Follow-up CPR letter to FCPA re Response on Outstanding Open Space Issues, November 8, 2018

From:  Dennis Hays 

 

To:  David R. Bowden, Larry Butler, Andy Sigle, Sridhar Ganesan, Lynne Mulston

Cc:  Supervisor Cathy Hudgins, Goldie Harrison, Fred Selden, John Carter, Bill Bouie, Bruce Ramo, Terry Maynard, John Mooney, Tammi Petrine, Linda Ramo, DAVID ROGUS, Leslie Johnson

Nov 8 at 3:45 PM

Dear David:  I trust all is well your way.  Larry Butler was kind enough to forward your message to me.  My apologies if I didn't provide you with the e-mail addresses of the members of the CPR/RA Parks, Open Space and Athletic Fields Working Group.  I've included those members in the "To" line above to facilitate all future correspondence on these matters.  

We are most appreciative of the work and dedication of you and your colleagues.  Your efforts to maintain and improve our park system contribute greatly to making Fairfax County one of the most desirable places to live in the nation.  

For convenience sake in assessing your message, I have included (below) a copy of the minutes of our July 18th meeting.  As you know, at that time we (CPR/RA) agreed to provide you information and support in four areas.  This was done in my messages of August 21st and September 12th.   Also at that time, you and your colleagues agreed to provide information on six specific areas and on one proposal to better educate us and the community on your ideas and plans.

   

The areas the County committed to address are:

1.  Information on safety, cost, and benefit of "turfing" and lighting fields;

2.  Status of development projects as they pertain to athletic fields, open space and parks;

3.  Information on the status of the Hunter Mill Indoor Athletic Facility;

4. Status on the commission assessing Reston's athletic fields;

5. An explanation for and removal of the "Road from Nowhere";

6. Information on plans for Town Center North open space; and

7. Status of the County's proposal to have an "all hands" (FCPA, FCPS, NVPA, RA & community groups) meeting to review and propose plans in keeping with the Reston Master Plan.

We understand your responses only address those areas directly pertinent to the Parks Authority - covering somewhat numbers 1 and 2.  We eagerly await hearing from the other County agencies that will be responding to questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and proposal 7.   

With respect to issue 1: 

--  As you are aware, Reston needs additional athletic fields to adequately serve our EXISTING population.  First priority should be given to this before addressing future needs.  Athletic fields to accommodate TSA population growth must be in addition to what is needed NOW to make us whole.  Is there a plan in place to do this?  If not, shouldn't there be?

--  You note the "2232" application "is funded, in part, by Reston TSA proffer money received to date".  This is good news indeed as in July you stated no actual money had yet been received by the County.  Please inform us of the amount received and your plans to allocate it. 

-- You correctly note "turfing" and lighting fields is controversial and the County is participating in an EPA study to develop an authoritative position on the use of crumb rubber.  Will the County wait until this study is completed before installing artificial turf?   Or are other fillers being considered?  

--  Artificial turfed fields are expensive and must be completely replaced on a regular basis.  Has the County worked out a long term financing scheme to properly maintain the fields?  

--  Turfing is only one part of what is needed to address "peak hour" demand when school aged children need fields.  Is there quantifiable data on the additional playing time for youth sports made available by turfing?

-- You mention upgrading "selected Reston Association properties".  We are unaware of any formal agreement, or even discussion, to do this.  This reference should be removed until such time as there is a formal agreement.  

With respect to issue 2:

First off, thank you and your team for the comprehensive readout on Reston Development Park Proffers approved by the Board of Supervisors.  Great job!  It is very informative and useful.     

-- We note, however, that none of the 45 proffers listed provide an additional athletic field or significant open space.  

--  It appears the list doesn't include proposals which have not yet been approved by the Supervisors, such as those you mention in your cover letter (Isaac Newton, Reston Crescent, etc.)  What is the status of these negotiations?

-- Thank you for the map identifying the location of proffered pocket and urban parks in the TSA.  However, there was universal agreement at our meeting that it will get progressively more difficult to obtain land for athletic fields as time goes on.  Is there a companion map that identifies locations for possible full sized athletic fields? 

