Testimony of Robert Goudie on TCOB for FC Planning Commission, March 14, 2012

Testimony of Robert Goudie

To the Planning Commission, 3/14/12

RE:  Proposed redevelopment of the so-called Town Center Office Building Site

Staff has tonight recommended against this application because it is out of context with the surrounding area and the existing Comprehensive Plan (which calls for tapering as one moves away from the Town Center urban core).  This application is also out of context with Town Center’s future and what will be inevitable changes to the Comprehensive Plan.  That view is informed by my service as the Town Center Residential Representative on the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force, and in particular my role as co-chair of the Task Force’s Town Center Committee (which was tasked with creating recommendations for Town Center’s future in connection with Metro’s arrival).  Our Committee’s 40-page report can be found at:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/town_center_reston_pkwy/tc_metro_committee_report_oct5.pdf .

At the outset, I want to thank Rick Whealen and his team, who generously offered to meet with me not once but twice to provide background on their proposal.  That proposal has elements that should be lauded and I do not wish to minimize those – including the green rooftop space, the concealed parking, the likely gold LEEDS achievement, and the earnest attempt to create a world-class design.  I oppose the proposal for two reasons (in addition to those offered by Staff):

1. I believe this proposal is not only inconsistent with but will potentially undermine Metro-focused transit-oriented development (MTOD); and

2. It will materially complicate and exacerbate vehicular congestion in Reston and in particular the extended Town Center area.

 

The proposal’s inconsistency with MTOD 

The expert testimony and research provided the Task Force universally suggests that the willingness of workers to leave their cars and instead walk to a job from a transit station drops off materially if the job is beyond the station’s quarter mile radius and is virtually nullified if the job is beyond the half-mile radius.  This site is beyond the half-mile radius and, since there will not be a pedestrian straight-line to the station, it is really +/- three quarters of a mile from the station.  Depending on how one calculates that, that is at least 50% and arguably 100% greater than what would be considered maximization of MTOD.

Shuttle buses, good pedestrian access, bike lanes, and robust TDM (transportation demand management) strategies are all essential, but none materially change the research – more people than not will drive to jobs beyond the half-mile radius.

The Town Center Committee thus based its recommendations on some key base lines:

1. The highest densities, and office densities in particular, should be focused nearest to the station.  (We excepted hotel and retail from this calculation.  Neither impact peak-hour traffic in the same way as office, and retail of course is something we want to encourage to create a vibrant downtown.)
2. All densities, and especially office densities, should taper off as one moves farther away from the station.
   
   

No matter how nicely this proposal is dressed up, it would add a +/- 2,000 person job center (per Whealen Team estimates) three quarters of a mile from the Metro station.  This would be one of if not the largest employment center in all of Town Center.   On its face this is counter to the best MTOD thinking.

Moreover, the proposal is not only inconsistent with but may actually undermine MTOD.  George Mason University recently provided the Task Force with updated residential and non-residential demand projections through 2050.  The numbers are dramatically reduced from earlier projections.  Between current vacancy rates in the RCIG (+/- 15% I am told) and the inevitable increased densities we will need to incent tear down in the transit-station areas to achieve better MTOD, we should more than accommodate projected office demand in this corridor.  This project, therefore, runs the risk of siphoning declining office demand away from the transit station area.  This could make it even harder to get current RCIG landowners to consider tear down and rebuilding within paradigms that better reflect what we want to achieve for Town Center:  a vibrant downtown and regional destination (which will require healthy mixed use).

The siphoning effect may also impair our ability to redevelop neighboring North Town Center, to include a recommended 7-8 acre “Central Park.”  To achieve this goal, which would offer high social utility (much higher than rooftop open space), the private landowner in North Town Center will have to be heavily incented, to include office.  The potential siphoning effect, therefore, may have ripple effects beyond the station area.

