Commentary: Reston's Future: Who Should Decide? Colin Mills, President, RCA, Reston Patch, September 13, 2012

You're probably heard by now that the Board of Supervisors approved that 23-story office tower this week.  And if you've been reading me regularly, you know that RCA, RA, and ARCH were united in opposition to the tower proposal.  We met with Cathy Hudgins last week to discuss our concerns about the proposal, which reflected the comments of our constituents.  Supervisor Hudgins heard our views, but went ahead and voted for the tower anyway.

Naturally, I'm disappointed by this decision.  Our Supervisor went against the opinion of our leading civic organizations, as well as the vision outlined by her own Reston Master Plan Task Force and the views of County planning staff, which recommended denying this application.  I believe that, contrary to the claims espoused by the developer and endorsed by our Supervisor, this is not an example of transit-oriented development.  It's too far away from the Metro station, and as a result it's going to worsen the traffic on Reston's roads.  And it's likely to hamper efforts to build denser development closer to the station, where it would do us more good.  This is the wrong place for a building this size.

That said, I can understand that Supervisor Hudgins was in a difficult spot, due to the unusual circumstances of this parcel of land.  The parcel received a rezoning approval and Comprehensive Plan amendment from the Board of Supervisors back in 1978.  It was lumped into the approval process for South Lakes Village Center, believe it or not.  And the approved zoning for the parcel contained no restrictions on height and density.  It's the only parcel in Fairfax County with no such restrictions.

Given that zoning, the developer had unusual leverage in developing a plan for this site.  Now that it's approved, we'll need to mitigate the negative effects the project will have on traffic and development in Reston.  I understand that Supervisor Hudgins is working with the developer to limit the amount of parking on the site, which is a step in the right direction.  I will be happy to support her in efforts to reduce the negative impact of this development for our community.
More importantly, we should be looking beyond this individual project at the larger picture of development in Reston.  This parcel's peculiar zoning means that it shouldn't serve as a precedent, so fears that this approval will turn Reston into Manhattan might be overblown.
But the discussion about this building reflects the bigger issue: What is Reston going to look like in the future?  What principles will guide its development?  And who will decide those principles?

Shaping Reston's future development was supposed to be the job of the Master Plan Task Force.  Our Supervisor put together the task force so that developers, planners, and community representatives could build a vision for the future of Reston together.  (I serve on the Task Force as an alternate.)  But the Task Force has been at work for well over two years now, and we haven't approved any plan language or finalized our development recommendations yet.  And so far, we've only looked at the Toll Road corridor and the areas around the Metro stations; we haven't even considered the rest of Reston.  At the rate the Task Force is moving, Reston may be redeveloped before we issue our recommendations.  Also, given the fact that Supervisor Hudgins voted to approve a development that flew in the face of the vision developed by the Task Force's Town Center sub-committee, will she ultimately go along with the Task Force's final recommendations?

The Task Force may be slow in forming its opinions.  Not so Reston's founder.  As you may know, Bob Simon supports the proposed office tower, and has not been shy about saying so.  The development fits right in with what he thinks Reston should be.  Among the people I've talked to who support the tower, one of the more popular arguments is: "If Bob Simon's in favor of it, that means it's right for Reston."

I greatly admire Bob Simon.  Without his vision and hard work, Reston wouldn't exist.  And I'm very glad that he's still around to offer his opinions on how Reston should develop.  But he is not the master developer any longer.  His views certainly deserve consideration, but they are not the last word.

Bob created a vision for a New Town.  In my view, it's a great vision.  And over the last 50 years, Reston's citizens have brought that vision to life, and shaped it in ways Bob probably couldn't have dreamed of.  A lot has changed in that time; Bob freely admits that Reston hasn't developed exactly as he envisioned.  In 1963, when things got started, Reston was Bob's town.  In 2012, it's our town.  We as Restonians have spent 50 years building this community, and we as Restonians should be have a strong voice in shaping its future.

So let's have the discussion.  Bob believes, and has said many times, that density builds community.  Cathy Hudgins appears to share that view.  It's a defensible opinion, and I welcome the opportunity to hear their case.  But a lot of Restonians don't agree with that view, and we should be heard in that discussion as well.