Thank you again David, for this information and all you do.   As you see, more remains to be addressed on items 1 & 2 but this is a helpful start.  We hope your colleagues will now respond and address the other issues.    

It has been over three months since the small groups met.  We have been waiting patiently for the promised information needed to make a follow on meeting productive.  We hope the information promised in all four small groups will be provided in the near future so that we can schedule such meetings. 

In the meantime, I urge we proceed with proposal # 7.  This was the County's idea after all!  It is our belief that many answers, including a way forward, could come from getting everyone together as you propose.  

Best regards, Dennis   

 

Dennis K. Hays

CPR/RA Parks, Open Space & Athletic Fields

Discussion Leader

MINUTES FROM JULY 18, 2018 MEETING ON PARKS, OPEN SPACE and ATHLETIC FIELDS

From: Dennis Hays
To: Supervisor Cathy Hudgins  
Cc: Goldie Harrison ; Fred Selden ; Leslie Johnson ; John Carter ; Lynne Mulston ; Andy Sigle ; Sridhar Ganesan ; Larry Butler ; Kelsey Steffen ; Connie Hartke
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 6:10 PM
Subject: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Athletic Facilities Meeting of July 18

Dear Supervisor Hudgins:

         Thank you again for working with the CPR/RA coalition to help develop a better public understanding of the issues involved in the proposed Reston PRC amendments.  We appreciate your dedication and hard work on behalf of Reston and your making available to us the County officials most responsible for working on these issues.  We also wish to thank Goldie Harrison of your staff for her tireless efforts to pull everyone together at the same time and place!

        On July 18th, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Athletic Facilities group met.  We began the meeting by looking for high-level areas where we had common ground and common goals, conforming to the Reston Master Plan.  This proved very successful and we had unanimous agreement that:

Parks, open space, athletic facilities are essential to the health, wealth and well-being of a community.  Open space has direct physical and mental health benefits, is environmentally key to having a safe and productive landscape and brings direct and indirect economic rewards;    

A fundamental characteristic of Reston has been a commitment to preserve natural areas and integrate open space throughout the community;  

Development will be phased with infrastructure;

High quality open space will be required; and

Public participation in planning and zoning will continue to be the community's foundation. 

We then set a framework for all subsequent discussion.  That is, all projects and proposals would be measured against four standards:

WHAT:  What project has been identified - athletic field, pocket park, open space, etc., including dimensions of each;

WHERE: Where exactly in Reston will the project be located.

HOW:  How will the project be funded; and 

WHEN: When will the project be open to the public.   

It was noted that if all four of these questions could be answered in specific, concrete terms, then we have an actual project.  If three questions are answered, then we have a proposal.  If only two or fewer questions are answered, then any proposal is still in the "wishful thinking" stage.   

County representatives then gave an overview of their plans and proposals.  We should note we are aware of the bureaucratic, financial, legal, and other hurdles that must be overcome to bring in a new project and we are cognizant of the often frustrating amount of time involved in shepherding a successful project to its conclusion.  We appreciate the hard work, dedication and good intentions of our County officials. 

The participants then discussed specific issues.  

First was an update on how the Park Authority plans to meet the Comprehensive Plan's call for at least twelve additional full sized playing fields in Reston, at least three of which are to be in Reston's TSA zone.  The County officials stated they expected to meet this goal by upgrading existing fields with artificial turf and lights to extend playable hours and to acquire additional land as part of the proffers developers will give.  CPR/RA reps expressed some skepticism as to whether this all would actually meet the Plan's intent, especially as it is not possible, according to the County, to exactly identify where new individual parcels of land will be at this time.  The CPR/RA reps requested the County provide as much information as possible in the form of What/Where/How/When and the County agreed to do this.  The math involved in computing the additional value of turfed fields raised questions and the County also agreed to provide information on this.  A CPR/RA rep and later a questioner from the audience noted the Reston Association's Environmental Advisory Committee is not in favor of crumb rubber synthetic turfed fields due to health concerns and another filler would be needed if this activity goes forward.  RA seeks to be a leader in the County in implementing safer non-grass fields.  The County said funds had already been approved to commission an engineering analysis of the Baron Cameron Park playing fields.    

