The County and Reston’s Future Urban Growth: A Broader Look (Corrected), RestonNow, September 17, 2015

As noted in RestonNow's presentation of this op-ed, there were material errors in the various calculations made in the latter half of the op-ed.  The following is a fully corrected version of that op-ed.  The author apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the earlier inaccurate article. 

The County and Reston’s Future Urban Growth:  A Broader Look

A few days ago, I wrote an op-ed published here on the County’s efforts to increase the allowed population density in Reston and double the permitted zoning density in Transit Station Areas (from FAR 2.5 to FAR 5.0, plus a 0.5 FAR bonus for affordable housing), including Reston’s three stations.    

Aside from allowing major density increases here, these proposed changes affect other types of County “districts”, such Community Business Districts, Commercial Revitalization Districts, and Commercial Revitalization Areas elsewhere in the County.  These include Baileys Crossroads, Seven Corners, McLean, Merrifield, Lake Anne (yes!), Annandale, Springfield, and most of the Richmond Highway area.  And, of course, all the areas surrounding the County’s Metrorail stations.   And we already have reliable commentary that developers intend to maximize density in at least one of these “districts” once the zoning law is changed.

All these areas would now be incorporated into the zoning code as either Planned Development Commercial Districts (PDCs) or Planned Residential Mixed-Use Districts (PRMs), the difference being the predominance of commercial or residential uses.   The density caps may be approved if the County “is implementing the density/intensity and other recommendations of the comprehensive plan or any other design guidelines endorsed by the Board.”  “Any other guidelines;” that’s a hole as large as a skyscraper.

The adding of these “districts” to the PDC or PRM categorizations and upping the allowable density is all part of the Board of Supervisors’ strategy to allow massive urbanization of Fairfax County over the next several decades.   Not just the Reston you know, but the County you know would be completely different if market conditions permit.  

In fact, early this year the Board approved a new County “Strategic Plan to Facilitate the Economic Success of Fairfax County” that calls for this urbanization of Fairfax County.   The plan was developed by the County’s Economic Advisory Commission and its panel represented just about every County “sector” except residents, the people who pay more than half of the County’s taxes and elect its Board.  As you might expect, however, the strategic plan cynically states that the County’s vision is “To protect and enrich the quality of life for the people, neighborhoods and diverse communities of Fairfax County….”  But who needs them in preparing the plan?  What value could they possibly add?

The strategy makes these two critical changes in what we know as Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas—“the half-mile circle”--around Metro transit stations:

Section 2.2.a: "Explore creation of 20 Minute Neighborhoods where a variety of housing options and jobs are linked by high capacity transit to support clusters of opportunity and innovation." A "20 Minute Neighborhood" is a ONE-mile ring from the Metro stations, doubling the current HALF-mile globally recognized “walkability” ring.  But that’s OK, we’re Fairfax County; we don’t need to be guided by global experience with human behavior.

Section 2.3.b: "Include the concept of expanded Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in future planning efforts by increasing the radius distance recommended for higher densities from ¼ mile to at least ½ mile around mass transit stations, such as Metrorail, light/heavy rail, or other rapid transit stations."  Like the preceding, this doubles the distance for the highest density development and the commercial vs. residential focus.  In general, density should taper from the station to the TOD ring boundary.

Not only does the County plan to double densities throughout transit station areas, it plans to double those densities at double the distance from the stations, changing each TSA area from ¾ square mile to more than 3 square miles.  And, yes, it expects you to walk a mile to catch Metro.   

All told, that offers up as much as 438 MILLION gross square feet (GSF) of potential development (5,280SF² X  3 SqMi X FAR 5.0) at each County Metro stop where, in Reston, we currently have about 63 million GSF (FAR  about 1.9) in Reston Town Center, including Town Center North, a more than seven-fold increase in density.   If that were to be developed with 80% of that space focused equally on office and residential uses (175 million SF each, the rest in open space and other job uses), that would allow 580,000 office workers and 146,000 new housing units with nearly 292,000 residents in each transit station area using current County high-density office worker and residential space planning guidelines.  

Yes, that much development.

But here is what’s important:  That strategic plan is just a plan whose absurd values can be reduced or ignored at any time.  Even development potential laid out in the County Comprehensive Plan of which the Reston Master Plan is a part can be reduced at any time.  What cannot be reduced—as the Virginia Supreme Court told Fairfax County years ago—is development potential authorized in the zoning code.  Once density, measured by floor-area ratio (FAR), is embedded in the zoning code, the property owner has “by right” authority to develop the property to its limits subject to other constraints in the code (open space requirements, etc.).  

And that is why this proposed change to the County zoning code is so critical to Reston’s and many other County communities’ future.  

It is time for Reston’s community leaders at Reston Association, Reston Citizens Association, and the developer-dominated Reston Town Center Association to act on behalf of Restonians, just as other community groups around the County have been doing to protect their communities.  Aside from these two RestonNow postings, I have been in contact with all three groups to point out what is going on and asking them to represent Reston’s interests to the Board. 

