RCA Reston 2020 Discussions with Fairfax County School Officials

                                                               R. Rogers

                                                                         1 May 2013

RCA Reston 2020 Discussions with Fairfax County School Officials

Summary: FCPS officials recognize that several Reston schools are currently at or over capacity and are planning to accommodate this in the intermediate term.  In particular, a major expansion of South Lakes High School in planned.  The officials anticipate that ”Scenario G”—the baseline development plan County staff is using to build a new Comprehensive Plan for Reston's transit station areas-- could bring a significant expansion of the school population. They see a need build two elementary schools in Reston and an intermediate and senior high school in the “southwest” portion of the County to accommodate a build out of that planned residential density as well as expected growth in the Centerville/Chantilly area.  Although they have no specific plans, they hope the master plan will include specific language that will help them accommodate this growth.

On 25 April 2013 Terry Maynard and Dick Rogers met with Fairfax School officials to discuss future school capacity issues relating to Reston.  Participating for the County were:

• Pat Hynes—Fairfax County School Board representative from Hunter Mill District (and Reston resident)
• Ajay Rawat--Acting Director Office of Facilities Planning Services
• Greg Bokan --Planner, Office of Facilities Planning Services

Ajay and Greg are responsible for analyzing demographics and other factors to determine long term school facility needs.

Background

Dick Rogers and Tammy Petrine had met in early April with Ajay and Greg to discuss school planning issues (they had earlier discussed these issues in May 2010).   In April, the FCPS officers gave them a December 2012 memo to DPZ done in conjunction with the Reston Master Planning process.  The memo outlined long term needs of Scenario G development—the scenario around which the County Planning staff is now developing Comprehensive Plan language despite the absence of Task Force endorsement—as requiring two new elementary schools, and facilities for about 1,000 middle school and 1,000 high school students.  The County planning staff still has not shared this memorandum with the Reston Task Force although Reston 2020 has posted it on its blog. 

They based these projections on “yield factors” associated with different types of housing development.  For example, the 20,080 high-rise multi-family units projected under Scenario G are estimated to yield 1,747 students.

Near Term Outlook

Standard FCPS school enrollment projections look out about six years.  They are based on highly specific criteria like births, established school enrollment, demographic changes, and school program changes that have been shown to be reliable indicators of future school populations.  Residential development completed and being occupied is taken into account, but they do not take into account approved but not constructed projects like Spectrum and Fairways in their projections.

• Elementary Schools.  Several Reston schools are projected to be at or over capacity in 2017-2018.   To meet this need, Lake Anne has just gone through expansion, Sunrise Valley will soon undergo a modest expansion and Terraset will be increased by about one-third.  There is also tentative thinking about moving parts of special programs from more crowded to less crowded schools in the area.

• Middle School: Hughes Middle School is at capacity now and will be about 130 students over by 2017-2018. 

• High School.  The most serious situation is faced by South Lakes High School.  It is currently 200-300 students over capacity.  By 2017-18 the projection is that South Lakes will be 858 students over current capacity.  Herndon HS will also be 300 students over by then.

To meet the needs at South Lakes High School, FCPS plans to substantially augment the school to handle another 800 students. This $17 million “capacity enhancement” will involve real brick and mortar construction, not temporary classrooms.  This will probably be completed in time for the 2017-2018 school year if a bond issue passes in 2014.  This hopefully will take South Lakes to 2025 or so and it will be a school of about 3,000 students, which FCPS does not consider “too large.”  It is also possible that additional program changes could be made at South Lakes that would send students elsewhere.  For example, they mentioned the special education placements program which brings 200 or so students to the school.

Elsewhere in the area, they noted that Herndon HS and Oakton HS are also slated for expansion.

They noted that boundary changes might also be considered but they are usually highly controversial.

They also noted that some elementary schools to the west of Reston face even more pressing problems.  They mentioned McNair, to the West of Polo Fields, and Coates, near Route 28 and south of Dulles Toll Road.  Coates is projected to be 600 students over capacity in 2018.  This area is heavily populated by a younger Indian-American population and has one of the highest birth rates in the county.  They mentioned 200 new kindergarteners a year within the next few years at Coates Elementary!