With respect to obtaining additional land from developers, the community reps expressed strong support for the County taking a very firm line to obtain required land in Reston's TSA (at least 3 full fields) and in Reston's PRC (at least an additional 9 full fields or equivalent) in their negotiations with developers  The County representatives expressed appreciation for this support.

The next issue concerned Reston's missing indoor recreation facility.  All parties agreed that Hunter Mill is the only district in the County that doesn't have such a facility.  The County reps noted they had recently finished a study on athletic facility usage County-wide and needed to assess the impact of a new facility against other facilities, such as the Reston Community Center.  This line of thought was unconvincing to the community, as the new facility has been long promised and is much needed.   Again, the community reps requested a What/Where/How/When analysis of steps toward building the facility.  

One of - perhaps the - defining features of Reston is the connectivity of our pathways, particularly the non at-grade road crossings that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel from one end of Reston to the other in a safe, efficient manner.  The CPR/RA reps asked why major new developments along major roads weren't required to put in non at-grade crossings.  The development at Wiehle, for example, should have safe crossings of Wiehle and Sunset Hills built in.  Such crossings would also help alleviate traffic backups as the lengthy "walk" signals would be unneeded.  The County first made the case that separating pedestrians and cars was a bad thing, as pedestrians tended to slow traffic down.   This argument was rejected out of hand, with the observation that Reston has had two pedestrian fatalities in as many weeks along exactly these roads.  Next the County stated that ADA (American Disabilities Act) considerations made tunnels and overpasses unworkable.  This too was refuted, with an observation that other communities, such as Miami Beach, have inexpensive, all weather lifts for just the purpose of facilitating full usage of safe crossings.   Although no consensus was reached, the County asked the community to identify specific crossings that might have the right topographical conditions to support not at grade crossings.  

Conversation then turned to the "Road From Nowhere" - the infamous middle of the night, unannounced addition of a road that impinges on the Hidden Creek Golf Course, the W&OD trail, or most likely both.  The community strongly urged the County to remove this road from all maps and consideration as there was no justification for it and the community was never advised of its inclusion in the fine print of a map.  The County rep stated this was a "conceptual road" that only might come into play if the expected redevelopment of Isaac Newton Square required it.   It was also possible the developer would have other options or might scale back development.  As for removing it, this would require an amendment to the Comp Plan.  Community reps again stressed the road could not be built without destroying needed recreational space and the County has never been able - or willing - to explain who put it there, for what reason and why the community wasn't informed of its presence.   The community reps encouraged the County to remove it as it is unjustified and will be a continuing irritant until it's gone.  

This discussion led to the issue of the golf course.  The Community expressed its great thanks and appreciation for the strong position Supervisor Hudgins and the County took to help preserve Reston's National Golf Course.  The CPR/RA rep noted the Comp Plan identifies two open spaces specifically identified as golf courses and asked if the community can count on the County to provide the same level of support in defending both full (18 hole) golf courses as we have seen in defending the first one.  The County rep stated it is very clear in the Comp Plan that there are two golf courses in Reston.   This affirmation was very well received by all parties.  

In the course of the discussions, the County reps explained some of the bureaucratic challenges they face and the often lengthy time needed to ensure all proper authorizations and approvals are obtained for a given project.  They also explained there is a difference between commitments and actual physical possession of a resource or funds.  For example, the County reps speak of $10 million dollars in proffer money to obtain and support recreational facilities.  However, there actually is no "money in the bank" at the moment, as these commitments are only exercised when a project reaches a certain level of completion. 

The CPR/RA reps expressed some frustration with the vagueness of the answers given by the County.  Although the complexity of the development process is understood and appreciated, Reston has been around for a long time and some examples of recent successful projects should be possible to cite.      

