John Murphy

1. Please explain the role you believe the City of Falls Church should play in expanding housing choice and opportunities for those living here or wishing to live here. What Changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance would you support or oppose?

The Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (COG) covers about 4,000 square miles. The City represents about 0.05% of the area. COG is calling for 320,000 new housing units between 2020 and 2030. Since the City is expected to produce about 2,000 new units (open, under construction or approved) during that time period, we are shouldering .6% of real housing growth. We are clearly lifting more than our weight on housing unit creation to address the regional shortage. The housing being created is for the most part very expensive. New townhouses that cost over $1M in our redefined transitional or T Zones increase unit counts but don’t meet the needs of local business employees or teachers and other City employees who would love to live where they work if they could afford it. I believe that our community would prefer both economic opportunity and doing our fair share. Our tree canopy is below COG recommendations. There is a balance that can be found to meet regional goals. If we want housing that is for a range of incomes, the City might study the creation of a housing authority to buy or develop affordable housing and operate it. We can talk about affordable housing but the market does not provide adequate numbers, even in new developments. We need to buckle down and do it. Creation of a housing authority, if economically feasible, would require a referendum so the public can speak about our goals and priorities.

As for the proposed ADU ordinance, my biggest concern is that the City is small and a one size fits all proposal is not going to work or provide reasonable results. We have not looked at options like adding potential accessory dwellings in business or other districts. We need to get the number of current unpermitted accessory dwelling units, get counts of the potentially larger number of existing accessory buildings that could be converted, and get the number of parcels that are not already at building and impervious surface limits, then develop a plan that looks at the potential impacts on roads, schools, sanitary sewer infrastructure, storm water and other public services. Policy without adequate data is working in the dark. Getting data on unpermitted units is not easy but we need a solid baseline when projecting potential impacts.

2. What are your thoughts on the specific bicycle routes proposed by staff in the draft update of the Bicycle Master Plan, specifically North and South West Street and the east-west connection from the W&OD to the secondary campus. Additionally, how would you balance the need for safe bike infrastructure with the availability of parking on City streets?

I generally support the concepts in the revisions of the Bike Master Plan. Good connections are necessary for a functioning system. In 2008, I undertook a study of unimproved rights of way owned by the City to find connections that could be made for cyclists and pedestrians. The study involved historical maps from the 1800s forward, land use records, and a photographic listing of potential improvements. Last week, I had a long discussion with the person driving the connected dual use trails system in the Monterey Bay area of California that has been funded at over $50 million. Connections and connected trails for pedestrians and cyclists can work in spectacular fashion.

The Bike Master Plan revisions are missing the pedestrian connection and pedestrian needs. Government’s role in public safety extends to all modes of transportation. Government can’t fund one while ignoring others. We need a Pedestrian Master Plan to partner with the Bike Master Plan. We need to balance finite funding to remove utility poles and recently installed wayfinding signs from sidewalks and improve bicycle safety. I’m frustrated when we spend substantial amounts for ADA compliant curb crossings on sidewalks that cannot handle a wheel chair or stroller to get to those compliant crossings. I also have a significant concern about using private property as the preferred campus route through the Falls Plaza Condominiums. The City should work with the Falls Plaza community or find a different route if the private property owners do not agree with the plan. Basing a plan on a path without community buy-in is a recipe for an incomplete implementation.

3. Transportation and buildings account for 90% of Falls Church’s carbon emissions. What if any actions would you take to reduce emissions in these areas?

Addressing carbon reduction requires more granularity than 90% of carbon emissions come from buildings and transportation. As with accessory dwelling units, one size does not fit all. A recent Falls Church Climate Action Network report breaks things down further. On road vehicles account for 37%, buildings (electricity) account for 35%, and buildings (natural gas) account for 16% based on Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) estimates. Each requires analysis of data and specific actions to reduce carbon. We have a Bike Master Plan and I propose a Pedestrian Master Plan to reduce driving. A majority of vehicles going through Falls Church do not reside here. That is largely beyond our control. So focus on what else we can do. For buildings (electricity), 23% commercial and 12% residential, incentives to change to more efficient and effective new technology such as LED lighting and heat pumps and incentivizing purchasing renewable electricity sources might be useful. For buildings (natural gas), 11% residential and 5% commercial, incentives to switch from gas to renewable electricity would also work. Incentives would have to come through existing tax revenue sources in the absence of state or Federal grants and would result in less revenue for other things. It’s up to us to offer the choice for a cleaner environment.

4. What, if any, economic development initiatives will you support to generate the revenue to meet our city’s high level of public services (e.g., public schools, parks, public safety) while maintaining a reasonable tax burden on residents and businesses?

I will support economic development that meets three sustainable criteria – economic, environmental, and social. Recently, the City learned that development does not pay for development. While the City reports $4 million of NET new revenue from mixed use development, we also are $40 million short on sanitary sewer capacity. Tax abatements for new development do not help that shortfall. That shortfall will ultimately be covered by tax payers and sewer utility customers. Falls Church needs to do a better job of evaluating true costs and the marginal impact on infrastructure and City services for new developments. We had a very good fiscal impact model developed by Tishler Bise Associates but the variables used are defined by the City. We need to make sure that City defined variables in the model are accurate and up to date on a regular basis. The George Mason Sewer project to increase pipe sizes from the high school to Oak Street Elementary to accommodate the West End development project did not include the costs to private property owners who were impacted. The new larger pipes funnel into a Fairfax County sanitary sewer connection that could not handle the increased usage without substantial purchases of additional capacity and mitigation measures for existing problems with inflow of storm water. I support any development that improves the City finances, but experience says many have resulted in hidden costs that are not readily apparent. I’m a realist and practical analyst of projects who looks for practical solutions. We need more of that in Falls Church City.