Which brings me to the most encouraging news to emerge from all of this.  For the first time in recorded memory, RCA, RA and ARCH united to form a common position and advocate for it jointly.  Yes, we lost this battle, but we gained something important: The leaders of our three organizations have agreed to meet regularly, discuss the issues facing our community, and when we share a common view, we will band together and speak up together.  And being able to speak with a united voice can only benefit Reston.

We learned some important lessons from this experience.  For one thing, we came together fairly late in this process, and we've learned the importance of starting earlier.  We're also going to work on expanding our communication with the citizens of Reston, spending more time educating the public and rallying support for our positions.  We're also going to talk among ourselves about strategy, and the best ways to influence these decisions.

But we know, and I want all of you to know, that we are committed.  We're not going away.  We take this seriously, and we are goign to do everything we can to ensure that our vision for Reston is heard and incorporated into the plans for the future.

Is the decision on this office tower a setback?  Sure.  But by bringing our civic organizations together, we'll gain more than we've lost.  And I look forward to working with my colleagues to promote constructive discussions and a well-thought-out plan for Reston's future.

E-Mail: Problems and Concerns, Joe Stowers, September 12, 2012

The following is the text of an e-mail Joe Stowers, Reston resident and one of its original planners, sent to Supervisor Hudgins.  It is published here with the author's consent.

Cathy,
   
    I'm writing for two reasons.  First to express my serious disappointment with the Board of Supervisors' decision yesterday to approve the Whealan PRC Plan for the 23-story office building.  I think most of the well-informed people in the community are convinced that this decision will long be seen as one of the worst planning and development decisions that has been made during your service as our Supervisor, because of the magnitude of the negative impact that it will have.

    My second reason is perhaps a more serious problem.  I am really distressed by what I heard during your explanation of why you moved to have this PRC Plan approved.  It demonstrated serious differences between your understanding of how planning and development should move forward and the direction that the most informed non-elected community leaders, such as many members of the Master Plan Task Force and its various participants have been moving over the last couple of years and more.

    Your statement showed that you are out of touch with what has been happening.  It has some of us worried that we have failed to communicate with you and may have been wasting our time and perhaps much of the County's Planning and Zoning and Transportation staff work in supporting the Task Force's efforts over the last couple of years.

    The best example of this is your view of how development should take place in Town Center.

    We all know that Town Center is a large area such as you described.  But for almost 10 years, beginning with Walter Alcorn's leadership of the Planning Commission's work in defining the County's policy on TOD through the current Task Force's work on scenarios being used for impact evaluation, we have been focusing more and more attention on the need to concentrate office development within 1/4 mile or less of the station areas because of the fact that people do not walk very far to jobs from rail stations.  One of the consequences of this has been the need for us to focus attention on promoting residential development in North Town Center and other areas beyond 1/4 mile and more from the stations in order to create a target balance of office and residential uses in the TOD areas.

    Incidentally, you completely misunderstood what I wrote and what I was trying to say about development  in the Spectrum area.  I was definitely not expressing support for increasing its density.  I was urging that building heights imposed by the County in the 1980s be increased to accommodate later-approved FARs without causing the ugly urban design of boxy rows of buildings that have been approved for that area as shown on the staff's slides of building heights presented at yesterday's hearing.

    At this point I have no specific recommendations for how to address the two main problems raised above.  We had a lot of discussion about this right after the hearing but came to no productive conclusions.

    Please let me know if I can be of any help in relation to these issues.

            Joe Stowers

Advocates Disappointed By Hudgins' Vote, Reston Patch, September 13, 2012

Supervisors' support for 23-story tower goes against Reston planning principles, say citizen groups.

• By Karen Goff

Groups representing Reston citizens said they were disappointed by Hunter Mill Supervisor Cathy Hudgins' support of the 23-story tower planned for Reston Parkway.

RTC Partnerships' proposal for the 330-foot tall building, which will replace the five-story "Reston Times" office building at 1760 Reston Parkway, was approved by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. . . .

For the comments of RCA and RA officials on Hudgins' vote and its implications for development in Reston Town Center, please click here.  

Commentary: The 23-Story Office Tower and Reston's Downtown, Colin Mills, President, RCA, Reston Patch, September 5, 2012

A rendering of RTC Partnership’s planned 23-story, 418,000 GSF, project at 1760 Reston Parkway in Reston.

When I wrote last month about the importance of Reston organizations working together, I didn't realize how much togetherness we were in for.