In conclusion, the CPR/RA reps again thanked the County representatives for their candor and willingness to help educate the public.  This meeting was informative and productive.  Moving forward, the County agreed to provide:

--  Information on the proposed turfing and lighting of existing playing fields in Reston, including how to mitigate safety concerns that have led Montgomery County to restrict new turfing, factors that led to a belief that significant increased playing time will result from these additions and a breakdown on the cost of upgrades and what designated funding source has been identified for each field;  

 

--  Information on the status of current development projects as they pertain to the delivery of open space, parks, "urban parks", athletic facilities, pocket parks, etc. to the community.  This information should come in the What/Where/How/When format.  As part of this, please provide a map showing all current, proposed and aspirational open space, parks, urban parks, pocket parks, etc. including park dimensions, amenities, on site parking, etc.;   

 

-- Information on the status of the Hunter Mill indoor athletic facility, including proposed location, amenities, funding source, dedicated parking, etc.;

 

-- Information on the status of the commission's work assessing Reston's playing fields;

 

-- An explanation of the origin of the Road from Nowhere and why it keeps coming up in County documents such as the "Reston Traffic Analysis: Final Report" of March 28th, 2018.  Provide procedures to have road removed from all maps and any future consideration; and

 

-- Information on how the development of Reston Town Center North will address open space and additional parkland.  .        

Earlier, in a letter from the Planning Director, the County proposed having a joint meeting of representatives from FCPA, FCPS, the Northern Virginia Park Authority, the Reston Association and any other entity with an interest in or control over land that could become additional park or open space.  We believe this would be most helpful. 

The community representatives agreed to provide:

--  A template to list all the required information about park and open space, etc associated with upcoming development;

 

-- A list of possible locations for pedestrian tunnels and overpasses associated with new construction;

 

-- Public support for County efforts to obtain needed land in Reston from developers; and

 

-- An open mind and appreciation for the difficulties County officials have in addressing all these issues.   

The group will reconvene when both sides have had a chance to assess the additional information obtained from the other. 

Sincerely, Dennis

Dennis K. Hays

New County proposal calls for public schools in high-rise buildings.

The following article is re-printed in its entirety from the Annandale VA blog.  It reports Fairfax County's proposed policy plan amendment to put schools in high-rise buildings.  Of special note is the paragraph we have highlighted noting schools could be co-located "with other public uses, such as a library or a recreational center."  Could we see an FCPS school in the Town Center North government complex?

The public hearing for this ill-conceived and unvetted idea is November 1 at 4PM at the County headquarters.  

 

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Proposed county policy would allow urban schools in high-density areas

Bailey's Upper Elementary School opened in a converted office building on Leesburg Pike.

The Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing Nov. 1 on a new policy to allow the development of “urban” or “vertical” schools in high-density areas or on parcels of limited size.

The policy change would also amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow the “co-location of schools with other public uses, such as a library or a recreational center,” and the “co-location of different levels of education and other types of programs in one structure.” The co-located entities would then be able to share facilities such as the cafeteria, gym, or auditorium.

In addition, the policy would permit the adaptive reuse of buildings, such as an office or commercial building, to be used for schools, early childhood education programs, and distance learning.

And because urban schools and schools on smaller lots won’t have as much land as traditional schools, the policy would allow converted rooftops and underutilized surface parking lots to be used for outdoor recreation.

The policy change is of particular interest in Mason District, which has overcrowded schools and a lack of land available for new buildings.

The new policy was hammered out over the past several months by the Fairfax County Planning Commission’s schools committee with input from Fairfax County Public Schools staff and school board. The Planning Commission endorsed the new policy Sept. 29.

“We’re not abandoning traditional school design,” said planning commissioner Timothy Sargeant (at large). “What we are doing is creating a new tool in the toolbox.”

The policy is aimed at “schools in activity centers where there is no land to build traditional schools,” said David Stinson, of the Facilities Planning Branch in the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ). Activity centers include Bailey’s Crossroads, Seven Corners, Tysons, Reston, and the Route 1 corridor.

The language in the plan calls for schools to have outdoor recreation space, Stinson says. “We’re not going to build a school without recreation space.”

The policy change is needed, the DPZ staff report states, because the existing plan language doesn’t provide flexibility for siting schools in urbanizing areas. The high cost of land in more dense areas is also an obstacle to the traditional school design.

Bailey’s Upper Elementary School in Seven Corners, which opened in fall 2014 in a converted office building, is considered a model for the type of urban schools that would be facilitated by the new policy.

