Reston Community Forum Report on the FCPA’s Draft Baron Cameron Park Plan

Prepared by the RCA Reston 2020 Committee April 18, 2014

Summary. This report documents the results of the Reston 2020 Committee forum on the draft Baron Cameron Park master plan and related Reston 2020 research. In addition to noting strengths in the draft plan, it identifies several key issues remaining in the plan, including rectangular field capacity, the optional recreation center, growing traffic congestion, parking, and social areas (including the dog park). It offers eight recommendations for changes in the plan beginning with dropping the option of locating a recreation center in Baron Cameron Park to accommodate other, more suitable uses preferred by the community. Appended are the forum introductory presentation and data from theforum small group exercise. The essence of the forum perspective: The Park Authority’smaster plan is trying to do too much with too little space. Introduction On April 7, 2014, the Reston Citizens Association’s (RCA’s) Reston 2020 Committee—its independent community planning committee—held a ResTown Hall Meeting for the community to discuss and share views on the draft master plan for Baron Cameron Park. Attendees included more than 50 community members. The forum program comprised: • An overview presentation of the plan focused on the areas previously identified as controversial (Attachment A), • Breakout group brainstorming on the key issues and ideas regarding other aspects of the plan, • Community-wide prioritizing of these issues and ideas using colored sticky “dots” (Attachment B), and • A closing discussion to bring the ideas together and form a community perspective, especially on the key issues. This report provides the Reston community’s perspective as developed at the forum and set in the context of the plan and Reston’s expected substantial growth. The community generated more than 90 diverse ideas, issues, strengths, weaknesses, risks, and threats in the draft plan. Despite their diversity, the group generally found a single common theme: The Park Authority’s draft master plan is trying to do too much with too little space. Important aspects of this overarching theme are presented in the following sections of this report, culminating in a short list of key recommendations for improving the draft Baron Cameron Park master plan. 1

Significant Plan Strengths Added playing field capacity. The community appreciated the draft plan’s proposal to increase the “community use” (scheduled) playing capacity of the park’s playing fields by lighting and turfing them, although it identified some risks in doing so. The addition of a softball field is especially welcome to complement the existing baseball diamond. The County says that turfing and lighting individual grass fields doubles their capacity and, in general, we believe this to be a reasonable expectation. The community also sees some risks with lighting and turfing that we believe the Parks Authority should consider as it moves forward with this plan. Most important from a community perspective is the potential for light and noise diffusion and pollution in nearby residential neighborhoods. We understand that FCPA plans to use the latest low-diffusion lighting technology in this effort, but we also recognize that lighting for the diamonds must be high so fly balls can be seen. Similarly, from a policy perspective, we believe that noise from games on the fields must end before the currently allowed time of 11PM, especially on weeknight evenings (Sunday-Thursday), when people are likely sleeping before heading to work or school. We believe 10PM should be the latest that lights are allowed on weeknight evenings. The addition of trails and fitness stations. The community is quite pleased with the prospect that trails and fitness stations will be added to the park. These will allow people to better access and enjoy the protected natural areas of the park. Indeed, the community thought more trails should be added than are currently planned. Retaining the garden plots. Many Restonians are avid gardeners and it was community’s strong view that the current garden plot area—possibly expanded—should remain in Baron Cameron Park. Addition of multi-use court complex. An important “missing ingredient” in Baron Cameron Park has been multi-use (generally, basketball) courts and we are pleased that some are proposed to be located in mid-park. We appreciate that the draft park plan calls for them to be lighted, subject to the same concerns expressed above.

2

Key Areas of Concern in the Plan The presentation, breakout sessions, and community prioritization and discussion highlighted several serious areas of concern that we believe need to be addressed before moving forward with approval of this draft plan. Rectangular field capacity does not keep pace with Reston’s expected population growth. The plan proposes the elimination of up to four rectangular fields (two if one of the fields is split into two youth fields) to allow for the new softball diamond, multi-use courts, and movement of the off-leash dog, picnic, and playground to the middle of the park. As illustrated in the two tables below, the significant early gain in playing capacity per capita in the core plan dissipates as Reston’s population grows even allowing for the three new fields (and assuming they are rectangular fields) added over time in the transit station areas.1 If the recreation center option is included, Baron Cameron Park loses substantial playing capacity per capita outright and the deficit widens over time. Even if a full-size rectangular field is placed on the recreation center’s rooftop—a costly option never described by either FCPA or RCC in their planning documents for the park or the recreation center respectively—there are growing per capita losses with a full-size field and dwindling gains with two youth-size fields over a 30-year planning horizon.
Baron Cameron Rectangular Field "Community Use" Capacity under Different Scenarios
Figure 1: Change in Field Capacity
Field Characteristics Existing Configuration Grass, No lights Basic Plan Capacity Turf, Lighted With 2 youth fields Turf, Lighted Plan with Rec Center Turf, Lighted With 2 youth fields Turf, Lighted Rec Ctr w/ rooftop field Turf, Lighted With 2 youth fields Turf, Lighted Annual Capacity per Field (Hours) 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Number of Fields Adult Fields 8 6 5 4 3 5 4 Youth Fields 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 TOTAL FIELDS 10 6 7 4 5 5 6 Net Field Count Change Adult -2 -3 -4 -5 -3 -3 Youth -2 0 -2 0 -1 2 Capacity Calculation (Hours) Total Change in Capacity Capacity 10,000 12,000 20% 14,000 40% 8,000 -20% 10,000 0% 10,000 0% 12,000 20%

Figure 2: Change in Field Capacity per Capita
Capacity Calculation (Hours) Total Capacity Change in Field (Hours) Capacity Existing Configuration 10,000 Basic Plan Capacity 12,000 20% With 2 youth fields 14,000 40% Plan with Rec Center 8,000 -20% With 2 youth fields 10,000 0% Rec Ctr w/ rooftop field 10,000 0% With 2 youth fields 12,000 20% Reston Population: PLUS Station Area Field Capacity (Hours): Hours of Field Capacity per 1,000 Restonians (including 3 station area fields)

Change in Field Capacity/Capita 2024 12% 28% -20% -4% -4% 12% 2034 4% 17% -22% -9% -9% 4% 2044 -1% 10% -23% -12% -12% -1%

2014
167

2024
187 213 133 160 160 187 75,000 2,000

2034
174 196 130 152 152 174 92,000 4,000

2044
165 183 128 147 147 165 109,000 6,000

60,000

1

Reston’s forecast population is based on the “preferred development scenario” densities tested in the new Reston Master Plan and a forecast increase of 2,000 residents in each of Reston’s five village centers as a result of their redevelopment over the next 30 years.

