Planned Sully District Council of Citizens Associations Testimony on zMOD2 to the County Planning Commission

Planned Sully District Council of Citizens Associations Testimony on zMOD2

A Brief Look at Fairfax County Efforts to Reduce Residents' Participation in Land Use Planning & Approval Decisions

As we pass through the pre-election doldrums of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, we should all understand that both the current and the prospective County Board are in the process of reducing our involvement in critical land use decisions from community planning to project approval consideration.   We don’t yet know if Democratic Board candidate Walter Alcorn, almost certainly Hunter Mill District’s next supervisor, will be swept up in this drive despite his campaign commitment to involve the community.  (His website promises to “Engage the Community to Plan and Approve Projects that Make Sense.”)

This drive to accelerate county land use decisions in part by reducing public involvement began with Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova.  The Board’s frenzy for rapid, unfettered urban development goes back to at least 2012.  In a report on a February 2012 Board retreat, the Washington Post noted, 

“County officials outlined the need to rewrite the rules that govern land-use decisions, an effort backed by Bulova. She said that the current process, which allows for intense deliberation and wide public involvement, was better suited to the days when much of the county was farmland.

Today, Bulova said, Fairfax is a more urban and densely populated suburb and requires a more flexible approach that encourages redevelopment, particularly in areas targeted for intense growth, but preserves public engagement.”

“Preserves public engagement” is what one calls lip service that meets the legally required minimum public involvement in land use decisions.  

With that encouragement, the Board proceeded “to rewrite the rules that govern land-use decisions.”  So far, the county has made the following changes:

Fairfax Forward.  This Board planning initiative began shortly after the Board’s retreat.  The initiative aimed to correct what was viewed as a too rigid parcel-specific development nominations process that only marginally involved the community.   

Yet, as the Annandale blog reported, “A staff report on Fairfax Forward issued in February (2013) ‘was disturbingly silent on several critical avenues of citizen and community involvement in reviewing land use proposals,’ states (the Providence District Council) PDC’s comments. “Without amended language to ensure full and meaningful community review, PDC fears that Fairfax Forward could be construed in a way that reduces, rather than expands, community involvement in charting Fairfax’s future.”  In 2016, the county staff acknowledged, “(o)utstanding questions about community participation in (the) process,” but claimed the new system provided a “(c)learer process for citizen participation.”  No changes to improve opportunities for community involvement were added.  

“Minor Modifications”.   In its first step, the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)  developed a “streamlined” process for handling “minor” changes in zoning decisions that the Board approved in 2017.   From a resident’s perspective, there are several points that stand out:

• There is no requirement that the county notify the community or even adjoining property owners about proposed zoning changes, only the district supervisor.
• There is no Planning Commission review, much less a public hearing, on the proposed changes, only a staff review.
• In the Reston Planned Residential Community (PRC), the Board of Supervisors may approve, without a public hearing, proposed development changes, including dropping recreation uses to the minimum legally required, eliminating “ineffective or obsolete” technological or service proffers (Why would a developer proffer “ineffective or obsolete” technology or services—and why would the county accept them?), and changing architectural design. 

All these changes are not supposed to “materially affect” the proposed development, but, of course, there is no definition of “materially affect?”

In short, the community is cut out of any opportunity for contribution to—even of knowledge of-- potentially important changes in a standing zoning decision concerning the development of a Reston property.  Anything done without full public scrutiny is incredibly dangerous.

The 2016 Gartner Report.  To bolster its Fairfax Forward initiative, the Board engaged yet another consultant in 2015, Gartner Group, to conduct “an independent review of current procedures and processes, effectiveness and efficiencies to identify opportunities for improvement which can further customer service and improve operational execution.”  The “customers” are “land use development customers, from home owners to large-scale developers.”  There is little room for residents or communities, who comprise more than one million people and hundreds of thousands of homeowners, in the considerations of this report.  

Gartner’s final report is all about achieving Goal #3 of the county’s 2015 strategic economic development plan:  “Improve the speed, consistency, and predictability of the Development Review Process.”  Nothing in the report considers the impact of the plans—whether community or specific development plans--on the communities in which the development is to occur.  Moreover, the proposed processes pay only lip service to public participation, limiting them to state-mandated requirements and the minimal limits of political propriety.  

zMOD Zoning Ordinance Re-write.   And then came “zMod,” the county’s ongoing process to re-write the county’s zoning ordinances.  The major assignment Clarion Group is tackling is a complete re-write of the county’s zoning ordinance, including streamlining processes, without making substantive changes in the ordinance.   Clarion presented its first draft of the substance of the proposed re-write on July 1, 2019.  There are, in fact, substantive changes laid out in the draft’s summary covering accessory uses, electrical vehicle charging, and much more.  (We strongly encourage you to read at least the summary of this draft report where the key changes are outlined.)  On the other hand, there is no discussion of the process by which one legislates changes to that ordinance, including the role of public input.   

