Parking Reimagined is not ready for prime time.

 (This letter to the editor appeared in the March 29, 2023, edition of the Fairfax Connection.)

 

To the Editor:

Fairfax County is proposing an amendment to its Zoning Ordinance to reduce Minimum Parking Requirements in both residential and commercial areas. But in the associated county work group and in virtual town hall meetings, residents have expressed many concerns about what is called “Parking Reimagined,” including the following:

Equity: The proposed parking amendment benefits developers and the County at the expense of county residents. This amendment will place additional hardship on lower and middle-income residents, who are already struggling economically. I realize that as a result of this proposed amendment some additional affordable housing could be built, however, most of these residents will not obtain affordable housing, but will now have to pay additional costs for parking and commuting.  

County staff has stated that lower and middle-income residents do not need as much parking because they do not have as many vehicles as wealthier residents. However, a significant percentage of these residents have work vehicles that they need to park in a safe place near their homes. I find it inherently unfair to implement public policy that will be more costly, while decreasing the quality of life, for so many residents.

Multifamily Dwellings & Townhouses: Many of these communities already have issues with insufficient parking. Many multifamily dwellings and townhouses have extended families residing together, increasing the need for multiple vehicles. Parking reductions need to take this shift in family dynamics into consideration.

What happens when residents are forced to carry multiple bags of groceries several blocks in the rain, because they were unable to find a parking space near their home? Or when residents come home late after a hard day at work and cannot find a space near their home?

Community Impact: Residents unable to park in their own communities may be forced to encroach on other communities. Any parking reductions need to be integrated with enforcement procedures, to ensure that overflow parking into adjacent communities is prevented. Communities surrounding these developments should not be required to spend the time nor the money implementing parking permits. Also, residents should not have to constantly patrol their communities in order to have illegally parked vehicles towed.

Loading Spaces/Handicapped Spaces: Delivery drivers unable to find adequate loading spaces may be forced to park in handicapped spaces while making deliveries. Parking reductions need to ensure adequate loading spaces so that handicapped spaces remain accessible for handicapped use only. What happens when handicapped residents show up at work, at an appointment or at a store and cannot find an available space?

Handicapped residents should not be forced to walk from a parking space at the back of the lot, nor should they have to arrive a half hour early to ensure that they have time to wait for access to a handicapped parking space. This is a matter of dignity and respect for the handicapped population.

Environmental Benefit: Parking reductions were originally viewed as a way of improving environmental issues by reducing excess asphalt parking areas and adding more green spaces and trees. But the parking amendment fails to require developers to do so. This failure undercuts one of the major benefits of having less parking – more green space and tree canopy. Unfortunately, county staff seems to have focused solely on reducing parking, without using parking reductions to provide a net environmental benefit.

Additional Waivers in Parking Requirements: I am confused as to why there needs to be administrative waivers for additional parking reductions. The minimum required parking rates should be the minimum, not an intermediary step which developers can reduce further by appealing to the Director of Land Development Services or the Board of Supervisors.

If a proposed development has a unique circumstance which might call for further reductions in required parking, then public hearings need to be held so residents can have their voices heard. But additional parking reductions below the minimum should not be a common occurrence.

Public Hearings: Public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be held later this year. Meanwhile, residents can email concerns about parking reductions to:

ClerktotheBOS@fairfaxcounty.gov
Plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov

Residents can also sign up to speak at the Planning Commission public hearing at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/speaker Resident testimony can be given in person, via telephone or via video.

Parking reductions will affect the quality of life of residents for years. They need to be implemented in a fashion that ensures Fairfax County has the resources to support the changes. But most importantly, the costs of reducing minimum parking requirements should not be borne solely by the residents.


Donna Jacobson.

President, Lafayette Village Community Assn.

Annandale


Editor’s note: Find out more about the county proposal at

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zoning-ordinance/parking-reimagined

A Huge Zoning Victory for Fairfax Residents in the Fight to Preserve Our Rights, but Only the Beginning

In a stunning turn of events, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) in approving the zMOD zoning ordinance, adding that it was invalid from the outset (“void ab initio”). 