All Restonians need to make their views known to Reston’s leaders and to the Board of Supervisors before we become locked into outrageous development that destroys the character of this Reston planned community as well as other PDC and PRM areas in the County.  Moreover, we need to tell the Board that the people of our County need to be involved as early in any such proposed changes as the business interests who desperately want them.

Terry Maynard

Reston 2020 Committee

While the people of the County weren't looking . . .

. . . The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors yesterday approved a "strategic plan" that quadruples the area now intended for high-density commercial and residential "transit-oriented development" by doubling the radius of high-density development around key transportation nodes, such as Metrorail stations.  

Specifically, under the section outrageously and incongruously titled, "Create Places Where People Want to Be," the plan establishes the following goals:

• Section 2.2a:  "Explore creation of 20 Minute Neighborhoods where a variety of housing options and jobs are linked by high capacity transit to support clusters of opportunity and innovation."

• Section 2.3:  "Support higher density mixed use development in the designated revitalization  areas, as a way to attract new businesses and residential growth.  . .

• 2.3b:  "Include the concept of expanded Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in future planning efforts by increasing the radius distance recommended for higher densities from ¼ mile to at least ½ mile around mass transit stations, such as Metrorail, light/ heavy rail, or other rapid transit stations." 

At present,  the totality of a TOD area is called the "half-mile circle" around a Metrorail or other transportation hub under the County's Comprehensive Plan and is the foundation of transit-oriented development analyses and recommendations expressed by every smart growth group in the world.   The reason for the "half-mile circle" is pretty simple:  People won't walk more than a half mile (or ten minutes) to or from transportation hubs.  Indeed, inbound workers are generally reluctant to walk more than 1/4-mile while outbound residents will walk up to 1/2 mile to a rail station; hence, "the half-mile circle."  This fact was well-documented by the County's own TOD committee that led to the County's TOD plan more than a decade ago and was reinforced in a WMATA study of Metrorail usage in 2006.

But the County's Economic Advisory Commission (EAC), comprising only 12 citizen representatives--one for each supervisorial district (appointed by guess who)--out of the 40 member commission, doesn't care about the reality of human behavior, only the opportunity to increase development, profits, and maybe tax revenues.   So rather than acknowledge the limits of human willingness to walk to mass transit rather than drive, they simply doubled the radius of the proposed boundaries for high-density development.  The notion that people will walk 20 minutes--a mile--is utterly ridiculous, and doubling the internal ring from a 1/4 to 1/2 mile of predominantly commercial (office) development is equally fallacious in terms of the reality of "walkable neighborhoods" and even "places where people want to be."

The critical implication of these changes (and the others in this strategic plan) is that they lay the foundation for developers to advance changes for high-density development in the Comprehensive Plan in Reston, Tysons, and elsewhere across the County that have major transportation nodes.  As developers move forward with the changes in the Comprehensive Plan, they can then build up to four times as much office space, retail, housing, and more--all with limited parking because of alleged "walkability"!--and quadruple their revenues and profits as well as increase the property taxes paid to the County.  And the plan ignores totally the fact that office workers are now using about 1/2 the space per worker that they have historically--meaning that office jobs could expand eight-fold!   Of course, all those taxes and profits will, in fact, be paid by residents, consumers, and other tenants of the high-density developments. 

And, oh yes, people will drive to work, to shop, and to other places they need to go because their "walkable neighborhood" will be at least twice the size they are willing to walk.  Expect greater congestion, not better roads.

How any of this will "Create Places Where People Want to Be" defies logic, analysis, and history.  It certainly will not improve living, working, shopping, or playing in Fairfax County.  The only people who appear to benefit from these changes are developers and maybe County tax troves.

For those who are interested in reviewing the "strategic plan" approved by the Board, here is a link to it.

UPDATED: The people designing your cities don’t care what you want. They’re planning for hipsters. Washington Post, August 15, 2014

UPDATE:  This WaPo article takes a hard look at the specific problem of the lack of availability of less expensive rental units in Washington, DC.  Apparently not everyone in the WDC metro area is a hipster although developers keep building housing for them, not people with moderate incomes.  

Does the recent Reston Master Plan amendment for the Metro station areas mean Reston is abandoning its principles as a place for everyone to "live, work, and play?"  Will these areas be built for upscale "hipsters" at the expense of Bob Simon's ideals?

This excellent Washington Post article by Joel Kotkin, Roger Hobbs Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and author of The New Class Conflict, lays out expertly the pattern of planning we have seen in thinking about Reston's Metro station areas for the last five years.  Indeed, the small and by in large very expensive dwelling units--condos and apartments--being planned in the 1/2-mile circle around each station are generally inaccessible to any household earning less than $80,000 per year in today's dollars or is larger than 3 people.

