How FAR will the Board of Supervisors go? Terry Maynard, Reston 20/20 Committee

This is a re-post from RestonNow, January 11, 2016.

The newly re-elected County Board of Supervisors is at it again:  They are proposing a “Priority 1” zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA) that would allow development density in a number of areas in the County to increase to a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 5.0 plus a 0.5 bonus density for meeting key County priorities.  The ZOA includes all of Reston’s Metro station areas (TSAs) and Lake Anne, a Commercial Revitalization Area (CRA).  

In fact, the ZOA proposal covers an entire alphabet soup of about 20 urbanizing and redeveloping “Selective Areas” across the county:  TSAs, CRAs, CRDs, CBCs, PDCs, and PRMs.  Together, the County calls all these “Selective Areas” and the ZOA makes no distinction among them.  That’s a potential half billion gross square feet (GSF) of new development and redevelopment added to the County’s current roughly one billion GSF of total existing development of all kinds.  And the “Selective Areas” cover only about five percent of the county’s total 400 square mile area.   If you are interested to learn about this proposed ZOA, there are opportunities for you to hear more and provide your comments as early as this Wednesday, January 13^th.

Here is the key language in the draft ZOA calling for FAR 5.0:

Amend Sect. 6-208, Bulk Regulations, by revising Par. 3 and adding a new Par. 4 to read as follows:

3. Maximum floor area ratio:  2.5.  However, the Board may approve an increase up to 5.0 (emphasis added) only when, in the discretion of the Board, the proposed development is implementing the site specific density/intensity and other recommendations in the adopted comprehensive plan for developments located in a Commercial Revitalization District, Community Business Center, Commercial Revitalization Area and/or Transit Station Area. (Advertised range for maximum FAR is 2.5 to 5.5 for areas within the Selective Areas)

While the draft language proposes to limit such approved density to the limits “in the adopted comprehensive plan,” experience has shown that this kind of seeming constraint has frequently been ignored in specific applications, for example, through such seemingly routine legal maneuvers as a “density swaps.”  The Comprehensive Plan—a legislated guide to development, not a legal constraint—is routinely ignored when it comes to fulfilling its own quality of life standards.  In short, this ZOA opens the door for very high-density development that substantially exceeds the major increases that the Board has already approved in the County’s Comprehensive Plan for these “Selective Areas,” including Reston.

So what does FAR 5.0 look like?  To start with, no existing buildings or areas with that density exist in the County, although some such buildings will soon be coming to Tysons.  The most densely planned structure in Reston now is the Akridge office building, the 23-story office building approved at a FAR of 4.06 to replace the current Town Center Office Building, including five levels of parking and first-floor retail (see photo). 

Rendering of approved Akridge office building at FAR 4.06

Also, Boston Properties has developed a conceptual plan for its property near the north side of the Reston Town Center station (see photo).  The plan calls for a FAR 4 density, probably with a FAR 0.5 bonus density, when it is built.  The entire area in that image is also planned for FAR 4 development under the Reston Master Plan precisely because it is located so close to the Metro station.

Boston Properties concept for development near the RTC Metro station.

The most densely developed TSA in Virginia is the core area around the Rosslyn Metro station.  Overall, that core station area has a density of FAR 3.6 (see photo).  Its two tallest buildings, twin 390’ 31-story structures—one office, one residential—directly above the station, are FAR 10. 

The Rosslyn Metro station core area is the densest station area in Virginia.

The County argues that this ZOA is necessary as an implementation tool to make allowable the development that has been included in recent area Comprehensive Plan changes, such as the Reston Master Plan.  In fact, no areas outside Tysons have any plan proposing developing buildings or areas to FAR 5.0, and Tysons has the necessary zoning authority to do so.  In fact, the background section of the ZOA proposal acknowledges this:

“Staff’s recommendation for 5.0 FAR is specifically based on the increased intensity levels that have been adopted for certain geographic areas within the Selective Areas.  Staff also believes the 5.0 maximum FAR recommendation will accommodate the current development intensity scenarios envisioned by existing comprehensive plan recommendations, but will also accommodate any future comprehensive plan changes that would specify up to a 5.0 FAR for a specific geographic area.  For example, certain areas of the Reston TSAs are currently planned for up to 3.5 FAR (note: Wiehle station area), allowing up to 4.5 FAR (note: Reston Town Center station) if certain features are included with the application.  At this time, there is no zoning district available to achieve a 4.5 FAR (outside of the Tysons PTC District.)”  

So the County proposal is explicitly trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist and almost certainly won’t for at least a decade or more even under the most enthusiastic of County growth scenarios.   Right now, office vacancies are running above 17% and the housing market has been stagnant for at least two years with a small average price decrease in the last year, according to the Economic Development Authority and the County’s Economic Indicators.  

Nonetheless, the foreseeable consequences of FAR 5.0 development are huge, and many consequences are not foreseeable so far in the future. 