Longer Term

FCPS does not appear to have any firm plans at this point to meet the needs of new development in Reston generated by Scenario G.

Re elementary schools:  They note their projection is that if Scenario G is built out, there will be a need for two new elementary schools in Reston.  They are very open to an urban setting for these schools, with a smaller school site (they mentioned the 2 ½ acre Arbor row school proposed for Tysons).  They can see it co-located with other civic facilities or even in a commercial building.  They could envision co-location of outdoor space with other park facilities. 

We discussed possible locations in Reston including Town Center, Isaac Newton Square, and the southwest corner of Baron Cameron Park.  They particularly like the idea of using land already owned by the county. They also took aboard the idea of locating a school in North Town Center with a new Library, governmental center, and park facilities.

We noted that Phase Two of the Reston Task Force will focus on the village centers and could entail population increases in those areas.  They had no firm idea of school needs in these areas and suggested that some of the existing elementary schools could undergo further expansion.

Beyond the elementary schools, the FCPS Scenario G memorandum projected a need for half a high school and half a middle school to meet the growth in student populations in Reston and Herndon.  They have no specific plans in mind for meeting this need, but noted a general need for a new Fairfax County high school in southwestern Fairfax County to meet the growing student population.  The new middle and high schools would probably be located in the Centerville area, is badly needed.  The County is looking for a substantial amount of land (perhaps costing $10 million) and has a contractor looking at potential sites.

We noted skepticism among some task force members to the idea that future Reston development would entail a substantial expansion of the student population, and especially the notion that any new student population should be accommodated within the transit station areas now being studied.  They noted several factors at work that they think will lead to student numbers growing substantially:

• The changing demographic mix in the county means that the Hispanic and Asian-American households are more likely to remain in high rises even as family size grows.

• The County experience is that high rises begin with a low number of children but as the population matures the student population tends to rise to the projected “yield” rate.

• In residential areas there is a cycle of children early on, then fewer children as the population matures and then a re-population by families with children.  They suspect this is going on in various Reston neighborhoods now.  (Anecdotal information indicates this process is underway in Reston as a new generation of families moves into established neighborhoods.)

Regarding planning, they emphasize that the language in the comprehensive plan is most important.  (Comment: Attached to their December 2012 paper was a “draft comprehensive plan text” for DPZ review.  That text has not been provided to the Task Force by either FCPS or DPZ.  It apparently looks for developers to provide support “in kind” in the form of land or space contributions and monetary proffers.)

Letter: Is a Traffic Grade of "F" Good Enough for Reston?

This letter also appears in the Reston Patch without the graphics.

   Is a Traffic Grade of F Good Enough for Reston-Final by Terry Maynard

Reston TOD development may require two new elementary schools and fill half a new intermediate and high school,

This December 2012 memorandum, which just became available to RCA Reston 2020, is from the County's school planning staff to the Department of Planning and Zoning and identifies the requirements for new schools that will be dictated by the implementation of "Scenario G," the Metro station area development proposal now on the Reston Task Force table.  It recommends the construction of two new elementary schools and indicates new intermediate and high schools will be needed between Reston and Rt. 28.  A key assumption of the letter is that the full development capacity of Scenario G is reached by the 2030 horizon--an unlikely outcome unless there is a dramatic change in the area's economic outlook.  The memo does not identify locations, timeframes, funding, staffing, or other issues pertaining to the construction of these schools.

It also discloses on the first page that South Lakes High School, already overcrowded, will have more than 800 students above capacity by the 2017-2018 timeframe.  It does not offer any recommendations to address this roughly 40% over capacity condition.  Meanwhile, the Fairfax Times reports that the County School Board is looking at changing the boundaries of Fairfax High School--which foresees a 600 student over enrollment in the same timeframe--to keep enrollment within 300 students of capacity.  And, of course, Thomas Jefferson High School is getting $90 million for renovations.  When will the Board look at either investing in the capacity and capabilities of South Lakes or changing its boundaries--a contentious process the school went through just 5 years ago?

