Oppose the Massive Redevelopment of Campus Commons

Reston needs your help!   Stop the destruction of our South Reston neighborhoods!   This summer, Reston Planning & Zoning Committee (RP&Z) rejected a proposal for a massive redevelopment of the Campus Commons site at the corner of Wiehle Avenue and Sunrise Valley Drive. However, the developer is pushing ahead to fast-track the addition of 1.1 million square feet of multi-family residential and office space. The proposed project is directly across Sunrise Valley Drive from neighborhoods of single-family homes and two-story townhouses. The proposal is currently slated to come before the Fairfax County Planning Commission for a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 and proceed to the Board of Supervisors in October 2019. Figure 1:  Aerial View from the Corner of Wiehle and the Toll Road Looking Southeast The Proposed Plan: Two 29-story and 8-story residential buildings with over 600 units for an estimated 1,300 residents, and  A 14-story office building capable of housing at least 1,240 employees. No reasonable approach for the traffic that will be generated on Wiehle Avenue and all along Sunrise Valley Drive, an area that is already heavily congested at peak travel times. Their only solution?  Re-stripe one block of Sunrise Valley Drive and two blocks of Wiehle, then re-time the traffic lights to ease congestion.  Significant Impact to Established Neighborhoods, Cross-Reston Traffic/Safety and Tree Canopy: The developer rejected proposals from RP&Z and Reston Association to build a tunnel under Wiehle Avenue so people could move quickly and safely to and from the Metro station.  Instead, they have proffered a new crosswalk across Wiehle at the Dulles Toll Road that will be accessible from Campus Commons up a steep embankment, impeding access to those with disabilities.        Figure 2:  Proposed access to crosswalk across Wiehle Avenue from Campus Commons The developer’s proposal offers only the absolute minimum amount of parking legally required for the more than 2,500 people who will live and work there, which will lead to overflow into the neighboring residential areas.  All the mature trees on the site will be removed, violating Reston’s Planning Principles which state, “Natural resources and ecosystems, including natural areas, will be protected . . . Tree canopy will continue to be an important component of the Reston visual experience.”  What can you do?  Three things: Attend the community meeting on Thursday, 5 September, at 7:00 pm at the North County Government Center. Wear yellow!  Ask the developer questions. Challenge their assumptions and statements. Stand up for Reston’s values of green space, tree cover, and quality of life. Write to the Fairfax County Planning Commission (Plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov) to express your opposition to this project that will add thousands more vehicles to roads already badly stressed and congested. (We’re attaching a letter already sent by one Reston resident as an example.) Attend the Planning Commission meeting on 25 September as a show of support to the many South Reston residents whose quality of life will be adversely affected by this over-development.  For more background information, please go to Rescue Sunrise Valley’s website. This is a group started by nearby residents. The site provides explanations about the many issues raised by this proposal and the developers’ reluctance to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the community. This deeply flawed development proposal may be in a Transit Station Area, but its failings will affect the lives of everyone who lives, works, or travels through Reston! ** Sample Letter to Fairfax County Planning Commission **

URGENT: Community Meeting Tonight on Massive Redevelopment at Wiehle and Sunrise Valley

Your support is needed at a community meeting this evening (Monday) at 7PM in the North County Government Center to discuss the massive redevelopment proposed at the southeast corner of Wiehle Avenue and Sunrise Valley Drive.  

TF Cornerstone is proposing three new buildings on this property, to include a 29-story residential building, a 14-story commercial building, and an 8-story residential building; the two smaller buildings currently on the property will remain.  The 29-story and 14-story buildings will dwarf the neighborhoods at this intersection, as they are immediately across the street from single family homes and multiple townhouse clusters.

If approved and built, this development will house over 2,600 new residents and employees, overwhelming an already-packed Sunrise Valley Drive.  There simply are no/no road improvements that could even remotely address this increased level of traffic density.  Eastbound traffic on Sunrise Valley is already so backed up in late afternoon that it's nearly impossible to turn out of the Upper Lake Drive on either of its intersections with SVR.  (Upper Lake is a horseshoe-shaped road.)  

TF Cornerstone has invited all affected neighbors to a community meeting on Monday, August 26 at 7 PM at the North County Government Center community room (1801 Cameron Glen Drive in Reston.   If you know of other individuals or groups who would be interested in engaging on this proposal, please feel free to forward this post to them.

The company is already on the Fairfax Planning Commission's schedule for a public hearing on September 25, 2019 and has told residents that it is working to schedule a Board of Supervisors public hearing on October 15, 2019. A copy of the development plan and proffer statement for the rezoning application are included, below.  
 

https://liquidfiles.cooley.com/link/Z0X56q7bKVVyOMTQpI0ni6
https://liquidfiles.cooley.com/link/Gex8fsJlSpT3PxZmSVGGZb

In addition, there are two posts on Nextdoor by Upper Lake neighbors who met with RA and with TF Cornerstone's land-use attorney that provide additional background info for you (see links below).  It is useful to note that one of my Upper Lake neighbors replied on Nextdoor that she had never gotten a notice from TF Cornerstone about this meeting.

