Developers buy General Assembly vote to limit residential development proffers.

In a matter of a few very short, very quiet weeks early in this session, both houses of the Virginia General Assembly have passed by large margins slightly different versions of a bill that would limit the role of developer proffers in offsetting the massive impact their residential development will have on transportation, schools, parks, the environment, and more.  It may not affect development of FAR 4.0 or more around Metro stations.  While the bill language still needs to be resolved between the two houses, there is little doubt that the bill will be sent to the Governor within days.

Just for the record:

• Dick Saslaw, a Fairfax County Democratic Senator, was a CO-SPONSOR of the bill in the Senate and voted FOR it.
• Janet Howell, Reston's state senator, voted FOR the bill.
• Ken Plum, Reston's state delegate, voted FOR the bill.

You can see how little our representatives think about their constituents and the impact of developer profiteering by shifting the huge infrastructure cost load--$2.6 billion in Reston station area streets alone--to local taxpayers.

Here is the lede on the most recent news report about this bill:

Forty years ago, when development was booming Fairfax County, government leaders at the Massey Building had an idea: Create a system to make demands on builders so they would have to pay for traffic improvements and sewer upgrades. Over time, though, that system expanded and developers started offering things themselves, such as providing computers to local schools or forking over cash to an affordable housing fund. 

The problem, some Virginia lawmakers say, is that the costs of those proffers — a system that was institutionalized statewide in the late 1970s — are often passed on to homebuyers. And business leaders say the system represents little more than extortion, hitting businesses for uniform cash contributions regardless of a project's size. . . .

Yet it provides absolutely no justification for why existing homeowners should pay for the needed improvements caused by the building of new residences.

Here is the language of the Senate bill passed this morning:

SENATE BILL NO. 549 FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by Senator Obenshain on February 5, 2016)

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-2303.4, relating to conditional zoning.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2303.4 as follows:

§ 15.2-2303.4. Provisions applicable to certain conditional rezoning proffers.

A. For purposes of this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:

"New residential development" means any construction or building expansion on residentially zoned property, including a residential component of a mixed-use development, that results in either one or more additional residential dwelling units or, otherwise, fewer residential dwelling units, beyond what may be permitted by right under the then-existing zoning of the property, when such new residential development requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"New residential use" means any use of residentially zoned property that requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"Offsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact outside the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall include all cash proffers.

"Onsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact within the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall not include any cash proffers.

"Proffer condition amendment" means an amendment to an existing proffer statement applicable to a property or properties.

"Public facilities" means public transportation facilities, public safety facilities, public school facilities, or public parks.

"Public facility improvement" means an offsite public transportation facility improvement, a public safety facility improvement, a public school facility improvement, or an improvement to or construction of a public park. No public facility improvement shall include any operating expense of an existing public facility, such as ordinary maintenance or repair, or any capital improvement to an existing public facility, such as a renovation or technology upgrade, that does not expand the capacity of such facility.

"Public safety facility improvement" means construction of new law-enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and rescue facilities or expansion of existing public safety facilities, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public school facility improvement" means construction of new primary and secondary public schools or expansion of existing primary and secondary public schools, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public transportation facility improvement" means (i) construction of new roads; (ii) improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality; and (iii) construction, improvement, or expansion of buildings, structures, parking, and other facilities directly related to transit.

"Residentially zoned property" means property zoned or proposed to be zoned for either single-family or multifamily housing.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer, as described in subsection C, in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application or proffer condition amendment for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based in whole or in part on an applicant's failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, (i) as used in this chapter, a proffer, or proffer condition amendment, whether onsite or offsite, offered voluntarily pursuant to § 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303, or 15.2-2303.1, shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for and (ii) an offsite proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to subdivision (i) unless it addresses an impact to an offsite public facility, such that (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special:

1. Actions brought to contest the action of a locality in violation of this section shall be brought only by the aggrieved applicant or the owner of the property subject to a rezoning or proffer condition amendment pursuant to subsection F of § 15.2-2285.

2. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit or remain subject to an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial.

3. In any successful action brought pursuant to this section contesting an action of a locality in violation of this section, the applicant may be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs as well as compensatory damages and to an order remanding the matter to the governing body with a direction to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment without the inclusion of any unreasonable proffer. If the locality fails or refuses to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the court's order to do so, the court shall enjoin the locality from interfering with the use of the property as applied for without the unreasonable proffer. Upon remand to the local governing body pursuant to this subsection, the requirements of § 15.2-2204 shall not apply.

E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any new residential development or new residential use occurring in an approved area comprehensive plan that allows a density of at least 4.0 floor area ratio in a portion of a revitalization area that encompasses mass transit as defined in § 33.2-100 and mixed use development or in such a plan that allows additional density within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned Metrorail station or an approved area of a service district created pursuant to § 15.2-2400 which area encompasses an existing or planned Metrorail station.

2. That this act shall not be construed to affect any proffer related to a nonresidential development or use and shall be construed as supplementary to any existing provisions limiting or curtailing proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are consistent with its terms, and shall be construed to supersede any existing statutory provision with respect to proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are inconsistent with its terms.

3. That this act is prospective only and shall not be construed to apply to any proffer accepted prior to the date of enactment or to any proffer condition amendment amending a proffer accepted prior to such date.