The core Reston Task Force planning assumption was these living spaces would include 1,200 gross square feet (GSF) per unit, which includes all the common areas including ground floor retail, elevators, hallways, etc.  That translates roughly into less than 800 square feet of livable space per apartment/condo. 

Right now, price ranges for high-rise condos in Reston Town Center range from about $350,000 for a low-floor 2BR condo to more than $1.3 million for a penthouse level condo with 2BR unit. Even at the low end of that range, a mortgage of $300,000 would cost the homebuyer about $2,000 per month in PITI payments ($24,000 per year).  On the apartment side, you'll be hard pressed to find a rental unit under $1,500/mo ($18,000/yr) and some go as high as $5,000/mo ($60,000 per year). 

OK, there are recommendations in Reston's new master plan that a small percentage of units (12% to 18% depending on the size of the development) be set aside for workforce housing, but they will be even smaller than the average (minimum ~300SF for efficiencies to ~500SF for 2BR) and the number of units will be well far less than the demand for them.  (Note:  The "Workforce Housing" program is intended for households generally with income between 80% and 120% of the County median income, which is now about $107,000.  That means families with incomes ranging from about $85,000 to $128,000 are eligible for this housing.)

Still, by far the largest share of Reston dwellings are--and will be--suburban style single-family residences.  Indeed, speaking only for my own neighborhood, we have seen a nearly full generational transfer in housing from my 60s-70s generation to young families in their 30s-40s with young kids.  Just a few of us from the last generation are still hanging around--and actually enjoying the renewed vitality of our neighborhood with younger adults and dozens of kids playing outside.  And so we reasonably expect it to go for at least another generation--including the move of many of those "hipsters" to neighborhoods like ours as they begin their families.

But let's take a look at what Kotkin has to say:

What is a city for?

It’s a crucial question, but one rarely asked by the pundits and developers who dominate the debate over the future of the American city.

Their current conventional wisdom embraces density, sky-high scrapers, vastly expanded mass transit and ever-smaller apartments. It reflects a desire to create an ideal locale for hipsters and older, sophisticated urban dwellers. It’s city as adult Disneyland or “entertainment machine,” chock-a-block with chic restaurants, shops and festivals.

Overlooked, or even disdained, is what most middle-class residents of the metropolis actually want: home ownership, rapid access to employment throughout the metropolitan area, good schools and “human scale” neighborhoods.

A vast majority of people — roughly 8o percent — prefer a single-family home, whether in the city or surrounding communities. And they may not get “creative” gigs at ad agencies or writers collectives, but look instead for decent-paying opportunities in fields such as construction, manufacturing or logistics. Over the past decade, these jobs have been declining rapidly in “luxury cities” like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In contrast, such jobs, which pay $60,000 to $100,000 annually, have been growing — particularly as the industrial and energy sectors have recovered — in cities like Houston, Austin, Nashville and Salt Lake City. These locales also feature housing, relative to incomes, that is more affordable.

Of course, few urbanists wax poetic about Dallas or Des Moines. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Boston Properties didn't get the word: They want to TAKE park space in Town Center.

Important Update:  The BP proposal will not be discussed at Monday's Reston P&Z Committee hearing as noted below.  The next opportunity for your public input will be at the County Planning Commission hearing on June 11 at 8:15PM.  The following from the Hunter Mill Highlights newsletter provides the relevant information:

Block 4 LLC and Reston Town Center Property LLC (Affiliates of Boston Properties) have filed development Plan Amendment (DPA 85-C-088-07), Proffered Condition Amendment (PCA 85-C-088-09), and Planned Residential Community (PRC 85-C-088-03) plan to develop what is currently a surface parking lot and redevelop a portion of the existing low-rise office and retail in the Town Center Urban Core with a mix of residential, office and retail/restaurant located at Fairfax County Tax Map as 17-1 ((16) Parcels 1 and 4, and 17-1 ((16)) Parcel 5A.  The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 11, 2014 at 8:15 p.m.

To sign up to speak at this public hearing, please follow these instructions on the Fairfax County website.  

The minutes of the last Reston Planning and Zoning (RP&Z) Committee, March 31, 2014, describe a presentation by Boston Properties (BP) to the RP&Z to build a high-rise residential structure on the current surface parking lot in the northeast corner of Town Center.  As part of that development, BP wants to take 60' linear feet--one-third--of the adjoining President's Park, land it had previously committed to sustaining as park space.  And, oh yes, why not add 1,000 parking spaces in this so-called transit-oriented development. 

BP is making a fool of County decision makers who say they want transit-oriented development (TOD), but are unwilling to limit parking growth or ensure adequate park or other open space, and the community in which it operates by acting as if it answers to no one but its shareholders. 

Here is the area we're talking about:

Here are the minutes of the March 31, 2014, including the BP presentation discussion.  There were a number of questions by members of the RP&Z on the park taking and other development issues that are inconsistent with the plan for the development of Reston's station areas.  The section on pp. 2-4 highlighted by a box text include the BP discussion.

