Pope to Urban Planners: Build Better Cities By Anna Clark, Next City, June 19, 2015

Pope Francis called for an extraordinary global response to climate change this week in his much-anticipated encyclical. But the first pope from the developing world also has a message for urban planners: Build better neighborhoods for the poor. And while you’re at it, find a way to integrate the natural world in city design. “We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature,” he writes in Laudato Si. It’s subtitled “Our Care for Our Common Home.”

Cities have become unhealthy places for human beings — not only because of toxic emissions, but also because of poor transportation, visual pollution, congestion, social exclusion, violence, noise and even “the loss of identity.” And inequality looms over it all.

"In some places, rural and urban alike, the privatization of certain spaces has restricted people’s access to places of particular beauty,” Francis writes. “In others, ‘ecological’ neighbourhoods have been created which are closed to outsiders in order to ensure an artificial tranquility. Frequently, we find beautiful and carefully manicured green spaces in so-called ‘safer’ areas of cities, but not in the more hidden areas where the disposable of society live.” . . .

The Pope understands the role of quality of life in urban planning, a factor that is especially important in a planned community such as Reston.

Why can't our County leaders, starting with the Board of Supervisors, but including planning, parks, transportation, education, and more, grasp this need and plan and build accordingly?

For the rest of Anna Clark's excellent article, click here.

Reston 2020 asks Planning Commission to correct errors and omissions in Reston land use map.

As the Phase II (suburban) Reston Master Plan draft goes to the County Planning Commission for consideration this week, Reston 2020 has written the Commission asking it to correct a series of omissions and errors in the draft Reston land use map.  The importance of the land use map has been highlighted by the ongoing case of Reston National Golf Course.  Here is the text of the letter sent to the Planning Commission:

 April 20, 2015

Fairfax County Planning Commission

Government Center

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330

Fairfax, VA  22035

Re:   Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Item ST09-III-UP1 (B) – Reston Master Plan Phase II

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

                Reston 2020 (an independent committee of the Reston Citizens Association) submits this comment regarding the Staff Report and Appendix A, Recommended Plan Text of the Reston Master Plan.  The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the draft Reston Master Plan Phase II comprehensive plan text is scheduled for this Wednesday, April 22, 2015

                Reston 2020 appreciates the many efforts of current and former county planning staff involved in the Reston Master Plan Special Study, particularly Fred Selden, Heidi Merkel, Richard Lambert and Feheem Darab, who all worked tirelessly on this project.

Phase I of the Special Study began in December 2009 and was completed with the adoption of the Reston Transit Stations Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors in February 2014.  Phase II kicked off with an open house in June 2014, but the first community meeting was not until September 2014.  County staff published final recommended Phase II comprehensive plan text on April 1, 2015, just six months later.

While Phase II was conducted under the new Fairfax Forward procedures, and thus was highly compressed, it provided some opportunities for citizens and community groups to provide input at four community meetings on varying topics, and subsequently to submit written comments on two staff working comprehensive plan text drafts.  Reston 2020 submitted several such comments.  These included comments in February regarding the importance of ensuring that all existing open space is carefully delineated in the draft plan text.

As recent events have demonstrated, preserving open space is an important, high‑profile issue in Reston.  It is very important that planned land uses for all parcels be fully and accurately described in the Reston Master Plan text, and essential that all existing open spaces be correctly shown on the accompanying maps to ensure their future protection.  As we explained in our February 2015 comment to county staff in this matter,

If the plan text does not specify land use categories for particular parcels or areas, than the maps must be absolutely clear and unambiguous to provide adequate notice to the public, provide necessary information to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors who will be asked to approve the proposed plan amendment and, most importantly, prevent future land use disputes.  In particular, open space representations must fully and accurately reflect existing conditions.

Reston 2020 Email (Feb. 13, 2015) (emphasis added).

                In addition to this commentary, Reston 2020 simultaneously submitted specific additions and corrections to the draft Reston maps.  We noted that,

the [then] draft plan text says the Reston Land Use map identifies private parks, recreation and open space owned by Reston Association, other cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, and Fairfax County.  Indeed, many Reston clusters have common areas owned by the respective homeowners association, typically separate legal parcels (e.g. Parcel A), which are subjected by the deed to county regulations, including regulations regarding open space, tree canopy, etc.  Despite the statement in the text (see page 19 of 76), the open spaces in clusters and condominium neighborhoods do not appear on the land use map.  These open spaces should be added.  In addition, to the extent that there is any doubt regarding the completeness of the maps, notes should be added to both the plan text and the map stating that the open space representations may be incomplete.