Here is the House version of the bill passed last week:

  HOUSE BILL NO. 770

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns) (Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Gilbert) House Amendments in [ ] -- February 3, 2016

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 15.2-2303.4 and 15.2-2303.5, relating to conditional zoning.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 15.2-2303.4 and 15.2-2303.5 as follows:

§ 15.2-2303.4. Provisions applicable to all conditional rezoning proffers.

A. For purposes of this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:

"New residential development" means any construction or building expansion on residentially zoned property, including a residential component of a mixed-use development, that results in either one or more additional residential dwelling units or, otherwise, fewer residential dwelling units, beyond what may be permitted by right under the then-existing zoning of the property, when such new residential development requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"New residential use" means any use of residentially zoned property that requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"Offsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact outside the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall include all cash proffers.

"Onsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact within the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall not include any cash proffers.

"Proffer condition amendment" means an amendment to an existing proffer statement applicable to a property or properties.

"Public facilities" means public transportation facilities, public safety facilities, public school facilities, or public parks.

"Public facility improvement" means an offsite public transportation facility improvement, a public safety facility improvement, a public school facility improvement, or an improvement to or construction of a public park. No public facility improvement shall include any operating expense of an existing public facility, such as ordinary maintenance or repair, or any capital improvement to an existing public facility, such as a renovation or technology upgrade, that does not expand the capacity of such facility.

"Public safety facility improvement" means construction of new law-enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and rescue facilities or expansion of existing public safety facilities, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public school facility improvement" means construction of new primary and secondary public schools or expansion of existing primary and secondary public schools, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public transportation facility improvement" means (i) construction of new roads; (ii) improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality; and (iii) construction, improvement, or expansion of buildings, structures, parking, and other facilities directly related to transit.

"Residentially zoned property" means property zoned or proposed to be zoned for either single-family or multifamily housing.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer, as described in subsection C, in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application or proffer condition amendment for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based in whole or in part on an applicant's failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, (i) as used in this chapter, a proffer, or proffer condition amendment, whether onsite or offsite, offered voluntarily pursuant to § 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303, or 15.2-2303.1, shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for and (ii) an offsite proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to subdivision (i) unless it addresses an impact to an offsite public facility, such that (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special:

1. Actions brought to contest the action of a locality in violation of this section shall be brought only by the aggrieved applicant or the owner of the property subject to a rezoning or proffer condition amendment pursuant to subsection F of § 15.2-2285.

2. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit or remain subject to an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial.

3. In any successful action brought pursuant to this section contesting an action of a locality in violation of this section, the applicant shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs [ as well as compensatory damages ] and to an order remanding the matter to the governing body with a direction to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment without the inclusion of any unreasonable proffer. If the locality fails or refuses to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the court's order to do so, the court shall enjoin the locality from interfering with the use of the property as applied for without the unreasonable proffer. Upon remand to the local governing body pursuant to this subsection, the requirements of § 15.2-2204 shall not apply.

E. This section shall not apply to any new residential development or new residential use occurring in an approved area comprehensive plan that allows unlimited density within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned Metrorail station.

§ 15.2-2303.5. Certain conditional rezoning proffers prohibited.

Notwithstanding any provision of subdivision A 3 of § 15.2-2286 or § 36-98, no locality shall impose or require, as part of a rezoning or proffer condition amendment, limitations on or requirements for such matters as building materials, finishes, methods of construction, or design features on a new residential development or new residential use as defined in § 15.2-2303.4 unless such new residential development or new residential use is located within a historic district designated pursuant to § 15.2-2306, a redevelopment or rehabilitation district for which a locality provides an exemption from taxation pursuant to § 58.1-3219.4, or an economic revitalization zone created pursuant to § 15.2-1129.2. In addition, this section shall not apply if the new residential development or new residential use is located within a state-designated or federally designated airport noise attenuation zone, is in close proximity to a military base or large commercial or industrial operation, or is located within a flood zone in which applicable regulations allow for the use of flood-proofing construction methods to minimize the risk of flood-related damages, provided that any such limitation or requirement is specifically directed to flood or noise mitigation, respectively.

2. That this act shall not be construed to effect any proffer related to a nonresidential development or use and shall be construed as supplementary to any existing provisions limiting or curtailing proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are consistent with its terms, and shall be construed to supersede any existing statutory provision with respect to proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are inconsistent with its terms.

3. That this act is prospective only and shall not be construed to apply to any proffer accepted prior to the date of enactment or to any proffer condition amendment amending a proffer accepted prior to such date.

Keeping Tabs on the Reston Network Analysis Group

The Reston Network Analysis Group has been meeting for three months, but little of what it has heard or said has been broadly shared with Restonians although some of what it has heard is on the County's Reston Network Analysis Group webpage.  So, we have decided to make available to you the presentations and minutes of the RNAG meetings on this blog so you can keep track of what is going on.  Where possible, we'll try to provide a brief overview of each of the presentations here.

Presentations

Reston Network Analysis - Existing Conditions - Stakeholders Meeting: Nov. 20, 2015 

This presentation lays out the goals and methods of the RNAG study.  It includes detailed technical results of transportation models run on the Dulles Toll Road as well as the existing conditions at the intersections on the major Reston roadways (e.g.--Reston Parkway and Sunset Hills) and walksheds.

