Coraggio Consulting
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Meeting, Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Place: Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 9h 14m (video)
Official meeting video (Fairfax County): https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/3036
Official Board of Supervisors page (Fairfax County): https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsupervisors/

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-11-03. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:09] Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our board meeting of September 26, 2023. And as a reminder for everyone, in a moment, we are going to rise for a moment of silence to be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. But before we do that, I'm going to ask my colleagues if they have anyone who would like to be remembered.

[00:00:29] They would like to have remembered in our thoughts and prayers. And let me begin by just mentioning two people. First is Bob Mehe, and Bob made a real positive difference in our community. He passed away last Thursday.

[00:00:45] I got the sad news that it was a sudden death from his wife, Helen. He served on the county's Trails and Sidewalks Committee, and for over 40 years, he was a representative on the Brooklyn Bush Hill Civic Association, the Franconia Land Use Committee.

[00:01:02] And what I remember most about Bob is his early enthusiastic support of what used to be called the Tour de Lille bike ride. He was a huge bicycling advocate, advocate for public safety, and dedicated literally tens of thousands of hours in serving the county at the local level.

[00:01:22] And if we could keep Bob Mehe, his wife Helen, and their family in our thoughts and prayers. And then secondly, I think all of us were surprised to learn the sad news about Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who we all believed had been diagnosed and was diagnosed this April with Parkinson's disease, but later learned that she had a much, much more rare neurological condition that is advancing quite rapidly and recently announced that she would not run for another term in Congress.

[00:01:57] I got to know Jennifer Wexton back in her days as a state senator. We served together on the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for years, was a strong advocate for so many things, but we will particularly miss her expertise on transportation and the friendship that she had with so many of us, but most importantly, her work in Congress on behalf of Fairfax County.

[00:02:22] And so if we could keep Congresswoman Wexton and her family in our thoughts and prayers as she battles this new diagnosis, and I know all of us are sending her strength as she deals with this new news. With that, I'd be happy to recognize any of my other colleagues.

[00:02:41] Let me start on this end with Supervisor Palczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to second my thoughts for Congresswoman Wexton. I know many of us think about her dressed as superwoman, and she really truly was and is a superwoman, a role model for so many women, moms, running and serving in public office.

[00:03:01] And I know my heart's broken to hear the sad news. And I'm grateful to her, but especially to, I believe, her sons are probably teenagers at this point, to think about her loving sons and her husband and their family and how much she has given.

[00:03:17] um to our community um and i'm grateful that she'll be able to spend more time with her family but again share your thoughts for her and for her loved ones in these difficult times thank you supervisor harrity yes i'm very very sad to announce the passing of man seek paion also known as ben paion um many of uh many of us know his son harold paion but the apple didn't fall from the tree. Ben was a highly respected member of our Korean community, served many years on the board of the Korean Community Service Center that provides such valuable services to our residents

[00:03:56] all throughout the DMV. He was an accomplished author, you know, a poet. He wrote weekly articles kind of up until the day he died for the Korean Daily, but asked that we keep Harold and in the rest of his family uh the kids and grandkids and our thoughts and prayers thank you uh others who would like to be recognized seeing and hearing uh no one else uh if we could all rise for a

[00:04:27] moment of silence to be followed by the pledge of allegiance face the flag i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under

[00:05:00] God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And this morning we have four presentations to begin our meeting and as I always do I will announce the proclamation and invite our speaker down to the podium. In front of us we will then read the proclamation. After that presentation we will pose for a picture from the dais and our first presentation today is a resolution to recognize the South Lakes High School Girls Track Champions.

[00:05:39] And this was requested by myself and by Supervisor Alcorn. Our speaker today is Andrew Dugan, Director of Student Activities at South Lakes High School. If you could please come on down. If anyone is here with you, they are welcome to join you down at the podium.

[00:05:56] And while you are making your way down, I will recognize Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Here's the resolution. Whereas the Southlake's high school girls track and field team had an outstanding 2023 season, and whereas the team's accomplishments included a national championship in the Nike Outdoors Nationals 4,000-meter distance medley relay, as well as the third place in the 4x800 relay and a second place at the Nike Indoor Nationals in the 4x800 relay,

[00:06:27] And, whereas in 2023, the team also took first place in the 4x800 relay and the 1,000-meter run at the Virginia High School League Indoor State Championship, along with first place in the 4x800 relay at the Virginia High School League Outdoor State Championship.

[00:06:45] And, whereas the team's success is a testament to the hard work of these student-athletes, the guidance of their coaches and staff, and the support of the community. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of all Fairfax County residents, does hereby congratulate the Southlake's high school girls track team for its outstanding achievements in competition.

[00:07:06] I'm happy to second that motion along with Supervisor Gross. Discussion on the motion, Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for being here. It's a real honor to recognize you all and what you've done. You know, I mentioned some of your achievements here, and I was Googling through some of the news.

[00:07:25] I kept stumbling across headlines like huge wind, you know, nationals. So, yeah, the achievements are just remarkable that you've achieved, you know, in the recent months and years. So congratulations to you.

[00:07:41] This is really something that you're going to appreciate, I know, the rest of your lives. And such an honor for the coaching staff and for the school overall. Very happy that you're here and being recognized today. Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn, Supervisor Gross.

[00:07:59] You know what I'm going to say. Title IX at work. Absolutely. Congratulations to the track team. As one who grew up in Tracktown, USA, Eugene, Oregon, where the world's best track stadium now is, where we used to play, I attended football games when I was in college.

[00:08:24] Just last weekend, some of the championship races were being run in Eugene, and I always get such a joy out of watching the women race, because this is not something that we were able to do, you know, decades ago.

[00:08:42] And women are making, I was going to say making strides, that's not a bad pun, But women are showing that we can do everything the guys can. And in this particular case, we don't have to do it in high heels. So congratulations.

[00:08:59] Keep up the good work. If you go on to college and get a scholarship for track, great. If you just keep running the rest of your life, learning, you know, maintaining all of those skills that you have developed in high school, It will just take you and your families to greater heights.

[00:09:19] I am so proud of the young women who are before us. And again, it is something that some of us remember when it wasn't possible. And so I need to continue to remind folks about the strides we've made over time.

[00:09:37] But it's taken a very long time. It shouldn't take another, you know, several decades for us to recognize that women do have a place in the sports world. But it's also the teamwork and the discipline, the discipline that you've learned.

[00:09:54] Congratulations. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. And if nothing else, Supervisor Gross is highly consistent. And it's a speech worth all of us hearing and especially our young people when they come forward, there have been tremendous strides made but we in Fairfax County continue to tackle this issue of sports equity head-on and we're proud of the success that we've had but most importantly today we're proud of you the South Lakes community who's proud of you your coaches administrators at school and most importantly to your parents and I always say this because as a parent of a

[00:10:33] high school student and another student in FCPS. I know that these student activities are difficult on family life too and take a commitment of your entire family to make sure you're where you need to be at the right time and to make sure that while you're dedicated to athletics, what we find all the time is our student athletes also excelling academically and making sure that you have that right balance that starts at home. And so I want to congratulate you, your families, the South Lakes community and the coaches on an amazing achievement and wish you much, much success in

[00:11:08] the future. With that, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Mr. Dugan, welcome. The floor is yours. Well, first, I'd like to thank you both for wearing blue and green today, Chairman McKay and Vice Chairman Gross.

[00:11:27] You chose the right colors. I think we're all proud Seahawks, and we appreciate you joining in on that this morning. Again, my name is Andrew Duggan. I'm the Director of Student Activities here at South Lakes High School. Sorry, I'm going to keep the notes because if I don't, then I ramble on. So thank you again for the honor that these young ladies are bestowed this morning, something they and their families will remember. Head coach Scott Rasco and his assistants could not be here today. Several of them are teaching and he is on a business trip down to Richmond. But he helped me gather some of the statements we're going to make this morning.

[00:12:03] And you actually have made already for us a little bit, so we're very appreciative of that. He truly loves, I'll start with this, Coach Roscoe loves working not only with these young ladies, but his entire team, or should I say teams, because he coaches our cross-country and both track teams.

[00:12:19] So that's 100 kids or more per season. So he is truly dedicated to these kids and these young ladies in all the efforts he does. The Southlakes Girls track and field team and its relays had an historic year. These young ladies are Caroline Elliott, Bella Harsani, Aya Ryan, Catalina Simon, and Annalise Williams.

[00:12:41] Annalise is a freshman at Lynchburg College, and she could not be here this morning, but we want to thank her mom for showing up this morning. She's doing quite well, we heard this morning. During the indoor season, the girls' 4x800 meter team of Caroline, Catalina, Annalise, and Bella won the Indoor State Championship, setting a new school record by 10 seconds.

[00:13:02] They went on to finish second at the indoor Nike National Championships, earning All-American honors. As we move to the spring, the team, these four ladies, Caroline, Catalina, Ia, and Bella, continued their success during the outdoor season. The team won the Outdoor State Championship, setting a new school record in the same event, the 4x800.

[00:13:21] They went on to also win something called the Distance Medley Relay out in Eugene, Oregon, where they ran, well, as I like to say, ran fast. That was not a school record, but, man, it was darn close.

[00:13:39] They defeated teams from around the country and ran the third fastest time in Virginia history. These young ladies also placed third in the 4x800 relay in the national meet, breaking the elite mark of nine minutes. They were 8.58 and change, something like that, right?

[00:13:55] They shattered the previous school record by just over 15 seconds. They're fast. They're competitive, and they are great kids on top of it all. These ladies have a common goal of working as hard as they can together to attain the highest level possible on the track.

[00:14:13] They do so also in the classroom. They all balance GPAs of over 4.0 or higher, so they take a high demand of classes as well as on the competitive track and field areas. We are very proud of them in Reston and at Southlakes High School.

[00:14:31] Congratulations, ladies, and thank you again for the honor and allowing us to be here this morning. Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Andrew. And I want to thank you too, because the DSA position in our high schools is one of the toughest with everything that you have to balance. Really one of the most fun, but also one of the toughest. And I don't think many people appreciate the scope of things that you're responsible for at these schools. And we thank you for that because that's a special dedication.

[00:15:09] With that, I think we're ready for a photo, and Supervisor Alcorn, if you could join me. Did I understand that you actually ran in Eugene's on that track?

[00:15:26] Yes! Oh, God, that's wonderful. Some parent shots, just in case.

[00:16:23] Now we have another special resolution to recognize the Nova United Senior Women's Basketball Association.

[00:16:51] And this was requested by myself, Supervisor Palchuk, and Supervisor Gross. Our speaker today is Marianne Simonton, member, and Nancy Joyner, founding member at NOVA United. If you could come on down, and anyone who's here with you, please come on down to the podium and join us.

[00:17:12] And while you are doing that, I will turn to Supervisor Pouchik for a resolution. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm especially delighted to be reading this resolution, I think going from our youngest freshmen to seniors in high school to our beloved seniors here in the community really shows that Fairfax County is a wonderful place to live, work, play, and retire.

[00:17:33] And we're so delighted for your accomplishments. So as they are all joining us up front, I will go ahead and read our resolution. Whereas the Nova United Senior Women's Basketball Association was established in 2003 to give women aged 45 to 80-plus the opportunity to play three-on-three half-court basketball and improve their skills in compete.

[00:17:58] And whereas, since Nova United was established, its teams have competed in and won numerous tournaments, played exhibition games during halftime at Duke, the U.S. Naval Academy, and our beloved Washington Mystics games, and have been the subject of feature articles and a documentary.

[00:18:17] And whereas, in addition to helping players stay sharp mentally and physically, the league has helped create bonds that remain in and off the court. And whereas, at this year's National Senior Games in Cleveland, Nova United teams medaled in several divisions, including a bronze from the 80-plus Classics team, a silver for the 60-plus Rapid Fire team, and a gold for the aptly named 65-plus Solid Gold team.

[00:18:47] Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of all of Fairfax County residents, does hereby congratulate the Nova United Senior Women's Basketball Association on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and for its outstanding achievements, which bring pride to the association and our community.

[00:19:09] Signed, Chairman McKay, myself and Supervisor Vice Chair Penny Gross. And I'm happy to second that along with Supervisor Gross. Discussion on the motion, Supervisor Palchik. Well, first of all, I know that Mr. Hill here is a little worried because he thinks his skills are pretty great on the basketball court.

[00:19:30] But not anymore, as he says. I just really want to thank all of you for your work, for inspiring us. I think the fact that you're doing this in our community and representing our community and showing that social skills and sports skills and physical skills and mental skills continue to be a place for human development throughout our entire lives and to inspire us.

[00:19:58] I'm a little scared to watch the games, but looking forward to seeing your incredible team efforts and work moving forward. I know we talked about Title IX, but this is, I think, an incredible show that really I know we focused and engaged our youth in sports, but that sports and athleticism and teamwork really are for every generation.

[00:20:21] And so I just want to thank you and congratulate you. I can't believe it's been 20 years since the league started, and we're so excited to see the next 20 years of your league moving forward. Thank you, Supervisor Pouchek. Supervisor Gross. Arrayed before us are women who did not have the advantages of Title IX. And you all remember, it was not easy to be a female athlete. There were no real openings for sports. You were not encouraged. I think when I was growing up, we had volleyball

[00:20:57] with girls' rules. And I think there was a field hockey or something like that, but nothing else was available for girls and young women. And so you have persevered, absolutely persevered, probably wanted to do sports as young women.

[00:21:16] Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Maybe there were community clubs and so forth, but certainly not in the schools. And so I think that as much as I talked about Title IX in the previous presentation, this is a great example of why in future years there won't be a Title IX issue because young women today have the opportunities that we didn't have as young women.

[00:21:42] And so congratulations, Nancy. I have always been a little envious of your abilities in many, many, many, many ways. But keeping up with women's basketball has always been fun to watch. You introduced me to a whole area of sports I had not really been focused on.

[00:22:03] So congratulations to everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. And, you know, I'm reminded my mom is about to turn 80 and she did play basketball here in Fairfax County at Grofton High School when she was in high school and often tells the stories about how underappreciated girls sports were, that it was nice that they had them there, but tells the stories of playing games in empty auditoriums.

[00:22:32] And so we certainly have come a long way, have still a long way to go. But I love everything about this presentation. Probably the thing I love most about it is the fact that this is another reminder that no matter one's age, it's still important to stay active.

[00:22:50] And it's so important, not just physically, but to everyone's mental health. And I know the bonds that you have with each other, probably many of you would trade for the skills that you have on the basketball court. Just the camaraderie and the ability to get out there and enjoy the game, stay healthy physically and mentally is something that I certainly hope everyone has the opportunity to do and excel in the way that you do.

[00:23:19] So I love everything about this. I'm so glad we could, we could recognize this today. 20th anniversary is a big deal, but I hope that, you know, there are many, many more of those anniversaries for you and for us to celebrate all that you're doing, because this is a remarkable group of people and a remarkable opportunity for our seniors, but for everyone in Fairfax County to think about ways they can continue to be involved in the community and take care of each other. And that's so important, especially these days with that.

[00:23:51] I think we're ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries, and we have with us a number of folks. I'm not sure who wants to take the lead on speaking, but welcome. The floor is yours.

[00:24:09] Good morning. I'm Mary Ann Somerton. I'm the president of NOVA United. And just on behalf of myself and all of our members, I would like to say thank you. We're very honored to receive this recognition today. I also want to say South Lakes, I'm in awe and you're a hard act to follow.

[00:24:31] And then I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Nancy Joyner, who is not only a player, a past president, but also one of the founders of our organization. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for allowing us to be here today.

[00:24:48] I'm with some of my teammates. Some are originals and some are brand new, including two players in their 80s who just started playing basketball. I want to recognize our oldest active player, Mary Lou, 84, and she's a gold medal winner.

[00:25:19] I'd like to acknowledge also over here one of our founders, Jackie Steffens, behind you. Thank you, Jackie. Jackie Steffens and her husband, Colonel Bill Steffens, who was our first coach.

[00:25:39] When we began 20 years ago, it was Jackie's dream that we could become a basketball community like the one she had come from in Michigan.

[00:25:55] The Michigan Spirits are an awesome team. Many, many great players. I know because we compete against them all the time. When we first started, someone said to us, what is the criteria for new players coming on board?

[00:26:12] Our criteria was this. If the body's still warm, that person is on the team. And so we were a very hodgepodge, motley crew, various age groups, had no idea what competition was going to be like, and it showed when we went to compete.

[00:26:40] Now we have groups in five-year intervals. We have those who have competed and who have won in local tournaments, on the state level, and also in the national level, which is very exciting.

[00:26:56] Some of our members brought their medals today. One of the things about basketball is not just the joy of playing, the activity, the get up in the morning and do something. We don't go on the rocking chair.

[00:27:14] We don't do that. We get out on the court and we play. And what we say to everybody is, you're only young once, but you can always play. You can always play basketball regardless of your age.

[00:27:31] You'll have friendship. You'll have teammates. We will meet people that we never met before in all of our circles. Nova United players are very generous people in their community, in their church, in their neighborhoods.

[00:27:48] They are generous people. They know how to enjoy life, but it's because of all of you that we were able to get started and to have a permanent home in which to play, because in the beginning, we didn't know when we were going to play or where we were going to play, but to allow us to play at the James Lee Center has been a miracle for us, and we are so, so grateful to you.

[00:28:18] And the beauty of it all is that all of these children coming into the James Lee Center think nothing of grandma playing basketball. They just, it's just typical.

[00:28:36] And so you hear wonderful things from these kids. You hear from all of our players here that their granddaughter, their grandson, was practicing with them, trying to show them how to shoot, and they're proud.

[00:28:52] Families are proud that the older people in their family has never stopped playing, shows them, gives them that wonderful example. And so the new people coming in will be post-Title IX, and their bodies will be warm because they have played.

[00:29:19] So to all of you, I say thanks to you to allow us to be together at James Lee Center for the fellowship, for the friendship that we enjoy, and for the thrill of being called athletes. Thank you very much.

[00:29:36] So well said, Nancy. Thank you, and thank you for the vision in establishing this group because it's wonderful, and we salute you.

[00:29:54] With that, I think we're ready for a photo. Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if after this photo, if we want to invite the South Lakes team for a multi-generational photo. Yeah, they're still here. Yeah, we will do two photos. We will do two photos. And so if you all could come forward and face the audience, Supervisor Paucek, Supervisor Gross will join me.

[00:31:17] And next, we have a resolution to recognize Christopher Fay, Executive Director Emeritus of Homestretch.

[00:33:04] And I know he is here. If you could come on down, join us. Anyone who is here with you is welcome to come down and join you as well. I see some people shaking their heads no, but you still are welcome to come down. And I know you have a fan club here. And so, obviously, this resolution was requested by myself.

[00:33:24] Our speaker is Chris Fay, as I mentioned earlier. Supervisor Gross, I'm going to turn the gavel to you for one moment so that I may read the following resolution. Whereas for more than 30 years, Homestretch has empowered homeless families and children to attain permanent housing and self-sufficiency by giving them skills, knowledge, and hope to become productive participants in the community.

[00:33:48] And whereas Christopher Fay has guided Homestretch as its executive director for the past 17 years. And whereas during his tenure, Christopher Fay has led award-winning work to equip families with the skills, knowledge, and hope to escape poverty and homelessness through the organization's unique and impactful, all-encompassing approach to address the root causes of homelessness.

[00:34:11] And whereas the foundation that Christopher Fay has helped build will help to ensure the future success of Homestretch, now therefore be it resolved that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of all Fairfax County residents, does hereby congratulate and thank Christopher Fay for his outstanding contributions as Executive Director of Homestretch.

[00:34:36] seconded multiply by Supervisors, let's see, Faust, Herity, and Pacek. Is there discussion on the motion, Mr. Chairman? Yes, thank you, Vice Chair Gross. Chris, I want to congratulate you. 17 years is a long time, as I'm sure you can attest, and I know you have many, many stories over those 17 years, but most importantly, I want to thank you on behalf of the people who have been helped by Homestretch. As I mentioned, they're, you know, an outstanding nonprofit in the county battling homelessness, but also focusing on the root causes to help people

[00:35:14] rise out of homelessness and be very productive members of our community. And I've said this many times before that county government can only do so much. If it weren't for our network of nonprofits, we would not be able to stretch so many of our dollars into meaningful services that can change people's lives. And someone who, you know, was involved in nonprofits for a lot of years battling poverty, I know how hard this work is. And 17 years is a, is really a life commitment to this work and many people who have benefited from your vision and the work that Homestretch

[00:35:54] does in our community. And so I wanted to take this moment really to celebrate your years of service, to hear about the future of Homestretch, but most importantly to wish you well and to thank you for the difference that you've made in our Fairfax County community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[00:36:13] Additional comments? I'll start right here with Supervisor Lusk and we'll go around. Thank you, Madam Vice Chairman. I just want to say congratulations as well for your commitment to the community and the work that you've done to help empower and change people's lives.

[00:36:29] Housing is foundational. Without it, you really can't do much of anything else. And thinking through the supports and the services that are needed to help people who've lived in trauma and who've suffered for so many years is extraordinary. So I, as a person who serves a number of folks in my community who are dealing with these issues. I'm very appreciative. And thank you for making a difference in the lives of so many. Thank you. Supervisor Faust. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[00:37:03] Chris, since you've been around for 17 years, and I've only been here for 16, it seems to me like you've been around forever. I'm going to really miss you. I respect you so much for uh you know your mission but your passion as well and the way you uh you obviously care so much about the people that you are trying to help and uh i have enjoyed very much over the years getting to know some of those people to you know attending events where you ask them to tell

[00:37:38] their stories and you just can't believe uh when you hear the stories how far they've come uh because of your the work of your organization yourself and your organization you've changed so many lives and made them so much better and I am just really grateful for everything you've done and I'm so glad I've gotten to know you over the years so good luck and I don't say retirement I don't know if you say I say rewirement so whatever you do next thank you thank you thank you supervisor

[00:38:15] Faust. I remember when Chris was the new guy. Supervisor Herity, I think I... Yes, just real briefly to add on, incredible success. And what I love is the uniqueness of the model. And it's not just housing first, it's treating the whole person. And the results that you get five years out, 10 years out, are what I think is absolutely amazing and unique about Homestretch and the work that you do in caring for the whole person, not just providing a roof. And you do it without a lot of support from the federal government because you don't follow that

[00:38:54] model. You follow a model that works and that's proven to work for people that fall out of our model. So without you, it would there'd be a lot of people that wouldn't have the help that you've given them. And I enjoy going to the fundraisers and listening to the success stories. They are incredible.

[00:39:13] And hopefully you're not going away. Hopefully you're staying and making sure that that organization stays on track. And I want to thank you for everything you do. My door is always open to you. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Herity. Other comments? Supervisor Palchuk?

[00:39:29] I just want to add briefly that in addition to the work I think that's been mentioned so much about Homestretch and what I especially appreciate about your work is the wraparound services leading all the way to the needs and KidStretch being such an incredible part of the organization.

[00:39:45] I pass it almost every day, and I'm just so delighted, and I wish we could grow that model all over the county and that one's in the city. But really appreciate that you've taken a model that works to fulfill the needs. We say when something's broken, it's a little bit different for each person and each family.

[00:40:04] And so helping address the root causes and ensuring and supporting that the families get the services and they need to be not just successful but to thrive in our community. So thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Palchuk. Any other comments before we vote? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? That motion carries, Mr. Chairman.

[00:40:26] Thank you, Vice Chair Gross. Christopher, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. I greatly appreciate this. It means a great deal to me that you are honoring me today and honoring Homestretch. I'm actually here just as the face of an organization that I believe is incredible, and it is the greatest honor of my life to have been able to serve this organization for 17 years. I actually have been in the business of helping people experiencing homelessness for 35 years. I began in New York City. And when I came to take over the

[00:41:00] helm of Homestretch from the founder, Nancy Taxman, who I think Penny knew, I realized it was an opportunity to serve people experiencing homelessness in a way that was different than what I'd seen around the country, with maybe a few exceptions. And what was different about it was, it's the place that I would want to go if I were homeless. It's the place I would want to see my mother go if my mother was homeless or my child if my child was homeless. If they were in crisis, I would want them to have a place like Homestretch, where they'd be welcomed, where they'd be housed, where they'd be fed, where they provided everything, including the vision and hope for their

[00:41:40] lives that they could escape that and they could ascend out of poverty and they could move into productive lives and achieves things they never thought possible. When you hear those stories at our breakfast, those are people who came in without hope or with very little hope. Maybe what sustained them was the fact that they all have children and they love those children and they want to do whatever they can, protect those children, but otherwise they had no idea how.

[00:42:03] How am I going to get out of this? Poverty is one of those things that tends to build upon itself. The barriers build. They get worse. It's very, very hard to do it yourself without some help, Even if you try with all your might, it's very hard.

[00:42:19] You need others to step in and open doors and remove barriers. So that's what we do. We remove barriers and we open doors and we inspire them with hope. One of my favorite quotes of a graduate was a young woman who said, Homestretch will not change your life.

[00:42:37] You will change your own life. But Homestretch will show you how to do it. And they'll be with you every step of the way. This is a young woman who escaped a domestic violence situation and went into banking.

[00:42:50] By the way, I want to point out for all of those who might be less familiar with homestretch, wherever you go in our community, if you go to rent a car, if you go to a cosmetologist to get your hair done, if you go to the veterinary office to get your pet serviced, if you get a realtor, if you go to a bank, if you go to work with a business analyst, they all might be a graduate of homestretch.

[00:43:20] One of the beautiful things is the people that come out of Homestretch don't look like they were ever homeless. They're simply renewed human beings with children. Recently, we gave a presentation at the Ritz-Carlton, and afterwards, a young woman who worked at the Ritz-Carlton in her nice, crisp uniform came up and said, I was a child in Homestretch, and it changed the life of my entire family.

[00:43:45] I see this wherever we go. I do want to point out there are a lot of new supervisors, and I hope that all of you who are less familiar with Homestretch will get a chance to learn about us. I've asked two people to step with me this morning. One is Patricia Tetreault, who is a member of our board and former chair of our board and a staunch advocate of Homestretch.

[00:44:05] And with me also is Barfons Baldwin, who is our new executive director. I'm very excited to have someone with such vision and competence and experience to step into our shoes. And I ask all of you, please, when we call, to set up a meeting that you meet with her. You'll be excited to get to know her, to learn how you, as the board of supervisors, could support Homestretch.

[00:44:25] But with me also are a cloud of witnesses that are the families that have been in our program. And we need a community where they can live. I say this, you know, right now is a joyous moment for me and for Homestretch, but the challenges ahead remain very, very profound.

[00:44:43] The cost of housing, the kinds of employment that people can get. There's lots of jobs we need in our community. That if that was your sole income, you can't survive in our county. So we have to prepare the families in our program for even higher level of skills.

[00:44:59] And if they're not affordable housing options as well, they will probably have to move out of our community. So some of those professions, the cosmetologists, the nurses' aides, the pharmacy techs, where are they going to live? So we're going to need your help in solving the problems that face us in the future.

[00:45:18] But enough of the lecture. I'm here to say thank you. So on behalf of Homestretch, on behalf of our staff, on behalf of all the families we serve, we are grateful. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Christopher.

[00:45:40] Thank you for making a difference in our community. The only thing you left out was what is next for you. Oh, wow. And I think that's important for us to know because not everybody gets away easily. No one retires when they have your talent. They just sign up for the next adventure.

[00:45:57] Well, Homestretch has asked me to serve as a consultant, which I'm happy to do. I also have a new, I have my first grandson, so I want to spend as much time playing with him. Good. And I've missed my wife for many years.

[00:46:12] Excellent. She's been a faithful supporter of mine even when I was never home, and now I can be home. So I also plan to write and write about Homestretch so more and more people around the country can understand how a model like ours is practical, feasible, and effective.

[00:46:28] fantastic thank you very much for all your years of service you've made a difference in the community with that I think we're ready for a photo and if anyone is here with you that would like to be in the photo they're welcome to

[00:46:40] come down and join us as well and finally we have a resolution to

[00:48:01] recognize the friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter and this was requested by myself and Supervisor Harrity and I know I see Evelyn Grieve the president of the Friends of Fairfax County Animal Shelter is here if you could come on down I also understand Chair Gina Ash is here as well and if anyone else who is here present with you for this recognition could come on down we would welcome that I see a lot of familiar faces for this recognition and while you all are making your way down at this time I will recognize Supervisor

[00:48:37] Harrity yes mr. chairman I have a proclamation to read whereas the nonprofit Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter was founded in 2006 to help raise desperately needed funds for pets in the county in the county's animal shelter in need of emergency medical care and whereas since the first meeting of Friends founders Karen Diveny and Evelyn Grieve have the organization has helped many and hundreds of animals whose medical care would have otherwise gone unfunded.

[00:49:08] And whereas the Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter has grown into a robust and extremely successful organization supporting medical, dental, parasite prevention, community cats, spay and neuter, and senior pet programs, helping many animals go on to find loving homes.

[00:49:26] And whereas the group has also funded many other shelter needs, including new building to house chickens and other animals taken in by the shelter. and whereas the Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter raised $650,000 last year to benefit county animals and has raised almost $5 million since its founding, now therefore be it resolved that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on behalf of all Fairfax County residents does hereby thank Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter for their tremendous contributions to our community and its animals.

[00:50:00] So moved. I'm happy to second that, along with, it sounds like, about half the board. And with that, discussion on the motion, Supervisor Herdy. Yeah, just, and I'll be as brief as I can be, and I'm glad to see we brought a little pooch with us there, too.

[00:50:18] And I forgot to bring my dog buns. Anyway, I'm happy to celebrate and recognize the Friends for what they have done over the last 20-some years. The Friends proves the old saying that the government can't meet all the needs, and it takes volunteers and supporters to do that.

[00:50:38] And they really provide critical care to animals in need. They serve about 400 cats a year, which is really incredible, which helps reduce the population of cats in neighborhoods throughout the county.

[00:50:56] It was a great pleasure to attend along with Supervisor Smith, Chairman McKay, and former Supervisor Frye, the Putting with the Pets. It's a great tournament, a great fundraiser. It shows great community support.

[00:51:14] But I think most importantly is the work the Friends does day in and day out at the shelter, helping get all those animals adopted. And the chairman and I both had the great fortune to be visiting the shelter the same day they did the Clear the Shelters event.

[00:51:34] And we literally, for the first time ever, cleared the shelters, over 100 animals adopted. And that couldn't have been done without the friends, not just the financial support, but the volunteer hours and the countless hours that go into it. So I look forward to seeing you grow as we open South County.

[00:51:52] I mean, that should expand. And, see, I'm going to put a big goal on you. You should be able to double now that you have a brand-new facility. Absolutely, yeah. At least double. Which are backing, of course. All right, there we go. But you've got my support, and I'm sure the entire board's support, as you look to grow into South County Animal Shelter and continue to meet the needs of our animals.

[00:52:15] So thank you very much, and congratulations on the recognition. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Herity. Supervisor Loss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to also acknowledge how appreciative this supervisor is for the efforts that you've done in the Hyba Valley community in terms of coming out and helping the residents who I would say, based on their vulnerabilities, can't necessarily afford some of the immunizations and neutering and spading.

[00:52:45] And the work that you did there this past year was phenomenal. know, hundreds and hundreds of people came out with their cats and dogs and other animals. And just to see how that was orchestrated and to know that this is a part of the work that you do, I just want to say I very much appreciate it and look forward to continuing to support and see you grow as well.

[00:53:09] So thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Luss. Supervisor Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two or three Sundays ago, I was on my way to the I-66 transfer station because I, I've been cleaning out a lot of paper over time.

[00:53:26] And so I was taking a load and I was going by the animal shelter. I don't know what you were giving away, but there was a line all the way from the door back into the parking lot. It was amazing on a Sunday morning to see that kind of, you know, people patiently waiting in line.

[00:53:46] But it's been a pleasure to watch the growth of the Friends of the Animal Shelter over time. It hasn't always been easy. Maybe it's never easy, but I know that there were a lot of hiccups a number of years ago, but you figured it out, and you look at what you've got now.

[00:54:07] It has been remarkable, and even for one who is not necessarily, you know, we don't have pets in our house. We have had in the past, but at one point I said, that's it. When you're a supervisor, it's a little bit hard to care for a pet also.

[00:54:24] But, although Mike Fry did it very, very, very well. In the office. In the office, yes. But you have shown the softer side of life to a lot of companions, a lot of companion animals.

[00:54:43] And you have, I think, built a cadre of not only volunteers, but also people who know in the community what you do and can support you even though they are not necessarily active volunteers at the shelter.

[00:55:01] It has also been a pleasure to watch how we have invested, how the county has invested in the shelter. It is not the same place it was when I started on the board. It is so much better. Parking lot is still a little small, but the areas for the animals really are, you know, for some animals, it's the best digs they've ever had.

[00:55:30] And hopefully they won't be there very long because they'll go on to some loving family or a loving owner who will be even more, give them even more space and more opportunities to run. So thank you very much for what you've done.

[00:55:45] And I want to salute Holly Hazard, who is here. She's the Mason District appointee to the animal sheltering group. But she was also my first appointee 28 years ago. She hasn't been on the whole time.

[00:56:02] But she decided she wanted to continue later on. And so she is my newer appointee. But, Holly, thank you for your decades of work to make sure that our animal friends have every opportunity for love that everybody needs.

[00:56:21] Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. And let me also add my congratulations. And anyone who's been in a shelter, as Supervisor Herity mentioned on a weekend, like we were a few weekends ago for clean the shelter, clean out the shelter, We know the amount of work that the friends put into that operation.

[00:56:42] I mean, it was like a beehive in there. You could barely turn around. There were so many people in there, which I think speaks volumes not only to the work of what the friends do, but also to our overall Fairfax County community. And I'm often reminded that, you know, you can tell a lot about a community based on the way they treat their animals.

[00:57:01] And that certainly is true here in Fairfax County, that, you know, we believe that giving these animals a second chance is an important part of our mission here. Sometimes a third, fourth, and fifth chance in some cases. And don't worry, Supervisor Gross, I've made up for your pet deficit in my own household.

[00:57:20] But in all seriousness, as several others have said, we could not do nearly what we do at the shelter, whether it's immunizations, supplies, support, getting out in the community. We couldn't do any of that stuff the way that we do it without the friends group.

[00:57:35] And I think one of the remarkable things that most people don't know is that you all, you know, have raised tremendous amount of funds, not just through donations, but cash as well. And I know last year alone, you raised six hundred and fifty thousand dollars and almost five million dollars since the creation of the friends group is just remarkable.

[00:57:56] I think the way the community supports you and the way you support our animals in Fairfax County. And so certainly I want to offer our congratulations to you. And I'm also very glad that our current director, Risa, is here and Karen Devaney and some of the folks who have made a major contribution not only to the shelter and representatives of our police department, but have always made sure that the friends are such an important welcome element to the shelter operations.

[00:58:26] and the coexistence of our staff and the Friends volunteers really makes a difference. And that doesn't exist everywhere, and it's something we can be very proud of. And lastly, Evelyn, I want to thank you for all of your years of work with the Friends group. It's been remarkable, and I know we wouldn't be where we are today without your energy, without your enthusiasm, and without your passion for our pets in Fairfax County.

[00:58:52] So thank you. With that, I think we're ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Evelyn, welcome. The floor is yours.

[00:59:08] Thank you so much. I'm going to let Cindy speak first for the ASAC board. Excellent. Hello, Mr. Chairman and Supervisor Herity and all supervisors. My name is Cindy Stewart, and I'm the secretary to the Animal Services Advisory Commission.

[00:59:27] Today, I'm representing Gina Lynch, who was not able to be here this morning with us. But I wanted to add my congratulations to Evelyn for this remarkable small nonprofit founded in 2006 that was a gleam, really, in Evelyn's eye at that time.

[00:59:47] And as you point out, it has grown to be this magnificent resource for the community and for the shelter. and Evelyn was specifically asked to be president because of her devotion and commitment to animals.

[01:00:03] And on behalf of the Animal Services Advisory Commission, I would like to thank all the supervisors for your support to the shelter over the years. It's been invaluable, and I think we have a magnificent shelter as a result of your oversight and your assistance.

[01:00:27] So thank you very, very much. Okay, I had a lot of prepared remarks, but you've said most of my remarks. So I just want to thank you all for, I want to thank the advisory board first for putting forth this resolution to recognize the friends.

[01:00:50] And then I want to thank, I want to thank, first of all, Karen Diveny, the former shelter director and also the co-founder of Friends with a co-founder together and actually I'd like to say it was my idea that I stepped up to be president because as always I do like to tell everybody what to do and how to do it but it was actually Karen who suggested it but I knew you'd like to tell them that's right so without Karen we would never have this organization so since 2006 not only was she the director but she was the co-founder of Friends so I can't thank her enough. And although I had prepared remarks, I also want to thank Holly Hazard. She brought the

[01:01:30] idea to the board, to the ASAC board. So I want to thank her for mentioning that. And also Gina Lynch, who couldn't be here this morning for all the hard work she does on the advisory board and for putting all the information together about Friends. In addition, I would be remiss to not mention that without our director, Risa Currier, we wouldn't have the shelter that we have today.

[01:01:54] And, of course, without Karen, our former director, we wouldn't have the shelter that we have today. They put in countless hours and time and the passion to make the shelter what it is today. I'd also like to thank our board. A number of our members couldn't be here today, but Nancy Abbott, our board member, is here today.

[01:02:11] Our board is Rita Altman, Michael Fry, Jill Weston, Nancy Abbott, Albert Wu. They were unable to be here, but Nancy, thank you so much for coming today, and also our operations manager. Cameron Kressel behind you, and in addition, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that without the public, our animal-loving public, we would never have the opportunity to do what we do every day.

[01:02:38] They're the ones that actually help us make this work, and as I always like to mention, our mission is possible because of them, and as the pets are at what we call at their home between homes were able to raise the funds to provide the care to the animals so that they, as we say, can put their best paw forward and find their forever home. I'd also like to thank my husband, who without him being by my side, I wouldn't be able to do this. And I'd also like to thank Eddie, our mascot, who was our first pet that we provided major medical for. So without

[01:03:16] them, it wouldn't be possible. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Edwin. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Evelyn. And if you could introduce our two other friends, our two four-legged friends here who want to introduce themselves desperately.

[01:03:35] Yes. Come on, Randy. This is Georgia. Georgia. And Tessa. Sahara. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Excellent. I was actually going to say the same thing, and I assume they're both looking for good homes.

[01:03:54] If anybody is watching, they are both very well behaved. Yes, they are. We will advertise them. And thank you to the whole shelter team. Without them, we wouldn't have the shelter we have today. Thank you. Thank you very much, Evelyn. Thank all of you for being here and for everything that you do.

[01:04:12] It is much appreciated. So, Evelyn, on behalf of the shelter and our staff and all of our animals waiting for their homes and also the many animals that we assist in the community that currently have homes, We just wanted to extend a thank you.

[01:04:30] Thank you. Thank you for your service to all of the residents of Fairfax County. One last thing, because you know, as you get nervous, you forget everything. And thank you to the APP staff for all that they do.

[01:04:47] Thank you very much. And thank you for the APP staff, as mentioned, and for our officers for their support as well. It is definitely a team effort at the shelter. So with that, I think we're ready for a photo. And if all of you could come forward, and Supervisor Herity will join me for a photo.

[01:05:58] Okay. With that, we are going to move on to board appointments to citizen boards, authorities,

[01:07:33] commissions, and advisory groups. And at this time, I am going to ask Supervisor Gross if she has a motion mr chairman i move approval of the appointments um listed as final copy and dated september 26 2023 second you've heard the motion it's been multiply seconded and again everyone should have a hard copy of this at their places for all the appointments that we're making here it's been moved and seconded is there any further discussion seeing and hearing none all those in in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion passes

[01:08:11] 9-0, Supervisor Herity not being in the room at the time. And with that, we are going to move on to board matters. And again, the clerk has compiled these digitally and will go alphabetically by district, following myself and Vice Chairman Gross. And let me turn the gavel to Supervisor are gross at this time so that I can make my board matters. First, I have a motion to approve without objection the proclamation requests listed in this document. And very briefly, they are a joint motion with Supervisor Stork to recognize psoriasis awareness month

[01:08:49] in October, proclamation to recognize diabetes and pregnancy awareness month, proclamation and recognition of volunteer fest, an annual community-wide day of service event happening on Saturday, October 21st, a resolution to recognize Bob Carlson, the chair of the employee's retirement system for his years of service, a resolution jointly with Supervisor Smith to recognize Alice and Jerry Foltz for their tireless dedication and commitment to Fairfax County, and a proclamation jointly with Supervisor Walkinshaw and Supervisor Herity to recognize Kim Chi-J on November 22nd.

[01:09:26] Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. My next board matter, I do jointly with Supervisor Kathy Smith, the chair of our Land Use Process Committee, and it involves accessible parking and parking reimagined, which we know we have a public hearing on this afternoon.

[01:09:47] On the zoning ordinance amendment known as parking reimagined, a related issue regarding accessible parking has come to my attention. I believe the board should address separately requirements associated with the number of accessible spaces to be provided in the development in a development are derived from the federal ADA requirements are enforced through the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.

[01:10:10] While as part of Parking Reimagined, staff has proposed measures to ensure stability in the supply of accessible parking, even with proposed lower general parking requirements, Fairfax County needs to continue to be an inclusive community that provides for the amount of accessible parking spaces that meet the needs of Fairfax County.

[01:10:31] Therefore, I move that the board directs staff and the land development services to work with stakeholders, including the Fairfax County Disability Services Board and the development community to consider modifications to the requirements for accessible parking spaces and report back to the board by July 1, 2024, with recommendations for our consideration.

[01:10:51] Second. You've heard the motion, and the second by Supervisor Smith is their discussion on the motion. Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? That motion carries by a vote of 9, Supervisor Lusk being out of the room.

[01:11:12] Thank you, Vice Chairman Gross. And that is the end of my board matters. At this time, let me recognize Supervisor Gross. Mr. Chairman, I have two board matters. One was a very late addition.

[01:11:29] Mr. Chairman, the printed one that's in the packet is, The Board has received a request from the Virginia Association of Counties, or VACO, regarding designating a voting delegate and alternate voting delegate to represent the county at the VACO annual meeting to be held in Bath County on November 12th through 14th of this year.

[01:11:48] Therefore, I move that the Board designate Chairman Jeff McKay as the voting delegate and Supervisor Penny Gross as the alternate. Second. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[01:12:03] Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Gross. Mr. Chairman, next year, you'll have to find somebody else on this one. That's right, that's right. 28 years I've been doing this. That will be stricken from the record. I want to encourage my colleagues to participate in VACO.

[01:12:21] You will find it to be a, whether on the board of directors or just attending the various meetings that they have, you'll find it extremely helpful to the job we do. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, this is an Annandale Greenway signage request. Community members have been working steadfastly to make the Annandale Greenway a reality.

[01:12:42] The Greenway, as you may recall, is a four-mile-long pedestrian connection from Greenspring Gardens Horticultural Center in Laconia, west to the Annandale Community Park near the Beltway that uses various park trails and VDOT and county sidewalks to create a necklace of existing pathways in an urban area.

[01:13:00] Annandale Greenway leadership has been meeting with Fairfax County Park Authority staff about simple signage that might be appropriate to identify the greenway on the park properties and has asked for Board of Supervisors' concurrence with their efforts to pursue a signage plan.

[01:13:16] It is understood by all parties that there is no public funding for a signage plan at present, but that pursuing a greenway signage plan is appropriate for the general good of the community, which has embraced the concept for the Annandale Greenway. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors thank the Annandale Greenway team for its innovation and vision and concurs with their efforts to pursue a signage plan for the Greenway.

[01:13:40] You've heard the motion. I'm happy to second that motion. Is there discussion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my board matters.

[01:13:57] Thank you, Supervisor Gross. Next up is Supervisor Walkinshaw. thank you mr chairman i have one written board matter and a couple of announcements the written board matter is a joint board matter with uh jointly with chairman mckay vice chairman gross supervisor stork and supervisor palchick to send a letter to governor youngkin regarding the commonwealth's withdrawal from the regional greenhouse gas initiative mr chairman in 2020 the general assembly passed and the governor signed the virginia clean energy and community flood preparedness act it directed the virginia department of environmental quality to establish

[01:14:32] a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions. It also authorized Virginia to link that program to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative , a cooperative effort among 12 eastern states from Maine to Virginia to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants.

[01:14:52] Together, the states established a regional limit on emissions from regulated power plants within their territories. It allows regulated facilities to purchase allowances for each ton of emissions, and it gives electric generating facilities the options to use their allowances to comply with annual limits, bank them for future use, or trade them to other electric generation facilities.

[01:15:16] During a three-year period, each state offers its allowances for sale in quarterly auctions based on established budgets to meet their targets. Over time, the regional cap or budget declines so that those emissions are decreased in a planned and predictable way. Since its inception, emissions from plants in those states have declined by more than 50%, twice as fast as the nation as a whole, and the program has raised nearly $6 billion that's been invested in local communities. For its part, Virginia has received more than $650 million in just the last two years. Virginia has two major requirements for

[01:15:55] its participation. One, 50% of the money that comes to Virginia is required to be spent on energy efficiency programs in low-income communities, including programs right here in Fairfax County. And 45% is to go toward helping communities that are adversely affected by flooding or sea level rise, including communities right here in Fairfax County. Here in Fairfax County, we've received more than $15.4 million worth of benefits from the state's participation in the program. A small portion of that has been a valuable source of revenue for our community Housing Partners program that works with low-income property owners to provide energy-saving home

[01:16:34] improvements to reduce costs. A loss of RGGI funding to this program would impact not just Fairfax County residents, but 131,000 low-income residents across the state. Researchers have estimated that the loss of funding would mean those homeowners and renters would not be able to save. They would miss out on saving an average of $540 per year on their utility bills.

[01:17:00] Furthermore, the biggest share of RGGI funding coming to Fairfax County went to our Department of Public Works and Environmental Services to supplement the $7 million it was budgeted last year. So we budgeted $7 million, and that money has been supplemented with RGGI funds to address flood mitigation needs in the county across most of our districts.