   FCPS Memo on Reston School Needs under Scenario G Development Proposal by Terry Maynard

As the Reston Task Force Turns . . ., A Concerned Restonian

The following is a post submitted by a person who wishes to remain anonymous.  Anonymous contributions are welcome "as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent."  

We welcome comments, rebuttals, etc., on this letter--including anonymous ones that meet our guidelines.  You may either write a comment at the end of the post or submit your own letter or post. 

Here is the post as provided:

As the Reston Task Force Turns…

 

I have been following the meandering trail of the Reston Master Plan Task Force off and on now throughout its three-year odyssey.  I’ve read the occasional press coverage of the meetings, but it has dwindled as it has become apparent nothing is happening.  I read the Reston 2020 blog, which actually provides some timely information that reflects that group’s views--which I generally share.  I even occasionally visit the County website for the task force effort to catch up, but it's worse than RA's for finding anything.  I’ve even attended meetings I thought might be important, none of which lived up to its promise.  It may actually be worse than watching Congress DO NOTHING and flame on about everything. 

Yet what the task force is SUPPOSED to be doing is very important to Reston’s future.  It is supposed to be developing a plan for growth around Reston’s three new Metrorail stations that (a) offers an opportunity to exploit the economic potential offered by the Silver Line while (b) also meeting the needs and values of the community beyond the station areas. 

It hasn't even come close.  Overall, their focus on allowing large-scale commercial development has overwhelmed any consideration of the needs and values of the rest of the community.

So what has the task force accomplished?

Well, they did pass a vision and planning principles statement a year and a half ago.  Bravo!  It accomplished in about three-dozen pages what Bob Simon accomplished in a half-dozen paragraphs 50 years ago.   Still, I’d have to agree that it’s pretty meaty and hits on key themes important to Reston. 

Two years ago, it created three committees to generate visions of each of the three Silver Line station areas in Reston that produced two and one-half reports. 

--The half report was on the Herndon-Monroe station area and said nothing much is going to change there.  The end.

--The Reston Parkway station report flew off the charts in terms of development potential based on an outdated and outrageously optimistic economic forecast from GMU’s Center for Regional Analysis, the local home of developer-sponsored regional economic research.   (No conflict of interest there.)  

--The Wiehle station group actually sought out a broad range of public inputs and compiled a reasonably balanced report, although it, too, was overly influenced by the excessive GMU growth forecast.  (And why the county staff and task force insisted on using the “high” GMU forecast as the basis of plan development, I’ll never know.)

The good news:  The task force hasn’t yet approved any of the reports, but it could at any time--maybe just to spite the community.

So now what is happening?

When the county examined the traffic impact of the development potential suggested by the three committee reports, the so-called “Scenario E,”  (all these proposals are alphabetized “scenarios,” at least until they run out of alphabet a decade from now) traffic will come to near-complete paralysis in the Reston Parkway and Wiehle station areas during the evening rush hour.   Apparently, there is some county or state limit on just how bad traffic congestion can be allowed to get.  Three and four minute delays at an intersection exceed that requirement.   Oops!

So the planning staff came up with “Scenario G.”  This scenario seems to reduce commercial development, focusing the remainder in the immediate station areas.  It also adds more housing because within a half-mile of the stations because, in general, a better balance between housing and commercial space eases traffic.   So far, however, the planning staff has not detailed the full scope of allowable development so the task force is a little perplexed about just what the staff is proposing.  And the transportation staff won’t have a full assessment of the new proposal for four months!  (Yes, Scenario G could still fail the traffic test!)

But that didn’t matter:  You should’ve heard the crescendo of outraged cries from developers and land use attorneys at the last meeting as some of us did.  This plan would mean no “tear down” and re-building, just less desirable infill construction—if any!—they said.  Limiting development for traffic reasons is “the tail wagging the dog!”—they added.  This will prevent Reston from achieving the visions laid out by the task force’s committees!—they raged.  In the only counterpoint offered, one task force member noted that congestion is a major Reston problem now, not a hypothetical one for the future.