At RCA's marathon meeting in August, one of the documents we ratified was a statement regarding the proposed 23-story office tower on the site of the former Reston Times building, sometimes known as the "Town Center Office Building."  Our resolution endorsed the position that Reston 2020 took back in March, which called the proposed tower "the wrong building in the wrong place."

But we didn't just pass our resolution and call it a day.  We reached out to other community groups that had expressed opposition to the tower, specifically the Reston Association and the Association of Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH).  Last weekend, leaders from our three organizations met and agreed on a common position.

And this week, for the first time, RCA, RA and ARCH will have a joint meeting with our Supervisor, Cathy Hudgins, in which we will speak with a united voice about this issue, as well as others like the Reston National golf course.  This is a huge step forward for Reston: rather than fighting over turf, our organizations are joining together to support our shared vision of Reston's future.

As ARCH President Jerry Volloy joked at our weekend gathering, "We've got to stop meeting like this.  People will think we're a community."

In opposing the planned tower, we are supporting the Fairfax County planning staff, which recommended rejection of the application.  The staff's report noted that the tower was much taller than the planned development around it, that it adds too much non-residential development for the location, and that it would worsen our traffic situation.  When we meet with Supervisor Hudgins, we will urge her to stand with her County staff.

In addition to the flaws pointed out by the staff, the tower would fly in the face of the plans that the Reston Master Plan Task Force is developing for the Town Center area.  The Task Force's Town Center Committee has developed a vision based on the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD), which is designed to maximize the value we get out of the Silver Line.  One key TOD principle is that the tallest and most intense development should be located as close as possible to the transit station, with development stepping down as you move away from the station.

If the proposed tower were located in the shadow of the station, it might fit with that vision.  But in fact, it's over a half-mile away from the station.  (Commonly-accepted planning wisdom holds that people generally will not walk more than a quarter-mile from transit to their destination.)  The vast majority of people who would work at this tower would not use Metro to get there.  (Indeed, the building's planners anticipate this, as they are including a parking garage with over 1,000 spaces.)  Rather than encouraging the use of the Metro, this tower will just add more cars to Reston's already-clogged streets.  With all the money we are investing in the Silver Line, why would we want to undermine that investment with a poorly-planned building?

The Town Center Committee's vision for the area around the tower calls for a mix of uses, with residential and office components sharing buildings.  But the proposed tower is all office space (with a smattering of retail), with no residential component.  Again, this will only lead to more traffic on our roads.

These are some of the points that our three organizations will make at our meeting.  I think we make a strong case, and I think it's that much stronger when we're all making it together.  I believe this heralds a new and powerful era of collaboration among our community organizations, and Reston can only benefit from the collaboration.

When RCA, RA, and ARCH meet with Supervisor Hudgins to dicuss the tower, we will ask her to stand up for her staff.  We will ask her to stand up for the vision of the Task Force she created.  And we will ask her to stand with our organizations, which represent the opinions of a broad swath of Restonians.  The tower makes for a pretty-looking rendering, but in order to do right by Reston, it needs to go back to the drawing board.

Groups criticize proposed Reston tower, August 30, 2012

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors soon will decide the fate of a proposed 23-story tower in Reston Town Center that many residents fear is too tall and too far from the nearest Metro station to be successful. . .

 . . . Colin Mills, president of the Reston Citizens Association, said he is concerned that the more than 1,100 parking spaces that developers say the mixed-use tower's inhabitants would need would worsen traffic in an area already suffering from congestion.

What's more worrisome for Mills, however, is that the tower would be more than half a mile from Reston Town Center's stop on Metro's under-construction Silver Line, which he said would deter people from riding it.

"You just can't ask people to walk more than a half-mile from the Metro," Mills said. "It's too far."

 Click here for the rest of this article. 

RCA Statement for Board of Supervisors on Proposed "Town Center Office Building" Redevelopment, August 27, 2012

RCA Statement Re Wealen TCOB Redevelopment Proposal

Commentary: The View From Over Here: Supervisor MIA, John Lovaas, Reston Patch, August 28, 2012

What is going on with the Reston Master Plan Task Force, the one appointed three years ago by Supervisor Cathy Hudgins as an urgent matter to prepare the roadmap for Reston’ future development with the advent of rail to Dulles?