Among the changes permitted in PRCs, including Reston, the zMOD draft newly permits new “live-work development” and “stacked townhouse” uses and excludes “community swim, tennis, and other recreational uses.” These beg questions regarding what the DRB will think of stacked townhouses and the future of that county regional recreation center that is supposed to be built in Reston.  Also, the proposal to not allow recreational facilities puts Reston’s two golf courses in jeopardy.  Certainly there will be much more to come, and we doubt that much of it will be to Reston’s advantage or promote its residents’ involvement.

It is vital that all Reston residents understand the proposed PRC zoning ordinance changes and their implications for our community.  There is much to be concerned about.  More broadly, we need to understand what changes, if any, are on the docket for the process for developing, vetting, and approving PRC zoning changes.  It was only because of a huge community effort involving literally hundreds, even thousands, of Restonians that we were able to postpone indefinitely consideration of the recent Reston PRC zoning ordinance amendment that would have allowed unconscionable increases in our population.  

One encouraging sign is that activists from all over the county are now organizing.  Citizens from ALL Fairfax County districts are becoming increasingly alarmed at the county’s rush to approve development everywhere with reduced citizen review.  The 2016 Gartner report has been read and raises huge concerns.  It seems to be THE blueprint designed for and by developers at the expense of true public input.

Any county effort to reduce community involvement in the zoning amendment process will only make it that much more difficult for us to stop truly bad county decisions that would undermine the goals and principles of our master planned community.

"The 'hurrier' Fairfax County goes, the 'behinder' it gets," Letter to the Editor, Fairfax Times, March 1, 2019

The hurrier Fairfax County goes, the behinder it gets.

A comment by a “guest” in a recent RestonNow article on the Planning Commission hearing on the PRC zoning issue that, “We can't slow down development AND we can't speed up providing the associated infrastructure,” was stunning and highly accurate.  It reminded me of the White Rabbit’s comment in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, “The hurrier I go, the behinder I get.”

And, yes, that’s what happening across areas of growth in Fairfax County, not just Reston.   It describes the poor decision making of the County Board that keeps approving residential development while being unwilling to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure from sidewalks to schools.  The result, of course, is the declining quality of life throughout our county, especially in faster growing communities like Reston. 

County officials, including the Planning Commission, attribute this behavior to Virginia’s nefarious state Supreme Court “Dillon Rule” decision.  In brief, the Dillon Rule assumes all local governments are corrupt and, therefore, prevents them from making any decisions not explicitly permitted by the state legislature.  Development moratoriums and stiff proffers are, according to Fairfax County officials, not among those authorities.  

So we are stuck with a county government—planning staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors--that believes it must approve virtually all development proposals presented to it with no promise of timely commensurate infrastructure availability.  Otherwise, they risk the wrath of a developer law suit, they say.  And to say that Fairfax County is law suit risk averse is a massive understatement.

The result is, as we are seeing in Reston, growth continues unabated while the supporting infrastructure is deferred…and delayed…and postponed because of a lack of funding or the means to acquire it.  Indeed, the state legislature—under great developer pressure and even greater financial contributions—has taken steps in recent years to restrict further what local governments can do to generate proffers and other infrastructure commitments from developers. 

This occurs, as I pointed out in a previous RestonNow op-ed, because residential development requires more community services (schools, rec centers, libraries, parks, etc.) to sustain a given quality of life than commercial development.  Both require streets, water and sewage, public safety, and other services, but residents require more.  

In fact, multiple studies, including a “meta-analysis” of more than one hundred community studies, have shown the cost of community services for residential development almost universally exceeds the tax revenues (property, sales, etc.) that development generates.  Normally, that tax revenue deficit is between 10%-20%.  On the other hand, tax revenues generated on commercial and agricultural development, on average, more than doubles the cost of services they require.   Nonetheless, senior county staff has denied to me personally that this will be true in Reston—and presumably the remainder of the county—without any explanation.   They say, “Trust us.”  Right!

There is only one possible outcome from this county self-deception:  The quality of life in Reston and other rapidly growing residential communities in Fairfax County will continue to decline as the demand for resources to support needed infrastructure for residents increasingly distances the supply.   We are already seeing minimum two-decade lead times for key infrastructure development (such as the Soapstone overpass) as our needed schools, streets, libraries, recreation centers, etc., remain unfunded.  In Reston’s case, we face the worst-case scenario in which we may even lose existing referendum-approved bond funding for a new library in the face of county bungling in getting it built. 