   Discussion of BP Residential Development Proposal Taking Park Land, RP&Z Minutes, 3/31/2014

The whole BP presentation and Q&A point out unequivocally that BP cares nothing about the community its properties are in; only about the profits those properties might make.  Moreover, it can not be trusted to keep its word about a matter as straightforward as setting aside land for parks in urbanizing areas.  

More generally, BP's actions raise a legitimate question about whether the County can trust developers to honor their commitments in proffers to preserve park land for public use.  From BP's example, it appears that we can not.  Moreover, it points strongly to the need of the County to use more stringent measures to acquire public ownership of needed park land, including the use of eminent domain, rather than trusting development companies to meet public needs.  

While no RP&Z recommendation has yet been made on this project, the Reston community must step up and express its concern, if not outrage, as this proposal.  The next opportunity to do so will be at next Monday's RP&Z meeting, 7:30PM, Monday, May 19, 2014, at the North County Government Center Community Room.

For earlier reporting on this proposal, please read these news articles presented in chronological order:

• Boston Properties acquires Reston Town Center site, Daniel J. Sernovitz, Washington Business Journal, April 25, 2013
• Will Reston Town Center Be Getting Two New High Rises?  Karen Goff, Reston Patch, August 21, 2013
• Reston Town Center build-out coming with new Boston Properties' proposal, Michael Neibauer, Washington Business Journal, September 12, 2013 
• Progress Report: Development of Reston Town Center’s ‘Block 4′, Karen Goff, RestonNow, April 15, 2014

Not surprisingly, none of these articles mention the taking of Reston urban park land to build high-rise buildings.  Do you suppose that BP really didn't want the public to know about their plan until they had to go through the re-zoning approval process???

Are you sure "Millenials prefer condos and transit"?

Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say about Millenials' home buying habits--if they have the money or their parents do:

The Rise of the Young Buyer

A new generation is skipping the 'starter home' and betting heavily on high-end real estate.

By
• LAUREN SCHUKER BLUM

Two years ago, when he was 26, Matt Winter paid a little over $1 million for a four-bedroom, Mediterranean-style house in Culver City, an artsy, formerly industrial section of Los Angeles. This month, the now 28-year-old Mr. Winter, who runs his own interior design firm, paid about $1.7 million for his second home, a three-bedroom, Spanish-revival in Westwood, a neighborhood near UCLA. . . .

. . .  Mr. Winter is part of a growing group of wealthy young buyers who are making inroads in the world of high-end real estate, acquiring properties at prices, and at a pace, that brokers say they have never seen before. Real-estate agents say that young people are buying more expensive homes than previously. They are also more likely to buy several properties, and use one as an investment. Buying real estate has grown more attractive, these young buyers say, compared with the stock market, which appears riskier to a generation that entered the workforce during a market correction.

In recent years, low interest rates coupled with lower real-estate prices had also made it easier for people in their 20s and early 30s—whom demographers refer to as "Generation Y" or "millennials"—to buy.

"In the last two months, half the folks I sold homes to were young entrepreneurial types—and they were all buying homes for over a million dollars," says Michael Rankin, a managing partner at TTR Sotheby's International Realty in Washington, D.C. "A few years ago, that kind of buyer was invisible. We had young folks buying starter condos for a few hundred thousand dollars. But this new wave is skipping that step entirely and going right for the high-end home." . . .

Click here for the rest of this over-the-top article. 

Not withstanding that some of the "homes" discussed in this article are penthouses in New York high-rises at $88 million, the point here is that living in a high-rise condo next to a transit station and not owning a car is not so much a "preference" as advocates for high-density TOD would have us believe, but an economic reality for most professional Gen Yers and Millinenials. 

. . . And it certainly beats living at home with your parents.  

LEED-compliant neighborhoods make an evironmental difference says NRDC's Kaid Benfield

Kaid Benfield, NRDC, writes in his blog that:

Confirming previous analysis, newly published research indicates that real estate development located, designed and built to the standards of LEED for Neighborhood Development will have dramatically lower rates of driving than average development in the same metropolitan region.  In particular, estimated vehicle miles per person trip for twelve LEED-ND projects that were studied in depth ranged from 24 to 60 percent of their respective regional averages.  The most urban and centrally located of the projects tended to achieve the highest shares of walking and transit use, and the lowest private vehicle trip lengths. . . .

Click here for the rest of his overview of this research paper.  

Yet, County planning staff continue to fight using LEED standards for residential development in Reston's transit station areas.  Here is (all) that the staff has proposed for the Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan language concerning adherence to LEED standards--for commercial OR residential development:

Non-residential development in the TSAs should achieve LEED Silver certification or the equivalent, at a minimum, in light of the level of redevelopment potential proposed for the TSAs.  Residential development should be guided by the Policy Plan objectives on Resource Conservation and Green Building Practices. Achievement of higher levels of LEED certification is also encouraged.  (p. 26)

In our response to this draft language, we noted that residential areas should also meet LEED standards--and Benfield's post and the research article from which he draws highlight the reasons why, including those effects noted in his opening paragraph above.  

