Falls Church Forward Candidate Questionnaire

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 Ordinance would you support or oppose?

Laura Downs
A thriving, vibrant community can only exist with a diverse community. Diversity of all kinds- age, socioeconomic status, education level, and ethnicity is bolstered by a diversity of housing options. We should strive to be a community where people can both work and afford to live. Young singles, families, empty-nesters, retirees, senior citizens, service industry workers, teachers, and city staff, should all be able to find a home in Falls Church City. The City Council and General Government play a major role as they work with developers to offer affordable housing in their buildings. The new townhouses in the T-Zone are not necessarily “Affordable,” but they are certainly more affordable than the majority of detached houses in the city. I support the city’s efforts to purchase lots at Virginia Village with the goal of developing an affordable housing project there. In terms of ADUs, I’ve attended the CC work session and the last two open houses on ADUs. I’ve found the community feedback to be interesting and split. Overall, I support ADUs as a means of increasing the housing inventory and providing housing for elderly relatives, disabled family members, and caregivers. In listening to the community, it seems the biggest concern is that residents are worried about ADUs becoming short-term rentals (Airbnbs). If there is a way to regulate this, I believe the community would be more supportive.

John Murphy
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 bicycle infrastructure with the availability of parking on City streets?

Laura Downs
Our family lives on the East side of town, near Dulin Methodist Church. We have a son at Meridian and a son at Henderson Middle School. I do not feel comfortable having our 7th grader ride his bike to the secondary campus from our house, so I would certainly support connecting the W & OD to the secondary campus. The North and South West streets would be an ideal way to connect the north and the south parts of the city as those streets are wider with fewer vehicles using street parking. The balance between bike infrastructure and street parking can be tricky as the streets in front of our homes do not belong to us, but we feel they do, especially if we like to park in front of our homes. A combination of detailed street measurements, traffic and parking studies, conversations with neighbors, and looking at each block individually can help strike a healthy balance between bicycle infrastructure and the desire for street parking.

John Murphy
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, what actions will you support to reduce emissions in these areas?

Laura Downs
The newly built Meridian High School was awarded the LEED Gold certification. Its geothermal HVAC, solar panels, and net zero-ready status prove that it is possible to have a state-of-the-art building that is environmentally responsible and can be built on time and on budget. That said, there is room for improvement with our school bus fleet. Due to the distances buses must travel to take our athletes to away games (sometimes as far as a two-hour drive), FCCPS will need some diesel buses, but the school system could determine the minimum number of diesel buses that would be necessary. I would assume a goal of just 25% of the school bus fleet being diesel would be a good goal. While electric buses cost nearly three times the amount of a diesel bus, given that carbon emission reduction is a city-wide goal, I would support efforts for the general government to help supplement and obtain grant funding to offset the costs. In addition, I’m in support of offering tax incentives for businesses and developers who implement measures to reduce carbon emissions, as well as city funding for programs that promote energy audits. Often making an environmentally friendly investment can also be the financially prudent choice, saving money for the city, residents, and businesses in the long run. Finally, making the city more walkable, with a variety of housing options, enables people to live, work and shop here and become less reliant on cars. Improving the infrastructure for alternate modes of transportation like electric scooters and electric bikes will help reduce the number of cars on the street.

John Murphy
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?

Laura Downs
I would support a wide array of economic development initiatives, especially commercial projects with strong financial foundations. These initiatives not only help pay for our city services but also help reduce the burden of personal property taxes, ensuring a more sustainable future for our community. I also support mixed-use development, as it generates multiple streams of revenue—not just from property taxes, but also from sales and meals taxes generated by the commercial spaces within these buildings. Voluntary Concessions from developers also help with school expansion and other public services such as the Mary Riley Styles Library and pedestrian safety improvements. In addition, streamlining the permitting process for small businesses will encourage them to open in the city. By attracting more businesses, we’ll create new job opportunities and contribute to the growth and vitality of our community. I support the city’s incentives for local businesses- the commercial property rehabilitation tax abatement program, the technology zone program, and the industrial revenue bonds program (bonds issued by the EDA). There will always be a demand for medical care in our area, so investing in medical office buildings such as the new development at West Falls is a solid approach. The Falls Church Economic Development Office is also a terrific resource for our businesses. I support its programs and initiatives, such as the “Little City Gift Card” program and “Falls Church Restaurant Week.” Notably, the EDO also recently created a “Visit Falls Church” tourism website. Promoting businesses and special events and destinations such as the Eden Center can bring people in from outside FCC to spend money at our businesses.

John Murphy
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.