Notes on Town Center Committee Meeting, October 5, 2010, John Lovaas

Reston Parkway/Town Center Subcommittee

Meeting Notes –October 5, 2010

Meeting was moved to daylight, starting at 8:30 AM with Robert Goudie chairing.  This was last meeting before the committee’s final report  presentation to the Task Force on Tuesday, Oct. 12.  The purpose of today’s meeting: address latest redline of draft report, get final comments.  After meeting, Goudie said he would do final edits incorporating agreed changes, with a view to getting report to TF in next couple of days—well before Tuesday meeting.  He noted that Joe Stowers may want to update his “Minority Report” and that Teri Phillips may also add a dissent statement.

Goudie opened meeting by remarking on receipt of letter from Guy Rando with open space water feature proposal.  Did anyone want to re-open his proposal—no, moving on!  Then, he noted Terry Maynard’s comments on the committee draft.  Rather than discussing substantive suggestions made in said letter, Goudie instead angrily bashed it as “personal attack [in] nature’, “factually inaccurate, mean-spirited and in bad faith…from people [sic] who are supposed to be responsible.”   

(Maynard comment:  Nothing in my remarks in either my e-mail to the committee or my analysis of the massive density the committee is proposing—more development than in Tysons!—was personal.  [Both are available on the blog here and here.]  My remarks were—and remain—highly critical of the report the committee is assembling that would give developers building rights unprecedented anywhere in Fairfax County at the great expense of the Reston community. I will continue to criticize the report accordingly.  If Mr. Goudie wishes to take the remarks personally as a sign of failed leadership, that’s his choice.  Most importantly, the comments I made were mine alone—as I’ve said before—and may or may not reflect the views of other “people.”)

As a discussion of open space issues began, Robert Simon walked in and was introduced by Mr. Goudie.  Simon contributed thoughts on open space and natural areas:  Open space, he said, is “distance between things”, nothing more.  Hence, parking lots, rooftops, lakes, areas between buildings, etc all qualify.  No qualifiers such as functional or public-use are needed.  Further, he disagrees with percentage requirements for open space.  He also repeated his view that there should be NO natural areas in urban areas such as Town Center.  (In a Vision Committee meeting, he had upset a few folks when he said all natural areas should be bulldozed, replaced with well-designed, attractive plantings consistent with the urban design.)  His remarks led to a half-hour discussion of open space definitions –e.g., functional open space, publicly accessible, etc.  Heidi said the Vision Committee should focus on open space definitions for overall TF use. 

Mark Looney expressed concern with use of functional open space being construed to mean “for public use or accessible”.  That could get us into all kinds of tough areas involving:  private land, liability issues, access control, inadequate policing, etc, he said.   Pete Otteni could envision a scene with “Cindy Sheehan coming to protest” on Boston Property land, for example!

Goudie tried to move to new topic, pointing out that some groups, like RCA, were arguing for 25% open space, others for strict application of county urban park standards and larger recreation uses.  The committee, he said, had tried tocome out somewhere between extremes although he did not indicate the low-end extreme.  Time to move on. . . .    

Before moving, Otteni said the committee was in fact setting higher open space requirement than is urban norm.  Why not say, target is “20% with as much as possible functional.”  Teri Phillips spoke up—if we are protecting an urban norm, then we should not widen roads, e.g., Reston Parkway, through the urban area.  Suggestion died.

Discussion of the FAR 5.0 for all Metro North and South.  Feeling by Keefe, Goudie, others that the concept is widely misunderstood.  That is, the FAR 5.0 is not “by right” but is available only to all those coming in with land-use applications which meet the many criteria established by committee—such as 1:1 residential to office (trades with other areas do apply), inter- and intra-parcel connectivity, adequate open space, and distinctive architecture.  So, applicant must apply for 5.0 option and meet these criteria.  (Note: Anyone applying for lesser F.A.R. like a 4.5 would not be held to these criteria?)  Goudie will add a statement to make clear 5.0 is an option, not by right for all.

Redline draft recommends that classifications of roads and streets and their uses be lifted from the Tysons plan which he said will serve RTC.  No objection.   Group agreed to Goudie’s suggestion that he replace language proposed by owners of Reston Times building property that would have allowed them unlimited flexibility, including doing single use office building.  Language will require use/s consistent with surrounding Spectrum plan and overall TCN.

Goudie opened meeting to comments from committee members.  Only Teri Phillips and Susan Mockenhaupt had suggestions.  Noritake, Otteni, Looney, Keefe all accepted report as redlined. 

• -Teri Phillips still preferred another approach to TCN open space and might add a minority opinion to end of report.  She also had concerns about inadequate connectivity and saw many issues with functionality of proposal without addressing connectivity, infrastructure—implementation issues.
• -Ray Noritake opined that it would have been better in many respects if the Vision Committee had been created first (as many of us had argued to no avail), and given the others a better framework.  But, what’s [un]done is done!
• Susan Mockenhaupt had 5 points, two really stirred up the dust!
• She argued that wording calling for “distinctive architecture” was too weak, that what exists now is not that good (with some exceptions) and we should strive for world class in Reston Town Center.  Otteni took strong exception, arguing curiously enough that she needed to understand that there were cost factors to be considered, it wasn’t just a matter of getting a world class architect—and theirs was pretty good.  Further, he argued, the tenants were not concerned about architecture or seeking “leading edge” anyway!   [Seemed to me he was making her argument.]
• She also said she wished to change her earlier vote supporting the Looney proposal to drop workforce/affordable housing requirements to incentivize developer “pioneers” in Metro South.  Why?   She said, “because it is simply wrong’ to exclude exactly the kind of people who would benefit by access to rail.  Miraculously, in a quick re-vote of the committee, everyone bailed out on their previous votes, mostly on the grounds that this was becoming politically embarrassing, hurting the report.

When Goudie called for a possible re-vote on issue of relieving developers under similar circumstances of the requirement to make contributions to “offsite improvements” such as schools, firehouses, and other community goods, the group had lost its community spirit and would not revote that point.  Interestingly, on these last two matters of County policy, Heidi Merkel told the group it was unlikely staff would go along with either of those two suggestions for developer desired cost savings.

Attendance—I counted 17 in the room—10 development-related, including 6 developers, 2 architects, and 2 land-use law firm reps; and only 7 civilians, including Dave Edwards!

Notetaker:  John Lovaas