Reston Funding Plan:  Potential Sources for Revenue for Funding Reston Transportation Improvements, December 14, 2015

This presentation examines the various sources of revenue that may be used to fund the $2.63 billion cost of implementing Reston's major transportation improvements.  Some of these require authority from the state, others do not.  It describes how the Tysons infrastructure funding effort works.

Reston Network Analysis--2050 Unmitigated Results--January 11, 2016

This presentation lays out the results of FCDOT's 2050 simulation of traffic conditions in the Phase 1 (station areas plus Reston Town Center).  It focuses on the major intersections, which broadly failing, but also includes data on the network of local streets.  It also describes the "tiered approach" to mitigating traffic delays from least costly to most costly.

Reston Network Analysis--2050 Unmitigated Results--January 15, 2016

It is not clear what difference there is between this copy of the presentation and the one above.

 Reston Network Analysis--Community Kick-Off, February 1, 2016

 This is the briefing FCDOT provided a community meeting on the RNAG's efforts.  It describes the Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan that is driving the work of RNAG and concurrent Reston efforts, focusing on the need for a "grid of streets" within the station areas (although little of the preceding suggests RNAG has discussed the grid very much).  It provides an overview of the traffic conditions current and future plus a summary of the mitigation strategy.  It describes the process with working with the community and stakeholder groups--which are different--as well as the public. 

Minutes
 
September 15, 2015 Minutes

Described as the second meeting of the RNAG (there are no earlier minutes), these minutes focused on the process for proceeding with the study.  

 November 9, 2015 Minutes

The meeting seems to have focused on the existing conditions with a preliminary overview of the funding issues.

 December 14, 2015 Minutes

The meeting focused on the Reston funding plan presentation above. 

 

Op-Ed: Who Will Pay for Reston’s Infrastructure Development? Terry Maynard, RestonNow,, February 8, 2016

The following is a re-post of the subject op-ed in RestonNow written by Terry Maynard.

This is an op-ed submitted by Terry Maynard, co-chair of Reston 2o20. It does not reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

On Thursday, Feb. 11, the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a seminar called, “The Changing Future of Reston, ” but — as the agenda shows — it’s really about who will pay for the added public infrastructure the intense private development of Reston’s urbanizing corridor will require.

Noting that Fairfax County has identified $2.63 billion in needed transportation improvements because of the expected Metro-related development, the Chamber agenda includes:

During the first half of 2016, the County expects to settle on a plan:

• Who should build the new transportation improvements; and
• Who should pay for them; and
• What revenue sources should be used to pay for it (sic). Potential revenue sources include federal, state and/or county taxes, new or expanded tax districts on existing businesses and residents, proffers or other vehicles, with collections commencing as early as 2017.”

And the panelists? Two developers, the chief of the county transportation staff, and RA’s Chief Executive Officer, all led in their discussion by a developer-paid Reston land use attorney.

It doesn’t take much thought to figure out where this discussion is headed: Developers are looking for ways and rationalizations to shift the infrastructure cost burden to others. And the only significant option within the County’s control is shifting the cost burden to us, its residents.

The Reston 20/20 Committee has stated since its creation seven years ago that those who stand to benefit financially from development should be the ones who pay the costs of making it work. At the same time, Reston 20/20 has regularly encouraged appropriate high-density transit-oriented mixed-use development in our station areas with the necessities and amenities expected in our special planned residential community as a means to facilitate our community’s continued economic, cultural,  intellectual, and recreational growth. We believe it is important to sustain, if not improve, our quality of life.

We stand by that thinking as the county — and the Chamber of Commerce — moves forward in looking at who should pay for the infrastructure required to support the doubling of Reston’s population and jobs (most of it along the Dulles Corridor) over the next 30-40 years.

That said, virtually no Reston resident will accrue any financial benefit — even an appreciation in home value — by the building of an office or residential building, say, near the Wiehle Metro station. Yet that construction will generate more traffic (the apparent focus of the Chamber’s discussion), more children needing schools, more workers and residents needing parks and recreation, more families and employees seeking library resources, and more pollution requiring better environmental management, among other costly consequences.

So why should the residents of Reston or anywhere else in the county even be in the discussion as a source of funding for an infrastructure requirement in Reston generated by the profit-driven activities of private developers? It doesn’t matter whether that discussion is about additions to property tax rates (which must be the same on all property by state law), new or expanded special tax districts (like Reston Tax District #5) and rates, meals taxes on restaurant goers, added occupancy taxes on local hotel visitors, higher sales taxes, etc.

But here’s the ugly twist: The county government’s financial interests are more aligned with the developers than the residents it was elected to represent. The County, which is seemingly always desperate for new tax revenues, stands to receive large new revenue streams from development as the greater value of the new high-density properties generates more property taxes.

At the same time, the development will also force the County to invest billions of dollars to build the needed supporting public infrastructure. The consequence is that the County doesn’t want to impose costs on developers that might discourage their tax-revenue generating construction although a wide variety of mechanisms are available, including proffers, impact fees, in-kind contributions, tax increment financing, etc. (See chart for a high-level summary.)

So residents, especially property owners, end up becoming the county’s cash cow. In fact, Fairfax County homeowners have already become the primary source of County property tax revenues since the slump in commercial property values seven years ago.