3

Several breakout groups spent considerable time trying to figure out how another field might be fit into the park. Ideas including omitting or curtailing some facilities in the draft plan (most especially limiting parking space growth) or moving key features to make room for an additional rectangular field (including clearing some natural area and re-foresting the same acreage elsewhere in the park). The draft plan will create greater congestion on Wiehle Avenue despite the proposed addition of a new northern entrance. The expanded range of facilities and periods of operation proposed in the draft Baron Cameron Park master plan are certain to add more traffic to Wiehle Avenue—one of Reston’s most congested peak period streets—and possibly Baron Cameron Avenue in addition to the anticipated population growth-related traffic in this area. In particular, we expect the added traffic will be most serious in the evening rush period, just the time when the wide range of scheduled activities at the park will commence. We appreciate that FCPA is planning to reach out to FCDOT for further bus transit connections, but given its focus on moving people to/from home, work, and Metrorail as well as the fiscal constraints generally facing the County, we doubt that significant bus transit service improvements to the park are likely. The draft master plan highlights that the peak park use period is 5-7PM, the same time traffic is most congested on Wiehle Avenue during the evening rush hour. Unfortunately, it uses the official VDOT Average Annual Week Day Traffic (AAWDT) full day count in a comparison with the peak period of park use—late afternoon2—which also corresponds with the peak afternoon traffic rush hour. The VDOT data (K factor) indicates that more than 1,800 vehicles travel along Wiehle, about three-quarters of them northbound, during its weekday evening peak hour. The four-season peak evening period flow of traffic to use the ballfields and other facilities during this timeframe would add more than 350 vehicles to this flow, or about 15- 20%.3 That will—and does—have a significant impact on Wiehle congestion as well as access to/from the park and the neighborhood across Wiehle from the park.

2 3

Draft Baron Cameron Park Master Plan, 2014, p. 32. The conservative calculation is nine fields (2 diamond, 7 rectangle) at 30 vehicles per field, plus four multi-use courts at 10 vehicles each, plus 40 vehicles for visitors to use the trails, dog park, picnic areas, or playground. Between games near the end of the peak traffic rush hour, the volume of traffic would be higher with vehicles both arriving and departing the park. The calculation also does not consider traffic generated by drop-off/pick-up parents or partners, which could substantially increase the traffic volume in/out of the park.

4

The Optional Recreation Center’s Impact on Traffic The addition of the optional recreation center would aggravate Wiehle traffic congestion further. As reflected in the table below, the May 2013 recreation center market update indicates that, between 5-7PM, virtually all the facilities in the center will be at 100% utilization and forecasts that there will be 452 users during that timeframe—more than doubling the park’s traffic impact on Wiehle during this period (Option B; 84,929 SF) and tripling that forecast by the simplistic ITE formulation offered in the draft park plan.4

The draft plan proposes to build a second entrance to the park opposite the northern Longwood Grove Drive access to Wiehle Avenue to accommodate this traffic, taking advantage of the curb cut and leftturn lane already on Wiehle and offering to add a right-turn lane for southbound traffic. While this would help alleviate the difficulty of access to/from the park and for Longwood Grove residents, it will probably become inadequate quickly as traffic continues to grow on Wiehle Avenue to reach the Dulles Toll Road or the Silver Line transit station. Participants offered at least two access variants that may be worth considering: • Move the right-in/right-out Baron Cameron entrance to the west edge of the developed area of the park and construct a complete intersection, allowing park users to arrive from the west, depart to the east, and avoid the congestion on Wiehle Avenue. Establish a traffic light at the northern intersection of Longwood Grove Drive with Wiehle opposite the proposed northern park access. This would better enable both park users and neighbors to access Wiehle Avenue, especially during peak traffic and park usage periods.

4

See Brailsford & Dunlavey, Reston Recreation Center Market Analysis Update, May 2013, Appendix C, p. 5. We suspect this gross under-estimate of vehicle access is a function of failing to consider nearby density where greater density, transit, and walkability (like Town Center) leads to lower vehicle access. Conversely, low density, low transit, low walkability areas (like the Baron Cameron Park area) lead to high vehicle use.