[01:17:23] It's been a significant source of assistance to meeting our flood mitigation and safety goals and also supporting our resilient Fairfax goals. Leaving RGGI, as the governor is attempting to do, would jeopardize this critical funding to protect Fairfax County residents from flooding.

[01:17:41] Beyond the financial benefits, our participation also supports our local emissions reduction goals that are described in our CCAP. And as many of you know, as I noted, the governor took steps and is taking steps to remove Virginia from the RGGI program. He's described it as a, quote, regressive tax, which does not do anything to incentivize the reduction of emissions in Virginia.

[01:18:04] As I noted earlier, the numbers show the opposite. RGGI is working to reduce emissions and improve air quality in our region, and millions of dollars are going to help residents to reduce their energy costs and minimize the impacts of climate change.

[01:18:23] As such, Mr. Chairman, we think it's necessary to send a letter to the governor requesting that he end his efforts to withdraw Virginia from RGGI. A program that aligns with this board's goals has helped reduce flood risk, lowers energy bills for low-income residents, and increases the quality of the air that we breathe.

[01:18:43] Therefore, I move that the Board of Supervisors authorize the county executive to direct legislative staff to draft a letter to the governor, signed by the chairman, providing comments on the proposed withdrawal of the Commonwealth of Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. So I'm happy to second that, along with Supervisor Stork, Supervisor Gross, Supervisor Palchik, Supervisor Lusk, Supervisor Alcorn.

[01:19:07] Discussion on the motion, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I covered most of it there. Obviously, this is really important. The governor has moved pretty far down this road, and there is a lawsuit pending and a very legitimate legal question as to whether he has the authority to do this without the General Assembly acting.

[01:19:32] But I think it makes sense to send him a letter, and maybe he can avoid all that lawsuit and just say, you know what, it turns out this isn't something that makes sense. I'll say even I was a little bit surprised. I didn't know how much money was coming directly to Fairfax County for us to help implement our programs in terms of flood mitigation. That was news to me when we talked to our staff about it. So I appreciate my colleagues' consideration.

[01:19:57] Thank you, Supervisor Walkinshaw, Supervisor Gross, and then Supervisor Lusk. It took a long time to get to the RGGI legislation. Local governments have been discussing this for a very long time. When we finally got to a point where the General Assembly did adopt Reggie, it's folly to now say, oh, never mind. So thank you, Supervisor Rockenshaw, for bringing this forward. It's a very intelligent approach, and I think it makes a very, very,

[01:20:33] very good argument to not make changes to our participation in Reggie. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. Supervisor Lost, followed by Supervisor Palchik. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll go quickly. The point I want to raise is I appreciate all of the great points that were made by Supervisor Walkinshaw in terms of reducing our climate pollution and really looking for ways to mitigate flooding and some of the other kind of intense storm issues.

[01:21:00] But I also want to raise the point that this is important as well because it helps create jobs. I think this opportunity exists as a way for us to expand our commercial tax base and to look at ways to look at renewables and look at solar and wind technologies as a way to create opportunities for some of our more vulnerable residents.

[01:21:19] And I'm committed to doing that and just appreciate what this motion does. So thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Luss. Supervisor Palchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, I really want to thank you, Supervisor Walkenshaw, for your leadership on this and for your work with staff.

[01:21:38] I think to me, as was mentioned, what really stands out is the real facts here about the impact, not just on the county and on Virginia and on the region, but on our low-income communities, our homeowners and our renters.

[01:21:54] I was astonished to see that we've already received $15.4 million worth of benefits and that a total of 131,000 low-income residents across the state have benefited. I know that many of us, especially on this board, as we continue to advocate for and invest in green energy, want to ensure that equity is at the top of that work, that we ensure that it is that green investments and the ability to have lower costs and more efficient homes and appliances are not just for some, but for everyone,

[01:22:30] especially those to whom those monthly costs can often be cost prohibitive. and so this has been a win-win. I call it the Appalachian Trail Treaty because it covers most of the Appalachian Trail states, especially in the north, and I'm hoping Virginia can continue to be the southern member of that.

[01:22:51] I think we all expect that and understand both the benefits and the importance of this to our community and to the environment. So I wanna thank you and staff for your work on this and bringing the facts of it to light, both for us and for the community, And I'm very happy, though saddened, that we have to support this at this time.

[01:23:10] And whether it's this, a lawsuit, or seeing the true impact of those investments and the loss of taking us out of this, hoping this is another step forward in helping the governor see why we must continue that commitment. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:23:25] Supervisor Herdy. Yeah, what I didn't see in here was the cost to our residents anywhere. Do we know what that number is, the additional amount our residents have paid as a result or are going to pay? Yeah, I don't know that there is one that's been an issue of dispute, and I know the governor has suggested that Virginians across the state would pay more on their electric bills.

[01:23:47] When you look at the reports that Dominion and the other power providers actually put out, they said that rate increases have been caused by the increase in natural gas costs over the last couple of years. So I don't know that it's the case that people's electric bills would go up.

[01:24:03] I think there's broader market forces at work there. That's at least what the utilities reports would suggest. Is there a letter? Do we know what the letter is going to say? The motion is to direct staff to draft a letter for the chairman's comments.

[01:24:20] There's not a letter to approve? No. Okay. No surprise, I'm not going to be supporting. I would suggest the letter, the content of the letter, will be very close to the content of the motion. This is practically the letter that's written here.

[01:24:35] I mean, I don't anticipate staff introducing anything new than what is before us here in the extensive board matter. So the letter will be almost an exact replica of this board matter. Yeah, and the money comes from somewhere. It just doesn't come out of thin air. So it'll either.

[01:24:54] Well, there's $15 million that's about to go back into thin air. Yeah. There's $15 million, most certainly, that comes to Fairfax County that we can document. And so there is money. You're right. The money comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. We can't document where it came from.

[01:25:10] Right. And I think that's at the heart of the issue, actually, because I've seen no real figure that's been substantive, that's been supported by any analysis. And we have been asking and awaiting for that figure. And I think, as it was described to us by Supervisor Walkinshaw, is the explanation that I've been given.

[01:25:27] I have not seen a figure of what that is. And so what we did was calculate the figures that directly impact Fairfax County and $15.4 million is significant. Further discussion, Supervisor Stork.

[01:25:43] - I have to comment on this because there is an externality. There is a cost to our society when we don't address the overall problem that we have, which is whether some people believe it or not, climate change is occurring And if we don't do something about it more every day, we're making it that much harder to do it in the future.

[01:26:03] So I know some people want to socialize this as a future cost, right? They want to have somebody in the future pay for this. Well, we can make a difference now. I don't know about you all, but I was brought up with Pennywise, Pound Foolish. In my mind, this is a Pennywise thing to do that only will save us lots of pounds in the future.

[01:26:20] So if you truly care about the environment, you truly care about making a difference and moving the marketplace forward, This is a market-based solution that makes a difference for all of us. So I'm all in, and I think anybody who looks at this, and I know there's a lot of folks on the right and left that looked at doing things like this make a difference to get the market forces to bear and get the most bang for the buck, frankly, and that's what this does.

[01:26:44] So I'm strongly supportive, and if you believe and care about making a difference in the environment, what the legislators did a couple years ago was, frankly, was on the forefront of what we need to do, and it's an all-of-the-above strategy. It's not going to be any one thing that makes that difference.

[01:27:01] And this is one more thing that we can do to make that difference, so I'm absolutely all in. And, obviously, the difference in the benefit to the county is clear. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Stork. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[01:27:17] Aye. Any opposed? Hearing nay. Any abstentions? And that motion is approved 9 to 1. Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of announcements. Maybe good timing, but just another plug.

[01:27:34] This Saturday, September 30th, we'll be hosting in the Braddock District the first annual climate action conference from 830 to 1230 at Lake Braddock. We will have presentations from the Department of Energy, a lot of folks from our own OEEC, the Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions, NAACP, Sierra Club, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Virginia League of Conservation Voters.

[01:27:57] And the focus of the conference is not to debate climate change or even to talk about how terrible climate change is, although it is, it's to give people the tools and information to take the actions they can take in their homes, businesses, and communities of faith.

[01:28:12] So my hope is people will leave the conference with a lot of information and tools to reduce their emissions and save money. And by the way, even if you don't believe in climate change, if it's not a priority for you, you probably believe in saving money. So we're going to be given that information, and I hope people will come to get it.

[01:28:31] Also, this Saturday in the Braddock District, we have our annual Oak Hill Open House, which is just a really wonderful event every year. If any of my colleagues haven't seen Oak Hill before, I recommend stopping by and taking a look.

[01:28:47] We will have a tour, an open house to see the historic Georgian-style home that was constructed circa 1790 and the beautiful gardens, including the boxwoods, which are original to 1790. 200-plus-year-old boxwoods, really amazing, from 10 to 1 p.m. this Saturday.

[01:29:09] And on Sunday, as I mentioned before, we have our out of the darkness suicide prevention walk. And Supervisor Smith and I once again will be leading Team Fairfax. And I'm really excited to say I think we have more board members signed up than we've had ever to participate.

[01:29:28] So thank you to my colleagues. And we have raised more money than we have raised, at least in previous years, that I'm aware of. We are $75 short of our goal. So today I'm going to be looking to everyone here to come up with an extra $75, but look forward to seeing everyone outside of the Fairfax City Hall for the opening ceremony at 1230 with the walk starting immediately after at 1 o'clock.

[01:29:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Supervisor Walkinshaw. And next up is Supervisor Faust. No board matters, Mr. Chairman. No board matters. Thank you, Supervisor Faust. Supervisor Lusk. Mr. Chairman, I have no board matters, but I would like to make an announcement of my intent to defer an action this afternoon.

[01:30:13] It is RZ-2022-LE-00024 in the name of 6235 Brandon Avenue, LLC. And I will be making a motion later at 3.30 p.m. to defer that item.

[01:30:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that item, Supervisor Lusk, what time was that item? It was scheduled at 3.30 p.m. today. I will be moving that beyond today, obviously, at the request of the applicant.

[01:30:49] Excellent. Thank you for that announcement. Supervisor Lusk, Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two board matters, one of which is a late one that was handed out regarding a public hearing date for a land use matter. But first is Digital Inclusion Week.

[01:31:05] Mr. Chairman, Digital Inclusion Week is a national movement supported by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. This year's theme is Building Connected Communities. Hundreds of localities host and sponsor special events and campaigns to raise awareness and increase digital equity in their communities.

[01:31:22] This will be the first year that Fairfax County is participating in this National Week of Awareness. Digital equity ensures opportunities for Fairfax County residents to participate and engage in a connected community. The ability to access, understand and use digital tools is essential for many tasks in modern life, including applying for jobs, paying bills, enjoying recreation activities, completing homework, staying informed and connecting with government and community resources.

[01:31:50] This fosters inclusivity, promotes social and economic justice and helps individuals thrive in a technology driven society. Digital access and literacy for all residents is an area of focus for the county's one Fairfax policy. Staff have determined that in Fairfax County, the ideal state of digital equity means, first, affordable digital hardware and connections, awareness of digital resources and services, access to specific digital tools, and finally, advancement of digital literacy skills.

[01:32:24] Further, our countywide strategic plan and the Shape the Future of Aging plan calls for expanding and enhancing the technology skills of learners of all ages while eliminating barriers to digital access. During Digital Inclusion Week, Fairfax County is teaming up with local community-based organizations and broadband telecom providers to host a series of events throughout Fairfax County.

[01:32:48] Details of these events have been sent to your offices. And before I ask for without objection, I would just note this board matter is being presented with you, Mr. Chairman, Supervisor Herity and Supervisor Paul Cech. So therefore, I would move without objection, or I would just ask without objection, that the board designate October 2 through 6, 2023 as Digital Inclusion Week and direct the Office of Public Affairs to prepare a proclamation to be presented at the Digital Inclusion Summit event on October 5, 2023. And without objection,

[01:33:23] that is so ordered. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finally, one more board matter. S.E.M. Fairfax Land Associates LLC, the applicant, submitted concurrent rezoning and final development plan applications for an 8.87-acre property located north of Lake Fairfax Park and identified as Fairfax County Tax Map 18-1, double circle 1, parcel 2, known as the property.

[01:33:49] These applications present an opportunity to accomplish the preservation envisioned in the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan for the circa 1790 Log House previously associated with the Fairfax Hunt Club without financially burdening Fairfax County while providing a small infill residential community consisting of eight single-family detached homes on a cul-de-sac off Lake Fairfax Drive.

[01:34:14] In addition to the aforementioned preservation of the log house, these applications, if approved, would ensure that the currently unmaintained, unnamed cemetery known as No. 44FX1397, that's not a very good name for a cemetery, but that's what it is, is well maintained and in perpetuity, and most importantly, that the cemetery remains undisturbed.

[01:34:39] The applicant held a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 26, 2023 and is scheduled for a second public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 27, 2023. The applicant has requested a date certain for a hearing before this board on October 24, 2023.

[01:34:57] So therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the clerk to the Board of Supervisors schedule the applications for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2023 at 4 p.m. And the applicant is aware that this motion should not be construed as a favorable recommendation by the board on the proposed applications and does not relieve the applicant from compliance with the provisions of all applicable ordinances, regulations, and adopted standards, nor does it prejudice in any way the board's consideration of the applications.

[01:35:26] Second. You've heard the motion, a second by Supervisor Smith. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries, Supervisor Alcorn. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[01:35:42] Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn. Supervisor Stork. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple written board matters jointly. The first item is joint with yourself, as well as Supervisor Lesk and Supervisor Herity, and that's recognizing the 25th anniversary of Fort Belvoir's Oktoberfest.

[01:36:00] For 25 years, the United States Army garrison, Fort Belvoir, has been proudly hosting Oktoberfest, an eagerly anticipated event for military service members, their families, and countless community members throughout the county. Located at Fremont Field on Fort Belvoir, Oktoberfest will take place from September 28th to October 1st, and will highlight authentic German cuisine, beverages, of course, beverages, right?

[01:36:25] Music, dancing, and exciting carnival presented by Jolly Shows, and a Volksmarch, 5K, 10K, and a walk. Started in 1994, this event creates partnerships between the United States Army and the German Armed Forces Command, who annually attend the event.

[01:36:42] The Fort Belvoir Oktoberfest is open to the public and affords Fort Belvoir the opportunity to invite the surrounding local community on post to celebrate and forge community relationships. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, without objection, we ask that a proclamation be signed by the sponsors of this board matter to be presented to the United States Army Garrison Fort Belvoir outside the boardroom on September 29th, recognizing them for 25 years of Oktoberfest.

[01:37:06] Happy to second that motion. Discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Stork. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second item is a proclamation recognizing neighborhood health's 25 years of service.

[01:37:25] Joining with yourself, Supervisor Penny Gross, Supervisor Rodney Lesk, and Supervisor Dalia Palchuk. all areas that they have clinics that serve our our population. Neighborhood Health, a non-profit organization with multiple community health centers in Northern Virginia, is celebrating 25 years of service this year. Their mission is to improve health and advance health equity in Fairbanks County, Alexandria, and Arlington by providing high quality primary health care regardless of someone's ability to pay. In 1977, Neighborhood Health served 1,500 patients but has now expanded

[01:38:02] to 35,000 patients in 14 clinics. CEO Dr. Basim Khan has led Neighborhood Health with tireless dedication and a deep commitment to and understanding of our underserved communities. Neighborhood Health's patients are predominantly low income, uninsured or underinsured, ethnically and racially diverse, and have few other options for accessing high quality care.

[01:38:25] They provide primary medical care for adults and children, chronic disease care, pediatrics and newborn care, women's health, prenatal care, dental care, behavioral health, family planning, HIV care, and prevention, optometry, pharmacy, lab services, immunization, nutrition, cancer screenings, family support services, health insurance, enrollment, and COVID-19 testing and vaccinations.

[01:38:49] That's a lot. They have been recognized by the Health Services and Resources Administration, HSRA, for their quality care and played a leading role in the COVID-19 pandemic response, administering more than 70,000 tests, distributing 30,000 self-tests, and 13,000 N95 masks, administering over 90,000 vaccines in underserved communities.

[01:39:13] Therefore, Mr. Chairman, without objection, we ask that a proclamation be signed by the sponsors of this board matter to be presented to Neighborhood Health for their 25 years of service. I'm happy to second that motion as well. Remarkable statistics in this board matter.

[01:39:29] So hard to believe it's been 25 years, but they do remarkable work. I think all of us have had an opportunity to visit their clinics and see firsthand what they're doing in our community. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[01:39:47] Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Stork. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I actually credit them, along with obviously our health department and their extraordinary role during COVID and the pandemic with having really given us the high percentage of vaccination rate that we got, particularly, I'll say, especially along Richmond Highway Court.

[01:40:09] I know in other districts, there's probably a similar kind of impact, but the one I know, and Supervisor Lusk, I know he and I both saw really dramatic levels of immunization because of their work. So, again, it's another thanks on all of our part. And last time it was just a verbal board matter, but it's one that I'm very proud of.

[01:40:29] We have George Mason's Gunston Hall has been working on their garden behind the house for now a couple, several years, I would say. They're doing their grand opening of the new, what they're calling the Riverside Garden, grand opening on Thursday, September 28th.

[01:40:46] That's this coming Thursday from 530 to 8 o'clock. It is just remarkable how Scottsgrove, in particular the Executive Director, has led that organization through really just an amazing, I think, result of the last decade.

[01:41:02] And I think this is another indication of how they've restored the core of that community that once existed in really elegant terms in terms of the gardens. And when we say gardens, we're not just talking about flower gardens. We're talking about vegetable gardens, et cetera. It's a full kind of, you know, range of foods and beauty that are all there.

[01:41:24] So, again, just wanted to mention that and thank them for all their work in getting us there. Thank you very much. Supervisor Stork, Supervisor Palcic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one joint board matter and then two verbal board matters. The first one is a joint board matter with yourself and with Vice Chair Gross, and this is opportunities for staff retention initiatives.

[01:41:45] Members of the board, the county has taken a number of important steps to help address the recruitment and retention challenges that we and all other employers are facing. We know we have had some success in the recruitment arena as we've recently seen large and highly diverse public safety classes.

[01:42:02] But also recognize that as a global workplace continues to evolve, that we need to be nimble and flexible. We also know that we are closing the gap in our mental health treatment staff shortages, but still struggling in other areas. Staff have repeatedly committed to monitoring and updating the board on recruitment trends and opportunities, and we look forward to future discussion to ensure that we continue to make progress. We've also made progress in retention. The MRA was completely funded for FY 2024, and market reviews have been implemented recently. As we look at our existing workforce, it is important to understand how recent actions have benefited our retention goals.

[01:42:41] It is also important to understand what other opportunities exist to strengthen county retention. Specifically, it is critical to understand our current retention strategies and what additional incentives for retention might be effective for the Board to consider.

[01:42:58] Therefore, we move without objection that the issue of opportunities for staff retention incentives be referred to staff to develop a report on current retention statistics, strategies, and additional opportunities for retention of employees. It is further moved that this report be presented at an upcoming personnel committee meeting for the board to review.

[01:43:21] I'm happy to second that along with Supervisor Lusk. Any discussion on the motion? Supervisor Palchuk. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say briefly, and I know as we look at both our long-term budgets going into next year's budget discussions, as well as one-time funds that we are able to use carry over at third quarter and throughout the year.

[01:43:47] It's important to understand what has been effective. We have heard from many employees. I want to thank all those who have reached out to us, as was said, about the effectiveness of our recruitment and those initiatives. But we know that some of that has had an impact on our existing staff and on the ability to retain the senior staff, especially those with many years of experience who, you know, many times are able to do the workload of two to three new staff as they get trained and are able to take on full workload.

[01:44:19] So we really appreciate that. I know we are cautious as to how one-time funds are used, but the ability to have that comprehensive review and understand those strategies and the targeting of those funds, whether we are going into the operating budgets and year-to-year budgets as well as the one-time things like bonuses that I know I and many of our colleagues have discussed that we appreciate staff's work but want to continue to see where there are other opportunities as things continue to develop.

[01:44:53] Thank you, Supervisor Palchuk. Supervisor Herity. Yeah, and understanding some of the retention stuff is probably financial. It needs to be financial. But I'm hoping this board matter includes non-financial things, you know, such as workforce conditions, that sort of thing.

[01:45:09] Because I know in the private sector, that's where a lot of it's heading. It's, you know, work-life balance kind of thing. So I'm going to support the motion, but was hoping that was included in there. Sure. I mean, I think incentives is pretty broad in here, and we're looking for what works, not what sounds pretty.

[01:45:27] And so definitely looking at both financial, which we know a lot of that has made a difference, especially for young families trying to make a living and afford to live in our region. We need to stay ahead. As we know, we compete more and more with the private sector. Thank you, Supervisor Palczyk.

[01:45:43] And before I recognize Supervisor Gross, I'm just going to add because I see the county executive nodding. This is an exercise that the senior management in the county do every day because I've seen the dashboard who monitors every single day what's happening in every agency with vacancies and other things.

[01:46:00] And so I don't want anyone watching here to think that, you know, we're bringing something brand new here and asking that it be looked at for the first time. As your board matter acknowledges, we've been nimble and flexible in a way I've never seen in this county since COVID hit, with bonuses, with ability to work from home, with expansion of health benefits, with a lot of things to be competitive and to make a difference on recruitment as this motion acknowledges.

[01:46:28] And so obviously those things have a long-term effect that we need to look at and have a broader conversation on. But I know this is something that the county executive and the team is on top of and ready to give us an update and really looks at this continually because there are departments in this county that we haven't talked a lot about that have high vacancy rates.

[01:46:49] I know it might be politically popular to constantly talk about public safety, but public safety has made a huge rebound in terms of recruitment. And as you acknowledged in diversity and has had some of the largest recruitment classes in the history of Fairfax County, way surpassing the Virginia State Police recruitment.

[01:47:09] And so a lot of good work done in this space, but we do need to make sure that we're aware of what the impact is on all of our departments and all of our employees, both newly hired and seasoned employees that have been here, and make sure that we monitor that. Supervisor Gross. Well, you pretty much said that I was in a much broader way than I was going to say.

[01:47:29] I just wanted to remind the board that we did have a discussion in personnel committee meeting earlier this year. We have a few more months now of data that probably would be available to see, you know, really what's working, what's not working.

[01:47:45] So, again, it's not something new. It's just an opportunity to bring it, to look at the data. Everybody's so data-driven these days. That's what we need to have. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[01:48:03] Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Supervisor Palchuk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two fun activities, and these are ones that hopefully can't get rained out, unlike last weekend. First of all, I know a lot of planning has gone into so many activities happening this weekend.

[01:48:23] Everyone's happy to be in person and having events. So first of all, and I appreciate Mr. Chairman will join us as well as Congressman Connolly and other state elected officials, and invite all of you to join us for the renaming of the Providence Community Center that is coming Saturday, September 30th at 10 a.m., hopefully outdoors, to be renamed for Jim Scott as the Jim Scott Community Center.

[01:48:47] We're delighted Nancy Scott will definitely be there, as well as members of the community, and welcome all of you. I know there may be some conflicts in our schedules this weekend, but I appreciate especially the NCS staff who have been coordinating and organizing this event at the community center. And second, I don't know how many of you have seen, but Capital One Hall is partnering with the Concert Truck for a free public performances in Northern Virginia the week of September 27th to the 29th. They will actually begin in the Franconia District.

[01:49:20] These are all free concerts with Broadway music, free and open to the public. And patrons are invited to bring their own seating and enjoy the program, rain or shine. And they will begin September 27th at 11 a.m. at the Oakwood Meadow Senior Residences, followed by performances at Borough Park, George Mason Regional Library in the Mason District, at Mosaic at Capital One Center Sculpture Garden and finishing at the Providence Community Center right before the renaming on Friday at 2.30 p.m.

[01:49:54] So if you all have some free time during this week and want to see some free Broadway music, highly recommend it, happy to send this out and have you share it out to your communities as well. Thank you, Supervisor Palczyk. Next up is Supervisor Herity.

[01:50:10] Yes, I've got one quick one and a very quick announcement. The first one is legislative consideration to address the public safety component of panhandling and pedestrians. Over the past several years, I've brought multiple efforts to the board addressing the issue, including consideration of a draft ordinance, a pilot sign program, work programs like Operation Stream Shield, and a public education campaign, and I've included those as attachments.

[01:50:35] The carryover package contained a consideration item for a study to gather valuable information for people who panhandle across the country across the county i'm sorry understanding the critical needs of people in the community is essential when dealing with this multifaceted issue our believe it's also critical to address the public safety component of panhandling not just to understand the service issues i'm competing continuing my review of ordinance involving prohibiting the exchange of objects in the roadway that have been successful in other jurisdictions and speaking with our police department's been brought to my attention that in the same general

[01:51:13] assembly session where loud mufflers were made a secondary offense jaywalking was also made a secondary offense this removed a tool the police officer can use to warn deter and if necessary charge pedestrians including panhandlers that are in the right-of-way outside of crosswalks for their own safety and for the safety of motorists therefore mr chairman i ask without objection that prior to the adoption of our legislative agenda a legislative committee meeting include a discussion on adding language to our legislative agenda on the removal of secondary offense language for jaywalking to make it a primary offense to give our police officers

[01:51:51] a tool to warrant sir and if necessary charge pedestrians including panhandlers that are in the right of way outside of crosswalks and let's uh do let's do a vote on this um because i know there is some discussion discussion on the motion I'm happy to second the motion okay let's get a second Supervisor Walkinshaw any further discussion on the motions Supervisor Harrity no I think that did it it's just that it's all this is is to have a discussion at legislation on this change that's all all right Supervisor Walkinshaw yeah I appreciate the the motion and I don't

[01:52:30] object to the motion I think I will suggest maybe maybe a friendly amendment to it. You know, first, just on the issue of jaywalking, and I'll try not to go too far down this path. You know, I met with a group of Cub Scouts recently, and I was going on and on about local government and the responsibility they have to bring issues to us and tell us when they think something is wrong, and Cub Scout raised his hand and said, well, you know, I live just off Twin Brook Road, and my parents and I, when we go to the Safeway, there's no crosswalk, and we need a crosswalk or a sidewalk. So I'm thinking, all right, I got a chance here to deliver for this

[01:53:07] Cub Scout. And of course, you know, go to VDOT and go through the process. And VDOT says, no way, no how. We're not going to do a crosswalk there. We're going to keep working on that one. But I think one thing that's important when we talk about jaywalking is that we all and VDOT bear some responsibility here in that there are a lot of places in this county where if you want to walk somewhere, to a grocery store, to a place of worship, to a place of business, there is not a legal way to do so with a crosswalk. In this case, the legal route that they would have

[01:53:43] is to walk about a mile down Twinbrook to Guinea, cross at the crosswalk there, or to cut through someone's front yard, right? So I try not, I want everyone to use crosswalks and be safe. I try not to get on my high horse about it because we have design issues that make it all but impossible in a lot of cases. We know that we have a pedestrian safety issue, have had a pedestrian safety issue, especially in the last couple of years, same as all across the country, right? We had 24 pedestrian fatalities in 2022. I think maybe one of those was related to panhandling. And I think

[01:54:19] it was someone who was panhandling, who was on the median, by the way, and a driver left the roadway. I don't know that we have evidence of incidents or interactions between panhandlers and cars creating safety issues for panhandlers who are quote-unquote jaywalking. We know we got speeding, we got distracted driving, we got speed limits that are too high in some places. We have bad road design that we're working hard and investing money to address.

[01:54:51] And we have spent a lot of time on this topic in the legislative committee. Last year, you know, We had major initiatives. We worked very hard to try to get the General Assembly to give us the authority to reduce speed limits in business and residential zones.

[01:55:07] VDOT vehemently was opposed to it and was successful in blocking us in the House of Delegates. We have other elements of our legislative program around pedestrian safety. But I think given that the pedestrian safety issues we have are not primarily related to panhandling, I think it would be a disservice to have a conversation that's solely focused on panhandling slash jaywalking.

[01:55:33] So I'll just suggest to Supervisor Herity a friendly amendment to the motion where it says a legislative committee meeting include a discussion on, and I'll replace the existing language with, issues in legislation related to pedestrian safety, including speed limit reduction authority, which was an initiative we've had, funding for safe streets, better coordination between VDOT and FCDOT, additional flexibility within the VDOT approval process and design standards, and removal of secondary offense language for jaywalking.

[01:56:12] I just don't think we can have a conversation about pedestrian safety and not talk about all the issues that we know are really leading to the fatalities and deaths that we've had. Sure. And I would assume that will include analysis of the analysis of the pedestrian incidents and whether they were in or outside crosswalks.

[01:56:34] Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Pedestrian safety writ large. That's my point. All right. OK, I'm fine. OK, so that friendly amendment is accepted. Any other discussion on this matter? Again, what we're doing here is referring this to the legislative committee to talk about pedestrian safety.

[01:56:52] And we have, I think every session I can remember, had legislation and language in our legislative package dealing with pedestrian safety. And clearly, as the board matter acknowledges, there is there has been a change. And I think we need to have a full discussion of that.

[01:57:09] I think every one of us is well aware of the challenges of jaywalking and of panhandling in the county. And I do believe there is a safety component here. But as we have a conversation about this, we know it's a far larger issue than just safety and some of the root causes and challenges that are out there.

[01:57:29] And as the board matter acknowledges, there is an item in carryover review that I have added to do a survey of people who are panhandling so that we can get an understanding of what's going on. I know many of us have heard the rumors in the past about this being a business enterprise more than it is concentration of people who are homeless.

[01:57:53] We also have heard from people in our homeless community that rely on panhandling. And so there seems to be mixed data out there. And I think we need to understand what the challenge is, the root causes of it, including what the effects are on public safety. I will say that one of the things that has me very concerned is it seems like more recently than not an escalation in terms of the, let's say, energy level of the panhandlers.

[01:58:20] And I do think that is a safety issue for them, for the motoring public and for pedestrians. And I do think it's something we need to look at and look forward to having that conversation as part of our legislative package. for people viewing they might want to know why we can't just do certain things well there's a constitution we have that issue we have to deal with but then there's also uh the reality of our state uh being the the provider of our roadways and so anything that we're doing in the vdot right away in a lot of cases as supervisor walkenshaw has acknowledged requires state legislation and and certainly how people get charged whether something is a primary or secondary

[01:59:00] offense is a state decision that local governments have to live with. And so that's why all the all the meaningful discussion on this. With that being said, all those in favor of the motion as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Supervisor Herdy. Yeah, just a quick announcement. The free concerts in the park at Burke Lake Park is making a return, my popular man, and the generosity of our sponsors. The Magic Trio will play Thursday, October 5th at 645 for a fall concert, and hopefully the weather holds for that. That's it.

[01:59:39] Thank you, Supervisor Herity. Supervisor Smith. No board matters. Thank you, Supervisor Smith. And as we wrap up board matters, I do want to make two other very quick announcements, because they involve a colleague of ours here who's recently been recognized.

[01:59:57] First, the Public Service Commendation Medal from the Department of the Army was awarded to Supervisor Penny Gross for her work as chair of the Community, Military, and Federal Facility Partnership at the Northern Virginia Regional Commission.

[02:00:12] And I mentioned this on purpose because obviously we're proud of the work that Supervisor Gross has done. But for those not familiar with this group, at one time was chaired by Supervisor Marty Noe of Prince William County, who then recruited me to chair it, who then successfully recruited years later Supervisor Gross to chair this committee.

[02:00:35] But the work that they have done, especially over the last couple of years, is remarkable. And the agreements that they have facilitated with other military bases between local governments and military bases have saved tremendous amount of resources. And when this group was first formed, the discussion around it was to harden our region from harmful BRAC decisions that would have taken military jobs and defense contractor opportunities out of northern Virginia.

[02:01:03] And this committee has been stood up literally since the last BRAC announcement and has done remarkable work, not just at Fort Belvoir, but at Meyer Henderson Hall, at Quantico, and at so many of the other military establishments that are in the Northern Virginia region.

[02:01:20] Penny has chaired that for a number of years, and we are so proud of her in getting the commendation medal for the Department of the Army for that work. Thank you. Thank you. That's what was presented, but there's also a medal that goes along with it.

[02:01:38] And for those of you who may be familiar with the term fruit salad for the military, it actually comes with a miniature metal on another ribbon that you can actually wear as fruit salad. And so it totally stunned me, blew me away.

[02:01:55] And I was, yes, supervisors Lusk and Stork were there. Apparently they were clued in. I was not. But Colonel Messina presented this, and it was really very lovely. But, you know, as you said, we can't do what we do without recognizing that this affects the entire region and that we depend on our county staff also.

[02:02:19] Being a member of this board gives us remarkable opportunities to highlight Fairfax County. And so, you know, it's not about the awards. It's about the work. And so, really, any time you get an opportunity to participate in one of these regional bodies, you really need to take advantage of it.

[02:02:42] And our staff is always available to help, to back us up on this and provide us a lot of information and sometimes, you know, in a heartbeat. So I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. but this is something that brings recognition to Fairfax County, and I'm really pleased about that.

[02:03:03] Thank you, Supervisor Gross, and if that wasn't enough, there's one more. Supervisor Gross was also awarded the 2023 Fran Flanagan Environmental Leadership Award by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay for her 25 years of work towards restoring the Chesapeake Bay, and I think everything that she just said is so pertinent to this.

[02:03:25] We know the Bay is a regional treasure, and we know remarkable work has done to literally save and improve the conditions on the Chesapeake Bay. And Penny was there, has been working on this for 25 years. And I think a lot of folks, as she just acknowledged, don't understand the regional commitments and opportunities that members of this board have to make a difference.

[02:03:49] And while it is very time-consuming, I will say as one board member who serves on a lot of these groups, like so many of us, the reputation of Fairfax County and the reliance on Fairfax County on some of the successful regional solutions to challenges we're facing is high.

[02:04:07] And it's because of the reputation that we have, that our staff has, but also the folks who serve on these regional committees. And so I definitely want to recognize Supervisor Gross for the 2023 Fran Flanagan Environmental Leadership Award as well.

[02:04:23] Thank you. Thank you. It all it all happened on the same day. Rather, rather busy day. Thank you. Twenty five years in the works. Congratulations, Supervisor Gross.

[02:04:39] With that being said, we are going to move on to our next agenda item, which is a public hearing on the county and schools FY 2023 carryover review to amend the appropriation level in the FY 2024 revised budget plan.

[02:04:55] And let me begin by asking our budget staff who is coming down information here if they would like to give us a brief presentation on what we are doing today. We will then ask any questions, and then we will hold our public hearing.

[02:05:13] And so as soon as you are ready, staff, welcome. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Phil Hagen, Department of Management and Budget. The FY 2023 carryover review outlines balances available at the end of FY 2023, which ended on June 30th, and includes recommendations for the use of those funds to adjust the FY 2024 budget.

[02:05:34] Carryover recommendations were presented at the Board meeting on July 25th. Recommendations included the carryover of the balance of federal stimulus funds and significant investments in the county's infrastructure sinking fund and for pedestrian and sidewalk improvements per the county's year of end fiscal policies.

[02:05:51] Support is also included for information technology projects, environmental and energy initiatives, parks, and youth mental health services. After adjustments recommended by the county executive, a balance of $2.24 million remains. Several consideration items have been submitted by the Board and were discussed at the Budget Committee meeting on September 19th.

[02:06:11] I'd also just note that this is not the only opportunity for the Board to amend the FY 2024 budget. Our third quarter recommendations will come to the Board in March. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hagan. Are there any questions of staff? Again, we did have a good conversation about this in the Budget Committee meeting last week.

[02:06:29] Supervisor Faust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask about the Supervisor Pulchik's consideration on the $8 million for affordable housing development.

[02:06:45] I assume that's zeroed out on the sheet we have here because it's coming out of a different funding source? Correct. It would have zero impact on the remaining balance because that $8 million is already appropriated as part of the General Fund Pandemic Reserve, which is appropriated. And so we would shift that appropriation from the General Fund Pandemic Reserve held in Agency 87 to be a transfer to the Affordable Housing Fund.

[02:07:08] So that doesn't require any further action by the board? It will be moved to the $8 million will be moved to the Affordable Housing Development Investment Fund? It would need to be part of the board's motion if the board desires to do that.

[02:07:24] Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Supervisor Herity. Did we receive a response from schools on the detail of the expenditures? No, they were hoping to get that to us this week, but we had not received it as of about an hour ago. They are going to provide it.

[02:07:40] I don't need to do a FOIA or anything. No, they're working on the report. It's their actual numbers. And Emlyn. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Just a follow-up on Supervisor Faust's question. And so the $8 million, I know and I appreciate housing staff's memo that recently provided information, updates on how the money is being used.

[02:08:04] I know I certainly hear and get requests, suggestions on how we use that housing money in terms of different capital and programmatic things. And I know this is something at the Housing Committee we'll be talking about, I believe, at some point, hopefully before the end of the year.

[02:08:23] And so at the carryover time, it's not the time to go into details on, you know, how the money is exactly going to be spent, I think, in a situation like this. But I do look forward to that continued discussion that we've had in our housing committee on how that gets spent.

[02:08:40] So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn. And, of course, what that memo showed is the money has already been allocated or is encumbered. And so this is an important part of carryover, to put some funding back into that account to continue the creativity of the private sector, working with the county to create affordable housing.

[02:09:02] Other questions of staff before we start the public hearing? Okay. I am seeing and hearing none at this time. This is a public hearing. I do have a speaker's list in front of me that has seven speakers who are signed up to testify on this matter.

[02:09:19] And our first speaker on the list is Avi Day. Is Avi Day here? It's listed as unknown. This speaker did not signify whether or not they were going to provide a video or in-person testimony.

[02:09:36] We have no video. I know that. But is Avi Day here to testify? Not seeing speaker number one. We will try again later. Speaker number two is Corazon Sandoval Foley. And I know Cora is here.

[02:09:52] She will be followed by Suzanne Olahar. Is Suzanne here? Okay. And following Suzanne will be James Waller. Is James here? Okay. Excellent. If you all could be ready to be on deck for your testimony, this is speaker number two, Corazon Sandoval Foley, who has five minutes.

[02:10:10] Welcome. Okay. All right. My name is Corazon Sandoval Foley, founding chairman of the Foley Community Center Project, also known as Burke West Springfield Senior Center Without Walls. Also, the independent Green candidate, the first Filipino-American, first Asian-American, and the only woman candidate for Springfield Supervisor 2023.

[02:10:36] First, I would like to request that Fairfax County remove the tax on senior senators that the Springfield Supervisor led the board in imposing as the head of the 50-plus committee. I believe your carryover budget package could cover such a reduction in taxes on seniors.

[02:11:00] We seniors have been paying rising, dramatically rising property taxes even though we do not have children in FCPS nor do we drive much. And the county services that we get are mainly provided by the senior centers.

[02:11:16] Let me also remind you that September is Senior Centers Month, and removal of the tax on senior centers would be a good way of celebrating the month. So happy Senior Centers Month to us all. Second, I would like the board to implement the project approved at last year's carryover hearing, particularly the approved renovation of the lease that I negotiated two years earlier with Chris Leonard.

[02:11:44] I must say one of the best county staff ever. he didn't give me any money for that one we seniors then suggested and the county approved the site as the former dress barn space at huntsman square i thank clayton medford of the chairman's office for arranging a meeting with ncs so i could request opening as soon as possible the least space because the county has been canceling needed senior programs because of quote

[02:12:19] lack of space. NCS promised to provide by September 2023 a full-fledged briefing online, a standard arrangement for Fairfax County with a timetable, costs, and design so that we taxpayers can come in and we can move forward with the opening of the center. September is almost over. We ask the board to direct the county to implement the promised online briefing and open the center as soon as possible third last year i requested the board to honor american patriotism

[02:12:58] by naming the vietnam veteran and son of the american revolution michael daniel foley community center i thank the japanese american veterans association for supporting my request and i'm asking other vietnam veterans groups to support us i do hope that the board would approve naming facilities, not just for politicians, but also for patriots, like the family of our center co-founder

[02:13:29] with honorable military service in Vietnam, World War II, World War I, and at the 1777 Battle of Saratoga in support of the founding of our American republic and democracy. Thank you. Thank you, Cora. Speaker number three is Suzanne Olihar, representing the Solid Waste Team, is a member of the Solid Waste Team, Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions. It's a mouthful, right? Suzanne, welcome. The floor is yours. We go by facts. I am Suzanne Olihar. Thank you for

[02:14:07] having me this morning. I'm in Supervisor Smith's district, and as FACS food chair and compost Chair, I was so thrilled and so thankful for you supporting the development of the compost outpost at the I-66 transfer station.

[02:14:25] EQUAC has set a goal for educating our citizens on the value of composting as a way of managing that part of our trash. And we know that our citizens, most of them, are not in a position to compost at home.

[02:14:41] It's not realistic, and you really can't handle the real bulk of the food trash. in a home composting system. So a decentralized composting, like the Compost Outpost, has many benefits for our citizens. First, it targets all food scraps, including the meats, the breads, the milks.

[02:15:02] Secondly, it does strengthen our local community's awareness of composting as a healthy way to manage our refuse while creating some local jobs. Thirdly, it reduces our carbon footprint for transporting all that heavy, wet trash across the county to the incinerator, and that incineration process takes more energy to burn all this wet food scraps.

[02:15:29] Finally, it contributes to our circular economy by creating a product that can be used locally to amend our soil and reduce the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and water. So decentralized composting is considered a best practice by those in the composting industry, and I want to thank you for your continued support in scaling up the necessary infrastructure for this practice.

[02:15:58] But we can and we should do more. Today I'm asking you to support a pilot for another much less expensive composting method that can be used in our schools. The JET audit noted that 49% of school trash was compostable.

[02:16:16] 18% of that is recoverable food that schools should rescue in their food share programs. Most of the remainder can be addressed by a Redan composter, thus eliminating, do we have a picture of the Redan? There it is, yes, of the Redan composter, and this eliminates the cost of hauling the trash away from the school.

[02:16:38] The Redan is an in-vessel composter that can handle all types of food scraps, including half-eaten hot dogs, hamburgers, and cheese sticks. This proven system does not need water or electricity, and school students can participate in creating compost from their own food scraps.

[02:16:57] With this system, cafeteria scraps can be added daily, along with wood chips to support the aerobic digestion process. The top is closed on the right-hand side up there. That cap comes off. And the auger can be turned by students by them turning that handle that's on the right-hand side as well.

[02:17:19] This mixes all the material and moves it down through this machine. After about 10 weeks, the discharge door, which would be right where the number four is there, there's a door that opens there, and you get sweet-smelling compost coming out that side.

[02:17:38] Because it's an enclosed system, it eliminates the problem of odor, rodents, and insects. So this turnkey system has been deployed around the DMV by a company called Loop Closing. For $30,000, it will pay for two units to be purchased and for a year of full operational support from Loop Closing.

[02:18:04] I have presented the Redan to both Dr. Reed and to the Get to Green team, and they are open to trying it. So, I would like to conclude that this is an opportunity to participate in composting for our students that will empower them to better manage their food waste and produce a product that will help to heal our earth.

[02:18:27] Thank you. Thank you, Suzanne. And, Suzanne, could you provide your testimony to us as well? I think that would be helpful, including the graphic that you shared with us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker number four is James Waller. And following James Waller, Shane Thomas.

[02:18:45] Shane Thomas here. Okay. Tati Carnes. Okay. At this time, and Tati, you will be Speaker No. 6, to be followed by Speaker No. 7, Arthur Purvis. Mr. Waller, welcome. The floor is yours. Right.

[02:19:00] Great to be here, Chairman Piquet and Vice Chair Grossi just left, and other supervisors and the county executive. Thank you for the honor and pleasure to speak with you this morning. I am James Waller, President of the Friends of Colvin Run Mill. I appear before you today to offer praise and, naturally, to make a request.

[02:19:21] First, the praise. I commend the county executive on the proposed FY 2023 carryover appropriation with respect to allocating $15.7 million to the parks. As you've heard in presentations on the regular budget, the park authority's needs are greater than its budget.

[02:19:39] The carryover budget will provide important resources for forest operations, capital equipment, turf fields, energy improvements, capital projects, including rec centers, infrastructure replacements, and upgrades. This proposal is timely and most welcome, and I urge you to adopt this part of the carryover appropriation.

[02:19:59] Now to the request. In 2014, the Fairfax County Park Authority had the brilliant idea for a pedestrian passageway under Route 7 as a part of the widening of Leesburg Pike.

[02:20:15] About half of Colvin Run Mill's 67 acres are on the south side now of Route 7 as of 1940 when it was put in there. And that includes old quarries, the old mill dam and pond, wetlands, natural beauty, and, of course, the namesake of the park, Colvin Run.

[02:20:33] People come to the park and say, where's the water come from? Well, it's on the other side of Route 7 now. The $1.5 million tunnel and road construction are moving forward. And barring unforeseen developments, it should be completed by the end of this year.

[02:20:51] And the tunnel, as I say, exists. I sent you my, but here it is. It is a beautiful, beautiful, big tunnel. That was right there. I used to use it. Anyway, and yet there's no trail on the south side of this tunnel that would link to these old park sites or and connect to the Rails to River trails, which if you go west is a mile and a half to Lake Fairfax.

[02:21:17] And if you go east, it's a quarter mile to Jerry Connelly's Cross County Trail. So it is at this point a tunnel to nowhere. Or worse, it could be a tunnel to somewhere, hikers would say, hey, look at that beautiful tunnel over there. I wonder where it goes.

[02:21:34] Let's bushwhack across these protected wetlands and get there. That would be terrible for the wetlands and for the hikers. Supervisor Faust has said that creating this trail is a priority, and I thank you very much, Supervisor. And Supervisor Alcorn has actually walked where the proposed trail would go in a sports jacket and hiking boots.

[02:21:54] After several years of prodding, the Park Authority has found $200,000 for preliminary work. It has issued a task order to map the wetlands and a trail alignment and to study the hydrology of Colvin Run to determine a crossing point. Results are expected this month.

[02:22:11] Another task order will be issued for design and permitting. Steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Funds have not been allocated to actually build the trail. This trail is 1,000 feet long. For the trail to be built with signs in place as soon as possible after the Route 7 widening project is completed, funds from the carryover appropriation should be allocated for building the trail.