In short:  The hurrier we go, the behinder we get. 

The next step in the battle to bring some reason to the growth-infrastructure balance in Reston is to oppose the pending Reston PRC (our suburban areas plus parts of Town Center) zoning ordinance amendment that would increase allowable residential density from 81,000 to 94,000 people—not counting affordable housing and related “bonus” market units that could raise that number to 113,000 people or more—doubling all of Reston’s current population.  That’s on top of the plan potential for 91,000 residents in the PRM-zoned areas covering most of Reston’s Metro station areas.  This call for allowing additional density comes at a time when the county puts Reston’s 2018 population at a mere 63,774.  What’s the rush?

We all need to take two actions:

• Write the Board of Supervisors (clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov) and express your concern over the proposed increase in the Reston PRC allowable density.  Writing to Supervisor Hudgins will not help:  She is the principal advocate for the density increase.

•  Attend the March 5, 2019, Board of Supervisors hearing on the proposed PRC zoning amendment that begins at 4:30PM in the government center auditorium.   And wear your YELLOW shirt supporting Reston if you have one.  (You may buy one from Reclaim Reston at the government center before the hearing if you wish.)  Note:  This will probably be a long meeting with other hearings on the agenda as well.

We need everyone to help in bringing some coherence into our Reston development process, and maybe set an example for good development management in the rest of the county.  After all, we are one of the world’s premier planned communities.   Let’s not lose that community prominence because of county incompetence.

Terry Maynard

Reston

"What's the number?" E-mail to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors by Terry Maynard, January 29, 2019

Dear Commissioners and Supervisors,

In the January 23rd Planning Commission hearing on increasing the density cap in Reston's PRC from 13 to some higher number, Mr. Hart asked the critical question, "What's the number?"  If not 13 people per acre, then what should it be?  From my perspective, the number for the population cap in the Reston PRC is, and should remain indefinitely, 13 persons per acre.  

If the Reston PRC overall P/A number is increased, even a little, it destroys the basis for it being fixed at any level as part of our founder’s vision and a true master plan.  In so doing, it extinguishes the core foundation of Reston as a planned community with a well-considered balance between residents, jobs, open space, and infrastructure.  Instead, the community and the county would just keep chasing the population cap higher or abolish it all together as property owners continue to seek to add density.  It does nothing for jobs, open space, or infrastructure (as many Reston speakers highlighted at the recent hearing).  Planned community destroyed.  

It seems clear to me that Bob Simon fully appreciated that Reston would have mass transit in the Dulles Corridor in addition to the access road and toll road.  With that in mind, a 1990s version of the Reston Master Plan stated that the maximum (not “target”) population of Reston is 130,000 people.   (That map is no longer publicly available.)  This is consistent with the story presented by Mark Looney at the Planning Commission hearing, and just because the result was a simple equation doesn’t mean it was not well considered.  For example, how about E = mc²?  Simple, but with huge implications—and it took years to formulate.     Not surprisingly, with an overall Reston acreage of about 10,000 acres, that 130,000 population cap works out to 13 people per acre. 

His logic, as reported in A Brief History of Reston, Virginia (Gulf Reston, 1970, p. 11) was: "Our present zoning ordinances (which isolated land uses) are largely responsible for the diffusion of our communities into separate, unrelated hunks without focus, identity or community life. They have helped produce chaos on our highways, monotony in our subdivisions, ugliness in our shopping centers. They are to blame for the whole neon-lighted wasteland that exists."  And, yes, neon lights have appeared on Comstock’s new office building at Reston Station.  He was more prescient than could have been imagined.

The Reston Master Plan as approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2014 (Phase 1 TSA revisions) came close to defining that 130,000 limit.

It targeted the development of 28,000 dwelling units (DUs) in the TSAs, about 59,000 people.

The largely suburban PRC areas of Reston would top out at about 82,000 people at 13 p/a less the overlap between the PRC and TSA in Reston Town Center comprising about 11,000 DUs, or about 23,000 people.   (My best estimate of the current RTC PRC population is about 13,000 people in some 6,300 DUs.  This is based on Fairfax County and RA data.)

Netting that all out (59,000 TSA + 59,000 non-TSA) leads to a potential Reston population of 118,000 people in “One Reston,” approaching the cap laid out in the Reston Master Plan some two decades ago.   And it would allow a virtual doubling of Reston’s current population (which the US Census estimates at 60,352 in its 2012-2017 ACS survey) in four decades that it has taken well over five decades to achieve.   Our experience shows that that is certainly enough growth to try to manage in any master plan, zoning ordinance, or supporting budget. 