5

Too many parking spaces are planned for the park. The draft plan proposes more than doubling the number of parking spaces in the park to about 700 (850 with the recreation center option). Given our calculations above that we would anticipate about 350 vehicles using the park at one time; we believe that doubling that number results in far too many parking spaces, although we understand it is based on an FCPA calculation of users of different types of fields and facilities, including overlaps for arrivals of next game participants. A general concern that arose in our discussions of this issue was that the parking spaces would be used for commuter parking during the work week. We appreciate that about 50 current parking spaces are so designated on a temporary basis, but we are concerned that, with a shortage of parking (much less free parking) at Reston’s Silver Line stations, commuters using Metrorail will gravitate to these parking spaces and connect to the Wiehle station by bus transit. Like other challenges facing this plan in a growing Reston, the problem is only likely to worsen over time. Two other important reasons were offered for reducing the number of parking spaces. First, the park needs to retain (and enhance if possible) its green space and added parking will take away that opportunity. Second, consistent with our concern about preserving playing field space, a reduction of about 220 parking spaces would allow room for an additional rectangular playing field based on a typical planning figure for parking space size (300SF including lane space) and the size of a full-size rectangular field (180x360SF = 64,800SF). The Optional Recreation Center’s Impact on Parking As documented above, with more than 450 recreation center users anticipated at the daily peak period and more than 200 simultaneous users anticipated from noon to closing in Brailsford & Dunlavey’s 2013 market update analysis, the addition of 150 parking spaces for the recreation center seems woefully inadequate. Twice as many parking spaces may not be enough given the forecast recreation center usage, especially to meet the simultaneous spiking demand for the recreation center and the playing fields in the 5-7PM period. Using the common parking planning metric of 300SF per space (including lane space), this draft master plan would require the taking of more than one acre of space for parking. If it more appropriately allocated twice as many spaces for the anticipated level of recreation center usage, the more than two acres it would require could instead readily accommodate another full-size rectangular playing field and associate parking. These data suggest that the recreation center should be located in place where less parking is required because of greater population density, easy walkability, and better transit availability, such as Reston Town Center North.

6

Two other suggestions were offered to address the parking issue: • • Build a parking garage which, while extremely expensive, would dramatically lower the loss of green space, including playing fields. Build a pathway to the Adrin ES parking lot allowing people to park there easily at least for weekend games—and the time for most major sports tournaments.

The optional recreation center should not be located in Baron Cameron Park. A straw vote of those present indicated this was the community’s unanimous view. Key reasons expressed for not locating the recreation center at Baron Cameron Park included: • From the discussion above, there is no long term potential for improvement in field capacity per capita, and the risk that Reston will lose per capita field space under any recreation center scenario is substantial long term. Similarly, the discussion above highlights the increased congestion and parking requirements a recreation center will require. We must protect the green open space offered by the existing fields and natural areas. The recreation center and its 150 additional parking spaces would require about 5 acres of current green space. A new recreation center should be located where population is more dense. Town Center North has been identified by the new Reston Master Plan and the Reston Community Center as a suitable and appropriate alternative site for the recreation center. Town Center will be much more densely populated (more than 20,000 people within ½ mile) than the Baron Cameron Park area. A recreation center should be located near public transit and where less parking is required. There is limited public transit in the Baron Cameron Park area and bus access to parks is a low priority (well after commuting and shopping access) for strapped County transit planners. The Town Center North location will offer substantial bus transit throughout the Reston Town Center area, and will also extend into the Reston community for commuters and shoppers.

• •

We know that a recreation center has been one of the most controversial aspects in the preparation of this plan as spokespersons from both recreation center advocates and opponents have spoken at previous FCPA public meetings on the topic. The issue of a recreation center’s location in Baron Cameron Park has also been conflated with issues over its financing, the “need” for such a facility, and the scope of its amenities. These issues arose at our forum as well, although we tried to limit our discussion to whether it was appropriate to build a recreation center at Baron Cameron Park. The community’s unambiguous conclusion was that it is not appropriate to build a recreation center at Baron Cameron Park. More space and better facilities are needed for group social activities, including picnics, playgrounds, and the off-leash dog park, and support facilities. One of the weakest aspects of the current park arrangement is its small social spaces and inadequate facilities as well as limited support facilities. The draft plan’s proposed addition of a substantial picnic pavilion and permanent restrooms (presumably with water and electricity) are important planned improvements to the park as are the provision of a 7

vendor pad and other support facilities that should be acted on promptly. We also think the “existing” playground needs to be enhanced. The plan does not state that any of its facilities will be ADA compliant and it is important that any new facilities be handicap accessible. The proposed re-location and co-location of these facilities to the interior of the park may offer an important opportunity to enhance and possibly expand these facilities (without jeopardizing playing field space). The off-leash dog park is both a valuable addition to the park and a concern to some neighbors. It offers both owners and their dogs the opportunity to socialize in a relatively free, but contained environment. It is heavily used by not only neighbors (as a “neighborhood off-leash dog area”), but also by other from Reston and beyond. Dog advocates believe it is too small, especially for the usage it generates, needs to be elongated, and should—as it does now—provide separated space for small and large dogs. Nearby residents are deeply concerned about the noise the dogs create, especially at early and late hours of the day. This appears to be a problem, in part, of a failure of those responsible to monitor and police the use of the dog park as called for in FCPA’s agreement with Reston Dogs. Specific control concerns include use of the dog park outside reasonable and specific hours (8AM-10PM year round), failure to lock the gate for unauthorized timeframes, and too many dogs using the park simultaneously. A partial answer to these issues in the draft plan is the proposal to move the off-leash dog area to midpark, which may offer both greater space and less noise. This is a good start, but we would note that issues of drainage, the distance from parking, and access across turfed athletic fields were identified and, to the extent possible, need to be addressed in finalizing this plan. More important is the fact that demand for the dog park outstrips its size and even a new Baron Cameron Park off-leash dog area may be too small to meet growing future demand. One suggestion from the community is that another, much larger off-leash dog area be constructed in nearby Lake Fairfax Park as called for in its current master plan. The Lake Fairfax plan calls for a ¼- ½ acre dog park near the playing fields, but it is ranked last (23rd) in the list of priorities.

8

Other Important Ideas and Concerns • Bike racks/storage. Nothing in the draft plan indicates an intention to install bike racks or other bike facilities in the park. These would be an important addition to park and may be a way to alleviate vehicular traffic. Trails. Restonians are enthusiastic about their nature trails and there was broad support for adding more than are proposed in the draft plan. Two specific suggestions included a circumferential trail about the edge of the park and a trail link to the North Point area neighborhoods. Stormwater control. Although we understand that each of the turfed playing fields will have stormwater retention and control facilities beneath them, the paving of some 700 parking spaces (not counting any for a rec center) will add almost five acres of impermeable surface to the park. Runoff from this parking must be controlled at least in conformity with new Virginia stormwater management regulations. Memorial Garden of Reflection. Although Reston’s master plan calls for the building of a memorial garden in Reston, we do not believe Baron Cameron Park—a sports-focused park—is the appropriate place for this important asset. Nearby Brown’s Chapel Park (an RA resource) with its existing 9/11 memorial seems to be a more appropriate location for a memorial garden.

9

Recommendations 1. Drop all together the option of locating a recreation center at Baron Cameron Park. Aside from the unanimous preference of those participating in our forum, this analysis shows that locating a recreation center at Baron Cameron Park will crowd out preferred community uses, including a significant loss of playing field capacity per capita over time, less opportunity for improved social uses, and a substantial loss of green open space. It will also result in substantial increases in Wiehle traffic entering/exiting the park, and the need the for many more parking spaces than already proposed for the park. The community’s preferred, “suitable” alternative for the recreation center is Town Center North as allowed for in the new Reston Master Plan. 2. Be more creative in identifying space for at least one more lighted and turfed rectangular field. Our analysis suggests that, in almost every circumstance, Restonians can expect a lower rectangular playing field capacity per capita over time. The addition of one full-size rectangular playing field would increase playing field capacity by about 20% in most cases and capacity per capita by about 10%, alleviating the projected long-term per capita shortfall—and thereby improve Reston’s quality of life—in the basic plan option. To accomplish this would mean no recreation center could be built in the park. 3. Reduce the number of planned parking spaces in Baron Cameron Park to 500 or fewer. Aside from reducing what appears to excessive parking capacity at most times, the reduction of planned parking spaces to 500 or less would allow the space required to create one more rectangular field. As shown above, this would eliminate the construction of a recreation center in the park, which would require much more parking that the 150 spaces provided for it. 4. Explore more opportunities to reduce traffic congestion on Wiehle Avenue with county and state authorities, including a new traffic light on Wiehle and a full intersection on Baron Cameron. Congestion along Baron Cameron and Wiehle avenues will continue to grow and, with the proposed improvements in the park, so will congestion caused by the additional traffic entering and exiting the park. We believe that a traffic light at the northern entrance to the park (more than 1,100 feet from Center Harbor and 1,700 feet from Baron Cameron) may be feasible. In the same vein, moving the Baron Cameron entry farther west and constructing a complete intersection, possibly with a traffic light to help assure safety, may also be feasible. 5. Improve the quality and, if feasible, increase the size of the picnic, playground, and dog park areas in the central interior area of the park. The draft park plan calls for improvement to these social, non-sports, facilities, and we believe they should be high on the priority list for improvements. Important in this effort are improved playground and picnic facilities, especially the proposed pavilion. Full-service support facilities 10

should have equal importance, including restrooms, drinking fountains, arrangements for concessions, and so on. 6. Reduce Baron Cameron Park field and dog park hours of usage to avoid noise and light pollution in surrounding neighborhoods. Current County policy calls for the use of lighted fields until 11PM every night. Given the proximity of nearby neighborhoods, we believe this late night use of the playing fields should be limited to 10PM on Sunday through Thursday evenings to avoid noise before work and school days. Similarly, even with the moving of the off-leash dog area to the middle of the park, we believe that its use should be limited daily to 8AM-10PM daily. The dog park should be locked otherwise to prevent its use in the very early or late hours. 7. Add even more trails in the park through the natural areas. In particular, the community believes a circumferential trail around the park edge and a trail linkage to the North Point area are essential. A link to the Adrin ES parking lot would also be useful and facilitate curtailing the number of parking spaces in the park. 8. A large dog park should be built at Lake Fairfax Park in the near term. The dog park at Baron Cameron Park is overused, some of whom are not from the planning district, much less Reston. An additional dog park, as called for in the Lake Fairfax Park master plan, would help alleviate the stress on Baron Cameron Park and its related noise pollution. It needs to be at least an acre in size, much larger than the ¼ - ½ acre in the park plan.

11

4/14/2014
Attachment A: Presentation on Baron Cameron Park Plan to Reston Forum

Reston 2020 Committee Reston Citizens Association April 7, 2014

4/14/2014

1

We are now in the final stages of the Baron Cameron Park planning process.

April 26, 2014

 Last chance for substantial public input before a decision.
4/14/2014 2

1

4/14/2014

The Agenda
 Summarize the draft plan and its context.  Break up into small groups for brainstorming.  Present small group ideas & identify the more important points from the small group effort.  Large group discussion of key issues:  Playing Field Capacity  Rec Center  Dog Park  Traffic  Wrap it up!
4/14/2014 3

This 10-year master plan is the first prepared by FCPA since it acquired the park in 2011.
 The Conceptual Development Plan

covers a variety of important topics:
 *Vehicular Access, Parking, &

Circulation Facility

 *Athletic Fields  Picnic Pavilion & Restroom/ Support  *Off-Leash Dog Area  Garden Area  Playground  Multi-use Courts  Natural Resource Management  Trail Network, Pedestrian Access, and

Fitness Stations

 Vendor Pad  Stormwater Management  *Indoor Recreation Center Option

4/14/2014

4

2

4/14/2014

BCP is located in north Reston away from most current & future transit.

Baron Cameron Park (BCP) is the only “district” County park in Reston.
    

Lake Fairfax, a “county-wide” park, borders Reston to the east. 2 other district parks nearby are Fred Crabtree and Great Falls Nike. Several small “local” county parks in Reston. W&OD trail thru Reston is an NVRPA park. RA has numerous parks as part of our common area, including Brown’s Chapel.

BCP is in an area of single-family homes except at Lake Anne Village Center.
 

Buzz Aldrin ES is along the north border. RA’s Brown’s Chapel park is on the southwest edge of BCP BCP is one mile from the nearest edge of any Metro transit station area. Nearly 2 miles from any Metro station. Some walk from nearby neighborhoods.

Almost all park users travel there by car.
  