[02:22:37] You may ask reasonably, how much should be allocated? Well, that's a good question, but I understand since the preliminary work is underway, it's hard to give a precise estimate about the cost. But since the Park Authority has expert experience and long-time experience with trail building, perhaps they could provide you a maximum estimate for allocation and then reallocate any unused funds.

[02:23:01] So to conclude, please adopt the carryover budget with respect to park funding and please allocate funds to build a trail on the south side of Route 7 and avoid this being a very costly tunnel to nowhere. I thank you for your kind attention.

[02:23:17] Thank you, Mr. Waller. And since I have 40 seconds left, I will just say it's been a joy being here early and listening to you do your regular business. For me as a citizen here, it's an education, and my wife played roving guard for Robert E. Lee High School, so probably played against your mother, right? Ah, how about that? There you go. I have to look that up.

[02:23:35] Thank you very much, Mr. Waller. I appreciate your testimony. Speaker number five, Shane Thomas. Shane Thomas has arrived or not? No, I don't see. Speaker number six is Toddy Carnes. Ms. Carnes is representing Friends of Historic Huntley. Welcome.

[02:23:52] Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Supervisors of the Board, I am the President of the Friends of Historic Huntley. Located in Alexandria, in the Alexandria area of the Franconia District, Historic Huntley is a federal period villa overlooking the Mount Vernon District.

[02:24:10] It is Fairfax County Park Authority property, and the Friends of Historic Huntley strives to support this site. Today, the Friends of Historic Huntley comes before you to say thank you. Thank you all, and especially Supervisors Lusk and Chairman McKay, for your approval last year of carryover funds to complete a paved trail segment that will finally complete a full walkway along Harrison Lane between Historic Huntley and Huntley Meadows Park.

[02:24:35] Although the paving has yet to commence, we have been excited to observe, just within this past week, workers along Harrison Lane presumably preparing to launch the project. This project is of great import to us since a significant part of the land comprising the forest and wetlands of Huntley Meadows Park was once part of the original historic Huntley estate, hence their shared name, Huntley.

[02:25:00] Today, the two properties, one of predominantly natural resources and the other of predominantly cultural resources, are serviced by the same park staff. To us, they are one park. Thank you for funding the means to physically connect the two properties, thereby enabling visitors to visualize their oneness and to better experience the totality of Historic Huntley's original estate.

[02:25:25] We applaud the projected disbursement this year of $15.7 million in carryover funds to the Park Authority. We submit, however, that the final figure should be amended to permit funding the 1,000-foot trail on the south side of Route 7 at Colvin Run Mill, as just urged by Mr. James Waller, President of Friends of Colvin Run Mill.

[02:25:46] As at Huntley, the park at Colvin Run Mill finds its visitors unable to jointly access the totality of its cultural and natural resources. The mill needs the Southside Trail to internally unify itself against a bisection wrought by Route 7 and to make the park accessible by those on the Jerry Connolly Cross County and the Rails to River Trails.

[02:26:09] Please include funding for the Colvin Run Mill Southside Trail and the carryover dollars allotted this year for the Park Authority. Finally, thank you for last spring's budget guidance, asking your respective Park Authority Board members to coordinate with you in advance of preparations for the FY 2025 Advertised Budget Plan.

[02:26:29] We are pleased, indeed, at your heightened interest in seeing that the Park Authority receives the funding it needs to run a truly world-class park system. As the Friends Group of an Historic or Cultural Resources site, we ask that such funding include provision not only for the county's natural resources, but also for its rich bounty of historical resources.

[02:26:54] As with both Huntley and Colvin Run Mill, these resources are frequently co-located and deserve to be made equally and fully accessible to county residents. Thank you for helping to ensure that with your carryover funding of the Huntley Trail segment last year.

[02:27:10] And please make that so for our friends at Colvin Run Mill by funding their requested Southside Trail with carryover monies this year. From the Friends of Historic Huntley, thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Carnes, for your testimony, and speaker number seven is Arthur Purvis, president of the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance, and Arthur is the last speaker who has signed up in advance. Are there other folks here who would like to testify? If you have not already, please make sure that you're signed in with the clerk. If you would like to testify, there is an opportunity to do that. Please make sure you sign in with the clerk here at the end of the dais. Mr. Purvis, welcome. The floor is yours.

[02:27:49] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm Arthur Purvis, and I address you as president of the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance. Thank you for holding this hearing. At issue, it's $652 million. That is the amount left over from FY 2023, which ended June 30th.

[02:28:09] The general fund had an ending balance of $321 million, and Fairfax County Public Schools had an ending balance of $331 million. That totals $652 million. By comparison, locally collected car tax revenue this year is $505 million, and the average car tax per household is $545.

[02:28:31] If the county did not spend the $652 million, next year it could eliminate the car tax for one year and save the average household $545. The increased revenue from this year's real estate tax hike is $317 million, costing the average household an additional $413.

[02:28:51] After eliminating the car tax next year, the county could, perhaps, reduce the average real estate tax hike by half. However, this is not the plan. Instead of returning the $652 million to the taxpayers, the county and schools plan to spend it all.

[02:29:07] Last week, my church, along with neighboring churches, sponsored a clothing drive. We had a basketball court filled with rows of tables, and tables were piled high with donated clothing. clothing. I was not there to see it, but was told that when the doors were opened, two-thirds of the clothing disappeared in an hour. This is to say that people are hurting. They are hurting from inflation, from high gas prices and expensive groceries. Inflation is a regressive tax. It hits the poor harder than the affluent. Fairfax County citizens, especially the poor, need a break.

[02:29:44] FCPS's $331 million ending balance for FY23 is $190 million more than its ending balance five years ago when it had 8,000 more students. It got the extra $190 million by co-mingling $272 million of one-time COVID relief or ESSER funds with the recurring revenues in the school operating budget.

[02:30:08] This manipulation does not inspire confidence in FCPS budgeting. The ESSER funds should have been put in the grants and self-supporting fund and not co-mingled. In last November's budget preview, FCPS said it needed $30 million for the Equal Access to Literacy program.

[02:30:26] However, in the superintendent's proposed budget in January, the amount was reduced to $15 million. When I asked what got cut from the program for the $15 million reduction, it seemed like it was just a placeholder. In its carryover package, FCPS allocates $63 million for reserves and has $57 million of encumbered purchases.

[02:30:51] This totals $120 million. The remaining $211 million should not be spent but should be saved for tax relief next year. FCPS also has $53 million of unspent ESSER funds. That should be returned to the federal government. Also, the encumbered purchases ought to be audited for use-it or lose-it spending.

[02:31:12] Similarly, the county carryover package allocates $12 million to maintain the managed reserve at 4% of the general fund disbursements and has $53 million of encumbered purchases, totaling $65 million.

[02:31:28] There is also $119 million of unspent and unallocated COVID relief money, the ARPA money, and that should be returned to the federal government. The remaining $138 million should be saved for tax relief again. For tax relief again, encumbered purchases should be audited.

[02:31:46] This would provide $349 million for tax relief, enough to cut the car tax 68% and save the average household $370. It could be useful for groceries. Or the county may need $100 million or so to pay for Fairfax County's share of WMATA's $750 million budget shortfall in its FY 2025 operating budget.

[02:32:16] This proposal cuts a myriad of projects. The project should be regarded with a zero-based budgeting mindset. Ask, is this project more important than a family needing to buy gas, groceries, or clothes?

[02:32:35] Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Purvis. And speaker number seven I have signed up is Robert Whitfield. Robert's testifying as an individual. I have no one else signed up at this time. If you would like to speak, now is an opportunity to sign in with the clerk.

[02:32:53] Mr. Whitfield, welcome. The floor is yours. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman and Supervisors. I started getting involved with budget matters over a decade ago when Len Wales was in charge and Susan Dalla. So I've tried to keep abreast with all the developments in budgeting.

[02:33:13] But I have to tell you, if I do more than most, what do most people understand? And that's something that there used to be committees from supervisors with budget And I don't think that seems to exist anymore.

[02:33:30] Anyway, I work mainly on transportation issues. Starting in 2011, I went to the WMATA board meetings and did that until 2020 when COVID occurred. I've seen what goes on at the WMATA board meetings.

[02:33:46] And I can only tell you that the financial mess that they have is largely of their own making. Obviously, Paul Wiedefeld came in six years ago and did a good job in rectifying many of the deferred maintenance problems.

[02:34:04] But there's one overriding statistic that never gets discussed in public. In fact, even today, Laura Ari Tani has a Washington Post article about what WMATA proposes to do to solve its fiscal crisis.

[02:34:20] Nowhere mentioned in this article and anywhere else in anything I've ever heard at WMATA meetings is the fact that they only increased the fare revenues for passengers by less than 1% a year in the last decade. Meanwhile, the expenses were increasing by 6% to 8%, maybe even more, percent every year.

[02:34:40] And I pointed this out in 2018-2019 when they were doing their capital planning. We can't hope to have a system that operates properly if you don't raise the revenue side of the equation.

[02:34:57] Now, I don't know what, if anything, Fairfax County has done in regard to budgeting for reserves for this alleged $750 million projected gap. I don't know if we have any reserves.

[02:35:12] I do know that we're presently spending over $200 million a year to subsidize. But I guess I'm opposed to spending any money on what I see as relatively frivolous, non-essential things such as another $25 million for bike trails when we have this huge financial problem facing us.

[02:35:33] And I don't know whether it's proper to ask Brian Hill to explain what is being done, but we as the public need to understand what are the plans of Fairfax County. And it's not just to do with the WMATA problems, it's to do with the whole transportation funding issues.

[02:35:52] I've asked Supervisor Alcorn when are we going to update the transportation priorities plan, and so far had no answer. At the end of this month, we are supposed to provide to the TPB our response on the cutting using zero-based budgeting to reduce, allegedly to reduce the projected highways.

[02:36:19] The demand is still going to be there, but I've heard nothing from Fairfax County, and so I can go on like this at length, but I need to see some sense that somebody's going to do something from the board for a change.

[02:36:35] And we could go on about, I mean, there are issues that the Virginia Railway Passenger Express is going to cost billions, and we still don't have funding plans that are equitable.

[02:36:53] So the failure is not just at Fairfax County, it's at the state level too. And I'll be glad to help work on this. And I hope you can see fit in your decision-making on the carryover budget. To provide more explanation to the public on what's being done with the Omada problem.

[02:37:11] Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. And Robert Whitfield was speaker number eight. Is there anyone else present who would like to testify? That brings me to the end of our speakers who have signed up. Is there anyone present who would like to testify? This is a public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one else, let me ask staff if anyone has called in.

[02:37:30] There is no one who has called in. At this time, any questions from board members? Any questions from board members of staff? Seeing and hearing none, I will now close the public hearing and pass the gavel to Supervisor Gross so that I may make the following motion.

[02:37:48] I move board approval of the carryover package including supplemental appropriation resolutions AS 23276 and AS 24009 and amendment to the fiscal planning resolution AS 24900.

[02:38:07] This approval includes the FY 2023 carryover review package as presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 25, 2023, which resulted in an available non-recurring general fund balance of $2.24 million, as well as the following adjustments.

[02:38:26] One, one-time funding of $500,000 for the county's competitive housing blueprint pool to support pre-development and construction costs for housing projects that include permanent supportive housing. Two, one-time funding of $500,000 to support the McLean Community Center's project to construct ADA accessible doors and facilities at the old firehouse.

[02:38:51] Three, one-time funding of $250,000 to expand the Transportation Options Programs and Services TOPS program from four to six annual subsidies per participant. Four, one-time funding of $200,000 for the Phase III of the Lake Ann Economic Visioning Project.

[02:39:14] Five, one-time funding of $150,000 to complete the Springfield Branding Project. Six, one-time funding of $125,000 to offset the cost of equipment and supplies of the SPARK program.

[02:39:29] Seven, one-time funding of $100,000 to fund improvements such as lighting and modifications to the parking lot at the Annandale Civic Space. Eight, one-time funding of $75,000 to conduct a survey of people who are panhandling in the county.

[02:39:46] And finally, nine, the reallocation of $8 million, again, repeat this because this was discussed earlier, the reallocation of $8 million from the General Fund Pandemic Reserve to fund 3300 affordable housing development and investment. With these adjustments, the general fund balance at the FY 2023 carryover review is $335,702. You've heard the motion, which I'd be happy to second along with supervisors Faust, Lusk, Palchuk, and Alcorn. Is there discussion

[02:40:21] on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Supervisor Herity? Yeah, and you know this is always a difficult one for me because what I would have done is take most of this and hold it over till next year for tax relief and maybe fund a few critical items supervisor gross mentioned it our carryover review that you know here again we're funding full-time positions with one-time money and the 15 mental health positions absolutely needed I know the county executives

[02:40:58] identified positions we could have eliminated and what I think we should have done there is have eliminated those positions and put those forward and carried it forward but i i'm leaning towards i can't not vote against those 15 positions um that last carry over i wanted to put 5 million towards park maintenance we've got incredible park maintenance issues you need to go out and see the equipment that they're trying to work with uh it's really hard for me not to vote

[02:41:31] for the 15 million because that's a priority that's something we are way behind on um and uh you know if we didn't do five million a year ago that could maybe could have i don't even think 15 million starts to put a hole in it i appreciate rob whitfield mentioning that we've got this 750 million dollar hole coming for metro we all know it we haven't really had a discussion about what our position is going back to amada i think that's something we need to have because i know have some

[02:42:02] pretty strong thoughts and feelings on that so I I think I'm going to very very reluctantly support this because I think we you know because of those two items and a few other smaller items that that I think our priorities but we got some tough times coming I know we had a very rosy picture presented to us almost too rosy picture presented to us it's on next year's budget but that didn't include any discussion of the WMATA challenge or the many other fiscal challenges that we have,

[02:42:39] but I'll be supporting the package this time. Governance is getting harder. Any other comments before we vote? Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? That motion carries unanimously, Mr. Chairman.

[02:42:57] Thank you very much, Supervisor Gross, and thank our speakers for their testimony. We are now going to move on to admin items, and let me ask Supervisor Gross if there's a motion to approve admin items 1 through 10. Move approval, Mr. Chairman.

[02:43:13] You've heard the motion. Supervisor Lusk and I will second that motion. Is there any discussion or any items that board members would like to have pulled for a separate discussion? Mr. Chairman. Supervisor Gross. I do have a question on admin 7. Admin 7.

[02:43:29] Yes. This is a proposed zoning ordinance. This is authorization to advertise public hearings on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding sign regulations. And I see Leslie Johnson heading towards, quickly heading towards the microphone, eager to answer questions on Admin 7, Supervisor Gross.

[02:43:54] Mr. Chairman, there is a part of this particular proposal on electronic signs about NITs, which is N-I-T. And it's the brightness of signs. And I am toying with the idea of asking for us to look at less illumination after sunset.

[02:44:22] It seems to me there's a lot of light pollution. So even if we govern the NITs here, I would like to see us look at something that would reduce the illumination, not eliminate it, but reduce it, especially in our business areas, because we don't have all that many in the residential areas.

[02:44:44] But looking at it from a standpoint of reducing the NITs, and I think we would have to then include language that would be able to be authorized for the public hearing. So I may be a little late at this one.

[02:45:00] I'd like to know whether we can perhaps consider that in part of this advertisement, if I'm making any sense. No, you're making Leslie Johnson, Zoning Administrator, and I would also note that Casey Judge is on the phone, and it's her amendment, and she's home because her child gave her sickness, so she's not able to be here, as we all know about that.

[02:45:27] But to your question about, and I know that we've been looking at some possible language to add as an option in the ordinance, and we do have time to provide some options for the planning commission and the board to consider as part of the advertisement.

[02:45:47] So I think we can accommodate that. The question is, I mean, and it sounds like what you're asking for is maybe a range because we've also talked about an option that would just say turn it off between certain hours. But you're looking at a range.

[02:46:03] And I wanted to be sure we're advertising this for, I think, October 25th. So there's time to work on the language before it actually has to be legally advertised. But rather than defer, you know, to later, I'd like to have this considered while I'm still on the board.

[02:46:22] But I just think that if we could add that a couple of lines about reducing the brightness to a certain level after, you know, between sunset and dawn. And I would leave it up to staff to be able to wrangle that.

[02:46:42] I've had a little bit of conversation or email traffic with staff, but I think this is the time to do it. We can make it broad enough in the advertisement that would give flexibility, you know, with the options that we can come up with. Okay, that would be my request.

[02:46:59] I don't have specific language to amend this, but that would be my request. That's good, and I'm not seeing any objection to that flexibility. I mean, ultimately, the more flexible we are in this, the more we're able to respond to what we hear from the community as a result. So I see a number of people who are asking me to recognize.

[02:47:16] Let me make sure. Is it on the same subject that Supervisor Gross just raised? Yes. Okay. Then I'm going to start with Supervisor Herity, who I saw first, Supervisor Paucek, Supervisor Alcorn. And I will also have questions on eight, but I will wait until after we're done with this one to get there.

[02:47:33] My big concern is, will this still allow the large TV screens? I know at Reston Station we had an issue with the large screen, and we talk about wanting to do placemaking. I just want to make sure that we aren't blanketly prohibiting.

[02:47:52] No, we're not, and yes, it would allow for that through a legislative process through the board. So it would be a special exception thing, but there wouldn't be a limitation on the NITS or whatever. Right. We would have that limitation because of the standards, correct?

[02:48:08] All right. Thank you. Only that may be imposed by the board on a case-by-case basis, but not inherently embedded. Got it. Okay. Supervisor Palczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, and I appreciate the motion. And I would just add, I think information as we prepare for that would be really helpful.

[02:48:25] I know many of us, especially in the urban areas, have looked at specific exceptions and understanding, you know, where some of those would fit into these categories. As was mentioned here, emergent technology. So I think probably for most of us on this board, a lot of these are going to be new, and just understanding the ones we know of, where they would fall into those categories as we look at them.

[02:48:47] Thank you. Okay. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Yeah, I would just ask, I appreciate Supervisor Gross bringing that up. And she had mentioned our commercial districts in particular. I would just ask that the range not just be limited to commercial, but also our residential areas.

[02:49:05] because I know certainly that's been some community discussion that I've heard, and we want to make sure we have the ability to get it right. So, thank you. Agreed. That's what we're looking at, the range for both. Any other questions on this side?

[02:49:21] Supervisor Herdy, do you have an additional question? On admin 8. Okay, any other questions on admin 7? Okay, let me just verify one thing. I just want to make sure we verify it for the record, because this deals with the CSPs, and I just want to make sure that the way this is written is the staff is grandfathering CSPs that are already in process, accepted by September 26th, which is today in the date of authorization, and approved by the Planning Commission before March 1st of 2024.

[02:49:56] Is that correct? That's correct. That's our proposal. I mean, the board could change that if they saw fit, but we're trying to get them all into an SC process, but we do have some that are currently pending, and so we wanted to give an opportunity if someone's got an application in and they just got it accepted that they have the opportunity to go through the CSP process until, you know, through that window, which we think we can accommodate.

[02:50:26] Okay. I just wanted to make that clear because this is a pretty significant change, and I know some people are already in the pipeline, and we want to make sure they're not affected. Okay. Admin 8 is authorization to advertise a public hearing to convey board-owned property at 13500 Dulles Green Drive to the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

[02:50:51] This is in the Drainsville District. Supervisor Herity. Yeah, I just wanted to see if we could get an update on the conversations between the Cricket community and the Park Authority. Have they been able to identify them a location for a field? Not yet. We are still actively engaged with the Park Authority, trying to get them to identify space.

[02:51:10] Separate vote on number eight, please. Okay. We can do a separate vote on admin eight. Okay. Any other questions or discussion? Okay, so at this time, Supervisor Gross has moved approval of Admin Items 1 through 7 and Admin Items 9 and 10.

[02:51:30] We will vote on Admin 8 separately. All those, and I believe I seconded that motion. If I didn't, I am now. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[02:51:47] Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Brings us to Admin 8, again, authorization to advertise a public hearing to convey board-owned property at 13500 Dulles Green Drive to the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority in the Drainsville District, Supervisor Faust.

[02:52:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move approval. And this motion has been multiply seconded by Supervisor Lusk and Supervisor Paucek. Discussion on Admin 8. Any further discussion on Admin 8? Supervisor Faust. Yeah, I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, so that people know what we're talking about, there is a piece of land owned by the county that is about a third of a mile from Metro Station.

[02:52:36] That Metro Station was not ready when I agreed that this land could be used as a temporary field for recreational activities. We as a board adopted a board matter that directed staff to find an alternative site for those recreational activities.

[02:53:01] However, you know, I understand that because of Supervisor Herity's motion or efforts to make the available playing fields we have available to outside interests to do their whatever it is he wants them to do.

[02:53:18] We're in a holding pattern until the responses to the RFP that he requested come in. Once those responses come in, assuming that we don't give all that land away, there will be an opportunity to hopefully move the cricket field to these other locations.

[02:53:38] But this is a site that must, you know, we spent $6 billion on a dollars rail. This is almost immediately adjacent to the station, perfect opportunity for an affordable housing development.

[02:53:54] And I support it very much, and I hope everybody will support the administrative item. Thank you. Thank you very much, Supervisor Faust. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of Admin 8, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[02:54:10] Parity, nay. Any abstentions? And Admin 8 is approved 9 to 1. Uh, that brings us to action items. Uh, action item number one is approval of license agreement with hands-on harvest for outdoor space use at the Eileen Garrett Civic Space in the Mason District Supervisor Gross. Mr. Chairman, um, this is pretty cool stuff. If you read the item, um, it's going to be a wonderful opportunity, uh, for, uh, the community and actually see the demonstration gardens and actually work on the gardens. This was something that we incorporated

[02:54:48] into the design of the Eileen Garnett Civic Space and that dedication will be done on October 21st. But without further ado, I would move the county executive's recommendation. Second. You've heard the motion. I'm happy to second that along with Supervisor Palchuk. Any discussion on the motion?

[02:55:05] Any further discussion on the motion? Supervisor Palchuk. I just want to add briefly, this is very exciting hands-on harvest agree does incredible work they've been they have now two gardens and growing in the Kingsley community and I have to tell you one time I visited one of the young moms with her third kid on her back said in Spanish I could hear her I felt like I was living underground until this opportunity arose and not only does it bring food and community but really that sense of belonging and ability to really nourish the community around them So it's been incredible for people of all ages, and this is a very exciting commitment.

[02:55:44] And hands-on harvest, I can't say enough good things about them. Great, great. Thank you, Supervisor Pouchik. No further discussion. All those in favor of Action 2, please say aye. Aye. I'm sorry, Action 1. That was Action 1. Action 1. All those in favor of Action 1, please say aye.

[02:56:01] Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Seeing who's paying attention here. That brings us to action item number two, which is approval of Supplemental Appropriation Resolution AS 24066 to accept grant funding and authorization to execute a project administration agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for implementation of transportation alternatives funding for the Mason Neck Trail Project in the Mount Vernon District. Supervisor Stork.

[02:56:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the county executive recommendation. And I'm happy to second that motion. Is there discussion on action two? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[02:56:47] And that is approved nine to zero. And that brings us to action item number three, authorization for the Department of Transportation to apply for funding and approval of a resolution endorsing projects being submitted for the Virginia Department of Transportation's FY 2025 to 2026 Revenue sharing and transportation alternatives set-aside programs in the Braddock, Dranesville, Franconia, Mount Vernon, Providence, Springfield, and Sully District, Supervisor Alcorn.

[02:57:19] All but 100 mil almost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to move. Approval of Action Item No. 3 is recommended by the county executive. Yeah, a lot of, I think all those districts practically, a lot of seconds on that motion. Any further discussion on Action 3, Supervisor Walkinshaw?

[02:57:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we probably don't want to go through each of them. I'm obviously really excited about the Lake Braddock Safe Routes to School, and I just want to call out and thank Michelle Richu, I hope I'm pronouncing that correct, who is a Lake Braddock mom. Unfortunately for me, not my constituent, I think she lives in the Springfield District, but has almost single-handedly spearheaded this effort at Lake Braddock and organized and pushed and pushed and just done an incredible job.

[02:58:02] And if we're successful in this grant, it will be because of her efforts in FCDOT and VDOT as well. So I want to thank her and everyone who's been part of it. Thank you for that, Supervisor Walkinshaw. And the Safe Routes to Schools program, we know, usually is successful when there's a group or a parent who is a driving force.

[02:58:21] And in this recommended item, there are three of those Safe Routes to Schools across the county that are being funded. So important stuff. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, action item 3, please say aye.

[02:58:38] Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. And before I turn to Supervisor Gross for a motion on closed session, let me ask the county attorney how long we need for closed session. Mr. Chairman, I estimate two and a half hours, but if I could respectfully perhaps suggest that the board get lunch and go into closed session, And maybe, hopefully, there will be a break at the end of closed session.

[02:59:04] It's up to us, right? So you've heard the county attorney. So should this motion to go into closed session that Supervisor Gross is about to make be approved, we'd ask that everybody grab their lunch, report into closed session at 1 p.m., which gives us the two and a half hours should we need it before our first 3.30 public hearing.

[02:59:30] And we do want to start on time because there are a lot of speakers, at least in one particular case, but also in public comment this afternoon. So, at this time, Supervisor Gross. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors recess and go into closed session for discussion and consideration of matters enumerated in Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711 in the attached agenda for this meeting.

[02:59:52] And in addition, one, as permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711A8, legal analysis regarding Barry v. Broad of Supervisors, Virginia Supreme Court Record No. 211143, and Gloss v. Wheeler, Virginia Supreme Court Record No. 210779.

[03:00:12] Two, as permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711A1 and 8, personnel and legal briefings regarding the following. County contract number 440010973 and retirement board authority. Three as permitted by Virginia code section 2.2-3711A3. Potential acquisition of real property in the Sully district for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the county's bargaining position. Second. You've heard the motions and a second by

[03:00:47] Supervisor Lusk. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. We will break for lunch, but we will report with our lunches into closed session at 1 p.m. We will begin closed

[03:01:06] session. Okay. Welcome back. The board has just come out of closed session, and at this time, I'm going to recognize Supervisor Gross for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the board of

[03:01:45] supervisors certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements by virtue of Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711, and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which closed session was convened, were heard, discussed, or considered by the Board of Supervisors during the closed session. You've heard the motion. It's been multiply seconded. I know I heard Supervisor Lust, Supervisor Palchuk. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries,

[03:02:21] and I know we have a motion coming out of closed session. At this time, I will recognize Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Board of Supervisors authorize the county attorney to reject the settlement proposal received from Reston Civic Corps LLC. In the case of Reston Civic Corps LLC versus the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia et al., according to the terms and conditions outlined by the county attorney in closed session.

[03:02:46] You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Lusk. Discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries and I believe was the only motion coming out of closed session. I'm getting affirmative from the county attorney. And so with that, we are now going to move on to public hearings. And just as a reminder for folks, individuals wishing to provide testimony have a number of options. They can testify here in person or they can provide testimony by phone or by YouTube video. At the designated point in the public hearing, I will call for any speakers

[03:03:22] from the speakers list and they will either come forward or their video will be shown or they will be connected by telephone. There will then be an opportunity for anyone else present here in the auditorium who would like to speak to the application to come down to the podium or to call in on a number that will be provided on the screen. Speakers testifying via video must have signed up and submitted their video no later than 9 a.m. on the day prior to the public hearing.

[03:03:48] For all testimony, you're given three minutes to speak as an individual. If you're a spokesperson for a group, you are given five minutes. And we are going to follow the agenda precisely as it is listed here, but I will announce ahead of time that we have a public hearing this afternoon, a 4 o'clock public hearing on parking reimagined and we are going to be taking that up last today and we will I will move public comment to right before that public hearing in light of the fact that there are over 30 speakers for parking reimagined and there are 10 people signed up for public comment and so we

[03:04:26] will take public comment before we begin the conversation on parking reimagined so with that change announced to the agenda our first public hearing this this afternoon is a public hearing on PCA 2004-LE-012-02, CDPA 2004-LE-012, RH Senior Housing, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Corporation in the Franconia District, and if we could please have the applicant reaffirm the affidavit.

[03:05:01] Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mark Vianney, on behalf of the applicant, RH Senior Housing, I reaffirm the affidavit dated August 4th, 2023. Thank you very much, Mr. Vianney. And at this time, we're going to do disclosures from board members. And I will start by disclosing that the Friends of Jeffrey C. McKay received a contribution in excess of $100 from Richard H. Edson.

[03:05:25] Other disclosures of board members, Supervisor Palcic. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Friends of Dalia Palcic have received contributions in excess of $100 from Mark Vianney and from Rick Edson. Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I disclose that Friends of Rodney L. Lusk received a donation in excess of $100 from Richard H. Edson.

[03:05:46] Supervisor Smith. Mark Vianney contributed more than $100 to Kathy Smith for supervisor. Supervisor Stork. Dan Stork for supervisor received a contribution in excess of $100 from Mark M. Vianney.

[03:06:02] And finally, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to disclose that Mark Viani and Richard Edson each contributed in excess of $100 to James Walkinshaw for Braddock Supervisor. Thank you, Supervisor Walkinshaw. And at this time, we would recognize county staff for a staff presentation.

[03:06:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Curtis Rowlett with the Department of Planning and Development. The subject property is located at 6858 Richmond Highway. The 0.63-acre subject property is located just south of the intersection of Richmond Highway and Growson Street and developed with an internal park space.

[03:06:42] The site currently features an existing mixed-use commercial residential building approved with the original rezoning. The applicant seeks to amend a PCA to allow for a 55,751-square-foot 52-unit independent living facility, or ILF, for low-income residents in lieu of the approved but unbilled office building on a .63-acre portion of the overall rezoning property.

[03:07:11] The building will feature a 1,081-square-foot space at the southeastern portion of the site on the ground floor area that has been proffered to serve as a retail or secondary use space. The site features an existing full entrance along Groveson Street between the ILF and the existing multifamily commercial space and a right-in entrance along Richmond Highway.

[03:07:38] The applicant proposes to provide 28% open space throughout the entire site. The applicant will provide a tree canopy of 26%, which exceeds the 10% tree canopy requirement through tree preservation of trees along Groton Street and additional supplemental trees within the outdoor courtyard area.

[03:07:56] The applicant also proposes to provide the following streetscape improvements along Richmond Highway. An 8-foot-wide low-height wall and planting area and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk within the building zone of the ILF. And an additional 6-foot-wide sidewalk between a 6-foot-wide planting zone with an additional 8-foot-wide cycle track and a 9-foot-wide landscape panel.

[03:08:20] Along Groshen Street, the applicant proposes to include a 12-foot-wide outdoor seating area, a 7-foot-wide sidewalk area, and an 8-foot-wide landscape panel between the sidewalk and Groshen Street. The five-story, 65-foot-high ILF will feature such design elements such as masonry facade with brick, hardy board siding, metal accents, and a flat roof.

[03:08:45] The building will feature Juliet balconies facing Richmond Highway. The ILF will feature such amenities such as a 1,458-square-foot outdoor amenity courtyard, which will feature a full kitchen and outdoor garden area.

[03:09:02] The outdoor courtyard will be adjacent to an 810-square-foot community room for the residents' use. Additionally, the ILF will feature a wellness center, fitness room, and conference center. The proposed ILF facility is proper to achieve LEED silver certification and has designated one EV charging station within a parking garage area.

[03:09:27] Staff finds this proposal to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and the applicable zoning ordinance provisions. This concludes my presentation. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. At this time, we'd welcome an applicant's presentation. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, recognizing that you have a fairly robust agenda on you with a lot of speakers, I'm going to try to be very quick.

[03:09:48] We're going to waive our presentation. I would just like to kind of thank, first of all, staff. I don't think you get much more out of my presentation than you would have what they already had. Led by Kathy Lewis and Curtis Rowlett and all the hard work they did of that. Also recognize Joanne Phoebe and Jeremy Coe.

[03:10:03] There was a lot of factors going here. And ultimately what you're getting is a really, really nice project. This is a beautiful building with great amenities that takes advantage of the promise of the Embark plan and more importantly also recognizes the office market limitations, you know, in the Fairfax EDA's Richmond Highway Study, it's going to allow people to age in place and stay within their community.

[03:10:26] This is 100% accessible, 100% affordable, 52 units senior housing. This essentially provides almost the equivalent shot in the arm that you're getting from the North Hill Project, which had about 60 affordable senior housing units, so you're providing it right up there.

[03:10:42] And it does so in the CBC, you know, right immediately access people will walk right over to the giant right to the retail and the Beacon Hill shopping center. You have immediate access to mass transportation, ultimately taking advantage. Like I say, the promise of the Embark plan, we're really excited about. We're providing the full right of way, including underground utilities on Richmond Highway, you know, and it's a building that matches the existing architecture and really beautiful.

[03:11:07] So with that, that's all we really had. I'm happy to take any questions you might have. i'm also happy to say we throughout this process we've enjoyed the partnership and support of the groved and civic association we got you now support of the franconia district government franconia government center franconia district land use committee and you now support the planning commission and we'd ask your support as well thank you thank you very much at this time are there any questions of staff or the applicant seeing and hearing none this is a public hearing and i have no speakers who have signed up in advance to testify on this matter is there anyone

[03:11:43] here present who would like to speak on this matter. Anyone present who would like to testify, this is a public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. There are no callers. No one has called in. At this time, assume the applicant waives rebuttal.

[03:12:00] Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Curtis Roulette with the Department of Planning and Development for the record. On September 14th, The Planning Commission recommended approval of PCA 2004-LE-012-02 and CDPA 2004-LE-012.

[03:12:21] Subject to the development condition, subject to the proffers dated September 19, 2023, staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Last call, any questions from the Board?

[03:12:37] Seeing and hearing none, I will now close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Lusk for a motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying we have a long history with this site. Back in 2005, when I served as your plan, Commissioner, I supported the approval of the Beacon at Groveton project, a mixed-use development comprised of office with first floor retail.

[03:12:59] Unfortunately, as we heard earlier, this office project was never built. And as we can see with the current situation with commercial office uses, there is no office market today, and we do not see one in the near future. So with that in mind, I reached out to the staff to ask about the feasibility of converting this office use to an affordable housing project for seniors.

[03:13:21] And I'm delighted to see the high-quality project that is before us this evening with this PCA and CDPA applications. As we heard, the project includes 810 square feet of community room uses and amenitized courtyard for the residents.

[03:13:37] It reminds me very much, Mr. Chairman, of the project that we just celebrated called the Oakwood Meadows 150-unit housing development for seniors right near Van Doren and the Van Doren area. Projects like this demonstrate that we can build affordable developments that look and feel like those that are market rate.

[03:13:59] This project is also important because it ensures that those who have helped build our community are able to continue to stay in this community and to be close to their family and friends. So with that background, Mr. Chairman, and with the support of staff, the Virginia District Land Use Committee, as well as the Planning Commission, I'm delighted to make the following motion.

[03:14:24] I move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 2004-LE-012-02 and its associated CDPA subject to the executed proffers dated September 19, 2023.

[03:14:43] And then I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve the waivers and modifications as specified in the handout dated September 26, 2023. I'm happy to second that motion along with Supervisor Stork. Discussion on the motion.

[03:14:58] A quick correction, Supervisor Les, the handout should be dated September 11th. I'm sorry about that. Oh, did I have the wrong date here? Yes, sorry. We sent a corrected one, but, yeah, it should be September 11th. The handout for the waivers and modifications. September 11th, 2023. Yes.

[03:15:14] Okay. That's what the motion reads now. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all consider that to be a friendly change and a friendly amendment. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[03:15:31] Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you very much. Can I just acknowledge the work of the staff, Mr. Chairman? So, again, Chris Roulette, thank you, Kathy Lewis, and the community as well. This is going to be a great project. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[03:15:46] And thank you to Mark and Rick as well. So thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Lusk. And our next public hearing is public hearing on PCA 2010-LE-005-002, concurrent with SEA 2014-LE-005, Graham Springfield Hyundai Property, LLC, in the Franconia District.

[03:16:12] And as soon as they are ready, if the applicant could please reaffirm the affidavit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Lynn Streubel. I represent the applicant. There are two affidavits this afternoon, and I reaffirm both that are dated July 25th, 2023.

[03:16:31] Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures from board members? Seeing and hearing none, I will turn to staff for a staff presentation. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

[03:16:54] My name is Curtis Roulette. again, for the Department of Planning and Development, for the record. This application proposes to amend the previously approved special exception and rezoning to permit further an additional auto dealership development within the site.

[03:17:12] The subject property is located at 7615 Lowesdale Road. The 7.65-acre subject site is located approximately 2,400 feet south of the intersection of Lowesdale Road and Lowes Drive in the zone C8. The site currently features an existing 20,809-square-foot vehicle sales, rental, and service facility for the Hyundai Genesis vehicle brand.

[03:17:37] On November 10th, in November 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning RZ2010-LE-005 to rezone the overall 64.53 acre property from the R1 and R3 districts to the C8 district to permit commercial development with an overall FAR of 0.04.

[03:18:02] Later in 2014, the board approved an amendment in a special exception to permit a vehicle sale, rental, and accidentally service establishment. These later applications permitted the site and proper modifications to an overall FAR of 0.07.

[03:18:20] The applicant seeks to amend the previous approvals to remit an approximately 12,000-square-foot new vehicle sales, rental, and service establishment in the C8 zoning district for the Genesis car brand.

[03:18:36] The site features a full existing entrance along the frontage of the property that offers access to Lowesdale Road and inter-parcel access to the adjacent vehicle sales, rental, and service establishment along the eastern portion of the site.

[03:18:52] One key feature of this proposal is the preservation of the existing 122,250-square-foot tree-save area along the eastern rear of the property, along with supplemental interior parking lot landscaping within the parking area, providing an additional 800-square-feet of plantings throughout the site, bringing the total tree canopy coverage of 7,800-square-feet outside a tree-save area.

[03:19:25] Additional plantings outside of the tree-safe area, excuse me. Further, the subject property is the site of a former unregulated landfill. And as such, the applicant has committed to proffers to enter in the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Remediation Program. The applicant has committed to providing earthcraft-like construction or an Environmental Review Branch-approved green building program.

[03:19:50] The 20-foot-high vehicle sales, rental, and service establishment will feature such design features as a glass kernel wall system with metal panels, EFIS, and masonry material. The new building will feature four service bays at the eastern portion of the site there with a sky-lit interior and a rock garden.

[03:20:13] Finally, the site features four EV charging stations, and the applicant has proffered to add additional EV charging stations within the showroom of the new establishment. Staff finds this proposal to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and applicable zoning ordinance provisions.

[03:20:33] Staff recommends the approval of these applications. This concludes my presentation. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. At this time, we'd recognize the applicant for an applicant's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I think I'm going to keep my remarks very brief because this is a straightforward application.

[03:20:53] The applicant is simply proposing a modest-sized building. It's 12,000 square feet within an area that's currently parking and already has a Hyundai dealership. What is being proposed is a separate dealership for Genesis, which is the luxury brand of Honda.

[03:21:09] The Genesis is currently being sold on this property but really wanted to have its own distinct dealership. As was mentioned by Mr. Rowlett, we are not modifying the existing tree preservation area. We're not modifying the zoning. So I do think it's very straightforward.

[03:21:25] I'm pleased to say that the Lowestdale Estates residential community, which is the closest community to this proposal, did not have any objection, nor did the Franconia District Land Use Committee or the Planning Commission or staff.

[03:21:41] So I would ask for your favorable consideration for a proposal that is consistent with existing development along Loisdale Road. I'll be happy to answer any questions for you. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. Are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Mr. Chairman?

[03:21:57] Yes, Supervisor Laws. I apologize. I'm just looking over the proffer set again, and I'm noticing on the version that I have, and if it's not the most updated one, you can tell me. Development plan, letter A, the last sentence, Genesis Automotive and Concession of 13 Sheets dated December 23, 2022, as revised through August 25th.

[03:22:24] Should that be September 25th, 2023? No, that is August. Yes, sir. The development plan is dated August. It's August? It's August 25th, yes, sir. I just wanted to make sure that that was the right date.

[03:22:40] Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Sharon. Thank you. Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Seeing and hearing none, this is a public hearing, and I have no speakers who have signed up in advance to testify on this matter. Is there anyone present in the auditorium who would like to speak on this subject?

[03:22:58] This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to testify? Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. There are no callers. No one has called in. I assume the applicant waives rebuttal. I know we've already gotten the recommendation of staff, but perhaps you can repeat that.

[03:23:17] Any closing comments or recommendation from staff? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On September 14th, the Planning Commission approved, recommended approval of PCA 2010-LE-005-02, subject to the now executed proffers dated September 25th, 2023, and the Board of Supervisors recommended approval of SEA 2014-LE-005

[03:23:54] subject to the proposed development conditions dated September 7, 2023. Staff concurs with these recommendations by the Planning Commission. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Last call. Any questions from Board members?

[03:24:11] Seeing and hearing none, I will now close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Lusk for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very straightforward application, so I'm delighted to see this request. But before I do that, let me confirm, Mr. Chairman, with the applicant and request that they confirm their agreement to the development conditions dated September 7th, 2023, for the record.

[03:24:37] Yes, the applicant's an agreement with the conditions. Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, again, delighted that Hyundai is proposing to expand their current dealership to include this 12,000-square-foot retail and service facility for Genesis. This expanded facility will be a welcome addition to the other dealerships that are in the area, which include, just for information's sake, Springfield, Toyota, Safford, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat.

[03:25:05] These applications enjoy the support of the Franconia Land Use Committee. the Planning Commission, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 2010-LE-005-2, subject to the executed proffers dated September 25, 2023, and I move that the Board of Supervisors approve SCA 2014-LE-005, subject to the proposed

[03:25:38] development conditions dated September 7th, 2023. You've heard the motion. I'm happy to second that motion. Discussion on the motion. Any discussion on the motion, Supervisor Lusk? No, I was just going to make the point, the September 25th and September 7th were the things that were kind of throwing me off in this series of motions, but they're right. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[03:26:00] And staff is confirming they're right. So that's good. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion seeing and hearing none all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed any abstentions and that motion is approved thank you thank you mr chairman if i can just think again mr roulette miss lewis and miss strobel uh for their work on this application um and looking forward to seeing uh this new facility as a guy who likes cars uh genesis are kind of kind of cool so thank you mr chairman all right uh with that uh we are going to move on to our next public

[03:26:38] hearing, public hearing on PCA 2004-PR-044-004, CDPA 2004-PR-044-002, Tyson's Corner Holdings, LLC, Tyson's Corner Property Holdings, LLC, in the Providence District, and as soon as they are ready, we would welcome the applicant to please reaffirm the affidavit. Good afternoon, Mr.

[03:27:09] Chairman, members of the board, my name is Brian Clifford, Senior Land Use Planner with DLA Piper, and I reaffirmed the affidavit dated September 15th, 2023. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures of board members? Any disclosures of board members? Seeing and hearing none, I will now recognize county staff for a staff presentation.

[03:27:28] Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sharon Williams, and I'm with the Department of Planning and Development. I'm presenting a proper condition amendment and a conceptual development plan amendment to permit certain changes to Tyson's Corner Center. The subject property is Tyson's Corner Center, 77.64-acre property, which is zoned PDC, and it lies within the sign control and highway corridor overlay districts.

[03:27:53] The Senate is developed with the roughly 2.5 million Tyson's Corner Mall and almost 1.4 million square feet of mixed-use development, which was developed and approved as Phase 1. This application proposes to amend and combine all previous approvals under one development plan such that the entire Tyson's Corner Center property would be subject to one set of proffers and one development plan.

[03:28:19] And in addition, spurred by the closure of the Lord and Taylor anchor tenant in the mall and the applicant's acquisition of the building in 2020, this application proposes the reallocation of previously approved square footage to phases 2A and 2B and new phase 5.

[03:28:35] No new GFA or FAR is proposed. There are two development options proposed for Phase 2A. Here's Option 1, which proposes an office building with retail on the plaza level, which would mirror the existing plaza space in Phase 1.

[03:28:52] This is Option 2, which proposes a mixed-use building containing office space and multifamily residential units, also with retail on the plaza level, which would also mirror existing Phase 1. and both options have generally the same layout on the ground floor.

[03:29:08] Phase 2B depicts an office building and a residential building with retail space, which can either be located within the office or residential building or in conjunction with the associated linear park. An elevated plaza is also proposed to connect the office and residential building and the linear park to provide an uninterrupted pedestrian connection from International Drive to the existing Tyson's Metro Station.

[03:29:34] There are no substantial changes proposed to Phase 3, so I'll skip that. But for Phase 4, the general layout is unchanged from previous approvals. However, the applicant proposes to reallocate the office square footage from this phase to Phase 2B.

[03:29:50] The reallocation of that square footage removes the approved office building from this phase, and therefore Phase 4 is now proposed to be developed with two residential buildings and a retail building, as shown here. Phase 5 depicts one new retail building, also shown here, and it's located along Leesburg Pike.

[03:30:10] And despite all the proposed updates and reallocation of square footage, the overall approved maximum square footage of 6,015,217 square feet remains unchanged. And then, in addition, it should be noted that the applicant updated many proffers to be commensurate with today's county policies, which would include increasing their affordable housing commitment to match the county's WDU policies and updating their green building commitment for non-residential development to meet LEED Silver or its equivalent.

[03:30:43] And just in general, across the board, the applicant worked really well with staff to hammer out lots of various different issues, and this was a fun one to work on. That concludes my presentation. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for that presentation.

[03:30:58] At this time, we would welcome the applicant's presentation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Brian Clifford with DLA Piper. I'll try and keep my remarks brief since Ms. Williams did such a great job going through the particulars of our application. Next slide, please.

[03:31:16] The mall is entering its 55th year, which we're very excited about. It's had a history of reinvention and innovation throughout that whole time with major expansions, the latest being the opening of Phase I Towers and Plaza along with the Metro Connection in 2015.

[03:31:34] Next slide, please. And there it is, phase one. Hopefully you all know and love it. It's definitely been a big success. We're very proud of it. And we really see it as a vision of what the rest of the site can really become. Next slide, please. Along with the history of reinvention, there's a long history of community engagement on the site.