Certainly one of the most obvious impacts of increased density would be greater traffic congestion.  In the case of Reston’s planning task force, the County’s transportation staff examined the traffic impact using a forecast generated by MWCOG (Round 8.0), the regional inter-governmental planning group.   It foresees Reston Town Center densities of FAR 3.0-4.0 north of the Dulles Toll Road (DTR) and FAR 1.5-3.0 south of the DTR in 2030.  Nowhere does that forecast suggest that FAR 5.0 densities would be approached in Reston.  The study showed that half of the 16 intersections along the DTR crossings in Reston would have a failing Level of Service (LOS) grades of “F,” including four of the six along Reston Parkway, in the evening peak rush period (see graphic).  

 An “F” grade means the intersection is “Oversaturated; Vehicles wait through multiple signal cycles.”  More concretely, it means at least an 80-second delay at each intersection, and, in the case of Reston intersections crossing the DTR, waits of 3-4 minutes at multiple intersections on the same street.  While not an expert on how traffic increases with density increases, it’s reasonable to expect that such delays would easily double if a FAR 5.0 were allowed in Reston Town Center—with similar consequences in the other “Selective Areas.”

Meeting current County standards for schools and parks would also be virtually impossible with a FAR 5.0 in Reston’s 2-1/2 TSAs (half of Herndon-Monroe TSA being in Herndon) with the County’s coffers as empty as they are expected to be.  To meet that development level, Fairfax County Public Schools would have to build 3-5 elementary schools, one intermediate school, and a high school—presumably some of which would be located in the TSAs—to serve the expected 25,000-39,000 students (part of the 59,000-93,000 residents in these FAR 5.0 TSAs).  The County Park Authority would also have to provide 100-150 acres of parks and dozens of athletics fields to meet the needs of the residents and workers in these areas to meet park goals in the Comprehensive Plan (see Appendices 2 & 3).

The Park Authority has abandoned any pretense of meeting the Comprehensive Plan’s Urban Park Framework park acreage goals or the Park Facility Service Level Standards for Reston’s TSAs even in the current Reston Master Plan.   And the single new elementary school proposed in the current Reston plan is proposed to be located less than ¼ mile from an existing one (Dogwood) south of the DTR and more than a mile from where it will be needed north of the Wiehle Metro station. 

In short, experience shows the ZOA would create more quality of life of problems across the County than the County could or would address.  So why should Reston residents expect the Board of Supervisors would try to meet its own legislated community service standards for Reston or any other “Selective Area” under a zoning ordinance offering developers the opportunity for an even more profitable density of FAR 5.0 and the County greater potential property tax revenues?  The record so far has been one of consistent County failure to meet its quality of life standards for our communities in redevelopment, including Reston.

That said, Restonians and other County residents will have a chance to listen to more about this proposed ZOA as well as ask questions at two meetings within the next two weeks.

The first meeting is sponsored by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations (FCFCA).  It is holding a workshop on Wednesday, January 13, 2016, at 7:30PM to 9:30PM at the Providence Community Center, 3001 Vaden Drive, Fairfax, VA 22031.  After an opening introduction providing context to the proposal, a panel of citizens will discuss the impact on their communities followed by an open forum in which people may ask questions, offer suggestions, etc. 

The second meeting is the official Fairfax County “public input” session at 7:30PM, Wednesday, January 20, 2016.  The meeting will be held at the Board Auditorium in the Fairfax County Government Center at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia.  This is not a public hearing.  It is an informal input session.

I strongly recommend that you attend one or both of these meetings to learn more about this important planning and development issue.

The Privacy of Your Voting Data . . . or Not

Last week, the New York Times had an article, "Millions of Voter Records Posted, and Some Fear Hacker Field Day," highlighting the theft and publishing of 191,000,000 (that's "million") individual voter records from across the country.  The article highlights some of the same concerns expressed by Restonians reflected in the RA Board's vote to prevent the release of recent voter data to a Reston requester.  

Here's what it says about the theft and publication: 

 First and last names. Recent addresses and phone numbers. Party affiliation. Voting history and demographics.

A database of this information from 191 million voter records was posted online over the last week, the latest example of voter data becoming freely available, alarming privacy experts who say the information can be used for phishing attacks, identity theft and extortion. The information is no longer publicly accessible.

It is not known who built the database, where all the data came from, and whether its disclosure resulted from an inadvertent release or from hacks. The disclosure was discovered by an information technology specialist, Chris Vickery, and the findings were published on databreaches.net. . . .

The article goes on to highlight that almost all the data is freely available under law: 

Indeed, nearly all of the data that was released was already publicly available. But having it compiled in one place makes it particularly valuable.

As a result of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, state governments are each required to maintain a single, “interactive computerized” voter registration list with “name and registration information.” It leaves what that “registration information” consists of to the discretion of the states. But as big data increasingly plays a large role in politics and business, the presence of the publicly available information raises questions of privacy and security. . . .

