021,
Fairfax County began an effort to revise the county’s parking requirements laid
out in the zoning ordinance—the number of parking spots developers must provide
for each type of dwelling unit and business they build. The bottom line is a proposal to be
considered by the Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks to reduce those
requirements for virtually every situation—none are increased—in the name of
“right-sizing” parking.
The ostensible
reasons we need these changes are that (a) the internet has changed the way we
work and shop so much that we don’t need to drive and (b) the expansion of
Metro and other transit has reduced the need to drive. These statements come at a time when:
- Developers
added over 2.7 million GSF of new office space under construction in the first
half of 2022 per FCEDA, enough space for 9,000 “in-place” work. They aren’t building this office space if
they don’t expect to fill it with workers.
We expect that growth in office space to continue, especially in areas
served by Metro.
- While
the Federal Reserve in St. Louis (FRED) reports that nationally online retail
has nearly doubled as a share of US consumption (7% to 14%), at $266 billion, it
is still less than 20% of total US retail sales value of $1.5 trillion (October
2022). In Fairfax County, sales tax
receipts—almost exclusively from in-store transactions—were up 15% from year
earlier receipts, so, no, County residents are not hiding in their basements to
shop.
- The
completion of the Silver Line adds little in the way of transit capability for County
residents—it mostly helps Loudoun residents—and bus transit improvements are
generally mythical. In fact, in Reston,
the current comprehensive plan calls for no added bus service through 2040
although a few shifts were made in existing routes when the Silver Line was
completed.
The stated
goals of the new parking restriction requirements include the following:
- Equity. “Lowering parking requirements
creates opportunities for more walkable, transit-accessible communities
benefitting those who do not drive.”
Actually, it neither creates a more walkable, bikeable, or
transit-accessible community. That can
only be achieved by a timely and major investment in transportation
infrastructure, an investment the county has so far shown little interest in
making. Otherwise, we are chasing the
lowest common transportation denominator, lowering the county’s quality of life.
- Affordability. “Lowering parking requirements will
reduce development costs and can provide for opportunities for affordable
housing.” Yes, the developers must
be able to lower their costs even if they will not lower their prices. And the County has had limitless
opportunities to provide affordable housing, including numerous policies saying
so, but has done little to accomplish that goal because it might cut into property
tax revenues.
- Environment. “Reducing parking requirements
allows opportunities to provide more green infrastructure for individual sites
including open and public spaces, more effective stormwater management, and preservation.”
Another “opportunity” that the County has had in abundance, but has done little
to achieve and, in some cases, has actually worsened by its failure to carry
out established policy, such as the Urban Parks Framework.
- Land-use
Site Design. “Reducing
the influence of parking enhances placemaking opportunities, creating places
where people want to be . . ..”
While this goal alleges that it “can reduce the gulf between streets
and buildings, making sites more accessible to pedestrians and micromobility
vehicles such as bicycles and scooters,” nothing in current parking
requirements precludes this from happening nor will anything in the proposed
parking reduction ordinance achieve this.
- Economics. “Proposed automatic reductions in
the tiered framework reduce time and money spent supporting reasonable parking
adjustments. Significantly reduced parking requirements in Metrorail station
areas creates a return on the County’s investment by aligning non-auto
transportation options with transit access. More productive uses of land
area once devoted to parking adds value to the County’s tax base.”
Ah, there it is, the County sees an
opportunity to generate more tax revenues—and without any of the costly
commitments that could be forthcoming in meeting the preceding so-called goals
using established parking, housing, transportation, open space, environmental,
and other County policies. Just the
notion that they represent “opportunities” that “can” have generally favorable
outcomes.
For those who
have the time and intestinal fortitude, the County provides the 51-page latest version of its proposal
on the Fairfax County website
for residents to review. The document is
necessarily complex because it must (a) lay out the parking requirements for
every type of residential and business development and (b) establish different
standards for these requirements depending on the density in the area to which
they apply. For example, buried in
footnote #149, bottom of p. 21, is the following regarding parking requirements
in Transit Station Areas (TSAs): “Modifies
the current TSA reduction from 20 percent to 30 percent and includes
restaurants which are currently excluded from the reduction. Creates a new
reduced requirement for residential uses.”
Of course, nowhere in the document is there a side-by-side comparison of
the before and after parking minimums; just footnotes and other obscure
references. The less we know, the
better.
Nonetheless,
one can get a general sense of the proposed parking reductions by looking at
the county map included in the white paper (see p. 7). The map breaks down the targeted parking
reductions for each basic type of area in the county. Here is a look at the Reston area and the
associated legend:
What this shows
is that the Transit-Oriented Districts (TODs)—those areas immediately adjacent
to Reston and Herndon’s Metro stations would see a 40% reduction in their
minimum parking requirements while the slightly larger TSA areas surrounding
the station would see cuts of 30% in their parking minimums. In addition, Reston’s Lake Anne Village
Center is a Community Revitalization Area (CRA) and that light green blob on
the map extract will see a 20% reduction in parking requirements if this zoning
ordinance is approved.
The bottom line
is that the County’s proposal has little to nothing to do with “right-sizing”
parking in the county. As it says,
reducing parking “adds value to the County’s tax base.” It’s about the money. At the same time there is no commitment by
the County to adopt the measures necessary to offset the adverse impacts of
this ill-considered measure on the public including massively improving transit
to assuring that those existing policies hurt by any excessive parking are
mitigated. Until the Board of
Supervisors is willing to mitigate the impacts of its parking reduction on the
quality of life of county residents, Fairfax County residents should oppose
this proposal. In the meantime, this
proposal is just another County take from its residents and taxpayers.
