Reston TOD Planning More Balance Less Density Final 071811

8/3/2019 Reston TOD Planning More Balance Less Density Final 071811

1/25

RCA Reston 2020 Committee

Reston 2020 Committee

Reston Citizens Associati

Reston TOD Planning: More

Balance, Less Density Needed


2/25


i

Reston TOD Planning: More Balance, Less Density NeededThe RCA Reston 2020 Committee

July 18, 2011

Executive Summary

For a couple of months, the Reston Task Forces Steering Committee has been discussing a flexible

framework for planning inRestons transit oriented development (TOD) areas. In an update briefing to

the Task Force on June 14, 2011, County staff described this framework as creating a zoning targeta

by-right obligation--that would allow development at 20% in excess of George Mason Universitys

(GMUs) High forecast for 2030 market demand. It amended this approach at its June 28 Steering

Committee meeting by allowing an additional 20% increment for residential development, plus 20% for

all development types, excluding the Herndon-Monroe area.

The RCA Reston 2020 Committee believes this framework raises the development ceiling too much and,

more importantly, inadequately addresses the vital importance of balance between residential and non-residential development in high performing TOD areas. In particular,

The ongoing planning largely ignores the importance of residential and workforce balance inTOD areas to maximize transit use, minimize congestion, reduce air pollution, and cut roadway

infrastructure costs, among other benefits.

It also proposes development over the next 20 years that substantially exceeds that planned forTysons Corners TOD areas and that experienced in Arlingtons Ballston-Rosslyn corridor over 20

years, even adjusted for the varying sizes of their TOD areas.

Moreover, we believe the flexible framework approach currently being discussed by the Reston Task

Force risks providing so much flexibility that, if adopted as a plan and zoning ordinance, would provide

little effective guidance for developmentin Restons TOD areas over the next two decades.

We believe development in Restons TOD areas shouldmeet the following overarching goals for the next

20 years:

Total development should not be allowed to exceed 70 million gross square feet (GSF). Office development should be less than 45% of total allowable development (31.5 million GSF). Residential development should be not less than 45% of total development.

We believe that by applying this allocation of space Reston can make exceptional strides in correcting the

population imbalance over the 20-year plan horizon with a longer term view to achieving a one-to-one

balance in residential and employee populations.

To accomplish this using the GMU forecast-based approach currently used by the Task Force, we propose

a scenario based on GMUs High Forecast plus 50% extra for residential development. We believe that

creating a new plan that allows development of all types up to GMUs High forecast, plus a 50% bonus toresidential housing, essentially meets the criteria above and provides both ample room for growth and a

substantial improvement in the areas population imbalance. By establishing a 1:2 ratio of non-

residential to residential construction, it allows development within the ceiling described above, yet

enables Reston to cut the population imbalance within the TOD areas by two-thirds in two decades. To

accomplish that will require the use of both stringent mandates and attractive incentives to developers,

along with a strong implementation process covering phasing, financing, infrastructure, and governance.


3/25


ii

RCA Reston 2020s Recommended Master Plan Density and Mix for Restons TOD Areas1

We also remain concerned that the Task Force continues to postpone discussion of implementation, suchas phasing, infrastructure, financing, and governance, including meeting the expectations of the new

employees and residents who will work and live there. The Tysons plan offers both some useful

guidance and a first look at the tremendous challenges that lie ahead in meeting all Restons

infrastructure needs. We believe that the new Reston TOD master plan should incorporate a detailed

implementation plan that serves as a model for suburban transition development in the decades ahead.

RCAs Reston 2020 Committee is deeply committed to seeing Restons TOD areas develop into vital

complete, strong, performing--neighborhoods at the core of the community in the 21st

Century. We

believe that can be accomplished through a collaborative effort in a systematic, balanced, and deliberate

manner. We remain concerned, however, that a plan, like the current flexible framework, is focused on

excessive commercial development without adequate consideration of all the factors that contribute to a

premier planned community, including reasonable growth constraints, a mix of uses, and a detailed plan

for phasing in all needed infrastructure and amenities in a systematic, cost-effective manner.

1For a comparison of this recommendation with the flexible framework and current conditions, see Appendix A,

p. 19.


4/25


iii

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Recent Research on TOD Residential:Employment Balance ........................................................................ 2

Nationwide TOD Research Results ........................................................................................................ 2

Washington Area TOD Transit Experience ............................................................................................ 3

Growing Washington Area Need for TOD-style Housing ...................................................................... 4

Guiding Overall Reston TOD Area Density .................................................................................................... 6

Comparisons with Tysons Corner and Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor ......................................................... 8

Moving Toward Employment:Residential Balance & Reasonable Growth ................................................. 10

RCA Reston 2020 GMU High Plus 50% Residential Proposal........................................................... 10

Lessons from the Arlington TOD Experience ...................................................................................... 11

ImplementationPhasing, Infrastructure, Financing, and Governance .................................................... 13

Public Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 13

Costs and Financing: The Transportation Example ............................................................................. 14

Governance ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: Development Potential for Alternative Scenarios, including RCA Reston 2020

Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix B: Reston, Tysons, & Rosslyn-Ballston TOD Area Comparative 20-Year Baseline Density

Growth .................................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix C: Decennial Changes in Employment and Residents in Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor

Development, 1970-2010 ....................................................................................................................... 21

Cover rendering created by LandStrategies LLC, Boston, a land development consulting firm. The

rendering is of the Wonderland TOD rail station area in Revere, Massachusetts, that LandStrategies is

helping to design.


5/25


1

Reston TOD Planning: More Balance, Less Density Needed

Introduction

The Steering Committee of the Reston Task Force has been discussing a flexible framework for thenew Comprehensive Plan for Restons three transit-oriented development (TOD) station areas for

more than two months. The essence of the effort is to adapt the several TOD area sub-committee

reports to the 2030 time horizon for the new plan, and provide greater specificity as to where and what

development to encourage within that timeframe. The effort focuses on developing a by-right zoning

target for allowable development in each land sub-unit of each TOD area.

The County staff reported on the Steering Committees progress at the June 14, 2011, meeting of the

Reston Task Force and, based on feedback from the Task Force, made adjustments to that presentation

for discussion at the June 28, 2011, meeting of the Steering Committee. Two specific proposals have

been laid out:

GMU High plus 20%: As reported to the Task Force on June 14, the County Department ofPlanning and Zoning (DPZ) staff proposed using the GMU 2030 High forecast as the basis for lookingat overall and by-type gross square footage (GSF) planning guidance. County staff suggested adding

a 20% increase above the GMU High forecast for a zoning target would allow flexibility across all

the types of possible construction. This raised the total potentially allowable density to 70.6MM

GSF, a number very near thepro ratedcumulative sub-committee reports of 71.6MM GSF. This

scenario leaves the plan jobs:households balance at 6.9:1.