The key reason for overturning the ordinance was that the Board failed to have any public hearings, just video access which the Court found insufficient. The Board’s argument was that it was important to move expeditiously to approve the ordinance, but the Court noted that the county had been working on the ordinance for five years without urgency. 

This is the first case in which the McKay regime has been censured for its arrogant “forget-the-public” approach to county governance.  The theme behind the zMOD initiative was “streamlining” the development approval process by largely eliminating opportunities for public input, in part by making many decisions administrative without public input or official Board involvement. 

No court reversal could be bigger because the Court’s judgment was the only obstacle to developers working the county Department of Planning and Development (DPD) into decisions that would undercut the already limited restrictions on development in the zoning ordinance.  If zMOD had not been reversed, there would be no way to roll back these administrative and other provisions in this Dillon Rule state of irreversible “by right” development.

The state court’s decision raises at least a couple of questions about the impact of policy and development actions taken based on zMOD since the court said zMOD was void from the outset. 

·       What will happen to current Board initiatives that take on zMOD’s “streamlining” flavor?  Maybe first among these is the so-called “Parking Reimagined” draft zoning ordinance that would reduce minimum parking requirements across the county by as much as 40% in high-density areas.  Part of that draft ordinance states that the Director of Planning and Development can approve changes to the minimum requirement administratively in a wide variety of circumstances.

·       What will happen to development approvals given under the new zMOD ordinance since that the ordinance is void from its outset?  What about those projects already built or under construction or in the design and engineering phases? 

We all need to be vigilant to see how the county handles these numerous issues—and doesn’t just make them worse.

Most importantly, what about the substance of zMOD?  The court’s decision focused on the process of approval that failed to meet VFOIA requirements, not the merits of the zMOD zoning ordinance.  At first blush, that means the Board could just take the same draft zoning ordinance and pass it through the proper steps, including a public hearing.  Nonetheless, since “streamlining” is central to zMOD by shifting much decision making from the Board to the staff that would not require public input, zMOD’s provisions could run into the same issues of public access—meaning another court case to preserve citizens’ rights.  To prevent that cost and delay, it is important that the residents of Fairfax keep challenging efforts by the Board to exclude or reduce citizen participation in their own government’s decisions.   

We should all thank the community leaders across the county who took on the task of challenging Jeff McKay’s high-handed Board of Supervisors effort to take our right to be heard away from us, not to mention to actually listen to what we say. 

We need to seal the deal on Fairfax County zoning by preventing a new zMOD V2 and other Board initiatives that also intend to cripple resident participation in our government and make the county less livable.  Unless we remain vigilant and proactive, we are likely to see our county government turn into McKay’s mafia. 

 

Terry Maynard

Reston, VA

 

 

Virginia Supreme Court throws out county zMOD zoning ordinance

In a unanimous decision published yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court threw out Fairfax County's zMOD zoning ordinance intended to "streamline" development project approvals.  The essence of its judgment was that the county's decision process violated VFOIA requirements for opportunities for public input.  Here are some key passages:

The process that led to the ultimate adoption of Z-Mod demonstrates that its adoption was far from time-sensitive. After all, the revision process began in 2016—five years before Z-Mod was adopted and three years before the existence of COVID-19 publicly was known anywhere in the world. This multi-year history of consideration and revision before adoption conclusively demonstrates that there were not hard and fast deadlines, statutorily required or otherwise, that needed to be met. Prior to the Z-Mod revision, the zoning ordinance had existed for four decades and absolutely nothing suggests that Z-Mod needed to be adopted to satisfy due process or other constitutional requirements, protect public safety, or sustain the County’s economy.  Everything about the history of Z-Mod suggests that the adoption of Z-Mod could have waited days, weeks, or months without throwing the County’s operations into even minor distress let alone chaos. Simply put, the consideration and adoption of Z-Mod was not time-sensitive, and thus, acting on it in March 2021 was neither essential nor necessary to allow for the continued operations of Fairfax County government.