[03:31:53] And the phase one plaza has really been a big driver of that in the last several years. Just in the past month, we had Food for Others, Tyson's Fun Run 5K. We had the over-the-top fundraiser for the Holistication Alliance, in which intrepid souls repel down the side of the Hyatt Hotel.

[03:32:12] Maybe a board retreat idea next year for you guys. Next slide, please. As of a number of partnerships with arts organizations, Arts Fairfax, the Lord & Workhouse. Next slide, please. And, of course, one of our strongest partnerships, the Tyson's Community Alliance.

[03:32:28] The mall is happy to host their offices, and Ms. Saam, whom you all know, and the general manager of the mall, Jesse Benitez, are both very involved. Next slide. The site, of course, is anchored by the largest super regional shopping center in the region.

[03:32:45] It was not immune from the vagaries of COVID, but they've come roaring back with over 16 million visitors last year, which is more than the entirety of the Smithsonian Institute. The long history of transit running to and through the site, even before Metro, with over 300 bus lines, all of which just translates to a big boon for the county and the Commonwealth in terms of tax revenue.

[03:33:08] Next slide. This is the approved plan today. As you can see, in 2007, we couldn't get Lord & Taylor to join the application, and so we had a little bit of a hole in our donut there right next to the Metro. And with the applicant's acquisition, as Ms. Williams noted in 2020, we had a chance to fill that hole in the donut and really provide some exciting connective tissue between Phase I and approved Phase II and the Metro connection.

[03:33:36] Next slide. And there you see it. Next slide, please. Now you can see why we want to provide that connective tissue. This is what greets you when you hop off the Metro and the bus lanes today. And we envision something, I think, much grander with the implementation of Phase 2, a much more welcoming entrance to the site and a little more placemaking that we have with an empty anchor store.

[03:34:01] Next slide, please. It also gives us a chance beyond the ground plane to really finish the Phase 1 plaza. This is the fourth side, and right now it is a mall, a vacant mall anchor. It's not as activated as the other three sides are, and we have a chance really, next slide, to transform that as well and really kind of complete the placemaking up there on the plaza level.

[03:34:21] Next slide. In addition, one other facet of Phase 2A is the addition of a direct pedestrian connection from the ground level up to the plaza. That does not exist today, and we're really excited to have the chance to add that here. Next slide, please.

[03:34:37] Moving on to Phase 2B, the biggest highlight here that we're really excited about is the replacement of a large chunk of existing roadway with a 74,000-square-foot, quarter-mile linear park. replete with dog park, children activity areas, and a much more enhanced connection to the metro.

[03:34:56] Next slide. As Ms. Williams mentioned, Phase 3 is pretty much unchanged. Phase 4, really just shifting density towards the metro. And Phase 5, we've added a retail building along Route 7. And I think with that, she also went through a number of the enhancements we've made in terms of our proffered commitments.

[03:35:16] And then beyond that, I think I would just like to thank staff, as Sharon mentioned, it was a fun one to work on, and that's due in large part, not just to their technical expertise, but very solution-oriented, open, honest, transparent process and conversation we got to have with staff, and the application's much better for it.

[03:35:37] We have unanimous recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission, support from staff, as well as from the Clayton Citizens Association. So beyond that, thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for that presentation. Are there any questions of staff or the applicant?

[03:35:53] Supervisor Palchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the presentation. I don't know if you're going to address this perhaps, Sharon, in the future. I know the only major thing that you all worked on quite a bit in the Planning Commission, well, a lot was worked on, But the Planning Commission addressed it was the question of the access, the public access.

[03:36:15] So I don't know if you're going to mention that, but just the work that was put in by staff and the applicants to try to address that. And if you could explain to us, I believe and I agree with the Planning Commission that it is not precedent setting because this is not a PTC and it is pretty particular.

[03:36:32] But I don't know if you want to expand on that a little bit. Apologize if you're going to do that next. Oh, no, you're OK. more than happy to just quickly touch on it. So this slide is just showing the proposed pedestrian circulation throughout the entirety of the site and that includes the continuity of the loop trail which will go around the entire site. And some of the things that the staff was requesting was a public access easement to be provided not only on the loop trail but also on the publicly

[03:37:08] accessible open spaces this is a standard request from staff or just public access and it the easement itself gives us sort of a legal framework to fall back on that we're familiar with the applicant was honest with us and straightforward and that just was not a commitment that they could make however it is the mall and they do have proffers existing that allow for folks to come in and in and out of the mall after metro hours to ensure that people have access so there are things that the mall is inherently interested in to

[03:37:45] allow for pedestrians to move forward and although we couldn't quite get to full public access easement what the applicant has proposed is to allow public access which would include pedestrians to utilize public spaces and moving to and through those spaces which is very similar to language that we would be seeing with a public access easement. Of course, we would always be continuing to push for the easement, but this language is basically just as good. I was going to ask that. So while it's not the easier path, you are comfortable with the outcome, ensuring the same outcome,

[03:38:20] I guess, in the access. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Pouchek. Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. This is a public hearing, and I have no speakers who have signed up in advance to testify on this matter. Is there anyone present who would like to speak on this application. This is a public hearing. Anyone present who would like to testify?

[03:38:43] Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. There are no callers. No one has called in. I assume the applicant waives rebuttal. Any closing comments and a recommendation from staff? On September 14th, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of these applications subject to the proffers consistent with those dated August 23rd, 2023, as well as requested waivers and modifications the planning commission also approved fdpa 2024-pr-044-002 and staff concurs with the planning commission recommendations thanks excellent thank you very

[03:39:22] much last call questions from board members seeing and hearing none at this time uh we'll close the public hearing and recognize supervisor palchik for a motion thank you mr chairman before i make My motion, I do want to share that, first of all, I want to thank staff, Sharon, Marianne, everyone on the team has been so collaborative on this as was shared.

[03:39:42] I want to thank the applicants for being so responsive on this project, as I know you have been even before my time here on this board. And I'm pretty excited about the outcome, especially Phase 2B that brings the linear park. I think that's something when whatever worked, and engineers and those who had the vision site to try to address some of our initial concerns with initial plans and help this become and transform to the multimodal, pedestrian, bike-friendly community that we want to see, I think you really hit it on the nail.

[03:40:16] And Phase TV cannot come soon enough, at least in my book. I also appreciate that alongside this, we are working with you on that street-level crossing in VDOT so that not only will it be within the mall property, but that treacherous crossing, unless you go up in the metro, to be able to safely get across from the mall across 123 to the other central part of Tyson.

[03:40:40] So I think there's a lot of excitement here. This really shows, and I'm so glad you showed those pictures. I didn't see a peach groves, but the original Tyson's Corner and the development that became such a well-known and the largest mall of its type in the world and now is transforming and adapting to today's world and multi-use development. I also want to thank you. I think the first time we saw this was pre-COVID. Perhaps the original plans made me just an idea. And those plans clearly have shifted as the market, the office market, have shifted. And I do think that

[03:41:15] A lot of work has gone into this, but we are seeing wonderful improvements and commitments, namely the park and the open spaces that will be coming with this, the ability to expand on what's been a very successful plaza, the upper-level plaza, connecting that to the ground level from community events to charity events to having more retail and restaurant uses, I think, are very much something we in the community are looking forward to.

[03:41:44] Perhaps TCA can help with the naming of the linear park if you don't already have it. And I do appreciate definitely the new green building commitments. I think we all appreciate that on this board. Some of my colleagues may have been here for the original adoptions of the Tysons plan.

[03:42:00] I'm not looking at any specific people, but maybe in different roles. But being new to this, I very much appreciate the commitment of the long time, you know, ownership and tenants and continuing to make this an evolving place that is doing very well.

[03:42:21] I believe your office is doing very well and has been able to do that through the pandemic. So appreciate that you will be able to continue doing that. So to that, I think those are my main comments. Just a lot of excitement. Thank you, everyone, for your hours of work and for your enthusiastic collaboration in making this, I think, an even better outcome than the initial proposals that we saw.

[03:42:44] So I therefore move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 2004-PR-044-004 and its Associated Conceptual Development Plan CDPA 2004-PR-044-002, subject to the proffers dated August 23, 2023, and the waivers and modifications contained in the handout dated September 21, 2023, which will be made part of the record. I'm happy to second

[03:43:20] that motion. Discussion on the motion? Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you very much. Our next public hearing is a public hearing on SEA 80-A-072, Versar Property Owner LLC in the Mason District. And as soon as the applicant is ready, we would appreciate them reaffirming the affidavit. Mr. Chairman, members of the board,

[03:44:00] my name is David Schneider with Holland and Knight. Represent the applicant and reaffirm the affidavit dated August 30th, 2023. Thank you. Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures from board members? Seeing and hearing none, I will now recognize county staff for a staff presentation.

[03:44:17] Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Once again, my name is Sharon Williams, and I'm with the Department of Planning and Development. And this application proposes to amend a special exception to permit more uses on the subject property. The 15.62-acre site consists of two parcels, parcels 22A and 22B, and it's located at 6,800 and 6,850 Versar Center between Interstate 495 and the Virginia Railway Express, adjacent to the I-395, I-495 interchange within the Beltway South Industrial Area.

[03:44:53] The site is on I-5, and it's currently developed with two four-story office buildings with a gross floor area of 105,000 square feet and 119,000 square feet, respectively, and a four-story parking garage. floodplain, RPA, and EQC bisect the subject property between the office buildings, and a bridge runs through the environmentally sensitive areas on site to provide access to lot 22B. The applicant is requesting the approval of a special exception amendment to remove the previously approved condition number two, which limits the development of the site to the existing office buildings and uses as shown on the approved SC plat. This applicant is seeking

[03:45:32] flexibility to either repurpose the existing office buildings or redevelop the property with other permitted industrial uses in the I-5 district. There are no changes related to or proposed within the floodplain RPA or EQC. The applicant initially requested to allow the permitted I-5 uses that are indicated with a P in the use table in the zoning ordinance section for 101.3, except for data centers, funeral homes, and crematories.

[03:46:03] However, after the first Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant worked with staff and updated the SCA plat to further limit the uses allowed on-site by precluding recycling centers and contractors' offices and shops, and also clarifying that the proposed production and processing use would not include any heavy production or processing activities. So to provide flexibility and because there are no prospective tenants or developers the SEA plat does not provide a specific building footprint but instead provides a building restriction lines per the lot

[03:46:41] and building dimensional standards of the I-5 district as specified in the zoning ordinance and as shown here. The applicant may construct any building within the building restriction area provided it meets the I-5 district standards. The existing buildings on-site predate the establishment of the RPA.

[03:46:57] Therefore, a significant portion of the existing westernmost office building lies within that RPA. Should the property be redeveloped, the applicant may construct the equivalent amount of impervious surface in the impacted portion of the RPA, provided they meet the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, and no additional encouragement is permitted.

[03:47:17] And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Let me at this time recognize the applicant for an applicant's presentation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, David Schneider with Holland and Knight. I want to start off by thanking staff, particularly Sharon Williams and Billy O'Donnell.

[03:47:39] It was a collaborative effort right from the beginning, and I think staff did a great job describing what's, it's really a unique application, but I'll be brief. The site was developed as a corporate headquarters more than 40 years ago with 1979 and 1980 approvals, which look very different than the type of approvals we would see coming today. The company that developed the site relocated, and now we're basically left with a vacant site. And the owner and applicant, who's the applicant, has spent a fortune trying to make this site work, designing specs, suites, marketing campaigns, put the site up for auction. There is no interest for office use in these dated buildings

[03:48:17] in a site that's isolated between the Springfield Mixing Bowl and the railway. We need to do something. It's located in the heart of the Beltway South industrial area. We've worked very closely with staff, the Mason District Land Use Committee, and the Planning Commission to come up with a rule book for this site that we think strikes the perfect balance between allowing reactivation while ensuring county goals are adhered to. We're not seeking any waivers, any modifications. We're in full compliance with all ordinances and regulations, including the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. We have the staff's recommendation of approval, the unanimous

[03:48:54] support from the Mason District Land Use Committee and the unanimous recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. So with that, kindly ask for your approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for that presentation. Any questions of staff or the applicant? Any questions? Seeing and hearing none, this is a public hearing and I have no one who has signed up in advance to testify on this matter. Is there anyone present in the auditorium that would like to speak on this application? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone present who would like to testify. Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask if anyone has called in. There are no callers.

[03:49:30] There are no callers. Thank you very much. Assume the applicant waives rebuttal. Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff. On September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of SEA 80-A-072, subject to the proposed development conditions dated September 14, 2023. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.

[03:49:52] Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, I am going to close the public hearing. This application is in the Mason District, and I would recognize Supervisor Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would request that the applicant confirm for the record their agreement to the development conditions dated September 14, 2023.

[03:50:11] David Schneider, on behalf of the applicant, we agree to the development conditions dated September 14, 2023. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a very old, very old land use case. The A in SEA 80-A-072 reflects that it was in the Annandale District when it was done in 1979 and 80.

[03:50:34] It was built as the Versar Headquarters in a rather interesting zigzag style, which is, I think, the only way they could actually fit the buildings on it. You can see it from the mixing bowl and the beltway. You can't get there. I can tell you how to get there, but you really can't get there.

[03:50:52] There is just driving by, there is no way that you can figure out how to get there. There have been many nibbles, what I would call nibbles, on this site over the last many years. None of them came to fruition.

[03:51:08] We actually tried a couple of times to even get some bus stops, new bus stops rearranged with Metro, but nothing worked. In 2017, this property was assessed by the county and the county tax rules at more than $12 million.

[03:51:27] In 2023, it's assessed at $3.6 million. So you can see what happens when you have sort of outdated office buildings in an area that is very difficult to get to. It worked great in the 80s, but it's not working now.

[03:51:48] There was an unusual Planning Commission debate in July that actually ended up in a tie vote and the motion failed. Yeah. For those of you who had been on the Planning Commission, almost never happens. There were a lot of concerns about what could go in.

[03:52:06] Fortunately, the Planning Commission revisited the issue in September and had a unanimous approval, unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. It's a very simple, small change to the SE, only affecting the floodplain.

[03:52:25] At least that's what we thought when we started. It was a very simple, small change. It still only affects a bit of the floodplain. And this is from something that was happening 43 years ago. So I am delighted that the applicant was able to work out the details, that we may have a path forward now to allow this property to serve at its highest and best use for the community.

[03:52:52] And therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve SEA 80-A-072 subject to the development conditions dated September 14, 2023. You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Lusk.

[03:53:08] Any discussion on the motion? Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Supervisor Gross, thank you for noting the A in the adlet. I would also note in one of the appendices, it shows the proffer condition amendments from 1980, which include hand-noted proffers, handwritten.

[03:53:25] So, yeah, we don't really do that anymore. What a different generation now. Different generation, but this was also when Supervisor Moore was the Annandale District Supervisor. That's right. That's right. Thank you. That's right. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the applicant for hanging in there.

[03:53:50] And that brings us to our next public hearing, and that is a public hearing on PCA 93-H-004-03, CDPA 93-H-004-02, WS-ADW Owner LLC in the Hunter Middle District, and at this time we would welcome the applicant to reaffirm the affidavit.

[03:54:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Looney with Cooley. On behalf of the applicant, we reaffirm the affidavit dated August 8, 2023. Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures from board members? Seeing and hearing none, I will now recognize county staff for a staff presentation.

[03:54:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mary Antai with the Department of Planning and Development, presenting this application for Karen Yee, who is the staff coordinator. The subject property is located at the intersection of Sunset Hills Road and Old Reston Avenue and is a half mile from both the Reston Town Center and the Wheely-Reston East Metro Rail Stations.

[03:54:58] The site consists of two-lots owned PDC and is developed with a nine-story office building and a parking garage. The site is approved for two additional office buildings, which have not been constructed yet. On August 2, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved the applicant's request to permit an option for residential dwellings in place of the two previously approved office buildings.

[03:55:21] Because the applicant paid the Dulles Rail tax district buyout late, the zoning approvals were voided pursuant to the proffers and to the state code. The applicant is now requesting to reestablish the previous approval with no changes proposed to the previous approval or to the proffers, except to update the zoning ordinance citations and minor revisions to a proffer on a sidewalk.

[03:55:44] This slide shows the residential option that is proposed with the existing office building to remain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes the staff presentation. Thank you very much. At this time, we'd welcome an applicant's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to reiterate what Ms. Tai said, There's a state code provision that requires, when there's a zoning change from commercial to residential in the tax district, that a buyout of the net present value of the future revenue stream must be paid within 60 days of the zoning approval.

[03:56:17] The buyout payment was made. It just was made beyond the 60-day time period. Nonetheless, by operation of law, the zoning approval was voided. This application seeks to reestablish that approval and to essentially reflect what the board has already approved once before.

[03:56:34] And so it's sort of a deja vu all over again. So we'd appreciate your support. Thanks. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Any questions of staff or the applicant? Seeing and hearing none, this is a public hearing.

[03:56:51] And I do have one speaker who has signed up in advance to testify, and that is John Farrell, who's the president of the Reston Association, who is making his way down. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on this application? Anyone else who would like to testify? Okay.

[03:57:07] Speaker number one is John Farrell. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have written testimony. Mr. Chairman, when I made my testimony at the Planning Commission, it went to eight minutes.

[03:57:27] So I'm going to give you the written copy of that testimony and try and summarize the relevant portions. Mr. Chairman, I think the members of the board, having gone through the Reston Master Plan, are quite familiar with what Reston Association does and the extent of its ownership, the extent of its facilities.

[03:57:46] The Reston Master Plan, which you just reapproved, says the following. Development within the TSAs can be better integrated into the fabric of the larger Reston community by providing future TSA residents and employees access and robust connectivity to existing community amenities, including the lakes, owned by Reston Association, and network of trails, again owned by Reston Association, throughout Reston.

[03:58:14] This can best be achieved through incorporation into the existing Reston Association or Reston Town Center. Each of these entities has indicated a willingness to include these new developments in their associations. I reaffirm that willingness today.

[03:58:34] Current profit number five is an empty promise to negotiate, not a commitment to join RA. What we would propose is that profit number five be changed, and that's on the top of the third page, the wording that we would propose be in its place.

[03:58:51] In that circumstance, joining RA would happen after the building's built, so there would be no DRB review, but before occupancy. So we can eliminate the question regarding the DRB.

[03:59:07] The other question that was posed during our conversations was, would there be any annexation fee that the Wrestling Association would expect the developer to pay? And the answer is no. I made that commitment at the Planning Commission. I reaffirmed that commitment tonight or this afternoon. In the Lerner case, the Virginia Supreme Court told us that if the board acts consistently with its comprehensive plan, the reasonableness of its acts is established.

[03:59:36] The Resident Master Plan calls for RA membership. Acting consistently with the plan is perforce a reasonable act and satisfies the fairly debatable standard that is the test and the relevant standard here in Virginia. The association asks the board to deny all residential rezoning applications until and unless the applicant makes an unqualified commitment to join Resident Association.

[04:00:03] And I'm not just picking on my friend Mark Looney here. We're talking about everybody in the TSA. There is a suggestion that there is some impediment in the laws of the Commonwealth from this course of action.

[04:00:18] We have reviewed, the association has reviewed all of our knowledge of the land use laws in Virginia. We can find no such impediment. That assertion is without merit. If the power to rezone is a plenary power given to the localities, it is a very broad power, and it is limited only by specific statutes or specific case law.

[04:00:48] The association confines no such limitation in either statute or case law. If anyone believes that a statute imposes a limitation which would prevent this board from requiring membership in the RA, tell us what it is, And we will go to the General Assembly and get that statute changed.

[04:01:09] If anyone believes that there is a case law that prevents this board from imposing that requirement on a rezoning, tell us what it is. And we will get that decision overturned. To date, we have heard nothing.

[04:01:28] The failure to require all TSA residential development to join RA currently costs the membership $2.4 million each and every year. That's enough money for us to renovate and refresh the Ridge Heights pool at one of our 15 pools.

[04:01:48] That failure also imposes a cost on the county because the county owns 1,000 units that pays the assessment. So, effectively, you're subsidizing the TSA developers. The result of this loss of revenue is a $100 increase in the assessment for each and every member of Reston Association, including the county's 1,000 units.

[04:02:12] If you indulge me for a second, there was a suggestion at Planning Commission that somehow the rational nexus test applied. It doesn't. It doesn't apply in Virginia, actually. There's a difference test. Substantial generation. But if it did, the lack of, can I have that drawing up again of the property, the proposed run, the CDP?

[04:02:34] Look at it. Where are those people going to use a trail, a ball field, a pool, anything? Not there. that the need for them to join RA has been substantially generated. There is a rational nexus here because only by joining RA will these folks have full and complete access to our facilities.

[04:03:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. Thank you very much, Mr. Farrell. And let me ask again if there's anyone else here present who would like to testify on this matter. This is a public hearing. That ends our list of listed speakers. let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. We do have a caller online, Mr. Chairman. Kevin Richards? Mr. Richards, can you hear me okay? Yes, I can, sir. Can you hear me? I can. Welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. I've been very lucky to just call in and time it perfectly,

[04:03:38] but I haven't really prepared anything, except I do support this Reston Association. I am living over the fence in Ivy Oak Square, and we pay our Reston Association fees.

[04:03:53] I don't see why this developer shouldn't be paying the fees either. But more importantly, this is such a special part of old Reston. It's old and established and has not been maintained by the developer.

[04:04:11] We have development going on at both metros. We are lucky enough to be living between the Reston Town Centre Metro and the Wheelie Metro, where, as you know, there's a lot of development. This area in the middle is such a special area.

[04:04:29] We could make it into something special for everybody in Reston and everybody who wants to come out and enjoy nature, enjoy the tree canopy, enjoy the lakes, enjoy a community spirit. This is just something that I think is so essential to hold on to.

[04:04:52] I did attend the meetings prior to the vote at the Planning Commission, and Mr. Carter did want to speak about that and did want to delay this, But the chairperson actually said, I am going to reject this if you delay this.

[04:05:09] So please think seriously about stopping this developer who tried to take over the golf course unsuccessfully at this point, tried to get involved in adding the roads from Sunset Hills all the way to North Shore to a community area.

[04:05:28] I think I speak to myself but also for others who are probably busy working now and didn't even know this meeting was taking place because the signs have not been visible. There's blank signs and there's one sign that is still up that I managed to see as I was walking through this gorgeous area that is simply not maintained.

[04:05:54] So my suggestion is, please don't develop this. Please have it as a sanctuary for everybody, because you're developing in Wheelie Metro, you're developing at the Reston Town Centre, where there's a lot of concrete, and climate is changing. And there's nothing like nature to help, you know, cool things down and take a deep breath and relax. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your time. I think I would really...

[04:06:28] I think I speak for a number of people, sir. I hope you will please reconsider the development of this area. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Richards, for your testimony. And let me verify that there are no other callers. There are no other calls.

[04:06:45] No other callers. Thank you very much. At this time, let me ask the applicant if they'd like an opportunity for rebuttal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I want to provide a little bit of context. When Reston was initially developed beginning in the early 1960s, a lot of the smaller communities within Reston were developed without amenities, including apartment complexes, condos, that sort of thing.

[04:07:16] In connection with today's redevelopment associated with the transit station areas, a lot of the amenities that for decades developers looked to the Reston Association to provide are now being provided on-site in connection with more urban transit-oriented development.

[04:07:34] Apartment complexes have their own pools, their own fitness facilities, their own business centers, other amenities constructed on-site. In the context of this particular, and so therefore, the need to join Reston Association or any other association for that matter was lessened as a result of providing many of those same amenities on-site.

[04:07:56] In connection with this application, there's actually two operative proffers here. Proffer 4 says that the development will create a property owner's association to manage the common affairs of the mixed-use development on-site, the existing office building plus the proposed residential.

[04:08:14] That serves the legal function that the Reston Association initially provided for Reston, which was to manage the common affairs of the community at large. In this particular case, we also have Proffer 5, which is a requirement that the applicant meet with the resident association and discuss the prospects for membership.

[04:08:34] At the moment, the applicant doesn't have a builder identified to actually build the residential units that are being approved as a result or would be approved with this application. That's a conversation that the applicant would like to have with whichever builder is ultimately selected to develop the property so that it is a joint decision.

[04:08:54] They've already met with the rest of the association back in October following the prior approval in August of 2022. We've committed off the record, on the record, and in the proffers to further that conversation going forward. But where I think the policy decision comes into play for the board is, can the board of supervisors compel association with other people?

[04:09:16] Can you force an applicant as a condition of zoning approval to associate with people that perhaps they don't want to associate with? Can the board be in a position to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of people to gather with people of their choosing? We used to have a lot of policies and covenants in the Commonwealth that set limitations on to whom you could sell your property or rent your property, and we rejected those.

[04:09:40] Now we're talking about a circumstance of the reverse, the government compelling somebody to associate with someone else as a condition of zoning approval. I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's constitutional. And I don't think it's something that the board should be exercising its jurisdiction over in connection with this.

[04:10:03] Media reports from today suggest that it costs about $3 million to operate the wrestling association's tennis courts and pools on an annual basis. Roughly $400,000 of that comes from dues-paying members of the wrestling association.

[04:10:22] Another $240,000 comes from non-members. So they're already securing non-member revenue to support the facilities owned by the association. So even if you don't join, you still get the opportunity to pay to join and utilize those resources.

[04:10:40] I'm not suggesting the applicant won't join. I'm just suggesting that it's a conversation that the applicant and the rest of the association need to have together. It's not a conversation in which the government should be inserting itself. Thank you very much for that. Let me at this time ask staff for their closing comments and recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of these applications and the requested waivers and modifications. The Planning Commission also included a follow-on motion for further guidance on residential

[04:11:18] developments joining the Reston Association. Staff concurs with the recommendation of approval for the applications. Thank you very much. For that, questions from board members. Yes, Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. And I guess this may be a question for staff. If this application is denied, what could be built on the property by right? They have the approval to build two additional office buildings on the site. Okay. And those would be how many? 13 stories, something like that? 14? I can't remember the exact type, but they are mid to high-rise buildings.

[04:11:53] It's commensurate with the existing office building height that's out there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions from board members? Seeing and hearing none, at this time I will now close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Alcorn for a motion.

[04:12:10] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Farrell and also Mr. Richards for their testimony today. The first point I want to address is on basically what happens if this rezoning is turned down.

[04:12:27] It's really not a question of whether there will be additional development here. It's what additional development will ultimately show up here. A little over a year ago, I went into much more detail about this when the board first reviewed this application and approved an identical application to what we have in front of us.

[04:12:48] The impact on a number of areas of this proposed development, as opposed to the two office buildings that could be built otherwise, is substantially less. The impact is substantially less under this scenario than under what's already been approved.

[04:13:04] So the other issue I want to focus on just a minute is the question about compelling the applicant at this point in the process to join the Reston Association. The language that Mr. Farrell cited from the comprehensive plan in Reston has not changed.

[04:13:23] That's the same relevant language that was in the comprehensive plan in August of 2022 when we last reviewed an identical application to this. The language in proffer number five is also the same as it was back in August of 22.

[04:13:41] And I would just note that, you know, without going into the legal issues here at the dais by me and non-attorney, The legal issues really are far from straightforward in this case, far from straightforward.

[04:13:57] But I am sympathetic to the burden borne by Reston Association from basically the burden borne by maintenance, upkeep of public facilities, particularly the ones that are usable by all. But the fact that the Reston Association is a private association, has no general taxation authority, is a community-level challenge for these community-level facilities.

[04:14:24] That's why, just two weeks ago, as follow-on motion number two for the Reston Comprehensive Plan, I moved this motion, and it was approved by the board, That representatives of the four, I would say, leading managers of community-level facilities in Reston, including Reston Association, get together and develop a high-level strategy for the long-term maintenance and upkeep of community-level facilities across Reston, a strategy that is fair and equitable and that ensures that future residents and commercial property owners support the community infrastructure that is used by all who live, work, and play in Reston.

[04:15:03] That process is just getting started, and I want to give that process an opportunity to work. But I do appreciate the conversation. I do appreciate identification of the need.

[04:15:19] So with that, Mr. Chairman, if we're ready, I would make a motion to go ahead and move this case. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 93-H-004-03 subject to the executed proffers dated August 11, 2023, and approve CDPA 93-H-004-02, and approve the modifications and waivers listed in the handout dated September 8, 2023.

[04:15:53] You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Lusk. Discussion on the motion? Let me just ask, along the lines of where you were, Supervisor Alcorn, addressing the legal issue, we had testimony from Mr. Farrell.

[04:16:09] I know this is the second time we've had very similar testimony. And while we may agree to disagree on the legal foundations of one's opinions, I would at least like to get something from our county attorney's office that explains, at least to the rest of the board, a little more detail about what the county's position is and read on this from a legal perspective, because I do think it would be helpful for us moving forward.

[04:16:36] And I'm sympathetic to the concern that was raised about if there is a legal issue, you know, what is it? And I think that's a question we deserve and have a right to know the answer to. And so not pertinent for this particular case or hearing, but as we move forward, I think that would be helpful.

[04:16:53] And without objection, I'm asking the county attorney to provide that to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Alcorn. Yeah, thank you for asking for that, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate the whole board being brought into discussion of the legal issues. I welcome that.

[04:17:09] Thank you. Absolutely. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you very much. And that brings us to our next case, which I understand is going to be deferred, and that is a public hearing on RZ 2022-LE-00024, 6235 Brandon Avenue, LLC, LLC in the Franconia District.

[04:17:43] Again, recognize that this is being deferred. At this time, we'll turn to Supervisor Lust for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the request of the applicant, I move that the Board of Supervisors defer the public hearing for RZ 2022-LE-00024 to a date certain of October 10, 2023, at 3.30 p.m.

[04:18:07] You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Faust. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. We're now going to move on to public hearing on RZ 2022-DR-00029, concurrent with PCA-79-C-037-09, HF Tech Point, I'm sorry, LLC in the Drainville District.

[04:18:44] And could we please have the applicant reaffirm the affidavit? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Lynn Strobel, and I represent the applicant, and I reaffirm the affidavits. There are two, also with this case, that are dated July 24th, 2023.

[04:19:01] Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures? Seeing and hearing none, I would now recognize county staff for a staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm William O'Donnell with the Department of Planning and Development, filling in for Emma Estes while she's away on vacation.

[04:19:21] The approximately 5-acre property, tax map 16-3, double circle 132C, is located at 13595 Dulles Technology Drive within the Drainville Supervisory District. It is located east of the Dulles International Airport and Sully Road and south of the Intervention Center Metro Station and Dulles Access Road.

[04:19:44] The property is directly south of the intersection of Dulles Technology Drive and River Birch Road. It is currently developed with a two-story office building built in 1986, an associated surface parking area, resource protection area, and a 100-year floodplain are located along Marybrook Run Stream Valley, which are located within the southwest portion of the site.

[04:20:07] Surrounding uses include an existing office commercial site to the north, which is a multi-use project to the west, which is Liberty Park development, and a stack townhouse development currently under construction to the east, and the Ludie Lewis Coates Elementary School to the southwest.

[04:20:30] The applicant requests to rezone the subject property from I-4 to the PRM district to permit multifamily residential development at a floor area ratio of 1.7, inclusive of bonus density. The applicant is also requesting approval of a proper condition amendment to remove the property from its governing rezoning approval and proposes a parking reduction request to reduce the parking rate from 1.6 to 1.1 based on proximity to Metro Rail.

[04:21:00] The proposed development is within Land Unit A1 of the Comprehensive Plan, and it's currently undergoing redevelopment from office industrial to high-density transit-oriented residential mixed use. Based on being just over a half mile from the metro, the subject property is permitted an FAR of 1.5 exclusive bonus density, which is proposed in this application.

[04:21:24] The proposal includes a one-story multifamily building containing 363,000 square feet with 348 residential units, ground floor level community amenity spaces as shown on the CDP-FDP, and the building is proposed to be 75 feet tall with six stories.

[04:21:46] It includes a garage and a private courtyard fully enclosed within the building footprint. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Dulles Technology Drive via 20-foot-wide service road. The proposed building footprint is situated on the north side of the site, adjacent to the intersection of River Birch Road and Dulles Technology Drive, leaving the existing Marybrook Stream Valley RPA on the south side protected.

[04:22:12] The proposed plan also includes a linear park adjacent to the building along River Birch Road and the Marybrook Stream Valley RPA with an eight-foot-wide shared-use trail network connecting to the larger Marybrook Stream Trail. The proposed architecture of the building includes projecting and recessed balconies, pedestrian entrance features, glass window facades on the ground floor, amenity areas, variations in color, variations in height, and the proposed buildings are proposed to be designed to obtain lead silver as well.

[04:22:49] The main urban park would be a linear park adjacent to River Birch Road, which includes a circular pedestrian plaza with focal art element located at the intersection, three smaller specialty paver seating areas, and an open programmable space connected by a four-foot-wide meandering path.

[04:23:07] The proposed 8-foot-wide mixed-use trail along the rear of the proposed building is complemented with open, programmable space and two children's play areas at its east end and a small pocket park along River Birch Road at the southwest corner of the site.

[04:23:24] Restoration of the RPA is also proposed, including removal of existing asphalt and implementation of a replanting plan. The proposed trail is completely outside of the RPA. And finally, the proposed multifamily development is sited directly adjacent to similar high-density residential uses, including the approved future Liberty Park mixed-use development to the west and the approved townhouse development under construction to the southeast of the site.

[04:23:53] Overall, the proposal is consistent with the planned vision of Innovation Center area and provides a high-quality pedestrian-oriented layout that meets the design expectations and will further the comprehensive planned vision. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and recommends approval.

[04:24:11] This concludes our presentation. Thank you very much for that. At this time, we welcome the applicant's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I don't think I have a lot to add to Mr. O'Donnell's presentation. I think he was quite thorough.

[04:24:27] I just want to reiterate that this proposal is proximate to the Innovation Center Metro Station, And it is in conformance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. It will allow for the replacement of an agent office building with a single multifamily residential building.

[04:24:47] And one of the benefits of this is removing asphalt from the RPA, which currently exists kind of at the rear of the property. So we will be removing that and restoring that area. During this application process, we spent a lot of time with staff and appreciated their input on the public park spaces.

[04:25:07] I know that we really spent a lot of time on that, and I give a lot of credit to our civil engineering firm and their landscape architects in putting together what I think is a real quality proposal for public open space. And we also spent a lot of time on architecture.

[04:25:22] I give credit to our architect for coming up with a building that I think is a real quality addition to this area. This application is supported by staff, is supported by the Planning Commission, and I would ask for a favorable consideration this afternoon. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[04:25:38] Thank you very much for that presentation. Are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Any questions of staff or the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing, and I have no speakers who have signed up in advance to testify on this matter. Is there anyone present who would like to speak on this subject?

[04:25:56] Anyone who would like to testify on this subject, this is a public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. There are no callers. No one has called in. I assume the applicant waives rebuttal. Thank you. Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff.

[04:26:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the RZ and PCA applications subject to proffers now dated September 19, 2023. The PCA also recommended approval of the waivers and modifications handed out to you today and approved the concurrent FTP application contingent on approval of the RZ and PCA applications.

[04:26:40] Staff concurs with those recommendations. Thank you. Last check. Any questions? Seeing and hearing none at this time, I am going to close the public hearing. This application is in the Drainsville District, and I would recognize Supervisor Faust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really pleased with the way this application has come together, and I think it's going to contribute a lot to the type of community we're trying to create in that area of the county.

[04:27:09] Particularly pleased with the public park spaces and the building is going to be very attractive. So I want to thank staff, and I want to thank the applicant and everyone involved for working together and coming up with a really nice project, in my opinion.

[04:27:30] Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve RZ 2022 DR 00029 and the associated conceptual development plan subject to the signed proffers dated September 19, 2023.

[04:27:49] I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 79-C-037-09.

[04:27:58] I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve of a parking reduction number PKS-2023-00021 pursuant to Section 6100.4.C to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces based on proximity to Metro to reduce parking ratio from 1.6 to 1.1 spaces for dwelling unit as shown on the CDP-FDP.

[04:28:30] and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2 of the staff report. And finally, I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve the requested waivers and modifications contained in the list stated September 14, 2023, so move.

[04:28:48] Second. You've heard the motion and the second by Supervisor Lusk. Is there any discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you very much.

[04:29:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next public hearing is a public hearing on SEA 88-V-064-06. The Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County to amend SE 88-V-064, previously approved for an alternate use of a public facility to permit an alternative use of a historic building and associated modifications to site design and development conditions located on approximately 22.60 acres of land in the Mount Vernon District. And could the applicant please reaffirm the

[04:29:45] affidavit? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Ipek Aktuglu with DPWS Building Design and Construction Division, and I reaffirmed the affidavit dated August 11, 2023.

[04:30:02] Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures from board members? Seeing and hearing none, I would now recognize county staff for a staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Kathy Lewis with the Department of Planning and Development. This is another repeat for you in a different flavor than the other twos where people forgot to pay their taxes.

[04:30:24] This application seeks to redevelop the original Mount Vernon High School. The subject property is in the Richmond Highway Corridor in the Mount Vernon District. The school is sited along Richmond Highway between Maury Place and Mohawk Lane. The site is developed with the original Mount Vernon High School, a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Virginia Landmarks Register, and the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites.

[04:30:52] On September 13, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved SEA 88V-064-05, an amendment to the special exception for OMVHS. Specifically, the application sought to amend the special exception approved for an alternate use of a public facility to allow for an alternative use of a historic structure and other site modifications to permit this historic building to be adaptively reused as a public facility offering a variety of uses this particular special exception was a new special

[04:31:29] exception created under the 2021 zoning ordinance when the supreme court of virginia declared that our zoning ordinance void ab initio sea 88-v-064-05 was no longer valid as this special exception use did not exist in the 1978 zoning ordinance. For that reason, the applicant has come back with the new special exception amendment under the recently adopted 2023 zoning ordinance. The application is a result of a multi-year visioning and planning process for OMVHS that envisions it

[04:32:08] as a center for human development on the Richmond Highway Corridor. To that end, the applicant proposes an array of uses for the subject property these include child care center private school club or service organization community center office specialized instruction center small scale production establishment restaurant and other uses to accommodate these uses the applicant proposes to demolish some additions that have been deemed non-historically significant to be replaced with two new additions the applicant also proposes site work including a recreational

[04:32:45] facility for early childhood education landscaping construction of sidewalks and additional off-street surface parking the illustrative plan shown here highlights the two proposed additions in blue these additions are proposed at the rear of the building in order to preserve the historic front lawn, and facade. In addition, a new service parking lot is proposed at the rear of the building with an auxiliary parking lot off of Mari Place. While the proposed design reorients primary vehicular access to the rear of the building, the applicant does propose multimodal improvements

[04:33:23] to Richmond Highway in order to accommodate the many users of this facility who are expected to arrive by transit bike and foot the applicant also proposes additional signage along richmond highway to help guide those arriving by transit bike or foot to the facility thank you mr chairman or madam chairman this concludes my presentation thank you i would now recognize the applicant's agent for a presentation thank you again my name is ipek octoglu and i am the project coordinator

[04:34:02] for this project, representing DPWES as the applicant's agent on the Special Exception Amendment application. I would like to thank Kathy Lewis for her assistance and guidance in processing this application and presenting the application details.

[04:34:18] I have a presentation prepared. However, in the interest of time, if you like, I can forego the presentation since the board is familiar with this project. And Kathy Lewis did a great job presenting the application details.

[04:34:34] And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff, of our applicant's agent who is also staff? All right. Are there any questions of county staff from DPW or DPD? All right. This is a public hearing. Thank you. You may be seated. This is a a public hearing. Is there anyone here in the auditorium who wishes to speak on this matter?

[04:35:07] I don't believe we have anyone signed up in advance. Is there anyone wishing to speak here in the auditorium? Is there anyone on the phone? There are no callers. No callers. All right. And the applicant doesn't need rebuttal. Are there closing comments and a recommendation from staff?

[04:35:27] Thank you, Madam Chairman. On September 20th, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of SEA 88-V-064-06, subject to development conditions dated September 6th, 2023. The Planning Commission also voted to recommend approval of the waivers and modifications listed in the September 18th, 2023 handout.

[04:35:51] Staff concurs with those recommendations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Board members? Any questions? Seeing and hearing none at this time, I will now close the public hearing. This is in the Mount Vernon District, so I would recognize Supervisor Stork.

[04:36:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since we've heard this and reviewed this previously, I'm going to go right to it. I would ask the applicant to please confirm that the record of the agreement to development conditions dated September 6, 2023. I accept the development conditions.

[04:36:27] Thank you. I move the Board of Supervisors approve SCA 88V-064-06, subject to development conditions dated September 6, 2023. I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve the waivers and modifications as listed in the handout dated September 18, 2023.

[04:36:49] And the chair seconds that motion. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. I. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Supervisor Stork.

[04:37:05] I just want to thank really all the EPEC and Kathy and really David Stoner and many people that have been involved with this for so much you could say too long, but to get it right, it's never long enough, right? So we're heading in the right direction. I appreciate all your efforts to keep us on track to get us there. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Stork. And before we move to our next exciting public hearing on sewer availability, I do want to make sure that folks in the auditorium know we do have 33 speakers signed up for our zoning ordinance

[04:37:41] amendment on parking and 10 speakers signed up for public comment. So for planning purposes, I'm going to take public comment first, even though it's listed at the end of the agenda so that those folks can be on their way. The parking item is going to take a little bit longer. So just out of respect for people's time, I just want to make sure people are aware of that.

[04:38:01] And with that, we are going to move on to our next public hearing, which is a public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 65-6-6 of the Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia County Code relating to public sanitary sewer availability. And at this time, I would recognize county staff for a staff presentation. Good evening. My name is Sean Wilson and Director Waste Water Planning and Monitoring Division. With me is Mark Gorey from the County Attorney's Office. Under Section 65-6-6 of the County Code, the county sewer service is deemed available

[04:38:37] if a residential structure is within 300 feet of the sewer. Also, sewer service is deemed available to all other types of structures within 500 feet of the county sewer. Section 65-6-6 is intended to apply to properties within the approved sewer service area boundary and within 400 feet of this boundary if certain requirements are met, as set forth in the county's statement of policy regarding sewage disposal, otherwise known as sewer service policy.

[04:39:07] The proposed amendment to section 65-6-6 of the county code adds a reference to the sewer service policy to clarify that availability of the public sewer service is subject to the board adopted sewer service policy. Currently, there is no reference to the policy in the code. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much for that presentation. Are there any questions of staff? Any questions of staff? Seeing and hearing none, this is a public hearing and I have no speakers who have signed up in advance to testify. Is there anyone present in the auditorium that would like to speak on this matter.

[04:39:47] Anyone present who would like to testify, this is a public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if anyone has called in. There are no callers. There are no callers. Thank you very much. Any closing comments and a recommendation from staff? Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance amendments.

[04:40:06] Thank you very much. Last call. Any questions? Seeing and hearing none, I will now close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Smith for a motion. I will do this.

[04:40:22] I move that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Ordinance Amendment as set forth in Attachment 1, which will become effective at 12.01 a.m. on September 27, 2023. Second. Heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Gross. Discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion?

[04:40:39] Yes, Supervisor Gross. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we don't have to debate this very much because we have excellent staff who provide all the detail that we need. This can be very complex and complicated. People have actually lost their elected seats over some of these issues in other jurisdictions.

[04:40:59] But I just wanted to thank staff. They do an outstanding job on these kinds of issues. Thank you. And it's also something that when you get elected, you never really realized that you're going to become an expert on sewers. Among the many other things, we're all on the edge of our seat for this item.

[04:41:20] Thank you, Supervisor Gross. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Our next public hearing is a public hearing on the proposed affordable housing preservation administrative policy guidelines.

[04:41:43] And as soon as staff is ready, we would recognize staff for a staff presentation.

[04:42:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Brianne Fuller with Housing and Community Development. I'm joined here today by Megan Van Dam and Tom Fleetwood from Housing and Community Development as well. And we have Tracy Strunk here from Department of Planning and Development as well. I'm here today to present to you the Administrative Policy Guidelines for Affordable Housing Preservation.

[04:42:32] For a little bit of background, the Affordable Housing Preservation Policy adopted in March sets forth a goal of one-for-one replacement of affordable units that are being redeveloped. And it offers additional density to assist in offsetting the impacts that that preservation has on the redevelopment proposal.

[04:42:52] Since the adoption of the policy in March, we have created administrative guidelines that include details of the process that are not laid out in the comprehensive plan itself. The administrative guidelines outline how property owners will work with the county to utilize the policy and provide direction on the administration of the preserved units after an entitlement is approved.

[04:43:17] We conducted engagement during the spring and summer to solicit feedback on the proposed guidelines. We hosted two virtual engagement sessions available to the public. We sent property owners letters to create awareness around the guidelines as well as those engagement sessions, posted targeted meetings with members of industry, and solicited feedback from the Board of Supervisors at the Housing Committee meetings in May and August.

[04:43:43] A draft of the guidelines was available on our website for the entire month of June, along with a public comment form so that people could give us direct feedback. We also included the links to the engagement sessions, and a recording of one of the sessions is available on the website as well.

[04:44:00] We did hear positive feedback regarding the determination of applicability and the factors that we will be using to determine if a site has affordable units on it. There were also positive comments about the ability to opt into the policy for market rate properties that don't fall under the definition of market affordable in the comprehensive plan, but do have rents that are up to 80% of the area median income.

[04:44:25] The major theme of feedback that we received for outreach for both the plan amendment and the guidelines was the need for predictability in the process. We are looking to put our current turnaround times for affordability assessments and preservation proposals on our website to assist that predictability as those timeframes were specifically requested during engagement.

[04:44:48] And this will help provide some predictability while also taking staff capacity into consideration so that we can provide a realistic look at what that turnaround might look like. We also received positive feedback about having enough flexibility in the guidelines to provide for a variety of different scenarios that might occur.

[04:45:07] The administrative guidelines and the policy it supports were designed to find harmony between both predictability and flexibility, which can sometimes compete with one another. We also discussed with the public the provision of relocation guidelines based on the Fairfax County relocation guidelines.