Today’s Dream House May Not Be Tomorrow’s, New York Times, April 28, 2013

Robert Shiller--Yale economics professor, one of America's foremost housing experts, and co-creator of the Case-Shiller Housing Index--has an excellent article in today's NYTimes about the future of housing in America.  He tracks the evolution of housing since the beginning of the last century and says this about where we are now:

AT the moment, walkable urban areas — pleasant places where people can stroll to work and to restaurants — are becoming more popular. Last year, a Brookings Institution study of the Washington area by Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo concluded that such neighborhoods, where creative people cluster, show the highest property values. Far-flung suburbs are losing value relative to cities and close-in suburbs that offer such walkable areas. And these denser places seem to fit in better with more environmentally conscious values, too.

Attitudes toward renting have also been changing. A MacArthur Foundation survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates in February and March, asked Americans if they thought that, “given our nation’s current situation,” buying a home had become more or less appealing. Fifty-seven percent said it had become less so, with only 27 percent saying it had become more appealing. When asked if they agreed with the statement, “For the most part, renters can be just as successful as owners at achieving the American dream,” some 61 percent agreed; 28 percent did not.

Perhaps that trend will continue. Renting, which connotes mobility, might come to be identified with a high-status lifestyle in the new economy. If renting does become more important, owners of existing housing will be affected unevenly. . . .

He concludes this way:

If you want to settle down for a quiet life and watch your children grow up in a nice neighborhood, you might well act now to lock in an ultralow mortgage rate. Then again, if you’re restless, ambitious and determined to be mobile, it might be sensible to rent rather than own. Calculating the best economic return may not even be possible, given the uncertain investment potential.

Instead, it may be wisest to choose the housing that best meets your personal needs, among the choices you can afford.

 Click here for the rest of this thoughtful article.  

Letter: What to do About More Reston Traffic Congestion, Reston Connection, November 17, 2012

What to do? Is it possible that Reston will suffer from too much Transit Oriented Development?

The Reston Planning & Zoning Committee recently heard a presentation on proposed redevelopment of the mini-storage facility located in the vicinity of the Wiehle Avenue transit station. This particular site is anticipated to feature a mid-rise apartment building with ground floor retail and underground garage parking for residents. The developer asserts that this proposal is wholly within county guidelines, and is not within the purview of the Reston Association.

Furthermore, developer sponsored traffic studies for this site show little or no impact on traffic congestion.  What a surprise.  Each newly proposed redevelopment site is considered separately, and this one does not include traffic generated by the Wiehle Station development, existing Kaiser Permanente and other existing office space. A number of committee members voiced concern that the two vehicular access points--one to Wiehle Avenue and one to Sunset Hills Road, will be insufficient to handle the traffic generated by the station and proposed residential, office, hotel and other commercial development.

What to do?  We need more participation by our Reston Association and other citizen-oriented groups in concert with our supervisor to educate the developers and county planners to our concerns.

Bob Stein

Reston

Note:  This letter appeared in the Reston Connection.  Mr. Stein is an alternate member of the Reston Planning & Zoning Committee which hear the proposal discussed above at its November 19, 2012, meeting.  For Reston 2020's notes on the meeting, please read this.  

Master Plan Task Force Update, Part 2, Colin Mills, President, RCA, October 17, 2012

As promised, today I’m offering the second half of my update on the progress of the Reston Master Plan Task Force, and the issues that arose over the course of last week’s meeting.  Last week, I wrote in this space about the slow progress of the Task Force, and the impact those delays will have on development in Reston.  This week, I want to talk about the growing divergence in vision between Task Force members, and what that might mean for the process.

The Task Force is composed of representatives of both development interests and community organizations, which is as it should be.  You need the opinions and expertise of both developers and residents to come up with a workable plan.  But there's an inherent tension in the interests of both groups, and that tension was on display at the meeting.

Last week, I mentioned that the planning staff was working on its latest land-use scenario, which they call Scenario G.  It was necessary to revise the land-use plan because FCDOT ran its transportation analysis on the last scenario, and the analysis yielded a traffic disaster.  Several of Reston's major intersections would see dramatically worse congestion, and two in particular - the intersection of Reston Parkway and Sunrise Valley, and the intersection of Wiehle and Sunset Hills - were so bad that FCDOT and the planning staff couldn't mitigate the impact adequately.  The transportation analysis must ultimately be submitted to VDOT for review and comment, and it’s hard to imagine them looking favorably on the level of gridlock that was forecast.

The new development plan will (we hope) reduce the traffic problems.  Scenario G involves a modest reduction in overall development compared to the last one, with a higher percentage of residential development.  (A better balance of residential space to office space is better for traffic, since the traffic flow for residential and office tends to go in opposite directions.)  The draft scenario also allows for variable amounts of development closest to the stations, which would allow some parcels to develop to higher densities while still limiting the overall development intensity.

