Fairfax residents press council to halt or reroute George Snyder Trail, citing tree loss and limited outreach

At the March 25 Fairfax City Council meeting, a steady stream of residents urged elected officials to stop or rework the George Snyder Trail project, saying the city’s prior outreach understated environmental impacts and that alternatives exist that would avoid cutting mature trees.

Philip Latasa, speaking for Friends of Accotink Creek, urged the council to consider three western alternatives that would keep pavement and heavy earthwork out of woods and wetlands near Cardinal Road and connect to existing sidewalks along Eaton Place and Fairfax Boulevard. “This project is an opportunity to acquire the open space parcel at 10270 Fairfax Boulevard,” Latasa said, and to preserve a chain of city‑owned preserves along Accotink Creek.

Several speakers from Cambridge Station and Mosby Woods described what they called very limited outreach in 2020. Lynn McPherson said an outreach email had been sent only to an HOA president and that a subsequent August 2020 meeting drew “3 of 118 homes” — roughly 2.5 percent — of one affected neighborhood. McPherson and others asserted the project presentation did not disclose that the trail would be paved, that more than 500 trees would be removed or that the combined stream restoration and trail work would reduce tree canopy by about 19 percent.

Residents also warned of wildlife impacts. McPherson and others told the council they had documented birds of prey and other species in the corridor; one speaker invoked federal protections such as the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act when describing concerns about habitat loss.

The public also offered alternatives. Multiple speakers proposed routing the western portion of the trail along existing roads or through redeveloping parcels (for example, along the back edge of the Willowwood site) to avoid forested areas. Susan Kyler said VDOT staff had previously suggested focusing on the western half of the project and leaving the eastern half until questions were resolved.

Staff and council responded in kind. City staff told the council the last formal action on the project had authorized the work and that funds had been appropriated; staff also said it would not advertise a bid tomorrow and that there is time between now and the May 28 bid deadline for the council to take a different formal action. At the March 11 work session, staff said, the consensus had been not to proceed with a full trail until the council resolved remaining questions; nevertheless, absent a new council resolution staff will follow the prior authorization.

Councilmember comments reflected the split in the public record. Councilmembers asked that archived comments on the city’s engagement page remain visible even after design updates so residents can see previous views; others pressed staff to evaluate and present council options, including formal resolutions to terminate, modify or proceed with the project.

What happens next: staff said it is prepared to bring one or a series of resolutions reflecting the council’s preferences (terminate, modify or proceed) for formal action at an upcoming council meeting. The council also scheduled meetings with VDOT to discuss alternatives and next steps.

Provenance: This article synthesizes testimony and staff responses recorded March 25, 2025, during the council’s general public comment period and subsequent council discussion (public comment: multiple speakers; staff responses and procedural notes: staff presentation and council Q&A).