Their work was to be completed in one year so that a plan for development around three new rail stations in the Dulles Corridor would be in place, permitting thoughtfully planned new growth, before rail arrived.  A second phase was to have followed promptly to set forth plans for future growth in other areas of Reston to proceed on an orderly basis, with community support.

Three years later, the first phase of the Task Force’s work is inexplicably
stalled.  The first rail station is largely complete.  Train service will begin at Wiehle Avenue at the end of next year.  The train is arriving — not so the plan. The Supervisor  seems oblivious to the passage of time and failure to prepare for the growth that most assuredly will come.  Those who stand to profit will make sure it does.

So, what is happening in the absence of a master plan for the growth?  Answer:  The Fairfax County Planning Department is now telling developers that the County is open to proposals for new building in the corridor in advance of any plan! . . .

 Click here for the rest of this column.  

Agenda & Synopsis: RCA Board of Directors Meeting, 7:30PM, August 27, 2012, Reston Sheraton, Conf Room TBD

Draft Agenda

RCA Board of Directors Meeting

August 27, 2012

Reston Sheraton Hotel

Item	Time	Topic	Disposition	Presenters
1	7:30 PM	Adopt  Agenda	Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
2	7:35 PM	Approve July 2012 Minutes	Action	Debra Eastham
3	7:40 PM	Treasurer’s Report	Action	Colin Mills for Diane Lewis
4	7:45 PM	Review of Committee Progress	Discussion	Colin Mills, RCA Board
5	8:20 PM	License Plate: Action Plan	Discussion, Action	John Hanley
6	8:25 PM	Town Center Office Building: RCA/RA/ARCH Joint Action	Discussion, Action	John Hanley, Dick Rogers
7	8:40 PM	Reston National Golf Course	Discussion	RCA Board
8	8:50 PM	MWAA “Public Hearings” – RCA Statement	Discussion, Action	Terry Maynard
9	9:00 PM	Tysons Infrastructure – Support of MCA Position	Discussion, Possible Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
10	9:10 PM	Task Force Implementation (ARCH)	Discussion	Terry Maynard
11	9:15 PM	Is Reston Ready for Metro?	Discussion	Dick Rogers
12	9:20 PM	Southgate and RAC: Storm Drain	Discussion, Action	Colin Mills, RCA Board
13	9:25 PM	Other Business	Discussion	RCA Board
14	9:30 PM	Location and Time of Next Meeting; Adjourn	Action	RCA Board

In a follow-up e-mail, RCA President Colin Mills provided a synopsis of four documents the Board will consider for action as follows:

 - Town Center Office Building Statement (Agenda Item #6): Thanks to Dick Rogers for drafting this statement.  This reiterates the position we approved in February, and rebuts some of the statements make be Frank de la Fe in the wake of the Planning Commission hearing.  We will send this statement to the Board of Supervisors.

- MWAA "Public Hearings" Statement (Agenda Item #8): Thanks to Terry Maynard for drafting this statement.  This statement attacks MWAA for their so-called "public hearings," which are designed to give the appearance of public input without the substance.  This document consists of the official statement (Page 2), which is what we will be voting on.  The first page is a draft press release that will be issued with the statement; it will not be formally voted on by the Board, but suggestions are welcome.  The document is for release to the media and public.  This is the latest version. 

- Tysons Infrastructure Testimony (Agenda Item #9): I drafted this statement; thanks to Terry for his constructive edits.  This statement supports the McLean Citizens Association in their position on the "Strawman III" infrastructure funding plan produced by the Planning Commission.  This is to be given as testimony (or a written statement) at the Tysons Committee's hearing on the plan, scheduled for September 6th.

- Southgate Storm Drain Letter (Agenda Item #12): I drafted this letter; thanks to John for his edits.  This letter was written at the request of Ken Fredgren.  It urges Supervisor Hudgins to push for installation of a storm drain in the Southgate Community Center parking lot.  This letter will be sent directly to the Supervisor's office.

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

Tower Hearing Deferred Until September, Reston Patch, August 1, 2012

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday deferred a public hearing on the controversial 23-story mixed-use tower complex developers want to build on Reston Parkway.

The new date for the public hearing is Sept. 11 at 3:30 p.m. Items for hearing and action are often deferred at the request of a supervisor, as it was in this case (by Hunter Mill Supervisor Cathy Hudgins), developers or county staff.

If you have a comment about the project, click here to get on the speakers list.

