Environmental Sustainability Council

Environmental Sustainability Council/Energy Transition Subcommittee Meeting Agenda July 18, 2024 ❖ 7:30pm 300 Park Ave, Council Chambers, Falls Church, Virginia 22046 ● Call to Order ● Roll Call o Joseph Schiarizzi, ESC Chair o Michael Trauberman, ESC Vice Chair o Clementine Kim, Youth Rep o Ali Campbell, Youth Rep o Debbie Hiscott, City Council Liaison to the ESC o David Stile, ESC Member o Chris Behr, ESC Member o Sarah Bayldon, ESC Member o Jack Trainor, Senior Planner o Kurt Lawrence, Staff Liaison to the ESC ● Public Comment Period o Gene Gresko, 129 N Fairfax St.: Requesting ESC vote against detached ADs due to tree canopy loss, increase in impervious surfaces, and greater energy loss as compared to attached ADs. o Pate Conly: Presented Falls Church Forward "Leave the Leaves" campaign for environmental benefits. ▪ Debbie H. suggested the city (DPW) leave the leaves on city owned property to demonstrate the practice. ▪ Mike T. asked about the City Council delivering a proclamation to create awareness and show support for the initiative.  o Jon Ward: Suggested annual review of the Community Energy Action Plan be moved to November for better alignment with budget cycles. Kurt agreed to consider moving this review to November. ● Approval of June Meeting Minutes o Mike T. made motion. Sarah B. seconded. Meeting minutes unanimously approved. ● Action Item: Vote on endorsing managing leaves in place – Joseph Schiarizzi (10 minutes) o Resolution read by Joseph. Joseph moved to endorse the practice of managing fall leaves in place. Sarah seconded. Motion was unanimously approved. ● Commercial Parking Relief Zoning Amendment – Jack Trainor (45 minutes) o Presentation covered the rationale and benefits for amendment. o Discussion on the various impacts of parking reductions ▪ Parking Uses: Discussed how these changes do not remove any spots but rather unlock uses for these existing buildings. ▪ Overflow Concerns: Discussed common community concerns that reducing the number of required parking spaces for commercial properties could lead to an increase in cars parking on residential streets. This could potentially inconvenience residents who are accustomed to having available street parking near their homes. ▪ Public Streets: It was emphasized that public streets are, by definition, public. This means that anyone can park on them, and residents do not have exclusive rights to the street parking in front of their homes. ▪ Existing Parking Restrictions: The discussion also touched on existing parking restrictions in certain areas, such as residential permit parking zones and time-limited parking areas. These restrictions are already in place to manage parking demand and could be adjusted or expanded if overflow becomes an issue. ▪ Free Market Solutions: There was a mention of how market dynamics could address some of the parking issues. For example, businesses might make private agreements with nearby property owners to lease unused parking spaces, as seen in some existing arrangements. Debbie H. mentioned smart cities grant that will help people find parking that already exists. She shared her viewpoint that there is a free market component that  building owners will only hurt their tenants if they don’t accommodate with enough parking. ▪ Encouraging Alternative Transportation: The potential positive impact of parking reductions on encouraging alternative modes of transportation was also discussed. By reducing parking requirements, the city might incentivize more people to walk, bike, or use public transportation, thereby reducing overall car dependency. ▪ Parking Use Tables: There was encouragement to revisit these regulations given they were defined in the 1960s. o Motion: Joseph moved to recommend a minimum of 1,500 square feet as the threshold for forgivable amount of square footage exempt from parking requirement. Mike T. seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. ● Accessory Dwellings Work Session – Jack Trainor (45 minutes) o Presentation covering ADs, the benefits, and why the city is considering changes.The public engagement schedule was outlined. o Discussion: ▪ Joseph S. recommends the city not hold votes at the near term community engagement events. Does not believe attendance at these particular events to be representative of a democratic process. ▪ Stormwater Management: ● Current Regulations: The city has existing regulations for stormwater management that apply to all residential properties, including those with accessory dwelling units (ADs). These regulations include requirements for managing stormwater runoff to prevent flooding and water pollution. ● State-Level Considerations: The Senate Bill 304 does not currently specify stormwater management requirements for ADs. ● Future Regulations: The city may need to consult with the city attorney to determine what additional stormwater requirements can be legally imposed on ADs at the local level. ▪ Tree Canopy Requirements: ● Current Regulations: The city has a 20% minimum tree canopy coverage requirement for residential properties.  ● Mitigation Strategies: To address these concerns, the city could consider requiring that any tree canopy lost due to the construction of an AD be replaced. This could involve planting new trees on the property or contributing to a city tree planting fund. Additionally, the city could enforce stricter tree preservation measures during the construction process. ▪ Parking Considerations: David S asked if there any strategies the city could put in place to encourage use of public transportation and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the city by potential tenants. ● Permit Restrictions: One suggestion was to implement permit restrictions that would prevent renters of ADs from obtaining residential parking permits. This would encourage tenants to use alternative modes of transportation rather than bringing additional vehicles into the area. ● Comparisons with Neighboring Jurisdictions: It was noted that neighboring jurisdictions like Alexandria have different approaches to parking requirements for ADs. For example, Alexandria does not require additional parking for ADs, which implicitly encourages the use of alternative transportation. ● Current Regulations: The current regulation in the city requires one off-street parking space for an AD. Comparisons were made with Arlington and Fairfax, where the requirements range from zero to one space, with Arlington allowing for a parking survey to determine the necessity. ▪ Mike T. is supportive of ADs, however, asked about other types of zoning options like allowing duplex (multi-family development). He would be more supportive of those types of zoning changes if they were on the table. His concern is that the development of ADs could preclude future development of more dense solutions like duplexes and triplexes. David S. expressed interest in learning how much the existing building lot coverage averages increase year over year within the city. If these averages are in fact increasing, he agreed it may be better use of the land to ultimately support duplex/triplex/quad type development over ADs. ▪ Jon Ward asked about ownership requirements and infrastructure capacity. Jack T. said the city is still discussing how ownership can be managed and if regulations would require ownership be the same as primary dwelling. Debbie H. mentioned city utility planning would need to accommodate future infrastructure capacity.  ▪ Joseph S. suggested the presentation be updated to include environmental benefits (specifically increasing density in transportation rich areas) ▪ Joseph S. asked about the ability to include energy efficiency, like LEED, requirements. Jack Trainor mentioned this may be counter to the objective of streamlining the permitting process. Joseph encouraged the staff to consider anything that can be put in place to optimize energy efficiency of future AD builds. ▪ David S. reiterated the need to consider anything that can be done to boost stormwater detention/retention requirements. Chris B. agreed. ▪ Next Steps: Await further details and future drafts from staff. ● Bike Master Plan Update – Joseph Schiarizzi (15 minutes) oReview of proposed bike lanes and routes. oSupport for staff-recommended routes, particularly for school access. oDebbie H feels strongly that the school route should be addressed first since it has been a community request for many years. o Next Steps: Joseph to draft a letter of support for bike lanes to city staff and circulate for asynchronous approval. ● Adjourn