Parking Reimagined would benefit developers, not residents
Fairfax County’s Parking Reimagined plan – which reduces the number of required parking spaces for new developments – would benefit developers, not local residents and communities, critics of the plan charge.
That’s the main takeaway from a virtual information session Jan. 5 hosted by county planning and land development staff.
A tiered approach
Parking Reimagined would revise the zoning ordinance to set a base rate for the minimum number of parking spaces for various uses and would adopt a tiered system with further reductions for high-density, urbanized areas.
The reductions range from 10 percent for suburban centers, to 20 percent in revitalization areas (such as Annandale and Bailey’s Crossroads), to 30 percent in transit station areas and Tysons.
The base rate for parking at new multifamily dwellings would be reduced from 1.6 to 1.3 spaces per unit. For townhouse developments, current zoning rules require 2.7 spaces per unit. Parking Reimagined would require two spaces plus 0.7 spaces per unit for shared parking for visitors.
Related story: County to reduce parking requirements
The formula for multifamily housing would also take into account the number of one, two, and three-bedroom units in a project. In a community revitalization area, there would be .6 spaces per bedroom.
The proposal also calls for tiered reductions in the amount of parking required for shopping centers, restaurants, offices, and other uses.
The county’s presentation on Parking Reimagined touts several benefits of “right-sizing” parking, including the potential for increasing the supply of affordable housing, encouraging more green space, and getting people out of their cars, resulting in less traffic and less air pollution.
A description of Parking Reimagined says, “Lowering parking requirements will reduce development costs and can provide for opportunities for affordable housing.”
Yet, there is no requirement for developers to reduce housing costs or create more open space.
Affordable housing not required
“What are developers required to do in exchange for parking reductions?” one participant at the meeting asked. “How does the community benefit? This is a developer-driven exercise.”
“If your goal is affordability and equity, then why can’t we ensure that this happens? Developers don’t have to pass their savings on to buyers,” another community member said.
Michael Davis, parking program manager at Land Development Services, disagreed. He said the cost of parking is pretty significant for developers relative to the cost of building housing units.
Davis also said the parking reduction would allow more compact developments in urban areas like Tysons, where residents can have access to restaurants and shopping without having to drive.
That’s why the tiered approach reduces the parking requirements the most in high-density areas, he said. “We’re creating opportunities to see these benefits.”
Related story: Parking needs to be ‘reimagined,’ but the county plan needs work
Tammi Petrine, a member of the Reston Planning and Zoning Committee, said people will still need cars – to go grocery shopping, to transport their kids, and to get places during bad weather. “The idea that everyone can walk and bike is ludicrous.”
“Stop the charade that this is a public good. It’s not,” Petrine said. When the Reston Town Center converted to paid parking, fewer people were willing to pay and restaurants went out of business.
Petrine also questioned the idea that developers will replace parking spaces with trees. “If you deduct parking, why not require developers to plant trees?”
“I am really concerned you are doing this to serve already-wealthy developers at the expense of the poor,” she said.
“Reducing parking won’t take cars off the road,” added Mason District resident Clyde Miller. “It will just mean people won’t be able to park where they live.”
He speculated that when Seven Corners is redeveloped, residents of new multifamily buildings will park on public streets in residential communities. This is already happening with existing multifamily housing, where the lots fill up in the evening, and residents have to find parking farther away.
And if those neighborhoods have residential parking districts requiring a permit, people will have an even harder time finding a place to park.
Several people at the meeting questioned how county planners came up with the numbers and what their analysis is based on.
“What does Fairfax County consider adequate parking?” asked Mason District resident Donna Jacobson. “Are we supposed to be searching for spaces?”
More power to administrators
There were also concerns that Parking Reimagined would give the director of Land Development Services more authority to approve parking reductions without the need for approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Currently, Land Development Services can administratively approve requests to reduce parking up to 30 percent of the requirement. Parking Reimagined would increase that to 60 percent.