When the planning staff presented the new scenario, it drew protests from the developer-associated members of the Task Force.  They argued that the lower levels of development would inhibit the planning of "great" development projects, and would prevent the "place-making" that is a key goal of transit-oriented development.  They protested that the planning staff was letting the traffic analysis drive the development, which they considered backward.  They also argued that focusing on density numbers and floor-area ratios missed the point: what we should be striving for is high-quality development, not slavish adherence to a set of numbers.

Several of the non-developer-allied members (including RCA's representative, Terry Maynard) countered that the best interests of the community should not be sacrificed on the altar of "great" development projects.  If a great-looking development project would snarl the traffic on our streets, they argued, it's not a great project.  They also said that the density numbers do matter; this process is the community's best chance to have a say on the development that occurs in Reston, and we need to have limits in place to protect Reston from over-development.

In my view, both sides have valid points.  The developers are right that the numbers don't tell the whole story.  A 2.0 FAR building that covers an entire parcel looks far different than a 2.0 FAR building that covers one-fourth of the same parcel.  And low-density projects can be harmful to the community if they’re poorly designed and planned.  Design excellence matters, and we want to encourage quality architecture.  We also want to encourage the construction of community amenities, like parks and recreational centers, close to the stations.  If we set the density numbers too low or add too many restrictions, then the parcels might not develop at all, and we'll miss out on the chance to maximize our investment in the Silver Line.

But the community representatives, to my mind, make even more compelling points.  The development around the stations should serve the community, not the other way around.  And we need to ensure that the new development doesn't create a "virtual wall" that makes it virtually impossible to get from north to south Reston.  If we can't get anywhere on our roads, then we're damaging our community.  The entire purpose of running the transportation analysis is to ensure that we'll have the infrastructure to support the density we're adding.  If we ignore the traffic impacts in the name of "great" development, then we're not doing our jobs as a task force.

The developers on the Task Force argued that we’ll need to “think of traffic in a different way” in the future.  It wasn’t clear whether they meant that people will be less car-dependent in the future, or that we’ll all just have to accept more traffic as the price of progress.  While it’s true that more urbanized areas tend to be less car-centered than Reston is today, it’s hard to see that as a viable future for us.  Fairfax County isn’t Manhattan; we just aren’t designed to allow most people to avoid using their cars regularly.  And if we’re supposed to just get used to more traffic, there comes a point when we’re so overwhelmed that the road network breaks down.  And is that really progress?

The Task Force is scheduled to meet next Tuesday (October 23^rd), and at that meeting, the planning staff will present its latest draft of Scenario G.  Given the developer pushback at the last meeting, it’s entirely possible that this draft will feature higher densities and a lower percentage of residential development.  If so, the community representatives will not welcome the proposal with open arms.  And we’ll find ourselves stuck in neutral again.  In the long term, this disagreement may further delay the work of the Task Force.  It's not an easy balance for the planning staff, and I don't envy them as they try to balance competing interests.

Regardless of which side you're on, this debate matters.  This plan will shape the face of Reston for decades to come.  The County has posted information about Scenario G on the Special Study website.  I urge you to review it and become familiar with the plan.

And if you have an opinion, contact the members of the Task Force and make your voice heard.  We generally see the same faces at the meetings, and we know what they think.  I'd like to know what you think.  If you have any thoughts to share, feel free to leave them in the comments below.

Comment on Redevelopment of Town Center Office Building, Robert Goudie, August 4, 2012

The following is the text of an e-mail by Robert Goudie, member of the Reston Task Force and Co-chair of its Town Center Sub-committee, to a number of Restonians.  He is discussing the proposed re-development of the Town Center Office Building property at 1760 Reston Parkway.  The property owners are seeking to demolish the existing five-story "Reston Times" office building and construct a 23-story, 418,900 square foot mixed-use office building, to include office (413,700 SF), retail uses (2,600 SF) and/or an eating establishment (2,600 SF).  As he notes, RCA, RA, ARCH, and a number of individuals share his opposition to the proposed redevelopment and some of the specific positions taken by the Hunter Mill Planning Commissioner, Frank de la Fe, in the recent Fairfax County Planning Commission hearing on the proposal.

SUBJECT:  RTC Building Update: BOS Hearing Sept. 11 1


FROM:Robert

TO:'Robert'

Message flagged Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:05 PM

All (feel free to forward/post as desired),

Sorry for the length here, but a lot has happened since I last communicated on this. On motion of our Planning Commissioner, Frank de la Fe, the Planning Commission by a divided 7-3-2 vote rejected Staff’s recommendation to essentially halve this project and instead approved the plan for a +/- 2,000 person job center more than ¾ of a mile from the Town Center Metro Station. Reston’s own At-Large Commissioner Alcorn did not support his colleague’s motion, and he was joined by Commissioners Lawrence and Hart – with Commissioners Alcorn and Hart offering comments that directly support the strong community opposition.