GMU High plus 20% Residential plus 20% All: At the June 28 Steering Committee meeting, DPZamended its earlier scenario, first, by adding 20% to onlyresidential development in the GMU High

forecast, and then adding 20% GSF to everything as a zoning target for the Wiehle and Town

Center areas. Only existing zoning was proposed for the Herndon-Monroe area. This would allow

73.5 million GSF of development with no improvement in the jobs:households ratio.2

In contrast, the current Comprehensive Plan for these areas allows total development to reach64.3MM GSF and calls for a jobs:households ratio of 7:1. The existing jobs:households ratio is

actually more than 14:1 because of a failure to follow the current plans guidance and the

constraints of the former RCIG covenants.

The bottom line is that these two zoning target approaches would create an overall density ceiling

36%-45% higher than GMUs baseline Intermediate demand forecast over the next 20 years and would

allow density to more than double (122%-137% increase). Moreover, even in the scenario with the

residential share increased by 20%, the overall jobs-to-households ratio would only improve by 18%.

RCAs Reston 2020 Committee believes that the flexible framework as it currently stands sustains a

tremendous imbalance in residential and employment intensity in Restons transit-oriented

development (TOD) areas at unacceptably high levels of permitted development. At a time whenvirtually all experts in the field believe that the populations in TOD areas ought to be roughly equal to

maximize public transit use, minimize congestion, reduce air pollution and climate change, limit

transportation infrastructure expenditures, and potentially improve public health, we believe the

current flexible framework proposal fails Reston as a premier planned community. Moreover, as this

paper shows, the proposed overall development is large compared with other area efforts.

2DPZ has not yet laid out the details of this proposal. This reflects our most conservative estimate of it.


6/25


2

Recent Research on TOD Residential:Employment Balance

The most notable shortcoming in the DPZ flexible framework is its failure to propose significant

improvement in the balance between residential and non-residential uses in Restons TOD areas.

Virtually all responsible research on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) by academics and policy think

tanks shows that TODs work optimally in addressing transportation, environmental, energy,infrastructure cost, and other goals when there is a roughly one-to-one (1:1) balance in residential and

job populations. An idealrelationship from many perspectives would be one in which the number of

jobs equals the number of TOD residents who work (residential-workers). In the latter circumstance,

the flow of people into and out of a TOD area would be essentially equal during commuting periods,

minimizing congestion, energy consumption, pollution, and road building and maintenance costs.

Nationwide TOD Research Results

One of the most recent and comprehensive studies of the performance of existing TOD areas was

prepared by the University of Marylands Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD).3 In its

study of some 3,760 TOD areas in 39 regions across the country, CTOD seeks to characterize the

performance Americas TOD areas on the basis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), with lower VMT areasbeing high performing. As the report points out:

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) works well as a performance measure for a TOD

typology because places with lower VMT tend to be places where more people

walk, bike and take transit, one of the goals of TOD. VMT accounts for not only

the number of trips households take, but also the distance traveled on each trip,

both of which affect greenhouse gas emissions. (p. 4)

Three key findings from CTODs research about high-performing (low VMT) TOD areas compared with

their lower performing counterparts are:

They have higher residential densities that high VMT TOD areas. They have more intensity (residents and workers). They have smaller block sizes.

The reason that VMT is lower in high-performing TOD areas is that increasing percentages of

both commuters and residents use public transit on average. Moreover, the impacts are

generally greater for both categories of transit riders in TOD areas with a greater proportion of

residents (two-thirds or more). The following graphic from CTODs typology study (p. 18) shows

the substantial impact of high residential densities in high-performing TOD areas on the use of

public transit by workers and residents:

3Performance-based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook, Center for Transit-Oriented

Development, December 2010.
https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fctod.org%2Fportal%2Fnode%2F2162&rct=j&q=ctod%20typology&ei=P38jTou0McXg0QGG5vjiDw&usg=AFQjCNERUyjUABsKi3noeWmAokEf0fwwWA&sig2=i07LjdGYz-u0qiIVE7I3Og&cad=rja


7/25


3

Figure 1: Commuter and Residential Use of Walking, Biking, and Public Transit in Residential,

Balanced, and Employment TOD Areas

Commuters Residents

Washington Area TOD Transit Experience

This nationwide phenomenon is reflected in the results of a 2005 survey conducted by the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA).4 That survey of more than 1,000 residents and

office workers was conducted at 49 locations near Metrorail stations, all but two of them outside

downtown Washington, DC. The survey has the benefits of being reasonably large, diverse in types and

locations of survey sites, and actually reflecting the behavior of people who live or work in Washingtons

TOD areas. The bottom-line results of that survey, shown in the summary table below, indicate that

residents near Metrorail stations have a much stronger propensity to use public transitincluding

Metrorailthan their working commuter counterparts.

42005 Development-Related Ridership Survey, Final Report, WMATA, March 2006.
https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reconnectingamerica.org%2Fresource-center%2Fbrowse-research%2F2006%2F2005-wmata-development-related-ridership-survey-final-report%2F&rct=j&q=wmata%20ridership%20survey&ei=jX8jTpfRB4fn0QGBiYDBAw&usg=AFQjCNF1tpZgC43uNimVZieDV1zMGVJ7hA&sig2=ev87RxDc9QhZeaZC5SygLw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reconnectingamerica.org%2Fresource-center%2Fbrowse-research%2F2006%2F2005-wmata-development-related-ridership-survey-final-report%2F&rct=j&q=wmata%20ridership%20survey&ei=jX8jTpfRB4fn0QGBiYDBAw&usg=AFQjCNF1tpZgC43uNimVZieDV1zMGVJ7hA&sig2=ev87RxDc9QhZeaZC5SygLw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reconnectingamerica.org%2Fresource-center%2Fbrowse-research%2F2006%2F2005-wmata-development-related-ridership-survey-final-report%2F&rct=j&q=wmata%20ridership%20survey&ei=jX8jTpfRB4fn0QGBiYDBAw&usg=AFQjCNF1tpZgC43uNimVZieDV1zMGVJ7hA&sig2=ev87RxDc9QhZeaZC5SygLw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reconnectingamerica.org%2Fresource-center%2Fbrowse-research%2F2006%2F2005-wmata-development-related-ridership-survey-final-report%2F&rct=j&q=wmata%20ridership%20survey&ei=jX8jTpfRB4fn0QGBiYDBAw&usg=AFQjCNF1tpZgC43uNimVZieDV1zMGVJ7hA&sig2=ev87RxDc9QhZeaZC5SygLw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reconnectingamerica.org%2Fresource-center%2Fbrowse-research%2F2006%2F2005-wmata-development-related-ridership-survey-final-report%2F&rct=j&q=wmata%20ridership%20survey&ei=jX8jTpfRB4fn0QGBiYDBAw&usg=AFQjCNF1tpZgC43uNimVZieDV1zMGVJ7hA&sig2=ev87RxDc9QhZeaZC5SygLw&cad=rja


8/25


4

Figure 2: Residential and Commuter Results from WMATA Survey of Ridership, 2005

This summary table from the Metrorail report shows the propensity of office commuters and residents

in the areas around Metrorail stations to use Metrorail, other public transit, or their own automobiles.

