Reston 2020 and RCA agree to temporary Reston 2020 stand down, independence from RCA.

   Reston 2020 RCA Agreement 06072015

RCA Letter to Supervisor Hudgins Regarding the Draft Phase 2 Reston Master Plan, May 28, 2015

From: Sridhar Ganesan

Subject: Reaching out to you about an amendment to the Master Plan, Phase II document

Date: May 28, 2015 at 5:08:48 PM EDT

To: "Hudgins, Catherine M." <Catherine.Hudgins@fairfaxcounty.gov>

Cc: Goldie Harrison <Goldie.Harrison@fairfaxcounty.gov>, John Hanley

Dear Supervisor Hudgins,

Hope you are doing well.  Knowing the kind of person that you are, I am sure you have thrown yourself fully back into County work. All of us at Reston Citizens Association appreciate your dedication to the County and the work you do for your constituents.

I am reaching out to you because we are concerned about a last minute change in the Reston Master Plan, Phase II, that would essentially remove one of the critical steps that any redevelopment ideas for Reston’s Village Centers will have to go through.  The new recommendations by the Planning Commission has dropped the need for comprehensive plan amendment for any redevelopment of Village Centers, but we think it is critical that we retain that requirement. Retaining the step of going through a Plan amendment requirement would provide more time and opportunity to educate the community on changes that are being contemplated and the citizens more time to constructively respond.  

Moreover, as Reston is a Planned Residential Community under the County's Planned Development District Regulations, so far it has been clear that a comprehensive plan amendment would be required for redevelopment of Village Center.  We have shared this information with the public through our blogs (our 411 series of documents on our website) and other communications as part of the Phase II public forums as well as during the intense activities around the Reston National Golf course issue.  

It is also disconcerting to see that the language does not include the phrase “green open space” in addition to plazas with reference to central gathering places. We think that incorporating specific language on “green open space” would be more in keeping with Reston’s planning principles.  We also think that it would be important to have some language on permitted density at the Village Centers.  

I would appreciate it very much if these could be addressed before the June 2 vote by the Board of Supervisors.  I know there is very little time left, but I would be happy to stop by your office or meet at any other place of choice to discuss this with you before then, weekday or weekend.  

Thank you very much for your attention.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Sridhar Ganesan
President, Reston Citizens Association

Reston 2020 Letter to the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Reston Master Plan

Dear Chairman Bulova, Hunter Mill District Supervisor Hudgins, and Members of the Board of Supervisors,

The RCA Reston 2020 Committee has been deeply involved in the development of Phase 2 of the Reston Master Plan, the portion of the plan that provides guidance for the redevelopment of the areas in Reston where virtually all Restonians live.  It is, in essence, proposed guidance on the redevelopment of our neighborhoods, maybe even our individual homes, and our village centers; in short, our way of life. 
 

Reston 2020 believes the draft plan amendment generally serves the existing Reston residential community well, but with some important exceptions we have detailed to the County staff on at least two occasions.  (Please see our initial ideas for Phase 2, comments on draft Version 2, and specific comments on the Reston Land Use Map.)  Nonetheless, we believe there are substantial shortcomings regarding the redevelopment of village centers and protecting open space in this Phase 2 of the draft plan language and the changes made by the Planning Commission.  We urge the Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor Hudgins in particular, to read and address the concerns we describe below along the lines we suggest. 
 

Village Centers:  In our view, the most significant shortcomings of the draft plan appear in the section dealing with village centers. 
 

Maybe the biggest one is that the draft plan puts no limits on the density of redevelopment in these critical elements of the Reston community.  The plan’s failure to limit density (we recommended a density of FAR 1.0, four times the current limit) could result in extremely dense commercial, office, or residential development (or all of the above) in the village centers that would be totally inappropriate for a neighborhood-serving center.  The absence of a reasonable density restriction could easily lead to the situation we are about to see in Town Center North where plans to build a 23-story office building beyond the high-density ½-mile transit station area (TSA)—and twice as tall as the adjoining new Spectrum Center--were approved by the Board because there was no density restriction.  Indeed, during Phase 1 of the Master Plan Review, the Vision Committee discussed 18-20 story buildings in the village centers.  Thus, very tall buildings are a distinct possibility. 
 

Although we have proposed a limit on density to the Planning staff at least twice, we have been told that none of the owners yet have plans to redevelop their village centers (excluding the approved plan for Lake Anne).  We believe a County-approved plan should guide any future proposals, not the other way around.  We believe the Board of Supervisors should make it clear now that such oversized construction is unacceptable by specifying a reasonable maximum density constraint. 
 

Also in the village centers, the Planning Commission struck the possibility of a green open space—a park-like setting--as an option for the “gathering place” for the neighborhood, leaving only “plazas” as an option for these focal points of each center.  We believe the green open space option should be re-inserted because we have not seen the brick (Lake Anne), concrete (Hunters Woods, South Lakes, & North Point), or other potential hardscapes attract a gathering.  The concrete “plazas” at South Lakes and North Point have limited steel seating and tables for people to use, which are absolutely unbearable in Reston’s summers except in the late evening and early morning.  Green open spaces would actually help cool the gathering space and, frankly, be much more attractive. 
 

The Planning Commission also chose to abandon its historic role to review redevelopment proposals for village centers, striking out the final step in the approval process before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.  The County Planning staff also rejected several suggestions we provided on how to constructively constrain village center redevelopment proposals to the "neighborhood-serving" needs they are supposed to serve. 

• The County Planning staff rejected redevelopment plan language from Reston 2020 calling for Reston community entities (RP&Z, RA DRB) and neighbors to play a key role in redevelopment plan reviews. Please see our comments on Version 2.

• The staff also rejected Reston 2020’s distinction between redevelopment of the “mixed-use areas” of the village centers and their “residential areas,” thereby subjecting existing residents to the threat of redevelopment.  This is addressed in both our original set of ideas and in our comments on Version 2 linked above. 

• Staff language also allows the expansion of village centers beyond their current boundaries if it would be “essential to the successful development of any particular village center.” We do not believe there are any circumstances in which village center boundaries should be expanded.

In short, the draft plan provides no protection from excessive and inappropriate redevelopment for existing village centers or nearby neighborhoods.  The draft language treats village centers residents and adjoining neighborhoods like second-class citizens in the Reston community.  More broadly, these failures shortchange the community and residents and businesses in the village centers as well as neighbors nearby who will have fewer opportunities to have their voices heard on redevelopment plans. 
 

The Planning Commission's proposed change to the plan's language is an especially peculiar change given that Reston is a planned community and we believe a change in the community’s land use ought to be reviewed by both local community entities and the Planning Commission.  In general, we view these Planning Commission Master Plan recommendations as part of the broader County effort to reduce community participation and facilitate the development and redevelopment process through the “Fairfax Forward” land use decision making process adopted last year, a process that goes well beyond planning issues in Reston to shortchange communities and neighbors from commenting on the effects of high-density development proposals. 
 

In fact, the Planning Commission went so far as to essentially recommend approval of the Jefferson Apartment Group’s Tall Oaks Village Center redevelopment plan and the St. Johns Woods apartment complex proposal, which have not yet been presented to any Reston or County group for endorsement or approval, only for “information purposes.”  And those plans are still evolving. 
 

Reston’s Open Space:  There are two significant shortcomings inserted by the Planning Commission on Reston’s open space as well as a few improvements.  We believe that Reston’s open spaces must be preserved and, if feasible, expanded to accommodate the planned doubling of our population and employment in the decades ahead. 
 

The Planning Commission dropped language designating the Sunrise Valley Wetlands as a “Nature Park” throughout the draft plan.  This cuts language already approved by the Board of Supervisors during Phase 1 of the Reston Master Plan effort.  If adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the change would eliminate any shred of protection for the wetlands—a vital environmental resource protected by the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act—in the Master Plan from future commercial redevelopment.    We believe the wetlands should become a publicly-held County resource. 
 

The Planning Commission specifically rejected language and related mapping that would identify existing open space in condominiums and clusters.  The impact of this change if adopted would be to substantially reduce the expectation that this (or comparably sized and equipped) open space would be preserved in a redevelopment effort—which would no doubt include several times as many housing units. 

That said, we appreciate the effort of the County Planning staff and the Planning Commission in updating and correcting the Reston Land Use Map with the exception cited above.  It is an integral part of the plan and is vital in making sure development proposals are consistent with the plan’s intent.
 

We also appreciate the steps taken by the Staff and the Commission to insure the accuracy and completeness of the property plats covered by the Reston National Golf Course as well as Hidden Creek Country Club—and striving to ensure their protection as open space.  We all know that the RNGC property’s use is in dispute, and every step taken by the County to protect it is deeply appreciated. 

We all want to move forward in achieving the goals and principles of the revised Reston Master Plan in a way that preserves the quality of life of all who live or work here, now and in the future.   That requires a careful balance of opportunities for redevelopment and preservation of the characteristics that make Reston a unique planned community. 
 

We look forward to your favorable consideration of these proposed changes in the draft Reston Master Plan language.

Sincerely, 
Terry Maynard

Co-Chairman

Reston 2020 Committee

Reston Citizens Association

cc: 

RCA Board of Directors

RA Board Chairman and CEO

Rescue Reston Board

Local media

Rescue Reston calls on Supervisor Hudgins to Block Elimination of Planning Commission Review of Redevelopment Proposals for Village Centers

In an e-mail to Hunter Mill District Supervisor Cathy Hudgins, other members of the Board of Supervisors, and others, Rescue Reston President Connie Hartke calls upon the Board to block the Planning Commission's proposal to drop its involvement in proposed redevelopment of Reston's village Centers.  

Here is a copy of her e-mail:

Dear Supervisor Hudgins,

We understand that the Fairfax County Planning Commission has recommended removal of the requirement for Village Centers to undergo Comprehensive Plan Amendments in order to promote their redevelopment.

Rescue Reston is alarmed at this suggestion to shortcut our County process.

The Rescue Reston Board asks you and the Board of Supervisors to maintain control over the Reston part of the Comprehensive Plan by striking this recommendation. 

The Reston Citizens Association recently wrote a 411 information sheet on PRC Districts in an effort to educate the public on these three very unique County Zoning Districts. It is attached and online at restoncitizensassociation.blogspot.com/p/reston-411.html

.

By copy of this email, we are asking Supervisor Cook and Supervisor Herrity to stand with you as they each have a Planned Residential Community District within their Districts.

PRC Districts require a comp plan amendment and the BoS must hold strong on controlling this piece of the process. 

Regards,

Connie Hartke, President

Rescue Reston

cc: Supervisor John Cook, Braddock District

      Supervisor Pat Herrity, Springfield District

      Chairman Sharon Bulova

     Rescue Reston Board of Directors

     Tim Thompson, Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Associations

     Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors

     RCA Reston 2020 Committee

Preliminary Notes on Inequality and Urbanism, Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, New York Times, May 27, 2015

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, now of Oxford University, offers some preliminary thoughts on inequality-driven urbanism and its implications.  While he focuses on the implications for people moving into booming urban areas, it seems the same could be said of neighborhoods and larger areas becoming urban.  His thoughts raise interesting questions about the urbanizing of Reston, Tysons, and other areas in the Metropolitan Washington area. 

Here is how he begins:

Tim Wu has an interesting piece about the phenomenon of vacant storefronts in booming New York neighborhoods, which by coincidence dovetails with a number of conversations I’ve been having here at the Said Business School in Oxford, where several people are interested in the changing economic geography of London and its links to globalization.

The empty-store phenomenon is interesting, and cries out for a bit of modeling, which I won’t do right now. But it’s part of a broader story of big money moving in to desirable neighborhoods, and in the process destroying what makes them desirable. (Emphasis added.)  And this in turn has me thinking, blurrily — this is just a start — about the relationship between inequality and urbanism. Not as a diatribe — I think it’s a fairly complex issue — but just as an interesting thing, especially if you’re in the process of moving into a big city.

Some thoughts . . .

Click here to read the particulars.

The Seattle Public Library Central Library: Economic Benefits Assessment, July 2005

This comprehensive study of the economic impact of the newly constructed Central Library in Seattle highlights the diverse and substantial economic and other benefits of the new library just a year after it was completed.  As a "central library," it most closely resembles the role that "regional libraries" should play in Fairfax County, including the one to be built in Reston's Town Center North.

Unlike the analyses of the economic impact of public libraries by other cities either hoping to preserve their role in the community or to show the benefits of prospective new libraries, this analysis reports the actual results of one year's operation of a major new public library.  We expect that these impacts have only grown over the last decade.  The following are the "key findings" of the report:

For a county that sees itself to be a center of creativity, high technology, entrepreneurship, and economic growth--all of which Seattle truly represents--there are important lessons in this study for Fairfax County to learn and adapt in its consideration of the construction of the new Reston Regional Library.

The full text of the assessment is provided below.

   Seattle Central Public Library Economic Impacts

Reston: Three for One, and One For All?, Reston Connection May 20, 2015

The Reston Connection provides a good overview of the three parties--Fairfax County, Reston Association, and Rescue Reston--pursuing an appeal on the Board of Zoning Appeal's (BZA's) nonsensical ruling on the RNGC planning and zoning case.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Board of Supervisors, Rescue Reston and Reston Association all filed legal appeals of the Board of Zoning Appeals April ruling regarding Reston National Golf Course.

Reston Golf Management wants to build homes here. The Board of Supervisors and Reston Association will appeal last month’s Board of Zoning Appeals ruling in Fairfax County Circuit Court. Photo by Ken Moore.

By Ken Moore

 

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Rescue Reston and Reston Association last week filed legal appeals of the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals.

Reston Golf Management seeks to redevelop the 166-acre Reston National Golf Course property, while Reston Association and Rescue Reston want to preserve the golf course as open space.

“We each [RA, County, Rescue Reston] have different specific pieces we may appeal, but appeal we must,” said Rescue Reston’s Connie Hartke. “As we said last week: ‘Letting the BZA ruling stand unchallenged will disadvantage, now and in the future, the County and the Reston community from being able to regulate and control redevelopment requests for the 166-acre golf course property and potentially other properties in Reston within the RPC/PRC District.” . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.