[04:45:25] Sorry, relocation plans based on the relocation guidelines. After receiving feedback, we made some additions to the document, as well as clarified various items, including the rents used in determining applicability of the policy, as well as the provision of units that are going to be off-site.

[04:45:45] The administrative guidelines include the applicability of the policy to rezoning cases, the review process for preservation proposal when the policy is to be used, the goals for the replacement units, the administration of preserved units after the entitlement process, and the development of relocation plans to assist existing tenants during the redevelopment process.

[04:46:12] The first topic in the administrative guidelines is the determination of policy applicability. As early on as possible in the process, HCD would determine if the policy applies to a project. Committed units that would qualify for the policy are affordable to households earning 80% of the AMI and below, either currently or whose rent restrictions have expired within the past 12 months.

[04:46:38] Those commitments might be through the ADU or WDU programs, they may have utilized tax credits, or have those rent restrictions through other means. Qualified market affordable units are those that are affordable to households earning 60% of the AMI and below and do not have rent restrictions.

[04:46:56] We will look at rents over the course of the preceding three years to determine if the property had market affordable units for a majority of that time frame. Another factor is if the property has appeared on one or more of the past two market affordable surveys that HCD conducts every two years.

[04:47:16] Properties that have market rents up to 80% may also opt into the policy, which can give them the benefit of additional density and can provide the county with additional affordable units that would not otherwise have been captured in the policy. This gives an option to preserve more workforce housing at higher affordability levels that are still very critical to providing housing for all income levels.

[04:47:40] HCD staff will utilize the average rents of multifamily buildings in the county that are gathered on a monthly basis, and we may also request rent information from the applicant as needed. The low-income housing tax credit rent thresholds will be used in determining applicability, and in terms of utilities, particularly with those market rents, utilities may or may not be included, and we will seek to understand what those rents do include as we are assessing a property.

[04:48:07] The information regarding applicability will be delivered via an affordability assessment. Affordability assessments should be requested by the property owner as early on in the process as possible.

[04:48:23] They will include the determination of whether or not the units meet the definitions of market affordable or committed affordable, as well as the AMI levels, number of units, and mix of bedrooms, which will then help inform the replacement unit goals.

[04:48:38] The next topic in the guidelines is the review of preservation proposals prior to a rezoning application being submitted or an authorization of a comprehensive plan amendment. After the affordability assessment is completed, the applicant will submit a preservation proposal for HCD and DPD to review.

[04:48:59] This will include the density needed to achieve one-for-one replacement based on the affordability assessment. It should also include any alternatives that are being proposed if they are necessary. HCD and DPD may request additional information, including massing concepts to give us an idea of what that additional density might look like on the site, and financial feasibility that shows the justification for any alternatives to one-for-one replacement.

[04:49:27] Preservation proposals should also include any information on potential off-site units. This would include a justification for locating units off-site and specific information regarding location of those units. The guidelines include parameters for off-site location, including that units should be within a one-mile radius of the original site and should have comparable access to major roads, transit, development centers, schools, and other amenities.

[04:49:58] The next topic in the guidelines covers the goals for the replacement units. The goal of the policy is to maintain affordability and minimize displacement of existing residents. So for replacement units, we are ultimately looking to seek the same number of units that exist on site with comparable AMI levels and number of bedrooms.

[04:50:19] We do also want to be able to meet the needs of the existing residents who would want to return to the redeveloped property. There might be tenants on that site that are underhoused, meaning that there isn't enough space for the occupants that live in a unit currently. They may be underhoused due to not being able to afford that unit individually or as a family.

[04:50:40] This is a concern we came across during public outreach for the plan amendment. And thus, the needs of the existing residents should be evaluated while creating the goals for the replacement units as well. The fourth topic in the administrative guidelines is the administration of the preserved units after the zoning process is complete.

[04:51:02] If the units are not already subject to another administration process for a state, local, or federal program, which can include utilizing tax credits or RHA financing, then the units would be administered using the workforce dwelling unit administrative guidelines.

[04:51:19] This would apply to processes including offering agreements and covenants, compliance, integration, dispersion of units, and unit sizing. The benefit of this mechanism is that we then have units committed through redevelopment being processed in a similar manner, and if something changes in the WDU guidelines, it would apply to this policy as well.

[04:51:42] The final topic in the guidelines is the provision of relocation assistance plans. Relocation assistance plans will be provided to HCD for review and approval during the entitlement process and should be crafted using the Fairfax County Relocation Guidelines if the property is not already subject to another program that has its own relocation requirements.

[04:52:05] The guidelines provide a framework for effective relocation plans and recommend elements that should be included in the plans. The plan should aim to minimize displacement of existing tenants and encourage fair and equitable treatment of anyone who is to be displaced for any period of time.

[04:52:23] So our next steps include meeting with members of industry to discuss spreading awareness of the policy. During our outreach for the guidelines, there was a good discussion with the NVBIA and NAOP members regarding increasing awareness of the policy and helping property owners to understand the potential benefits that the policy might have.

[04:52:45] So we do plan to continue those discussions to determine how we can assist with that messaging. We will also send letters to property owners and make them aware of any actions taken today and potentially start any conversations regarding preservation and or redevelopment.

[04:53:03] HCD staff are also currently working on an update to the relocation guidelines and plan to present an update to the Housing Committee in November. This is where we will address issues, including the right of tenants to return to the property and provisions for any temporary or permanent relocation. We will be working on our next market affordable survey in 2024, which is completed every two years to provide us with a set of data regarding how many market affordable units there are in the county at a given time.

[04:53:31] We are also preparing for the next preservation-related plan amendment, which is for manufactured housing specifically. And additional ongoing efforts include monitoring market rents monthly and seeking out opportunities to preserve affordable units with our bench of preservation partners.

[04:53:49] The administrative guidelines will assist us with preserving units that would otherwise lose their affordability through redevelopment. And the administrative guidelines will help guide us through the use of our policy that was adopted in March and complements the policy itself with additional details that are really crucial for understanding this process.

[04:54:11] And together they make up one more necessary tool in our toolbox for affordable housing. And thus, we ask the Board of Supervisors to adopt the administrative policy guidelines for affordable housing preservation. That concludes my presentation, and I am happy to take any questions.

[04:54:27] Thank you very much for that presentation. Questions from board members, and I'm going to start with Supervisor Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A thought occurs to me when looking at the equity impact, and I'm going to ask maybe bring in Supervisor Stork and Supervisor Lusk on this question.

[04:54:52] because at our Community, Military, and Federal Facility Partnership the last several meetings, we've talked a lot about the need for more housing for people who are stationed at Fort Belvoir. Most of the people stationed at Fort Belvoir actually live off post.

[04:55:13] And quite often the base allowance for housing doesn't cover the rents here in Fairfax County. So my question actually is when you talk about community and other stakeholder engagement for any of these discussions, do you include representatives from Fort Belvoir?

[04:55:35] I suspect the answer is no. I'm not sure that we had those specific folks. What I would like to suggest, actually encourage, urge, would be that in future discussions about affordable housing in Fairfax County that we ask someone from Fort Belvoir or someone from one of the bases to participate. It doesn't have to be the colonel. It can be a civilian, but I do think that we're probably missing. There's probably a gap there, and we're missing

[04:56:12] including the folks from Fort Belvoir in these discussions because this is all part of our community. So I just want to put that out there. It does not affect this particular hearing that we're doing today. But I think for the future, let's not leave out the folks who are both inside and outside defense lines. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. Further discussion on that point. On that point, first, Supervisor Stork. Thank you, Supervisor Gross, for raising

[04:56:47] that. And I want to highlight that because it is a 360 problem, if you will. We clearly have responsibilities and I think need to include and make sure that we have them part of the process. But I can tell you from my 20 years of engagement with Fort Belvoir and the housing issues that we've had there and some of the serious housing issues they've had there, and I know we all are familiar with that, maybe more than the public is, it's going to take far more than even our limited efforts to address that. And we start with DOD and their allocation of funds for housing,

[04:57:25] and frankly, the privatization of the housing that they've done there. So I, and I'm going to say this, again, very broadly, I'm not pointing fingers, other than we all have a responsibility here, is it's not unlike what the efforts that the county has expended to make sure that we have adequate schools, physical schools there. And the first school that we, the new school was built there was because of a congressman got a special appropriation. And the next school that they needed there because the first one was overcrowded was because Fairfax County, you know, through this

[04:58:01] Fairfax County School Board put up 20% of the cost of that school, even though, you know, it's on post and it's not owned by the county. And so there's, there's a lot of significant issues that I think the Department of Defense and all of us need to address far more fully.

[04:58:19] And, again, your leadership of the MVRC, I think, is an excellent mechanism for doing that. And I appreciate, frankly, your decades of work there. And I realize that all of us are going to have to step up a little bit more given the decades of work you've done there. But I think the problem is a large one.

[04:58:37] And clearly, this is one more factor in our housing preservation efforts. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Stork, Supervisor Lusk, followed by Supervisor Pouching. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to pivot from there.

[04:58:52] I think the comments that Supervisor Stork made, I'll associate myself with him. And also the point that our vice chairman has made, we do have to figure better ways to engage Fort Belvoir in all the bases. So this is something that's going to obviously be beyond the work here at the county.

[04:59:10] I just want to maybe make two points. I appreciate a couple things, and I think I may have said this also at the committee meeting, but this idea that we're really trying to figure a way to, you know, save one-for-one housing and then also to figure a way to try to help in the relocation for those who are going to be displaced.

[04:59:28] I think this is so important, particularly in some of our lower-income communities, going back to the point about Carla Bruce and making sure we're, you know, applying our equity lens. The point I wanted to make, though, is that I see, I think you received a letter from Mary Payton where she made the point that the guidelines only cover market rate units up to 60% AMI, leaving out hundreds of Route 1 apartments.

[04:59:56] And I noticed in your slide you did say there's an opt-in provision for 61% to 80%. Can you maybe talk a little bit more about how that will work and how you envision it being able to get kind of compliance for those to opt-in?

[05:00:13] Because I just think that might need to be a little bit better clarified here. Sure. So just to clarify, we utilized the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Preservation Task Force, which did define that market affordable as 60 percent of the AMI and below.

[05:00:29] And we included the opt-in because we did hear a lot of conversation about the workforce housing up to 80 percent, especially needing to be preserved as well. So while they won't fall under the definition of market affordable per the comprehensive plan, We're hoping we can kind of solicit the benefits that a property owner might see on a site.

[05:00:50] There's additional density that might be able to be utilized if they provide those, let's say they have 70% and 80% units. So I think we would really want to emphasize the benefits of the potential density that they could see on the site above plan guidance.

[05:01:07] Okay, I think that will help. And then the last point I wanted to make, and I noticed it on your slide, you referenced that you're going to be working on the manufactured housing comprehensive plan amendment. What's the timing for that? And then will it also include some of the same provisions that we are discussing here as a part of this preservation of housing?

[05:01:30] So we are in the process of hiring a new staff member. We have the advertisement out now. We are looking to work with them to help with much of the outreach on the preservation amendment as that person will be a liaison with many of these communities.

[05:01:50] So I think we're sort of checking our boxes to make sure that we can complete one project like this, and we'll be working on it this fall. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Supervisor, on that point, Supervisor.

[05:02:08] I just wanted to go back real briefly to Fort Belvoir to help staff. We have a Fort Belvoir liaison advance develop, so that would probably be the best place to start on that. Supervisor Paljik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I was going to start with, as Supervisor Les, comments, so I appreciate your response on that.

[05:02:26] I guess in addition to that, and I think as we're going through this, right, it's the first time we're doing this, and I think we truly are trying to learn from the past what to do, what not to do, and kind of what new opportunities are there, really appreciate your work on this. I think I have one question and then one comment. So the question is, knowing that, and I know my community is probably a little bit different than we're looking at some of the different parts of the county, I do have hope that this is going to be truly helpful as we have, especially some of those older buildings that were built, you know,

[05:03:01] 50s, 60s, 70s, maybe even earlier, and are looking to redevelop. How will we be tracking and kind of revisiting this new policy as we see necessary, and especially looking at the relocation?

[05:03:17] I know we've tried to address that, and that being so important. I think making sure that we're not displacing families and that we're ensuring that the efforts we put into assuring relocation, or whether it's back to the same property or to a closed property is what happens.

[05:03:35] I think that's going to be a pretty difficult lift. So just wondering if you have more thoughts on that and are continuing to see what's working and maybe if we need to make adjustments moving forward. Yes, absolutely. We're going to need to probably make adjustments moving forward as we move through implementing the policy.

[05:03:54] And as we're doing that now, we're speaking internally and speaking with DPD about even the finer-tuned little steps that are not in here that, you know, happen between staff and the applicant and figuring out how long these things are taking and how to optimize the process. So we're assessing it as we go, and we certainly hope to, you know, take a larger look at that if we need to amend something in the future or if it's more just fine-tuning it internally. And would that include if we need to fine-tune maybe geographically or special targeted areas? Is that a possibility if we see

[05:04:31] Is that there's a big disconnect in different parts of the county for making this happen? I think we would be open to maybe looking at geographic areas if we decide that that's necessary. I think we went over all the flexibility provisions in the hearing for the policy itself, but we did have to leave it flexible just because preservation can be, it can mean so many different things.

[05:04:53] And it depends on the site and it depends on what's there. So, yeah, that might be a direction that we need to take eventually. But I think right now, leaving it flexible, and then if we fine-tune it that way, then that's what we need to do. Thank you. And I think that's a great point, being flexible and knowing some of these properties are maybe in better shape than some others and understanding what that means, ensuring everyone has adequate and healthful accommodations.

[05:05:18] So I just want to thank you, Ms. Fuller, and everyone who worked on this. It's a big lift, I believe, and we are absolutely moving in the right direction. And finally, it was addressed earlier. But I appreciate that the engagement truly is and will continue to be not just a checkbox, but seems to be very comprehensive and targeted in ensuring that both current and future tenants have the ability to weigh in.

[05:05:44] Thank you. Okay. Supervisor Faust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the conversation about Fort Belvoir, but I don't fully understand what we're asking staff to do with respect to Fort Belvoir.

[05:06:00] I mean, clearly, we know there's a lot of people on that base who need housing. Are we asking Fort Belvoir to participate in, you know, delivering that housing in the county? Are we trying to create a relationship where they, you know, for example, would purchase a land and we would work with a developer?

[05:06:21] What are we trying to do? Actually, Supervisor Faust, what we're simply doing is connecting them for the purpose of conversation. Because for those of us who have represented that area for a long time, sometimes there's a disconnect between what's happening on post and what's happening in the community, and there's not a good conversation that takes place.

[05:06:41] And certainly with regard to housing, it's a big issue in that part of the county. And ironically, you know, many of the garden style apartments that we have talked about in here that we're trying to preserve on the Richmond Highway Corridor in particular were originally built to accommodate a lot of the people working at Fort Belvoir because the base couldn't even handle the volume of people back in those days.

[05:07:04] And so I think what we're trying to do here, Supervisor Faust, is make sure they get engaged in a part of the conversation so that they understand the magnitude of the challenges, what it is we're trying to tackle. And we do the best job making sure that we're providing as much housing as we can, but with the recognition that they've got to understand decisions that they make play a major role in our ability to do that.

[05:07:27] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a related point, Mary Payton in her letter, also in her point number three, talked about our chief equity officer, Carla Bruce, who spoke to the Preservation Task Force, stressed that we need to look at who benefits, who is harmed, and who is at the table.

[05:07:51] And talking about strive for community development that considers the voice of current residents and benefits to people who live here already. So I think it does relate somewhat to the Fort Belvoir discussion. I appreciate that. I guess my question is, the guidelines, I don't see, and maybe it's because this is a bigger issue than the guidelines, but I don't see an attempt to try to identify or to address that issue.

[05:08:16] I'll put it that way. Is that something that would be part of, say, the overall rezoning process and not the administrative guidelines? Is that why it's not addressed in a document like these guidelines? Yes, I think this is mostly the process of implementing the policy itself, and there would be larger outreach that would occur with a rezoning application.

[05:08:41] Okay, so here's my suggestion, because I know DPD was asked by the board to look at equity as a policy plan issue, and I know we generally don't like to do implementation in the comprehensive plan. But I would suggest that some of the discussion that I've heard from my colleagues here today would be good fodder for consideration of including in a policy plan amendment on equity at some point.

[05:09:06] Basically, the process for reviewing applications, particularly where there's redevelopment, to make sure that there are a true cross-section of interested stakeholders at the table, including existing residents, including perhaps, you know, quote-unquote the voiceless or semi-voiceless.

[05:09:28] We're talking about the Fort Valvoire folks that might be living in some of those apartments and traditionally have not been in that engage. So perhaps that's a place for that to be considered as that policy plan moves forward. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[05:09:44] And if I may respond to that real quickly, Megan Van Dam, Housing Department. I think one key component to understanding who benefits and who's harmed in this work is related to the preservation proposal. And we'll be looking, and the affordability assessment, we're looking at not only the hard numbers of where does the rent fall, but also talking with the property owner about what are the actual needs of the residents within that community.

[05:10:14] And the policy guidelines speak to the potential for doing a community survey to see if there are any opportunities for better serving the actual tenants within the apartment complexes So that, you know, if you have situations where you have tenants who are underhoused, that can become more visible.

[05:10:37] Yeah, I appreciate that. And that's a good start, but I think we can do more. I think, particularly in this situation, I think that's, again, something to consider as part of how we incorporate equity in our comprehensive planning process. But it's a good start.

[05:10:52] So thank you. Supervisor Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate this discussion. And most importantly, I appreciate the process that we've followed and the progress that we've made to really get at what really is the core of affordable housing, which is what marketplace affordable housing is.

[05:11:14] And I know and we all have seen the maps and we know where the critical concentrations are. Mount Vernon District, I think, still has one of the highest. But I realize that Franconi and Mason are close behind. But I think the core of the conversation for me is absolutely preserving that.

[05:11:32] And I think that's my commitment. I know you've heard that commitment from the board. But it's also ensuring that we don't just focus on areas that have higher percentages or a higher concentration of that housing now because I think we're truly committed to equity as a board. And that equity means not just kind of reserving some areas of the county because they don't have many that we're not going to try to find a way to provide more opportunities for people who make less money afford housing in that area because there's jobs and there's work opportunities here too.

[05:12:08] So that's the balance I'm looking for. I know we have to start somewhere, and this is kind of a core part of that start and conversation, that commitment. But I know in our commitment overall to when we provide subsidized affordable housing, when we actually invest in that, we're doing that in a very strategic way in terms of making sure it's around the county.

[05:12:31] But it really has to be both parts of that. And it has to come with what I know this individual is going to bring that you're hiring and then regular reporting. I think it's two years or every three years the survey that you're going to do to try to give us a sense of how we're doing and that we don't make the mistake that, and I'll call it out, the city of Alexandria made where they essentially lost 90% of their housing that was affordable and they woke up one day and in essence was gone and frankly moved elsewhere.

[05:12:59] And I think they're the lesser community as a result. I want to make sure that we bring everybody along. We leave no one behind in this process, but we have to be very intentional and equitable in that process. So, again, we have a lot of work to do. I think this gets us to the next step, and we have far more to go.

[05:13:18] Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Stork. And just as a reminder, we haven't even gotten to the public hearing yet. And contrary to what some might believe, we have been talking about this for years in a lot of committee meetings with a lot of staff time put into this to get us to this point.

[05:13:38] And so while we still may have questions, this has been a long journey to get to get to this point with a whole lot of input from the board. And so I just want to acknowledge that. However, this is a public hearing, and I do have two individuals who have signed up in advance to speak on this matter.

[05:13:57] And our first speaker is Paul Zyrowski. Paul here. He's Paul. Yes, he is. And Paul is the president, Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Our Lady of Good Counsel won't have five minutes. Speaker number two is Jill Norcross, who has submitted video testimony.

[05:14:13] Is there anyone else in the auditorium besides these two individuals that would like to speak on this matter? Okay. Welcome, speaker number one, Mr. Zyrowski. Thank you. Back again. I was here the last time when the policy was approved, and I am back again this time because the understanding was, terms of resident protections and right to return it wasn't addressed in the policy but it would be addressed in the guidelines it is still not addressed in the guidelines and it is now kicked to the relocation overall assessment now i took a look at that last night and the word should is

[05:14:48] used 58 times in terms of what developers are required to do the word will must require not not nearly as present in those which means we know that the residents and areas that are going to be redeveloped are going to lose their house we know they're probably going to have to go somewhere or be homeless as I'm sure you all know our homeless shelters are currently overflowing and we are now putting up families and hotels and I want to be very clear because I'm here representing the Society of St. Vincent de Paul we are a Catholic social service organization and we work with the people who are at the tip end of the bottom end of the economic spectrum so

[05:15:25] one of the things that we do is we do home visits and so we will go visit people in their homes and I have been in the home I've dropped off food assistance to a mother of four who is in a condo with her four kids subletting one room, with a family who has six kids and two parents in a two-bedroom apartment, and then also with the teenage runaway who is splitting a two-bedroom with three other families. And so that is who is living in these properties that is going to be redeveloped. And so my great fear is we're using a lot of what I would phrase, and I don't mean this negatively, as antiseptic terms of here's

[05:16:01] the AMI is going to be we should talk to residents because a lot of what goes on flies under the radar screen in those different communities and so you know i did a lap last weekend and you might as well call it the fairfax county redevelopment tour in terms of the places that we went and so what i would encourage is to have as soon as possible because we had talked again a number of months ago that these protections would be included in the policy then they would be included in the guidelines, and now we're going to continue to, you know, assess those down the road.

[05:16:35] I would argue to you that we know what is going to happen, which is people are going to get kicked out. They're going to have to find new housing. They may not be the resident on the lease. They may not be living there legally. They may not have W-2 income. So a lot of the programs that would be available that have qualification criteria would not apply to them. And so I would humbly ask where are they going to go and where are they supposed to go and what are we going to do to protect them. And so in terms of a practical solution, I would encourage two things. Number one

[05:17:08] is I would follow the HUD guidelines, which is that every tenant who is living in one of these redeveloped properties has a right to return without re-screening because I was interested to hear some of the comments about equity. That is one of the things that I have been told is can become inequitable, which is using objective criteria to exclude certain populations.

[05:17:35] And so the principle should be if they are good enough to pay rent there now, they are good enough to live there now, they're good enough to return. And I would encourage you to put that in the policy and in the guidelines, and then if someone wants an exemption from that, then they can take it out. The other thing, if that is a step too far, I would encourage that anyone who is displaced by redeveloped property or redeveloping property be given preferential treatment for housing vouchers or publicly subsidized housing to ensure that they do not end up homeless.

[05:18:07] Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate that. Speaker number two is Jill Norcross, and she has submitted video testimony. Good evening.

[05:18:22] My name is Jill Norcross, and I'm speaking as the Executive Director of the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, or NAVAHA. Our mission is to promote healthy, sustainable, and equitable communities that meet the diverse housing needs of Northern Virginia residents.

[05:18:38] As a participant of the Affordable Housing Preservation Task Force, I appreciate the time and efforts spent by task force members and the county staff to pass the comp plan amendment and to the staff for their work on the administrative guidelines.

[05:18:54] I am speaking tonight in support of the guidelines but want to emphasize the following points. First, we appreciate the community engagement done around the administrative guidelines this past June. Navaja was able to attend one of the virtual meetings as well as the presentation to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and also a follow-up meeting with staff for clarification on specific points. Second, it is really important to the extent possible that staff does everything possible to support the county's best practice goal of no net loss of affordable housing and the goal of one-for-one replacement of affordable housing units through these guidelines. We

[05:19:31] We understand the necessity of alternative proposals being submitted in certain situations. However, we really suggest that alternative proposals maintain as high as a ratio as possible of replacement affordable units. We strongly recommend that the preservation proposals propose on-site units that serve existing tenants and that rent levels and proposed unit mix should reflect what exists at the property prior to redevelopment.

[05:19:59] With regard to the proposed provisions of off-site units, we strongly recommend that staff prioritize comparable access to major roads and transits in schools and no further than a one-mile radius. We acknowledge that Relocation Assistance Plan should include tenant assistance in the form of relocation benefits and advisory assistance to reduce tenant stress and eliminate costly evictions and project delays.

[05:20:25] relocation plan should absolutely include the ability for qualified tenants to return to the redeveloped property. We applaud the guidelines that they support the One Fairfax policy area, focus number two, which has housing policies that encourage all who want to live in Fairfax be able to do so, and the provision of a full spectrum of housing opportunities across the county. As these guidelines provide commitments to housing affordability during the redevelopment of properties currently with lower-income households that are vulnerable to market rent increases or expiring affordability.

[05:21:00] We encourage these revisions to the administrative guidelines over time to ensure that this affordable housing preservation policy is the most impactful tool to ensure no net loss of affordable units in Fairfax County. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public testimony today.

[05:21:19] Thank you very much for that testimony, and that is the end of our speakers who have signed up in advance to testify. Let me check again. Is there anyone present who would like to testify on this matter? Anyone in the auditorium that wants to speak on this subject? This is a public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if we have anyone who has called in. No one has called in. Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff. Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the administrative policy guidelines for affordable housing preservation. Thank you very much. Any questions from board

[05:21:55] members. Supervisor Herity. I want to start by thanking Paul Zeriski for coming in and testifying and any comments on the no screening? Is that, I mean, this was kind of a front lines look at what the real impact of this is going to be because many of the people living in these units are sharing units. Mr. Chairman, Tom Fleetwood with the Department of Housing and Community Development.

[05:22:24] A couple things on this, if I could, just taking a step back, prior to the availability of this policy, we had no tools within the comprehensive plan to meaningfully provide for affordable housing preservation. So this is a very important step forward that the board has taken.

[05:22:44] And we will, of course, over time, continue to learn lessons as we apply this policy based on the different circumstances with which we're presented. That being said, and with respect to the question of re-screening, I will say that, for example, the Federal Uniform Relocation Act for projects that involve federal funding, certainly there is a provision for a right to return, but that provision, as I recall, does require that the person or the tenant be able to continue to qualify for the housing.

[05:23:24] So, you know, I think we're going to have to address this on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure that the application of the federal policies here are necessarily completely a good fit, but we will continue to look at that.

[05:23:45] Supervisor Alcorn to be followed by Supervisor Palchik. Thank you. And Supervisor, I already asked the first question I was going to ask. The other was the second suggestion by that speaker. In terms of anyone being displaced should be given priority for housing vouchers. So the second suggestion by that speaker, anyone displaced should be given priority for housing vouchers.

[05:24:08] What's your thought on that? So currently in our administrative plan for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and for the Fairfax County Rental Program, In situations where there is a redevelopment going on of a housing authority-owned property, then certainly there are preferences in place for people to be able to access those resources.

[05:24:37] Applying it from a broader perspective to the voucher program is going to be driven in part by availability of the subsidy resource. and the fact that we also already have a waiting list process that we go through in order to admit people into the voucher program.

[05:25:00] So we could certainly look at it. Very happy to do that, but I want to sound, you know, just a note of caution on that. I appreciate that, and thank you for looking into both of those issues. Supervisor Pouchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[05:25:16] And I think the questions we've had and the concerns we have, and I know you share as well, are being able to have these guidelines that we've never had before, understanding that all we really can do is encourage these privately owned developments to maybe seek some higher density in exchange for preservation or finding ways to preserve.

[05:25:41] If I understand this correctly, I think we want to make sure that we're using every possible tool we have and preservation tool, but trying to weigh that with the possibility of a private developer saying, I'd rather just build by right or go with the normal process instead of doing this.

[05:25:58] So I don't know if I'm reading this correctly and hearing the comments and trying to say, well, are we going far enough? Is there something more we could be doing to help with relocation, to help with the tenant's rights who are currently there, the right to return? Is there anything we're missing that we could be including here?

[05:26:16] Not being the expert on this, I was wondering if that was looked at and if there's anything missing here we could still add. It is. It's important to understand this policy and the application of the new policy as another arrow in the quiver here, so to speak, with respect to affordable housing preservation viewed in combination with the financing that we're able to bring to the table, rental subsidies that we're able to bring to the table.

[05:26:44] And when you look at it in its totality, this is an important step forward, but it is not a cure-all. It is effectively a Crawford-driven incentive to encourage affordable housing preservation.

[05:27:00] And so if I understand correctly, the next step would be, once we put these overall policies, is as we look at specific cases, we may be able to find specific plans in order to help support the existing tenants? That's correct.

[05:27:17] Okay. Thank you. So clearly, I mean, I think we have another next case today. I also think it's not a panacea. I appreciate that there's a lot of work that's gone into it and a lot of engagement and continued engagement. And I think a lot of it, you know, we each set up our engagement in our communities when we have SSPAs or development processes and work with staff knowing our community to ensure that we are doing that.

[05:27:43] So on that, I think if that's coming forward, continuing to ensure that whether it's working with NCS to connect and bring out, we had them drive community members to our last meeting to ensure that they had access, that they have the ability to be there, child care, translation, all the services that help reduce those barriers.

[05:28:03] I think wherever we have that ability, we need to continue to do that. We need to, as district representatives, know if there is a community we're missing and partner with our community partners to ensure that we are reaching the communities, especially where there may be barriers or a lack of information there.

[05:28:21] So it's not perfect, but I do appreciate that we've come this far and that we are able to move forward in this step for these guidelines. But I do think as we come back with more specific examples, especially on the relocation plans, on not just the outreach, but the ability to ensure that the existing tenants will have access on site or close to site, I think that's what we all are.

[05:28:47] So it keeps us up at night in approving what should be a helpful plan, making sure there are not going to be those unintended consequences of trying to increase housing by displacing those currently living there. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Palczyk. And I just want to add to what you said because I think it's important and what Mr. Fleetwood said, which is this is the first time we've done this and put these provisions in our comprehensive plan, which, you know, our comprehensive plan is a living document subject to modification.

[05:29:21] And I think an important element of this new policy is going to be monitoring and adjusting as needed the comprehensive plan to deal with situations that we may not even be able to conceive of while we're sitting here today.

[05:29:37] And if we know anything about redevelopment and land use, we know that every single application is uniquely different. It has different unique challenges that have to be addressed, and I think what we're going to find with this is we have a toolbox now of tools that we didn't have before.

[05:29:55] However, we're going to have to monitor the tenacity of those and try to make sure we're always right-sizing those with what's going on in the marketplace to protect these market affordable housing units. And that's an important part of why this is in the comprehensive plan and part of a living document so that we know that we can get those reports and we can make adjustments to the comp plan language to make sure we're keeping up with what's actually happening out on the ground level.

[05:30:22] And we've never had this tool before. I think many of us have been frustrated by that. And so I'm very glad we are where we are on this and acknowledge that, as others have, that like every piece of comprehensive language that we draft, it is imperfect and it has to be adapted as time goes on.

[05:30:42] And we're going to have to be clear that we continue to do that on this board. So with that, let me at this time recognize Supervisor Faust, the chair of our housing committee, for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did have one question I wanted to ask. The Preservation Task Force that reported to staff or to the board, have you captured in the essence of what they requested of the preservation policy? And if not, are there major portions of their recommendations that were unable to address?

[05:31:25] Supervisor Faust, I think that it's fair to say that the board has addressed, through your actions relative from a budget standpoint, from a policy standpoint, I think it's fair to say that the board has addressed the majority of the recommendations that came from the preservation task force, although it's important also to recognize that the issues related to manufactured housing are still a work in progress.

[05:31:53] But we are well on our way on those as well. Okay. And I would just say that a lot of questions asked today, and that's understandable because this is a major project that we're undertaking, major change. But this is, in fact, the third time the board has had an opportunity to discuss this in detail. And I suggest that if we talked about it a fourth time, we would come up with additional things.

[05:32:21] So it is a work in process, but we're fine tuning it at this point. We've got, this is a spectacular advancement in terms of the county's ability to preserve affordable, our ability to preserve affordable housing in the county.

[05:32:39] And I just want to thank staff for what I consider to be outstanding work that went into this, not just the document itself, but the fact that we only had two speakers come out to testify about this, and both of them wanted basically more.

[05:33:00] I didn't think it would go this smoothly. You did, I think, a really good job of education, and I think that we're in, you know, it will continue to evolve, and it will get better, but this is really a good start, and I thank you for prioritizing this.

[05:33:21] So, Mr. Chairman, the Affordable Housing Preservation Administrative Policy Guidelines provide a specific implementation tool for the Affordable Housing Preservation Policy that we adopted in March of this year.

[05:33:36] The policy in these guidelines will work toward the kind of goal of no net loss of affordable housing. In the development of these administrative policy guidelines, staff engaged many different stakeholders, presented the draft to the Board's Housing Committee in August, and made revisions and responded to our concerns and comments.

[05:33:57] Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Affordable Housing Preservation Administrative Policy Guidelines stated August 30, 2023, to promote the preservation of affordable housing in the county. So moved. You heard the motion and the second discussion on the motion.

[05:34:16] Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Herity abstained. And Supervisor Herity abstains, and that is approved 9-0-1. Thank you very much again to staff.

[05:34:32] Long journey to get to this point. Thank you. We have two final items on the agenda, and as I announced earlier, I'm going to reverse the order of these, given the volume of speakers. And so if we could please be cognizant of the time limitations and respect everyone's time, that would be appreciated.

[05:34:50] We're going to move to public comment now, and just a few reminders about public comment. The board will hear public comment on any issue except issues under litigation, issues that have been scheduled for a public hearing before the board, and personnel matters and or comments regarding specific individuals.

[05:35:13] Speakers must have registered in advance, and each speaker is given three minutes for his or her remarks. A maximum of 10 speakers may address the board during any public comment period, and speakers may address the board once during a six-month period of time. I do have 10 speakers, the maximum amount, already signed up to testify.

[05:35:35] I would just note that speakers number 3 through 10 are speaking about the same subject and will use the PowerPoint presentation that I know we will be able to see. So with that, we are going to move to speaker number 1, Daniel Gonzalez.

[05:35:50] Mr. Gonzalez here. Speaker number 1, Daniel Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez here. I do not see him. I will check again in a moment. Speaker number two is Yasmin Wazir. Yasmin Wazir. Speaker number two, Yasmin Wazir.

[05:36:12] Do not see speaker number two. So we are going to move to speaker number three through ten, who are all testifying on behalf of Pickleball Courts in Nottaway Park. And I understand we have a PowerPoint presentation.

[05:36:30] I'm looking to staff to verify that. Speaker number three is Helen White. If Ms. White wants to come on down and welcome to the board, the floor is yours.

[05:36:47] Thank you very much. Well, good evening, supervisors. Where'd everybody go? Do you all need a stretch break? I mean, are you aware that sitting is the new smoking? Yeah. Guess what the answer is?

[05:37:04] Play more pickleball. So my name is Helen White. I'm known as the queen of pickleball. I have shared my passion to play this fun, inclusive, social, and inexpensive game to everyone I meet, including some of you, for the past 12 years.

[05:37:27] I'm a 70-year-old recreational and tournament player, an ambassador, an instructor, and an advocate for this game. I have taught over 3,000 people how to play. I have introduced the game to over 50 communities and provided guidance on how to form communities of play and to build pickleball venues.

[05:37:48] I do this because pickleball is a game changer. It encourages everyday people from the age of 4 to over 80 to get up and get moving. The game helps improve the health and well-being of residents, especially active older adults who prefer to age in a place where they have easy access to pickleball courts.

[05:38:11] I'm excited to be one of today's speakers to talk about the need for Fairfax County to provide clusters of dedicated, not courts shared with tennis, pickleball courts in all nine districts so that everyone has an opportunity to play and enjoy the benefits of this game.

[05:38:29] I serve as the facilitator of the Fairfax County Advocates for Pickleball, a volunteer group of passionate and experienced pickleball players from each district who want to help make Fairfax County more pickleball friendly by increasing the number of clusters of dedicated pickleball courts in the county.

[05:38:51] This slide shows the total number of shared use. That's one or two pickleball courts shared with a tennis court and dedicated pickleball courts. The county can and do better. I do want to give a shout-out to Supervisor Dan Stork for his efforts to provide residents of his district many opportunities to play, but I challenge the rest of you to step up and follow his lead, maybe even surpass his lead.

[05:39:23] I hear he's a fiercely competitive person, and he's also a good pickleball player, so watch out. So some of you may still think that pickleball is a fad. The game was invented in 1965, but it has exploded in popularity during the past couple of years.

[05:39:41] Last August, over 1,400 citizens signed a petition to build dedicated pickleball complexes in the county. They just represent the tip of the pickleball iceberg. With us today are over 40 supporters of pickleball. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thank you for showing up.

[05:39:59] This weekend, I am leading a team of volunteers to support the inaugural National Pickleball Mall of Pickleball on the National Mall near the Reflecting Pool. This event is sponsored by Humana, the Trust for the National Mall, and the D.C. Pickleball Team, our very own Major League Pickleball Team.

[05:40:20] Advanced sign-ups for clinics and court reservations filled within two minutes after registration opened. That's slightly faster than the time it took to fill 800 spots for the 99 pickleball classes offered to park takes this fall.

[05:40:37] Today's objective is to educate you about the need for dedicated pickleball court complexes to meet the needs of our growing community. More clusters of dedicated pickleball courts are needed are better because if you build them, I guarantee they will they will come.

[05:40:55] You will hear from the presenters on this screen here to build our case. Please support our efforts to make Fairfax County a healthy and desirable place to age in place by allocating money to build clusters of dedicated pickleball courts throughout the county.

[05:41:14] Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Speaker number four is Ron Tugwell. And speaker number five is Mary Williamson. Speaker number six, Weston Pollock, to be followed by Michael Perril.

[05:41:30] If you all are here and could come down close, so when it's your time to testify, that would be appreciated. Mr. Tugwell, welcome. Well, I taught Pat Harity how to play pickleball, and evidently he left. So that's not a good sign.

[05:41:49] That's not a good sign. Hi, Pat. What, do you want to come school me again, or what? No, no, no, no, no. I've been teaching pickleball professionally for 11 years.

[05:42:04] When I first started teaching, they were calling it the fastest growing sport in the United States. Well, today, it's not only that, but it is the third most popular sport in the United States behind hiking and running.

[05:42:23] We're at 9 million and counting. There are more people playing today than there were yesterday. 50 million adult Americans, nearly 20% of the adult population, have played pickleball at least once in the last 12 months. 170% growth in the last five years.

[05:42:42] It's doubled since COVID. Three years ago, the average age of pickleball players was 54. Take a guess what it is today. 34. 34. It's not just a sport for seniors.

[05:43:01] It's really, it's just exploded. And locally, the D.C. area is ranked as the number sixth in the United States in terms of participation.

[05:43:18] This fall, Fairfax County is offering 99 pickleball classes this fall. Tennis, 27. So there's a 141 percentage increase in pickleball and a 33% decrease in tennis.

[05:43:38] I want to give you an idea of the future because I think it's really important. We have all these classes that are going to be offered, but we don't have places to play. If you teach pickleball, you're taking away time from the people that want to play, and we just don't have the facilities.

[05:43:55] That's what this is all about. The future, I agree with Helen. It's not a fad. It's not going away. Obviously, the event in the mall this weekend. But take a look at Fairfax County Public Schools. It's there.

[05:44:12] You know, I could see in our lifetime it would be a club and possibly a varsity sport. Colleges and universities, they have an unofficial national championship. They have George Mason just put in eight dedicated lit pickleball courts.

[05:44:27] We were just at Virginia Tech last week, and they were putting in 14. Again, it's kind of everywhere. There's a professional circuit. Almost any weekend, you can go and find tournaments.

[05:44:44] And lastly, the Olympics. It's a participation sport right now in the Olympics. But in a few years, they say, I think, from what I understand, you have to have 75 countries with competitive players to be an Olympic sport.

[05:45:02] Pickleball has 70 right now. So the bottom line is we need bigger and better facilities. It will bring people here. It will get people playing, and I agree with Helen again, Bill, that they will come. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Speaker number five is Mary Williamson, and let's be mindful of the time, when the time expires so I don't get in trouble for letting all of you cut the line.

[05:45:30] Ms. Williamson, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm here to talk about that pickleball is not tennis, and I think we probably all know that there are some major differences. The court size, for one thing, a tennis court is 72 by 27.

[05:45:46] A pickleball court is 30 by 60, so that's a quarter of the size of a tennis court. The net height, 42 inches for a tennis court and 34 inches in the middle for a pickleball and 36 at the post. The other thing is we play with a paddle. We don't play with a racket.

[05:46:02] Those of us who do both, we have a little trouble saying what we're playing with. Plastic ball versus a tennis ball. Hit by either one, it doesn't feel very good. Length of play is about 15 to 20 minutes for a pickleball game. And depending on the level of players, it can go a little bit longer.

[05:46:21] But on tennis, we all know we don't just play one game. We have to play sets, matches, and that can go as long as 90 minutes. It is easy to learn. People we play with, they've never even picked up a paddle or a racket of any kind, and they kind of adapt to it. And people of all ages and athletics can play. We have people 90 years old playing against somebody that's eight years old on the other court. The big issue, I think, and the thing that means the most to me, it's a very social element to it. And that is you can go to a pickleball court and you may not know anybody,

[05:46:56] don't know their names. You get into a rotation, then you can play as often as you want. They're They're very friendly. People bring their chairs, you know, we chat, we talk, and it's very much a way for seniors to get out and do something, and not only just to get activity level, but also to have socialization with their peers and/or other people.

[05:47:21] Fairfax City has the model of the Green Acres Senior Center. You all may have heard of that. They built five dedicated courts on an asphalt playground for under $100,000. And we all, there's on weekends there, you can have as many as 70 people waiting to play.

[05:47:39] And if you want breaks in between, that's great. But if you want to keep it kind of moving, that gets a little bit, you know, difficult. Again, the games are like 15, 20 minutes, and we rotate in and out. And you play one game, you come off, four other people go on.

[05:47:55] So it's very much, as I said, a social element. And I just think that it would be very good to have more dedicated courts. I played down in South Carolina sometime, and they have 10 dedicated courts, and they're always full, and you meet lots and lots of new people.

[05:48:12] I appreciate your time, and thank you for listening to me. Thank you very much. Speaker number six is Weston Pollack, to be followed by Michael Peril and Audrey Weisiger and Patricia Montanino.

[05:48:28] If you all are here and can make your way down closer, that would be appreciated. Mr. Pollack, welcome. Thank you. My message to the board is I put it right on my T-shirt so it's easy to see. Pickleball builds community. To me, that's the most important aspect of the game and the aspect that I like to promote.

[05:48:50] I've been a resident of Fairfax County for 50 years. I've played in lots of sports leagues, small leagues, big leagues, some for a short amount of time, some for as much as a decade. And they've all been great experiences, good recreational experiences for me.

[05:49:10] But I've never experienced the development of community the way I have the last four years of pickleball. I'm now part of a community of folks who not only care for each other on the court, but off the court. So it's improved the quality of my life significantly.

[05:49:27] And I don't just see that here. Every place I go that has a dedicated pickleball facility, I see that. In Prince William County, where my daughter plays, I see community. When Mary and I travel to other cities and states and find a pickleball complex, we find community in that area as well.

[05:49:46] And there's always a common thread when it works the way I like to see it work with building community. There's always two common threads. One is there's a dedicated facility with multiple courts, and there's open play. The dedicated facility, multiple courts, just need enough courts in one place to develop a large enough base of players that on any day that somebody's interested in coming down, they know there's going to be a group of folks to play with.

[05:50:15] And open play is key. No reservations needed, no reservations allowed. It's democratic. Everybody comes, plays, regardless of age, regardless of skill level, experience.

[05:50:33] So everybody gets the opportunity. And like Mary explained, your site, you have a paddle system usually where you can cycle in and out. Of course, when you arrive, you just put your paddle in the next available slot. When folks finish a game, they come off, you go on. As a result of that open play process, over the period of a couple weeks, You end up playing with everybody who's there at all skill levels, at all ages.

[05:50:59] And so the person who's your teammate one day may be your opponent the next day. So that democratic process, it facilitates an open, a friendly environment, and it encourages new people to come in.

[05:51:15] There's no such thing as an outsider in that kind of facility. Anybody can come on any given day. There is another approach, which I see used, where one or two courts get scattered at various places around the community or the county so that it's local access for folks.

[05:51:32] That has its advantages, but what I see happening is a few people who already know each other make arrangements to play, so it doesn't build community. Now, I know budgets are tight. I know resources are limited.

[05:51:49] I know needs are many. And I have personally no idea how a dedicated pickleball complex fits into all of those considerations for the county. But what I do know is that if you build a dedicated complex, you not only provide a great recreational opportunity, but you build community.

[05:52:11] And I think that's important in this county or any county. So I hope that receives its due consideration. Thank you very much, Weston. Speaker number seven is Michael Perrell. Mr. Perrell, welcome. Hi, my name is Pete Montanino.

[05:52:29] I'm speaking on behalf of Mike Perrell. He couldn't be here today. And I'm speaking on a topic that's very near and dear to me, and that's Nottaway Park. We started a petition a couple of months back in order to get the attention. and the 1,400 signatures we received was because we wanted to talk about Nottoway Park, okay?

[05:52:49] We know we want to talk about Nottoway. What's so important about this? Well, Supervisor Storky did a great job down in Mount Vernon. You guys have a great number of courts down there. But here's the reality. The southern part of our county has the most dedicated pickleball courts.

[05:53:09] We have the eight at George Washington Park. Then we also have four in McLean at Lewinsville Park. But Fairfax County Park Authority did a study talking about where the cluster of most pickleball courts are.

[05:53:30] And most of them, or the players are, most of them are located in the center part of the county. And on the next slide, you'll see the areas of blue, light blue, dark blue. Per the county's study, that's where the biggest percentage of pickleball players are located.

[05:53:50] So we need to look at where they're located. And the previous slide showed a star. That star is where Nottaway is, right in the center of the cluster where the most people are located.

[05:54:06] The other benefits of Nottoway Park would help Vienna. A lot of you may be aware that the town of Vienna had a lot of issues with Glendon Park and the noise. Well, if Nottoway had the six courts that we were proposing, that would eliminate Vienna from having to use Glendon any longer.