See full transcript here: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/verbatims/verbatims062812PRC77-C-076.pdf  (For perspective, Commissioner Hart said he didn’t “recall ever disagreeing on a Hunter Mill case before,” and it is surely exceptional for Commissioner Alcorn to publicly disagree with his Reston colleague. The Commission typically defers to the local Commissioner on local matters. With the two abstentions, five Commissioners declined the invitation to join the motion to approve.)

The de la Fe Position

The above link will allow each of you to evaluate the content of Commissioner de la Fe’s comments (and I’ve copied him in on this e-mail). I find at least three aspects of his statement especially hard to reconcile:

• The Planning Commission asked the County Attorney to opine on the alleged entitlement here. We’ve not seen that opinion (it is a legally privileged document), but based on Commissioner de la Fe’s statement it appears the County Attorney advised that the BOS may alter this application if conditions have changed sufficiently since the original zoning (in this case almost 40 years ago). Having been given the legal green light, Commissioner de la Fe concluded that “there have not been sufficient changes to negate the original approval.” He restated in a personal e-mail to me, “The bottom line from my perspective, is that conditions have not changed enough to warrant a disapproval on a height and intensity basis.”

Commissioner de la Fe has been at this a lot longer than I have so I respect his experience and view; he’s often provided wonderful service to Reston. But his view that conditions have not sufficiently changed is hard to understand:

1) Metro wasn’t even part of the equation when the BOS approved the 1970’s blob zoning;

2) every major intersection in Town Center is failing or worse, not the case in 1970;

3) we now have data we did not in 1970 that shows office is what drives traffic and that workers are essentially unwilling to walk to/from jobs more than a half mile from a transit station;

4) we now know that the Town Center transit station area is at +/- a 19:1 jobs:household ratio, far beyond what any sound planning concept would consider effective MTOD;

5) we now have a UNANIMOUS vote from the Town Center Committee of the Task Force recommending that all new zoning applications in Town Center be at 1:1 SF residential:office in an effort to bring the jobs:household ratio into a much healthier balance (recognizing this will be a downtown/destination paradigm) and a unanimous rejection of a specific Whealen Team request to be exempt from that to move forward with single (office) use;

6) we now know that although that report has not yet been adopted by the full Task Force, the Vision and Planning Principles the Task Force did adopt embrace the philosophy in the Town Center Committee report that highest densities (and especially office) need to be nearer to the Metro station and taper off as one moves away from the station (consistent, BTW, with the current Comprehensive Plan);

7) we also now know that we will need new office as an incentive to: (a) remake the south side of the Toll Road from an office park to a mixed-use paradigm; and (b) create the two central greens, performing arts space, and other critical public amenities outlined in the Town Center Committee report that will be of much higher social utility than can be delivered on the RTC site;

8) we now know office demand in this “new office” era is declining and there is the serious concern that this development – which would likely create the largest employment center in all of Town Center – will siphon away this critically needed and declining office demand and potentially hurt our ability to achieve these other much more important community goals;

9) we know by the developer’s own boast this site was considered the “gateway” into Town Center when it was blob zoned, something that if it ever was the case is certainly not the case now (Lot D4, the touchdown point from the Metro, is and will be the “gateway” into Town Center); and

10) we know that reducing the intensity of this office space will not hurt job creation since the FARs the Task Force is considering for Town Center will more than meet projected office demand within just the targeted areas and support MTOD so the issue here is location, location, location.

Commissioners Alcorn’s and Hart’s dissenting remarks very clearly recognize that all or most of the above factors are highly relevant to this discussion. It is hard for me to get my mind around Commissioner de la Fe’s rationale. At the risk of being overly pithy, why have we been spending so much collective time on a Task Force the last two and a half years if conditions haven’t materially changed since the 1970’s?

• Commissioner de la Fe, responding to the MTOD issue, says that this application is only a half mile from the bus station and that is TOD.

I agree with the Commissioner that buses are of course TOD, but we know what traffic patterns and failing intersections in Town Center they have yielded. And they are not MTOD and I think most of us understood this to be central to the Task Force’s mission: maximizing the massive Metro public expenditure (ridership must come from somewhere). Plenty of communities surveyed have bus systems to take people from train to jobs outside the half mile, and the data still show that this negatively impacts train ridership. Unless the academic literature is wrong or I am badly misunderstanding what the Task Force has been repeatedly told by multiple sources, I do not view the existence of bus service as an acceptable justification for building a 2,000 person job center beyond the half mile radius absent other compelling public purposes. Examples of such might be revitalizing an area like Lake Anne or providing office as incentive to get a 7-8 acre central green in North Town Center. There is no compelling public purpose here. This is a developer, as is his prerogative, seeking maximum ROI. It is our prerogative to say no.

