The Planning Commission, on Mr. de la Fe’s motion,
voted for a second time to hold over this application, this time for
“decision only” at the upcoming April 26 meeting. I understand
that County Counsel has been
asked to provide specific guidance on the alleged “legal
entitlement” that the developer has argued.
Our grass roots effort opposing this is clearly making progress.
The strong ARCH, RCA, and individual testimony offered
by a number of you in opposition to this application, and the NEGATIVE Staff
Report, have changed the dynamic. I think the Planning Commission recognizes
that this application has received no local support outside P&Z that I am
aware of (RA DRB of course opined favorably on the architectural aspects, but
that is a different issue). And no doubt the Planning Commission also
recognizes that the P&Z vote was divided at 9-5, and that several of those
who voted “yes” made clear their support was heavily influenced by
the alleged but uncounseled “by right” issue.
For those of you who have weighed in, thank you. We are collectively making a difference. For those of you who have not yet been able to do so, there is still time. Written and e-mail testimony can still be submitted to plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov. You need not weigh in on all the minutiae; just saying that you agree with the thrust of the resident testimony submitted in opposition to this application will help immensely. In addition, for those of you who are able to talk personally with Supervisor Hudgins or Commissioners de la Fe and Alcorn please do so. They need to know that the community opposition to this application is real and that if they stick their necks out on this they will be supported.
Absent a forced decision on purely legal grounds, I think the issues before the Planning Commission and our Supervisor are challenging. It is very difficult if not impossible to square this application with the vision for Metro-focused transit oriented development that is at the heart of the Task Force’s work. And by siphoning away what appears to be declining office demand it will surely make it harder to incent tear down and mixed use in the RCIG and/or build Central Park-like spaces in Town Center North and south of the Toll Road – goals that are of unquestionably higher priority for our community than anything that can be achieved by (over)developing this lot. No one is arguing that the lot should not be redeveloped, but in scale and proportion with its location and consistent with the vision the Town Center Committee specifically (and Task Force generally) has articulated.
Thanks to all for considering the possibility of offering testimony or contacting Supervisor Hudgins or Commissioners Alcorn or de la Fe. Feel free to forward this to anyone who you feel would be interested.
Regards,
Robert Goudie
And what if the developer decides to stand its ground and assert its "build by right" perogative, in the face of the negative reaction by certain interest groups? Are you prepared to go to court and lose?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteWe are a long way from going to court. As I urged P&Z, let County Counsel focus on the legal issues and defining the parameters, if any, around this alleged entitlement (and not to worry, the developer is represented by very capable counsel to make its arguments). But for the community to stand silent on the merits in the meantime is a mistake. County Staff – well aware of the alleged entitlement – issued a negative recommendation, arguing that the Comprehensive Plan informs whatever rights may exist here (especially tapering as one moves beyond the urban core and contextualizing an individual application within the surrounding neighborhood). Lesson: this allegedly unbridled entitlement that some are arguing will surely dump us in court if we oppose is obviously anything but a slam dunk.
As to the merits I think I am arguing from a position of strength:
1. the Task Force’s Town Center Committee (which included both developer representatives and residents) UNANIMOUSLY endorsed the key concepts -- highest densities, especially office, closer to the Metro station and tapering as one moves away; mixed use; promoting a lower jobs:household ratio in Town Center but one that still permits creation of a dynamic downtown and regional destination; and
2. these principles were reinforced with the Task Force’s consensus vote on the new Vision and Planning Principles (all as specifically cited with page references in my testimony).
If this parcel were being rezoned today the application would be rejected as inconsistent with the above and because it may siphon declining office demand from areas where allowing more robust office development is critically needed to incent more important community goals (MTOD; traffic mitigation; community parks; RCIG tear down). I think we need to soberly assess that we are faced with a zoning decision made +/- 35 years ago that is woefully out of date with current conditions on the ground – the arrival of Metro; failing intersections due to congestion throughout Town Center; jobs:household ratios higher than either developers or residents would like. Add that this site was supposedly said to be the “gateway” into Town Center – something it not now and never will be. All of this powerfully speaks to how outmoded the decades-old zoning really is. I don’t have control over the alleged entitlement but I and others can seek to make their voices heard on the merits. Either what we on the Task Force have been talking about the last two years is just a waste of time or it isn't; and if it isn't then I think it worthwhile to seek to change this application through the political process “to the maximum extent permitted under law” (i.e., no one is suggesting we go headlong into a crazy legal battle; have competent counsel assess the legal issues and, to the extent the law will permit it, reject this application on the merits).
I'd close with your characterization of this opposition being the "negative reaction by certain interest groups." I don’t know who you are, Anonymous, but you know who I am. So let’s start with why I got involved in this. Because I felt, as co-chair of the Task Force’s Town Center Committee, an institutional obligation to advocate for the recommendations that our Committee worked very hard to noodle out and with which this application, in my view, is clearly in opposition. That’s not “interest group” stuff. This is a debate about the merits of this particular application and reasonable people can disagree on that. I think the substance of what the Town Center Committee specifically and Task Force more generally has advocated makes some sense to me, having been part of that process for the past couple of years. That you may not agree with those positions is fine, but denigrating this as “interest group” politics I think is neither apt nor does it advance your position, whatever it is. Perhaps you’d like to share that with us.