Notes on the RTF Steering Committee Meeting, June 28, 2011

                                       29 June 2011

                                       R. Rogers

    

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING: 28 June 2011

     Summary: The meeting focused on DPZ efforts to allocate density and mix in Reston for the purpose of submitting a proposal to transportation experts for review.  There was much discussion, but no decisions, except to identify issues and inputs needed to complete the current strawman proposal, which will not be submitted for transportation analysis until sometime after the July 26 full task force meeting.

Attendance: Good (even the Hendon–Monroe sub com reps were present). Notably missing were Looney and Otteni.  Also not attending were Fred Selden and Goldie Harrison.

Announcements: Patty Nicoson mentioned continuing discussions with Ray Lahood regarding Silver Line financing.  She mentioned that she had participated in a session with Chamber of Commerce and business officials who advocated cost containment measures for the line.

Public Comment: John Hanley read a statement from Reston 2020 questioning the use of GMU 2030 high data plus 20% for the transportation comparisons.(Comment: As with previous public comments, some of the impact is lost when key DPZ staff members and committee members are not yet present.)

Allocating GMU 2030 Development Projections

     The meeting focused on DPZ proposals for allocating potential development along the line of the GMU 2030 projections to different TOD areas.  In response to persistent question about why this was needed, Heidi M said that the location of development relative to the Toll Road and key arteries would have an impact on the transportation analysis.

     For this purpose DPZ put forward new maps (revised and edited versions are on the DPZ website. These somewhat clarify the confused figures handed out at the meeting).

     One, the “baseline map” included significant approved but not constructed development along with existing development to create a base line for allocation. The approved developments included – Spectrum, Oracle campus residential development, Comstock, JBG Reston Heights, as well as some others.

     This “baseline” was subtracted from the GMU 2030 projections to give an amount available for new development.

     DPZ also put forward a “2030 Scenario D” map which concentrated the area for new development immediately around the transit stations (also North Town Center and Isaac Newton).  The map included projected FARs—the most significant change from earlier DPZ projections was by granting a “5” FAR to the key Boston Properties site at North Town Center metro; other FARs proposed by the TC sub com remain downgraded.  Included in the fine print were estimates of the mix of uses.

     The proposal to concentrate development in a relatively small area triggered some unease for some sub-com members.  Heidi defended it saying that “we cannot provide infrastructure to all of the areas” identified by the station sub committees for development.  After discussion, it was left somewhat ambivalent whether development rights could be transferred to other areas in the TOD districts.  Heidi suggested that if developers were to come in to suggest more residential, they might get preference. Robert Goudie offered assurances that none of this has been agreed on for the plan, just for the test.

     Discussion then turned to revised DPZ tables projecting development levels at Wiehle and Town Center. These tables list the “baseline” number of residential units and square footage of residential, office and other non-residential development at each station.  (For the first time, DPZ rounded the figures.)  The new charts then compare the “baseline” totals against the GMU 2030 High +20%, and calculate the amount of incremental development that would be possible under the adjusted GMU projection (green columns on tables).  The new tables also listed the amount of incremental development used by DPZ in Scenario D (pink column), which assumes total redevelopment, not infill in the dark blue areas on the map.  Separate tables provided some background data for particular land units.  Robert Goudie requested additional background information regarding DPZ’s calculations.  During the discussion, several errors were noted which are corrected on the version subsequently posted to the DPZ site.

     Generally, the incremental development totals calculated by subtracting the baseline from the adjusted GMU projections were similar to those assumed by DPZ for purposes of Scenario D (compare green and pink columns), except for differences in mix of uses.  Possible reasons for the relatively minor differences were discussed; for example, the total square footage for office at Wiehle includes the educational component.  DPZ will continue to make refinements, including adding a column requested by Paul Thomas showing current on-the-ground development.  Heidi hopes that future discussions will focus on orders of magnitude, rather than specific numbers, and said the committee needs to make more decisions at the next meeting.

Before the next steering meeting, Patty, Heidi and other DPZ staff will develop a list of issues and items/inputs that must be discussed before the developing scenario is submitted to transportation staff for analysis.  When county transportation staff appears before the full task force in July, they will discuss additional analysis they have performed on the current traffic conditions, which may assist the task force in further refining the scenario.  This apparently will include additional transportation links, which might require shifting some of the redevelopment assumed in DPZ’s current scenario.

  Heidi indicated that the transportation analysis will be performed by county staff with support from consultants (Cambridge), and revealed that funds are only budgeted for one full analysis.  (This may explain the recent shift in focus from quickly finishing Scenario C, obtaining the analysis, then incorporating the results/lessons into a new scenario to perfecting a more polished, possibly final scenario for analysis.)  The single scenario/analysis possibility seemed to surprise some committee members, one of whom noted that the Tysons plan took five years.

Heidi reported on a follow-up conversation with John McClain, who explained that while the cooperative forecasts historically have underestimated residential, GMU did not use the cooperative forecast.  Instead, GMU used an econometric model.  While they did not anticipate a significant proportion of people living outside the statistical area and commuting in to work, he nevertheless stands by his GMU forecast.

Next Meetings

     Heidi noted that the full Task Force will meet on 26 July.  The next steering committee meeting was set for Tuesday, July 19, time and place to be determined.