Agenda for 20 June 2022 Joint Sully District Land Use and Transportation Committee (JSDLU&TC) Meeting
by Jeff Parnes
Stop! — Is your Organization/Association a member of the Sully District Council of Citizens Association?If Not, Why Not? The dues are only $10 a yearIn numbers there is strengthYour membership helps pay for our WebEx license and the maintenance of website
|
Has yours made plans to join us for 2022?
County staff is trying to exclude the need for marrying the reduction of parking spaces to more green spaces/trees, even though all the literature on the subject states that one of the major advantages of reducing parking is the ability to have more green space. County staff states that green space does not need to be mandated, because developers can choose to put in more green space where needed. So, my answer to that is that a reduction in parking doesn't need to be mandated, because parking can be reduced through the public hearing process where needed. In Annandale, we already support businesses having 20% fewer parking spaces, provided they take park in the Annandale Revitalization Program. So why does the County need to have the Annandale CRD take part in a mandated 20% parking reduction? I'm sure other areas in the County have their own unique situations.
I am also extremely concerned about overflow parking in stable communities which border areas in which parking is being reduced. At this point there isn't anything concerning this issue in the initiative. I can only speak for Annandale, but right now in the communities which border the Annandale CRD, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PARKING AVAILABLE. Therefore, overflow parking will be taking parking spaces away from individuals living in those communities. The County states that there is a cost to free parking and basically residents should not be allowed to park for free. In economic theory, there is an economic cost for everything, so just saying that there is a cost for free parking is not a reason in and of itself, that parking should be reduced. All parties involved in an issue need to have their input heard in order to determine if the economic cost of an issue such as parking, is worthwhile or not. What I have seen as part of the Parking Reimagined work group, has basically been nothing more than a marketing spiel, filled with buzz words and phrases such as "There is a cost to free parking".
The interesting thing is that I attending the Planning Commission meeting on June 14th, at which Dr. Donald Shupe, the parking guru, gave his presentation concerning parking. The thing I found interesting was that Dr Shupe was not pushing a "one-size fits all" percentage reduction in parking nor did he think that reductions in parking should be pushed through without working with residents. Plus, he was also in favor of additonal green spaces/trees in place of parking spaces. So, when the County uses Dr. Shupe's ideas as a reason for reducing parking, I think they need to use his ideas in entirety.
I can continue with the many problems associated with the Parking Reimagined initiative, but the major problem is that the initiative does not take a holistic approach that would enable a reduction in parking to be implemented in a comprehensive way, taking into account pedestrian safety, the environment, effectively handling overflow parking, the concept of modular parking and the lack of a good public transportation infrastructure in many areas. The initiative needs to have a broader focus to be effective, otherwise, the reduction in parking is just going to be another problem that residents of Fairfax County need to deal with.
Maybe your suggestion could work. If there were some sort of case by case review of requests for parking reduction, at least for residential, any requested offsets could be carefully evaluated, without just creating a (streamlined) by right windfall. Appropriate requests could be granted. Unless the additional tree save or green space is a requirement, it isn't going to happen. And the building footprints will remain the same. I expect the spaces which would have been additional parking inside the multifamily buildings would instead become some sort of revenue generating space, more retail or bigger apartments, or maybe storage. But the trend under Gartner/Clarion is to make things by right, streamline.
I am afraid some politicians will still "sell" the idea of Parking Reimagined as a wonderful environmental initiative, but if it is just a parking formula reduction, it is toothless and meaningless. The housing prices remain unchanged, but with less parking than now, and no corresponding environmental benefit, except what might be provided on the honor system, out of the goodness of a developer's heart. Don't hold your breath.
I assume some groups and individuals will want to weigh in, at least if they find out about it.
The outreach process ideally should explain the amendment, solicit citizen input and develop a consensus. It is not enough for staff to just go through the motions, announce they had dozens of (one-way) meetings, they touched all the bases and still came up with the same prepackaged recommendation, that they disagree with any criticism of their unpopular conclusions, whatever they might be.
If the staff recommendation is advertised narrowly, any dissenting views are "outside the scope of the advertising," and can get blown off. So the wording of the advertising after authorization may largely determine what gets adopted, even before we get to the public hearing process.
I hadn't particularly focused on elimination of free parking, but that trend may be popular with at least some of the developers. Boston Properties did that in Reston, and took a lot of criticism. Maybe they ended up getting away with it (although it seems to have killed off some of the commercial businesses, and hurt Reston Town Center overall). If that becomes an official policy, it is more difficult for developers to be criticized for doing it, in Tysons or elsewhere.
I still think what is primarily driving this is the cash, the money, the profit to be made by reducing the cost of multifamily residential, through weakening the parking requirements. Let the market decide, let the tenants fend for themselves, they will find a place to park on the street somewhere, like Georgetown or Arlington or Old Town Alexandria.
In my opinion, the Parking Reimagined initiative does not reduce the cost of living for residents, at the best it just moves the costs to another basket. Jim is correct when he states that this current initiative is only a formula for a reduction in parking and does nothing else.
One area in which I think is ridiculous to reduce parking is medical offices. If you have ever taken care of some one who was seriously ill you know that first of all there is not enough parking at medical offices anyways and secondly people who are seriously ill cannot take public transportation and walk a number of blocks to their doctor's office. Also, many times these people are older and on a fixed income. They cannot afford high parking costs. Having a blanket percentage for reducing parking in an area is ridiculous. Some uses in an area may be able to reduce parking, such as retail uses, but it is not reasonable to reduce parking for every use in an area.M
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey M. Parnes
Land Use and Transportation Chair
Sully District Council