The Mason District Council of Community Associations plans to discuss the proposed policy at its Oct. 26 membership meeting. Clyde Miller, secretary of the MDC and president of the Holmes Run Valley Citizens Association, is urging local community groups to oppose it.

By allowing schools in “surplus office buildings, in commercial areas, with outdoor recreation space confined to garage rooftops, and school sites reduced in size to the minimums allowed by the zoning ordinance,” Miller says, “the proposed policy threatens the quality of future public school facilities.”

Observers note there are numerous concerns with the Policy Plan amendment.  

First, unlike the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan which is a suggested guideline, the Policy Plan is legally binding.  

Second, there are problems with high-rise buildings being used as public schools.  Comments by parents of students at Bailey's Upper ES to the Annandale blog note:

• There is no outdoor PE provided for the elementary school students.  
• There is no room large enough for a school assembly with all the students attending.  
• The lunch room is so small, many lunch sessions have to be provided to feed all the kids.  
• And it appears that in the event of a fire or fire drill, there is no space around the building for students to be evacuated.  Students must cross a busy street to evacuate the building.
  

Aside from those concerns, one wonders if the existing school districts would have their students poached to fill out the new schools.  Elementary schools that cannot provide outdoor PE are substandard.  One also wonders how Fairfax County can exempt itself from Virginia code for school buildings.

URGENT -- RA Giveaway of RA Deeded Open Space in RTCN

The following is the text of an e-mail Terry Maynard, Co-Chair, Reston 20/20, sent to the RA Board of Directors and others this morning in preparation for this evening's RA Board meeting.

• Terry Maynard
• Today at 11:16 AM

To

• RA Board of Directors

CC

• Tammi Petrine, Rob Bonham, Sridhar Ganesan, Yavuz Inanli, Nick Georgas, Annmarie Swope.  CONSTANCE HARTKE,  Hank Schonzeit, Dennis Hays, George Kain, Robin Hogan, glewis381@gmail.com, Joe Leighton, Lynne Mulston, John Hanley, Kathy Kaplan, John Lovaas, Irwin Flashman, John Bowman, Edward Abbott, John Higgins, James Dean, John Farrell, Karen Goff, Moira Callaghan, Mary Kimm, Kemal Kuspachic

Message body

Dear RA Board Members--

I regret having only belatedly read this month's Board packet because the last agenda item is a proposed MOU that is a plain and simply a giveaway of RA's deeded rights to ten acres of open space in Reston Town Center North (RTCN).  While both parties would acknowledge that RA has deeded rights to 10 acres of open space in RTCN, the MOU goes on to call everything not covered by concrete as open space, meaning RA will end up with essentially NO open space in RTCN.

Let's be clear about what the open space deed, the second of two deeds transferring RTCN land, says.  Here is the language in the deed:

(c)  No building, structures or improvement shall be built or placed on the property conveyed herein, except (a) structures which may be required for storm drainage or sanitary sewage purposes, or (b) any building, structure or improvement which, in the aggregate, covers no more than ten percent (10%) of the land area of this parcel and which is intended for recreational uses; and the property shall otherwise be left in its natural state.  This covenant shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantee and its successors and assigns, for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date hereof.

Let's walk through the items characterized as "open space" (p. 2-3 of the draft MOU):