Reston 2020 Comments on Draft Maps (Feb. 13, 2015) at 1 (emphasis in original).  Reston 2020 made similar suggestions regarding the draft Reston Parks, Recreation and Open Space map, and the Existing Trails map.  Id. at 2.

Unfortunately, Reston 2020’s comments and suggestions regarding the handling of open space are not reflected in the final staff-recommended drafts.   The staff report and revised plan text continue to state the maps are complete, but open spaces in cluster and condo neighborhoods were not added, nor are there new notes advising readers that open space graphic representations are incomplete.  In fact, the staff report flatly states that all open space is shown, stating

All Public Parks, Private Recreation, and Private Open Space[s] are now reflected in Reston’s Land Use Map and are further detailed in the Parks and Open Space Map.  More parks & recreation facilities and open space are included in the Reston Land Use Map. 

Staff Report at page 7 of 12 (emphasis added).[1]  The draft comprehensive plan text is only slightly less emphatic.  It continues say the “Reston Land Use map identifies property owned by Reston Association, cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and Fairfax County.”  Appendix A, PDF at 22-23 of 93.  It also states that,

Reston’s Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces are shown on the map below (Figure 13 (sic)).  The map is an elaboration of the Reston Land Use Map (Figure 4) displaying the parks, recreation and open spaces as described in the Community-wide Land Use section in more detail.  Reston’s Park, Recreation and Open Space map distinguishes between Reston Association’s parks and open spaces, and all other parks, recreation and open spaces in Reston

Appendix A at 43.

                As this discussion aptly demonstrates, the plan’s handling of the open space issue is misleading, at best.  Not only are both the staff report and plan text inaccurate when they state that all private open space is included, but the three maps are not complete because they do not designate all existing open space sites in Reston.

                Therefore, we request (1) that the draft comprehensive plan text for Reston (and accompanying maps) be revised to correct these errors, and (2) that the accompanying draft land use, open space and trails maps be updated to include all existing private open space, including open space owned by clusters and condominium associations.  If the addition of missing private open space on the maps proves logistically impossible, at a minimum notes added to both the plan text and map legends to reflect that not all open space is shown.

                Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

    --s--

Terry Maynard

Reston 2020 Committee

CC:

Fred Selden, C/DPZ

Heidi Merkel, DPZ

Faheem Darab, DPZ

---

[1]  The draft land use maps are Figures 4, 5 and 6.  The draft parks, recreation and open space map is Figure 14.  The existing trails map, which also includes open space designations, is Figure 13.

Future Watch: More Fields Per Person in Manhattan Than In Reston? RestonNow, February 11, 2014

by Karen Goff

One of the major criticisms from Reston development-watchers about the changes to the Reston Master Plan is the lack of planning for recreational and athletic space if Reston experiences a projected population boom of 30,000-40,000 in coming years.

 

 As the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors gets ready for its Tuesday meeting, where it is expected to vote on changes to the comprehensive plan, advocacy group Reston 2020 took a look at how Reston of the future stacks up with the most urban of all transit-oriented developments: Manhattan.

“The draft Reston transit station area master plan promises less than two-thirds the playing fields per capita for the totality of the station areas and less than half for the “crown jewel” of Reston—Reston Town Center,” writes co-chair Terry Maynard. . . .

Click here for the rest of this article. 

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.  

RCC Pool Referendum Unlikely in 2014, RestonNow, January 9, 2014

RestonNow's Karen Goff reports that RCC (& FCPA?) are unlikely to seek a referendum for an aquatics center in Reston this year.  Here are some excepts from the article:

A referendum on whether to build a new Reston Community Center facility is unlikely to happen in 2014, RCC Executive Director Leila Gordon says.

The board has been discussing the idea of adding a new recreation center with a 50-meter indoor pool with residents and consultants with Brailsford & Dunlavey since February of 2013. RCC’s current indoor pool, at Hunters Woods, is 35 years old and need of modernization, RCC’s board of governors says. The board has proposed building an additional pool and rec center at Baron Cameron Park or at the area known as Town Center North.

RCC had hoped to be able to present the idea to Small Tax District 5 voters this year. However, Gordon says there still needs to be three-to-six months of more discussion before the plan can move forward, which means if RCC decides to move forward it would not be put to a referendum vote by November. It also would not be cost-effective to hold a special ballot, she said. . .

Gordon said one of the ideas coming out of a two-day RCC Board of Governors retreat last week was the need to examine pricing and cost recovery scenarios. RCC’s usage fees have remained lower than most area facilities, and phasing in increases over the next several years would allow for less of a tax burden on residents if the project proceeds. . . .