 Is that it?  Isn’t community mobility throughout the entirety of Reston an important quality-of-life issue?  Doesn’t getting from one side of Reston to the other in a car over the Dulles corridor-choked bridges through the station areas mean anything?  If not by car, will local public transit take everyone—including the very young and very old—everywhere they need to go safely anytime they need to go with little delay?  Why should residents be burdened unduly so corporations can make more money?  Why are two-dozen developers being allowed to dictate to 60,000 residents, including some 20,000 property owners, the future of development in the heart of our community?  What are corporations willing to give up to compensate for the additional burden placed on local driving?  (Apparently not density!) 

                . . . And what’s next?

So the drama and tension builds, but the task force won’t meet again until next year.  It’s not clear that any resolution is in sight.  Will the county staff stand firm on meeting some minimal traffic requirements that forces a plan with reduced development potential?  Will the county cave to developer demands for greater development opportunities?  Will the interests of current and future Reston residents even be part of the equation? 

Stay tuned--as the melodrama that is the Reston Task Force turns (ever so slowly and randomly)! 

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions and I am increasingly discouraged that anything good for the Reston community will come out of the task force.  I also can’t imagine being a member and going to all the mindless meetings over the last three years.  It is ugly!  And more balanced Restonians than me aren’t paying any attention to what’s happening.  Maybe I shouldn’t either, but I’ve lived here a long time and I’d like to believe we can build a better Reston, not just a bigger one, for our children and others.   I doubt, however, that will be the outcome, if there ever is one. 

One of my New Year’s resolutions is stop going to any more task force meetings.  They are just two hours or more of my life that I will never get back.  Hopefully, the news media or Reston 2020 will keep me informed on what, if anything happens--ever.  Otherwise, count me out. 

In the meantime, Happy Holidays and a Great New Year to Reston 2020 and all of Reston!

                                                                                                A Concerned Restonian

Change is Going to Come, Colin Mills, RCA President, Reston Patch, December 5, 2012

Last weekend, I sat for an interview for the forthcoming documentary on Reston’s history.  Our interview covered a wide range of subjects, from my childhood exploits on the golf course near our neighborhood to the impact of the Metro Silver Line on Reston’s future.  But one theme that kept emerging throughout our conversation was change.

Having lived in Reston practically my whole life, I’ve seen a lot of change, as our community took shape and then took off during the tech boom years.  My dad, who was also interviewed, mentioned that in those years, after returning from business he’d sometimes get lost driving around town, because of all the new construction.  I had the same experience coming back for visits during college.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about change, both the opportunities it offers and the instability and challenges it presents.  Change is coming to Reston, and I don’t just mean Barnes and Noble closing.  The Master Plan Task Force is grappling with the challenges and opportunties that the Silver Line and related development will bring to our community.  The task is not easy, but I believe we can meet it if we figure out the tradeoffs we need to make to build the community we want.

Change is disruptive.  It requires shifts in the way we’ve always done things, and that can be bothersome, even if the change is positive.  For instance, let’s say you’ve just landed a new job, one that offers better pay and a shorter commute.  Congratulations!  But even though you’re happy to have more money and less time in traffic, there are plenty of adjustments you’ll need to make: navigating a new office culture, learning different systems and software, meeting new coworkers.  Humans are creatures of habit, so it’s understandable that even positive change can be scary.

And the change may not be all positive.  Your new job may pay better, but you also have to work longer hours.  Now you’re spending less time with your family, and missing out on your kids’ events when you’re stuck in the office.  Maybe the new job involves a lot of travel.  This can be exciting because you get to see new places, but constant travel can be fatiguing, and it also keeps you away from home.  Most changes offer these sorts of mixed blessings.

The same is true in Reston.  We’ll have an easier and faster connection to downtown DC on the Silver Line, and the new development promises to bring more jobs, exciting new restaurants and shops, and new housing options.  But it will also probably mean more traffic and more competition for our facilities and open space.  The more we have of the good, the more we get of the bad.  It’s a balancing act.

In my view, one of the Task Force’s biggest shortcomings is that we haven’t thought much in terms of tradeoffs and balance.  We’ve thought largely in terms of vision: creating exciting new places with great architecture, new buildings, and community amenities like a performing arts center and a university.  We were encouraged to think about what we wanted, and the subcommittee reports reflected that.  But we weren’t encouraged to think much about what we’d have to give up in order to get what we wanted.