Several community members complained that will give the public even less of an opportunity to comment. Petrine said giving administrators more power to make decisions is “insane.”
According to Michael Davis, unless the parking reduction is part of a rezoning, there is no public hearing anyway.
There will be another virtual open house on Parking Reimagined on Jan. 12 at 7 p.m. Access the meeting on Zoom here.
The Planning Commission is expected to hold a public hearing on Parking Reimagined in April. The Board of Supervisors’ hearing would be in June.
16 responses to “Parking Reimagined would benefit developers, not residents”
Leave a reply
I was very disapppointed to learn little if any empirical data was developed to assess the adequacy of current parking. Overflow parking is already a problem. Based on the evasive answer about any specific study relating to parking lot utilization or walkability, one could only conclude there was no attempt to define what is “adequate” for Annandale. Labeling Annandale a compact high population density walkable transit hub is a fiction. Without a baseline these proposed percentage reductions are simply arbitrary. “Reimagined” is ironically accuate because these radical proposed zoning changes “imagine” conditions about the alternaives to private vehicles that do not exist and “imagine” public benefits that are illusory. This is an attempt to make the lives of residents miserable in hopes they abandon personal vehicles and take away their ability to object to ill-conceived development proposals.
You should run for office. I’d vote for you.
This is just Fairfax County Government jealously copying Arlington County’s “car-free diet” initiative.
With remote work becoming more common, I expect to be joining some of my work colleagues who decided to get the hell out of the immediate DC area to less congested, and more walkable and livable; and yes, less expensive locations.
What cracks me up is the increasing number of people I talk to where I live who have themselves convinced that Arlington and Fairfax are the greatest places to live.
It’s similar to the same brainwashed idiocy I heard from people while I was growing up in NYC. The vast majority of whom fled the city within the next 10 years because of increasing crime, traffic congestion, taxes, housing costs, and the overall increased cost of living while the quality of life went downhill.
Yeah, Fairfax is already great, and learning to take the bus or wasting expensive gas searching to find a rare parking space is going to make it 100% better. Sure.
First, a big thank you to Annandale Today for covering this important county event. No one else did so far as I can tell. And the impact of reduced parking requirements on our county will reduce our quality of life as we spend more time searching for parking.
As I have said elsewhere (https://reston2020.blogspot.com/2022/12/right-sizing-fairfax-county-parking.html), this move by the Board of Supervisors is merely a money grab. It has nothing to do with stated aspirations for affordable housing, open space, the environment, etc. It will simply allow developers to build or redevelop more taxable commercial or residential real estate on their properties that will be less costly to them, but no less costly to those who buy or rent those properties.
Because of these kinds of shenanigans by the Board, the county has faced a growing net OUT migration for the last decade according to the Census Bureau. That net out migration reached more than 14,000 people in 2020 from a virtual 0 in 2010. In fact, almost 89,000 people left Fairfax County in 2020. They were replaced by nearly 75,000 people who moved here. The catch is, the families who moved out made, on average, $23,000 more than those who moved in according to the IRS. That’s a long-term formula for county financial failure; hence, the frantic search for more sources of revenue (without raising highly visible tax rates). There is an excellent article on this phenomenon across northern Virginia in the Cardinal News, a conservative southwest Virginia newspaper (but the politics are irrelevant here) so I’m not going to go on. Just see https://cardinalnews.org/2022/08/29/more-people-are-moving-out-of-northern-virginia-than-are-moving-in/
Again, great work Annandale Today from a Restonian!
I would like to know how Fairfax County justifies shifting the cost of parking to residents, many of which are low-income residents who need their cars for work? Furthermore, residents are not receiving any extra benefit from the situation. The proposed parking amendment does not require extra green spaces nor additional affordable housing units, to compensate for the reduction in required parking spaces. Developers can choose to develop green spaces and affordable housing units, but neither is required.