4/14/2014

5

BCP has 11 athletic fields & other facilities that are well used.
 10 rectangle fields and one

diamond field.
 2 rectangle fields (#5 & #8)

are youth-sized fields.
 The fields are in generally

marginal condition.
 The baseball field is lighted.

 A controversial dog park along

eastern park edge.
 Small picnic & playground

garden area in the middle, plus garden plot area in southeast.  About 335 parking spaces & access paths along field edges.
4/14/2014 6

3

4/14/2014

Draft conceptual plan calls for reducing number of rectangular fields to add other facilities.
 To allow for a softball diamond, multi-use

courts, & expanded picnic, playground, & parking facilities, 3 rectangular fields removed.

Two fields (1 youth & 1 adult) removed from the current southern grouping of six.  The north youth rectangular field would be replaced by parking.  Result:  Six full-size rectangular fields OR  Five full-size with 2 youth fields.

 All fields to be turfed & lighted.  There would be about 700 paved parking

spaces available & a new northern entrance.
 Would add network of trails plus fitness

stations.
 No substantial changes in dog park, garden

plot area, or natural areas.
4/14/2014 7

Adding a recreation center would further reduce the number of rectangular fields.
 A rec center & its parking

removes space for 2 full-size adult rectangular fields from the south end of the park.
 Four adult fields OR 3 adult and

2 youth fields would remain.
 Rec center would require

addition of another 150 parking spaces. Total ~850.

 Adding the rec center & shifting

the dog park would mean fewer multi-use courts & a smaller picnic/playground area than under the base plan.
4/14/2014 8

4

4/14/2014

The planned reduction in rectangular fields would limit playing capacity growth -- & some could be lost with a recreation center.
Baron Cameron Rectangular Field "Community Use" Capacity under Different Scenarios
Field Characteristics Existing Configuration Grass, No lights Basic Plan Capacity Turf, Lighted With 2 youth fields Turf, Lighted Plan with Rec Center Turf, Lighted With 2 youth fields Turf, Lighted Annual Capacity per Field (Hours) 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Number of Fields Adult Youth TOTAL Fields Fields FIELDS 8 2 10 6 0 6 5 2 7 4 0 4 3 2 5 Net Field Change Adult -2 -3 -4 -5 Capacity Calculation Total Capacity Change in Youth (Hours) Field Capacity 10,000 -2 12,000 20% 0 14,000 40% -2 8,000 -20% 0 10,000 0%

• The Reston Master Plan anticipates population growth of ~13,000 people/decade over 3 decades in the station areas alone, >20%/decade to Reston’s current population. • The Reston Master Plan calls for just three new athletic fields in the station areas with the surrounding areas providing fields to meet Reston’s expanded needs. • Another two fields could be added if two new elementary schools are located in the Metro station areas. About 1,800 school-age kids included in growth. • County “urban standard” calls for twelve fields for forecast urban growth. • Reston could also add as many as 10,000 new residents in its village centers as they redevelop over the same timeframe. • Lake Anne Crescent apartments redevelopment will add >1,600 people alone.
4/14/2014 9

The recreation center option raises a host of issues for the BCP plan.
 RCA Reston 2020 continues to oppose the construction of a

recreation center at BCP:
 The right place is where the people will be, Town Center North.  The new Reston Master Plan says the rec center may be located

in Town Center North.
 RCC Board has said Town Center North is “a suitable location.”  RCA Board has identified numerous unanswered questions about

the RCC recreation center proposal last year.

 Others have expressed concern about the traffic on Wiehle a

recreation center would add.
 There are other issues about the proposed rec center, but

these are generally not relevant to locating it in BCP as proposed as an option in the draft plan.
4/14/2014 10

5

4/14/2014

Existing Wiehle Avenue congestion adds important traffic considerations to the plan.
Pros:
 The base plan doubles parking

Cons:

(~700 spaces) & would reduce park-related parking in Longwood Grove. (~850 spaces with rec center.)  The addition of a new north park entrance could ease access for park visitors.
 A left-turn lane is available to

 More vehicles entering/ exiting

reduce added northbound Wiehle congestion.

the park would add to existing Wiehle congestion.  Added vehicles could create a greater accident risk.  Added vehicles & new entry would delay Longwood Grove residents trying to access Wiehle.

700 parking spaces appears to exceed the number of spaces required to meet the needs of park users, suggesting the continued use of the park as a “Park & Ride” lot for bus-to-rail commuters.
4/14/2014 11

The BCP dog park has become a passionate issue.
 Area residents have complained about the noise created

by the dogs, especially at early & late hours.  Area dog owners greatly value the opportunity for their dogs and themselves to socialize at the dog park.
 Some suggest a larger dog park, divided for large & small

dogs, with extended length for running are also important.

 There are several location options:  Keep the dog park where it is & improve soundproofing.  Move it to the interior of BCP away from nearby neighborhoods—a master plan option.  Move it to another County park, such as nearby Lake Fairfax Park which already has a dog park in its plan.
4/14/2014 12

6

4/14/2014

Next Steps—Small Group Activity
 Separate into breakout groups to generate ideas re:
 What are the strengths of the BCP plan (see p. 3 for range

of plan topics)?
 What are the weaknesses of the plan?  What is missing from the plan (opportunities)?  What are the risks in the plan (threats)?

 Spend about 20-25 minutes generating ideas in each of these

four topic areas.  Record all your ideas on the easel & tablet.  This is not a time to analyze, criticize, or lionize ideas.  Highlight several (less than a ½ dozen) ideas you think are most important.  A representative from each group will summarize the group’s ideas in about 5 minutes, highlighting what the group thought was most important.
4/14/2014 13

Community Discussion & Wrap-up
 Everyone will have an opportunity to identify the most important ideas generated by all

the groups by placing a “dot” sticker by that idea.
 Finally, as a large group, we will discuss several key issues:
    

Should the number of rectangular fields be reduced to accommodate new features and facilities? How can more fields and capacity be preserved? Should the recreation center remain an option in the BCP master plan? How should the dog park be handled? Should an additional park entrance be added at the north end of the park? What other key topics ought to be addressed in a community response?