That’s why the traffic analysis was a dash of cold water in everyone’s face.  The Planning staff reacted by dialing back the density in the hopes of bringing traffic under control.  But now a lot of Task Force members are concerned that the new scenarion sacrifices too many of the things we want in order to minimize the negative.  Developers caution that the reduced density will encourage infill rather than redevelopment, and inhibit place-making around the stations.  And some community members are concerned that if there isn’t much development, then we won’t get our desired amenities.  In an era of constricted government budgets, we’re reliant on developer proffers for a lot of our new amenities.  They’ll only proffer big-ticket items in exchange for big-ticket development.

So what’s the answer?  Some on the Task Force are urging us to declare that greater congestion is not a problem.  More traffic is inevitable, they argue, and our vision of place-making around the stations is what matters.  These folks are not insensitive to traffic concerns, but they believe that congestion can be managed, and that fulfilling our vision is worth the risk.

Perhaps.  But I think that approach is too blithe about the risk involved.  We want to create great developments and maximize our investment in the Silver Line (I know I do), but we don’t want a major negative impact on our quality of life.  Returning to the well-paying but long-hour job analogy from earlier, if you take that job without a second thought because you want more money, you risk being unhappy down the line when you realize that the only time you see your family is when they’re asleep.

On the flip side, the mere fact that the job has downsides and risk isn’t a good reason to reject it.  If you refuse change because you’re afraid of risk, then you become stagnant.  Similarly, saying that we shouldn’t encourage any new development around the Metro stations because of the traffic doesn’t make sense.  We want people to use the Silver Line, and it’s more enticing to do so if there are jobs and houses near the stations.

The key, in the end, is minimizing the downsides and ensuring that they’re outweighed by the benefits.  In the case of that job, that could mean flexible scheduling, working from home, and reducing the number of business trips.  With Reston’s development, that could mean developer contributions to expand our roads and provide connections over the Toll Road, measures like restricted parking and transit subsidies for workers, and better internal transit options (like high-frequency bus service) to encourage people traveling within Reston to stay out of their cars.  It could also mean providing more community facilities to serve our new population, and taking steps to preserve our open space.

Let’s explore the options, and come up with a plan that allows us to have the places we want without creating too many headaches for the people who are already here.  With careful planning, and not excessive fear or breezy disregard of risk, we can develop a plan for Reston’s future that works for all of us.

Notes on Reston Master Planning Task Force –27 Nov 2012

                                                                  R. Rogers

                                                                 28 Nov 2012

.

Notes on Reston Master Planning Task Force –27 Nov 2012

                Summary and comment: This meeting focused on DPZ outlining their concept of more flexibility in the plan through the use of broader planning districts.  However, there was great uncertainty in the questioning about what this might mean for the actual plan.  The development community continued to voice dissatisfaction with the lower density levels in Scenario G. Despite many unanswered questions, the next meeting was put off until January.  The meeting was very well attended. 

Public Comments              

At the start, two members of the development community rose to state their concerns with Scenario G.  One represented properties along Association Drive and the other Unisys on Sunset Hills.  Both talked about the need for greater density to incentivize development.

“Development Districts”

                Heidi Merkel, DPZ, began with a review of the concept of “development districts” introduced at the last meeting.  (See map below showing the “districts.”) These would be bigger units than the former “sub-units” used in the process.  For example, on the South side of Wiehle station the “district” would include sub-units H-1, H-2, I-1 and I-2.  There would be five “districts” in the in the areas immediately around the Metrorail station where development would be focused.  (These are actually the Herndon-Monroe district and north and south “sub-districts” on either side of the stations at Reston Parkway and Wiehle.)  There would also be several peripheral districts (e.g.—North Town Center, West Town Center) where development levels would not change significantly from existing zoning approvals (although the details for those have not yet been presented).

                The idea of the “districts” is to introduce more “flexibility” into the planning process. Properties could be combined and residential and office use exchanged to some degree.  However, in each “district” there would be smaller “core” (colored purple on the maps) that would concentrate office density close to the station.