We challenge the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce, its panelists, and its membership to look closely at itself and not others–not residents, not retailers, not diners, not non-voting visitors, etc.–to contribute what is needed to sustain, if not improve, our Reston community. Private developers who will profit should pay for the public facilities that will be required to make their development and our community succeed.

Reston 20/20 will be looking to see whether there are any signs of that corporate social responsibility to the community coming out of this Thursday’s Chamber seminar. And, in the near future, we will look to the County to offer a free community seminar — or several — on what public infrastructure needs to be built with the coming development and solicit the public’s input on who should pay for it.

The seminar is at Hidden Creek Country Club from 4:00-6:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 11. Anyone may attend, but non-members must pay $50 admission and an extra $10 at the door.

One expert's opinion: How the Washington area has flubbed transportation for 50 years, Washington Business Journal, March 7, 2014

Michael Neibauer, WBJ, writes an excellent article on a paper just published by John McClain of GMU's Center for Regional Analysis on the history of transportation development failure in the Washington.  The article provides a variety of details from the paper.  Here are some of them (with our emphasis added):

There was a time, a half-century ago, when the Washington area was on the road to developing a well-conceived system of highways and transit to serve its burgeoning population. But a failure of regional leaders to implement and fund those plans drove us to where we are today: Muddling along.

So says John McClain, a regional planning expert who has served in various policy roles for more than 30 years, with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis.

McClain has penned an interesting paper for GMU, which he calls "Reflections on the National Capital Region: Transportation for the Past Half-Century." In it, McClain details transportation planning efforts since the 1950s, and the efforts that local, regional and federal leaders have made to see them through.
His conclusion: Between a lack of leadership, a lack of dedicated funding sources and a lack of a regional authority to drive progress, we're stuck in the mud. . .

"So in looking back over the past half-century at the region's transportation process development and evolution, there are serious doubts about the region's ability to address and resolve its needs in the most effective way," he continues. "It seems it will more or less muddle along — developing reasonably good plans but no really good way to get them done." . .

"One conclusion from the past perspective is that we have not been deficient in developing good plans," McClain writes. "The region has done pretty good regional planning. The failure has been in acting on, funding, and implementing what has been planned."

Nothing much here that those following transportation issues reasonably closely haven't observed and often commented about, but it really helps when someone who has been in the business for decades takes the time to lay out the case in clear black and white for all to see.   Moreover, the condition McClain comments on directly affects the land use planning and its implementation that we in Reston and Tysons have been working on for years because a robust transportation infrastructure--roads, transit, bikes & pedestrian access, and TDM--are all vital to successful implementation of urban development, especially TOD. 

One reason the problem has been particularly acute in Northern Virginia is that the local governments are largely unable--in McClain's phraseology--to act on, fund, and implement their own transportation plans.  Richmond--the General Assembly, VDOT, and VDRPT--keeps a close hold on transportation decisionmaking and funding, leaving local governments, including Fairfax County, only the opportunity to request, implore, and even whine for crucial transportation funding.  To make matters worse, Richmond has created independent bureaucratic entities, such as the NVRTA, that tend to have operational control of key funding and answer to virtually no one, including Richmond.  

It's a wonder we don't have to ford more streams on our roadways in NoVa.  Those of us who have lived in Reston long enough remember doing that regularly on Lawyers Road long before there as any auto access to the Dulles Corridor.  

Please read the rest of the WBJ article here.

Colin Mills: Staying Involved in Reston’s Future, RestonNow, February 20, 2014

Last week, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved the revised Comprehensive Plan for Reston, paving the way for the development around the future Silver Line stations to begin in earnest.

The new mixed-use, transit-oriented development along the Toll Road corridor will change the face of Reston in the coming decades. Those changes offer the potential for Reston to be a thriving, forward-looking, 21^st-century community. They also pose significant challenges that the community will have to face.

As you likely know, RCA expressed a number of concerns about the plan revisions. We are concerned that the plan doesn’t do enough to address the traffic that the new development will add to our streets. We’re concerned that the plan doesn’t ensure that Reston’s new residents have enough parks and athletic fields nearby. And we’re concerned about the plan’s implementation, and who will be responsible for ensuring that the plan’s goals and constraints are met.

Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors made only minor tweaks to the plan, and most of our concerns were not addressed. The Board did pass the follow-on motions recommended by the Planning Commission, the most important of which calls for “an inclusive process” to determine how the necessary transportation improvements will be funded.

But most of the issues we had with the plan passed by the Task Force are still there.

So is this the end of the road? Not even close. What happens next will go a long way toward determining whether our vision of Reston’s future succeeds. There’s still work to be done, and we need our citizens to remain active and involved.  Here’s an outline of the road ahead for Reston, and how RCA will keep remain involved along the way.

Let’s start with the “inclusive process” on transportation funding. Obviously, RCA will push to ensure that we and other citizen groups are included in that process. And we will work hard to develop an equitable plan that delivers the transportation improvements we need. 

Keeping Reston’s traffic moving will require a lot of improvements, including multiple additional crossings of the Toll Road. And someone — really, several someones — will need to pick up the tab. Much as we might hope that developer proffers will pay for it all, that’s not realistic. Most likely, a combination of state and county funding, proffers, and other sources will be tapped to get the money we need.