It specifically measures these propensities for those who live above an underground Metrorail and those

who live at -mile and -mile distances from the Metrorail station. The table makes two key points

about the propensity to choose Metrorail or auto transportation:

Residents use Metrorail about 20% more than office commuters on average, no matter theirdistance from the Metro station. At a half-mile from the station, residents use Metrorail three

times as much as office commuters.

Office commuters choose to drive with much greater frequency than their residentialcounterparts, up to half-again as much at the mile periphery.

The greater propensity of residents than commuting workers to use Metrorail in TOD areas is borne out

for the specific case of the Ballston Station areaa TOD area often cited as a model by Reston Task

Force membersin the surveys results for two office and two residential sites there.

At the two residential sites (both about one-quarter mile from the station), respondents usedMetrorail 48% and 50% of the time while using autos 38% and 40% of the time.

At the two office sites, the respondents use Metrorail 8% and 17% of the time while choosingautos 79% and 85% of the time. (See Tables C-2 and C-17 in the WMATA report.)

Similar results were collected at the Court House station area, although Metrorail ridership was higher

and auto use lower there among both residents and commuting workers, a fact at least partially

attributable to its higher overall density.

In brief, the experience at Washington area Metrorail stations corroborates locally the findings of CTODin its nationwide look at high-performing TOD areas.

Growing Washington Area Need for TOD-style Housing

At a time when the number of jobs outnumbers the number of h ouseholds by 14 to 1 in Restons TOD

areas, there is a widely acknowledged growing housing deficit in the Washington area that has

significant implications for the regions economic wellbeing. For example, a paper written by Dr.


9/25


5

Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D., Director, GMU CRA, and Ellen Harpel, Ph.D., CRA consultant, for the Group of

30a consortium of the regions largest developers--discusses this issue in a comparison with the

growth prospects of Dallas/Ft. Worth and Atlanta:5

The impact of the Washington areas growing dependency on nonlocal workers

commuterscan be demonstrated by the value of the areas GRP(Gross RegionalProduct), its value of goods and services produced, that is exported to these non

resident workers home regions. These losses and gains as a percent of GRP are shown

in Table 3.

The net value of lost GRP resulting from the growing labor dependency on

nonresident commuters is impacting the Washington area economy to a

significantly greater degree than in DallasFort Worth or Atlanta. As can be

seen in Table 3, the Washington area economy is the biggest loser of local

earnings to its adjacent regional economies.

Following up on this research in a presentation to area realtors, Dr. Fuller made the point that the region

needs more smaller, denser, and affordable housing, the type of housing well suited for TODdevelopment.6

Although the housing shortage and attendant loss of economic potential is a regional problem, there is

no reason for Reston to continue being part of the problem, especially when balanced worker:resident

population development in Restons TOD areas will also address so many other important community

and regional issues. Indeed, as a premier planned community, there is a strong argument that Reston

ought to set an example for other transitioning suburban communities transitioning to TOD. As a

premier planned community, we believe Reston should lead the way as it did a half-century ago in

promoting an integrated community of diverse dwelling types with housing for all, including Restons

TOD areas.

5Stephen S. Fuller and Ellen Harpel, The Washington Metropolitan Area Economic Outlook to 2030: Standard

Forecast, Technical Report No. 1, CRA, GMU, March 2009, pp. 6-7.6Growth Expert: No. Va. Needs More Small Housing, Alexandria Gazette, June 21, 2011.
https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rjahttp://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=352083&paper=59&cat=104http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=352083&paper=59&cat=104http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=352083&paper=59&cat=104http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=352083&paper=59&cat=104http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=352083&paper=59&cat=104https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy-cra.gmu.edu%2Fforecastreports%2F10forecasts%2F1%2520-%25202030%2520Standard%2520Forecast.pdf&rct=j&q=gmu%20cra%20technical%20report&ei=0X8jTorFIoHb0QGrsanQAw&usg=AFQjCNGy4i_2-AyijCKTDjgbXJ60ioM3qw&sig2=x19u-nkHmCbU18Sds2LZ-Q&cad=rja


10/25


6

Guiding Overall Reston TOD Area Density

The County staffs effort in creating a flexible framework calls for establishing by-rightzoning target

densities not to exceed twenty percent more than George Mason Universitys High forecast for 2030

the GMU High + 20% zoning target. As reflected in DPZs report to the Task Force (see Figure 3

below), it does little to limit the ambitious growth plans laid out by the Task Force sub-committees. Itsoverall allowable density in 2030 is only one million gross square meet (GSF) smaller than the 71.6

million GSF proposed by the sub-committees. As modified at the latest Steering Committee meeting,

another 20% would be added exclusively for residential development, which increases density to 75

million GSF, but offers to improve balance to 5.7:1 jobs:households ratio.7

Figure 3: Comparison of Development Levels, DPZ Presentation to Reston Task Force, June 14, 2011

To put this flexible framework in context, we need to understand where we are under the current plan

for Restons TOD areas. That plan would permit overall density to reach 64.3 million GSF. Right now,

Restons TOD area development is 31.8 million GSF and approved zoning totals 43.0 million GSF. Thus,

the existing development is less than half that permitted and half again as large as current zoning

approvals. With construction running about one million GSF per year in the three TOD areas, it is hard

to understand why the overall headroom for growth needs to be higher than the current 64.3 million

GSF, which would permit more than one and a half million GSF over the next 20 years.

The key argument that has been put forward for the need to raise the overall density substantially is

that the ceiling needs to be high to allow the flexibility to meet unanticipated demand; hence, in this

7Please see Appendix A, p. 19, for a comparison of these proposals with current conditions and Reston 2020s

proposal.


11/25


7

case, adding an extra 20% above the GMU High forecast. Adding an extra 20% to the core Intermediate

estimate orusing the High estimate as the total allowable may make some sense, but neither by itself

would reach the already high current comprehensive plan density limit. Nonetheless, using both the

High forecast and the 20% increment for planning and zoning purposes raises the guidance so high as to

preclude any effective guidance on the quantity or character of development in the TOD areas. It would

not constrain excessive development of any type.