RCA and Reston 2020 have repeatedly reported that the proposed aquatic center is cost-ineffective based on its own consultants' multiple reports.   (For example, see RCA's report last spring on the recreation center initiative and Terry Maynard's comment at last week's RCC strategic planning offsite.)  According to Brailsford & Dunlavey,, a "successful" recreation center recovers all its operating costs through revenues from program fees, etc.  In fact, County recreation centers recover 114% of their operating costs according to one B&D report.  The best any of the options presented to RCC Board of Governors could achieve was 71% (excluding a 150M square foot rec center that included indoor tennis) for a couple of alternative rec centers in the mid-80 thousands of square feet in size.  We appreciate that the RCC has officially recognized the pricing and recovery shortfalls of all the alternatives it has considered.

Still, this RCC move does not address the FCPA's and RCC's current plan to include a major Reston recreation center as part of the draft County Baron Cameron Park 10-year plan.  This plan will be posted on the FCPA website on or about January 15, 2014, according to Bill Bouie, FCPA Board Chair and member of the RCC Board of Governors.  It will go before the FCPA Board on January 22 for preliminary review.  If the concept garners FCPA Board approval, a time will be set for a public meeting to present the plan followed by a 30-day public comment period.  Then the Parks Board will vote to approve the Plan, including a rec center in the Baron Cameron Park.

Letter to Planning Commission: Thoughts on the Reston Master Plan Draft from Residents' Perspective, Terry Maynard, November 19, 2013

   Letter to County Planning Commission regarding the Draft Reston Master Plan, Terry Maynard, November 19, 20...

Statement of Connie Hartke to Planning Commission on Parks & Recreation, November 13, 2013

Fairfax County Planning Commission's public hearing on ST09-III-UP1 (A), Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Reston Transit Station) - Wednesday, November 13, 2013

My concern is the lack of provisions for recreational amenities within the TSA boundaries.  The Plan starts the discussion on page 74:  recreational needs generated in the TSAs should primarily be met within the mixed use developments of the TSAs.  But then it goes on to say that elements of the larger Reston area’s robust park & recreation system may be able to be improved to meet the needs of future residents and employees.  Some will be possible, but how much?  For example, 12 athletic fields are required for the new population.  3 are specified within the TSAs.  Does that mean suburban Reston must provide the other 9? 

Reston cannot be relied upon to take on the expense and maintenance of the majority of new recreational amenities.  28,000 housing units will ultimately exist within the TSAs.  Suburban Reston is already built out.  There will be VERY LIMITED athletic fields which can be lighted.  Whatever does not get specified within the TSAs is a gamble.  Neighborhood protectionism is notoriously strong in Reston.   We should not rely on areas outside the TSAs to provide the majority of the recreational amenities for the TSAs.

I know the county wants this new community to be a great success.  At the joint forum that we held in Reston last month, I was impressed when Richard Lambert mentioned that Fairfax County is excited to have this opportunity to “build” the County’s first ever real mixed use transit oriented development.  Vienna was already built out when the metro went in; Tysons is the mess that it is.  Reston, with its shift from suburban office parks to true residential/ commercial mixed used development, gives our County the opportunity to shine.

We can upgrade a few athletic fields.  Put a band-aid here and there.  But the opportunity to create something exceptional is WITHIN the corridor.

I’m asking you to send this plan back to the task force and challenge them to come back with a defined recreational plan that will compete with the likes of Long Bridge Park on the edge of Crystal City.  Owned by Arlington County Parks and Recreation, it is a model for what we need within the TSAs.

It has 3 full-size, multi-sport, lighted, rectangular synthetic turf athletic fields, walkways and artwork, with the high rises of Crystal City literally across the street.  When I attend the Virginian Elite Soccer Tournament each Memorial weekend, I pay to park in an otherwise empty commercial garage and walk across the street to this fantastic sports facility.  In future years I can hop the metro over.  Listen to this description of the Park and imagine this being said about a premier facility in Reston:

“Long Bridge Park is a distinctive showplace of environmentally sound redevelopment, with a central expanse of attractive public green spaces and high-quality outdoor recreation facilities that are accessible to all Arlingtonians, conveniently linked with nearby urban corridors and the Potomac riverscape, and coupled with complementary private redevelopment.” 

Another really important amenity that is ideal within the TSAs is accessible playgrounds. Under new ADA rules, playgrounds built or altered after March 14, 2012, are required to have wheelchair-friendly surfaces and equipment.  Playground accessibility is a civil right.  A truly accessible playground requires more space than the traditional.  Some worry that giving up space for recreation will cut into Fairfax County tax revenues.  Build a place where more folks want to live, and the revenue will come.  My husband and I own two wheelchair accessible vacation cabins. I will put our revenue and number of nights rented per year up against any of our neighbors.  We gained financially with accessibility. 

