Coalition for a Planned Reston Objections to PRC Zoning Ordinance Plans

From:  Coalition for a Planned Reston 

To:huntermill@fairfaxcounty.gov

Cc:chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov,mason@fairfaxcounty.gov,braddock@fairfaxcounty.gov,dranesville@fairfaxcounty.gov,leedist@fairfaxcounty.gov,mtvernon@fairfaxcounty.gov,provdist@fairfaxcounty.gov,springfield@fairfaxcounty.gov,sully@fairfaxcounty.gov,clerktotheBOS@fairfaxcounty.gov,achamp@reston.org,lbutler@reston.org,fred.selden@fairfaxcounty.gov,leslie.johnson@fairfaxcounty.gov,robert.stalzer@fairfaxcounty.gov,catherine.belgin@fairfaxcounty.gov,JohnCarter@fairfaxcounty.gov,Barbara.Byron@fairfaxcounty.gov,Tom.Biesiadny@fairfaxcounty.gov,Gregg.Steverson@fairfaxcounty.gov,David.Bowden@fairfaxcounty.gov,suzianne.battista@fairfaxcounty.gov,kevin.sneed@fcps.edu,BoardOfDirectors@reston.org

 

Nov 29 at 6:40 PM

Dear Supervisor Hudgins:

The Coalition for a Planned Reston (CPR) is deeply concerned and dismayed by the announcement that you have requested County staff to move forward with the proposed PRC Zoning Ordinance Amendment.  For the reasons explained below, we strongly urge you to withdraw your request immediately and to complete the community dialogue to which you committed.

This past summer your staff, County officials and representatives from the Reston Association (RA) and CPR met in four working groups to examine significant issues arising from the Revised Reston Master Plan, which, according to County officials, triggered the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. In the course of those meetings, County officials and the community representatives agreed that additional data was needed in a number of key areas before further face-to-face discussions should be held and conclusions could be reached.  There was universal agreement, well documented in the videos of the small group meetings and follow-up communications by CPR and RA, that each side would research and produce the requested information before any further action to move forward with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.  The RA/CPR team quickly provided all that was requested of them.  Sadly, the County side has not.  

Please refer to the list of twenty-three (23) specific areas where we have been waiting for responses from County officials (attached).  We appreciate the hard work and dedication of our County employees and understand how heavy workloads and competing responsibilities can sometimes delay progress in specific areas.  However, this cannot justify failing to conduct the needed research and consultations to which you and the County have committed. In light of this, it is premature and inappropriate to move forward as you have requested.  

Over the past three months we have repeatedly stated our readiness to meet in the working groups again when the County has completed its work.   We continue to stand ready to do that.   If there is a need or desire to move forward quickly on the part of the County, perhaps developing the required information can be given a higher priority by County officials.   

Madame Supervisor, the issues before us are too important to be pushed forward without completing the community engagement that is the hallmark of the Reston community.  Your constituents urge you, in the spirit of transparent and responsive government, to withdraw your request until the collaborative review has been completed. 

Sincerely,

Coalition for a Planned Reston

Specific Areas Awaiting Responses from Fairfax County Officials

The follow are specific areas for which CPR is waiting for the County to provide information or analysis.   This listing does not include a number of more general discussion points, which are important in their own right, but not listed here. 

1.  Provide status of County plans to finally build an indoor athletic center in Reston (Hunter Mill is the only district without one.  Other districts have had athletic centers for decades.

2.  Provide status on exactly where the additional outdoor athletic fields required in the Master Plan will be located.

3.  Remove from planning documentation and maps the unauthorized and unneeded "Road from Nowhere" that would mar and deface Reston's open space. 

4.  Share information on the safety, cost, and benefit of "turfing" and lighting fields.  In an interim response on this topic the County speaks of "upgrading Reston Association properties" to partially meet the County's requirements.  However, no proposal to or discussion with RA has taken place.  

5.  Provide information on the status of the "Commission to Assess Reston's Athletic Fields."   We are unaware of the existence of any such commission. 

6.  Provide an update on the County's plans for Reston Town Center North, including the required 10 acres of open space.  

7.  Schedule the County's own proposal to bring "all parties" together to work on land management issues.   

8. Clarify specifically which areas of “One Reston” (i.e., including PRC, TSAs and Town Center) are considered "urban" for planning purposes, as the designation impacts the level of services provided. 

9.  Explain the frequent exemptions given to developers when their proposals are not in conformance with the Master Plan.  This includes numerous cases where the County's own Planning and Zoning staff have found proposals to be deficient. 

10. Schedule the agreed upon meeting between County staff and the community to determine the geographic and demographic inputs to be used to determine the population of One Reston for the purpose of re-establishing a population limit for Reston as a whole.   

11.  Explain the dichotomy between the County's density proposals in the Village Centers and the Master Plan's call for any new development to be at an appropriate scale for the neighborhood under consideration. 

12.  Provide a statement on the County's plans to conform to Virginia law and review the Reston Master Plan Phase I in early 2019 and Phase II in 2020.

13.  Address the need for follow-on discussions concerning storm water management, police and fire coverage and related social services topics.

14. Submit written confirmation of the Population-based Countywide Service Level Standard for golf:  with a projected Reston population of over 115,200, Reston requires two 18-hole golf courses. (Please see page 22, 2017 Edition of the Policy Plan - Parks and Recreation.)

15. Provide a status update on changes to the proffer formula for private development and suggestions on how RA, CPR and the broader community can support County efforts.

16.  Provide data on the expected number of additional students entering the school system using current methodology.  Provide data on past reliability of this methodology.

17.  Report on student utilization of the Connector Bus since the adoption of student passes.

18. Resolve discrepancies between language regarding school capacity provided in the Comprehensive Plan and actual County practice.

19.  Develop a comprehensive Transportation Implementation and Monitoring Plan - to include all projects identified in the Reston Network Analysis (RNA) with their estimated prioritization, timeline, projected costs and funding sources.

20. Provide a chart and map of planned intersection improvements.

21. Provide a model of projected traffic impact of any increased density in the “One Reston” region on the non-TSA areas of Reston (like the PRC).

22. Institute the universal adoption of data that includes residents of Affordable Dwelling Units (ADU) and Work Force Housing (WFH) in all computations of population and density.    

23. Provide periodic updates and information on the provision of needed infrastructure along with development as is done in Tysons.