So the intent of the law is to make it easier to encourage people to vote in national elections, an intent that could be abused by misuse of the available data based on some further analysis that voters (or voters of a particular stripe) are more or less inclined to buy something.  Whether it is particularly useful for cyber-criminal activities is actually less evident.

The article also highlights how important the availability of this data is to campaigns. 

Access to data is, of course, a necessity for modern campaigns. Voter databases vary from state to state — there is no federal agency overseeing voter data or registration — making it a messy field to navigate. It is this discombobulated system that makes companies like NationBuilder and NGP VAN, a software company that manages such data for Democrats, invaluable to campaigns.

"From our perspective, it is extremely important for campaigns to be able to know who can vote for them, and be able to do legitimate outreach and engagement,” said Jim Gilliam, the founder and chief executive of NationBuilder. “That’s the point of the democratic process: that you can talk to voters.”

But even without the streamlined databases of NationBuilder, such voter data is publicly available on a state-by-state basis.

So every state, even Virginia, makes this information available to the public and some states have a few protections to prevent its misuse.  As the article highlights: 

For example, in Pennsylvania, it costs $20 to download the whole voter file — which includes names, addresses, birth dates, gender and party — in a spreadsheet format. North Carolina offers free access to an online database of voters. Wisconsin makes its voter file available online, with privacy restrictions that leave out such information as dates of birth and Social Security numbers, and it charges $25, and $5 per 1,000 voter records.

Each state also has a varying set of rules and verification requirements to try to ensure the data is used solely for a political purpose. Anyone can search North Carolina’s free online voter database, for example, but in New Hampshire, people have to verify they are with a political party or committee before purchasing the voter file from the secretary of state. Many states and jurisdictions, from Alaska to the District of Columbia to Florida, allow for “unrestricted” use of the data, according to a database kept by NationBuilder.

In Virginia, in particular, the Fairfax County Office of Elections reports that the following information may be made available upon request “at a reasonable cost.”   Among the categories of people who may obtain this information are “Members of the public seeking to promote voter participation and registration by means of a communication or mailing without intimidation or pressure exerted on the recipient.”  This is very much what Mr. Flashman has said he is trying to accomplish in his request to RA.   
 

In contrast, a qualified person asking for official county, state, or federal election information could ask for and receive the following under Virginia law, among other categories of information:

• “List of Those Who Voted (LTWV) – a list of those persons who voted in a primary, special or general election in a specified jurisdiction, legislative, election district or statewide.”  

• “Vote History List (VHL) – a list of those persons who voted in a primary, special or general election in a specified jurisdiction, legislative, election district or statewide over a four year time period.” 

In both cases, the requester would receive, “(the) full name, residence address, mailing address, gender, date of birth, registration date, date last registration form received, registration status, locality, precinct, voting districts, voter identification number, election date, election type, and whether the voter voted in-person or absentee.”  In response to the vote history list, the requester’s response would additionally be organized chronologically by election.

Mr. Flashman’s request for the addresses of RA members who voted in the Tetra referendum seeks much less information by far than the state allows for similar voting record requests as this table shows:

Data type                                    Virginia                              Reston Assn.

 Name                                               Yes                                        No

 Residential Address                        Yes                                      Yes

 Mailing Address                               Yes                                         No

Gender                                              Yes                                         No

Date of Birth                                      Yes                                         No

Registration Date                              Yes                                         No

Date Registration Received              Yes                                         No

Registration Status                           Yes                                         No

Locality                                              Yes                                         No

Precinct                                             Yes                                         No

Voting District                                    Yes                                         No

Voter Identification No.                      Yes                                         No

Election Date                                     Yes                                     Known

Election Type                                     Yes                                     Known

In-person/Absentee Vote                    Yes                                         No

This brief comparison suggests that Mr. Flashman's request is exceptionally modest in terms of gaining access to the addresses of those who voted in the Tetra referendum.  There is no apparent reason why it should be denied unless that data is expressly deniable by the Virginia POAA.  To the contrary, it appears that the Virginia POAA requires that it be released as RA determined a year ago.   Indeed, Mr. Flashman has appealed to the Virginia state ombudsman for a legal determination of his right to access the data he has requested from RA. 

If the RA denial stands, Mr. Flashman could easily turn to county officials and request the much more complete voter data compiled by the County on all voters in Reston--most likely by its ZIP codes—under Virginia state law.  Moreover, it would result in acquiring data on at least hundreds of people who did not vote in the RA referendum and a number of people who aren't even members of RA (such as those in Town Center).  

It seems clear to us that RA should--on both legal and ethical grounds--provide Mr. Flashman the data he requested.  Not to provide this limited information undercuts the very goal RA tries to encourage:  That all dues paying RA members should vote in RA Board and other elections and referenda.  If the candidates or groups that wish to participate in such elections don't have that data, they will almost certainly be less able to effectively present their positions and priorities to likely Reston voters.  In turn and as a result of their limited access to candidates or issues, likely RA voters may be less inclined to participate in an RA election or referendum.