Meeting with TFC's attorney

Meeting with RA

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.

Restonian's Detailed Analysis Destroys Alleged Grounds for Saint Johns Woods Higher Density Redevelopment

In the comprehensive and detailed analysis below, Reston resident John Mooney destroys developer Bozzuto's claim that its proposed redevelopment of Saint Johns Woods is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the Reston Master Plan.   As he notes in his letter to County leaders, he identifies both general legal-policy concerns about the Bozzuto proposal's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as well as concerns in four specific areas of non-compliance with the Reston Master Plan.  It is a well-written and well-documented analysis that warrants strong County and community attention.

   Analysis of the Saint Johns Woods Re-development Proposal and Transmittal Letter, John Mooney by TerryMaynard on Scribd

Re-thinking Tall Oaks as a Village Center, Terry Maynard, Reston 20/20

Re-thinking Tall Oaks as a Village Center

Terry Maynard, Reston 20/20 Committee

February 23, 2016

As this is being written, Jefferson Apartment Group (JAG) has a redevelopment application proposal before the County’s Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) to rebuild Tall Oaks Village Center as a residential cluster.  As shown in the diagram below (Figure 1), it would comprise three types of residential housing:  44 townhouses, 42 “2 over 2” townhomes dwelling units, and two condominium buildings (70 units total) along the Wiehle side of the complex. 

Figure 1:  JAG Layout Proposal for Redevelopment of Tall Oaks Village Center

As shown above, besides these 156 dwelling units, JAG proposes a very small green space about the width of a boulevard median strip and two small retail buildings (less than 4,000 GSF each) to flesh out its redevelopment.    

Otherwise, the so-called village center is crammed with housing and asphalt.  It does not in any sense of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, meet the criteria for a Reston “village center.”

Reston 20/20 believes Tall Oaks can become a vibrant village center through some relatively simple changes that have a major impact on its configuration without losing a single dwelling unit (156 allowed).  That change entails the following:

•  Scrapping the so-called “2 over 2” townhomes (42 dwelling units)
• Not building the row of townhouses closest to the village center entrance (8 units)
• Not building the proposed small amount of retail space (less than 10,000 GSF), less than currently is operating at the shopping center. 

The key to the change is building two more essentially identical condominium buildings at the south and east side of a much larger green space or plaza (or both) in the middle of the village center, including a stage and entry fountain.   An additional first floor of each of these buildings would be retail space surrounding the square that would total roughly 49,000 GSF, enough to make this a viable retail area.   Moreover, the two added condominium buildings would mean a net—and excess—gain of 20 dwelling units that would need to be eliminated in any of several ways (larger condos, cut one floor of condo units if feasible, reduce townhouse construction, or some combination of these).  Parking for this retail would be achieved by adding another level of underground parking to all four buildings, a total of 242 additional parking spots plus at least 50 street-level parking spots (about 290 required) around the plaza/square.  This is depicted below with the altered roadways in black. 

Figure 2:  Alternative Layout Proposal for Tall Oaks Village Center

We are well aware that JAG has insisted that retail at this location is infeasible because of the proximity of retail shopping centers within several miles.  While it has repeated this statement on numerous occasions, it has yet to provide a market study that demonstrates that conclusion.  It simply asserts it.

In fact, there is a direct counterfactual to JAG’s assertion:  The Village Center (ironic!) at the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. George Mason Drive in Arlington.  Here is how Washington Business Journal describes the Arlington Board’s approval of this residential-over-retail development:

The latest, approved by the county board on Saturday, is Village Center. At the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. George Mason Drive, Reston-based Orr Partners will replace the Food Star supermarket and its associated parking lot with 365 market-rate apartments atop 82,000 square feet of ground-floor retail (including a new grocery store, possibly a 24/7 Harris Teeter) and a 600-space, three-level underground parking garage.

The project, located on nearly 3 acres, also includes a half-acre public square, designed by landscape architect Oculus, featuring a garden, public art and a water feature. Orr will widen the sidewalks to six feet, provide space for outdoor dining, and set aside 128 bicycle parking spaces.

“We’re really excited about it,” said Ryan Orr, Orr’s vice president of acquisitions and development. “I think for Columbia Pike, it’s a game changer.”

And the Village Center location sits less than two miles from Pentagon City, Crystal City, Baileys Crossroads, and Virginia Square, and less than four miles from Seven Corners.   Talk about competition!

So while Orr Partners, a Reston firm no less, views its opportunity to create the Village Center as “a game changer,” JAG sees the competition from more distant and less complete shopping centers as overwhelming.    Moreover, Orr is putting 2/3 more retail on less than half the space of the Tall Oaks Village Center, and in a less densely populated neighborhood of predominately older single-family homes and garden apartments.  

 Village Center,

Reston 20/20’s view is that JAG is not interested in meeting the goals and expectations of the Reston Master Plan because it builds housing, and nothing else.  If it can’t meet the expectations of the County Plan for Reston, JAG should not be allowed to redevelop the Tall Oaks Village Center.