Create a Reston that keeps the essence of our community.  Strive to be named again in Money Magazine’s best places to live small cities survey.  Challenge yourselves and your developers to create a design that is true to Reston’s Live, Work and Play motto.

Seize this opportunity to add more to the Play.  Now is our opportunity to make the TSAs a flagship mixed use transit oriented development.  Send this Plan back and demand more. 

Joint RA-RCA-ARCH Letter Updates Community Comments on Draft Reston Plan, Version 10

This letter updates the joint letter sent by RA, RCA, and ARCH concerning proposed amendments to the draft Reston Comprehensive Plan being considered by the Reston Task Force.  It recognizes that some of the earlier recommendations concerning Sustaining Reston and Environmental Stability have been incorporated in the latest draft.  This letter adds new text addressing new language concerning parks and recreation in Version 10 of the draft Plan. 

These changes and changes submitted by other organizations on the task force will be considered at tomorrow's possibly final meeting of the task force.  It will be held at the RA Headquarters Conference Center, 7PM, October 29, 2013. 

   Joint RA-RCA-ARCH Comments on Version 10 of Draft Reston Comp Plan, October 28, 2013

The Reston Station Athletic Fields Situation Gets Worse, Terry Maynard, Reston Patch, October 28, 2013

   The Reston Station Area Athletic Fields Situation Gets Worse

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.

 

As Reston Grows, Will Parks Keep Up? Connie Hartke, Reston Patch, October 16, 2013

The train is about to arrive at the station and if Restonians don’t start making some noise, Fairfax County is going to leave us in the dust again.

Fairfax County has countywide Service Level Standards for Park Facilities based on population. The Reston Citizens Association (RCA) has analyzed how the draft Reston Comprehensive Plan stacks up after 49,000+ new residents move into the high rises that will be built between Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills Roads.  More details Thursday, October 17 at the RA/RCA/ARCH forum.

As one example, let’s look at the County requirement for sports fields.  The 49,000 new residents within the Reston transit area corridor require 12 diamond & 13 rectangular fields.  This number can probably be reduced to 6 and 6 assuming artificial turf and lighting which increases usage capacity.  

So the County Standard is 25 fields of this type; reasonable people can compromise on 12 if built for high capacity usage.  How many ball fields does the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan call for?  Two.

I see only one County Park Facilities Standard that Reston already meets, no thanks to this effort.  The County has a standard of one hole of golf for every 3,200 citizens.  Using a projected Reston population of 114,118 we need 36 holes.  Fantastic!  Reston has two privately owned, publicly accessible golf courses which cost us taxpayers nothing.  Check that one off the list.  This doesn’t mean that the golf course battle is over, but knowing about this standard will help us hold our County Supervisors accountable.

We have a short window of opportunity to press the developers to make a real commitment to our community by providing space (yes, there's enough!) and substantial funding for courts, playgrounds and other amenities - just as they're required to do in the rest of the County.  So far, though, the developers keep asking for more "flexibility" in the Plan - and they're winning. 

Please attend the RA/RCA/ARCH forum on Thursday, October 17 at 7 p.m. at RA headquarters to learn about this aspect of the Plan and several other key areas of concern. We’ll give you the short version.  Then we’ll suggest what can be done to affect change.

Then mark your calendar for Tuesday, October 29.  This will be the Reston Comprehensive Plan Special Study Task Force meeting, possibly the last one.  Come to this meeting with your family, neighbors and sports teams.  The comprehensive plan is still in draft format, but it’s about to go final.  It is not too late for input and to affect change.  

Countywide Park Facilities Adopted Service Level Standards Applied to Reston New Urban and Suburban Areas

One of the most contentious points in the current Reston Master Planning process is just how many of each type of park facility should be built in Reston's emerging transit station areas (TSAs).  In fact, the County has population-based Adopted Service Level Standards for park facilities listed in a table in the County's Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.  It is important to note that these standards are NOT "suburban" or "urban"; they are "countywide."

Below is a table showing these facility standards as they apply to Reston's TSAs as projected by the County for two decades hence as well as an estimate of the population in the rest of Reston then.  The requirements for new park facilities is huge. 

Meanwhile, the County has only called for one athletic field each in the Wiehle and Reston Town Center TSAs in the latest draft Reston Master Plan when the standard is for 35 athletic fields of various types.

Here is that table in its entirety:

 

   Countywide Adopted Service Level Standards for Park Facilities Applied to Reston's Station Areas

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.