However, those “other sources” shouldn’t include another tax district on Restonians. At the Board of Supervisors’ discussion, the possibility of creating a Reston tax district to fund transportation improvements came up. Supervisor Hudgins has stated that she doesn’t support Restonians paying for the needed infrastructure on our own; RCA will work to make sure that we don’t.

In addition, there’s the larger question of plan implementation. Transportation funding is a key piece of the puzzle, but it’s not the only piece. We must determine our infrastructure needs and priorities, so that the money we do get is applied where it’s most needed. We also must consider how development can be phased so that our infrastructure can keep up.

In her remarks at the public hearing on the plan, Supervisor Hudgins stressed the importance of working with the community to develop an implementation process for the new development. We at RCA agree, and we look forward to helping develop that process.

At the Planning Commission, we heard that the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide, and the specifics will come when development proposals are considered. If that’s true, having a strong voice for our citizens in the development process is crucial.  We need to be among the first to hear about proposed projects, not among the last. And our citizens must have a seat at the table, to ensure that the new development is consistent with Reston’s vision and values.

While we’re pushing for a proper implementation of the development in the corridor, we must also keep our eye on the rest of Reston. Remember, the plan amendments that were just approved only constitute Phase 1 of the plan review. Phase 2 covers all the other areas, most notably our village centers.

We don’t yet know when those areas will be studied or what form the study will take.  RCA will be advocating for a citizen-driven process, more so than the developer-heavy Task Force we saw in Phase 1. The Phase 2 review should be charged with reimagining our village centers, to create something better than the strip malls that most of them are today, while protecting our existing residential neighborhoods and our open spaces. RCA will be working to ensure that we develop a process for Phase 2 that benefits the entire community.

As you can see, last week’s vote by the Supervisors isn’t the end of the process. Rather, it’s the beginning of a new chapter. It’s important that Reston’s citizens remain engaged in the process, and RCA intends to keep working hard to ensure that our community’s interests are represented.

Fortunately, we are not alone. One of the best things to emerge from the plan review, in my view, is the collaboration between RCA, RA, and the Alliance of Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH) to advocate for common goals and keep Restonians informed about the changes that are coming.  Our three organizations issued multiple joint statements recommending changes to the Comp Plan, and we held a widely attended and widely praised joint forum letting Restonians know about what was in the plan and how we thought it could be improved.

Our collaboration didn’t perfect the plan, and we didn’t get everything we wanted.  But the plan is definitely better for our efforts. And the turnout at the forum shows how much the citizens appreciate our work.  As we move to the next stage in planning Reston’s future, I hope that our three organizations, along with other Reston groups, continue working together for the good of Reston. We speak much more clearly when we speak as one voice, and Reston’s citizens are the winners.

Supervisor Herrity on possible new taxes for Reston

In his e-mailed "The  Herrity Report" today, Supervisor Pat Herrity virtually contradicts Supervisor Hudgins' stated rejection of added taxes for Restonians.  How else are you going to pay for at least $700 million in transportation improvements (his estimate--ours is higher)?

Reston May See a New Tax District

At yesterday's Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board voted 7 to 2 to approve a new master plan for Reston. I voted against the plan because yet again, I believe the plan ignores our priorities when it comes to where developer contributions are spent. Not too dissimilar to the Tysons plan, this plan results in over $700M in transportation needs that come with the increased density. It is my fear that just as we did in Tysons, these requirements will be funded by a new tax on the residents and businesses in Reston. I believe that much more of these transportation requirements should have been funded by developer contributions from the increased density instead of many requirements in the plan. A new tax district in Reston, coupled with already rising tolls on the Dulles Toll Road, will adversely impact the residents and businesses of Reston. (Emphasis added.)  This is something that could have been avoided if we had focused more of our developer contributions on transportation.

His full report is available here.  

Supervisor Herrity's point gets to one Reston 2020 and RCA have been highlighting for four years:  "Planning without Implementation is Empty."

Thanks to Supervisor Hudgins and the Board of Supervisors, what Reston now has is an outrageous plan filled with promises to developers, devoid of protection for Restonians, and absent any idea of how to implement this potential nightmare. 

Last Chance to Make Your Voice Heard on the Draft Reston Master Plan, Terry Maynard, January 22, 2014

The draft master plan for Reston’s share of the Dulles Corridor and the Town Center area will be the subject of a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors next Tuesday, January 28, 4:30PM, in the Government Center auditorium.  It will be the last chance for Restonians to present its concerns, views, and suggestions on the draft plan before the Board considers amendments and approves the draft plan.  

As it stands now, the draft plan overwhelmingly represents the views of developers and land use attorneys who numerically dominated the task force.  Reston’s leading civic groups—RA, RCA, and ARCH—and a few other independent Restonian members of the task force have been active voices over the last four years, but their voices and votes have been drowned by the special interests of the majority developers, landowners, and attorneys.   Their view is that the plan should stay out of the way as exemplified by the dozens of references to “flexibility” throughout the draft plan, attempts to limit commitments to open space, sustainable development, architectural review, controlling traffic congestion growth, and commercial vs. housing balance commitments throughout the process. 

They are also dominating the preparation of the task force’s report to the Board of Supervisors.  The draft task force report attempts to weaken further the language of the draft plan as it has been presented to the Board.  RCA has taken the time to thoroughly review and comment on the draft task force report’s shortcomings including many more than described above.  Ultimately, RCA voted  “nay” on the draft task force report. 