Some of the further implications of that calculation are: 

We need to “down plan” the target residential potential of the TSAs from 44,000 DUs (2015 plan amendment) to 28,000 DUs (2014 Phase 1 plan approval).  This was the total number of DUs developed by the Phase 1 Reston Master Plan Task Force for Reston’s station areas.

We should not change the number of development categories in the PRC zoning ordinance (low, medium, high) or their values (maximum of 50 DU/A for MF DUs).  As RA has pointed out, only one development application has so far exceeded that density limit.  There should be no more.

Village centers should be re-developed at not more than a moderate density (30 DUA), not the 50 DUA proposed in the current PRC zoning amendment proposal.  In this manner, they would remain "neighborhood serving" as called for in the Reston Master Plan rather than just high-density annexes isolated from the transit station areas.   

It is clear, as members of the Planning Commission have stated, that we need to re-connect the Reston plan with the PRC zoning ordinance before considering changes to the latter.   With the next scheduled Reston plan effort set for 2020, I think the Planning Commission has the time to lay the groundwork for that effort before moving forward on this zoning amendment.  My only “ask” is that the new effort must include a strong community voice—people representing Reston residents’ interests—in the re-shaping of our community plan and zoning.

In the meantime, I think the Hippocratic Oath applies to the Reston body politic as much as it applies to the body human:  “First, do no harm.”

Thank you for your consideration—and your patience,

Terry Maynard

Photo: Yellow-shirt Restonians flood the Planning Commission hearing on the proposed PRC zoning amendment, January 23, 2019

Photo by Mercia Hobson, Reston Connection, January 30, 2019

Click here to read Mercia Hobson's article on the Planning Commission hearing. 

Rise up, Reston! Stop the Reston PRC density increase!

All Restonians who wish to preserve Reston as a well-planned and executed planned community must rise up now and express their disgust with the county’s proposal to increase the allowable density, potentially tripling “ONE Reston’s” population. 

On January 23, the county Planning Commission will be considering an amendment to Reston’s Planned Residential Community (PRC) zoning category to increase the allowable density from 13 to 15 persons per acre.  The zoning ordinance covers Reston’s suburban areas, including the village centers and most of Reston Town Center.  While that increase sounds relatively modest, it does NOT consider:

• At present, the Reston PRC’s density is about 18,000 people (more than 20%) below its allowable capacity of more than 81,000 people.  Reston’s growth over its lifetime, virtually all in the PRC area to date, has averaged less than 1,000 people per year.
• Up to a 20 percent “bonus” to developers for building affordable (low- and middle-income) housing that is not counted per the PRC zoning ordinance, adding capacity for another 7,400 people to live in the PRC area.
• Existing plans and zoning authority to build 40,000 new high-rise, multi-family housing units (84,000 added people) in Reston’s three transit station areas (TSAs) beyond the PRC boundaries, but affecting everyone in Reston and beyond.

All in all, these changes would allow an increase Reston’s population from about 63,000 to about 190,000 people in ONE Reston.   

At the same time, the county has not funded plans to meet Reston’s transportation, school, park, and other needs associated with this growth, even as required by its own county policies.  In fact, the Fairfax schools just rejected funding again for a new high school to meet the growing needs along the Dulles Corridor.  Yet that hasn’t stopped the county from placing another tax on Reston homeowners in the transit station areas for the “grid of streets” that only helps developers complete their projects more profitably.   

The result of this massive unplanned imbalance between growth and infrastructure will be a dramatic loss of quality of life in Reston for everyone, new or longtime resident.

In the process of moving forward, the county and our supervisor have reneged on their explicit commitment to the community to follow through with community-county staff meetings to address the surrounding the proposed Reston density increase before proceeding with legislative steps.  Their disrespect for Reston and Restonians is profound.  They see Reston as a plantation that they own and will oversee as they wish with no regard for its residents or their needs.

The Coalition for a Planned Reston (CPR) has detailed a list of ten reasons to keep the Reston PRC density cap at 13 persons per acre that includes the above and other reasons NOT to increase the density cap.  

While CPR and RA are planning to testify at the Planning Commission hearing, individual Restonians must rise up to stop this authoritarian county behavior.  Attend the Planning Commission hearing at 7PM, January 23, in the government center auditorium.  Wear your YELLOW shirt. 

Bear witness, speak out, and demand that the county meet the community’s needs as well as its own politically-driven agenda.  This may be your last chance to preserve the planned Reston we have known for more than a half century while allowing for reasonable future growth.  We need to fill the Fairfax County Government Center auditorium (12000 Government Center Parkway) with hundreds of YELLOW-shirted Restonians to have a chance to stop the county’s effort to ram this amendment through.