 Economic Development Authority folks and others may ask: 

Does opposing this application mean one is against jobs

and increasing employment opportunities in and around Town Center?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  No one can accuse me of this position.  I advocated for either eliminating any cap on FAR in the transit-station area at Town Center or, consistent with the position our Committee voted to adopt, raising it to a level, like 5.0, that would allow good projects and not FAR to drive new growth.  The issue is location, location, location.  We should be focused on incenting these kinds of centers closer to the Metro where the benefits to our community will be greatest (or, if they are to be located outside the half mile, then preserving that demand for North Town Center’s crucial redevelopment).

How this proposal will make it more difficult to create a healthy jobs:household balance in Town Center and thereby mitigate congestion impacts of new growth

County DOT staff has presented to the Task Force multiple times, and their message has been consistent:  other than focusing on MTOD development, infrastructure improvements, and responsible TDM measures, the single biggest thing the Task Force could do to affect congestion is to focus on the jobs:household balance.  The premise is simple:  the better balance there is between jobs and resident workers the greater chance that resident workers will occupy those jobs and thus reduce outside worker demand and vehicular trips into the community during peak hours. 

What is a healthy residential:non-residential balance?  There is no one answer.  It depends on what one wants to achieve (and the geography one is considering).  In Town Center, our Committee unanimously adopted a vision that would extend the downtown south toward the Metro and in so doing also create a regional destination.  To create that kind of downtown/regional destination paradigm, we looked at the best research in the field and examples on the ground.  Our Committee settled on a 4:1 jobs:household target for new growth, which translates to a 1:1 square foot res:office ratio.  We also agreed that everyone had to be part of this solution, so unlike Tyson’s this ratio would apply to every zoning application.  See pages 9-13 of our report (link above) to appreciate the detailed analysis we undertook on this subject.

This has not yet been approved by the Task Force and I think it unhelpful to get sidetracked on the mechanics of this.  But what is relevant is appreciating the challenge presented.  Let us assume that the Committee goal of something like 4:1, order of magnitude, is in the ballpark of what ultimately gets approved.  Perspective:  the current jobs:household balance in the entire Town Center study area (which includes the half mile radius south of the Toll Road) is 19:1.  The area north of the Toll Road is better (large parts of the non-residential component currently are retail and hotel).  But if lots are exempted from being part of the solution then it will put enormous pressures on still-to-be-redeveloped lots to pick up the slack.  Where are those lots?  Principally in or near the RCIG.  Asking that those lots pick up extra residential to make up for a huge job center outside the half mile is in my view wrongheaded.  And this will not be the last time someone presents a “sexy” proposal and argues someone else will pick up the residential slack.

Indeed, our Committee unanimously rejected a Whealen Team request to be exempted from the residential requirement.  Page 31 of the report speaks to the “form[ation of] an important and essentially residential collar around the extended urban core (with supporting retail),” adding that in these areas “development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending . . . should be encouraged.”  (emphasis added)  The Committee added:

“We include within this reference the so-called Reston Office Building parcel that abuts Reston Parkway and is otherwise surrounded by the Spectrum parcel.  This parcel is not currently within the Town Center District boundary.  We think that parcel should be allowed to redevelop in ways that are consistent with and complement the approved Spectrum concept plan (if/as it may be amended) and the Committee’s recommendations for an essentially residential collar (with supporting retail) around the extended urban core.”  (emphases added)

I speak only for myself (our Committee, of course, was not presented this specific application).  But the proposal is unquestionably inconsistent with the above recommendation.  The broader point, however, is that this proposal will put added pressure on other lots to compensate for the current less-than-desired residential mix.  Arguing that D4, for example, the touchdown lot into Town Center from the Metro Station will be able to pick up the slack, or that other adjacent lots that will become part of the extended urban core will do it, will in my view risk disabling the broader goal our Committee set.  Overcompensating in areas that are designed to be part of the extended downtown is wholly inconsistent with creating the kind of dynamic downtown one sees in other areas.  Witness Rosslyn, as an example of an overloaded office paradigm (it is at 5.4:1 jobs:hh and has desolate streets at night) or places like Virginia Square or Clarendon (which, while interesting places at 2:1 jobs:hh, are unsuitable to be downtowns because they lack sufficient complementary office).