Even the Planning Commission has amended the draft Plan on its way to the Board by cutting out a proposed requirement that new construction be reviewed by RA’s Design Review Board.  The likely result:  A developer-dominated design review board (if any) that won’t care about architectural excellence—a key Reston planning principle.  For example, see the results around Wiehle and Sunset Hills from the previous RCIG Architectural Review Board (ARB).  Would you like to see a high-rise version of that asphalt and concrete mess?

The situation has not been helped by the fact that County property tax revenue coffers have been stagnant for years, and the Board has been criticized by national bond rating agencies (“outlook negative”) for its overspending in a tighter economic environment as Federal tax dollars for employees and contractors has declined with the recession, sequestration, and irresponsible government shutdowns.   All of this has led the Board to focus on generating more taxable property growth in its urbanizing areas—Tysons, Reston, Springfield, and others—no matter what the community costs.   That is a far easier course of action for the Board than cutting budgets or increasing tax rates. 

RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee has written extensively about the issues and opportunities a new Reston master plan needs to address.  It has produced more than a dozen major papers, many approved by the RCA Board of Directors, available from links on its website detailing these issues and opportunities.  As the task force process began steamrolling toward its conclusion last autumn, RCA’s representative called up on the task force to produce a draft plan that befit this planned community.   It has not. 

It is now up to you, Reston residents, to make your voice heard unless you want to see a Dulles Corridor that:

• Reminds you of Crystal City in its property line to property line, concrete and glass, cubist architecture;
• Makes it virtually impossible to drive from one side of Reston to the other—or even to/from the toll road—during rush hours with 5-6 minute delays at each key intersection the norm;
• Guarantees next-to-no new open and recreational space, including only three athletic fields for the area’s expected 40,000 new residents; and
• Fails absolutely in describing how any of its plans might be implemented;
• And other shortcomings as detailed in RCA’s Reston Master Plan Report Card.

I would ask that you each consider whether it is worth your time to attend the hearing next Tuesday to hear what your community representatives (and developers) have to say and, if you are willing, to present a short statement (three minutes is the limit) to the Board about your concerns and ideas for building a better urban Reston area.  To sign up to speak at the hearing, please goto this webpage on the County website.  

It is our community’s last chance to make a difference in a plan that will guide the urbanization of Reston’s core for two or more decades.  We need your help.  Please attend next week’s hearing and testify if you are willing.  

Final steps for Reston master plan, Fairfax Times, January 16, 2014

Fairfax Times reporter Kali Shumitz lays out the basics of the draft Reston Master Plan as it heads to the Board of Supervisors for approval along with reaction from RA and RCA.  Here are some excerpts:

The planning document that will guide development around Reston’s future Metro stations is headed to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for final approval later this month. The Fairfax County Planning Commission signed off on the document last week.

Two major Reston stakeholder groups say they are not completely satisfied with the wording of the document the Planning Commission approved, but that it is headed in the right direction.

The master plan covers, in great detail, matters such as development levels, architectural styles, transportation and infrastructure, environmental protections, and affordable housing requirements for the station areas. . .

What is lacking from the plan is a mechanism to implement the vision for Reston, according to Colin Mills, president of the Reston Citizens Association. The replanning of Tysons Corner included the creation of a new community-based entity to ensure that the plan is adhered to.

“We would like to see an implementation entity like they have in Tysons,” Mills said. “If implementation isn’t someone’s responsibility, it is no one’s responsibility.”

The chief concern for the Reston Association, the organization that acts as sort of a giant homeowner’s association for most of Reston, is ensuring that RA continues to have a seat at the table as redevelopment moves forward, said Ken Kneuven, RA board president.

Both RCA and RA also have lingering concerns about the infrastructure needed to support the new residents and businesses growth will bring.

“Growth is a good thing, but it obviously has an impact on Reston Association’s assets and infrastructure,” Kneuven said. RA operates parks, community centers and recreation centers, among other services.

RCA is particularly concerned about the need for parks, Mills said. The plan calls for one new sports field in each of the three station areas, but it is estimated that 12 new fields will be needed, he said.

“There are nine additional fields that have to come from somewhere, and it’s not clear where they are going to come from and who is going to be paying for them,” Mills said.

Draft Reston Task Force Report, January 10, 2014

Below is the text of the e-mail Reston Task Force (RTF) Chairman Patty Nicoson shared with members of the task force asking them to review and comment on the latest draft of the RTF report.  A copy of the draft report is embedded below her note.

The RTF report is intended as a complement to the draft Reston Master Plan   representing the views of task force members.  By in large, it simply reinforces the numerous flaws in the existing draft plan, including calling for a "goal" of 20% open space as passed by the developer and land use attorney controlled RTF in its last meeting rather than a 20% "minimum."  It adds a few words on the importance of implementation (see p. 43), but in the process fails to mention any community involvement in any adopted process, a prerequisite for a balanced and effective approach to implementation. 

Dear Reston Master Plan Task Force Members,

 

Attached is the latest version of the Draft Task Force Report.  Over the last two months since our last writing group meeting, Van Foster, Bill Penniman, and I have been working on editing the document to try to eliminate duplication (although there is some because some of the same elements are discussed in the station are sections) and to conform the names of the areas and districts to those used in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

 

We will work on adding graphics and some of the Figures from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

 

Let me know if you are prepared to support the document or if you think we should have another meeting if there are substantive changes you would like to see.