Focused Development in the Flexible Framework Is a Good Idea

One of the important features of the Steering Committee discussion on June 28 was focusing

development over the next 20 years in the quarter-mile area around the Metro stations, particularly

Wiehle Avenue and Reston Town Center, with some development in the North Town Center area

(outside the TOD perimeter. This is shown by the darker blue areas in the following map from the DPZ

presentation to the committee. (We regret the small size makes reading the figures difficult.)

Although the densities are excessive and the mix allocations do not substantially improve the resident-

employee balance, we believe this approach of focusing development has merit in maximizing its

impact on public transit use with its attendant benefits. It will also be area most likely to attract new

residents and businesses, especially in a weak market. The proximity of the new development to the

Metro stations will provide a strong incentive for both commuters and residents to use Metrorail.


12/25


8

Comparisons with Tysons Corner and Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor

The Countys decisions on the new Tysons Corner plan and ensuing zoning ordinance stand in sharp

contrast to the approach DPZ is proposing for Reston. The County used the GMU High forecast for

office development by 2030some 44.9 million gross square feet (GSF)as the maximum allowable

office development (specifically, 45 million GSF) in Tysons final plan and zoning ordinance. There is no

20% bump added to this figure for more flexibility. (Other development is unlimited in the belief that it

will be harder to achieve.)

The potential impact of this planning for Restons TOD areas can be seen by some comparisons with

Tysons Corners new plan and zoning ordinance, passed last year.

The Reston GMU High + 20% plan would allow a more than doubling of density in the TODareas (a 122% increase) over the next 20 years. The High Tysons forecast on which its plan is

based calls for growth of 75% in the same period

Allowable growth in Reston would exceed that allowable for Tysons by 10%--three million GSF. The +20% formulation allows an extra 12 million GSF of development above the GMU High

and more than doubles the expected Intermediate GMU incremental demand forecast.

The more recent residential-bonus scenario would actually increase the allowable total and officedevelopment increments.

Figure 4: Incremental Growth Forecasts (GSF): Tysons Corner and Reston TOD Areas

Incremental Growth Forecasts (SF)--GMU CRA Forecasts

2010 2030 Increment % Increase

Tysons (All areas)

Intermediate 47,124,275 73,860,000 26,735,725 57%

High 47,124,275 82,440,000 35,315,725 75%Office 26,594,202 45,000,000 18,405,798 69%

Reston TODGMU High +20% Res+20% All

Intermediate 31,812,224 55,888,000 24,075,776 76%

High 31,812,224 63,992,000 32,179,776 101%

High + 20% 31,812,224 70,672,800 38,860,576 122%

Office 20,982,169 36,345,600 15,363,431 73%

Bold numbers reflect DPZ figures based on 1,200 GSF vs. GMUs 1,500 GSF for

dwelling units.

A detailed comparison of the GMU High +20% flexible framework (see Appendix B, p. 20) with the

Reston sub-committee reports, the new Tysons Corner plan for its TOD areas only, and 40 years of

experience along the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD corridor shows that the levels of development proposed in

Reston exceed that volume and rate of growth experienced in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and that

planned for Tysons.


13/25


9

The DPZ Reston TOD scenario envisions allowing only eight percent less development (31.2million GSF) in Reston over the next 20 years than is allowed or projected (GMU High) for Tysons

Corners TOD areasFairfax Countys downtown. It also envisions 71% more than

experienced in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor over the same timeframe.

The rate of development proposed in the DPZ Reston Flexible Framework (at 2.45% per year)would be 44% more than that experienced in Rosslyn-Ballston over a 20-year period and 18%

larger than that allowed/planned for Tysons TOD areas.

In part because of the size of the Reston TOD areas, allowable growth in Restons TOD areas (at778,000 GSF per year) would more than triple (343%)the experience in the Rosslyn-Ballston

corridor, and exceed Tysons planned development in its TOD areas by nearly half (46%).

It is difficult to imagine how the County, developers, and the Reston community could manage and

accommodate effectively the growth this density would allow. Moreover, once the new plans guidance

is converted into zoning approvals in this Dillon Rule state, the approval cannot be reversed. Prudence

dictates a conservative course in allowing higher density, especially non-residential development.

The RCA Reston 2020 Committee believes that the new Reston master plan for Reston TOD areas for

the next 20 years must:

Limit total development to less than 70 million gross square feet (GSF). Restrict office development to less than 45% of total development (31.5 million GSF). Require residential development to be not less than 45% of total development.

These levels of growth exceed all expert analytical judgments about the expected demand for

development in Restons TOD areas and provide room for some flexibility in development.

The community cannot absorb more than this permitted level of development without seriousdisruption to residents quality of life and community goals as outlined in Restons new

planning principles.

It is also unclear if the County, landowners and developers, and the public could manageeffectively the implementation to support such large-scale growth.

Moreover, the reallocation of development toward residential space helps assure progress inachieving a balance in TOD workforce and residential populations, and that benefits that ensue from

such a balance.


14/25


10

Moving Toward Employment:Residential Balance & Reasonable Growth

The preceding suggests that TOD areas with at least as many residents as workers perform better in

transit use and vehicle miles traveled that those TOD areas with more workers than residents.

Moreover, it is clear that allowing too much development overall undermines efforts to bring

employment and residential populations more into balance. There is also ample evidence that theregion needs more smaller, denser, and affordable housing in the coming decades or its economic

wellbeing will suffer. And Arlington County has provided an excellent example of how improving the

balance between workers and residents in TOD areas can be accomplished.

RCA Reston 2020 GMU High Plus 50% Residential Proposal

We believe a reasonable goal for the development of Restons TOD areas would be ach ieving a

maximum 5:1 jobs/household ratio in the Reston TOD areas in the context of a 70 million GSF density

ceiling by 2030. We envision Reston achieving a 2:1 jobs:households ratioa 1:1 balance of employee

and residential populationsin the 40-50 year horizon using an approach similar to the one used to

such good advantage by Arlington County. These jobs:households ratio goals would move Restons TOD

areas from an employment:residential balance now at 7.0 to 2.4 by 2030 and 1:1 in 2050.

To accomplish this using the GMU forecast-based approach currently being studied by the Task Force,

we believe that the appropriate allowable scenario is GMUs High Forecast plus 50% extra for

residential development (see Figure 5 below). To achieve this, we believe that Fairfax County must

develop a plan and adopt a zoning ordinance that achieves a ratio of new jobs-to-household gross

square feet (GSF) development that is not more than 1.9 over the next 20 years. This will allow the

following:

A more than doubling of the density in Restons TOD areas. A quadrupling of residential units in Restons TOD areas. A 49% increase in non-residential construction, including 9.3MM GSF of office space. A resulting jobs:households ratio of 4.8 and employees:residents ratio of 2.4. More total growth than is planned for Tysons Corners four TOD areas (37 million GSF vs. 34

million GSF).

75% more growth (GSF) annually per TOD area than planned for Tysons four TOD areas and fourtimes as much as experienced in Ballston-Rosslyns five TOD areas over an average 20 year span.

(See Appendix B, p. 20).

Looking at absorption at 80% of plan ceiling levels, the Reston 2020 proposal would anticipate:

A near doubling (93%) in density growth in the three Reston TOD areas. A more than tripling of residential space. A 39% increase in non-residential space.

Construction of about 1.5 million GSF of space each year, half again as large as the roughly onemillion GSF historically added annually in Restons TOD areas.

On an individual TOD area basis, more than three times the average annual growth experiencedin each of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridors five smaller TOD areas and 40% more than planned for

Tysons Corners four TOD areas (See Appendix B, p. 20).


15/25


11

Figure 5: RCA Reston 2020s Recommended Master Plan Density and Mix for Restons TOD Areas8

Derived from data provided by DPZ.

This will need to be accomplished, as in Arlington County, by both mandating a prior or concurrent

residential development at a 1:2 non-residential/residential GSF development ratio, and offering

incentivesincluding extra density--for residential development. There is no reason that Fairfax County

cannot accomplish this in Reston TOD areas as Arlingtons Rosslyn-Ballston corridor experience amply

illustrates.

Lessons from the Arlington TOD Experience

We believe an important lesson in improving the jobs:households ratio canand mustbe learned

from the experience of Arlington County in developing the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, a model TOD

effort. Arlington started its redevelopment of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in the early 1970s as theOrange Metrorail line started to become a reality. Over nearly two decades it encouraged general

balance in re-development along the corridor, but because developers thought there was greater return

and less risk in commercial development, the jobs:households ratio climbed to about 10:1 in 1980

8

For a comparison of this proposal with existing, currently planned, and other proposals, please go to Appendix A,

p. 19. Note also that both office and residential development stand at 44% of total development, right at the

boundary of allowable development of both. To better meet the 45% max/min limits for each, residential could be

raised to 31.5 million GSF and office development lower to 30 million GSF in final plan language.

Planning &

Zoning Target

Density

Potential

Growth

Percent

Growth

Potential

Potential

Density at

80% Aborption

Incremental

Growth at 80%

Absorption

Percent

Absorption

Growth

Development Residential Units 25,200 19,340 330% 21,332 15,472 264%

Potential (DU & GSF) Residential 30,240,000 24,380,000 416% 25,364,000 19,504,000 333%

Office 30,288,000 9,305,831 44% 28,426,834 7,444,665 35%

Other Non-Resid 8,446,000 3,475,945 70% 7,750,811 2,780,756 56%

Non-Resid TOTAL: 38,734,000 12,781,776 49% 36,177,645 10,225,421 39%

Res + Non-Res 68,974,000 37,161,776 117% 61,541,645 29,729,421 93%

Annualized Non-residential 1,219,000 975,200

Incremental Residential 639,089 511,271

Development Total 1,858,089 1,486,471

Jobs & Households Households 25,200 19,340 330% 21,332 15,472 264%

Jobs 119,729 37,247 45% 111,980 29,498 36%

J:HH Ratio 4.8 1.9 5.2 1.9

Intensity Residents 50,400 38,680 330% 42,664 30,944 264%

Employees 119,729 37,247 45% 111,980 29,498 36%

Total 170,129 75,927 81% 154,644 60,442 64%

Emp:Res ratio 2.4 1.0 2.6 1.0

People per Acre Residents 29.9 25.3

Employees 71.1 66.5

Total 101.1 91.9

RCA Reston 2020 TOD Areas Master Plan Recommendation

"GMU High Plus 50% Residential"


16/25


12

much better than Reston TOD areas now. As described in a research paper co-authored by Task Force

member Fred Costello9 using Arlington County data, through County policy and ordinance changes,

Arlington directedthat residential development occur prior or concurrently with non-residential

development, and allowed greater density (FAR) for residential development. The impact of the new

standards on land use (see Figure 3 below and Appendix C, p. 21) and the positive effect on traffic

congestion are well documented.

Figure 6: Change in Jobs:Households and Jobs:Residents Ratios in Ballston-Rosslyn Development by

Decade, 1970-2010

Fairfax County needs to adopt a similar approach, one that uses both rigorous mandates and incentives

and not just the latter, to try to achieve similar results in the Reston TOD corridor. Arlingtons results

suggest that Reston could reduce the existing 14.1:1 jobs/household ratio by more than half in a decade

and two-thirds over the plans 20 year horizon.

9Kevin A. Zilgadlo and Frederick A Costello, An Analysis of the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor, Report FAC/FCA-

33, July 28, 2010, p. 2-3.

Decade

J:HH Jobs:Res J:HH Jobs:Res Decennial Cumulative

1960-1969 10.45 20.90 10.45 5.23

1970-1979 10.21 20.42 10.40 5.20 0.02 0.01

1980-1989 3.71 7.43 4.82 2.41 0.64 0.54

1990-1999 2.10 4.20 3.79 1.90 0.44 0.64

2000-2010 2.37 4.74 3.32 1.66 -0.13 0.68

Decennial Ratios Cumulative Ratios % Balance Improvement
https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rjahttps://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxcounty.gov%2Fdpz%2Fprojects%2Freston%2Fcommunitydocs%2Fanalysis_of_the_rosslyn_ballston_mc_by_fred_costello.pdf&rct=j&q=ballston-rosslyn%20corridor%20fac%2Ffca&ei=QoAjTsPXL8T40gGu4ajcAw&usg=AFQjCNFxMG9teaXQeLYSaLHc_yhbc3m_jA&sig2=vFmaBZkdFfWril48ZXXaqw&cad=rja


17/25


13

ImplementationPhasing, Infrastructure, Financing, and Governance

Since the launching of the Reston Task Force, RCA Reston 2020 Committee has questioned the repeated

unwillingness of the Task Force and its several sub-committees to consider core implementation issues

concurrent with its discussion of urban form. In fact, one of RCA Reston 2020s working group papers,

provided to the Task Force in May 2010, addressed the importance of implementation issues.Appropriately titled, Planning without Implementation is Empty, the paper states:

Given the difficulties and importance of implementation, however, we would urge the

Task Force to consider seriously and make recommendations about implementation, and

recommend Plan language that provides these recommendations. . . The Task Force can

play a leadership role to help ensure that Restons unique planned community is actually

implemented on the ground.

The current RTF Steering Committee discussions offer the first glimpse that the impact of prospective

development may be considered, although it is not yet clear how that will figure in the plan report.

According to DPZs June 14, 2011, report to the Task Force, it is seeking impact analyzes from other

County staffs on transportation, parks, schools, public safety, and public utilities. It is not clear what the

scope of those analyses will be or when they will be available to the Task Force. They ought to be

comprehensive, and no recommendations, much less decisions, ought to be made by the Task Force or

the Steering Sub-Committee until these analyses have been prepared and reviewed. To not consider

them in advance of any density or mix decision making would be a failure of due diligence.

In the meantime, the Task Force and the Steering Sub-Committee can draw on the work of the Tysons

Corner Task Force for some appreciation of the types of infrastructure impacts Reston may expect and a

rough sense of their timing. The new Tysons plan includes a chapter on Implementation as well as

chapters on transportation, environmental stewardship, and public facilities. While no one would

consider the guidance in these chapters to be complete, they provide an important foundation for a

much more comprehensive and sophisticated implementation-related text in Restons new master plan.

Public Facilities

The Tysons plan chapter on public facilities includes a vital table showing the thresholds for the

establishment of various types of facilities that will be needed there, and the timeframe in which they

will be required. The same threshold criteriaor more stringent ones--should be applied to Restons

TOD areas to provide at least an approximation of the scope of public facilities required by the GMU

High + 20% zoning target. As reflected in the table below, Reston will have to keep pace almost step-

for-step in the development of its public facilities over the next 20 years if it is to function at the level

planned for Tysons Corner.


18/25


14

Figure 7: Types of Public Facilities, Threshold for Construction, and Projected Year of Operation:

Tysons Corner and Reston (Based on Thresholds for Tysons)

Type of Facility Threshold

Estimated Year of Operation

Tysons Reston (GMU+20%)

Fire Station 29 relocation N/A 2010 - 2020

New Fire Station 31,400 residents & 140,300 jobs 2020 2030

Satellite Police Station,

possibly co-located with new

Fire Station

31,400 residents & 140,300 jobs 2020 2030

Dominion Virginia Power

Substation31,400 residents & 140,300 jobs 2020 2030

Elementary School Building 555 new elementary studentsbased on 12,900 new households

2030 2030

Community Library or

Regional Library50,000 residents 2030 - 2040 2040-2050

Performing Arts Center 50,000 residents 2030 - 2040 2040-2050

New Fire Station 64,000 residents & 188,600 jobs 2040 2050+

Elementary School Building890 new elementary students

based on 20,700 new households2050 2040-2050

Secondary School Expansion1,186 secondary students basedon 33,600 new households

2050 2050+

Athletic FieldsOne field per 4.5 million square

feet of mixed use development

20 fields by

2050

16 fields by

2030

Source: Tysons Corner Urban Center Plan Amendment, adopted June 22, 2010, p. 93, Table 8.

We would note that the above infrastructure needs list is basic and generally does not include the kinds

of infrastructure features that Restonians expect in a premier planned community with an urbanizing

TOD core. Among the other important Reston needs are substantial park and natural areas beyond the

athletic fields discussed for Tysons. It also includes a fine arts center in addition to a performing arts

center. RCA Reston 2020 has documented these and other needs in other reports prepared for the TaskForce.

Costs and Financing: The Transportation Example

While the public facilities table and discussion above gives a sense of the scope of infrastructure that will

be required in Tysons and Reston over the next 20 years, it does not discuss the cost of creating and

operating those facilities. The most complete 20-year cost assessment work that has been done so far

on Tysons Corner has been work by the FC Department of Transportation (DOT). In mid-July 2011,


19/25


15

FCDOT presented its latest estimates of the costs of the transportation infrastructure for Tysons over

the next 20 years.10 The summary table below reflects those capital and operating costs over the next

20 years in millions of 2010 dollars.

Figure 8: Summary of Cost Estimates for Transportation Serving Tysons, 2011-2030

FCDOT also outlined its proposal, based in large part on FC Boards Revitalization and Reinvestment

Committees input, for allocating those costs. As reflected in the table below, the proposal calls for the

public to pay the bulk of those costs ($991 million). In general, we believe that the private sector oughtto be the predominant contributor to the new transportation and other infrastructure required at

Tysonsand almost certainly required in Reston as well. Local landowners will be the ones who gain

economically from the infrastructure, not the local or county-wide public, and they ought to make the

investment needed to achieve those gains. In contrast, new taxes will only create an additional burden

for residents that erodes their economic wellbeing.

Figure 9: Proposed Allocation of Tysons Transportation Infrastructure CostsPublic vs. Private

Category Share ($M)

Public Private

20-Year Grid of Streets 443Tysons-wide Street Improvements 547 263

Transit Service Enhancement 374

Neighborhood & Access Improvement 70

991 706

Given the substantial size of transportationand the many other still undocumented infrastructure

costs for Tysons, we believe it is vital that Reston Task Force examine nowhow much infrastructure

investments will cost for Restons TOD areas, propose who will pay those costs, recommend how those

costs will be paid, and assess whether those who have to pay those costs will be able. Until these

questions are largely answered, the Task Force and the County cannot lay out a justifiable master plan

for Reston. Moreover, it would be imprudent for the County to make development commitments that

it, its private sector partners, financial markets, or County (or Reston) residents cannot or will not fund

in these difficult economic times. The very substantial risk is that the most profitable commercial

10Implementing Transportation Improvements in Tysons , FC Department of Transportation presentation, July 14,

2011.

Category Cost ($M)

20-Year Grid of Streets 443

Tysons-wide Street Improvements 810

Transit Service Enhancement 374

Neighborhood & Access Improvement 70

TOTAL 1,697
http://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.htmlhttp://reston2020.blogspot.com/2011/07/implementing-transportation.html


20/25


16

developments would occur without the needed supporting infrastructure, disrupting Restonians quality

of life and stripping away any pretense that Reston is a premier planned community.

Although RCA Reston 2020 has not yet developed a plan for the financing of Reston TOD costs, we

would make several points about the financing of Reston TOD area infrastructure development.

On balance, RCA Reston 2020 believes that developers and landowners should pay thepredominant share of infrastructure costs because they will be the ones who literally profit from

that investment. Moreover, they have the opportunity to pass on some, if not all, those costs

to their clients and customers. County (or worse, Reston) taxpayers have no ability to pass on

those added tax costs, and they would simply erode Restonians economic wellbeing.

While there are a number of ways to finance the public portion of the development of Restonsneeded infrastructure (see Figure 10 below), RCA 2020 believes that tax increment financing

(TIF) offers a particularly equitable way to ensure that the extra revenues generated by new

economic activity in Reston is returned to the community to finance infrastructure

development.

RCA Reston 2020 believes that language in the new Reston Master Plan should be worded tospecifically prevent development without the prior or concurrent development of the

supporting infrastructure. This specifically excludes voluntary financial contributions to Countygeneral funds, which history has shown may or not make their way back to the community.

Figure 10: Summary Table of Potential Public & Private Sector Capital Cost Funding Options

Source: Funding Reston Infrastructure Improvements, Presentation by Barbara Byron to the Reston

Task Force, November 30, 2010


21/25


17

Governance

The weakest link in the Tysons plan discussion of implementation is about governance. The essence of

its proposal is the establishment of an entity that is the keeper of the vision. Here is all it has to say:

In order for Tysons to reach its full potential, a Keeper of the Vision should be established to assist in

achieving the overarching goals and objectives of the new Comprehensive Plan. The Keeper of the

Vision should be an implementation entity, established by the Board of Supervisors and charged with

working in conjunction with Fairfax County agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders. This entity

should be focused on ensuring that the new Comprehensive Plan, and associated regulations and

recommendations, are effective. It outlines what a regulatory framework should look like and briefly

discusses the role of partnerships in accomplishing the plans vision.

Issues surrounding what facilities will be required, how much they will cost, how they will be paid for,

and who will oversee and guide their implementation as well as the development of Restons TODs has

not yet been discussed by the Task Force. RCA Reston 2020 believes that the Task Force must create a

sub-committee now to address these issues in conjunction withand preferably guiding--the reports

that will be forthcoming from county staff on these topics. In so doing, they can look to the Tysons plan

as a resource. The conclusions from the staff reports and the new Implementation Sub-committee musthave a strong influence on the decisions made by the Task Force on issues of density, mix, urban design,

and more. Otherwise, the Task Forces report will be empty. Through a strong implementation plan in

the Task Force report, we must strive to prevent the failure of Restons core by preventing overzealous

development without the concurrent development of an infrastructure suitable for our premier planned

community.


22/25


18

Conclusion

We believe the flexible framework approach currently being discussed by the Reston Task Force risks

providing so much flexibility that, if adopted as a plan and zoning ordinance, would provide little

effective guidance for development in Restons TOD areas over the next two decades. We believe

development in these areas should be limited to no more than 70 million GSF of which 31.5 million GSF(45%) would be the limit on office space while residential space should be at least 45% of total

development. The framework also does next to nothing to improve the tremendous current imbalance

in the areas residential and workforce populations. We also believe, based on evidence from Arlington

Countys experience, that Reston can make exceptional strides in correcting the population imbalance

over the plan horizon with a longer term view to achieving a one-to-one balance in residential and

employee populations.

Rather than simply criticize, we have offered an alternative scenario for Reston TOD planning using the

same approach currently being used by the Task Force. We believe that creating a plan that allows

development of all types up to GMUs High forecast, plus a 50% bonus to residential housing, provides

both ample room for growth and a substantial improvement in the areas population imbalances. It

allows development within the ceiling described above, yet enables Reston to cut the population

imbalance within the TOD areas by two-thirds in two decades. To accomplish that will require the use of

both stringent mandates and attractive incentives to developers, along with a strong implementation

process covering phasing, financing, infrastructure, and governance.

RCAs Reston 2020 Committee is deeply committed to seeing Restons TOD areas develop into vital

complete, strong, performing--neighborhoods at the core of the community in the 21st Century. We

believe that can be accomplished through a collaborative effort in a systematic, balanced, and

deliberate manner. We remain concerned, however, that a plan, like the current flexible framework,

is focused on excessive commercial development without adequate consideration of all the factors that

contribute to a vital planned community, including reasonable growth constraints, a mix of uses, and a

detailed plan for phasing in all needed infrastructure and amenities in a systematic, cost-effectivemanner.


23/25


19

Appendix A: Development Potential for Alternative Scenarios, including RCA Reston 2020 Recommendation

All data as provided by FC DPZ or calculated using DPZ data.

Existing Zoned Plan 2050 2030 Intermediate High

GMU 2030

High +20%

GMU 2030

High + Res+20%

exc H-M

Planning &

Zoning Target

Density

Potential

Growth

Percent

Growth

Potential

Potential

Density at

80% Aborption

Incremental

Growth at 80%

Absorption

Percen

Absorptio

Growth

Development Residential Units 5,860 8,674 18,389 41,344 21,521 13,200 16,800 20,160 16,487 19,107 25,200 19,340 330% 21,332 15,472 264%

Potential Residential 5,860,000 8,674,000 22,042,800 49,612,800 25,825,162 15,840,000 20,160,000 24,192,000 19,107,000 22,407,000 30,240,000 24,380,000 416% 25,364,000 19,504,000 333%

(DU & GSF) Off ice 20,982,169 27,757,309 32,948,956 49,082,247 37,489,327 28,269,000 30,288,000 36,345,600 36,264,600 41,464,600 30,288,000 9,305,831 44% 28,426,834 7,444,665 35%

O th er N on -Re si d 4, 970, 055 6, 553, 399 9, 280, 790 10, 475, 070 8, 358, 444 7, 883, 000 8, 446, 000 10, 135, 200 8, 075, 244 9, 675, 244 8, 446, 000 3,475,945 70% 7,750,811 2,780,756 56%N on-Res id T OT AL: 25,952,224 34,310,708 42,229,746 59,557,317 45,847,771 36,152,000 38,734,000 46,480,800 44,339,844 51,139,844 38,734,000 12,781,776 49% 36,177,645 10,225,421 39%

Re s + Non-Re s 31, 812, 224 42, 984, 708 64, 272, 546 109, 170, 117 71, 672, 933 51, 992, 000 58, 894, 000 70, 672, 800 63, 446, 844 73, 546, 844 68, 974, 000 37, 161, 776 117% 61,541,645 29,729,421 93%

Annualized Non-residential 865,074 1,143,690 1,407,658 1,680,255 994,777 509,989 639,089 916,600 662,350 827,350 1,219,000 975,200

Incremental Residential 195,333 289,133 734,760 2,187,640 998,258 499,000 715,000 1,026,429 919,381 1,259,381 639,089 511,271

Development Total 1,060,407 1,432,824 2,142,418 3,867,895 1,993,035 1,008,989 1,354,089 1,943,029 1,581,731 2,086,731 1,858,089 1,486,471

Jobs & Households Households 5,860 8,674 18,389 41,344 21,521 13,200 16,800 20,160 16,487 19,784 25,200 19,340 330% 21,332 15,472 264%

Jobs 82,482 109,124 129,423 186,803 144,589 107,500 115,300 138,360 115,300 138,360 119,729 37,247 45% 111,980 29,498 36%

J:HH Ratio 14.1 12.6 7.0 4.5 6.7 8.1 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 4.8 1.9 5.2 1.9

Intensity Residents 11,720 17,348 36,778 82,688 43,042 26,400 33,600 40,320 32,974 39,569 50,400 38,680 330% 42,664 30,944 264%

