A sad day for Reston: RA Board approves parking lot at cost of an acre of mature trees

In a thorough recounting in RestonNow this morning entitled, "Reston Association OKs Land Swap for New Parking at Lake Anne," Karen Goff reports on the RA Board's egregious decision to sell out an acre of mature woodland so a developer can put in a parking lot at Lake Anne.  Here is the lede:

The Reston Association Board of Directors voted on Thursday to go ahead with a land swap necessary for construction of a 120-space parking garage at the revitalized Lake Anne Plaza.

The controversial land swap — which exchanges a parcel of wooded land adjacent to the current Lake Anne Plaza parking lot for a less-desirable piece off of Baron Cameron Avenue — came about as part of Republic Land Development ‘s plans for a redeveloped Crescent Apartments and Lake Anne Plaza area.

The proposal was met with strong opinions all around. . . .

The bottom line is that the RA Board overruled the unanimous recommendation of its own Environmental Advisory Committee NOT to make the swap and its own official position in documents to the County on the Reston Master Plan to improve Plan assurances to protect the community's mature tree canopy.  Who needs County assurances if you own HOA Board of Directors is willing to sell out the community's half-century old values?  Can the County protect us from our own leaders?

Hypocrisy and greed run rampant!

Lake Anne Land Swap: Explore Parking Options to Protect Trees

by Connie Hartke

 

The Reston Citizens Association has 7 founding principles.  The first and last apply to our thoughts about the Lane Anne Land Swap:

• Fostering man-made and natural beauty
• Being a financial success as a community

The Republic/Lake Anne Development Partners have an excellent plan for Lake Anne revitalization, and RCA very much supports revitalizing the village center.  The problem: underground sewer pipes and a stormwater culvert were discovered in the middle of the spot where Republic Land Development was going to put underground merchant parking.  They can still put some parking there, but are 120 spaces short.

The previous Reston Association CEO agreed in principle to the proposed land swap, which runs counter to the RA Board’s adopted policy “Environmental Considerations for Future Development and Redevelopment within Reston.” It is also contrary to Fairfax County’s comprehensive plan specific to this land.  From page 162 of Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2013 edition:

“Tree preservation and/or tree cover should be a key condition of redevelopment in this Land Unit, in accordance with guidance in the Environmental section of the Fairfax County Policy Plan. The existing tree canopy in this Land Unit should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.”

Kevin Munroe has given a very clear and detailed review of the value of the RA parcel in his article on Reston Patch.  He is well qualified, having previously worked 11 years for RA as an Environmental Resource Specialist plus 2 years with the Audubon Society of Northern VA as their Staff Naturalist and Program Coordinator, and the last 7 as the Manager of Huntley Meadows Park.  He suggests near the end of his article that “Parking lot designs can always be tweaked and re-oriented – if clearing a Reston Association natural area was taken off the table as an option, a creative solution would be found.”  We agree.

If this land swap proposal was brought to the table now under the current leadership of CEO Cate Fulkerson, we believe this would only be an option of last resort. Unfortunately it has moved beyond her control to a vote of the RA Board of Directors.  RCA urges the RA Board to defer the land swap proposal to allow time for alternative parking options to be fully explored.  Since RA and Republic are both working against a County-imposed deadline to start construction, we propose that the County’s deadline be extended to allow time for this exploration.

Cities across America are investing in planting projects trying to get what we already have on this RA parcel. If this stand of trees is leveled for a parking lot, which is so clearly counter to all that is Reston and the County Comprehensive Plan, then what precedent does this set for Reston redevelopment?

Reston Association and Fairfax County have an ethical obligation to exhaust all resources for alternative parking to save these trees.

RCA Approves Resolution on Proposed RA Land Swap at Lake Anne, November 11, 2013

Whereas, the revitalization of the Lake Anne Village Center should make it a model for renewal of the Reston Village Centers, and,

Whereas, the Reston Association (RA) and Lake Anne Development Partners (LADP) are proposing a land swap of a forested area of dedicated open space near the center of the redevelopment area in return for less desirable land on the periphery, and,

Whereas, preservation of the forested parcel would be consistent with Fairfax County's tree canopy goals and the Comprehensive Plan for this Land Unit, and,

Whereas, the RA land, with some enhancements, could serve as a wooded pocket park that would add visual, recreational and environmental benefits to the area, and,

Whereas, experts from both RA and LADP have said this land is of particular value and that the alternatives have not been fully considered, and,

Whereas, no environmental impact study has been performed on the subject parcels, and,

Whereas, other potentially feasible options for the needed parking exist, including additional rooftop parking and constructing the garage in part of the existing parking area of the Lake Anne of Reston, a Condominium Association (LARCA), and, 

Whereas, as Reston’s redevelopment proceeds, the current proposal will create a precedent for Reston’s natural areas that is contrary to the RA Board’s environmental policies adopted in 2010 and 2011,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Reston Citizens Association strongly urges that RA defer the current land swap proposal, and requests that the County deadline for the commencement of construction be delayed until all alternatives for parking have been fully examined.

Approved by the Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors via email on November 11, 2013, by a vote of 8 to 1, with one abstention.

Why not require 3 new trees for every 1 lost to development? MoCo has decided to.

The July 23 Washington Post carries an article by Bill Turque on two new ordinances approved by the Montgomery County Council that would require developers to replace every tree lost with three new ones.  Here's how the article begins:

The Montgomery County Council passed a pair of measures Tuesday intended to protect and expand tree cover along public roads and on private property where new construction has disturbed the environment.

Approval of the bills culminates several years of bargaining between the county, builders and environmentalists. One measure requires landowners who cut down a tree along a public right of way to obtain a county permit and replace the tree at or near the site. It also requires the landowner to pay into a tree replacement fund so that the county can plant two additional trees.

State law already regulates protection of roadside trees, but supporters say the county bill, sponsored by council members Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda) and Marc Elrich (D-At Large), is more stringent.
The other measure, proposed by County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), is aimed at preventing loss of tree canopy from new home construction, especially in older downcounty neighborhoods. It requires builders to plant three trees for every one lost to construction or to pay a fee to the county. Supporters of the bill say infill development — building in the spaces within a built-up areas — has seriously eroded the tree canopy, especially in Bethesda and other older communities.

Click here for the rest of this article.

While these laws appear to focus on public roadsides and residential areas, there is no reason the same kind of law shouldn't be applied to commercial development, especially in Reston (and, preferably, the County).  Reston is already well short of County tree cover goals (despite its extensive acreage of open and natural spaces) and the County's goal is, well, modest. 

Maybe this specific idea should be included in the new Reston Master Plan if the BOS is loathe to pass a County ordinance with a similar requirement. 

Montgomery looks to strengthen urban tree canopy, Greater Greater Washington, January 4, 2012

By Dan Reed

Photo by Jeff Tabaco on Flickr.

Trees are an important part of any urban environment, providing shade, oxygen, and even calming traffic. Of course, they're also great to look at. As a result, protecting and expanding Montgomery County's tree canopy has been a growing issue in recent months.

A study by the University of Vermont for the Montgomery County Planning Department found that while half of the county is covered by trees, the county's urban areas have a much smaller tree canopy.

Just 19% of White Flint is covered by trees, while downtown Silver Spring has a 14% tree canopy. The smallest tree canopy is in the Montgomery Hills business district south of Georgia Avenue and the Beltway, which has just 8% coverage. Urban areas should have at least a 25% tree canopy, planners say. . . .

Click here for the rest of this blog post.