. . .

Having concluded that the Board adopted Z-Mod in a manner that violated the open meeting provisions of VFOIA, we turn to the question of remedy. The (Fairfax County) Residents argue that, because “Z-Mod could not be adopted through an electronic meeting[,]” the Board’s purported adoption of Z-Mod was and remains “void ab initio[.]” We agree.

By failing to hold the meetings at which Z-Mod was considered and ultimately adopted in compliance with VFOIA’s open meeting requirements, the Board’s actions prevented the public from participating in the manner required by VFOIA, and thus, potentially limited public participation and input into the process. As such, the Board’s failure here is analogous to the circumstances in our prior cases in which a zoning ordinance was adopted despite the failure of the locality to provide the statutorily required public notice. In such cases, we have held that such ordinances are void ab initio. See, e.g., Glazebrook, 266 Va. at 557 (holding that certain “zoning ordinances passed pursuant to [defective] notices . . . are void ab initio”); Powell Valley Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 254 Va. at 74 (recognizing that a “[f]ailure to abide by the statutory prescriptions for the adoption of an ordinance renders the ordinance void ab initio”); City Council of City of Alexandria v. Potomac Greens Assocs. P’ship, 245 Va. 371, 378 (1993) (stating that, because the city “failed to give the requisite notices . . . , the TMP Ordinance is void ab initio”). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s failure to comply with VFOIA’s open meeting requirements renders Z-Mod void ab initio.

RCA letter to Supervisor Alcorn regarding numerous problems in the draft "Parking Reimagined" zoning ordinance.

The county has been working for several months on a draft zoning ordinance labelled "Parking Reimagined."  In general, the proposed ordinance reduces the minimum parking availability for all new development and could be applied to existing development.  The draft is being pushed by the area development community because it would lower their development costs, allowing even greater profitability.  Overall, adoption of the new zoning ordinance, which would be irrevocable in this Dillon Rule state, would reduce the livability and add to environmental damage across the county--for profits and county tax revenues.  A number of community organizations and spokespersons across the county have expressed their concern if not outright opposition to the proposed zoning ordinance change.

In response to this initiative, the Reston Citizens Association (RCA) has written a letter to Hunter Mill District Supervisor Walter Alcorn noting their numerous concerns about the draft ordinance.  Their bottom line is, "...this proposal is 'not ready for prime time' and a delay would, we believe, help to address the numerous concerns and draft a proposal in collaboration with citizen groups that addresses the outstanding issues."

The letter ends with a list of twelve key issues of concern with the draft "Parking Reimagined" proposal.

Supervisor Alcorn remains silent on using a Boston Properties proffer for a performing arts center.

 

Since the publication of a half-baked "feasibility" study last summer, Supervisor Alcorn and Leila Gordon, executive director of RCC, have said nothing about the proposal they are advocating for a Reston Visual and Performing Arts Center (VPAC) in Reston Town Center.  Their advocacy is based on a proffer from Boston Properties for a small land plat, Block J, across the street from the Metro station. The proffer states, “Block J may only be used for the Arts Center or as a park open to the public (emphasis added).”  The reason Alcorn and Gordon are silent on the matter is that there is an election coming in November and they do not want to upset the public with this hugely expensive and unnecessary project.

In contrast, a park, indeed any meaningful open space, is sorely lacking in Reston’s transit station areas (TSAs). In fact, here is the standards in the county’s framework for urban parks: “New developments generate (park) need at a rate of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents and 1.0 acre per 10,000 employees. Within urban, mixed-use development areas, a full complement of urban park types is desirable to create robust park networks.” Reston’s draft plan calls for over 40,000-67,000 new residents in the TSAs and 56,000-86,000 jobs in the TSAs depending on the growth scenario. That increase should lead to the creation of 72-106 acres of added public parks in the TSAs, not counting what is already owed for the existing population and jobs in these areas.

