Reston 2020 and RCA agree to temporary Reston 2020 stand down, independence from RCA.

   Reston 2020 RCA Agreement 06072015

Reston 2020 Statement at Community Meeting on Phase 2 Master Plan, January 29, 2015

RCA Reston 2020 Statement Regarding

Draft Reston Master Plan Language on

Reston’s Village Centers

January 29, 2015

Good evening.  I am Terry Maynard, spokesperson for the RCA Reston 2020 Committee. 

Our committee and many residents are concerned that the revised, second draft of the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan provides no meaningful constraints on redevelopment in and around our Village Centers.  The failure to provide meaningful guidance and restraint risks over-development of these centers and threatens surrounding neighborhoods.

The first draft provided that all Phase 2 areas essentially would be maintained “as built.”  The second draft generally retains this “as built” approach, even with respect to rental apartment sites which would be reduced from “high” to “medium” density.  But there is one glaring and inappropriate change.

The second draft totally abandons this “as built” approach with respect to the four village centers, placing no objective limits on future density in the event of redevelopment.  The draft language states at one point only that redevelopment within the village center footprints should be “neighborhood scale”, a terminology that is literally meaningless, and yet at another points sets as the first goal in its  vision for redevelopment of  Village Centers as “community”—which means “Reston-wide” in county plan-speak—gathering places.  Village Centers have never been meant to serve the community, only their nearby neighborhoods.

Normally County plans call for a maximum floor-area ratio or FAR for an area.  These defining terms do not appear at all in the section on Village Center redevelopment.  As a result, redevelopment densities are left to developers to conjure up at their whim, and their definition of “neighborhood scale” and “community gathering place” will almost certainly far exceed what the neighborhood thinks it should be. 

The draft plan language also is very soft and vague in defining the boundaries of redevelopment both within and adjacent to the Village Centers. 

The draft plan also does not limit redevelopment only to the established retail areas, merely suggesting it should be focused there.  The door is opened to expanding commercial or mixed-uses into the residential areas within the existing Village Center footprints.  We know of no good reason why the residents of Village Center areas should be treated differently than other Restonians whose property is generally protected by keeping them “as built.” 

The draft plan language does state that the Village Center outside boundaries themselves should be maintained, but our conversations with DPZ staff indicates that there are those who question that language and would support enlarging the village center footprints into nearby condo, townhouse and even single-family detached neighborhoods. 

The argument for expanding the Village Centers’ boundaries apparently hinges on the economic viability of redevelopment we were told.  Our committee would ask, “What about the neighborhoods in and near Village Centers?  Shouldn’t their existing viability—their quality of life and their property values—be as protected at least as much as the hypothetical viability of some future redevelopment?  Why should profit-driven commercial redevelopment be given some higher standing?”

As Reston has recently experienced, our questions and concerns are not hypothetical.  Right now, the community faces a massive attack on the preservation of 166 acres of open space at Reston National Golf Course in part because of loose language in a County plan written 45 years ago.  The approved redevelopment of the Town Center Office Building, an opportunity spawned by sloppy planning and zoning language decades ago, promises a massive high-rise office building twice as tall as adjoining buildings and more than ½-mile from the future Silver Line rail station.  It will stand above Town Center like a developer’s massive middle finger directed at the County’s transit station area policy objective and the community’s transit-oriented design goal of tapering density away from the Metro stations. 

As these and other insults to the Reston Master Plan suggest, developers will exploit not only every opening, but even any weak seams, in Reston’s Master Plan to increase their development and profit potential at others’ expense.  We are seeking to prevent this from occurring again at the expense of Reston’s vision as a well-planned community by ensuring that the draft plan language for Reston’s Village Centers is as tight and precise as it can possibly be. 

We believe that in the absence of concrete redevelopment constraints on density, borders, and mix of uses for redeveloped village centers, the plan should go no further than specify the existing baseline plan which allows a FAR of 0.25 and clearly defines the mixed-use and residential areas.  All language proposing what might be offered in Village Center redevelopment should be dropped in the absence of reasonable and measurable constraints. 

We do not want to see any language incorporated in the plan that provides a pretext, however remote, for massive redevelopment densities and expansion of the Village Centers at the expense of nearby neighborhoods.  To do so could undermine the fabric of our residential neighborhoods.

Column: Changing of the Guard at Reston Citizens Association, John Lovaas, Reston Connection, July 9, 2014

Some extracts from John Lovaas' column on the new RCA Board of Directors and their predecessors:

The recent Reston Citizens Association (RCA) Board election, although it received little media coverage, was an important event for Reston. RCA Board members who provided the energy and intellectual leadership to inform and advocate for the community on critical issues have stepped down. In particular, we’ll miss President Colin Mills who provided a steady flow of thoughtful reporting and commentary on vital issues like the Byzantine master plan process (Phase 1) and the county’s stealth plan to eviscerate Reston Regional Library. Terry Maynard, with Dick Rogers, did extensive research and analyses involving as many as 60 volunteers during the master plan process. Their extraordinary analytical effort was of such high quality that major American think tanks, like Brookings would likely be proud to put their covers on their work, useful and timely information Reston readers got free from RCA. . .