 

This report reflects task force input over time.  It is consistent with our discussions, the subcommittee reports, and the votes of the task force including those on the Vision and Planning Principles and Achieving the Vision for Reston documents.

 

As has been discussed in the past and noted by staff, it is important for the Task Force to have its own report to share its work and to give the community, county officials, and developers a sense of how the task force viewed the important issues facing Reston as it moves into its next 50 years connected to the Metropolitan region by Metrorail.

 

Last night, January 9, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Reston Transit Station Areas Comprehensive Plan Text and three follow on motions proposed by Commissioner Frank De La Fe addressing asking the Board to direct staff to

 

1.      develop specific  urban design standards for Reston;  

2.      development of an inclusive process for a funding plan for transportation in Reston; and

3.      develop evaluation of the operational and enhanced streetscape plan and priorities.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Patty

   Draft Reston Master Plan Task Force Report, January 10, 2014

Fairfax Planning Sends Transit-Oriented Master Plan to Supervisors, RestonNow, January 10, 2014

Karen Goff provides insight into the Planning Commission's decision last night to send the Reston master plan to the Board of Supervisors in an excellent RestonNow article this morning. 

The Fairfax County Planning Commission on Thursday unanimously agreed to send proposed changes in the Reston Master Plan on to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for approva.

The plan — which was formulated after nearby four years of discussion and numerous draft changes by the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force — was sent on with a few line item changes and last-minute motions. . .

. . . (A)t Thursday’s meeting, (Hunter Mill Commissioner) de le Fe verbally added these conditions, which were also unanimously passed:

• A recommendation to direct planning staff to review with Reston stakeholders how to incorporate Reston design specifics into future planning. “Special attention to design has been a hallmark of Reston from beginning,” said de le Fe.
• A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to develop an inclusive process to prepare a funding plan for transportation improvements. “The planning commission strongly believes public and private investment in Reston is crucial,” he said.
• A recommendation to conduct a detailed valuation and analysis of an enhanced street network, prioritize improvements and develop an implementation strategy for it.

The Board of Supervisors is slated to discuss the plan on Jan. 28.

A couple of comments on de le Fe's changes:

• The recommendation to look closely at design issues appears to be intended to mitigate de le Fe's amendment not to require review by RA's Design Review Board.  It is a weak improvement.
• Funding transportation improvements is a major and critical issue for redevelopment around Reston's stations.  If Tysons is any indicator, we could see a special tax district incorporating the area covered by this revision created to address the $1-2 billion in transportation needs (current dollars; double that over 40 years--not including interest on bonds).  Worse, the Board could decide all of Reston should pay the price even though the development will provide no advantage--and huge traffic delays--to most current Reston properties.
• Implementation is the most massive missing ingredient in this plan.  As Reston 2020 has said for years, "Planning without Implementation is Empty."  And that's what this plan is.

ARCH President Volloy's Testimony to Planning Commission on Reston Master Plan, November 13, 2013

   ARCH President Volloy Testimony to Planning Commission on Reston Master Plan, November 13, 2013

Video: Joint Reston Community Forum on Draft Revised Reston Master Plan, October 17, 2013

Last night, Reston Association (RA), Reston Citizens Association (RCA), and the Association of Reston Clusters & Homeowners (ARCH) held a joint forum on their key concerns with the current draft Reston Master Plan.  More than 250 people attended, including overflow crowds in both the RA Conference Center and a second large room where the forum was livestreamed. 

RA President Ken Kneuven opened the forum welcoming all the attendees and highlighting the importance of the Reston Master Plan Task Force.  He then introduced Patty Nicoson, the task force chairman, who spoke about the task force and its vision and planning principles for the community (12:10).  After her presentation, Richard Lambert of the County Planning Staff provided an overview of the draft plan (28:20)

The forum was then turned over to the task force representatives--RA's Andy Sigle, RCA's Terry Maynard, and ARCH's Jerry Volloy--to discuss the six topic areas of special interest to the Reston community in assuring the uniqueness and quality of life of Reston.  The six topic areas are:

• Sustaining Reston (Begins at 52:35)
• Open Space, Parks, & Recreation  (1:02:05)
• Flexibility (1:10:50)
• Environmental Sustainability (1:17:10)
• Mobility (1:21:50)
• Implementation (1:28:40)

Ken Kneuven then read questions from the audience for the forum panel to address (1:34:45).  Colin Mills, RCA's President, wrapped up the forum with a call to action by the community (1:58:20).

The full video is provided below.

 

Thursday’s Joint Reston Community Forum: The Preview…, Reston Patch, October 14, 2013

Posted by Terry Maynard

This Thursday evening, October 17, at 7:00 PM, Reston Association (RA), Reston Citizens Association (RCA), and the Alliance for Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH) will hold Reston’s first-ever joint community forum at RA headquarters.  The forum will focus on key areas of concern about the current draft Reston Comprehensive Plan held by all three organizations as we plan to add 60,000 jobs and 40,000 people to the Dulles Corridor and Town Center areas over the next quarter century. 