[05:54:30] The underused tennis courts at Nottoway can support six courts. We've measured it. We've overlaid it. We know they can do that. So Nottoway is the perfect location for Providence District and the center of the county to put in courts.

[05:54:48] So Supervisor Palchek, I would get with Supervisor Stork and ask him, where did you find all that money to build all those courts in the Mount Vernon District? Because the money is obviously available. It just needs to be put to the right use. And I think Nottoway is the place we need to look.

[05:55:04] Again, we already know that the little town of Fairfax City was able to do it for under $90,000, or about $93,000. I'm sure the county can do the same thing. Thank you. Thank you, Pete. Speaker number eight is Audrey Wesseger.

[05:55:24] Welcome. Hi, I want to thank everyone for this opportunity to advocate for more pickleball courts in Fairfax County. I live in Clifton, Virginia, and I have to drive from Clifton to Fairfax City to play on a large court facility, so it would be great if there were more available.

[05:55:48] There's a slide that says studies determine that opportunities exist for leveraging the growing interest in the sport of pickleball, and these include creating more options for pickleball-only courts and large court facilities that have six or more courts that are dedicated to pickleball.

[05:56:04] They could be using future park bonds and other funding sources. There could be design and construction of at least two pickleball-only facilities, and these would be suitable for large group drop-in and tournaments.

[05:56:20] And Peter's going to address how tournaments could be a good financial situation for Fairfax County. Courts that are dedicated as tennis courts but are underutilized or shared courts that are primarily being used for pickleball should be prioritized for conversion to a pickleball-only facility.

[05:56:40] So on Saturday mornings at Van Dyke Park, which I'm wearing the same Barbie pink t-shirt as mayor, Van Dyke has courts where you have portable nets, and they're tennis courts, but I had a video, which I don't think we could show, where you had 30 players of pickleball on one side and two players playing tennis on the other side.

[05:57:05] So they certainly could dedicate some of those tennis courts to pickleball. Drop-and-play is a significant preference of the pickleball community, and drop-and-play resembles field-based sport play more than it does other court sports, as participants include both players and spectators over a block of time.

[05:57:26] So you're waiting your turn, you're playing, and then you're waiting your turn and you're playing versus a lot of other sport courts. Fairfax County Park Authority has fewer facilities of six or more dedicated pickleball courts when compared to other comparable jurisdictions.

[05:57:43] So I guess in your area you have a larger facility. I feel that this group is advocating for Nottoway Park to have the same options. I have to drive, like I said, from Clifton into Fairfax in order to play drop-in with everybody.

[05:57:58] So the northern and western reaches of the county have fewer pickleball courts, and building additional large facilities would reduce drive time needed to access a court. I saw that Nottoway is listed on the master plan to be slated for a facility of six courts.

[05:58:16] Nottoway is centrally located, and I'm looking forward to playing at Nottoway when this happens. Do we have an idea when this is going to happen? I think so. Let me just say that I come from the world of figure skating. I'm an Olympic coach.

[05:58:32] I got a buzzer, and I just want to emphasize what my colleagues have said, that the benefits of pickleball are universal. It's not just for seniors, it's for everyone. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Speaker number nine is Patricia Montanino.

[05:58:52] Welcome. It's great to be here. Hello, my name is Patty Montanino, and I'm going to be speaking on Fairfax County pickleball courts compared to other Virginia locations. Next slide.

[05:59:10] In our research on the park authority's finance structure, we were surprised to learn that the park authority had set up fees for the use of their facilities in order to pay for the park authority's salaries, benefits, and retirement plans.

[05:59:28] With this type of arrangement, the park authority must continually look for paying customers. Recreational leagues and tennis instructors become the customers of the park authority, not the citizens. Sadly, there is little incentive for the Park Authority to put in recreational facilities for senior citizens such as bocce ball, shuffleboard, or pickleball complexes as it does not generate income.

[05:59:54] The Park Authority has taken isolated tennis courts and added light blue stripes for pickleball, and these stripes are very hard to see. Eighty percent of our pickleball courts are shared with tennis.

[06:00:10] Conversely, only 16% of tennis courts are shared with pickleball. Now, the future plans of the Park Authority are to continue with this shared court strategy, even though their study that Audrey had mentioned indicated dedicated courts were the best strategy.

[06:00:31] The chart that you see here was taken from the Park Authority's website, and you can see we've highlighted in pink all of the courts that are planned for the shared use of both tennis and pickleball. So let's take a look at what is happening in some other Virginia counties and cities.

[06:00:50] So if we look at Prince William, we can see that they have added so many dedicated pickleball court complexes. These complexes range from four to eight courts within a complex, and Prince William now has three dedicated pickleball court complexes compared to our two.

[06:01:13] If we look at in Chesterville County by the Richmond, Virginia area, they have five dedicated pickleball court complexes. And these courts range from six to 12 courts within a complex. In my last chart, I'm showing the comparison of all the different locations that we just talked about.

[06:01:39] If we take the population of these counties and these cities and compare them with the number of total dedicated courts, You can see that Fairfax City is the winner, followed by the Richmond Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico, and then Prince William.

[06:01:58] Fairfax County is last with one dedicated court for every 73,000 citizens. To catch up with Prince William County, we will need 28 more dedicated courts or seven more complexes, one complex per district.

[06:02:15] Please support our efforts to make Fairfax County a healthy place to age and in place with more pickleball complexes. Thank you. Thank you very much. And speaker number 10 is someone we've seen already, but I know has another slot.

[06:02:36] Welcome back, Pete. Oh, thank you. Good to see you again. I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you were playing the other day. No. Okay, good. All right, so I just wanted to talk briefly. Rodney, how are you? I just want to talk briefly about tourism dollars.

[06:02:54] And I know somebody here on the board is really involved in the tourism aspect. And it's important to note that large complexes of dedicated pickleball courts will bring in tax dollars. There is, as Helen White mentioned, that event that's happening on the mall this weekend, It was 209 slots, I believe it was, available for the general public that filled up in two minutes.

[06:03:25] That tells you something. And they're going to be making a lot of money. There is nationwide, you have two pickleball leagues, professional pickleball leagues.

[06:03:40] Pickleball is constantly shown on TikTok videos, Facebook videos, and all sorts of social media. It's obviously here to stay. It's not a fad, as some people might think. Another aspect that we need to understand on the tourism dollars is a friend of mine runs a group called Legends.

[06:04:05] Legends runs multiple pickleball tournaments every year, at least for a year, bringing in at least 200-plus people. Legends pays about $10,000 every time they need to go out and find courts, because Fairfax County doesn't have any courts for them.

[06:04:21] So they're paying $10,000. That's $40,000 that Fairfax County lost. In two years, you would have just built six pickleball courts off that $40,000. But we're missing the boat. I know that Fairfax County has put out an RFI, Request for Information or Interest, in building a sports complex.

[06:04:42] Why not include pickleball in that sports complex? And more importantly, Chesterfield County down in Richmond just announced that they're adding 12 more dedicated pickleball courts to a complex that already has 12 courts.

[06:05:00] 24 courts of which two of them will have covered seating with the sole intent of bringing in professional tournaments. By the way, their sports tourism brought in $89 million last year.

[06:05:22] That's a huge number. So you heard from my friends and pickleball colleagues today. And really what we're trying to impress upon this board, not just for Nottoway, because Nottoway is there and ready for the taking.

[06:05:41] There's a growing population of people. It's not going away. It's a social sport. It's something that not just the 10 or so people that spoke today, or eight people, I'm sorry, that spoke today, nor the 1,400 people that signed our petition.

[06:06:03] This is something that's growing. It's exponential, and it's time for Fairfax County to really jump on the bandwagon. Thank you for listening to us today. We appreciate it. Thank you, Supervisor Palczyk and McKay, for coming out and playing with us the other day.

[06:06:19] We appreciate it, and hopefully we'll be seeing more of you guys to do some of this stuff in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much, Pete. Thank you very much, Pete. And let me just verify this.

[06:06:35] Speaker number one and speaker number two have not joined us. I'm going to call their names again to verify that. Daniel Gonzalez, speaker number one, or speaker number two, Yasmeen Wazir. Either one of them here. I'm not seeing either one of them.

[06:06:51] So with that being said, we are going to go back. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Supervisor here. Just real quick, and I have a whole bunch I want to say, and I know I don't want to say it. I think you want to say something as well. Yes. But I want to thank Ron for his effort to get that first pickleball study because you were one of the driving forces behind that.

[06:07:10] Sports tourism does have pickleball included in the hard court surface. We actually had looked at the container store, but it was too short. What I think we need, and my request for, this is going to be a request for information from the park authority, just where they are on pickleball.

[06:07:27] I think it's, I hear a lot in my district, and I know a lot of us are. I've already asked for that, Supervisor Herity. I appreciate that. I wasn't going to say much here because we're taking in comment to get back to folks. But Supervisor Palczyk and I, as was mentioned, were out to play last week, And I have already requested the park authority give us an update, a more thorough update on where things stand.

[06:07:52] And so we'll continue to work on that and keep the community informed as well. But thank you all for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Pouchek, did you want to? No, thank you, Chair. My comments appreciate. I think we had an excellent conversation when we were out there and appreciate we were all able to start brainstorming a bit about possibilities moving forward.

[06:08:11] So thank you for your dedication and for the wonderful lesson last week. Not leaving us in the dust. We made it. We survived. Thank you all very much. With that, we are going to move backwards. This next item has a lot of speakers on it, and so we're going to try to be as efficient as we possibly can.

[06:08:31] It is a public hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding Article 6, parking and loading and related changes. And as I mentioned there, right now, I have 33 speakers signed up to testify.

[06:08:50] And so we are going to try to be as efficient as we possibly can with this. And at this time, I am going to recognize our county staff to give us a staff presentation. Thank you. We're excited to talk about Park and Reimagined tonight.

[06:09:07] My name is William Malin, Department of Planning and Development. A cool lead to joining me today are Michael Davis with Land Development Services and Austin Gassero at DPD. In addition, we have Tracy Strunk, the Director of Department of Planning and Development, Leslie Johnson, the Zoning Administrator, Bill Hicks, the Director of Land Development Services, and for our Consultant Team, Ian Banks of Nelson-Igaard.

[06:09:27] Our presentation will focus on the proposed changes and reasons for the changes for parking and loading. It should be noted that parking and reimagined is intended for new development and redevelopment, and existing developments would generally not be impacted. Almost two years ago in October, we officially kicked off this project with a joint meeting with the Planning Christian and Board.

[06:09:49] Throughout this project, engagement with the community has been a critical goal. We've had more than 100 meetings taking place, including 19 public halls, town halls, or open houses, meetings with board committees, neighborhoods, community, industry groups, our project work group, various county agencies, municipalities, board and land use committees, and individual members.

[06:10:08] We've used those meetings to find and redefine our proposal. Over a year ago in June, we first released draft rates with footnotes explaining the proposed changes. In general, we wanted the rates to be easier to understand, enforceable, right-size these rates, and combine rates with similar uses.

[06:10:26] Ten months ago, last November, we released a draft of the text, the detailed white paper explaining the proposed changes. Based on comments from the Community Staff Planning and Education Board, we made edits to the text in February, March, and in June. With each release, we drafted a paper explaining these proposed changes.

[06:10:44] This screen defines the challenges of our current parking regulations and responds to staff or proposals with the project. Many of these responses are provided to address comments we have heard during community outreach. The responses include developing parking regulations using a tiered framework that aligns with the context of land use in Fairfax County and uses a comprehensive plan as a basis for these tiers.

[06:11:08] Our proposal reflects an examination of parking requirements for all land uses and includes a reasonable right-sizing and simplification of most of these rates, many of which have not been updated since 1988 or even 1978. This is accomplished by combining rates with similar impacts to permit users to easily occupy the same space.

[06:11:27] For example, we propose to permit an office rate similar to our shopping center rate, so tenants can easily move in and out of an office suite and not require parking tabulation. Another example is permitting buy-right commercial revitalization rate, which encourages redevelopment of these areas.

[06:11:44] We've sought ways to be more flexible in designing and providing parking while addressing environmental and safety concerns. This includes pedestrian routes and permitting parking to be reduced to encourage additional landscaping when retrofitting an existing parking lot. When this project was initiated, we identified some core community values that we intended to address.

[06:12:04] The proposed changes to Article 6 create broad opportunities to positively support the goals of One Fairfax, Resilient Fairfax, and CCAP. One Fairfax promotes the equitable goal of creating a quality built environment, which accommodates anticipated growth and promotes housing and community services for all people.

[06:12:21] Reducing parking requirements allows unneeded parking space to be repurposed to help create these environments. Creating opportunities for more housing, which lowers its overall price, as well as more affordable housing options, is a critical goal within the county. Over-acquiring parking plays a role in limiting these options.

[06:12:38] The cost to provide parking has a direct effect on the ability to provide affordable housing. Residents pay for parking they do not need and opportunities are lost to use that unneeded parking for better purposes. Right-sizing of parking requirements enhances placemaking opportunities and helps to create better design sites where people want to be, such as the Kaplan site in Tyson's, Reston Town Center, and the Mosaic District. By right-sizing parking requirements and implementing proposals such as pedestrian routes and required bicycle parking, we can promote safer sites where people feel comfortable using improved pedestrian infrastructure.

[06:13:15] This project supports county goals environmental stewardship through both direct and indirect environmental benefit. There are no net environmental benefits gained from over-requiring parking. Lowering of parking requirements resulting in less required and pervious surface county-wide is an environmental benefit.

[06:13:33] Implementation of bicycle parking requirements and the creation of a tiered parking framework supports CCAB strategies by promoting the use of existing and proposed public transportation. Lowering parking requirements decreases required parking infrastructure in the form of impervious surfaces across all portions of the county, while also creating opportunities to reduce heat island effects by converting surface parking areas to natural planting areas or areas with lower heat retention properties.

[06:13:59] The ability to reduce parking requirements encourages the repurposing of surface parking areas, resulting in opportunities to better manage stormwater and mitigate pollution in the form of runoff, all of which supports the goals of CCAB and Resilient Fairfax. Reducing the influence of parking in high-density areas creates opportunities to build compact developments with quality pedestrian infrastructure that allows people to travel by non-vehicular modes to access goods, services, and employment, resulting in reduced overall vehicle emissions.

[06:14:29] Lastly, our project incentivizes land development practices that protect and restore natural resources through parking adjustment options that allow for reductions in required parking in exchange for conservation or enhancement of green space or tree canopies. The first three subsections of Article 6 cover applicability, parking standards, and the calculation of parking requirements.

[06:14:53] Since initiation of this project, it has been our goal to provide flexibility, reduce hurdles, and streamline administrative processes. These changes include administratively reducing parking to accommodate and incentivize for EVC installation or parking lot landscaping. We have also defined when a parking tabulation is required and created flexible options in calculating parking when a use changes.

[06:15:16] Currently, parking tabulations are required when a new use proposes to occupy an existing tenant space. Parking tabulations are time-consuming, expensive, and often burden or prevent small businesses from establishing a use. New provisions have been added requiring that accessible parking spaces be calculated using the base parking requirements.

[06:15:35] For example, an office located in a transit-oriented development would calculate its accessible parking space requirement using the base parking rate for offices, not the transit-oriented development rate showed in the tiered framework. Proposed minimum parking requirements or parking rates for all land uses in the zoning ordinance have been available to the public for almost a year, or actually for over a year.

[06:15:59] These rates were drafted following lengthy review by staff and our consultant, Nelson Nygaard, and the proposed changes are based on local and national data. A handful of rates include, notably, the single-family attached dwelling rate have been adjusted since initial release in response to community feedback.

[06:16:14] As has already been stated, our goal with regards to minimum parking rates was right-sizing and simplification. Many rates were standardized, and their calculation is based off a single variable, such as spaces per 1,000 square feet or number of spaces per employee. A byproduct of rate right-sizing and simplification is readability.

[06:16:34] The rates we are proposing are written in a way that makes them easier to understand and more predictable to measure. This slide shows two examples of parking rates that have been right-sized and simplified. The proposed tiered framework stratifies parking requirements based on the comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan designations.

[06:16:54] This framework addresses that a one-size-fits-all approach for parking is not appropriate for Fairfax County. Using this method, a large majority of the county will be subject to base parking requirements, while lower requirements are posed in areas with denser development or better transit availability.

[06:17:10] The tiered framework does not alleviate a property owner or developer from adhering to other zoning ordinance requirements such as maximum floor area ratio, minimum open space provisions, or landscaping requirements. This framework does support the goals of the comprehensive plan by reducing the influence of parking in urban or urbanizing areas of the county.

[06:17:32] Residential parking requirements have been a primary topic throughout this project. In summary, the current draft text proposes no changes to the base rate for single-family detached dwellings. Further, the proposed minimum requirements will only affect future development. For single-family attached and stacked townhomes, the current rate is retained with the addition of a newly required visitor parking requirement in common areas.

[06:17:57] Under the current ordinance, all required parking for a single-family attached or stacked townhome could be located within a dwelling's garage or in its driveway. The table shown here reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation for a multifamily dwelling unit parking requirement, which is higher than staff's recommended rate across all tiers, with a base requirement of 1.45 spaces per unit.

[06:18:20] The proposed multifamily minimum requirement for transit station areas, transit-oriented developments, and the PTC district remains bedroom-based. Based on our research, majority of multifamily dwellings within the TSAs, TODs, and the PTC districts are of one-bedroom types.

[06:18:36] Proximity to public transit as well as smaller unit types result in less car ownership in these areas. Currently, parking adjustments are in two subsections of Article 6 and divided between those which can be approved by the Director of Land Development Services and those that must be approved by the Board.

[06:18:54] We're proposing that all adjustments be consolidated into one subsection and proposing an expansion of potential adjustments. With community and staff input, this section was significantly revised as we progressed through the project. Our original proposal allowed administrative approval of all adjustment options.

[06:19:13] Currently, administrative approval is limited to shared parking and some transit-related adjustments up to 30%. All other reduction options are reserved for board approval. All proposed adjustments, whether considered by the Board or the Director, require an official request to be prepared and submitted by a professional engineer and are subject to technical review by staff with expertise in parking dynamics.

[06:19:37] Adjustments have defined criteria that must be demonstrated to qualify for consideration. No public hearing is required. However, adjustments associated with land use actions are addressed as part of the public hearings on the land use proposal. For shared parking, the current provisions allow shared and off-site parking opportunities consolidated into a new subsection.

[06:20:01] Revisions include a new option to calculate a standard shared parking adjustment for all uses identified in the zoning ordinance. The process to determine shared parking is based on industry criteria and is like that used by other local and Virginia jurisdictions. Where sites are served by transit, adjustments can be considered.

[06:20:19] New language provides a standard allowable transit adjustment of 10% for sites outside the tiered framework based on specific criteria. It also provides an option for a greater than 10% adjustment for uses located in or outside the tiered framework if minimum criteria expected in the standard reduction is met, and the applicant can meet at least two additional criteria.

[06:20:43] A new parking adjustment option for entirely affordable residential buildings is provided based on affordability criteria of 70% of area median income. National surveys from Parking Generation and other studies focused on affordable projects show that this type of development has a lower demand for parking.

[06:21:01] The adjustment permits the Board to take into consideration the context of the development and requires justification of the proposal. For public parking, currently parking adjustments are allowed based on availability of nearby public parking lots. This language is simplified to allow adjustments for any publicly maintained parking, including the potential for on-street metered parking.

[06:21:22] Further, it allows the availability of commercially operated public parking to be a justification for an adjustment request. New language is proposed to permit the Board to adjust the required parking for sites that possess elements of public benefit, such as historic designations or environmental elements worthy of preservation or enhancement, that may conflict with meeting the minimum parking requirements.

[06:21:48] This adjustment allows these factors to be considered in relationship to the parking requirements for a site. A modification is proposed to the current language for unique characteristics, allowing the Board to approve parking adjustments based on the consideration of the unique characteristics of both the use or the site.

[06:22:06] A new provision is added regarding potential adverse impacts of an approved parking adjustment. A parking utilization study may be required if the board or director determines that parking adjustment results in inadequate site parking or creates adverse off-site impacts, including an expectation of remedies if an adjustment does have this impact.

[06:22:27] These remedies are expected to rely on parking management actions rather than building additional parking. These actions can include valet parking, internal parking controls, or an off-site shared parking agreement to address peak parking demand. The loading standards are proposed for modification to simplify and modernize these requirements, which have not significantly changed since 1978.

[06:22:51] Currently, only 29 uses are identified in the zoning ordinance for specific loading space requirements. The loading requirements are proposed for grouping by use categories, and uses will be required to provide a loading space or an adequate receiving facility. Overall, the loading space requirements are proposed to be lowered, which reflects current practice and an analysis of frequently waived requirements.

[06:23:13] Lowering the loading space requirements will provide for flexibility in site design and potentially reduce impervious areas. The proposed amendment does not require a 15-foot wide by 25-foot long loading space for uses under 10,000 square feet. When loading spaces are not required, an adequate receiving facility will be required and can include a reserved parking space, pull-off areas, or other concepts to accommodate short-term loading without impacting parking or traffic circulation.

[06:23:41] These adequate receiving facilities are intended to serve as short-term loading areas for smaller delivery vehicles, food delivery, and ride-hailing vehicles that will not use a traditional loading facility. Staff has continued to refine the adequate receiving requirements throughout the project.

[06:23:59] Due to their size, loading spaces are typically in the rear of buildings and don't facilitate quick pickup and drop-off, which occurs more frequently than loading dock activities. An adequate receiving facility will locate these activities near the front of the business or residential building, reducing the blocking of parking spaces, travel aisles, or accessible spaces.

[06:24:20] The project team worked with the Fairfax County Department of Transportation and our consultant to develop the proposed minimum bicycle parking requirements. This is the first time bike parking is being required as part of the zoning ordinance. Previously, it was negotiated on a case-by-case basis at the rezoning entitlement stage.

[06:24:38] Nationally, minimum bicycle requirements are a relatively new element of municipal regulations, which limits our experience on effective requirements. If adopted, we expect to revisit the regulations after assessing their initial effectiveness. The required number of bicycle parking spaces is based either on a percentage of the required baseline auto parking spaces or a minimum number of spaces.

[06:25:00] In both cases, the minimum bicycle parking requirement increases as automobile parking minimums decrease within a tiered framework, reflecting enhanced abilities to use this mode of transportation within higher density and intensity development areas. Overall, minimum bicycle requirements are expected to encourage more biking as riders are more assured that bicycle parking is available for their use at a destination.

[06:25:26] During the outreach, we heard a lot of concern related to parking lot landscaping and heat out of effect. As the Board knows, a companion amendment for transitional screening and parking lot landscaping is on target to be covered with the Board early next year. This screen depicts the potential effects of the combination of these two amendments.

[06:25:44] Left is existing requirements for a 100,000 square foot office building, and the right is the potential change of parking re-managing and the proposed landscaping amendments. The right size of the parking lots, there is potential for more open space. Even with reduced parking lot size, we expect to see more trees because of the amendments for landscaping.

[06:26:01] You also see the introduction of pedestrian routes being required. Now, obviously, there's many ways to design a building and parking lots. This is just one example, and this example is not maximizing the utility of the site. In this scenario, the right size of a parking lot, there's potential for the lot to maximize the site potential and building size of additional 20,000 square feet and the required additional parking.

[06:26:25] However, maximizing the potential of the lot has never been the driver behind parking rates. Our focus has been right sizing rates and help encourage additional open space. While additional open space is not a requirement for the zoning ordinance, but we know that over-required parking will never provide for increased open space.

[06:26:44] Right-sizing parking in the base rates and the tiered framework is an important evolutionary step for the county. Flexibility is necessary to allow proposed uses to meet a realistic parking need for their operation. This may require less parking, but it could also result in more parking than expected.

[06:27:01] Experience with other municipalities who have lowered or eliminated minimum parking requirements shows that, when given the choice, most developers choose to provide parking. This parking has, in many cases, been less than originally required, but frequently more than the minimum requirement.

[06:27:17] Our experience in Tyson's is similar. Since 2011, some uses have had minimum parking requirements eliminated, others reduced significantly, yet developers have chosen to provide parking, even when no parking is required, and have constructed parking above minimum requirements.

[06:27:34] Increasing parking requirements creates incentives for better project design and innovative approaches for land development. In today's county experience, it is literally the difference between the Mosaic District and Fair Oaks Mall. It is rethinking development in terms of space for people rather than space for cars.

[06:27:54] Nationally and regionally, the relationship between parking and community values has gained prominence, and parking reform has been adopted or taken into consideration in large and small communities, as well as communities like ours that offer a diverse and robust development pattern and economy.

[06:28:11] Reforming parking will only enhance these elements. Our proposals are modest and targeted. The greatest innovation is targeted to areas that will realize the greatest benefit from reduced minimum requirements. However, overall, both right-sizing and administrative modifications will reduce the burden of meeting a minimum parking requirement and other arcane and inflexible regulations on uses.

[06:28:34] Our proposals will also help us meet many of the values and goals of One Fairfax, which are key to our county's sustainability. On September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to adopt the proposed changes to the ordinance with amendments and follow-on motions.

[06:28:57] I'd like to briefly discuss two of the Planning Commission's amendments. An amendment was approved that will raise the minimum multifamily rate from the staff recommendation of 1.3 spaces per unit to 1.45 spaces per unit. Information gathered from ITE's parking generation data, which is collected nationally and contains survey data from the 1980s through the 2010s, supports this rate of 1.3.

[06:29:21] As part of our consideration, we specifically sought to be conservative for this baseline rate, and ITE's parking demand data is conservative. In fact, we do have local survey data from suburban multifamily development that shows a lower parking demand rate, including the existing residences at Government Center Project.

[06:29:39] The proposed 1.3 spaces per unit represents the properly right-sized parking rate for suburban multifamily development. The Planning Commission approved an amendment that requires a parking adjustment for an approved land use entitlement to be considered by the Board.

[06:29:55] This requirement does not exist today. Since 2017, staff has administratively processed eight post-zoning parking adjustments, keeping ongoing approved development proposals moving forward in an expeditious manner while meeting the goals of right-sizing parking. Often, opportunities for reasonable adjustments aren't realized until site plan submission or when uses are being established.

[06:30:18] A goal of this project is to make the parking process smoother and shorter. Reasonable administrative reductions are a means to achieve this. We enthusiastically support this project, and we believe our changes will have a positive effect for the county. We thank you for your attention and constructive assistance and feedback as we've progressed with reimagining parking over the past two years.

[06:30:40] We're very happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Any questions of staff? Apparently you did a very good job explaining. We will turn to the public hearing.

[06:30:56] This is a public hearing. We do have speakers signed up, about 30 plus. So I'm just going to go right down the list and call on each one. Our first speaker is Donna Jacobson, who has called in.

[06:31:13] Is Ms. Jacobson on the line? Yes, I am. Donna, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Okay, my name is Donna Jacobson, and I represent the Lafayette Village Community Association in Annandale. I'm also a member of the Annandale Central Business District Planning Commission, and I have been a member of the Parking Reimagined County Work Group since its inception.

[06:31:39] I support most of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission in their meeting on September 13th and find the proposal put forth by the Planning Commission to be the most reasonable one yet. However, there are two areas which concern me.

[06:31:56] The first area is the minimum parking requirement for multifamily dwellings in revitalization districts. As you can see in Table 1 in my written testimony, for a two-bedroom unit, the recommended parking rate for multifamily dwellings in transit station areas is greater than that for the same structure and revitalization districts.

[06:32:21] I think this was an oversight that needs to be corrected. I think that the MPR for the multifamily dwellings should probably have been calculated either consistently using percentages or bedrooms for all areas in the TIRA framework.

[06:32:41] However, at this point, I think that a parking rate of 1.26 spaces per unit would solve the issue. This rate is right between the NPR for suburban centers and TSAs and is within the staff recommended range of 70 to 90 percent of the base rate.

[06:33:02] The second area which concerns me is the parking rate for both townhouses and stacked townhouses and revitalization districts. The NPR for both is recommended at 1.8 spaces per unit, with 0.3 spaces allocated to common area parking.

[06:33:23] I think that having less than two spaces per unit for townhouses is problematic, especially in the Annandale Revitalization District. Annandale is not as wealthy as some other areas in Fairfax County. Many townhouses in Annandale have extended families living in them or a few single roommates.

[06:33:45] Both scenarios result in townhouses requiring parking for at least two vehicles, especially with the lack of mass transit in Annandale. Also, I find that as president of a community with 294 townhouses, that having two spaces per townhouse is much more important than having common area spaces.

[06:34:06] Having enough assigned spaces so that individuals who work nontraditional hours, such as medical personnel, police, EMTs, and so forth, have accessible parking when they return home from work is essential.

[06:34:22] I know from my experience that no matter how many visitor spaces a community has, there are never enough, and that many times residents with more than two vehicles end up parking in the visitor spots, causing problems in the community.

[06:34:40] I have also found that when residents state that they want more visitors parking, they mean they want more visitors parking in addition to the currently assigned parking. Residents do not want to have less assigned parking in order to accommodate more common area parking.

[06:34:59] Therefore, if the NPR for townhouses and stacked townhouses is two spaces or less, I think that all the spaces should be assigned to the townhouses. In regards to townhouses and stacked townhouses and revitalization districts, I would like to see a parking rate of 2.0 spaces per unit.

[06:35:20] This rate is within the staff's recommended range for other parking reductions in the revitalization districts, which is 70 to 90 percent of the base rate. However, if the Board of Supervisors moves forward with a rate of 1.8 spaces per unit, I hope that the 1.8 spaces will be completely assigned to the individual townhouse parking.

[06:35:45] In conclusion, I hope that the Board of Supervisors supports all the recommendations approved by the Planning Commission except for the two areas discussed in my testimony. The changes which I recommend may be small, but they are extremely important to residents in the Annandale Revitalization District.

[06:36:06] I think that these changes will allow reductions in parking to move forward in a reasonable manner without being detrimental to residents. Thank you for your time and attention to this extremely important issue. Thank you, Donna.

[06:36:22] Our next speaker is in-person Sally Horn. And I'm going to call, we've got a variety of in-person phone calls and videos. I'm going to follow the list that we have, but I'm going to call, is Paul Weincheck here?

[06:36:40] Would you come down? If you're here, please come down. How about Aaron Wilkowitz? Is Erin Wilkowitz here? Please come on down. There are some seats right in front of us so that you'll be close by when I call your name.

[06:36:57] And the next in-person person is Joseph Shirizzi. Is Joseph Shirizzi here? Okay. All right. Ms. Horn, go ahead. You have five minutes. You're representing the McLean Citizens Association. Thank you.

[06:37:13] Good evening. The McLean Citizens Association is pleased to support the Planning Commission's amendments to the advertised text and its proposed follow-on motions. We hope that you will endorse all of the commissioner's proposals as we believe they are responsive to the concerns raised by stakeholders.

[06:37:31] However, in doing so, we hope that you will consider and adopt the very few suggestions that we have. Before I discuss our suggestions, let me state that MCA does not support the county executive's recommendations in your board package to reject the Planning Commission's off-street parking rates for multifamily buildings and religious assemblies.

[06:37:52] Further, we do not support the recommendation to reject the Planning Commission's modifications to Section 6100.6.84 related to the approval of parking adjustments by the Director of Land Development Services. We believe that adjustment requests that go beyond the board's previous approval of a rezoning or redevelopment request, including approvals, proffers, should be decided by the board. And as Michael just spoke, there are very, very few of those. Now, with regard to the advertised text, we endorse the amendments that the PC has recommended. However, as illustrated

[06:38:31] in the table that is attached to my written statement, the disparate formulas used to calculate minimum parking rates for multifamily buildings inadvertently equate to a higher number of minimum parking spaces on a per-unit basis for two-bedroom units in TSAs than for two-bedroom units in revitalization areas, and a higher minimum number of spaces per unit for three-bedroom units in TSAs, TODs, and parts of the PTC. The county executive's approach results in fewer off-street parking spaces across the board that we and many other stakeholders and the commissioners deem

[06:39:08] advisable and increases the likelihood of overflow parking and adverse effects. This is particularly so since it is more likely than not that developers will provide only the minimum required off-street parking for multifamily buildings that primarily house middle to low-income residents.

[06:39:27] Indeed, in the McLean area, we have seen requests from developers to go below the current and prospective minimums in applications that we have reviewed. MCA hopes that the Board of Supervisors will consider adopting one of two options that MCA suggested in its September 19 letter, or an alternative that addresses the discrepancy.

[06:39:49] Our two suggestions for your consideration are as follows. Adopt the approach taken in the current zoning ordinance for transit station areas, and simply add fractional increases for units in the base, suburban centers, and revitalization areas that have two or more bedrooms.

[06:40:06] Alternatively, raise the minimum off-street parking rate for multifamily buildings and revitalization areas, the areas where the discrepancy is most prevalent, to 85% of the base, so that their two-bedroom units are provided with more parking spaces than similar units in the more transit-rich areas.

[06:40:25] The remainder of our suggestions relate to follow-on motions. Regarding the follow-on motion for the director of LDS to establish a monitoring parking implementation webpage and listserv, We hope this new webpage has a similarly interactive map to that established for the existing infill and conservation plan viewer dashboard.

[06:40:46] Additionally, we would ask that you consider requiring the director to specify how users may communicate concerns and the timeline for communicating. Regarding the follow-on motions to monitor the effect of adopted changes and to identify walkability needs and gaps, We believe that the lack of reliable, frequent public transit discourages people from foregoing or limiting car ownership or usage.

[06:41:11] Including an evaluation of the adequacy of available public transit options in one of these motions would give us a much more complete picture of what the county would need to do to implement deeper minimum off-street parking rates. In the case of the proposed study to monitor the effect of adopted changes, our suggestion would be to include the adequacy of existing public transit options as a relevant measure of effectiveness and to add FCDOT as a participant.

[06:41:40] Alternatively, the scope of the walkability study for mixed-use centers could be expanded. Our final suggestion would support the goals of the advertised text provision for ex-post facto utilization studies. In this instance, we hope that you will consider directing the LDS director to investigate possible measures to satisfy the on-site parking needs of residents of multifamily buildings when the provided parking is inadequate and creates adverse off-site impacts.

[06:42:11] The goal would be to fill a gap in existing knowledge of relevant measures to rectify under parking at such sites. Since the measures previously cited by staff and public hearings, valet parking and on-site enforcement clearly will not. In closing, let me reiterate that MCA supports the PC's very thoughtful and responsive recommendations.

[06:42:32] We hope that you will consider our suggestions as possible ways to even further move us along the path to right-sizing parking for Fairfax County now and in the future. And we thank you for your very thoughtful attention to this very important matter. Thank you, Ms. Horne.

[06:42:49] Our next speaker, speaker number three, is Renee Grebe, and she is not connected by phone. Speaker number four, Paul Weinschek, Schenck, I'm sorry. Is Paul here? Paul is not here.

[06:43:06] Speaker number five, Joshua Booth has submitted video testimony. Hello, my name is Joshua Booth, and this is my home, a beautiful townhouse in Lincolnia. I'm here to speak in favor of Parking Reimagined. I have four parking spots, two in the garage and two in my driveway.

[06:43:25] I rarely use the ones in my driveway, and some of my neighbors prefer to use the spots their garage as storage or space for their home gyms. People would love to have the opportunity to use this space for something else, but my neighborhood's already built up. The land use isn't really going to change. But it's Saturday, September 16th, and it's a beautiful day, and so let's see what's happening over across the street at Plaza at Landmark.

[06:44:02] It's about 5:30 at the Plaza at Landmark shopping center. The restaurants have lots of people dining in, the stores have lots of customers, and as you can see the parking lot does have a lot of cars in it. But let's go around the back to see what's going on at the parking deck. So we're on level two of the parking deck, and as you can see there's only a handful of cars here. Actually, yeah, it kind of looks like just two. We made it to level three, and as you can see, zero cars.

[06:44:39] And now we're on the top level, and again, zero cars. This garage has been called the garage that's never been parked in, and I think you can see why. And here we are in another parking lot for Plaza at Landmark Shopping Center, right across the street from Total Wine. As you can see, nobody's parked here either. We know who is using this lot, a few people in a small tent encampment who need housing. Fairfax County should reduce parking minimums

[06:45:19] so that we can build enough housing for everyone who needs it, and this is why I support parking reimagined. Thank you very much, Mr. Booth. Our next speaker is Aaron Wilkowitz. I know Aaron is here, and that is speaker number six. Welcome. The floor is yours. Hello, Fairfax Board of Supervisors. I'm Aaron Wilkowitz. I live in the Drainsville District in Falls Church, and I lead the Fairfax chapter of Yimby's in Northern Virginia. We say yes to more neighbors and more housing, but no to more parking. We support parking reimagined with the staff recommendations

[06:45:59] that you have in your packet and not some of the revisions that the Planning Commission made that we'll talk about in a second. Argument one, developers do not need any mandated minimums to build enough parking. I want to first acknowledge and sympathize with parking reimagined opponents. They live in suburban communities in the county and expect to have abundant parking in their daily lives. They fear that in the absence of parking minimums, developers will be greedy and build the lowest number of parking spaces legally allowed. But opponents readily argue, too, that many residents do not want to live, shop, or dine in a place without sufficient parking. So if developers are actually greedy, they'll build sufficient parking to appease residents. If you abolish

[06:46:38] parking minimums entirely, developers will still build plenty of parking. Developers in Fairfax today regularly request modest 5-20% cuts, not 100% cuts. To be clear, Parking Reimagined is not abolishing parking minimums, just making small cuts to existing levels. But even if we abolish minimums, like other cities and states in the U.S. in the last five years, there would still be plenty of parking. Argument two, unnecessary parking regulation hurts Fairfax's affordability, environment, and community. The Planning Commission heard from 26 Fairfax County residents testifying in support of Parking Reimagined.

[06:47:14] Testimonies included GMU students and FCPS teachers who are struggling to afford to live in the area, residents who do not own cars who struggle to navigate around the county, two small business owners who have had to delay opening their businesses for months to comply with parking code, and developers who have to raise rents on their projects to pay for additional parking the county requires.

[06:47:35] You'll hear many of their stories tonight. On affordability, Fairfax has an affordability crisis. Our most vulnerable residents cannot afford to live here, and there's over 100,000 vacant jobs in Nova. Parking minimums prevent the creation of homes because each parking space adds thousands of dollars to projects that are passed on directly to residents.

[06:47:53] And the parking spaces themselves take up space that could be used for housing or other public amenities. Low-income residents take buses and are less likely to own cars. So free parking is actually a tax on carless low-income residents to subsidize wealthier car owners.

[06:48:09] That's the single most important thing I'm going to say tonight, so I'll say it again, that low-income residents take buses and are less likely to own cars, so free parking is actually a tax on carless low-income residents to subsidize wealthier car owners. On the environment, parking lots themselves create heat islands, retaining warrants from the sun.

[06:48:26] More importantly, parking spaces increase car dependency, which leads to more smog and carbon emissions, and parking spaces worsen housing scarcity, which prompts sprawl in Loudoun and Prince William County and beyond, which destroys our forests and increases emissions from longer commutes. On community, Henry Graeber's new book, Paved Paradise, will make this case better than I can.

[06:48:46] Quote, without parking baked into our streets and architecture, how many more people could live in walkable places? Kids could walk to school and adults to the grocery store. In a world with better parking, there might be fewer places to park, but in place of those old parking spots would emerge a city so much richer and fuller and fairer that we would not think twice about the one we had lost.

[06:49:06] End quote. Argument three, parking reimagined is a step in the right direction. A true parking reimagination would abolish all parking minimums and switch to parking maximums. But I recognize that progress is sometimes slow and incremental. I laud the county for this parking reimagined proposal for its substantial cuts to office and retail parking minimums, and the new TOD tiered structure and mixed-use shared parking laws are also great additions.

[06:49:30] That said, there are two revisions I recommend to the Planning Commission's proposal, both of which are included in the staff's proposal. One is that the proposed multifamily parking cuts are minimal, from 1.6 spots per unit to just 1.45. That's not even a 10% cut. County staff recommended 1.3 spots per unit, and I believe that is much more reasonable.

[06:49:49] This board, in 2023 alone, has approved the following sites with less than 1.3 spots per unit. Vista Apartments, Dominion Square West, West Falls Church, WMATA, West Falls Church, Converge, and the Telstra Court and Gatehouse Road Project. Why not make the change formally and avoid all of the unnecessary red tape and delays?

[06:50:07] Two, the proposed amount that a director is allowed to cut has moved in the wrong direction. In today's current law, a director can cut up to 30% of parking for a project. The Planning Commission has recommended reducing that cut to 15%, which makes it harder for county staff to make cuts.

[06:50:23] I strongly recommend leaving it where it is with current law at 30%. In conclusion, one, pass parking reimagined in any form. Two, pass it in the way that the staff has recommended, in particular on those two things. And three, please do not wait another 38 years to make further reimaginations on parking.

[06:50:41] Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Aaron. Speaker number seven is Jordan Hurley, who has submitted video testimony. Good afternoon, esteemed members of the board. My name is Jordan Hurley, and I live in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County.

[06:50:59] I'm here today to advocate as strongly as I can for progress in parking policies. The last time Fairfax County reviewed parking at a high level, I wasn't even born yet. Now look at me. I'm bald. And at that pace, the next time this is looked at, I will likely be retired. This is why I urge the board to act boldly and adopt parking reimagined with one change.

[06:51:19] The version the Planning Commission sent on to you actually goes backwards in one specific regard from the current policy, reducing the ability of the Director of Lands Development Services to approve reductions under specific circumstances from 30% to 15%. Anyone seeking a reduction further than that 15% would now have to go to the board, creating more work for you when you're already busy enough, and more red tape, which is what Parking Reimagined was supposed to improve upon.

[06:51:44] There are members of the public submitting comments who will ask for caution, more reviews, and delays after delays before implementing any sort of reforms. I found quotes in the news and passport minutes from the same people in the same citizens' associations going back over 20 years opposing measures such as ZMOD and the wildly successful PRM Zoning District.

[06:52:04] I'm surprised they haven't tried to find a way to say Parking Reimagined will hurt the school system. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. The county has rightly set ambitious goals for the environment and livability. We won't be able to reach those goals unless policies are put in place that support them.

[06:52:20] Parking Reimagined is one such policy and will fit in well with others such as continued support of public transit and new zoning for targeted densification. In order to reach those goals, including reducing vehicle miles driven, we need to move towards a less car-centric frame of mind.

[06:52:36] People like to have pleasant walks or bike rides to places they need to go and an excess of parking severely hampers that. We can't wait to have every single policy in place before we put the first one in. We need to start moving and Parking Reimagined is the way to start. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing better utilized land.

[06:52:53] Thank you very much, Jordan. Our next speaker is Joseph Sherezi, perhaps. Hopefully you can correct me. Joseph, welcome.

[06:53:13] I'm the edge of the City of Falls Church in Fairfax, and I'm the chair of the Environmental Sustainability Council for the City of Falls Church. I'm just speaking on behalf of myself. My comments do not represent any other organizations.

[06:53:29] I've worked in Fairfax for several years. I take the A2 bus or the 28A bus through Fairfax almost every day, and I do not own a car. I'm here to ask this board to please support the lowest possible band of parking and lower parking minimums as much as possible.

[06:53:49] There's been a great dialogue in the local environmental community around the sustainability impact of these parking changes, And it's been very divisive, honestly. If we replace parking with roofs, will we have the same runoff?

[06:54:06] And if we lower parking minimums, will that space just be turned into more buildings? I think it will turn into more buildings. I don't think it will lead to the same runoff. And I think there are many other positive environmental benefits of lowering parking minimums.

[06:54:23] Parking in garages, like the one from that video, are stacked up, right? So if we remove three of those parking spaces, that doesn't necessarily mean that is the, you know, three amount of area parking spaces have been removed.

[06:54:38] It could be three on top of each other, and you're actually, you know, having the same amount of water runoff from those, from rain falling. There's always a chance to capture rain water runoff from a building. Personally, I have a rain barrel next to my house and I capture 100% of the rain water that falls on my home and on the parking near my home.

[06:55:03] That just runs off into the street. So whenever there's a building, there's always a chance to capture rain water runoff. And when there's just flat parking and concrete, there's not really a chance to do that. So that's very expensive for the city to handle.

[06:55:19] And the environmental thing to do is always to try to meet the needs of our community today without compromising the needs of the future. And that's what sustainability means. It means meet the needs today without compromising the ones in the future. So the environmental thing to do is always to increase density in transit-rich places, to get people out of their cars as much as we possibly can, and to find other means of transportation.

[06:55:45] County staff recommends these changes because they're smart, they're obvious improvements. They're based on science and study, whereas the previous minimums were just kind of randomly come up with, in my opinion. And even if a few residents have fear about the impact, it's a really good proposal.

[06:56:02] I also want to mention that the unused parking spaces in the garage from the video, from Mr. Booth's video, cost $50,000 each. And one-third of our housing costs are going towards building parking. At the end of the day, last point, this board gets to decide whether we want more space for people or more space for humans, more space for cars or more space for humans.

[06:56:25] Please pass staff's version of Parking Reimagine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker number nine is Keith Henning. Is Keith here? All right. And speaker 10, Gary Maupin. Is Gary here as well? Okay. Mr. Henning, welcome.

[06:56:41] The floor is yours. Thank you very much. So I am here today to urge you to pass Parking Reimagined as it was originally proposed and not with the Planning Commission's alterations. As far as I can tell, almost all the opposition for this project is coming from HOA presidents who seem very concerned about where all of us poors are going to be able to park these cars we can somehow afford.

[06:57:06] And as somebody who is currently priced out of home ownership, I do appreciate the concern, but I'd like to take the time to speak for myself. And I do this because I understand the disproportionate amount of weight that HOA presidents have when it comes to matters like these. And I want to make it very clear that they do not speak for all the citizens of this county.

[06:57:27] I specifically want to urge you to keep in place the authority for the director to approve an additional 30% reduction in requirements in the identified revitalization and transit zones. You might hear many HOA presidents complain about giving power to an unelected official.