The 418,000-square-foot building, which will replace the five-story "Reston Times" building at 1760 Reston Pkwy., was recommended for approval by the county planning commission in June, despite three planning commission members voting "no" and two abstaining.

It is now up to the Board of Supervisors to decide whether the RTC Partnership can go ahead with the plan, despite a March staff report that found many faults with the project and recommended that the commission deny it. . . .

Click here for the rest of the article, mostly comments from Hunter Mill Planning Commission De La Fe walking back from his affirmative vote on the project two months ago. 

Now it is time for the politicians, specifically Supervisor Hudgins, to negotiate with the developer in getting a building that is at least compliant with the existing zoning ordinance if not the new (or even old) Reston Master Plan planning principles and at least the recommendations of the RTF Town Center Sub-Committee.   We would expect several proffers that would make the building more acceptable for the community, including much less density, a focus on residential development, and substantial proffers for open space (especially parks), education, road improvements, and so on. 

The location is a perfect one to apply the thinking of the RTF to the development of North Town Center. 

On the Docket: SVES, Office Tower, Reston Patch, June 28, 2012

Sunrise Valley renovations and 23-story office building slated for decision at Fairfax County Planning Commission on Thursday.

• By Karen Goff

The Fairfax County Planning Commission is scheduled to make a decision on two Reston projects at Thursday's regular meeting.

The 23-story tower planned for 1760 Reston Parkway is on the docket. Read more about the project here.

The RTC Partnership is 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). . . .

Although RA's DRB and the Reston P&Z Committee have endorsed the huge tower to be built where the old Reston Times or Town Center Office Building is, the Reston Task Force's Town Center Sub-committee chair, the Association of Reston Clusters & Homeowners, and RCA's Reston 2020 Committee have all objected to the proposal on grounds that it is inconsistent with Reston's planning principles, undermines the residential-focused mixed use proposed for the North Town Center area around the Spectrum Center, and is massively too dense for the setting.  

Click here for the rest of this article. 

Update on Town Center Office Building Redevelopment Proposal, April 13, 2012

Robert Goudie, member of the Reston Task Force and co-chair of its Town Center Sub-Committee, offered the following update on the redevelopment application for TCOB. 

The Planning Commission, on Mr. de la Fe’s motion, voted for a second time to hold over this application, this time for “decision only” at the upcoming April 26 meeting.  I understand that County Counsel has been asked to provide specific guidance on the alleged “legal entitlement” that the developer has argued.

Our grass roots effort opposing this is clearly making progress.  The strong ARCH, RCA, and individual testimony offered by a number of you in opposition to this application, and the NEGATIVE Staff Report, have changed the dynamic.  I think the Planning Commission recognizes that this application has received no local support outside P&Z that I am aware of (RA DRB of course opined favorably on the architectural aspects, but that is a different issue).  And no doubt the Planning Commission also recognizes that the P&Z vote was divided at 9-5, and that several of those who voted “yes” made clear their support was heavily influenced by the alleged but uncounseled “by right” issue. 

For those of you who have weighed in, thank you.  We are collectively making a difference.  For those of you who have not yet been able to do so, there is still time.  Written and e-mail testimony can still be submitted to plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov.  You need not weigh in on all the minutiae; just saying that you agree with the thrust of the resident testimony submitted in opposition to this application will help immensely.  In addition, for those of you who are able to talk personally with Supervisor Hudgins or Commissioners de la Fe and Alcorn please do so.  They need to know that the community opposition to this application is real and that if they stick their necks out on this they will be supported.

Absent a forced decision on purely legal grounds, I think the issues before the Planning Commission and our Supervisor are challenging.  It is very difficult if not impossible to square this application with the vision for Metro-focused transit oriented development that is at the heart of the Task Force’s work.  And by siphoning away what appears to be declining office demand it will surely make it harder to incent tear down and mixed use in the RCIG and/or build Central Park-like spaces in Town Center North and south of the Toll Road – goals that are of unquestionably higher priority for our community than anything that can be achieved by (over)developing this lot.  No one is arguing that the lot should not be redeveloped, but in scale and proportion with its location and consistent with the vision the Town Center Committee specifically (and Task Force generally) has articulated.

Thanks to all for considering the possibility of offering testimony or contacting Supervisor Hudgins or Commissioners Alcorn or de la Fe.  Feel free to forward this to anyone who you feel would be interested.

Regards,

Robert Goudie