Indeed, on the few occasions that the county has mentioned the park alternative, it has always referred to it as “a ballfield.” It is clear that the site is not large enough to accommodate a full-size baseball or soccer field. A softball field alone requires 1.5 acres, not counting seating, etc. A full-size soccer field needs 1.8 acres and a baseball field needs 4.5 acres. With Block J only about 60,000 SF or about 1.4 acres, fitting a real ballfield here appears impossible, especially with its irregular shape.

A real park, one for people to come and enjoy the outdoors and some smaller recreational facilities, such as a playground and maybe some pickleball courts, is not only feasible, but it would serve a far larger cross-section of the TSA’s population than mini-ballfields placed there. And it wouldn't hurt to add some trees for shade and to help the environment.  This is a far more useful use of this small area in serving the 60,000-87,000 people planned to live in the TSAs, about half in the Reston Town Center area.

In fact, it could be argued that using Block J for a ballfield of whatever size would not meet the terms of Boston Properties’ generous offer—to be used “as a park open to public.” No one would ever confuse FedEx Field for a park. Why would one do so with Block J?

On the other side of the ledger, building and operating an arts center would be extremely expensive and is unneeded. Hunter Mill District—the area Supervisor Alcorn is supposed to represent—holds nearly one-fifth of the arts centers in the county according to county data. And our neighboring districts—Dranesville and Providence are equally well endowed. That’s over half of the county’s arts centers within ten miles, and many are accessible by the Silver Line—including the new 1,500 seat Capital One Center in Tysons. Why should Restonians or even all county residents pay nearly $240 million to build and operate another small theatre and art center in Reston over the next 30 years--$8,000,000 per year?

Residents need to continue to question Supervisor Alcorn on the choice between an expensive and unnecessary VPAC or a much needed and much less expensive park.

Coalition for a Planned Reston: "Parking Reimagined" Needs Your Help Now!

 

"PARKING REIMAGINED" NEEDS YOUR HELP NOW!

Fairfax County is proposing a parking amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that will reduce Minimum Parking Requirements (MPRs) both in residential and commercial areas.   

Residents support parking requirements that are equitable and add a net benefit to the environment. The parking amendment currently proposed by staff completely fails these two objectives.  To correct the proposed parking amendment, the following changes must be made:

• The County must identify the specific challenges of each area before changing parking requirements.  Applying percentage reductions to areas based on their zoning designation will only lead to reductions. Some areas need more, not less parking. One size does not fit all!
   
• The County must require that any reduction in required parking spaces will result in additional green spaces and increased tree canopy.  Without these items, the proposed parking amendment is just a reduction in required parking and an increase in density.
   
• Reductions in MPRs must be implemented in a way which doesn't shift parking costs from developers to residents.  Many residents are already facing economic hardship. NO residents should not have to pay for parking permits, parking meters and parking garages in order to park near their homes!
   
• New parking rules must provide added loading spaces for numerous daily deliveries and strict enforcement to ensure that handicapped spaces remain accessible for those who are handicapped and that overflow parking into adjacent communities is prevented.
   
• The stipulation allowing administrative approval of reductions in parking minimums must be stricken completely.  The Director of Land Development Services, a non-elected bureaucrat, should never have the authority to make parking reductions without thorough public review. 

•  Under no circumstance should the parking amendment be retroactive to projects approved but not yet built.

• The County must have a viable plan B in case their original assumptions in 2023 about reducing parking requirements are incorrect. 

Fairfax County residents will be forced to live with any changes in Minimum Parking Requirements (MPRs) for years. 

If you would like to see the proposed parking amendment be equitable to residents and not just a HUGE windfall to developers, please share this email and concerns with the following leaders:

• Board of Supervisors at ClerktotheBOS@fairfaxcounty.gov 
• Jeff McKay, Chairman at  chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov
• Kathy Smith, Chair of the Land Use Policy Committee at sully@fairfaxcounty.gov 
• Fairfax County Planning Commission at Plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov

HELP CREATE A FAIRFAX COUNTY THAT WORKS FOR RESIDENTS

“Right-sizing” Fairfax County Parking: A Grab for Our Tax Dollars, Not Improvement in Our Quality of Life

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.