Notes from Reston 2020 Meeting, February 4, 2010

The meeting of the Reston 2020 Committee was called to order at 7:05 PM. More than 20 committee members and other participants were present.

Agenda Item #1: Planning next steps for Working Groups

Dick Stillson, Reston 2020 co-chair, started by noting that it appears that the community will have to move forward on its own to support the task force because the task force has not further considered the Reston 2020 Community Work Group (CWG) proposal per a conversation with is chair, Patty Nicoson. She offered a deficient alternative of task force member-led special topic groups on matters peripheral to the task force’s primary agenda. In a conversation with Stillson Feb. 3rd, Paul Thomas, the Reston Association Board’s member of the Task Force, said that the RA Board had charged its key committees to support the task force through the RA Board. He suggested that Reston 2020 proceed with its specific studies and write papers to the task force, preferably endorsed by all three key Reston civic groups (RA, RCA, & ARCH). He added that RA’s committees could serve as advisory groups on important issues and everyone is welcome to contribute. He found that committees were not enthusiastic about this approach. The issue is whether Reston 2020 should act independently, coordinate, or join with the RA committees in their efforts.

An extended discussion ensued on how best to proceed in making the needs of Reston’s citizens known to the task force. Among the ideas were: setting up the CWGs using (among others) volunteers from among the Land Use College participants, need to integrate the various citizens’ proposed planning principles, public demonstrations, joining the RA efforts, seeking legal assistance to stop changes, etc. Some key points made in the discussion included:
• Time is of the essence. For largely administrative reasons, RA is having difficulty launching its efforts. When RA moves forward, Reston 2020 ought to try to coordinate efforts with them.
• The civic groups would be far more effective if they all worked together. They certainly shouldn’t disagree in public.
• It is extremely difficult to communicate with and mobilize Reston’s population to act. Two instances in recent memory where mobilizing the public was effective: Reston South Park N’ Ride and Brown’s Chapel recreation center proposal. Need to understand—and use—the techniques that made those efforts effective. The focal point for Restonians’ influence should be the County, which ultimately decides what happens.
• Even working independently, each Reston group could offer to endorse the proposal put forth by others. RCA President Marion Stillson has already made this offer on behalf of RCA.
• We do not have a sufficient legal understanding to move forward alone. Although we would be best served by working within the process, we need an attorney who knows land use laws and regulations (e.g.—does FAR include parking?) and is willing to provide pro bono assistance.

Actions: Those present moved, seconded, and approved in near unanimity the following motions:

1. Reston 2020 Committee will:
a. Create several Community Working Groups (CWG) that draw from Land Use College (LUC) participants and other volunteers. (Follow-up: Dick Stillson will contact LUC participants to seek volunteers to work on the CWGs and will be the process of identifying interim working group chairs.)
b. Ask each CWG to assign one person to attend and participate in each counterpart RA or other civic group committee effort—and encourage broader CWG participation. Other civic group committees would be encouraged to reciprocate by participating in each CWG.
c. Encourage the RCA Board to endorse other civic groups’ Reston planning positions, and it encourages other civic groups to reciprocate.

2. Reston 2020 Committee will integrate all available citizens’ proposed Reston planning principles for committee and RCA Board approval. (Follow-up: Davood Sagherian to draft over the weekend.)

3. Reston 2020 Committee will identify attorneys who may be able to provide pro bono legal assistance on land use matters. (Dan Maguire and Dick Stillson)

Agenda Item #2: Handling independent papers on Reston planning (e.g.—Dave Edwards’ draft transportation paper)

Dick Stillson noted that the committee had received an excellent draft paper on Reston transportation issues that, among other topics, addressed implementation issues such as phasing and financing of transportation requirements. Among its proposals is the creation of a tax increment policy to fund transportation needs. This would reserve for financing Reston infrastructure a portion of increases in property taxes due to development in Reston. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the financing arrangements. Still, the issue was how to handle this and other independently prepared papers. Dave Edwards noted that the paper was still a draft and intended primarily for the county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A key problem is that the task force is not addressing implementation issues.

Action: It was moved, seconded, and nearly unanimously approved to refer such papers to the appropriate working group for their consideration. (In this case, the appropriate working groups would be Transportation and Implementation.)

Agenda Item #3: Potential action regarding the Comstock Wiehle Station Area proposal

Dick Stillson introduced the topic of whether the Reston 2020 Committee should do anything about the Comstock Wiehle Station Area proposal and, if so, what. Notice was made of Terry Maynard’s paper on the proposal’s lack of fit with the proposed planning principles. All agreed that the proposal did not reflect Restonians’ values or expectations for transit-oriented development (TOD) along the Dulles Corridor. There was some question whether “FAR” included above ground parking, which basically doubles the density of the project proposal. It was noted that the matter would be before the February 8 (now postponed to February 15 due to snow) meeting of the Reston Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Committee, and that they are not pleased with the proposal. There was general agreement that Restonians should voice their concerns to the committee, the Planning Commission (meets on March 25 re the proposal), and subsequently to the Board of Supervisors.

Actions: The following were moved, seconded, and approved by those present:

1. The Committee would try to determine through pro bono legal counsel whether above ground parking counted as FAR in Fairfax County. (Dan Maguire)

2. The Committee would generate and compile alternative architectural ideas on how the site could be developed in a manner that met Restonians’ expectations. (Guy Rando)


A motion was made, seconded, and passed to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM.