final rca comments on draft reston areawide comprehensive plan--revised

7/29/2019 Final RCA Comments on Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan--Revised

1/8

1

March 8, 2013

Ms. Heidi Merkel

Senior Planner

Department of Planning and Zoning

Fairfax County

Re: Reston Citizen Association Comments on Draft Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language for Reston

Dear Ms. Merkel,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the County staffs first draft of its proposed areawide

Comprehensive Plan language. We have reviewed it in some detail and have a few key areas for

comment as you move forward in revising this draft and preparing the more detailed language for thespecific TOD district plans.

We appreciate the obvious level of effort that went into preparing the draft areawide plan. We

appreciate its inclusion of the Reston vision and planning principles summary virtually verbatim. We

believe you know what Restonians want for their urbanizing community. We do believe, however, that

there are shortfalls in the long term target jobs-to-housing balance and the great imbalance in language

regarding developer and citizen needs.

Our comments below attempt to address the relative weaknesses in the draft language. We hope that

the line of thinking proposed here also is reflected in the upcoming district-specific draft planning

language.

1. We want to be smart about moving to a more urban environment by keeping commercial and

residential development in better balance.

A general goal of the Task Force effort has been to reduce vehicle miles travelled while increasing

density through the use of transit-oriented development, especially within the -mile circle of the

station areas. Such development encourages the use of Metrorail, bus transit, biking, and walking. As

Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) and innumerable other analyses have shown, the

greater the proportion of residents in a TOD area, all other things being equal, the greater the reduction

in VMT and greater use of other transportation means.

Given this broadly accepted finding, we believe the 3:1 jobs-to-household ratio target (see p. 4 of the

DPZ draft) is too high for Reston, which presumes to become a diverse planned community with both

substantial urban and suburban dimensions with a strong environmental orientation. The stated ratio is

more in keeping with an urban area such as Tysons, which has a J:HH target of 4:1. At this point Tysons

has fewer than 20,000 residents and some 100,000 jobs, a roughly 10:1 J:HH ratio. Its longer term goal

reflected in the 2010 Comprehensive plan is 200,000 jobs and 100,000 residents (at 2.0 residents per

household). In contrast, Reston already has nearly 60,000 residents to go with its roughly 71,000 jobs as

shown in the attached spreadsheet.


2/8

2

Right now, Reston (the CDP) has a jobs:households ratio of 2.8:1, including a J:HH ratio of 12.0:1 in the

TOD areas. The unfortunately high ratio within the TOD areas is an artifact of the ban on housing in the

old RCIG area and the desire by developers to overly emphasize office development in the Reston Town

Center core area.

Using Scenario G Traffic Impact Analysis (83% of potential) as a guide to a forecast for 2030 rather

than full Comprehensive Plan development potential and making some modest assumptions about job,

population, and household growth beyond the TOD areas, the current community-wide J:HH ratio may

likely fall to 2.1:1 in about 2030 led by a major reduction in the J:HH ratio in the TOD areas to about

4.2:1. There is a small increase in the forecast change in the J:HH ratio for the non-TOD areas, based

largely on redevelopment of Lake Anne Village Center. All of this is good for easing transportation

improvement requirements, County budgets, County taxes, and protecting the environment. It is a

win all the way around for Restonians and the County.

Hypothesizing a 3.0 jobs:households ratio at, say, mid-century would be a reversal of the currently

proposed plan development direction in a jobs:housing balance. In our forecast, we anticipate job

growth of about 29,000 in the 20-year period from 2030 to 2050. At the same time, overall residentialgrowth would have to limited to about 4,000 households to achieve the 3.0 targetmeaning a vast

increase in the number of people commuting to Reston to work. Moreover, it would not cut the J:HH

ratio in the TOD areas even as much as Scenario G envisions. All this would lead to greater traffic,

greater need for road improvements, greater budget increases, greater taxes, and greater damage to

the environment.

We have hypothesized two alternative mid-century jobs:households forecasts derived from the Scenario

G and 3:1 J:HH forecast discussed above. In both of these, we tried to sustain the jobs growth while

increasing residential growth to reach the targeted balance.

A community-wide development scenario with a 2.5:1 jobs:households ratio would improve on

both the current and forecast balance under Scenario G with all the desirable effects describedabove. It presumes a major revamping of the village centers in line with Bob Simons vision and

redevelopment of older apartment/condominium complexes (such as Fairway and Charter Oaks

apartments). It would see the population of Reston double with slightly 40% of that gain

outside the TOD areas. Achieving this 2.5:1 J:HH goal would bring the TOD area J:HH ratio down

to 3.9largely in line with the combined task force station area sub-committee proposalswell

below the 5.4 J:HH ratio obtained by the 3:1 community-wide balance.

A community-wide development scenario with a 2:1 jobs:households ratio would extend the

benefits of residential/non-residential balance even further. The TOD areas would see their

J:HH balance drop to 3.6where the driving alternatives of transit, biking, and walking would be

most attractiveresulting in substantial reductions in VMT and associated road improvements,

County budgets, property taxes, and less environmental damage. Restons population would

grow more than two and a half-fold from current levels with some 29,000 residents more than

in the 2.5:1 target scenario.

Although we believe a long-term community J:HH ratio of 2:1 would be optimal, we believe a

community-wide jobs:households goal not to exceed 2.5:1 is acceptable and achievable with good

planning execution. There is certainly no good reason to go in the opposite direction. We cannot

support a community-wide 3:1 jobs:households goal. It is congestion producing, not cost-effective for

the county and its taxpayers, and would do substantial additional damage to the environment. We

want to achieve a smart urban environment, not just more high-rise office space.


3/8

3

2. We question the validity of assumptions used for office worker space during the Task Force process

and implicit in the DPZ draft areawide plan language.

Our concern about the targeted jobs:housing ratio above is amplified by our concern about the

assumptions used to calculate the space occupied by a single office worker, that is, 300 GSF per worker.

This is especially pertinent since we all envision the development of office space as a critical element in

the growth of Reston, especially in its transit station areas. We believe the assumption of 300 GSF per

worker may be double the actual number as future office development unfolds. The consequences for

traffic congestion, etc., are obvious.

When the Task Force began, the core assumptions about office space was put at 250 GSF/worker and

the space per household put at 1,000 GSF per housing unit. We soon began to accept that housing units

might, on average, be largerat 1,200 GSF/HUand raised the GSF/office worker to sustain the 4:1

jobs:housing ratio. The former is questionable and the latter totally unjustified.

In 2010, RCA engaged in a dialogue with Arlington Countys then-chief planner, Robert Brosnan, as wetried to understand the various size allocations for categories of workers and housing and their

implications. In a candid e-mail exchange, he was adamant that, for planning purposes, 1,000 GSF/HU

was appropriate and 250 GSF/office worker was correct.

We can accept that high-density housing units in Restons TOD areas may be larger than those in

Arlingtons transit corridors, but the data suggest thatif anythingthe GSF/office worker is declining

sharply. As you may recall, executives from Jones/Lang/LaSalle told us less than a year ago that GSA is

downsizing its office space requirements to between 110-180 GSF/office worker and, according to

contemporaneous notes taken by Reston 2020, Downsizing to 80-120 sq. ft per employee is not

uncommon. The Washington Business Journal also picked up on this theme, noting in an article about

former Reston office client Accenture, Accentures virtual nature allows real estate downsize, that:

Because of the virtual nature of our office environment, we no longer need the amount of space

we have in Reston, said Accenture spokesperson Kate Shenk.

Accenture has been office hoteling for the last several years, meaning workers dont have

assigned office space anymore. Instead, employees, many of whom spend much of their time off-

site with clients or working from home, share space in Reston, using a reservation-based system

for use of office space.

When asked how many employees will move into the new office space, Shenk said, At this point,

what we can tell you is that out of the 4,000 people aligned to Accenture Metro D.C., only a

fraction of those employees are expected to actually utilize the space at any given moment.

A major article by Eliot Brown in the Wall Street Journal entitled, Corporate Cram Bedevils Office

Market begins:

Trend of Companies Packing More People Into Less Space Picks Up Pace; A 'Tiny Library' at

One Law Firm


4/8

4

As the office-space market slogs along in a slow recovery, landlords face another hurdle:

shrinking tenants.

Companies looking for cost savings are increasingly packing more employees into less space, a

trend that is helping cause U.S. vacancy rates to linger at high levels even as employers add jobs

in the slowly expanding economy. . .

Employers gradually have been taking up less space for decades, but real-estate professionals

say the drive to use less space has picked up since the economic downturn, as companies look to

trim costs where they can across their budgets. Workstations are shrinking and private offices

are disappearing, replaced by cubicles with low walls, and more employees are working

remotely.

Companies today are taking space with an average of about 200 square feet per employee,

down about 20% from a decade ago, said Alan Nager, an executive managing director at

brokerage Newmark Knight Frank who advises companies on their real estate. The amount of

space is continuing to shrink, he says.

The trend is slowing the recovery of the office market. . . .

With these cost-saving trends in place for decades per WSJ and the likelihood of greater tele-

commuting, office hoteling, etc., in the 21st century, we can find no reason to believe 300 GSF/office

worker is anywhere near a realistic assumption. We cannot support an office worker space planning

assumption greater than 200 GSF/office workerand the real number will probably be much less as

time unfolds. At 200 GSF/worker, the J:HU ratio jumps from 4:1 to 6:1. The implication is that the DPZ-

proposed community target jobs:housing ratio of 3:1 would lead to half-again as many workers in

Reston as households, worsening an already severe imbalance. If we want to build a 21st century

balanced transit-friendly planned community, we need to use realistic 21st century assumptions and

analysis to achieve that end.

3. The County must aggressively pursue air rights over the Dulles Corridor for TOD development and the

grid of streets to work effectively.

Future air rights development around the stations should be pursued to enhance development

opportunities, encourage transit use, and improve north-south connectivity across the Dulles

Access Road. (p. 6, draft areawide plan)

The above statement is the only comment in the draft areawide plan about the matter of Dulles Corridor

air rights and while it is correct in its intentions, it is far too qualified to provide useful guidance. We do

not believe that Reston can achieve the numerous benefits of TOD, including a substantial trans-

formation of the station areas, without corridor air rights. The lack of air rights and, thereby, the

opportunity to build a grid of streets (rather than maybe three more connectors) across the corridor is

exactly the huge issue that is confronting the Task Force as it tries to balance development with traffic

congestion in Scenario G. Developers are concerned that it too severely restricts their development

opportunities. Residents are concerned that Scenario E (and maybe still G) levels of development will

bring north-south mobility in Reston to gridlock.


5/8

5

In contrast to the situation in Reston, there are at least eight crossings of the underground Metrorail

system at every station transit areaand Arlingtons station areas are limited to a 1/3-mile radius. At

best, we are contemplating a total of six crossingsthree current and three plannedin Reston

across three transit station areas, each -mile in radius. While Arlington has achieved some reductions

in traffic congestion because of its TOD development, we can anticipate traffic gridlock.

We recommend strongly that the language in the plan be changed to reflect the necessity of air rights

and building a trans-corridor grid of streets in Restons station areas. We propose substituting the

phrase should be pursued to is vital to success of transforming the transit station areas and must

be pursued on a priority basis... We would add a sentence that says, These corridor air rights must

extend east from the Fairfax County Parkway to a line linking South Lakes Drive with Business Center

Drive, the eastern-most planned connector crossing of the corridor.

4. The Reston community deserves to be on at least an equal footing with landowners in the

Comprehensive Plan language.

The issue of the relative stature of landowners and the community in which they exist is exemplified by

the by right status that will accrue to landowners for stated densities and mixes in the Planincludingflexibility in that languageand the ensuing zoning ordinance compared with the legally irrelevant

language of should and encouraged that has been applied in this draft and the existing Plan to

essential community infrastructure and amenity needs.

Every square foot of every type of development that a landowner buildsor preserves--has an impact

on the community around the property community-wide as the preceding discussion on jobs:housing

balance highlights. Flexibility accruing to landowners in ranges of mix of housing vs. commercial uses in

Plan language, as exists in the current Plan, consistently results in development that generates the

greatest profit, not the development that is best for the community as a whole as defined in the full

range of its vision and planning principles. For example, the imbalance in housing vs. jobs in the current

Reston Town Center is a function of flexible language in the Planand the Countys failure to enforcethe Plans intentions by granting exceptions.

The Countys failure to enforce the current, and presumably future, Plans intentions is further undercut

by the Countys record of less-than-effective negotiation and management of proffers on behalf of the

community. The obvious example is transportation proffers, which are miniscule in comparison to the

congestion produced by the permitted development. But the same issue applies to provision of open

space, contributions to public facilities development, and other. Each new development erodes the

quality of life in Reston because of the Countys failure to sustain its and the communitys standards.

Finally, the legally irrelevant language of should do this or that is encouraged throughout this draft

all but assures that the intentions of the Plan will not be achieved. In the attached edited draft of the

Plan, we have offered alternative language in most of the places this phraseology is used. In general, wesubstitute must or requires for the phraseology offered in the draft.

The 59,000 of us who live here and the thousands more to come, including the 17,000 owner-occupied

homes in Reston valued at more than $9 billion and climbing, have a stake every bit as large as

developers in our community, if not larger. We very much want to see Reston develop in a manner

consistent with all the elements of its vision and planning principles and not leave fulfillment of that

vision to the discretion of developers because of weak planning language.


6/8

6

We appreciate your serious consideration of these substantial proposed changes in the areawide plan

draft and look forward to reviewing the next draft as well as the TOD area-specific draft plans created by

the Department of Planning and Zoning.

On behalf of the Reston Citizens Association,

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard

RCA Representative

Reston Master Plan Task Force


7/8

7

Alternative Jobs-to-HouseholdsRatios in Reston

Jobs Residents Households HH Size J:HH Ratio J:W Ratio

2010 Existing

Reston-wide 71,287 58,404 25,522 2.29 2.79 4.47TOD Area 70,037 11,720 5,860 2.00 11.95 7.47

Non-TOD Share 1,250 46,684 19,662 2.37 0.06 0.04

% in TOD Area 98% 20% 23%

2030 Scenario G TIA Forecast

Reston-wide 91,276 93,540 43,922 2.13 2.08 3.33

TOD Area 88,776 42,353 21,177 2.00 4.19 2.62

Non-TOD Share 2,500 51,187 22,746 2.25 0.11 0.07

% in TOD Area 97% 45% 48%

Forecast at 3:1 J:HH ratio about 2050

Reston-wide 145,000 102,950 48,333 2.13 3.00 4.80

TOD Area 135,000 66,000 33,000 2.00 4.09 2.56

Non-TOD Share 10,000 36,950 15,333 2.41 0.65 0.41

% in TOD Area 93% 64% 68%

Forecast at 2.5:1 J:HH ratio about 2050

Reston-wide 145,000 123,540 58,000 2.13 2.50 4.00

TOD Area 135,000 76,000 38,000 2.00 3.55 2.22

Non-TOD Share 10,000 47,540 20,000 2.38 0.50 0.31% in TOD Area 93% 62% 66%

Forecast at 2.0:1 J:HH ratio about 2050

Reston-wide 145,000 154,425 72,500 2.13 2.00 3.20

TOD Area 135,000 96,000 48,000 2.00 2.81 1.76

Non-TOD Share 10,000 58,425 24,500 2.38 0.41 0.26

% in TOD Area 93% 62% 66%

Sources & Assumptions:1. Existing HH & Pop data from US Census 2010, Reston CDP

2. Existing jobs: Jobs count is GSF per worker times occupancy rate (84% office, 90% other)

3. 2030 DPZ "Scenario G" TIA Testing Scenario (83% of CP potential development)

4. 2030 forecast assumes significant non-TOD worker growth, mostly at Lake Anne VC.


8/8

8

5. 2030 forecast assumes moderate household (10%) & population (5%) growth from non-TOD

apartment/condominium re-development.

6. Forecasts based on longer term J:HH ratio targets are derived from 2030 Scenario G TIA forecasts.

7. Alternative J:HH target ratios keep share of residential development in TOD areas near 53%.

8. Number of jobs outside TOD areas increases some as non-TOD HHs/population increases, largely

on VC redevelopment.

final rca comments on draft reston areawide comprehensive plan--revised

Documents