 Reston 2020 will follow-up by writing a letter to the FCPA and others summarizing the

results of our discussions.
  

We will include key findings and recommendations. We will describe our participative process for coming up with our conclusions. We will attach ALL the small group ideas, identifying the ones forum participants thought were more important.

 Thank you all for your participation!

4/14/2014

14

7

4/14/2014

Key RCA & Reston 2020 materials on BCP and rec center plan-related topics.
 Reston 2020 Statement at RCC Board of Governors Annual Community Input

Meeting, February 10, 2014  http://reston2020.blogspot.com/2014/02/reston-2020-statement-at-rcc-boardof.html  Basic Parks and Athletic Field Comparison: Reston Station Areas vs. Manhattan, Terry Maynard, Co-Chair, Reston 2020 Committee, February 9, 2014  http://reston2020.blogspot.com/2014/02/basic-parks-and-athletic-field.html  The Reston Recreation Center Initiative: Unanswered Questions on Need, Facilities, Location, Financing, and Decision Making, An RCA White Paper, May 20, 2013  http://www.scribd.com/doc/142696774/The-Reston-Recreation-Center-ProposalFinal  Minutes: RCA Community Forum on Proposed RCC Recreation Center, March 27, 2013  http://reston2020.blogspot.com/2013/04/minutes-rca-community-forum-onproposed.html

 For more, go to the Reston 2020 blog: http://reston2020.blogspot.com/
4/14/2014 15

Background Slides

4/14/2014

16

8

4/14/2014

The Upper Potomac Planning District already is looking at park facilities’ shortfalls by 2020.

4/14/2014

17

9

Attachment B: Brainstorming Results from Baron Cameron Park Plan Forum
Ideas by Small Group
GROUP A Category Rec Center Policy Rec Center Rec Center Parking Dog Park Dog Park Congestion Parking Stormwater Parking Rec Center, Fields Rec Center, Congestion

Count 1

3

7 1

Narrative BCP as a Reston resource--concerned about being overused by people outside Reston. Fields are "scheduled by league size"--What does that mean? If rec center is built by RCC, Reston residents should have preferred access (rates, priority, etc.) Indoor tennis should be included in the rec center Less congested parking is a benefit of plan, less parking in Longwood Grove, which is a hazard Moving dog park to the middle of the park is a win-win, but parking is not nearby (locate it closer) Could the dog park be located next to the garden plots or in the NE corner of the park? Add traffic light on Wiehle at one of the two planned park entrances Create path to Aldrin ES parking for overflow park users Impact of turfed fields on stormwater management? Do we need 700 parking spaces (especially with impermeable paving)? Rec center used 7 days/week; fields used mostly on the weekends Rec center impact on traffic: Either put it where there is transit or add transit to serve

GROUP B Category Trails Policy Trails Trails Garden plots Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Rec Center Picnic/Playground Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Stormwater Fields Parking Congestion Fields Policy Safety

Count 12

9 4 5 1

2 2 5 16

Narrative Create a trail around the park Change hours of use (Shorten or lengthen???) Make area around park more walkable--trails leading to other neighborhoods The propose trails and fitness stations are a strength of the plan. Keeping the garden plots is a strength. Picnic pavilion and restrooms are important. Add more benches & table for people to read, have a conversation. Should NOT be an option in the plan--locate where the people are & transit is available. Maintain green space. Upgrade playground. Increase monitoring of dogs, etc.; increase number of volunteers Lock dog park gates Increase monitoring of dogs, etc. Change hours of use--open at 9AM; lights off at 9:30PM Create separate areas (barrier) between small & large dogs Risk associated with turf field runoff and moving dog park to the middle of the park. Greater risk of injury due to turf vs. grass fields Risk that 700 parking places is too much Risk of more traffic from west and north driving to the park Light trespassing and pollution with lighted fields. Trying to do too much with too little space. School safety

GROUP C Category Rec Center Garden plots Trails Congestion, Parking Fields Funding Congestion Policy Parking Dog Park Funding Stormwater Rec Center Bicycling Trails Congestion Rec Center Count 4 Narrative Rec cener should be located at North Town Center where reduced parking need, better public transportation. Increased size of garden plots is a strength. Walking paths are a strength. Improved access is a strength. (Is this about driving, walking, or ADA compliance???) Increased field capacity through lighting & turfing are strengths. Lacking of funding data for park improvements. Increased traffic. Future school needs not considered. Too many parking spaces. Dog park is too small. Uncertain funding is a risk. Stormwater runoff is a risk. Year-round impact of traffic from rec center. No provision for bike racks in the park. Need to improve trail access to the park. Need a long-range assessment of transportation needs. Consideration of a dome over an existing pool as an alternative to rec center.

1 15

3 6 1 3 6

13

GROUP D Category Rec Center Garden Plots Parking Fields, Natural Areas Trails Fields, Natural Areas Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Parking, Fields Rec Center Picnic/Playground

Count 4

1 5 1

1

Narrative Add other indoor four-season uses in multi-use building (tennis, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) Expand garden areas Build parking garage to reduce footprint, preserve green space. Expand fields a little into nearby natural resource areas. Build trail to neighborhoods to the west. Shift mid-park forested area to north end (requires re-foresting) to create additional field space. No loss of natural area. Enlarge playground facilities, not necessarily area Accessible playground (ADA compliant) Without adding parking for rec center, fit a youth field or 2 into park adding capacity Indoor multi-use courts ABOVE aquatic center PLUS rooftop facilities Move picnic/playground to "flexible area" (if dog park moved centrally) & reduce parking--> one full-size rectangular field