[06:57:43] The reality is, we didn't elect you guys to micromanage parking requirements on individual projects. We hoped that you guys could appoint experts who would know better and be able to do things more quickly and without any outside political pressures.

[06:58:00] Additionally, I want to urge you to reduce the rate of multifamily parking down to the 1.3 spaces per unit, as it was originally said, because the reality is many of us who either have lived in or do live in these types of developments can tell you we don't need space for more than one car. A lot of these are for single people that only have one car, and so we don't need that extra space. Additionally, increasing these minimums is only going to increase the cost of rent. Parking increases rent by an estimated about 15% of the cost. That's what the cost of parking figures into the rent,

[06:58:39] Meaning that we're going to have to pay for it either way. The reality is that the only free parking exists in the game of Monopoly. So whether or not it's listed as a fee from the landlord, we're the ones that got to pay for everybody else's parking, whether we use it or not.

[06:58:56] The HOA presidents seem to really suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They seem to equate public transportation just with the metro and seem to completely forget about the VRE or the multiple bus services provided throughout the entire county. Many of them complain that buses aren't reliable, but the reason they're not reliable is they get stuck in the same traffic as the rest of us.

[06:59:17] And our policies, whether we like it or not, are going to encourage one type of transportation over another. And so if we are constantly making sure that everybody has a space to park their suburban assault vehicle at all times, then we're going to encourage more driving, which is going to make bus transit less efficient.

[06:59:37] So parking minimums are a prime example of stupidity hindering progress. And parking reimagined is the first step in smarter, better, healthier, more equitable growth to continue making our county the best place to live in the country.

[06:59:52] Thank you very much. Thank you, Keith. Speaker number 10 is Gary Maupin. And we then will have a video, Sonia Brihi and Mustafa El-Nahas. If you are here, Speaker 12 and 13, if you can make your way down, we would appreciate that.

[07:00:10] Mr. Maupin, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. Pleasure to speak to you. I am Gary Maupin, and I'm speaking for myself. I now live in Reston, but since I moved to the county in 1951, I have lived in quite a few places and quite a few districts representing that you represent.

[07:00:32] I've been involved in Parking Reimagined since it was established as a representative on the work group for it. So I'm speaking on that basis. I'd also like to say that the three people that I've been working with on Parking Reimagined are just exceptional staffers: Michael, Bill, and Austin.

[07:00:52] I thank you for all your outreach and all your work. And before I make some comments here, I'd just like to thank all of you for your approval of the rest and comp plan. two weeks ago. We spent a lot of effort on that. Supervisor Alcorn, Planning Commissioner Carter, task force, and county staff. It was cooperative. It worked well. We got you an excellent plan.

[07:01:18] Thank you for your approval and your compliments. I guess my points are, first, the analysis supporting this is just not sound. In my review of it, it didn't do the right kind of comparisons.

[07:01:34] It didn't use the right sources. So you're basing something on an analysis that doesn't represent facts. Second, and this is really important to me, the amendment proposed by staff is directly in violation, to my mind, of the county policy regarding equity as set forth in One Fairfax.

[07:01:59] This proposed change to the ordinance will obviously more negatively impact low-income, minority, and disabled people. Many institutional studies and media reported information completely support that.

[07:02:16] The county saying that the amendment supports unfair facts and equity, to me, is fallacious. The evidence, to the contrary, is overwhelming, that it does not. Third, it inappropriately gives too much authority to the Director of Land Development Services in contradiction to the appropriate, in this case, Board of Supervisors' responsibilities.

[07:02:42] Finally, it will lead to expanded overflow parking across the county, which will further negatively impact so many people and communities already hammered with the overflow today. We are going to have more cars.

[07:02:59] plenty of studies say that. That's a reality. So I'm also concerned with many of the comments you've heard tonight. I respect those, and I found them very interesting and entertaining. But I just feel the rationale for that of having more people, more buildings, is not what we're talking about. We're talking about parking. So while I would like to start over on this. I strongly support the Planning Commission recommendation to you. Thank you for listening to my testimony and some frustration. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[07:03:39] Speaker number 11 is Susan Jolly, who has submitted video testimony. I live in Annandale, located in the imaginary world of Tier 2. Unreasonably large reductions in minimum parking requirements are being proposed because Tier 2 has an imaginary transit hub or robust transit system. In reality, Annandale has a few bus routes that will not generate an appreciable decline in the number of cars and trucks. Parking reimagined will turn our roads into parking lots. As detailed

[07:04:13] in my written testimony, the assumption that future Tier 2 residents will have far fewer vehicles is contradicted by Census and DOT data. FACTS support retaining or even increasing the current base rate of 1.6 per multi-story residential unit.

[07:04:32] The Planning Commission's recommended base rate of 1.45 is more realistic and should be adopted. The additional 20% Tier 2 reduction is unreasonable. Bus routes do not replace vehicles. Parking spaces can be safely eliminated only if a corresponding number of vehicles are eliminated.

[07:04:52] Transit improvements on a massive scale have to come first. In view of the available options, the Tier 2 MPR should be reduced to 90% of the base rate. Attachment 1 of my written testimony calculates the actual Tier 2 MPR after all the staff's recommended deductions.

[07:05:12] In the end, residents of Tier 2 dwelling units would be left with a fraction of a parking space. Even with the Planning Commission's recommendations and further limiting Tier 2 MPR to 90% of the base rate, Tier 2 residents would still be assured of only 1.1 spaces per unit with no allowance for visitors.

[07:05:33] The chart in Attachment 1 includes a comparison to surrounding jurisdictions that have far more reasonable MPR rate structures, which should inform your decisions. The very large 15% or 30% transit-related adjustments is objectionable because the so-called objective criteria for the LDS director's approval are effectively meaningless.

[07:05:55] Staff argue it is necessary because most applications involve only minor, limited changes in uses for surrounding sites or existing sites. However, the delegated authority would extend to major new construction. A 10, 15, or 30% reduction is not minor in that context.

[07:06:16] It is a pretext to slash NPR while depriving communities of any voice in the process. The staff interprets their draft language to be all or nothing. This precludes consideration of reducing spaces to a number that is reasonable in the context of a specific site plan.

[07:06:34] The draft should be amended to provide for a reduction within a range up to the specified percentage. The largest percentage reductions are targeted at Tier 1 and 2 that will already have been subjected to a 10 or 20% transit-related reduction based on the imaginary transit access.

[07:06:57] The transit tier with a metro rail station are exempt from these cut. Tiers 1 and 2 should be similarly exempt. The amendment is worded to imply two out of three conditions must be met. The requirement to provide bike space is already going to be required for new or changed uses, so it should be deleted as redundant.

[07:07:19] The condition requiring a bike or walkability score of 70 will be meaningless. It will not reduce the number of automobiles. The only relevant score is a transit score.

[07:07:36] It was evidently not used because Annandale's score is 45. To be meaningful, this criteria must be amended to delete the bike and walkability scores and substitute the TRANS score. Transportation Demand Management Studies do not have any required elements or performance measures.

[07:07:57] This provides unlimited discretion to approve any proposed plan. The administrative approval process should be open and subject to public comment. The percentage reduction should be limited to a reasonable percentage of 5% so adjustments are truly minor.

[07:08:16] Placing meaningful limits on the director's authority will not preclude reductions. They would simply be subject to Board of Supervisor approval. Thank you very much. We are now on speaker number 12, Sonia Brighi, who I know is here.

[07:08:35] And again, this is speaker 12. Sonia Brighi, Northern Virginia Advocacy Manager, Coalition of Smarter Growth. Welcome. Great. Good evening, Chairman McKay and supervisors. My name is Sonia Brighi. I'm the Northern Virginia Advocacy Manager for the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

[07:08:51] and a resident of the Falls Church area of Fairfax County. The Coalition for Smarter Growth supports parking reimagined with some recommendations. The proposed zoning amendment offers to better balance parking with other community needs like equity, affordability, environmental sustainability, and effective land use.

[07:09:11] Excessive parking requirements cost our communities by limiting the amount of housing that is built, especially affordable housing. They make it harder and more costly for small businesses to locate here. They cause green spaces to be paved over, causing heat islands, flooding, and stormwater management issues.

[07:09:32] And vast parking lots make it less safe and comfortable to bike and walk. And excessive and free parking undermines transit and ultimately prompts more driving and climate emissions. All of these costs also have a disproportionate impact on our county's low-income residents and vulnerable communities, many of whom cannot afford a car and walk, bike, and use transit for daily travel.

[07:09:59] There's been comments suggesting that everyone needs a car to get around and even suggesting that reducing parking requirements is an equity issue. I looked at the census data over a five-year period from 2017 to 2021 and found that there are over 18,000 households in the county that do not have a car.

[07:10:20] If you dig a little deeper, you find some pockets in the county where the percentage of households without a car is far greater than the average across the county, and many align with equity emphasis areas.

[07:10:35] So these include neighborhoods in West Springfield, Seven Corners, and Reston, with approximately 30 to 40 percent of households with no cars, and neighborhoods in Bailey's, Annandale, and along the Richmond Highway Corridor with 15 to 20 percent of car-free households.

[07:10:55] There are also higher rates of car-free households in the Dunloring and Tysons area. And those living in those households subsidize parking that they do not use. This is an equity issue, and it adds to the cost of living and affordability issues in the county.

[07:11:13] This proposal helps move the county in a better direction. As Fairfax County evolves from being a total car-centric suburban community to one that is more urban and multimodal, reforming its parking requirements to better align with county goals is critical. The tiered approach to parking reductions proposed in the zoning amendment is a thoughtful way to address varying parking needs across the county as part of that evolution.

[07:11:37] maintaining higher rates in more car-dependent areas while providing the greatest reductions closest to transit. I'm disappointed that the Planning Commission weakened the proposal by increasing parking rates for multifamily buildings, even in transit station areas, transit-oriented development areas, and the PTC district.

[07:11:55] They also reduced administrative flexibility by cutting the amount the director can reduce transit-related parking requirements from the 30% they can authorize today down to just 15% parking reduction. That means more red tape to seek needed parking reductions near transit.

[07:12:14] These areas close to transit, both Metrorail and areas served by frequent buses, are where parking reductions are most needed. Requiring less parking in these areas will promote mixed-use development, improve pedestrian-friendly design, and perhaps most critically, reduce the cost of development.

[07:12:33] That means more units for more people and more opportunities to build affordable units in high-amenity, transit-oriented communities where affordable units are lacking today. I ask you to please revert to the staff's original recommendations.

[07:12:50] CSG supports the county's efforts to reduce costly parking mandates. It is more equitable, helps make way for more homes in the right locations close to transit, encourages more walking, biking, and transit use, helps small businesses, and supports the county's climate resiliency.

[07:13:08] In conclusion, I ask that you revert to the staff's recommendations for multifamily reductions and approve the parking reimagined proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sonia. Speaker number 13 is Mustafa El-Nahas. Welcome.

[07:13:27] Thanks. Ladies and gentlemen of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, my name is Mustafa El-Nahas. I'm living a car-free lifestyle in Drainville District next to West Falls Church Station. I'm here to advocate for a significant change that could transform the community for the better.

[07:13:44] I support Parking Reimagine, and I also firmly support the removal of parking minimums in our county. When I came here, I used the metro from West Falls Church Station to Vienna. And from Vienna, I took an hourly bus, which is bus 630 Fairfax Connector, from Vienna to right here.

[07:14:04] And I don't know how am I going to get home because the bus service stops. And the urgency of this proposal is rooted in the alarming rates of pedestrians and roadway fatalities we're witnessing in record numbers in our community.

[07:14:19] And to align with the principles of Vision Zero, which aims to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and injuries, we must take immediate action. Removing parking minimums is the absolute minimum step we should take to enhance road safety. Additionally, parking minimums exacerbate our growing dependence on cars, resulting in more congested roads.

[07:14:40] I can personally attest that limited parking in areas like Washington DC and Boston corridor, discourage my family members from driving and encourage them to explore alternative transportation options. Moreover, the excess parking spaces all over Fairfax County could be repurposed for more valuable uses, such as additional housing, sports fields, or community amenities, just like the pickleball people were talking about previously.

[07:15:05] The current situation, especially here the government center there is a sea of parking lot limited public transportation walkability and bike infrastructure which makes long like non-car owners like myself feel like unrepresented second-class citizens and as the organizer of the mcclain pickup soccer group i've experienced high demand for sports fields we often struggle to secure field permits and this limited availability impacts our communities recreational opportunities in conclusion we face a crucial choice do we want Fairfax County to prioritize car storage or do we do

[07:15:42] we aspire to create a county that prior prioritizes the well-being and enjoyment of its residents by removing parking minimums and repurposing the excess parking spaces we can elevate our community standards of living I urge the Board of Supervisors to consider the safety of our residents and the future of our county. Let's make the right choice today to build Fairfax County where people come first and cars take a back seat, creating a space where everyone can truly live, thrive, and enjoy our vibrant community. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much. Figure number 14 is Justine

[07:16:19] Underhill, who submitted video testimony. Hi, my name is Justine, and I live in the Sherwood neighborhood in Falls Church. I support parking reimagined. Over the past few decades, it's become clear that parking minimums are one of the biggest killers of urban walkable spaces they prevent the renovation of old buildings that don't have the room for new parking they eliminate street life and they encourage sprawl the idea that a new building should provide enough parking to meet the demand it creates on its face sounds reasonable but like many things in urban design it isn't so

[07:16:55] straightforward by requiring more parking than is needed we're actually encouraging more driving and it's worth taking a look at what happened when other cities reduced parking minimums. After Buffalo, New York lifted minimums, more property owners were able to convert old buildings into housing, and infill development became easier to build, creating more housing and a more walkable environment. And a similar story is true in San Diego. In the first year after adopting parking reforms, articles report that proposals for affordable housing jumped five-fold. Well,

[07:17:31] i fully support parking reimagined i also believe that there's more work to be done i urge future legislation to consider eliminating parking minimums for alus and even greater reductions in parking minimums near transit centers it's crucial that we continue to adapt our regulations to meet the changing needs of our community and to avoid wasting valuable resources thank you for your time thank you very much uh speaker number 15 is amy friedlander

[07:18:01] welcome you good evening chairman mckay and members of the board my name is amy friedlander and i'm director of acquisitions for eya i'm a residential developer and the fairfax co-chair of neops government relations committee but i'm also here as someone who grew up in fairfax county i'm actually a fourth generation fairfax county grower upper i suppose i'm a product of fcps

[07:18:37] My family still lives here, my sister is raising the fifth generation of Freedlanders here, and I'm really excited for the progress the approval of Parking Reimagined represents for the county. It's a great example of how we should be planning for the future, not the past.

[07:18:56] FCPS actually put out a statistics recently that emphasizes the palpable shift we're all feeling in driving choices that young people are making today. When I graduated from TJ over 15 years ago, the number of FCPS 12th graders with driver's license was over 80%.

[07:19:12] Honestly, I can't remember a single student I graduated with who didn't have a driver's license. Today, it's 60% or less, I couldn't really tell from the graph, and trending downward. People are making different choices today than they have in the past, and that's okay.

[07:19:29] That doesn't invalidate the choices that people like my parents made choosing to live in a suburban neighborhood in western Fairfax County. That was their preference. And I, and many people like me, choose to live differently. I choose to live in an urban neighborhood where I can walk and use transit and am not as reliant on my car as I was growing up.

[07:19:52] You have heard and will continue to hear from people just like me who want the opportunity to make that same choice. Staff's recommendation for parking reimagined will support the county's ability to continue to ensure a variety of housing choices for its residents.

[07:20:07] Your staff did a commendable job methodically preparing their recommendations based on data and technical expertise. In contrast, the Planning Commission recommendations did not necessarily undergo the same rigorous analysis that was performed for staff's recommendations.

[07:20:25] And since Scott Adams is not here able to join us tonight, I will say on behalf of NAOP that NAOP has also outlined the industry's position and reaffirms its support of staff's recommendations in its letter to the board. As a residential developer with over 1,000 units sold, settled, under construction, or currently in entitlement in Fairfax County today, I, too, urge the board to approve staff's recommendations.

[07:20:51] You have an amazing opportunity in front of you to move the county forward, supporting its future and the people who want to live here or stay here. The impacts of excess parking, from its high costs to the innumerable ways it influences our built environment, are far-reaching and deeply woven into our daily lives.

[07:21:10] And as a developer, I can say with confidence that developers are not incentivized to under-park their projects. We have to sell that house, rent that apartment, get customers into storefronts, and attract office tenants. We want to build good projects that benefit the community.

[07:21:27] We just need that flexibility to respond appropriately to specific project needs. This is what staff's recommended changes to the parking ordinance enables and why I asked the board tonight to support the amendment. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much, Amy.

[07:21:43] Speaker number 16 is Michael Dranov, who submitted video testimony. Hello, and thank you for your time. My name is Michael Dranov, and I currently live near the Spring Hill Metro Station in Tysons. I wanted to speak here tonight to voice my strong support for parking reimagined.

[07:22:02] As the board is no doubt aware, the 2010 Tysons Comprehensive Plan calls for the provision of, quote, mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhoods that promote pedestrian, bike, and transit use. It is 13 years since the plan was enacted. and a study funded by the Tysons Community Alliance released last month found that the Tysons bike score dropped by six points in the last three years from 49 to 43.

[07:22:27] According to WalkScore.com, this puts Tysons' bike score on par with cities such as El Paso, Texas, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Wichita, Kansas, which have scores of 42, 42, and 43, respectively.

[07:22:42] Parking reimagined would lower minimums and place maximums on how much space multifamily housing must devote to car storage. Most dramatically, this would occur in areas well served by transit. By orienting land use near transit stations away from car storage, the county can take a big step towards the promotion of pedestrian bike and transit use near the three metro stations located in Tysons.

[07:23:10] I was dismayed and puzzled by the Planning Commission's decision on September 13th to water down county staff's already watered down proposals for parking minimums and maximums in areas served by transit. As someone with strong familiarity with the transit areas in Tysons, I do not understand who would suffer from having less land near these stations devoted to car storage.

[07:23:35] At Spring Hill, for example, Monday through Saturday, during business hours, the 20 or so public parking spots near the station are already occupied. Many of the cars parked here have vanity plates, clearly identifying them as belonging to the Honda dealership adjacent to the station.

[07:23:53] As it stands, the existing parking regulations do not seem to serve anyone well, and even seem a bit like a mockery of the comprehensive plan. with businesses designed to promote car ownership taking advantage of taxpayer-funded parking spots directly next to metro stations.

[07:24:09] As for McLean and Greensboro, they each have plenty of privately run lots that offer parking to anyone who truly needs a spot. I question how much detractors of this plan truly care about the needs of those who frequently utilize transit and how much experience these detractors have in getting around the county by any other method than driving.

[07:24:31] as anyone who frequently bikes, walks, or takes public transit in the county knows how dangerous it is to access a place of interest by crossing through a parking lot, where the rules of the road are often not well codified, and access via any other method than car is strongly discouraged by design, if not outright forbidden.

[07:24:51] I urge the Board to pass parking reimagined and, if at all possible, disregard the amendments passed by the Planning Commission earlier this month that adjusted staff's original recommendations regarding parking minimums and maximums in areas served by transit. Thank you.

[07:25:07] Thank you very much. Speaker number 17 is Naveed Easton. And if you're getting closer on the speakers list, if you could make your way down a little bit closer, that would be appreciated. Mr. Easton is Speaker 17. Following him, we'll have several videos. Welcome.

[07:25:26] Hello, members of the board. My name is Navid Easton, and I'm speaking today to support Parking Reimagined at the staff-recommended levels. My wife and I live near the Vienna Fairfax Metro Stop and are delighted by how walkable and transit-accessible our neighborhood is. But there are still large swaths of our area, I'm talking the Pan Am Plaza and a lot of things along Route 50, that are burdened with oversized and mostly empty parking lots.

[07:25:51] Cars are necessary for all sorts of reasons. I own a car, but as we look forward, Fairfax County should update its parking minimums and development guidelines to view cars and therefore parking as a supplementary, not primary mode of transportation, in and around our well-serviced transit corridors.

[07:26:08] Lower parking minimums mean more homes, parks, and businesses within walking distance of transit and one another. This increase in supply will improve affordability within our county and reduce unnecessary sprawl further out on the edges of the northern Virginia region. There is still room for improvement and bolder action within the Parking Reimagined Plan.

[07:26:29] Parking minimums for retail and commercial, I think, should be lowered even further or eliminated entirely, especially in transit-rich corridors. We should increase the density and reliability of our transit so car usage is less of a necessity in large portions of the county.

[07:26:44] The possible inconveniences of those changes can and should be more than offset by making improvements to the accessibility and ubiquity of protected bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, and transit. I would love to be able to walk to my local grocery store without having to cross a giant, empty asphalt parking lot that radiates summer heat and kind of feels like a death trap.

[07:27:07] Or I would love to take the bus if the frequency was improved. But for now, I drive, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I would also love to see our county become more affordable to all residents. I work for FCPS. My wife is a lawyer.

[07:27:23] When we purchased our home in 2020 and moved from Ballston to Fairfax, several of her colleagues, all lawyers, commented, wow, you moved so far outside the district. Whereas my friends and colleagues, mostly teachers and FCPS employees under the age of 40, wondered, wow, how can you afford to live so close to the district?

[07:27:42] I was only able to buy a home in Fairfax because of my wife's law salary. And we were only able to afford our home because we purchased it in May 2020, when interest rates were rock bottom and housing prices very briefly dipped. We could not afford our own home if we were shopping today, and it's only been three years.

[07:28:02] If we want a diverse community that's accessible to our teachers, then housing affordability is crucial. And if we want housing to be affordable, then lowering parking minimums to increase available land and housing supply is essential. And as a living, walking anecdote, since I'm here, I mentioned that I own a car, but my wife and I own just one car.

[07:28:23] We used to have two, but we were able to downsize when we moved to an area that had more transit. I hear the concern of the folks in transit-starved areas like Annandale, but those concerns should be addressed with more transit, not more parking spots. People do use less cars when they have more options. I'm a walking example.

[07:28:40] All in all, I strongly support Parking Reimagined at the staff-proposed levels, and thank you for considering my feedback. Thank you, Mr. Easton. Speaker number 18 is Jason Schwartz, who has submitted video testimony. Hi, I'm Jason Schwartz, and I currently live in Arlington.

[07:28:58] I grew up in Springfield and lived there for 16 years. I went to West Springfield and Keen Mill Elementary Schools, Lake Braddock Secondary School, and Thomas Jefferson High School. I support Parking Reimagined. Fairfax County is way over-parked. So much valuable space is used for parking that could be used for more productive and sustainable uses.

[07:29:19] Throughout my entire life growing up, I saw firsthand how excess parking in Springfield Plaza and the Springfield Mall have limited positive change. Every week growing up, I drove past these areas. That land could have and should have been used for houses, businesses, and green space.

[07:29:37] Instead, today, people are struggling to pay rent and are commuting from hours away. That's why less parking and reducing our car addiction is essential to fixing our housing and climate crisis. Parking reimagined is a very modest first step.

[07:29:54] The county needs to go further and remove parking minimums from ALUs. The county should also reduce parking minimums from the extremely small transit station areas. In addition, the new minimums for retail standards are still very high.

[07:30:10] Thousands of localities across the country have undergone far more meaningful parking reforms, including Richmond, where the City Council voted unanimously to eliminate parking mandates citywide. I urge the Planning Commission to support Parking Reimagined and recommend that the county work towards eliminating parking minimums everywhere.

[07:30:31] Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Speaker 19 is Kripa Patwardhan, who has also submitted video testimony. Just FYI, I am very much pro-parking reimagined.

[07:30:47] With that out of the way, good evening. My name is Krippa Patwarden, proud alumna of FCPS, Langston Hughes Middle School and Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. And now I'm an educator with FCPS. This is the school system where I learned about pollution from stormwater runoff and about albedo.

[07:31:04] Black asphalt as an impervious surface with a low albedo, that is, it's a dark color so it doesn't reflect sunlight and instead absorbs it, is a major offender when it comes to climate change by aggravating heat and flooding. When people are talking about urban heat islands as if it's cities that aggravate climate change, no, it isn't cities per se.

[07:31:27] It's the black asphalt. In other words, parking. We know there's a climate crisis. My FCPS, and in particular, my TJHSST education has driven me to pay attention to this and to take action. And one of the biggest action items for mitigating climate change is to move away from car culture by reducing VMT, reducing the number of cars on the road and repurposing our spaces not to revolve entirely around cars.

[07:31:51] To that end, Parking Reimagined is a tremendous opportunity to help both people and the planet. I know we all demand action to mitigate the climate crisis. Parking Reimagined is exactly that. Let's not stymie it. The only question with Parking Reimagined is where to reduce or consolidate parking.

[07:32:09] I want to bring up one example already happening that I really like. And so that is the Vienna Library currently being redeveloped. And the parking garage that's going with it won't just be for the library, but for all of downtown Vienna. A garage that serves the whole general vicinity not only reduces VMT but also reduces the risk of accidents by moving the parking away from the main drag.

[07:32:32] Those on-street spots and the surface lots for each of the stores, meanwhile, can be reduced and repurposed to something nicer than parking. The possibilities are endless. Let's look at what can be unburdened by what has been, to quote Vice President Harris. Now, where I would like to see a parking reimagined project is in Breston, like the Trader Joe's and Silver Diner area.

[07:32:55] It is silly that I have to move my car all of 20 feet if I feel like doing groceries after having a brunch. Also, all that parking isn't very pretty. Parking reimagined doesn't just make Fairfax County greener and healthier, but also prettier and more convenient for everyone.

[07:33:13] We are worthy of beautiful places. We're worthy. That's the final thought I want to leave you with. We're worthy of something greener, cleaner, healthier, and more vibrant than an endless sea of asphalt that makes us have to move our car four times for four errands.

[07:33:31] And with that, I wish to reiterate, let's move forward with Parking Reimagined. Thank you for hearing me tonight, and good night, and thank you for your service. Thank you very much. Speaker number 20 is Richard Romero. Is Richard Romero here? Richard Romero?

[07:33:48] I don't see anyone. Speaker number 21 is Thomas Apker, who has submitted video testimony. Good evening. My name is Tom Apker. I am a father of four and a Fairfax County resident. I have a family of four bikers, and I support Parking Reimagined because I want to keep them safe, and I want them to be able to live in a livable, walkable, fun, and friendly county.

[07:34:14] I also don't want to spend their entire childhood locked in a minivan, waiting, stuck in traffic, when we can get just about anywhere we need to go on our bikes right now. With Parking Reimagined getting more of those parking spaces turned into more housing, there'll be more playgrounds to go to, more shops to go to, more housing for their friends, and generally a better county for us to live in. I look forward to a county that is more environmentally friendly, easier for families to grow up in, and safer for my kids to ride in. Please support

[07:34:51] Parking Reimagined. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 22, Sam Rezin, has also submitted video testimony. Good evening. My name is Sam Rezin. I'm a graduate of James Madison High school in the class of 2016 and i am a vienna resident in the hunter mill district i fully support the parking reimagined proposal and want to thank county staff for their hard work on this project i am speaking tonight because i want to support common sense proposal that would remove burdensome parking regulations and instead allow the county to build more of what makes our community great affordable homes good schools and safer communities i support parking reimagined for

[07:35:28] three reasons first lower parking minimums means more homes space and money that isn't used on parking can be used for homes, businesses, and parks. New multifamily housing projects by transit centers will require fewer parking spaces, allowing more housing units, which at scale will reduce unaffordable rents in northern Virginia. We need more homes and more affordable homes in Fairfax County now. Second, more homes near transit centers reduces sprawl and fights climate change. Building higher density around major transit stations significantly reduces carbon emissions. Without this amendment, there will be more single-family housing far away from

[07:36:02] the urban core, which means longer commutes, more environmental damage, and more of what we all hate, traffic. Third, reduced car dependency. Roads and car dependency do not scale well. We're already experiencing the limits of car infrastructure in Fairfax, which disproportionately affects our lower-income neighbors, but mass transit and alternative transit, like bicycles, do scale.

[07:36:23] Our only option to grow Fairfax County equitably that aligns with the one Fairfax policy is through mass transit, not more cars. I view parking reimagined as a good first step, and I want future legislation to do the following. One, no more parking minimums for ALUs, and two, even further reductions in parking minimums, both by transit centers and further away from it. The new minimums for retail centers will still result in wasteful empty parking spaces during normal periods, and parking minimums within the extremely small transit station areas are unnecessary and should be eliminated completely. As an environmentalist, I want to respond to claims that the parking reimagined proposal will not be good for the environment because it doesn't require developers

[07:37:01] to add green space and trees in exchange for off-street minimum parking. The transportation sector is the top source of carbon emissions in the country, and we won't be able to stop it if we do not ditch our highly pollutive car dependency habit, even with widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Reducing parking allows us to make it easier to bike, walk, and live without a car, all of which are transportation options that don't pollute our community.

[07:37:22] Serious environmentalists recognize that responding to the climate crisis means building more housing, especially near transit centers, and taking much-needed steps to reduce car dependency. We also don't support unnecessary regulations on homes and businesses where the benefits don't justify the costs, which is exactly what parking minimums are.

[07:37:39] Planning Commissioners, I chuckled when I read that adopting this proposal would create, quote, parking chaos, according to one community group. Quite the opposite. Passing this proposal would be a common-sense step to use county land in ways that provide more for our community. I encourage you to approve it without delay so that residents like me can reap the benefits of lower housing costs and increased walkability.

[07:37:59] Thank you. Thank you very much. speaker 23 is akbar nakvi who has also submitted video testimony hello my name is akbar nakvi i live in the claremont woods neighborhood and i would like to testify support for the uh for parking reimagined uh i believe that uh land is scarce and i believe a lot of scarce land has been uh suboptimally used in Northern Virginia, specifically in Fairfax County on, uh, on parking.

[07:38:38] And I believe that, uh, reorienting land use around, uh, more walkable communities, creating more bike parking, uh, and, uh, creating more transit oriented development will, uh, make, um, make the county more environmentally sustainable, will make, uh, it's more livable especially for lower-income populations, and I think it will just improve safety for pedestrians and allow children to live in a safer neighborhood, safer neighborhoods.

[07:39:18] So I hope that the Planning Commission goes forward with this, and I'm excited to see the results of a more livable community in Fairfax County. Thank you very much.

[07:39:34] Speaker 24 is Sean Ensley. Is Sean Ensley here? How about 25, Lynn Molston, and 26, Evan Froond. Okay. Sean Ensley, welcome. The floor is yours.

[07:39:50] Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Supervisors. My name is Sean Ensley. I'm the Secretary of the Reston Citizens Association, or RCA. My testimony this evening considers the impact of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments entitled Parking Reimagined. RCA has testified multiple times in other forums on this proposal.

[07:40:09] We also provided a letter to the chairman dated September 22nd outlining RCA's concerns. RCA has been unable to rationalize how this proposal keeps moving forward despite its significant flaws. Let me start with a baseline.

[07:40:25] Existing parking in multifamily communities is insufficient, not in every case, but many, even most. As the county's website notes, only 4% of residents do not have a car, and 53% own more than one vehicle. Certainly this supports the fact that the number of those cars provide those residents with freedom and economic opportunity.

[07:40:49] Certainly this supports the fact that the number of cars in America is increasing by 1% a year, as indicated in national analyses. We should note that future cars will not have the same environmental impact as they do today. A what, where, who, why, and when analytical method is appropriate to understand this proposal.

[07:41:10] What? Staff have given you a range of numbers with the current 1.6 parking spaces per household being reduced to 1.3. What does that mean? In a 200-unit community, that means parking spaces drop from 320 to 260.

[07:41:26] So where do those 60 cars go? They do not just disappear or turn into bicycles, so the residents park in other locations. Parking reimagined shifts this problem. In fact, with reduced parking availability, residents will drive longer for parking, therefore increasing car emissions.

[07:41:44] Mass transit cannot and will not alleviate this problem, as it will not provide access to every location and economic opportunity in the county. Where? Where is the source of this proposal? The county staff has noted that numbers were lowered to reflect national trends.

[07:42:02] And who determined these trends? An organization dedicated to helping communities that want to reduce their dependence on cars. The same organization that published Zero Auto Ownership wants to promote the concept of fostering and consciously investing in urban lifestyles that support zero auto ownership.

[07:42:22] Does that sound like an organization capable of producing impartial analysis? County staff did not conduct their own thorough investigation, perhaps because it would have resulted in information that would never support this proposal. Who? Who wants this? The intent of certain commentators is to eliminate cars via reduced parking requirements.

[07:42:43] Previous testimony from a steady stream of earnest, youngish individuals from across the county have regaled us with stories of biking eight miles uphill in a snowstorm to Whole Foods. Well, good for them. This is not an experience others in this county can replicate, but giving the same talking points over and over indicate they are true believers.

[07:43:05] These true believers want to eliminate parking spaces and therefore cars for others. In their passion and certainty, they ignore or dismiss the very real hardships they gratuitously impose on others, especially low incomes, minorities, and disabled residents.

[07:43:24] After all, it's for the greater good. Why? It appears the real driving force here is money. Granted, parking spaces come at a cost. There are many developers in Fairfax County. Not all developers adhere to high standards. Some look for a bit more profit wherever they can.

[07:43:41] Developers certainly know how many parking spaces are needed in a new development, but they are hoping you do not. Certainly, developers will pursue their economic interests when given this chance. When RCA has worked with county staff for many years now, there has not always been agreement, but RCA has found the county staff to be serious and well-meaning professionals.

[07:44:03] So RCA is confused. Why is county staff ignoring citizen outreach and advocating ignorance of the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission? How can county staff continue to push for such a complex set of amendments that are difficult for knowledgeable citizens to understand and to inflict hardship, frustration, and costs on thousands of our residents?

[07:44:26] Supervisors, I urge you at a minimum to support the changes advocated by the Planning Commission. If not, please send the parking reimagined proposal back to county staff for complete reconsideration that applies to Fairfax County, not some reputed national trends cooked up by a biased third party.

[07:44:44] Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Speaker number 25 is Lynn Molston. Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. McKay, Supervisor Alcorn, District Supervisors.

[07:45:03] My name is Lynn Molston, and I live in Reston. I'm testifying on behalf of Reston 2020, an independent Reston Citizens Committee dedicated to sustaining Reston's quality of life through excellence in community planning, zoning, and development.

[07:45:21] Parking Reimagined, as designed by staff, is clearly a profit enhancer for developers with no regard for taxpayers and residents. Citizen and civic organizations from across Fairfax County have advocated in ringing harmony against many of the specifics in the parking reimagined proposal.

[07:45:42] Even the Planning Commission appreciated that and proposed significant changes to the staff's proposal. Yet, staff has shown an unwillingness to adjust anything based on the concerns of Fairfax County citizens, including the county's board-appointed planning commission, opting instead for streamlined, non-county-specific options put forth by the consultant that only benefit developers.

[07:46:10] Reston 2020 endorses numerous proposals by our sister community organizations, including raising the base minimum parking requirement from 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.45, and adjusting the minimum requirement so that residents in three-bedroom residential area apartments have at least as much parking space as their urban counterparts.

[07:46:36] We also strongly urge the board to direct developers to devote all the space freed up by this minimum parking requirement reduction to public open space, including the preservation of forested areas, as has been suggested as a potential benefit of this legislation.

[07:46:58] There is no environmentally sound reason why the space freed from asphalt parking should become asphalt roofs. These new parking requirement modifications are developer-driven so that they can build more cheaply and generate higher profits.

[07:47:17] Nonetheless, the last time Reston 2020 reviewed the org chart of Fairfax County government, I don't know if you all have seen this, but residents are at the top of that chart.

[07:47:39] Let me repeat, residents are at the top of that chart and the first priority of county government, not developers or any special interests. Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the response from the county that handicapped or ADA accessible parking would not be impacted directly.

[07:48:02] However, the indirect result of parking reimagined to designated ADA parking will be catastrophic. On an increasing basis, the spaces will be denied to those who require them due to blockage by delivery vehicles and frustrated, able-bodied patrons parking in those spots.

[07:48:24] Keep in mind that Fairfax County's population is aging, and a projected 17% of the population will be over age 65 by 2035. In short, Parking Reimagined is a one-dimensional social engineering experiment to force people out of their cars that ignores the wide variety of consequences it would generate and fails to guarantee the societal gains it states as goals.

[07:48:56] Most importantly, it fails to consider the complexities faced by people living, working, and playing in our county and the rest of the community. If approved, the county will create a less desirable place to live and likely lead to the growing out-migration of residents.

[07:49:16] Reston 2020 implores you to vote to defer this decision until such time that you might adequately consider the true impacts to our communities and Fairfax County as a whole. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[07:49:32] Thank you. Speaker number 26 is Evan Froond, to be followed by Larry Huffman. Is Larry Huffman here? Okay, Larry Huffman is here. Evan, welcome. I'm Evan Froond, representing myself.

[07:49:48] I am a student, I'm an economics major at George Mason University. I do not own a car, I do not want a car, and I can say that talking to most of my friends, which are the younger generation, which are so often underrepresented in processes like these, most of them agree that we should have less cars and discourage car dependency.

[07:50:15] Not to mention, let's look at some of the reasons why people oppose this. So there is overcrowding, or like overflow parking. If that's the case, we can also reduce that by charging for parking and then only allowing local parking in surrounding areas, which I know can work because that's the reality in the GMU area.

[07:50:35] And then there's crowded townhouses and low-income residents. In that case, you have an area which is presumably denser with low-income people, which more proportionally use buses. So to me, it seems like a more reasonable solution than parking requirements would just be to run more buses.

[07:50:53] And then there's also the argument that it is for the profit of private developers rather than people. But this kind of misses the point where, like, I'm an economics major, so it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[07:51:11] For the government to always step in and require something for private developers, which generally distorts the system into economically inefficient ways, which we've been doing for hundreds of years.

[07:51:27] Or not hundreds, but like the past hundred years. So I fully support the parking reimagined and the lowest amount of parking possible. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Speaker number 27 is Larry Huffman.

[07:51:50] Do I hit a button or do you? Nope, you're good. Welcome. Larry Huffman, I'm in Supervisor Storks District, back up to a school, Holland Meadows.

[07:52:06] And I support Parking Reimagined as envisioned by the staff, not the Planning Commission. It's interesting that so many people have talked about how evil developers are. It's really odd because they're in the business of selling the stuff that they build.

[07:52:28] And to do that, they have to satisfy the people that they try to sell to. They don't force them to buy these things. That's just an odd thing. Anyway, 50 years ago, my economic geography teacher at the University of Southern California started off the semester saying, look, parking.

[07:52:55] If I could drive my car and park right outside this second floor lecture room, he would. The point is that he was making is that you always have to have trade-offs. So if you've got to have trade-offs, then you've got to figure out where to draw the line.

[07:53:17] And you have to take everybody's interests into account. The trouble with issues like this is that everybody has a point. It's the issue from hell. But the trouble with the current plan, which I reiterate, I support doing it, It is too complex.

[07:53:41] It's four pages. The executive summary is four pages long. I'm sure that you are all very diligent and have read the entire plan. How many of you have read Donald Shoup's book?

[07:53:57] Anybody at all? It's The High Cost of Free Parking. I highly recommend it. He is a luminous writer. He is funny. He makes good points, and he has a very simple methodology. And I'm sure everybody back here has read it and knows it well.

[07:54:17] I can't really, I've only got 35 seconds. I want you to think about organizing parking differently. Do away with all the parking minimums and enforce parking by making it expensive to the people who use it.

[07:54:40] Everybody says, oh, we've got to have free parking. Nobody has free parking. You always pay for it. It's just the way we have it now is they're taking it out of your pocket without you knowing what you're paying. And poorer people, like many people have said, poorer people are paying.

[07:54:58] I see it all the time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker number 28 is Jill Norcross, who has submitted video testimony. Thank you, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance.

[07:55:20] My name is Jill Norcross, and I am a Fairfax County resident and executive director of this 18-year-old organization working to provide healthy, sustainable, and equitable communities that meet the diverse housing needs of Northern Virginia residents. Thank you to the staff, planning commission, and board of supervisors. I know you have worked tirelessly to try to get parking reimagined right.

[07:55:44] We appreciate all of your hard work, extensive community engagement, and consideration. I'm speaking tonight in support of parking reimagined and specifically to the staff proposal to permit the board the ability to adjust the parking requirements for an entirely affordable building.

[07:56:02] Reducing minimum parking requirements for new construction does lower construction costs, which does impact affordability. And lowering the construction costs of affordable housing benefits us all. You've heard about many environmental benefits, but also it's worthwhile to note today, in most cases, Fairfax County is an investor in new or redeveloped affordable housing developed here.

[07:56:25] So lowering the cost of construction benefits us taxpayers as well as the residents who do benefit from those reduced costs from our affordable housing developers. Therefore, it's important to retain this ability to adjust the parking requirements in Section 6 for minimum required off-street parking for affordable residential buildings, which serve 70% of the AMI or below, based on income averaging.

[07:56:48] As your own research has shown, in a national study from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, there is significantly less parking demand between a market rate and an affordable apartment community. In addition, there are other data points and research to confirm that affordable units generate less need for affordable housing, especially when it's located near transit.

[07:57:11] Arlington County made the changes in 2017, as did the city of Alexandria in 2015. In addition to the support for parking reductions at affordable buildings, we want to emphasize the point that you've heard before, that residential developers do not need legally mandated parking restrictions.

[07:57:31] Developers do an incredible amount of research and market analysis to ensure they will be able to lease or sell their housing units. They have real-time data on market preferences. Therefore, if there will be restrictions, we encourage you to adopt the 1.3 parking space per unit in the multi-family buildings. Parking reimagined is our chance to right-size multi-family parking and address the environmental and affordability goals. Thank you again for this opportunity to share some of the research and data on this topic, as well as sharing some of what our peers have landed with regard to parking reductions in our county. We appreciate your consideration of

[07:58:06] ensuring that affordable housing developments retain the opportunity to adjust parking requirements down to benefit all of us. Thank you again. Thank you. And just to be clear, I saw some people questioning Mr. Norcross, Mrs. Norcross's right to testify. And I just want to remind everyone, she testified earlier today on a different matter, the affordable housing preservation administrative guidelines, and she has every right to testify on this matter as well. So she testified twice today on two different matters. We are now on speaker number 29, Tamara Schrader,

[07:58:43] president of the Huntington Community Association. Is she on the line? Okay. I am. Tamara, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good evening, and thank you for your time. My name is Tamara Schrader. I live on Biscayne Drive, directly adjacent to the Huntington Metro Station.

[07:59:02] I'm here to speak on behalf of the Huntington Community Association, where I've served as the president, which will be heavily impacted by this proposed amendment. I own a car because we do not have walkable retail, even with the high amount of development in our area, where developers are refusing to add retail, such as grocery stores or restaurants.

[07:59:25] In May, the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association unanimously passed a resolution stating its concerns about the proposed parking reimagined zoning ordinance as drafted by the county staff. A copy of that resolution was sent to both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

[07:59:43] My colleague, Jason Zaragoza, who is a member of the Huntington Community Association, further outlined our community and Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association's concerns before the Planning Commission on July 26th. He noted that the proposed reductions for the Huntington Transit Station area were unrealistically low, given the current state of infrastructure and retail to support a work-live-shop neighborhood, as envisioned by the IMPART plan.

[08:00:11] The Huntington community is currently seeing firsthand how the county's unrealistic expectations for parking demand have a direct adverse impact on our daily lives. In January, the Arden Affordable Housing Development at the corner of Huntington and Biscayne opened with a relatively modest 126 units.

[08:00:33] Its arrival caused an immediate overflow of illegal parking in the surrounding neighborhood, which to this day remains unenforced by Fairfax County, despite ongoing requests to enforce. I walked the neighborhood yesterday on the 25th of September, and there were 17 cars parked that did not have a valid parking sticker.

[08:00:53] This was on five streets, Biscayne, Blaine, Riverview, Glendale, and Fairview, and I can imagine that the streets on the other side of Huntington had an equal number of cars without permits. I walk my dogs around the neighborhood every day and regularly see cars without parking stickers parked in restricted areas, including several with out-of-state license plates and cars parked illegally in the clearly marked no parking area in front of the Arden.

[08:01:19] We reported these instances on multiple occasions to parking enforcement and county staff, both via email and calls to the non-emergency number, but have yet to see any meaningful enforcement. Our community association meetings discuss this each month, and I have people stopping me on the street while walking, asking when Fairfax County will do something about the issue.

[08:01:41] As a result of this failure of both policy and implementation, long-time residents are no longer able to park in front of their own homes, most of which do not have off-street parking. This ongoing disruption to our community from one single development is why I'm here at this hour in the hope that someone will listen.

[08:01:59] I'm here because reduced parking availability combined with a lack of enforcement has a disastrous combination for our community, one which only we feel the brunt of. We were assured during the public comment period that parking in the neighborhood would not be an issue due to the fact that we had parking restrictions.

[08:02:16] Sadly, this is untrue. Our community has become the parking lot for individuals using the metro, as well as individuals looking for extra places to park their work vans and trucks. The Huntington Community Association urges and supports a holistic approach to new development, one that incentivizes developers to create the mixed-use work/live/shop environment as outlined in the Embark Plan.

[08:02:41] To date, we have only seen new residential development, which has brought hundreds of new residents to our neighborhood without the accompanying retail or infrastructure. which would help negate the need for auto use in the parking spaces. The Huntington community supports the Embark Richmond Highway and the county's vision of redeveloping Richmond Highway as the district's main street, with bus rapid transit system and a shift from auto-centered environment to one which encourages multimodal transportation and enhanced pedestrian safety.

[08:03:11] We are strong advocates for sensible development of the Richmond Highway Corridor and the Huntington Metro Transit Area. All that we ask is for a common-sense approach to this process that creates additional incentives that will foster a pedestrian and public transit-oriented community.

[08:03:29] We were pleased with the changes the Planning Commission has recommended, and we come here to strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt the follow-on motions, which were unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. We endorse these recommendations because they help incorporate a common-sense, holistic approach to this amendment, which goes beyond simplistic parking formulas and takes into account the real-world impact of the decisions made by this board, which directly affect our community every day.