• Public Recreation Center--The Hunter Mill District does not have a regional recreation center and Restonians have been fighting for years to have the County build one as it has in every other supervisorial district.  The County has agreed to build one (when remains unknown) in RTCN.  That structure and the associated parking (even if combined with parking for other functions) will take at least THREE ACRES AND MAYBE AS MUCH AS FIVE.  While a rec center will clearly be "for recreational uses," it equally clearly will not be open space "left in its natural state."
• Central Green and Related Streetscape--The central green--whose proposed acreage is not described in the MOU, but appears now to be less than six acres--is open space by any definition, but streetscapes definitely are not.  Streetscapes are an obligatory requirement for developers to insert a few trees, benches, and potted plants along the sidewalks they are required by County code to construct.  We have a few examples already in Town Center.  Surprising as it may seem, a 20' wide sidewalk area (with or without potted plants) typically comprises 5-10% of the total land area proposed for development.  With 34 acres to be developed (out of 40), that means a loss of already required streetscape acreage of between 1.7-3.4 acres.  The notion that required streetscapes should also be double counted as open space is patently absurd.
• Parcel 3F--This parcel is part of the existing stormwater retention pond area west of Town Center Drive at Baron Cameron Ave.  It comprises 2.3 acres and is legitimate open space.
• Other Designated Open Spaces--TBD.  Basically, "tree save" areas--the only defined space offered--are (like streetscapes) required to meet stormwater control and other legal requirements for development (or sometimes simply undevelopable).  In essence, this is again double-counting and certainly does not make for any coherent, usable open space for Restonians.
• Open Spaces within Land Bays--While developers are expected to provide some open space with their individual development initiatives, the size of these spaces is always limited.  In its efforts to advocate for Reston's citizens, RCA proposed that 20% of all redeveloped space be devoted to open space--in the true sense of that concept--but that goal was struck from the Reston Master Plan in the final task force voting.  No similar language appears in the Comprehensive Plan, although Reston's Planning Principle #9 states, "High quality public open spaces will be required."  The phraseology in this MOU offers no assurance than even quality, much less quantity, will meet this planning principle, much less Restonians' needs.  It is also double-counting.
• Open Space Contribution --  So, with even all these exemptions, if the County can't find 10 acres for true open space, then it can pay off RA according to this paragraph at the rate of $65,340/acre.  Does anyone really believe that this acreage is only work $65K/acre?  This is the inverse of the stupidity of the Tetra purchase where RA paid twice as much as required for a beat up property; now we're looking to get less than half of the real long-term market value of high-density land in RTCN.  Moreover, RA won't receive this funding until "the end of the development process," which is likely to take some four decades.  And who's to say when the process has ended?  Even at an average 2% inflation rate over that four-decade timeframe, that means RA will be receiving less than $30,000/acre in 2016 dollars.  At the minimum, this MOU ought to include an inflation factor for that acreage valuation--not to mention a fair market price for the land with its high-density potential (just like Tetra).

In contrast to this apparent willingness of RA to give away its deeded rights to open space, County guidelines indicate that RTCN SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE than the 10 acres nominally allowed.  Attached is a paper I wrote on this topic early this year based on a discussion with Ellen Graves, Cate Fulkerson, and John McBride about the land use situation in RTCN.  ((See this link.))  I'll highlight two points based on an assessment of the proposed job and residential growth in RTCN under the new Reston Master Plan:

• There should be at least 11.3 acres of park space in RTCN according to FCPA urban guidelines.
• There should be at least 10 athletic fields requiring 16.7 acres of space in RTCN. 

Yet this draft MOU not only proposes not meeting the expectations Restonians have of RA to provide, as the planning principles state, "high quality public open spaces," but would fail to meet even the minimalist expectations of County park guidelines.

Once again, it appears the RA Board of Directors is on the way to selling out its members rather than fighting for them.

I respectfully request this e-mail be included in the Board's official meeting records for today. 

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard, Co-Chair

Reston 20/20 Committee

The Reston Performing Arts Center: Placemaking or Profit Taking

In what now seems like the distant past of the Reston Master Plan Task Force’s work on Phase 1, members of the task force had a head-snapping moment in one meeting about 2012 when Boston Properties’ Pete Otteni committed Boston Properties to building a performing arts center across the street from the Town Center Metrorail station.  People would actually be able to take the Metro to Reston and walk a short distance to a major theater and see a top-tier stage performance—drama, musical, ballet, opera, you name it!  No one expected Boston Properties to step up and make an unsolicited offer to build a major theater for Reston and the region.