GROUP E Category Fields Natural areas Rec Center Dog Park Rec Center Fields Dog Park Policy Fields Fields Stormwater Dog Park Congestion Fields Dog Park Rec Center Rec Center Picnic/Playground Policy Fields Policy Picnic/Playground Count 7 1 3 2 1 1 Narrative General theme: Turf fields are important. General theme: Need more green space. General theme: No rec center in the park. General theme: Need more dog parks, eg--at Lake Fairfax Park General theme: Concern about rec center financing. Turf fields are an important addition. Important to retain dog park. "Information"????? A strength, but what?? Lighting will provide more use capacity. Plan offers fewer rectangular fields. Drainage from turf fields, enlarged & paved parking, and dog park is a challenge. Need more dog parks. Concern about increased congestion on adjoining streets. Concern about lighting diffusion into neighborhoods. Mid-park dog park (Option) is too far from parking, cannot walk dogs across turfed fields. Put the rec center where the people are, not in this park. Financing for rec center. No mention of meeting ADA standards. Lack of information on general financing needs & sources for park development. Lighting diffusion into surrounding areas is a risk. NIMBY risk. Risk of not meeting ADA standards.

1

1

GROUP F Category Stormwater Rec Center Fields Congestion Natural Areas, Garden Plots Parking Rec Center 92 Ideas Count 9 7 6 Narrative Meeting new VA regulations for stormwater mgmt. is a risk. Rec Center is a negative. Loss of green space, much more traffic. All-turf field mean no pick-up games anymore. Move Baron Cameron entrance westward & make complete intersection. Do not add access on Wiehle. Add more trees and garden areas. 700 spaces is too many. Equivalent to all of North Point Village Center parking. Do not put rec center in Baron Cameron Park.

158 Dots

14

Ideas by Category
Total "Count" per category is number of dots PLUS number of times reported on. (Logic: # of mentions = importance of category; # of dots = key issue within category) Category Count Narrative Bicycling 8 No provision for bike racks in the park. Congestion Congestion Congestion, Parking Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Total: Congestion Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Total: Dog Park Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields, Natural Areas Fields, Natural Areas Total: Fields Funding Funding Total: Funding Garden plots Garden plots Garden Plots Total: Garden plots Natural areas Natural Areas, Garden Plots Total: Natural Areas Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking, Fields Total: Parking Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Total: Picnic/Playground 7 1 1 Move Baron Cameron entrance westward & make complete intersection. Do not add access on Wiehle. Concern about increased congestion on adjoining streets. Improved access is a strength. (Is this about driving, walking, or ADA compliance???) Add traffic light on Wiehle at one of the two planned park entrances Risk of more traffic from west and north driving to the park Increased traffic. Need a long-range assessment of transportation needs.

18 6 3 1 Dog park is too small. General theme: Need more dog parks, eg--at Lake Fairfax Park Important to retain dog park. Moving dog park to the middle of the park is a win-win, but parking is not nearby (locate it closer) Could the dog park be located next to the garden plots or in the NE corner of the park? Increase monitoring of dogs, etc.; increase number of volunteers Lock dog park gates Increase monitoring of dogs, etc. Change hours of use--open at 9AM; lights off at 9:30PM Create separate areas (barrier) between small & large dogs Need more dog parks. Mid-park dog park (Option) is too far from parking, cannot walk dogs across turfed fields.

22 5 1 Light trespassing and pollution with lighted fields. Turf fields are an important addition. Greater risk of injury due to turf vs. grass fields Increased field capacity through lighting & turfing are strengths. General theme: Turf fields are important. Lighting will provide more use capacity. Plan offers fewer rectangular fields. Concern about lighting diffusion into neighborhoods. Lighting diffusion into surrounding areas is a risk. All-turf field mean no pick-up games anymore. Expand fields a little into nearby natural resource areas. Shift mid-park forested area to north end (requires re-foresting) to create additional field space. No loss of natural area.

19 15 1 18 Lacking of funding data for park improvements. Uncertain funding is a risk.

Keeping the garden plots is a strength. Increased size of garden plots is a strength. Expand garden areas 4 7 11 7 6 3 2 Do we need 700 parking spaces (especially with impermeable paving)? 700 spaces is too many. Equivalent to all of North Point Village Center parking. Too many parking spaces. Risk that 700 parking places is too much Less congested parking is a benefit of plan, less parking in Longwood Grove, which is a hazard Create path to Aldrin ES parking for overflow park users Build parking garage to reduce footprint, preserve green space. Without adding parking for rec center, fit a youth field or 2 into park adding capacity General theme: Need more green space. Add more trees and garden areas.

28 9 5 4 1 1 1 Picnic pavilion and restrooms are important. Enlarge playground facilities, not necessarily area Add more benches & table for people to read, have a conversation. Upgrade playground. Accessible playground (ADA compliant) Move picnic/playground to "flexible area" (if dog park moved centrally) & reduce parking--> one full-size rectangular field No mention of meeting ADA standards. Risk of not meeting ADA standards.

29

15

Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Total: Policy Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center, Congestion Rec Center Rec Center, Congestion Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center, Fields Total: Rec Center Safety

16 1

Trying to do too much with too little space. Lack of information on general financing needs & sources for park development. Fields are "scheduled by league size"--What does that mean? Change hours of use (Shorten or lengthen???) Future school needs not considered. "Information"????? A strength, but what?? NIMBY risk.