[08:03:59] Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next up is Speaker 30, Rafael Barroso, who submitted video testimony. Hello. My name is Rafael Barroso. I live in the Maison District of Fairfax County, and I support the parking reimagined policy.

[08:04:20] Since moving to Fairfax County in 2015, I have tried to live as close to transit and do as much of my trips without relying on a car as possible. However, I found it very difficult to ditch the car in favor of walking and biking, Because there is not much housing around transit, and there is always a lot of surface parking lots around transit, and in between the points of interest that I frequent, like grocery stores, schools, gyms, and the like.

[08:04:55] Reducing or eliminating parking minimum requirements will allow people to build more housing and more affordable housing close to transit. It will bring the building scale closer to a more humane scale and will make walking and biking easier, more pleasant and less awkward to pedestrians.

[08:05:18] Finally, I urge the board to consider adding more easier-to-find bike parking spots and requiring developments to reduce the impermeable surface asphalt and increase three shades and other heat reducing features thank you thank you speaker 31 is john eltroth is john here you could come on down uh how about jenny bay jenny bay if you could come on down a little bit closer you're speaker number 33 we're on speaker number 31 mr eltroth welcome

[08:05:56] Thank you. I'm John Elsroth. I represent the Dunloring Improvement Association. Parking reimagined is the opportunity to begin the process of taking back our community from the brutal occupation of the automobile. Said occupation has been historically enabled by requiring that our land be organized by type of function. Moving from work to home to shopping requires a car and parking. This building is an example of such

[08:06:35] community design. Did anyone walk, ride their bike, or take a city bus to this meeting? I believe one of my previous speakers actually did and is in a conundrum because he may not be able to get home. 100 years ago we built walkable towns that did not require parking. Walk to work, shop, play, worship, and even walk to school.

[08:07:04] That walk to school tradition still exists today and might be a model for a future Fairfax. Fairfax County has 141 public elementary schools, so a high percentage of our K-6 students are a 20-minute walk from their school. And if it weren't for dangerous drivers, our kids would walk.

[08:07:26] Parking is key to our present system of cars and roads. My car essentially owns, at no cost to me, about five parking places in Fairfax County, a thousand square feet of free land. One spot is right outside this building.

[08:07:49] I am not allowed to use it for anything else. It's reserved exclusively for my privileged car, and so long as my car enjoys that privilege, I do not have to alter my climate-crushing behavior.

[08:08:05] If I do not have to worry about finding a parking place at my destination, I will drive my car. However, if I recognize that I will either have to pay for parking or it's not going to be available, then I consider other options.

[08:08:27] Can I walk, bike, bus, metro rail, hitchhike, carpool? What else is out there? I'm not going to be able to park when I get there. So other options suddenly come into my mind. In acting, parking reimagined will begin to change the way we move around our county.

[08:08:48] But it requires at least three other key changes. First, change the comp plan to include walkability requirements and public transit requirements. Most of that is now only by proffer, which you beg for.

[08:09:04] Abandon those land-use types that create commutes and require the sharing of parking. Second, public transportation needs a lot of policy attention and funding.

[08:09:20] The 401 bus at my doorstep is only scheduled every 30 minutes, and it is one of the county's busier routes. We need a transit system with convenient schedules, routes, and good reliability. Third, take the $16.3 billion in the COG Visualize 2045 plan that is dedicated to cars and move it to rail, trail, and bus.

[08:09:52] Don't dump $16 billion into improving the car experience while at the same time you're trying to change the paradigm. My message, pass this parking reimagined. Pass it in the original staff version. The planning commission version makes it more difficult to smoothly implement and reduces its effectiveness.

[08:10:16] It takes political courage. I recognize that. To stand up to constituents who want to continue the rule of the car. But I am certain that we can trust this strong board that has its eye on the future and thinks globally and acts locally to pass parking reimagined. Thank you.

[08:10:40] Thank you very much. Speaker number 32 is Catherine Ward. Is Ms. Ward on the line? Yes, I am. Catherine, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chairman McKay and supervisors.

[08:10:57] I'll keep this brief. The Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations has been very supportive of Embark since its creation. We're looking forward to the residential and commercial redevelopment on Richmond Highway and certainly extensive mass transit along the highway so we can at some point get out of our cars.

[08:11:19] With that being said, we're very concerned over the current staff's proposal for parking reimagined. We appreciate the Planning Commission's extensive and thoughtful review of the staff's recommendations, and we fully support the changes recommended to you by the Planning Commission, and we encourage you to adopt them.

[08:11:40] Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Speaker number 33 is Jenny Bay. Welcome. And after Ms. Bay, are there other folks in the auditorium that would like to testify? If you could please come down, sign in with the clerk.

[08:11:56] If there's anyone else who has not already testified that would like to testify, please sign in with the clerk here at the end of the dais. And with that, Ms. Bay, welcome. The floor is yours. Good evening. I'm sorry I've been losing my voice. So I apologize that I sound horrible. It has nothing to do with sickness.

[08:12:13] It's three kids at home. I wish my pickleball friends were here. I was listening to the entire hearing today. I was very excited about having so many pickleball enthusiasts here. Now, how does that work into Parking Reimagined? My name is Jenny Bay.

[08:12:29] I am actually here in support of Parking Reimagined because my family and I are trying to open an indoor pickleball facility in Annandale, Virginia. It will be what I hope the future premier facility of the entire East Coast.

[08:12:48] I am not exaggerating when I say that. I think it will be an attraction for this state, for this city, right outside D.C. I have tremendous partnerships with Major League Pickleball, with Duper, with Major League Pickleball teams.

[08:13:03] And I have really big plans to make this an incredible facility right here in Annandale. And I need Parking Reimagined to be passed so that we can open. And so I urge you guys tonight to please, please consider either version, to be honest.

[08:13:21] For me, in terms of retail, it stays the same in both versions. There have been a lot of people speaking for one or the other, and I'm sure you guys are super smart and know exactly what the right decision is. So I will entrust that to you. But I wanted to speak as a small business owner today to urge you to pass it from the standpoint of businesses who are bound to these restrictive regulations that really make it almost impossible to open any new business in these older buildings with smaller lots.

[08:13:54] It's just not possible to do. And Parking Reimagine really opens up more opportunities for more businesses to come in to enrich the community. And I think our facility in particular will do tremendous things for the community and for the city. And so with that, I thank you for your time.

[08:14:11] And I hope there's only one more speaker behind me so that you guys can vote. Thank you. Jenny, before you leave, if you could leave an address for me with the clerk that I can follow up with you on, I would appreciate that. Sure, absolutely. Thank you very much. Next up, we have two additional speakers who have signed up.

[08:14:31] Speaker number 34 will be Evan Ramey, and he will be followed by Phil Nijelski-Eichner. Evan, welcome. The floor is yours. Hi. My name is Evan Ramey. I have lived in Fairfax County for longer than I can remember.

[08:14:48] I'm an FCPS alum, and I'm currently a student at George Mason University studying urban design and all of this stuff, and I want to speak to you as a resident. Parking Reimagined is a wonderful first step. Don't get me wrong.

[08:15:03] The minimums and, like, it's, we need to do a lot if we want the county to survive for the next 30, 40, 50 years. And as you can note from my age, I'm probably going to be around for the next 30, 40, 50 years, and I want to be around here.

[08:15:19] But I also understand that we're going to face some serious challenges, and we cannot face those challenges from behind a windshield. Please pass back and reimagine with the staff level at most. Like, I've read the entire document, I've read the proposed changes to the rates, and quite frankly, they really haven't changed that much.

[08:15:42] They're made simpler, yes, but the actual base rate hasn't changed much from the 80s. And the way that we've interacted with the environment around us has changed since the 80s. I spoke with a local property manager that manages a small strip mall near my house, And they were telling how when the minimums were built, they would expect people to drive to get groceries, drop the kids off at Taekwondo, get some dinner afterwards, and then head home.

[08:16:09] And people just do not do that anymore. There's curbside pickup. People spend more time at home with their families. And these parking lots are urban land laid fallow. And it breaks my heart to see such an important part of our community, the land it's built on, go to such an unused use.

[08:16:29] I hate to see this land go to waste. please pass Parking Reimagined with the lowest minimums you can. I actually biked here, and it was a fairly long trip. I'm not going to lie. But I prefer it to driving because I just, I do not want to drive.

[08:16:48] That's a choice that I want to make, and I would like to see that choice realized through the county and through Parking Reimagined. I rest my case. It's late. Thank you. Thank you very much. And speaker number 35 is Phil Nijelski-Eichner.

[08:17:05] Of course, the chairman of the Fairfax County Planning Commission. Welcome, Phil. It's a little unusual. I know this. But I do wish you a good evening. I, of course, value the working relationship the Planning Commission has with the board.

[08:17:22] I don't need to tell you that the issue before you is enormously complicated, and I wanted to be here to listen to you and the community. But since the Planning Commission was referenced in many comments tonight, As chairman, I am taking this opportunity to offer just a bit of a background to our recommendations.

[08:17:41] I start with an acknowledgment that staff has completed an enormous task and are to be commended for the product of their efforts. The Planning Commission worked closely with staff over a two-year period, and we recommend approval of the vast majority of staff's recommendations.

[08:17:58] We value their best professional judgment. This noted, you expect the Planning Commission to listen intently to feedback from residents who wrote to us or spoke to us, whether they be older suburban homeowners or younger, more urban-focused residents.

[08:18:14] We listened to staff, and we listened to our residents, and yes, we even did our own parking calculations in contrast to EYA's testimony. We recommend slowing the pace of change only for multifamily parking minimums, and we then recommend the study of the impact of the changes.

[08:18:32] Again, we recommend slowing the pace of change only for multifamily parking minimums, and we then recommend to study the impact of the changes. In five years, we recommend revisiting these minimums using data and analysis specific to our experience, rather than only relying on nationally generated rates, and rather than referencing rates being used by other area jurisdictions, which are frankly all over the map, based on their own values and experiences.

[08:19:01] As you know well, the Planning Commission supports promoting transit as an alternative to cars. We support reductions in impervious surface and other significant environmental enhancements. And we value calls for more affordable housing and environmental enhancement.

[08:19:21] And finally, we recognize that parking minimum reductions will be an important addition to our overall efforts in these critical areas. In short, we have not changed our parking regulations for 45 years. It is way past time to make meaningful change. Approving the parking reimagined amendment, as proposed to be amended by the Planning Commission, will indeed make change meaningful, make it meaningful the change it invokes.

[08:19:51] The Planning Commission recommendations are specific to multifamily parking and seeks to offer the Board a balance among a range of perspectives we have heard from the community. In summary, it took over 45 years to get to this point of significant change in our parking requirements.

[08:20:07] The Commission recommends that, specific, again, to multifamily housing, we move in a more stepwise fashion to give the county an opportunity to monitor the impact of the change and revisit these minimums in five years. Finally, consistent with your approval of our follow-on motion recommendations for data collection based on Fairfax County specific data and analysis, The board should be in an even better position in five years to consider further reductions to minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing.

[08:20:40] Thank you. Thank you, Phil, and I appreciate all the work that you've done on this, Phil, because I know you spent a tremendous amount of time on this as well as your colleagues on the Planning Commission, and so an excellent ending in-person speaker.

[08:20:56] With that being said, let me verify that there is nobody else here who would like to testify. Let me ask if the clerk has anyone who has called in. No additional individuals have called in. Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff.

[08:21:14] Thank you. As previously stated, staff supports the amendment. As recommended by the Planning Commission with three changes, we support the staff recommendations for multifamily, the staff recommendation for Religious Assembly, and the staff recommendation is related to the director's authority for approving adjustments.

[08:21:34] Thank you very much. Before I turn to Supervisor Smith, the chair of our Land Use and Development Process Committee, let me ask board members if they have any questions of staff, and I will start with Supervisor Palchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[08:21:49] Just one, I want to clarify an earlier comment we heard about Tyson's. Could you just comment for us, parking reimagined, which areas of the county this reimagined covers and what that means for Tysons? For Tysons, the ordinance has requirements associated with parking that were designed for Tysons.

[08:22:15] As part of the process that the community went through to develop the plan recommendations that were ultimately adopted by the board, As part of that exercise, there was a study of parking. It was kind of like the first draw, if you will, of looking at tailoring parking to a higher density and intensity community.

[08:22:41] And so from that point of view, we have continued to maintain generally what has been in the ordinance for the what is called the PTC district, the Planned Tysons Corner District. We have made some adjustments based on trying to create continuity with the other identified areas in the tiered framework, such as TOD and TSA.

[08:23:06] But overall, it reflects what the county had adopted 10 years ago now almost. And by the way, I'm Michael Davis, Land Development Services. Sorry, I didn't identify myself. It's late in the evening. Thank you, Michael. I appreciate that.

[08:23:23] Michael Davis, who is the parking program manager of LDS, who has earned that title through this process. I'm sorry, Supervisor Palchuk, were you finished? I thought you were about to call him the parking guru, but yes, I think that's a good name.

[08:23:39] It's a little bit separate, and I know we continue to evaluate that as well as I just want to clear out that we are starting to look, staff at the possibilities of how to look at on-street and off-street parking and looking at what's being done and what might be done for parking. The word's not coming out.

[08:24:01] On-street? On-street parking payments, I guess that's the word. So we're looking at other possibilities for Tyson's, knowing that the need there and the private developments are starting to charge, That's the word, charge for parking and look at other possibilities as we know that the need continues to increase in Tysons.

[08:24:22] But, Michael, I think you had something to add. No, I was just going to add that kind of dovetail on the comments about metered parking. Yes, our Department of Transportation is looking at some proposals for metered parking in the Tysons area. And certainly what we wanted to try to do with one of the adjustments that we talked about tonight, which was publicly accessible parking, is to try to mesh those opportunities with potentially lowering the parking on private development sites.

[08:24:53] If there's public parking available, that creates a shared opportunity for parking, and so that can produce a lower amount of parking on private development sites because you have that shared resource available.

[08:25:11] Okay. Other questions? Supervisor Alcorn. Just to put a finer point on the Tyson's question, 13 years ago when the Tyson's comprehensive plan was adopted by the board, there are no parking minimums for non-residential development within a half mile of metro stations.

[08:25:30] Is that correct? That is correct. It's actually on page 68 and 69. I'm looking at it. Nobody else remembers that. Nobody talks about that. We heard a lot of people say, you know, parking minimums, you know, we should do it or we shouldn't do it. We've been doing it for non-residential in Tysons for 13 years.

[08:25:50] We actually have maximums in Tysons for non-residential and residential, although we still have minimums on the residential side in Tysons. So it's actually a really good experience, I think. I think we're still learning a lot as we go.

[08:26:07] Thank you so much for bringing up the on-street, metered parking, public parking. That is the next step, I think. And how that meshes, that really is going to help us get to the next place we want to be, which is something that works for people and works for the community and not just for cars.

[08:26:27] So thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Gross. Supervisor Alcorn, thank you for bringing that up because I'm thinking about going back even farther than 13 years. And it was before we had, I think, Land Development Services as a separate department.

[08:26:47] But in revitalization areas, a long time ago, there was a proposal to allow the director to approve some reductions in parking in the commercial areas. And then we have revitalization areas. People were very upset about that.

[08:27:05] I'm an unelected person, et cetera. We ultimately, I think, reduced the percentage a little bit that would be able to be done by the director. But it was also done in consultation with the supervisor of that particular district.

[08:27:27] My question is, and maybe this goes back a long way. You may not be able to answer this question right away. In my recollection, it is rare that you actually have approved a parking reduction of any really significant size in a commercial revitalization area.

[08:27:49] Am I recollecting? Can you give me any sense of how often those requests come forward? It's not very often. I would say generally, yes. It's not very often, but I would also say generally the percentage reduction is not off the charts.

[08:28:09] We'll say that's not a very scientific term, but nevertheless, the reductions we typically see that are requested are relatively modest. And I think one of the speakers pointed that out earlier is that, you know, when they when we've looked at it ourselves as part of this process, as well as, you know, other people looking at it.

[08:28:29] And I think we've tried to emphasize the point in our discussion in the sense of we're trying to create this circumstance of flexibility. And so the expectation from all of us is that developers are still going to provide the parking that they need, even if the requirement is lower than – is lowered.

[08:28:55] We're just giving them the opportunity to make a better decision about parking and also gives the opportunity to have more discussions about how that land area can be used. And so from that point of view, I would say that, yes, generally, our history with parking reductions or parking adjustments is generally modest.

[08:29:15] We have very few situations where it's more than 30 percent. Most of them are, the average is around 20 that we've looked at. So, yeah. Thank you, Michael. It is generally a modest circumstance. Thank you, Michael. I appreciate that because it does demonstrate that the process that we have had for several years on how you can apply for a reduction in the parking, you have to do it in consultation with the supervisor's office.

[08:29:47] And it is just one of the options that can be used on this menu that we have. I wanted to make sure that I brought that up because personal experience in revitalization areas, it's not been huge. And sometimes when we have approved a reduction, it's actually been through a land use application, a larger land use application that comes before this board.

[08:30:08] So the board actually is approving that reduction, not the director of land development services. Got you off the hook, Bill. Thank you, Supervisor Gross. And actually, it was one of the comments I was going to make, because as you well know, I represented two revitalization districts for a long time.

[08:30:24] And it wasn't just a few years. That policy was in place for over a decade. And I kept waiting for the call of consultation with staff. But the reality is, is nobody was using it. And it was disturbing to us because the point was to encourage redevelopment in our revitalization areas where it was desperately needed.

[08:30:47] And to try to give those parts of the county an edge over any other part of the county, a competitive advantage, so to speak. And the reality is, is I can't remember more than two or three over a 10-year period of time in two revitalization districts that took advantage of what we thought at the time was a revitalization incentive.

[08:31:08] It was part of a package of incentives to try to drive redevelopment in areas that desperately needed it. And it did not pan out, as you've illustrated. And so it is an important point. It's a historic marker into a lot of the testimony we heard about what's actually happening here compared to national studies.

[08:31:27] That was what was actually happening here in areas of the county where this benefit, incentive, whatever you want to call it, was in place for over a decade and not used. Other questions that board members have? Okay.

[08:31:43] I'm not seeing any. So at this time, I am going to turn to Supervisor Kathy Smith, the chair of our Land Use Process Committee. So, you know, I barely talked today, so I might go on a little bit. Before I make my motion, I wanted to express my gratitude to everyone from the public who participated in the public hearing today.

[08:32:02] The Planning Commission public hearing sent letters, attended community outreach meetings. There is no doubt that this amendment has been improved by their contribution. I want to thank the Planning Commission. I don't know where Phil is. Oh, there's Phil. For their careful consideration of the amendment.

[08:32:20] But I really need to thank our staff for all the work they did on this. I've been able to work so closely with them, especially in my role of chairing this committee. And I see them come out with an idea, talk to the board, talk to the community, work through these ideas, and develop their thinking, and we end up with a great product.

[08:32:46] I don't know if we're going to get as far as many people wanted us to get tonight, but we have an outstanding staff that put their heart and soul into doing this. So I hope you know how much we appreciate that. Parking is a topic that has a wide rate of opinions on how to address it the best way.

[08:33:03] This amendment has been debated in the public for the past two years, and staff has conducted over 100 meetings with various stakeholders. As I previously stated, numerous changes have been made to address comments received during that public process. Proposed rates were first released over a year ago, and draft text was provided 10 months ago.

[08:33:24] As updates have been made to address comments, staff has made the revised text available and provided explanations for the changes, all of which are summarized in the staff report and addendum we have in front of us, and yes, I did read it and highlight it. So we've talked about this.

[08:33:43] The zoning ordinance hasn't been comprehensively reviewed since 88, and some of the changes were from 78. The county's changed. We all know that. A diverse and urbanizing county needs a variety of regulatory approaches to parking. This includes a tiered framework that aligns minimum parking requirements with development areas designated in the comprehensive plan. And I remember that first meeting with staff and talking about suburban centers and Tysons and I'm getting my head around how people live in Sully and how we get somewhere. And I think that is a benefit of

[08:34:18] this process taking some time, because we could think about it and we could see it be developed. Providing dedicated parking is still necessary in Fairfax County, but the amount of dedicated parking must be right-sized to address current and future land development activities. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my motion, but then I'd like to make a few comments about the motion. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for parking and loading requirements also known as parking reimagined

[08:34:53] including the staff recommended options and the amendment to appendix one of the zoning ordinance relating to previous approvals as provided in the august 16 2023 staff report addendum and the august 30 2023 memorandum to the planning commission as recommended by the planning commission on september 13, 2023, with the following changes to retain the staff recommendations for the minimum requirement in Table 6100.2 of one space per three seats for a religious assembly or a religious assembly with

[08:35:32] private school, specialized instruction center, or child care center in a residential district. Parking adjustments that may not be approved by the Director is set forth in subsection 6100.6.a, paren 4, paren A, to remove the proposed restriction that would not allow the Director to approve shared parking and transit-related adjustments if the property is subject to proffers or conditions, which is consistent with the current zoning ordinance.

[08:36:03] As proposed in this motion, the text of subsection 6100.6.a, paren 4, paren A, would read as follows. There is a pending rezoning special exception or proffered condition amendment application for the site.

[08:36:18] In addition, I move to amend Table 6100.6 for revitalization area parking requirements to select the option for multifamily dwellings to be at 85% of the per-unit parking of the base rate instead of the staff recommendation of 80%.

[08:36:37] Finally, I move that the amendment, which is a repeal and replacement of Article 6 of the zoning ordinance, become effective at 12.01 a.m. January 1, 2024, to allow staff time to update the parking reimagined website, develop and post training materials, and provide training to staff and other stakeholders on the new provisions.

[08:37:01] I'm happy to second that motion along with Supervisor Faust. Discussion on the motion, Supervisor Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since the motion is based on the Planning Commission recommendation with only three changes, the motion did not repeat those things that are in the agenda item. And I just wanted to give one example. That does change. The change that's included in the Planning Commission recommendation was the base rate for multifamily going to from 1.3 to 1.45.

[08:37:34] The other change, I know I talk percentages for the multifamily and the revitalization district. The staff recommendation was 80%, which was 1.6 spaces per unit, and at 85%, that comes to 1.23 spaces.

[08:37:52] And then when we do the follow-ons, I'll reference that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Supervisor Smith, discussion on the motion? Let me start with Supervisor Herity, and then we'll make our way down. I'm just going to try to keep this real brief. I want to obviously thank staff.

[08:38:07] It's been a long process, and as one of the speakers said, there are a lot of opinions out there, and a lot of good opinions, actually. And that's the hard part of this is I don't think there's one right answer because we're in a changing world. Problem is parking's permanent.

[08:38:26] I've been on both sides of things. Fair Oaks Mall, I, you know, led the effort to kind of reduce parking at all three of our malls so that we could get fair oaks redeveloped but at the same time i've got numerous hoas as we all do that their number one issue is parking including a multi-family hoa that i just met with on saturday where they are under parked we've seen the impact of businesses in reston where we went to paid parking and the businesses in reston suffered parking is important

[08:39:01] to residents and commerce um we need parking you know we need parking for the world we live in today not the world that doesn't exist yet because we all have to live in that world and it impacts our businesses and our residents um and those are very real impacts i i would not have supported the staff recommendation i think i'm going to support this but uh you know it's it's not without difficulty as I'm sure we all are having difficulty supporting it. But anyway, I'll be supporting

[08:39:40] your motion. Okay. We're going to make our way down. Supervisor Faust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to keep it brief because it's been around a long time. And I tell you, I really have nothing but respect for just about everybody who had any role in this process. It has been difficult uh it's been you know adversarial almost but uh it's also been extraordinarily

[08:40:12] cooperative and staff has done uh they ran into a lot of uh opposition over time uh but they you stay very professional and i would say that i got a lot of positive feedback about your own conduct from people who disagreed with you profusely or whatever the right word is uh so you know in that sense you really you did a a public service uh because this had the potential

[08:40:47] of being ugly in the end and i don't think it's ugly in the end i think it's you know i think we got pretty close the the different factions got pretty close and i'm going to support the motion I think it's a good motion. I want to thank Sally Horn specifically from the McLean Citizen Association.

[08:41:08] I'm sure you heard from her as much as you heard from anybody. And she just kept it at a very professional level, and I just like the way you guys work together. The one thing that we didn't do tonight, I don't think adequately, was demonstrate how much we're, you know, Even if we accept the staff recommendation, I mean the Planning Commission recommendation, how much the parking requirements are going down.

[08:41:34] I mean, it's significant, and it's the right thing to do, but, you know, perhaps the right decision is not to go that last step right now and test the staff's recommendation.

[08:41:49] Let's go to the Planning Commission, and let's see how that works. So anyway, nothing but respect for the effort that everybody has put into this from the community and from staff, and thank you. Thank you.

[08:42:06] I inadvertently skipped Supervisor Palchuk, and then we'll go to Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all have a lot of commendation, and thanks for staff, especially our parking guru. For those of you who look at parking charts for a living, I think we have a newfound appreciation for you.

[08:42:26] I also want to thank Chairman Phil Nechelski-Eichner for his work on the Planning Commission. And I really want to thank Supervisor Smith for leading our board through this work, through the multiple years from the first zoning ordinance to this part of the zoning ordinance.

[08:42:43] And from an educator, I think you've done an excellent job and really appreciate that. Well, like with the zoning ordinance, for my community, my district, I don't, especially the Merrifield revitalization area, I don't think this quite goes far enough.

[08:43:01] But I do think it is a good compromise. I appreciate that this is, as was mentioned, pun intended, a good step foot forward in the right direction. I do want to clarify that it's very important when we talk about access to transit, we know that bus ridership did not dip the way that rail ridership dipped during the pandemic.

[08:43:26] And that is because our lower income and our essential workers continued to have to go to work, and many continue to use bus and transit in order to get there. So I just want to clarify that. I want to ensure that as we change, this ordinance was created before my lifetime, the last ordinance, and the two of us here.

[08:43:48] And I second appreciate that it won't take another 40-plus years, but that we will revisit this in five years. As was mentioned earlier, these are living documents. This was created for the past 40 years. And as we look at the next five years and forward, I hope we'll continue to evaluate and reevaluate.

[08:44:08] Because as was mentioned, and I know I'm still reading the book that was offered to me on parking, housing, we want to house people. We also have cars, but we also want to ensure that we can house people, our parks, our students.

[08:44:24] Appreciate many of them who testified tonight. Some of you, I think, have more experience testifying, and we appreciate your voices. And I also appreciate many new voices. So I know it's a challenge and took some effort to be able to come out here for the first time. And it was mentioned whether I want to put Pickleball in that big garage we saw on the top floor.

[08:44:46] But we know, and I think as we saw today in many of our issues, that they are cross-sectional. They impact each other. And so I do think we need to right-size it, find the right balance. But then in the end, every single case is different. And so I know we as supervisors will see each case differently.

[08:45:04] But as we see this next generation, less of them having cars and people being able to get safely to school and back home. I know we stay awake for our students every day thinking about the roads that were designed 40 years ago and trying to ensure their safety when they're getting to and from school.

[08:45:23] So thank you for your work on this. Again, thank you, Supervisor Smith, for helping us come to a consensus, and I look forward to supporting the motion. Thank you. Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be supporting the motion, and I'll also thank Supervisor Smith for her work in bringing it forward to the board.

[08:45:45] These parking spaces are not free. I really appreciate the point that was made earlier. There is a cost, obviously, to build the parking spaces, but there's a cost also to our community in terms of, you know, the greenhouse gas issues.

[08:46:03] There's the cost from the heat islands. There's a cost from not being able to build, you know, less expensive housing. So all these things, you know, they do get factored in. And this proposal is allowing us to think about that and to be able to address it in our decision.

[08:46:23] I also think about the future of our community. I mean, I think the decisions that we make today do have consequences in the future. And we know that things are changing. We are looking to have more autonomous vehicles. We're looking to have more ride and shared services.

[08:46:44] These are things that are going to happen, and they're not going to happen necessarily tomorrow, but they're not in the far-out distant future. And if we're continuing to make all these parking spaces in the way that we have in the past, we're not acknowledging that that change is coming.

[08:47:02] And then also the commitment that we're making to transit. We've got to have more and more people see the value of that. And I appreciate a couple of the speakers making the point that, you know, if you don't provide the parking space, you're going to force people to make other choices.

[08:47:19] And those other choices are going to be better for the environment, better for long-term sustainability, and maybe even safer for our communities as we see less opportunities for vehicles and bicycles to interact in a negative way, Less opportunities for vehicles and people to interact in a bad way.

[08:47:40] So I'm excited about what we're going to be doing here right now. And I'm looking out into the future, not just today, but 10, 15 years from now. So thank you to the staff for their exceptional work here today.

[08:47:56] And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Supervisor Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank, excuse me, Mr. Huffman, who gave us the name of a book, High Cost of Free Parking. I Googled it.

[08:48:12] And the other things that popped up were a book called Carmageddon and Paved Paradise, How Parking Explains the World. And I think that's where we've been for a long, long, long time. 45 years ago, when we did our last parking ordinance, there was no metro.

[08:48:35] Yes, there was a small portion of the red line in D.C., but there wasn't anything over here. There was no connector bus. There wasn't much in the way of metro bus. There were few bicycles and fewer trails.

[08:48:53] And there were 600,000 people in the county. So we really were very car-centric. That parking deck that you saw in Josh Booth's very cute video is at the Landmark Plaza in Mason District.

[08:49:10] That parking deck was required when they renovated in 1987. That center didn't have a parking deck when it was built in the 60s, but it has a parking deck now. It is almost never used. It was used perhaps briefly, you know, the first few years when it was sort of a novelty.

[08:49:32] But it hasn't been used in years. It's a multimillion-dollar investment that is not being used. In fact, the owners of the shopping center couldn't even lease those parking spaces to the Department of Defense when the BRAC buildings were being built right there at Seminary Road because there was no nexus.

[08:49:51] So you couldn't even use something that is available. I just wanted to give a little context of that particular item. I appreciate all the work that staff has done. I attended several of the community meetings, the virtual meetings.

[08:50:10] There was a lot of misunderstanding, I think, in the community about parking reimagined. Many of the complaints heard in those meetings that I attended in Mason District were about existing parking in neighborhoods, which this is not designed to address if your neighbor is parking too close to your driveway.

[08:50:31] And that leads me to another item that is not in this, but I think we need to have that conversation with our police department, with police chief perhaps, about police writing tickets for parking, not on these areas that we're talking about right now, but existing things.

[08:50:50] People get, I'm sure you all get calls about why can't the police come and ticket. So I think we need to have that discussion, but that is separate from this, but it does highlight it. I've had some discussions with folks in my district about parking reimagined.

[08:51:07] It is tricky. It is something that we need to move forward on carefully. I don't think that the five-year review is going to give us a lot of data that we would like to have because, from my perspective, that kind of redevelopment doesn't happen that fast.

[08:51:31] Maybe in a couple of places it might, but when it takes 20 years to get multifamily development going in Mason District, we're not going to have the kind of data that we might think. It probably will take longer for us to have the data that really shows do we need to do something different.

[08:51:51] So I am going to support Supervisor Smith's motion. I think it is an appropriate one for us to get this moving. and there will be opportunities, I'm sure, to look at it in the future and perhaps make some tweaks.

[08:52:11] But right now I think that we have the right language before us, and a lot of that is due to a lot of good work by staff and the community. We wouldn't be here where we are today if it hadn't been staff, community, and board members getting involved in it.

[08:52:29] So I think this is about the best we can do at this particular point. Thank you, Supervisor Smith. Thank you. Supervisor Stork. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to support Supervisor Smith's motion, and I'm going to have a butt with that.

[08:52:47] I'm going to support it fully, but I think Tamara Schrader, president of the Auditon Civic Association, and talked about Aventon, talked about something that Supervisor Gross just mentioned, which is a core challenge that I have with doing more. I mean, I'm interested in doing more, but the reality has been we have some incremental or maybe some growth work that we need to do to protect some of the older neighborhoods that don't really have it.

[08:53:16] For example, in that neighborhood, there's mostly just off-street parking for the folks who own the houses there. And so when you introduce 126 new units, even though it had parking theoretically for the residents, you've now pushed people onto the street more, and now you have a big, big problem.

[08:53:34] And that's really where the enforcement issue is real and critical. And I think, as most of us know, some of the police stations have not had parking enforcement officers, so it's made the challenge a double challenge. So, Tamara, I'm with you.

[08:53:50] We got it. We're working on it. And, yes, we need to be moving forward, but I'm going to support this because I think it does, It kind of helps to get us in the right place, even though there's obviously more we're going to need to do, particularly in our transit areas. So I'm particularly pleased with the fact that it establishes the first bicycle parking requirements, which I thought was a big plus, as well as it has charging guidelines.

[08:54:15] I think those are also two critical elements, some of the affordable housing balancing that it does. And again, staff did an amazing job, not only working with you and the Planning Commission and Chairman Adelske-Eichner. Thank you very much and your folks, your commissioners, for doing such a great job.

[08:54:32] Listening, spending years to try to find the right balance, tweaking it, and really, I think, coming up with a product that I think we're right to move forward with. And obviously, we'll look to not wait another 38 years to adjust it. So, again, thank you very much.

[08:54:49] Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1988 has been talked about. I was alive in 1988. But I looked it up, the Berlin Wall was standing, and Joe Biden was running for president, so something's in the circle.

[08:55:07] Supervisor Lusk and Alcorn were doing keg stands on the lawn at UVA, right? I didn't do that. But it's been a long time, and obviously, you know, the world has changed. Another thing that was happening in 1988 is this building and this complex was being designed and imagined, And folks who came here tonight to participate in this saw what was imagined in terms of how much parking was needed.

[08:55:35] And I think it's illustrative of an era when, you know, the idea was the worst possible thing that could ever happen is that somebody could show up and have to circle for a few minutes to find a parking spot, right?

[08:55:51] And everything was designed to avoid that possibility. And that led us to, you know, I was amazed in one of our first presentations when staff shared that they had gone out and looked at the parking at retail pharmacies, 30 different locations, I think.

[08:56:11] And the average was that 22 of 81 spaces were being used. Just incredible amounts of wasted space. And I didn't hear anybody, I don't think, defending that tonight.

[08:56:26] I recognize people have different perspectives on other aspects of this. But I think we all agree we can do better than that, especially in the commercial level. So that just needed to happen 20 years ago.

[08:56:43] I'm glad that we're getting to it, and I think everyone has been involved in it. On the residential side, you know, I will say I represent, like all of us probably, some of those older townhome and multifamily communities, many of which, at least in the Braddock District, were built before the 1988 levels, actually lower levels than the current status quo.

[08:57:12] And, you know, if you talk to folks in that community, they do have challenges finding parking. Part of that we can address by continuing to work to improve the public transportation that we provide to those communities.

[08:57:28] But I think it's important to note that there is no scenario under which those communities would have more parking without a tradeoff. And we think about, you know, what do we value? And one of the speakers talked about cars give us autonomy and freedom.

[08:57:47] And I agree with that. I enjoy the autonomy and freedom and convenience that my car provides for me. But I think, like most of us, I place more value on the home that gives safety and security to my family, from which we can then enjoy autonomy and freedom.

[08:58:09] And in those neighborhoods that are under-parked currently, that were built pre-1988, some pre-1978, If we had required them to have more parking, what it means is some of those families that now have homes, low and moderate income working class families, would not have those homes because they would be parking spaces instead.

[08:58:33] Or the playground that's in the community wouldn't be there because it would be 10 parking spaces instead. Or the little bit of green space that they enjoy wouldn't be there because it would be parking spaces instead. So there's a trade-off. There's some inconvenience in sometimes it being challenging to find a parking space.

[08:58:53] But the tradeoff is they have a home to live in, and there's a playground and some green space. So there isn't a perfect answer, but I think it's important to start with what do we value? And do our parking standards reflect those values in terms of the needs in the community?

[08:59:11] And I think this gets us closer to it. I do want to thank everyone involved. Staff's been mentioned a lot. Supervisor Smith has done incredible work and put an incredible amount of time in this, the Planning Commission, all of the community members. I actually think there was a lot of productive dialogue and engagement.

[08:59:30] I talked to folks on both sides of it, most of whom were really trying to engage with the substance of it and did so in a productive way, and I think we got to a better place, and I'll be happy to support the motion. Thank you.

[08:59:45] Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Just very quickly, you know, this whole thing is basically a Rorschach test on suburbia. I mean, it really is. I mean, this is basically how people view our community, where they live, you know, if we're going in the right direction, if we're not.

[09:00:04] And there are a lot of strong feelings we've heard. But I just want to basically point out that the Planning Commission took all that and really worked through not just people's feelings, but actually did what they're supposed to do by statute, which is to promote the orderly development of the locality and its environs.

[09:00:25] And I think this is a great example of the Planning Commission filling that role. And, you know, the only thing that in Supervisor Smith's motion that had given me a little bit of pause and I looked into it is the Planning Commission recommended getting rid of the administrative waiver altogether for already approved.

[09:00:46] But after thinking about it and talking to some people, it is currently in the, as staff mentioned, it's currently in the ordinance. And this would actually be taking that away. And also, I consider the 15%, I would say, modest as an administrative waiver.

[09:01:08] So I'm good with the statute, or sorry, I'm good with the motion. I'll be supporting it. I did want to mention one group that I don't think has been mentioned yet, and that's the Parking Reimagine Work Group. Gary Maup has been sitting up there.

[09:01:24] Sally Horn was mentioned earlier. These folks put a lot of time into this, working with staff. And I would note we still have 300 mil folks up there. I see you. Thank you. But I also want to just finish with thanking Supervisor Smith.

[09:01:41] You know, this has been a mountain to climb and a lot of different points of view, very technical, sometimes a moving target. And thank you for pulling this together and getting to this point that we actually are, it looks like, going to be acting on it tonight.

[09:02:02] So thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Alcorn. And let me finish by also trying to be brief since we're well into our 12th hour of this meeting. But I want to start. First, Mr. Hoffman was mentioned.

[09:02:18] I've got to tell you, you've coined the right description for this, which is the issue from hell. So thank you. for that. I think it's fair to say when we began this process that everyone agreed that the current tabs don't work. And so we could have done what boards have done for decades and said, we're not going to tackle it. We don't want to deal with the uncomfortableness of it.

[09:02:46] We could have done the same thing with Zmod. We could have said, now, you know, 50 years going by without changing anything and acting like nothing's changed in Fairfax County for 50 years might have been the safest political route to take. But it would have ignored, I think, a really important word that was used in a lot of testimony today, which is thinking about the future. And unfortunately, in the case of parking, there wasn't a lot of thought about the future many years ago. And that's one of the reasons why this is such a challenge for us to deal with today. It's taken

[09:03:21] courage for the community. It's taken courage for this board, for the staff, for a long period of time, uh, to have these conversations. And, and, and I want to recognize that there's no right or wrong answers to these in my mind. Um, I don't think there's two sides. I think there's people who are concerned, um, about the community that they live in and they might just have different perspectives on that. So, which is what I like about supervisor Smith's motion is I, I would call it a grand compromise in some ways, um, where we have taken pieces of the planning commission's

[09:03:57] recommendation, taking pieces of the staff recommendation, and I think cobbled together something that recognizes a lot of the testimony that we heard today and also recognizes that, unlike some other jurisdictions maybe that have been used as comparisons, Fairfax County is extraordinarily diverse in its topography, in its land use, in its design, and it's very hard to do ordinances or parking tabs in a one-size-fits-all environment with a county that's so different at a granular street level.

[09:04:33] You know, the first time I realized that we really needed to change our parking tabs was in 2008 when there was a big-box retail store that still exists today in master-planned Kingstown, home to 15,000 people now.

[09:04:50] And that big-box store, I had a meeting with them to see if they would be open to using their hundreds of unused parking spaces for commuter parking so that we could set up a bus commuter station to run straight to the Van Doren Metro.

[09:05:07] And the representatives for that company looked me square in the eye and said, we will never do that because we must have every single one of these parking spaces available for the day after Thanksgiving and the weekend before Christmas. us. And so I went out on those days every year since 2008. And that parking lot has never been close to being full, not even close. And I walk across that parking lot with my dog three days a week and pray that, you know, maybe one day people will use this parking. No, I don't pray that I pray

[09:05:44] maybe one day this parking can be repurposed into something that community can take advantage of in a master plan community where there is a sea of asphalt with a ton of pedestrians that have to walk across it every single day to get from one point to another because one corporate entity decided they were concerned about those days and have never achieved that mark. And I compare that to we've all been in these meetings with HOAs where parking is a concern. And I think it's illustrative of the wide array of parking challenges that we have in the county. And And sometimes the two of them are in conflict with each other.

[09:06:22] And so that's why I think this compromise that's been described makes a lot of sense. I do want to say that there are two other things that have surprised me that I've heard recently. And I just want to make sure I share these because I think the board has heard this.

[09:06:37] We have heard from the school superintendent about this huge change in driving behaviors of young people. And I see it even in my kids' school where less and less kids are racing to the DMV the day they turn 16 and get their license.

[09:06:53] And I think part of that is because this board made the conscious decision years ago on a motion that Supervisor Hudgens and I made to start offering free transit bus passes to kids, to kids in school. And I think it's paying off as you're seeing these kids have found, regardless of income, that student bus pass is their freedom.

[09:07:14] They can't afford a car, their freedom to get to work, their freedom to be able to travel safely as a pedestrian and take advantage also of what this community has to offer. The other thing that jumps out at me is when we have talked about car taxes and how we've tried to tax a lower percentage of car values over the last couple of years to deal with the huge cost increase in cars.

[09:07:38] And what struck me is for the last two years, something happened in this county, according to DTA, that has never happened in the county's history before. And that is that over the last two years, there have been fewer registered vehicles in Fairfax County than the years before. Never has happened.

[09:07:55] Maybe it's COVID related. Maybe it's inflation related. Maybe it's not a long-term trend. But for the first time in the county's history, there were two consecutive years where car registrations are on the decline. So there are things happening in the community that that are changing, and I think we do have to be cognizant of that.

[09:08:15] And of course, the issues of climate change and some of the other things that have been discussed. I did a board matter earlier today for those still listening to have a particular look at ADA parking. This is something that I don't think was vetted as well as it could have been through this process.

[09:08:33] And I think it's a really important issue. The community is aging. I'm not sure that any one of us wants to reduce ADA parking requirements, and we need to understand how we go back and fix that and perhaps even enhance that, because that is a concern of mine.

[09:08:52] It's right up there with, as a driver of an EV, pulling into a parking lot routinely and seeing a giant SUV parked in the EV parking charging station. It's right up there in terms of aggravation. And so I do think that the ADA parking thing is something to add to our list, and that's why I did the board matter earlier today, continue to work on that.

[09:09:15] I just want to close by, and I know Supervisor Smith has some follow-on motions in a minute that are important, but I do want to close by adding my thanks. I'm not going to name everyone again because everyone on this board has done a really good job of doing that. But I want to add Barbara Byron behind me to the folks who have been recognized on my team because she's done an amazing job working with the community and staff.

[09:09:38] And we have had so many pieces of correspondence come into my office, which is great from the community, people who are concerned about this issue. And as many others have said, I think all of those counted and made this process a lot better so we can be in a place here today where I think we've reached a very fair compromise.

[09:09:59] I'm not sure about the five years, Supervisor Gross. I mean, to some degree, I think we'll see some trends before that on micro projects, but I think on bigger, larger scale one might take more than five years. But I think the message is important, which is we're adopting something that should have been adopted, in my opinion, many decades ago.

[09:10:21] But it's going to require care and following by us. And as a result of that, we may have additional work to do, as others have talked about, in terms of parking enforcement and how we handle some other challenges that are out there. And so for all of those reasons, I'm going to support the motion and also salute Supervisor Smith.

[09:10:44] Because this has been a tall order. I'm not sure there has been a supervisor in my time on this board, and Supervisor Gross' time on this board. I'm not sure there's been a supervisor that's put more time and energy into a countywide policy like ZMOD and like this than Supervisor Kathy Smith has done.

[09:11:07] And we thank you for that public service. And I, of course, will be supporting the motion. With that said, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? And that motion carries 10 to 0.

[09:11:24] And at this time, I am going to turn to Kathy Smith, who has follow-on motions. So I'm going to have two follow-on motions. I know the Planning Commission had more, but a lot of what was in the Planning Commission's follow-on motions really address things we're already doing.

[09:11:40] We have safe streets for all. Staff's working on the process with the additional measures of effectiveness that's going to evaluate transportation with pedestrian, cars, transit. So we'll be looking at all those things.

[09:11:56] We're focused on active Fairfax. We've committed $100 million over six years, and we've already set aside $56 million for that, so we're dealing with a lot of those things. So there are two motions, but I'm going to read them both, and then we'll vote. So, number one, the impact of implementing the parking reimagined ordinance requirements will only be understood over time.

[09:12:17] Therefore, I move that the Board direct Land Development Services and the Department of Planning and Development to monitor the effect of adopted changes to the parking requirements to include collection of relevant data to assess their effect. The relevant data could include trends in provided parking, the number and types of requests and approvals for parking adjustments, operational effects on parking-related processes, experiences with the Transportation Demand Management Program, and other relevant measures of effectiveness.

[09:12:47] Data collection should be designed to help evaluate whether further modifications to the ordinance are warranted. While data will begin to accumulate from the effective date, a report to the Board should be provided approximately five years after the effective date, but no later than December 31, 2029, to allow time to gauge significant long-term effects of the adopted changes.

[09:13:08] And also, the extended multi-year process of updating the county's parking requirements has generated extensive public interest that can be expected to continue, particularly regarding administrative decisions delegated to the Director of Land Development Services.

[09:13:24] Therefore, I move that the Board direct the Director of Land Development Services to establish before January 1, 2024, a readily accessible link to a web page that, among other purposes, permits the public to sign up for an electronic listserv and be notified for informational purposes when a request is being made for a parking adjustment.

[09:13:47] I'm happy to second those motions. Discussion on the motions? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And those motions carry. And is that all, Supervisor Smith. With that, if there's no further business to come before the board, our meeting of September 26, 2023 is adjourned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com