Also, even if some residents are able to obtain housing units as a result of the reduction in parking requirements, this will only be a small percentage of residents and all the remaining residents, including low-income residents, will still be subjected to a higher cost of living.
If reducing parking requirements is necessary, then everyone involved; the County, developers, residents & businesses should all share equitably in the costs of reducing parking requirements. These costs should not be shifted only to residents.
We all seem to be in agreement here! So why is this even happening?! Any of these folks elected officials?
It’s not uncommon for proposals from county staff that face significant citizen opposition, still end up being passed by the board of supervisors. Seems like the modus operandi in Fairfax County is “the staff proposes, the board disposes, and citizens be damned.”
Actually, I believe the Board proposes the idea and tells the staff to work up a sellable proposal, which is always does. Their jobs depend on it. Then as you say, staff proposal, Board approval, and citizens be damned.
These proposals advance because there is faux “public outreach,” the draft regultions are very complicated (intelligible to developers and the select bureaucratic cadre with whom they interact), and the explanation is peppered with feel good buzz words. It takes work to peel through the layers of inaccuracies.
Yes. Same with the One Fairfax plan. That is a gem that only a well-funded group of international social engineers could write! And that’s who wrote it, and it doesn’t benefit you or me or any of our neighbors in the slightest.
County staff is going to be hosting another virtual meeting this coming Thursday, January 12th at 7:00pm, for one hour. You can find the link to the Zoom meeting on their website at:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zoning-ordinance/parking-reimagined
The last virtual meeting was extremely interesting, with residents asking questions that debunked a lot of the positive myths concerning the current proposed parking amendment.
This amendment is not ready for prime time and should not be approved in its current version.
Parking Reimagined should plan to allow plenty of space for these beauties to operate: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/great-scott-this-flying-car-could-roll-out-sooner-than-you-think/
The website link to the January 12 meeting did not work. It linked to the January 5 meeting that had concluded. The link had been shared with citizens who were essentially locked out of the discussion. Staff appear hell- bent on sending a proposal to the Board of Supervisors on February 14– the same day they issue revisions.
I think this sends a clear signal this is a developer driven process and community input is just a nuisance. Right now developers can request site specific parking reductions. This “Reimagining” is all about cutting the community out of the conversation. So night’s “technical difficulties” are an apt methaphor for a flawed process.
Yeah, we already don’t have enough parking at housing and retail developments. And getting people out of their cars is a pipe dream. It’s not like new subway lines or other transit options are going to come online in the next year. Have you ever ridden public transit or tried to bike with multiple children or carrying groceries? It’s mostly impossible.
Also the affordable housing units are a joke. Developers eliminate the units and just pay fines, and the county acquiesces instead of holding them responsible for what is in their contracts. This leaves disgusting slumlord housing that degrades the area as the only option for lower income families.
Please everyone be active and vocal in opposing this terrible proposal and vote in people who will stand up to developers.
Can we address the insane number of white vans and taxi cab parked in residential neighborhoods—- and the amount of trash that is left in the street soon afterwards. Fairfax police have stopped enforcement of parking regs in residential areas. Fairfax has stopped enforcement of residential code on single family homes now packed with illegal residents and allow neighborhoods and communities to fall apart in a matter of weeks — while county staff propose idiotic new regs, ignore citizen outrage… Enforce existing laws first before experimenting on neighborhoods —- perfect example- the moronic traffic circle on Ravensworth
The website link to the January 12 meeting did not work. It linked to the January 5 meeting that had concluded. The link had been shared with citizens who were essentially locked out of the discussion. Staff appear hell- bent on sending a proposal to the Board of Supervisors on February 14– the same day they issue revisions.
I think this sends a clear signal this is a developer driven process and community input is just a nuisance. Right now developers can request site specific parking reductions. This “Reimagining” is all about cutting the community out of the conversation. Tonight’s “technical difficulties” are an apt methaphor for a flawed process.