24 9 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 Rec Center is a negative. Loss of green space, much more traffic. Should NOT be an option in the plan--locate where the people are & transit is available. Maintain green space. Rec cenTer should be located at North Town Center where reduced parking need, better public transportation. Add other indoor four-season uses in multi-use building (tennis, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) Indoor tennis should be included in the rec center General theme: Concern about rec center financing. BCP as a Reston resource--concerned about being overused by people outside Reston. General theme: No rec center in the park. Rec center impact on traffic: Either put it where there is transit or add transit to serve If rec center is built by RCC, Reston residents should have preferred access (rates, priority, etc.) Year-round impact of traffic from rec center. Consideration of a dome over an existing pool as an alternative to rec center. Indoor multi-use courts ABOVE aquatic center PLUS rooftop facilities Put the rec center where the people are, not in this park. Financing for rec center. Do not put rec center in Baron Cameron Park. Rec center used 7 days/week; fields used mostly on the weekends

47 1 School safety

Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Total: Stormwater Trails Trails Trails Trails Trails Trails Total: Trails

3 2

Stormwater runoff is a risk. Risk associated with turf field runoff and moving dog park to the middle of the park. Impact of turfed fields on stormwater management? Drainage from turf fields, enlarged & paved parking, and dog park is a challenge. Meeting new VA regulations for stormwater mgmt. is a risk.

10 12 1 Create a trail around the park Build trail to neighborhoods to the west. Make area around park more walkable--trails leading to other neighborhoods The propose trails and fitness stations are a strength of the plan. Walking paths are a strength. Need to improve trail access to the park.

19

16

Ideas Sorted by Number of Dots
Category Policy Funding Trails Picnic/Playground Rec Center Parking Natural areas Congestion Dog Park Bicycling Parking Rec Center Fields Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Parking Stormwater Dog Park Stormwater Parking Rec Center Rec Center Congestion Congestion, Parking Dog Park Fields Funding Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Policy Rec Center Rec Center, Congestion Trails Policy Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields Fields, Natural Areas Fields, Natural Areas Count 16 15 12 9 9 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Narrative Trying to do too much with too little space. Lack of funding data for park improvements. Create a trail around the park Picnic pavilion and restrooms are important. Rec Center is a negative. Loss of green space, much more traffic. Do we need 700 parking spaces (especially with impermeable paving)? General theme: Need more green space. Move Baron Cameron entrance westward & make complete intersection. Do not add access on Wiehle. Dog park is too small. No provision for bike racks in the park. 700 spaces is too many. Equivalent to all of North Point Village Center parking. Should NOT be an option in the plan--locate where the people are & transit is available. Maintain green space. Light trespassing and pollution with lighted fields. Enlarge playground facilities, not necessarily area Add more benches & table for people to read, have a conversation. Rec cener should be located at North Town Center where reduced parking need, better public transportation. Add other indoor four-season uses in multi-use building (tennis, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) Indoor tennis should be included in the rec center Too many parking spaces. Stormwater runoff is a risk. General theme: Need more dog parks, eg--at Lake Fairfax Park Risk associated with turf field runoff and moving dog park to the middle of the park. Risk that 700 parking places is too much General theme: Concern about rec center financing. BCP as a Reston resource--concerned about being overused by people outside Reston. Concern about increased congestion on adjoining streets. Improved access is a strength. (Is this about driving, walking, or ADA compliance???) Important to retain dog park. Turf fields are an important addition. Uncertain funding is a risk. Upgrade playground. Accessible playground (ADA compliant) Move picnic/playground to "flexible area" (if dog park moved centrally) & reduce parking--> one full-size rectangular field Lack of information on general financing needs & sources for park development. General theme: No rec center in the park. Rec center impact on traffic: Either put it where there is transit or add transit to serve Build trail to neighborhoods to the west. Fields are "scheduled by league size"--What does that mean? Add traffic light on Wiehle at one of the two planned park entrances Risk of more traffic from west and north driving to the park Increased traffic. Need a long-range assessment of transportation needs. Moving dog park to the middle of the park is a win-win, but parking is not nearby (locate it closer) Could the dog park be located next to the garden plots or in the NE corner of the park? Increase monitoring of dogs, etc.; increase number of volunteers Lock dog park gates Increase monitoring of dogs, etc. Change hours of use--open at 9AM; lights off at 9:30PM Create separate areas (barrier) between small & large dogs Need more dog parks. Mid-park dog park (Option) is too far from parking, cannot walk dogs across turfed fields. Greater risk of injury due to turf vs. grass fields Increased field capacity through lighting & turfing are strengths. General theme: Turf fields are important. Lighting will provide more use capacity. Plan offers fewer rectangular fields. Concern about lighting diffusion into neighborhoods. Lighting diffusion into surrounding areas is a risk. All-turf field mean no pick-up games anymore. Expand fields a little into nearby natural resource areas. Shift mid-park forested area to north end (requires re-foresting) to create additional field space. No loss of natural area.

17

Garden plots Garden plots Garden Plots Natural Areas, Garden Plots Parking Parking Parking Parking, Fields Picnic/Playground Picnic/Playground Policy Policy Policy Policy Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center Rec Center, Fields Safety Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Trails Trails Trails Trails TOTAL

Keeping the garden plots is a strength. Increased size of garden plots is a strength. Expand garden areas Add more trees and garden areas. Less congested parking is a benefit of plan, less parking in Longwood Grove, which is a hazard Create path to Aldrin ES parking for overflow park users Build parking garage to reduce footprint, preserve green space. Without adding parking for rec center, fit a youth field or 2 into park adding capacity No mention of meeting ADA standards. Risk of not meeting ADA standards. Change hours of use (Shorten or lengthen???) Future school needs not considered. "Information"????? A strength, but what?? NIMBY risk. If rec center is built by RCC, Reston residents should have preferred access (rates, priority, etc.) Year-round impact of traffic from rec center. Consideration of a dome over an existing pool as an alternative to rec center. Indoor multi-use courts ABOVE aquatic center PLUS rooftop facilities Put the rec center where the people are, not in this park. Financing for rec center. Do not put rec center in Baron Cameron Park. Rec center used 7 days/week; fields used mostly on the weekends School safety Impact of turfed fields on stormwater management? Drainage from turf fields, enlarged & paved parking, and dog park is a challenge. Meeting new VA regulations for stormwater mgmt. is a risk. Make area around park more walkable--trails leading to other neighborhoods The propose trails and fitness stations are a strength of the plan. Walking paths are a strength. Need to improve trail access to the park. 158

18