Introduced by host RA President Ken Kneuven, Reston Task Force Chairman Patty Nicoson and County Planning Staff Lead Heidi Merkel will start with a brief overview of the plan’s vision and planning principles as well as a broad brush overview of the new plan.  Then representatives of each of the three partner Reston community organizations will discuss six issue areas they believe need further attention in the latest draft Comprehensive Plan for Reston. 

Here’s a quick rundown on the six issue themes:

Sustaining Reston.  The draft plan does not establish a way to guide the massive development proposed in the draft plan in a manner consistent with Reston’s values and history.  The discussion will focus on the importance of Reston’s two leading homeowner associations—RA and the Reston Town Center Association—continuing their community oversight and how that might be accomplished.

Environmental Sustainability.   Among Reston’s most important core values is its commitment to sustaining—even improving—our environment from new green buildings to protecting natural areas in the face of the coming development.  This discussion will look at what more needs to be done to make sure Restonians may be assured that its tradition of environmental excellence itself is sustained.

Flexibility.  Flexibility in a plan can be both good and bad.  We don’t want a plan that is so rigid that it is unrealistic.  On the other hand, we don’t want a plan that is so flexible that we are unlikely to achieve the development and other goals laid out in the plan.  This discussion will look at some areas of the plan where flexibility may be overdone and needs some constraint.

Open Spaces, Parks, & Recreation.   Like environmental sustainability—even part of it—is Reston’s commitment to meeting the parks, recreation, and open space needs of the community as a critical element of Restonians’ quality of life.  This is the least developed topic area in the draft plan and the panel will discuss what needs to be done to help assure Restonians that they will continue to be a community of abundant parks, recreation, and open space.

Mobility.  Restonians are all too familiar with the difficulty of transiting the Dulles Corridor by car during peak traffic periods.  The huge planned jobs and housing developed proposed for the area will badly aggravate the situation unless aggressive measures are made to mitigate the problem.  The panel will discuss the community’s interest in improving road, transit, biking, and walking infrastructure to meet that problem along with transportation demand management (TDM) policy measures to prevent a further deterioration in community mobility.

Implementation.  Like most development planning, this draft plan provides an extensive description of what the community would like to achieve in its transit station areas, but it is wanting in matters of how that might be accomplished.   Implementation questions include how to achieve the plan’s density and balance goals, how to assure that needed infrastructure is created concurrently with development (phasing), how to pay for all this (financing), and how those many important decisions will be made (governance). 

Everyone who attends will have an opportunity to ask questions about all these topics at the end of this discussion.  When those questions are answered, RCA President Colin Mills will wrap up the meeting and offer the community ideas on how it can help Reston’s community organizations achieve a better Reston for the next generation.

Joint Community Forum: RCA and RA Approve Joint Summary Statement of Concern about Draft Reston Master Plan, Plan Joint Forum

At their respective Board of Directors meetings on September 23, 2013, the Reston Citizens Association (RCA) and Reston Association (RA) approved a joint summary statement of concerns about key  concerns in the draft Reston Master Plan.  The summary is a top level description of a series of six key areas of concern the two organizations and the Alliance for Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH) have shared with the County.

Here is the text of the joint summary statement:

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE PHASE ONE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR

THE RESTON TRANSIT STATION AREAS (TSAS)

1.  Reston Sustainability:  We believe that Reston encompasses all of the land within the Transit Station corridor area.  All new development in this area should be incorporated into either RA or RTCA, according to their agreed upon membership boundaries.

2.  Environmental Sustainability:   Consistent with Reston’s history of forward thinking on environmental stewardship and sustainability, we believe that future development in Reston should meet the highest feasible environmental standards, ranging from the protection or restoration of natural amenities, to the use of the best environmental practices in development design and materials.

3.  Flexibility:  We appreciate the need for moderate flexibility in planning over a two-decade timeframe, but we do not support Plan language that would allow significant variation or increase from the density/intensity and land use mix objectives laid out in the Preferred Development Scenario (Scenario G). 

4.  Open Spaces, Parks, and Recreation:  In order to sustain Reston’s existing character and reputation as a model planned community, we believe the new Comprehensive Plan must assure the provision of adequate high-quality, publicly accessible open space, parks,  natural areas, and recreational facilities within the Phase 1 area, to accommodate Reston’s residents and employees.

5.  Mobility:  We believe the people of Reston must have reasonable cross-community driving, biking and walking conditions, especially during peak periods, both within and near the Phase 1 area.  The following are crucial to maintain a balance between land use and transportation:  (1) road, bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements;  (2) transportation demand management (TDM) measures; and (3) adherence to the Preferred Development Scenario mix of uses and maximum level  of development.

6.  Implementation:  We believe the people of Reston must have strong guarantees that the infrastructure needed to support the increased level of development and continuation of Reston’s high quality of life  will be completed concurrently with development, and paid for, on a fair, pro rata basis,  by those who will profit from the development.

The joint effort by RCA, RA, and ARCH is a first in the half-century history of Reston.  It reflects the importance that all three organizations attach to the development of a new Reston Comprehensive Plan that protects and advances the quality of life in Reston in areas critical to the community.

Representatives of the the community organizations will present a panel discussion and Q&A opportunity in a joint community forum at the Reston Association headquarters at 7PM on Thursday, October 17, 2013.  Everyone is invited to attend, learn, inquire, and act.  Please join us.