Over the years, RCA has had its ups and downs, depending largely on the skill, energy and commitment of its volunteer Board. In recent years, leadership has been strong. RCA has advocated effectively for the community, been a source of independent information and a watchdog both of government and the Reston Association (e.g., new RA facilities and land swaps). . .

New RCA President Sridhar Ganesan, with a financial and operations management background, is new to community work. But, I am impressed with his grasp of RCA, community dynamics, and commitment to give priority to Phase 2 of the Master Plan process, providing community input on library reform, strong support for accessibility improvement and candidate forums. Vice President John Hanley, passionate activist Tammi Petrine, and Rescue Reston leader Connie Hartke provide needed leadership continuity on the Board. I wish the entire Board all the best. Reston needs a strong, independent RCA.

Click here for the full article.

Reston Community Forum Report on the FCPA’s Draft Baron Cameron Park Plan, RCA Reston 2020, April 18, 2014

   Reston Community Forum Report on the FCPA’s Draft Baron Cameron Park Plan, April 18, 2014

More problems for beleaguered Silver Line as head of long-delayed rail project resigns, WaPo, April 16, 2014

By Lori Aratani and Dana Hedgpeth, Published: April 16 E-mail the writers

Just months before Metro’s new Silver Line is scheduled to open, the agency building the rail line received more troubling news Wednesday about the project, which already is late and over budget.
The head of the project is resigning, and the agency’s board acknowledged that attempts to fix a key component of the new line have failed. Officials said they will use a work-around until a nearly $2 million permanent fix can be completed.

Wednesday’s news comes as the $5.6 billion extension to the Metro system already is seven months late and $150 million over its targeted cost. As of Wednesday, officials with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority still could not say when the project will be complete.

The resignation of Pat Nowakowski, executive director of the rail project, underscores concerns among those already worried about the MWAA’s management of the project.

Terry Maynard, a member of the Reston 2020 Committee, a neighborhood group that has been instrumental in pushing the project, said Nowakowski’s resignation exacerbates problems tied to the construction of the rail extension including the installation of radios that don’t meet code, leaky roofs at rail stations and technical problems with equipment and other issues.

“There have been too many surprises,” Maynard said. He said many parts of the project, such as the completion of power stations — an earlier issue in building the line — “weren’t closely inspected” when they were done. These things “should have been ironed out along the way.” . . .

I would like to take a moment to address my reported comments in this article, which are accurate but totally overlook their context.

First, and most important, in the ten-minute or so phone interview I had with Dana Hedgpeth last evening, I said more than once (maybe 3-4 times) that I was sorry to see Pat Nowakowski leave as the Silver Line project manager.  First, I said, Phase 1 of the line will not be complete and it would be better if he saw the project through to its completion.  Second, I said his experience would provide important continuity for Phase 2 and a better opportunity to avoid the mistakes made in Phase 1.

What I didn't say, but probably should have, is that I don't blame Nowakowski for leaving, especially in the recent efforts to politicize the Phase 1 completion process.  Threats of fines and lawsuits, demands that "substantial completion" be declared by yesterday's MWAA Board meeting, and so on, most of them coming from MWAA Board member and Dulles Corridor Committee Chairman Tom Davis, do nothing to complete the project in a way that provides any assurance to the public that the line will be safe and reliable when it is completed.  The last thing a project of this magnitude needs is knee-jerk political reaction to a difficult situation.  Davis' remarks, quoted widely in the press, were very non-constructive.

Second, Ms. Hedgpeth asked me several times what I thought was wrong with the way MWAA has handled the management of this project, a clearly one-sided question.  My reply, which included the quotes above, always began with "It's very difficult to judge what went wrong with the project management from the outside..."  My general comment about what may have gone wrong was that (as the quotes suggest) that it did not appear that MWAA had followed up in making sure that elements of the project (such as the leaky roofs, etc) were done right as they were allegedly completed. 

What I didn't say and probably should have is that neither apparently did Bechtel, the lead contractor, whose motivation may have been a bid to cut construction costs.  That put all the more pressure on MWAA to make sure each part of the project was checked thoroughly when it was completed.  Apparently, they trusted Bechtel to do its job.  An old saw says, "Trust, but verify."

I'll be more careful next time--and should have been yesterday.  

For the rest of the WaPo article, click here.

Baron Cameron Update Discussed, Reston Connection, April 16-22, 2014