The building of a major performance center was an idea the Reston 20/20 Committee offered in in its paper “Planning World-Class Transit-Oriented Development in Reston Town Center: The Community’s Alternative Vision.”   Reston 20/20 said, “We envision the Reston performing and fine arts center sitting directly south of the Metrorail exit, enabling ready theater access. The center would comprise a substantial performance hall--one seating on the order of 800-1,200 people, a second small (possibly “in the round”) theater for experimental and educational purposes. . . Whether integrated with the performing arts facility or not, the fine arts portion of the center would be large enough to house a quality permanent collection as well as host temporary exhibitions of world-class art. It should also house artist studios and art class rooms on the upper level(s). The studios, in particular, should face south and be open to natural light. It would probably be about the physical size of the National Postal Museum (75,000 SF) in Washington, DC. The fine and performing arts center would adjoin a large park-like plaza with trees, shrubs, benches, and possibly a sculpture garden that could include an underground parking garage beneath the park area that would serve commuters and arts center audiences alike. We anticipate such a theater-museum complex would require about 200,000GSF of development.”

And that offer showed up in Boston Properties’ presentations after the Reston Master Plan was approved.  In a series of presentations to the regional business community, Mr. Otteni presented a concept plan for the development of the area just north and west of the Town Center Metro station featuring a large circular theater just feet from the station entrance.   (See below.)  It appeared that Boston Properties was going to follow-through on Mr. Otteni surprise commitment to the Reston Task Force.  

And then, poof, the proposal was gone.  At the April 20^th “Reston . . . Blueprint for the Future” community open house sponsored by Supervisor Hudgins, Boston Properties had a new concept plan rendering with nary a sign of any planned proposed performance center.  When asked about the absence of the performance center, Mr. Otteni said that the area (“RTC III”—gray in the rendering above) was the most valuable land in Town Center and that the County had agreed to build a performance center in Town Center North.  Town Center North is, of course, a mile from the station and Mr. Otteni pointed out it would be served by shuttle buses, just like the Kennedy Center.  

Subsequently, we checked with a representative of Supervisor Hudgins’ office who said she was unaware of plans to build a performing arts center in Town Center North.  We joked that TCN would be quite crowded with all the County facilities proposed to be built there.  I told her that a knowledgeable attorney told me at the open house that there had been some kind of agreement between the County and Boston Properties to build a performing arts center near the Metro station, but that the agreement had expired.  The Hunter Mill representative was unaware that any such agreement had existed.  Nonetheless, she offered to follow up to find out any details.  

So, not only does it appear that a major performing arts center will not be within easy walking distance of the Town Center Metro station, it also means that, if one is built, it will likely be built by/for the County in Town Center North.  And that almost certainly means that it will be managed by the Reston Community Center and funded through added Reston Special Tax District #5 taxes.   To build such a major performance facility would require a huge investment and large operational expense, especially with the many parameters RCC has already laid out as requirements/features of such a performing arts center.  The prospective impact on STD#5 tax rates would be huge.   Of course, as usual, none of this will be publicly disclosed until it is too late for Reston taxpayers to stop if from occurring. 

NOTE:  When or if we obtain additional information on this situation, we will update this post and write new ones. 

Reston 20/20 Report and Letter to Supervisor Hudgins re Deed Requirement for 10 Acres of Open Space in Reston Town Center North

   LTR to Supvr Hudgins Re RTCN Open Space With Attached Paper by Terry Maynard

Deja Vu All Over Again: What happens in Annandale also happens in Reston.

The following is a re-post of post on the Annandale VA blog concerning the Board of Supervisors' consideration of a redevelopment proposal managed with little (or no) public input that involves, among other things, throwing homeless people out of an existing shelter.  It is hard to see the difference between the way this deal is proceeding and the way the Board is proceeding with the Reston Town Center North PPP, planning for the Embry Rucker Shelter, the Reston Regional Library, issues with the deeds surrounding the RTCN land, etc.  The problem of the lack of transparency in Board activities and intentions and the lack of real public outreach (which includes listening and considering public concerns) appears to be systemic among the Supervisors.
 

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Board of Supervisors defers decision on Bailey's Crossroads land swap

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors deferred a decision on the Southeast Quadrant land swap in Bailey’s Crossroads until Feb. 2.The delay will provide time for the board to review last-minute information on some “contractual tweaks,” said Mason Supervisor Penny Gross at the Jan. 12 BoS session.

