Before the Town Center Committee meets tomorrow morning, I would like to

offer a few comments on key topics in its most recent draft report. My comments touch
only on what I consider to be the most important issues and are not comprehensive.

Residential:Office space ratio. First, after rationalizing for pages why a 1:1 res:off
space ratio is appropriate, you mis-characterize—if not mis-state—Joe Stowers’ and my
proposals for a higher ratio to help bring the residential and workforce in your study area
more in to balance. Here’s what the draft says: “The essential theory animating these
proposals is that if the amount of jobs in the immediate area is matched by the amount of
workers available to fill those jobs there will be little or no traffic impacts whereas if
there are not enough workers in the immediate area to fill available jobs there must
inevitably be traffic impacts.” Two points:
• Neither Joe nor I expect a one-for-one match “fill those jobs.” We are looking
for balance in the use of Metrorail and the DTR, that is, the number coming
and going are roughly equal and, moreover, spread over the entirety of the
day. To the extent that these residents actually work in TC, great, that will
reduce traffic if they bike or walk. But we have no substantial expectations of
that. I expect many will work in Tysons (because who will want to live
there?) or points farther east.
• Neither of us expect “little or no traffic impacts” from the proposed doubling
(or more) of the workforce and a large growth in residents in TC under any
scenario the TC committee has proposed nor our own ideas. What we expect
is that the larger traffic flows will be more balanced and less severe rather
than the steeply one-sided TC proposal would create on the DTR, Reston
streets, and Metrorail if the workforce and residential populations are roughly
equal.
Your characterization of our positions is inaccurate, simplistic, and prejudicial.

I for one will accept (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that Ballston is
the best existing example of TOD balance in the United States at this moment. That does
not mean it is ideal—or even good—just the best so far. In fact, communities across the
country have had tremendous difficulty in advancing to a true TOD resident:workforce
population balance in the face of extreme pressures from developers/landowners to build
less demanding and more profitable commercial office space. I commend Arlington for
what has accomplished so far and welcome its ongoing efforts to boost retroactively the
residential presence and open space in its TOD areas.

In contrast, Reston has the opportunity of avoiding the mistakes Arlington

essentially acknowledges it made in allowing excessive office space development at the
expense of a balanced residential presence. My recommendation, as I’ve stated before, is
that we set the bar at 2:1 residential:office work space throughout your committee’s study
area. Even this is far from ideal as Joe as so articulately detailed. But it is progress. It is
better than Ballston. It would be the best in the country and consistent with Reston’s
mantle as a “premier” planned community if it occurred. And, most importantly, it
would help relieve the growth of congestion on our roads and over-capacity one-way use
of Metrorail rather than contribute to it as your proposal would.
 Implicit in the preceding is my rejection of “a residential collar around the urban
core.” That segregation of purposes would undo the mixed-use community we are
striving to attain within the TOD area. Its effect, like the 1:1 space ratio, would be to
force residents into their vehicles to go to work, shop, and play—exactly what we are
trying to avoid in this planning process. Moreover, it would mean more people driving to
Reston to work than an integrated res-off neighborhood.

Like the “residential collar” concept, you have slipped some other new “features”
(not unlike many of Microsoft’s “undocumented features” in its software that are almost
always flaws) that are unsupportable, but consistent with developer interests.
• For the first time, the notional future TC household size has swollen from 2.0 to
2.6 people per DU (see p. 7)—a 30% increase that is not explained, and not
justifiable. In the latter regard, I would note that the latest MWCOG
transportation forecast shows TC area households now at 1.94 people per DU and
“swelling” to 1.99 people per DU in 2040. How can you justify 2.6 people per
DU? The obvious impact from this is that developers/landowners can show a
prospective 30% larger residential HH size, which simply will not occur, to justify
building relative more office space. In the meantime, they can argue that the
res:off ratio shouldn’t be increased because so much more population is
anticipated.
• Somewhere along the line, the committee moved the assumptions about DU and
workspace space allocation to a 1,200 GSF number (…per DU, …per 4 workers)
vs. 1,000 GSF. I have read the elaborate footnote on this, but fail to see an
adequate justification for the shift in GSF base. The fact of the matter is that, on
the DU side, every APR that has been submitted in the latest round bases its DU
estimate on 1,000GSF per DU. Are they all wrong? What basis do you have
for changing this assumption? If accepted, this assumption would allow
developers/landowners to build 20% more office space in a parcel while
sustaining their res:off GFA balance. (And lessees can always squeeze 4 workers
into 1,000GSF—or less—as most planners anticipate.)
As in the past, you appear to have accepted uncritically the most developer-friendly
assumptions available in your draft report, starting with the 1:1 space ratio. If
accepted, just these two changes alone would allow increase the imbalance between
worker and residential population by more than 50% at the 1:1 space ratio proposed.
There are other such examples sprinkled throughout this developer-driven draft, but I will
leave it to committee members and, if they remain, the Task Force to sort those out in the
interest of time and space now. And I’ll be back.

Open Space: This draft paper argues almost violently against being subjected to the
County’s urban open space standards. I strongly endorse the Reston 2020 position that
the TOD areas should have 25% functional open space and see absolutely no reason why
the County should relax its urban parks standard (I would increase it, given the option.) to
meet the demands of a few property owners. This can be accomplished in a number of
ways:
 • Adopt the Montgomery County approach that every parcel owner must devote
25% (20% in MC) to useable open space.
• Build/preserve large open spaces and complement them with a smaller
percentage functional open space.
o Build the town green and small southside green mall you suggest while
preserving the USGS natural areas as open space. (You see the last as an
alternative. It should be a key goal given its existing natural state. I
propose that you recommend that discussions with GAO begin now with
a view to the preservation of these natural areas under Reston
governance, possibly involving a County purchase and transfer of the
land to Reston.)
o Require landowners who have not contributed proportionally to the large
open spaces to make up the difference in onsite useable open space. My
guess is that would be on the order of 10-15% of their space.
• Build/preserve large central open space areas (“greens” or parks) in southside,
RTC core, and NTC comprising 25% of each of these areas, less the small areas
contributed by existing useable open space. This would be the most difficult
option to execute.

Although I won’t go into it in detail now, the draft’s definition of “functional

open spaces” is flawed. Parking garage rooftops are not acceptable, nor are the tops of
buildings—which truly won’t be accessible or even known to most. Essentially, I would
limit functional open spaces to those open space that can be reached from a public space
(street level, retail shopping floor, or open office building area—such as the lobby)
without the need to use stairs, elevators, or escalators. The idea of storm water ponds as
functional open space if they have a buffer park area around them is a generally good one
IF (a) the “buffer park area” is at least as large as the high water acreage of the storm
water pond (not just a trail around the pond) and (b) measures are taken to guarantee that
the storm water pond remains at near peak water depth (to assure that it’s not a dried pit).

Infrastructure Requirements. The draft argues early on that the report requires an
infrastructure impact/needs assessment (despite “a number of infrastructure
improvements” listed in Exhibit A) that “could significantly impact the feasibility of our
recommendations.” Why would you propose a set of recommendations that may not be
feasible? Why don’t you more systematically address the infrastructure needs of the TC
area—north to south—in this report? Certainly a doubling (under your 1:1 res:off space
ratio formula) or more of population (under Maynard & Stowers) there will have some
impact on schools, connectivity, parking, and recreational requirements.

Your proposal generally is to throw this burden on the rest of Reston. On parks,
“We don’t think those (parks and recreation) are appropriate open space uses in a dense,
TOD area of the kind we are outlining for Town Center and TC Metro South. That does
not eliminate the need for new ball fields, but those spaces should be located outside the
TOD areas.” Might I suggest that the rest of Reston would like to throw that challenge
back to TC: If you are creating a problem, you need to solve it.
 On schools, my preliminary estimate is that your proposal will require 2-3 more
elementary schools (no new middle or high schools) of average FC size to meet TC
needs. Where, why, and how can you justify placing that burden on the rest of Reston.

On parking, I am with you directionally in “An additional planning tool that we

think should be at the community’s disposal is relaxation of the County residential (and
commercial) parking requirements.” Actually, I think the proper characterization is
“tightening County maximum parking standards at least to those approved for Tysons
Corner.” By my calculations, those maximums would reduce parking (and presumably
traffic) 17-36% over the current minimum standards for residential and office space. The
whole point is to get people out of their cars in TOD areas whenever feasible.

Despite your lengthy discussion of transportation, I remain extremely upset with

your limp endorsement of a trans-corridor connectivity: “Strong north-south connectivity
is recommended, though there are some physical challenges with creating these links.”
Huh? Building the Verrazano Narrows bridge was a physical challenge; building the
Chunnel was a physical challenge. Building a bridge or tunnel across the DTR corridor is
not a physical (nor even a real “fiscal”) challenge. Surely we can traverse 400 feet of
roads and rails somehow—or at least recommend it strongly. Moreover, the connection
of Edmund Halley to Town Center Drive is imperative to prevent gridlock on Reston
Parkway (where near failing peak period traffic conditions exist near the DTR) for
Reston’s own commuters, especially if the committee insists on recommending a 1:1
res:off space ratio. This is the most important transportation improvement you can
recommend, and your waffling recommendation does come close to being strong enough.

Closing. In general, my view of the TC committee report is that, at every

opportunity, the report bows to developer/landowner wishes, especially any that would
reduce the space it could develop at add to the costs of development. Limit open space,
don’t consider infrastructure needs (whether connectivity, schools, or recreation).
Density and the mix of uses are set to maximize developer profits with no consideration
of its impact on the community. Assumptions are changed to give the most advantageous
outcomes for developers. Only in the most extreme cases, has there been a slight nod to
the wishes of the community or the realistic needs of tripling or more the GFA of Town
Center, and these are often qualified. This is truly not a community document, it is a
developer document. I hope the non-developer members of your committee and the Task
Force treat it as such and bring some reality into its finalization.

I have a number of other specific concerns as well, but these are at the top of my
list at this time. As soon as I have the time, I will show you the workforce and
population density impacts of your proposal versus a more reasonable and balance
proposal. But I’ve given you enough to think about and work on tomorrow morning. I
hope these ideas help inform those discussions.