• Commissioner de la Fe also recasts the strong community opposition as “concentrated not on the height and intensity, but on the fact that no residential was included”; since that would require a rezoning (not on the table) he de facto minimized the community opposition.

Commissioner de la Fe regrettably got this wrong. The RA Board, the elected body of the largest residential organization in our community, submitted the attached testimony in opposition since I last corresponded with folks on this. While suggesting it would “prefer” that some residential be added to this application, the RA Board specifically “supports the conclusions contained in the County Staff Report, dated March 7, 2010, especially as those conclusions relate to the building height and the intensity of the proposed project.” (Emphasis added.) The ARCH testimony likewise specifically suggests that this application is “not consistent with TOD,” could add to the “economic impact to taxpayers of rail” by moving potential ridership outside the half mile radius, and is inconsistent with “the concept of tapering densities, with the highest nearest the station . . . .” The RCA testimony was the same; Bill Penniman’s excellent statement as well. And two entire sections of my testimony to the Planning Commission were devoted to showing how the “height and densities” (irrespective of the residential issue) were inappropriate and that the proposal would undermine our MTOD and other community goals. Would it be preferable to have residential here as well? Sure. But there is more than one way to skin the jobs:household and MTOD issues. Reducing the office footprint would be an option. And this message was not lost, for example, on Commissioner Hart who spoke at length how he had genuine concerns about a building of this character and intensity being outside the half mile radius and thus undermining MTOD and tapering.

The Scenario Facing Supervisor Hudgins and the BOS

Here is where we are:

1. We know from Commissioner de la Fe’s statement that the centerpiece of the developer’s position (that there is an unqualified entitlement here) has been dismissed by the County Attorney and this application can be amended if the BOS finds that conditions on the ground have changed sufficiently since the 1970’s blob zoning. This is a huge development.

2. To the best of my knowledge, not a single Reston resident or resident organization other than Commissioner de la Fe or someone part of the Whelan Team has supported this application and all Reston resident organizations have opposed it. (The exception would be the PZ Committee, but several in its majority openly said they had no choice but to support this due to an unqualified entitlement that we now know does not exist, thus devaluing that vote in part; RA DRB of course supported the architecture but that is not the issue now – this is about planning and land use.)

3. While the Task Force recommendations have not yet been reduced to Plan language, this application is unquestionably at odds with the spirit of the Task Force’s work and its already approved Vision and Planning Principles.

4. Staff has unequivocally recommended that this application be materially reduced in height and intensity.

5. Five Planning Commissioners, in a highly unusual circumstance, declined to defer to the local Commissioner; the two Reston residents on the Planning Commission have publicly differed on the merits; and the rationale behind the Planning Commission vote is mistaken in parts and, I would respectfully argue, unpersuasive overall.

I would hope that based on this record the BOS, on our Supervisor’s motion, would at a minimum accept the Staff’s recommendation and reduce the office footprint in this site plan. I am certainly going to make every effort to ensure the full BOS is aware of this record to date. There is another possibility and Commissioner Hart to his credit ably identified it – let’s take a “little more time to work on this” and see if we can create a better outcome. This is consistent with my view that this is an evolving negotiation (e.g., I have always said that as one possible compromise I might begrudgingly agree to these kinds of heights and intensities if residential were part of the equation). While the developer has given no indication of interest in trying to work this out, the developer also thought it had an unqualified entitlement. We now know this application can be altered if conditions on the ground have sufficiently changed since the original zoning so as to warrant some limitations on height and intensity. I’d say that puts this very much in play.

If the residential community or Task Force were divided on the kind of base line issues at stake here, or Commissioner de la Fe’s statement brought new thinking to the fore and had been persuasive to all of his Commission colleagues, I would say you win some you lose some, move on. Instead, the BOS can obviously see there is a real disconnect here given the strong and reasoned community opposition; the inconsistency with the Task Force work; several members of the PZ Committee majority expressly relying on the notion of an unqualified entitlement that the County Attorney has now apparently said does not exist; and the Planning Commission’s rejection of a contrary recommendation from the paid professionals (Staff) via a highly unusual dynamic. As they say in the business, this application has lots of hair on it. It sure would be better to find an outcome that a whole lot more people could feel good about. I hope that many of you will consider reinforcing your earlier views with Supervisor Hudgins (and the entire BOS so the full Board knows this is a serious community issue). To her credit, Supervisor Hudgins agreed to postpone this hearing to Sept. 11 to allow the community an opportunity to digest Commissioner de la Fe’s rationale and respond pro or con. Without the entitlement as a shield, I just think that what appears to be the fairly uniform community position has the better of the intellectual/planning/land use argument here, by a wide margin, and I will continue to advocate for that position unless I can be convinced that everything I’ve learned the last two and a half years is a bunch of hooey and/or applies to everyone but just not this lot.


Regards,
Robert Goudie
1892 Crescent Park Drive
Reston, VA 20190
tel: (703) 689-0496
fax: (703) 689-4993
e-mail: regoudie@verizon.net