Worth adding here is that the Whealen Team noted in its meetings with me that this lot was originally envisioned as the “gateway” site into Town Center.  Whatever may have been the vision in the 1970’s, a material change in conditions has emerged – the arrival of Metro at Town Center.  There is no question that Town Center’s center of gravity over the next 25 years will shift toward the Metro Station.  Our Committee embraced that, noting that the Lot D4 gateway or touchdown point north of the Metro “will be of special significance” (p. 3), adding later that the “key to realizing a vision of an extended urban core will be the development of D4” (p. 19).   On page 18 the Committee emphasized the essential priority thusly:  “The focus first and foremost should be on successfully extending the urban core south to the Metro station.  Good things will follow from that.”   

Whatever may have been the original vision for the Office Building Site that vision has been materially altered with the pending arrival of Metro.  I do not want to be misunderstood:  I absolutely believe that redevelopment of the Office Building Site is and should remain an important goal for Town Center’s future and the Whealen Team should be congratulated for thinking boldly about that future.  But that vision should be consistent with and complementary to the Town Center North area and the MTOD and other goals we wish for Town Center’s dynamic future.

Conclusion

We regrettably do not yet have draft Plan amendments for this Commission to consider.  But each of you should know that the Task Force has already approved the base line concepts I am talking about – encouraging MTOD, tapering, and healthy residential:office balances – in its approved Vision and Planning Principles.  See http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/vision_principles/vision_planning_princ_03_15_2011.pd):

-          The second bullet of the Vision Statement notes:  “The station areas will have an appropriate balance of residential uses and employment opportunities.” 

-          The 5^th Planning Principle powerfully reinforces how fundamental the balancing/mix and MTOD issues are:

“5.  The rail corridor will be transformed.   Over time it will become an area with robust, livable, walkable mixed-use communities having an appropriate balance between residential and non-residential uses. . . The highest densities will be concentrated within approximately one-quarter mile of the rail stations tapering down somewhat within approximately one-half mile to maximize the use of rail.  Residential and non-residential populations in each transit station area will be appropriately balanced. . . . “  (emphases added)

Whether 5.0 FARs or 1:1 res:office mechanisms will be approved remain to be seen; but what is clear is that MTOD, tapering, and incenting better res:office balances will be part of what is recommended to this Commission.  Staff can confirm as much.

This proposal – no matter how enticing its overall design, how interesting its roof-top open space, how LEED forward it may be, or how artistic its garage panels – presents an essentially single land use (office) of outsized proportion beyond the half mile that is incompatible with the Task Force’s already approved vision for Town Center (and Reston).  It will waste MTOD opportunities we have, exacerbate congestion, and may well undermine our ability to achieve critically needed tear down in the station areas.  (And the Whealen Team argument that this will only minimally affect jobs:hh numbers when combined with the Spectrum concept is off.  Staff can confirm that office is actually a small part of the Spectrum concept.  So adding over 400,000 SF of office will more than double the office in that entire area.  And the Whealen Lot is only a small piece of the combined Spectrum-Whealen area – to further underscore the out-of-proportion magnitude of this addition.)

I have nothing but complimentary things to say about the professionalism and competency of the Whealen Team, and I do not for one moment begrudge them their right to seek what they view as maximum return on investment.  But as community leaders we likewise have a right to seek what we see as maximum return for those we represent – the people who live and work in Town Center and Reston.  In my view this proposal is not in their best interests. 

I appreciate that the Whealen Team feels it has certain “by right” capability here.  I will let Staff and County Counsel decide what can and can not be legally achieved here.  In that context, I urge the Commission to reject this application or force its modification consistent with the long-term objectives we seek for Town Center to the maximum extent permitted under law.  Thank you for considering my views.

-           end      -