Employees 82,482 109,124 129,423 186,803 144,589 107,500 115,300 138,360 115,300 138,360 119,729 37,247 45% 111,980 29,498 36%

Total 94,202 126,472 166,201 269,491 187,631 133,900 148,900 178,680 148,274 177,929 170,129 75,927 81% 154,644 60,442 64%

Emp:Res ratio 7.0 6.3 3.5 2.3 3.4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 2.4 1.0 2.6 1.0

People per Acre Residents 7.0 10.3 21.9 49.1 25.6 15.7 20.0 24.0 19.6 23.5 29.9 25.3

Employees 49.0 64.8 76.9 111.0 85.9 63.9 68.5 82.2 68.5 82.2 71.1 66.5

Total 56.0 75.1 98.8 160.1 111.5 79.6 88.5 106.2 88.1 105.7 101.1 91.9

"Zoning Target"

(Previous Column

+ 20% exc. H-M)

RCA Reston 2020 TOD Areas Master Plan Recommendation

"GMU High Plus 50% Residential"Current Situation

RTF Sub-Committee

Recommendations

GMU 2030 Forecasts

(Adjusted for Res GSF)

DPZ "Zoning Target" Planning

Adjustments


24/25


20

Appendix B: Reston, Tysons, & Rosslyn-Ballston TOD Area Comparative 20-Year Baseline Density Growth

TOD Area Comparative 20-Year Baseline Density Growth

TOD Area 20-Year Change

Number of

Stations

Size

(Acres)

Avg. Acres

per Station

Total

(MM GSF)

Density

(FAR)

Total (MM

GSF)

Growth

(MM GSF)

Density

(FAR)

Density

Change ( %)

AAG/ TOD

Area (1000s

GSF)

Avg Annu

Growth

Rate

Experience Rosslyn-Ballston TOD (1970-2009) 5 1,023 205 13.4 0.30 31.6 18.2 0.71 136% 182 1.36%

2010 Plan Tysons TOD Districts (Plan/GMU High) 4 1,024 256 25.7 0.58 61.8 34.1 1.39 140% 426 1.66%

GMU Forecasts Tysons Intermediate 4 1,024 256 25.7 0.58 55.4 15.9 1.24 116% 198 0.77%

Tysons High 4 1,024 256 25.7 0.58 61.8 20.7 1.39 140% 258 1.00%

GMU Forecasts Reston Intermediate 2.5 1,683 673 31.8 0.43 47.3 15.5 0.64 49% 309 0.97%

(Adjtd Res GSF) Reston High 2.5 1,683 673 31.8 0.43 58.9 27.1 0.80 85% 542 1.70%

RTF Sub-Comms Reston TOD Areas (RTF) 2.5 1,683 673 31.8 0.43 71.7 39.9 0.98 125% 798 2.51%

Herndon-Monroe 0.5 359 359 5.9 0.38 12.7 6.8 0.81 115% 680 11.53%

Reston Town Center (inc TCN) 1 802 802 17.7 0.51 41.4 23.7 1.19 134% 1185 6.69%

Wiehle Avenue 1 522 522 8.2 0.36 17.5 9.3 0.77 113% 465 5.67%

DPZ Zoning (GMU High +20% Res) + Plus 20% exc H-M 2.5 1,683 673 31.8 0.43 73.5 41.7 1.00 131% 834 2.62%

Target Herndon-Monroe 0.5 359 359 5.9 0.38 13.4 7.5 0.86 127% 750 12.71%

Reston Town Center (inc TCN) 1 802 802 17.7 0.51 35.9 18.2 1.03 103% 910 5.14%

Wiehle Avenue 1 522 522 8.2 0.36 24.2 16.0 1.06 195% 800 9.76%

RCA Reston 2020 GMU High +40% Residential 2.5 1,683 673 31.8 0.43 69.0 37.2 0.94 117% 744 2.34%

1 Land Use and Development along the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor, DPZ, Fairfax County, August 2005

2 Tysons Corner Urban Center Comprehensive Plan, June 22, 2010

3 Comparison of Development Potential and Jobs/Housing Ratios for Suburban Center and TSAs--Scenario C, June 7, 2011

4 30 Years of Smart Growth, RMPSSTF Prese ntation by Robe rt Brosnan, February 23, 2010, p. 41

5 Forecasts for the Re ston-Dulles Rail Corridor and Route 28 Corridor, GMU CRA paper, Jul y 26, 2010

6 Forecasts for Tysons Corner to 2050, GMU CRA paper, Se ptember 17, 2008

7 DPZ "Flexibl e Framework" Presentation, Reston Task Force, June 14, 2011

8 DPZ "Flexible Framew ork" materials, RTF Steering Committee Meeting, June 7, 2011

9 DPZ "Allocating GMU 2030 High Development Level ", RTF Steering Committee, J une 28, 2011

TOD Area Character

20-Year Experience/

Forecast/Plan

Existing/Beginning

Conditions


25/25


21

Appendix C: Decennial Changes in Employment and Residents in Rosslyn-

Ballston Corridor Development, 1970-2010

EmploymentDensity

Completed

b Decade

Office GFA Retail GFA

Other

Non-Res

GFA

Total

(GFA)Jobs

1960-1969 3,808,240 333,235 133,272 4,274,747 13,732

1970-1979 1,070,263 131,415 148,608 1,350,286 3,860

1980-1989 8,485,688 1,163,282 0 9,648,970 31,864

1990-1999 3,461,971 334,201 496,755 4,292,927 12,965

2000-2010 4,764,155 547,015 341,068 5,652,238 19,336

Total 21,590,317 2,509,148 1,119,703 25,219,168 81,756

ResidentsDensity

Completed

by Decade

Residential

Units

Residential

(GFA)Residents

1960-1969 1,314 1,576,800 2,628

1970-1979 378 453,600 756

1980-1989 8,578 10,293,600 17,156

1990-1999 6,179 7, 414,800 12,358

2000-2010 8,158 9, 789,600 16,316

Total 24,607 29,528,400 49,214

Ratios

Decade

J:HH Jobs:Res J:HH Jobs:Res Decennial Cumulative

1960-1969 10.5 20.9 10.5 5.2

1970-1979 10.2 20.4 10.4 5.2 2% 1%

1980-1989 3.7 7.4 4.8 2.4 64% 54%1990-1999 2.1 4.2 3.8 1.9 44% 64%

2000-2010 2.4 4.7 3.3 1.7 -13% 68%

Decennial Ratios

% Balance

Improvement

Assumptions : Workers--Offi ce=300GSF, Retai l=450GSF, Other=500GSF; Res

Units=1200GSF, Res/DU=2.0; GFA is "Gross Floor Allocation"

Cumulative Ratios

Documents

Reston TOD Planning More Balance Less Density Final 071811