Council hears staff recommendation not to reopen comprehensive plan guidance for mixed‑use outside activity centers

City planning staff on Sept. 9 recommended that Fairfax City Council not pursue an immediate reevaluation of the comprehensive plan’s guidance on mixed‑use development outside designated activity centers.

Division Chief of Planning Paul Napti told council that the 2024 comprehensive plan review—conducted under a required five‑year update process—added a mixed‑use place type and parcel‑specific language that already identifies two city parcels as candidates for mixed‑use development outside activity centers (Fairfax Square and the Inova site on Cambridge Road). Napti said staff and the Planning Commission had examined property sizes, building‑to‑land value ratios and office vacancy data and concluded there is not yet an urgent market signal to broaden mixed‑use allowances citywide.

Napti and other staff noted several concerns with broadening mixed‑use conversions: potential loss of commercially valuable office stock that supports the city’s tax base, dilution of investment that city leaders expect to concentrate in activity centers, and the complexity of reopening recently adopted comprehensive‑plan language that had extensive prior public review.

Members of the council voiced differing views. Council member Hardy Chandler said she supported staff’s recommendation not to amend the plan now because dilution of activity‑center investment is a strong concern. Council member Bates said she would be more open to targeted, case‑by‑case conversions but still emphasized protections for commercial capacity and attention to affordable housing priorities. Council member Peterson requested further analysis on the city’s fiscal reliance on commercial property and vacancy trends; staff said Fairfax City’s office vacancy rates have been lower than regional averages and, given the city’s small supply of Class A office space, that reduces pressure for wholesale office‑to‑residential conversion.

Napti flagged additional forthcoming analyses that could inform future decisions: an Economic Development Authority/City economic analysis of office‑to‑residential conversions (expected to go to the EDA in fall) and an affordable‑housing strategic plan, plus periodic reviews of adopted small‑area plans. The planning commission had earlier (5–1) recommended in March that the council receive staff’s presentation and not proceed with changes at this time; the commission asked council to weigh in as well.

Council did not vote on a comp‑plan amendment at the Sept. 9 session; staff asked for direction on whether to proceed with a reevaluation. Several council members asked for more information from the upcoming office‑conversion analysis and the city’s affordable‑housing plan before making a policy change.