The real estate exchange would spur revitalization of a blighted area along Columbia Pike, and Gross said she’s been working on plans to redevelop the Southeast Quadrant since 2002.


In general,  the deal calls for Fairfax County to swap land with AvalonBay and purchase the Landmark property next to Radley Acura. If the land swap is approved, AvalonBay would build a 375-unit apartment building on the site of the Bailey’s Crossroads Community Shelter, which would be relocated.

A new road would connect Seminary Road with Columbia Pike, and the county would build a new East County Government Center.

Several residents who spoke at the BoS hearing urged the supervisors to reject the land swap. Residents said they support revitalization in the Southeast Quadrant but raised concerns about the relocation of the homeless shelter, the lack of time for public feedback, the lack of transparency, and questioned the need for a new county office building.   (Emphasis added.)

Debbie Smith, chair of the Mason District Council of Community Associations (MDC), asked the supervisors to delay a decision on the land swap “until the community is given a reasonable amount of time to review it.” She said residents only had two business days to examine the land swap since a community meeting last week and still don’t have information on a lot of the details.

Smith called on the county to consider alternative sites for an East County office building, noting that Bailey’s Crossroads has an office vacancy rate of 47 percent and that BoS Chair Sharon Bulova has formed a working group to explore ways to repurpose vacant office buildings. She suggested the county look at the vacant building at 5600 Columbia Pike, where a proposal for an apartment building fell through.

Clyde Miller, president of the Holmes Run Valley Citizens Association, said there’s no reason for VDOT to spend $7 million in road improvements without a traffic analysis showing a new road is needed, there’s no proof that the county needs a new office building, and the homeless shelter shouldn’t be moved until a permanent location is found.

County officials are negotiating for a temporary site for the shelter until they can find a suitable location for a permanent site that also includes transitional housing for the homeless.

The county has not announced the site of the temporary shelter, pending a final agreement with the landowner, but local residents believe it is on the property of the First Christian Church at 6165 Leesburg Pike in Seven Corners.

Denise Patton told the supervisors she welcomes revitalization but “it’s the nature and quality of the revitalization that is the issue for me.” She questioned why the county wants to build a new office building when Bailey’s Crossroads has such a high office vacancy rate.

Ravenwood Park resident Carol Turner called the land swap “a bad deal for residents and the homeless.” If the new county office building includes a homeless shelter, it might be worth doing, she said. “Otherwise, it’s worthless."

Turner asked Gross if she is going to recuse herself from a decision on the land swap because John Thillman, who had contributed to Gross’ re-election campaigns, is a principal in Landmark Atlantic, which owns the office building the county wants to purchase.

Thillman “doesn’t have any ownership interest in the property we are talking about,” Gross responded.

Al Cobb, who also lives in Ravenwood Park, raised objections to locating a homeless shelter so close to his neighborhood and asked the board to delay a decision until the community is given more information and more time to comment.

Homeless advocate Esther Armstead spoke about the need for housing that is affordable for people at the lowest income levels and said the homeless shelter shouldn’t be moved until there is a permanent site for it.

Lake Barcroft resident Larry Golfer said the current deal on the table won’t create the vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly community envisioned in the comprehensive plan for Bailey’s Crossroads approved approved by the BoS in 2010.

Jon Clark of Annandale, a member of the MDC board, said “public involvement in this process has not been up to the standards Fairfax County has expressed it would like to maintain.”

Only two people who spoke at the hearing urged the BoS to approve the land swap.

Martin Howell, a representative of AvalonBay, said the land swap agreement is the culmination of three years of work by AvalonBay, county staff, and the former property owner, the Weissberg Corp. He said the proposal calls for an $86 million investment in the community, which would generate $5 million in fees and taxes to the country for the construction of the project and $1 million a year in property taxes.

“This is the worst stretch of road in Fairfax County,” and it’s a blighted area that needs to be developed, said Bill Lecos of Lake Barcroft. “We’ve talked about Bailey’s Crossroads for 10 years. This is the type of redevelopment we’re looking for,” he said. If the project goes forward, this property will be assessed at over $100 million. “One must look at the return on investment. This is an extraordinary opportunity.”