                The ‘core” areas would have greater density (i.e. old H-2 (Vornado land) would be 1.5-2.5) but the density outside the core was not explicitly stated. (See talking points accompanying the 13 November meeting on county website).

                Last meeting the Wiehle Districts were tabled on maps; this meeting Town Center and Herndon Monroe were presented. 

                The attempt to explain how the districts would work elicited great confusion.  Since job-residential ratios and FARs were not given for the districts it was uncertain how development might proceed (this is the “flexibility “ apparently intended).  Heidi said all this would mean that “you might not know the FAR you get until you get into the process.”

Developer Reservations

                Much of the meeting was given to developers expressing reservations about Scenario G and asking questions about the “district” concept.

                One area of inquiry revolved around the figures passed out at the last meeting indicating that under Scenario G there would be substantially fewer jobs than under the existing comprehensive plan.  One line of questioning was that developers could opt to build under the existing plan and ignore Scenario G.  To give one example, the A-2 area near Herndon Monroe station (now undeveloped) could have 1,000,000 feet of office under the current plan.  Under Scenario G it would have a 1.5 FAR.  Heidi thought office and residential development would interest the owner.  Some thought the incentives would not be there for developers to get involved in multi-use TOD development.

                Other reservations were raised about using the transit study—which showed massive gridlock at key intersections in the study area—to determine development levels. This was called the “tail wagging the dog.”  Developers again argued that not all proposed Scenario G development will take place so traffic analysis should not be based on the plan.

                Again developers said the lower FARs in Scenario G meant there will not be an incentive to tear down relatively new 8-10 story buildings, and that what will be encouraged will be infill development that would be unlikely to fulfill the visions and potential for mixed-use development outlined in the sub-committee reports.

                Various other questions were asked but not always answered. For example, Heidi said “we are looking at it” in response to a question about what bonuses might be given for and how much.  Heidi did say if developers worked together and could come in with 30-60 acres rather than say 10 there could be a bonus given.

                One question emphatically answered was that there would be no height limits in the plan.  Heidi thought spindly tall buildings unlikely.

Comment: The net result of the DPZ presentation and the answers to questions was to leave even more uncertainty about what the formal staff plan proposal will look like.  The idea of introducing “flexibility” leaves uncertain what would be in the plan regarding developer proffers for needed improvements, grid of streets, parkland, etc.  It also implies that in each “district” there will be a “rush to the courthouse” to claim as much development rights as possible before the “bucket” of development is taken.

Conclusion: At the end of the meeting Patty Nicoson cryptically said that there would be no vote on Scenario G at this time in view of all the questions raised about the “bucket approach.”  To our knowledge, there was no plan to vote on Scenario G at this time since its presentation was so incomplete and confusing. 

Herndon-Monroe: Heidi did briefly comment on the Herndon Monroe station noting that initially it was not clear that there might be further development in the garage.  Now, however,  MWAA and company have kicked the cost of the garage back onto the county.  So, FC is looking for a public-private partnership to develop the garage area as TOD mixed use.  In Scenario G it has a FAR of 1.5-2.5 with 47% allocated to office.  As noted above, A-2 is already authorized substantial office.  Heidi thought SPRINT was unlikely to re-develop and that in any event, it was uncertain what might be done by 2040 in the station area.

Notes: Heidi at several points talked about the plan timeline being 2040 (vice the previous 2030).  Also, it was noted that there was a revised version of Scenario G dated 10-16-12 on the website.  The main difference with the 10-9 version seems to be a slight increase in FARs for E-5 (south Reston station), and the introduction of flexible but slightly higher maximum FARs for G-5 (JBG land) and I-1 at Wiehle (perhaps with the hope of attracting education institutions). 

Debbie Hendircks was introduced as the DPZ staff replacement for Sandy Beaulieu

Next: Despite all the questions that were left open the next meeting was said to be in January (at a time to be set).  It was hinted that some introductory plan text may be available by then.

The Task Force drafting group will meet on 28 November to have a ‘”brainstorming” session about what should be in the report.  Van Foster and Bill Penniman are drafting text.