Holmes Run Valley Community

One hoped-for benefit of the redevelopment of Seven Corners proposed by Fairfax County has been relief from some of the traffic congestion.  However, the results of the FCDOT analysis of the roadway improvements proposed by the task force show that network performance would be unacceptable in critical areas.  Today’s traffic congestion issues are not resolved by high-rise redevelopment.

The task force and FCDOT have developed a proposed road network known as Concept B to serve the high-rise redevelopment.  FCDOT has published an analysis of that network in their Phase II transportation study, and  VDOT is in the process of completing their review of the report.  In an effort to support the VDOT review, comments on the Phase II report have been submitted to provide a community perspective and local knowledge of the traffic situation.

In its Phase II transportation study, FCDOT compared the Year 2040 performance of the Concept B network serving the proposed high-rise redevelopment against today’s development served by today’s roads with Rt 50 widened to 6 lanes.  The principal conclusion of the report is that some intersections would perform better in 2040 with Concept B.  However, the report shows that Concept B performance overall would not be acceptable.  Rt 50 would operate over capacity (LOS F) and all through and turning movements at the intersections of Patrick Henry Drive with both Rt 7 and Rt 50 would operate at LOS F.  The VDOT definition of Level of Service (LOS) F is that traffic delays would be unacceptable to most drivers; roadway network capacity has been exceeded.

The FCDOT  analysis of Concept B made optimistic assumptions about the traffic demand that would be imposed by the high-rise redevelopment.  It assumed that traffic demand would be increased very little.  Despite an increase in floor area from 1.7 M sq ft today to 7.8 M in 2040, AM peak hour traffic would increase only 4%; PM peak hour traffic would increase only 7%. Therefore, the 2040 traffic demand applied to Concept B was nearly the same as the 2040 demand currently projected for the area without additional development.  To the extent that the report underestimated Concept B traffic demand, it overestimated the performance of the network.   The traffic demand assumption and other limitations of the FCDOT analysis and Concept B are discussed in the comments.

A broad conclusion from the FCDOT report is that the traffic currently projected for Seven Corners without additional development would saturate the existing road network even with Rt 50 widened to 6 lanes.  The network would perform at LOS F in 2040.  If the Concept B network were implemented in the 2040 time frame (still without additional development), the network would still be saturated.  Rt 50 and the Patrick Henry Drive intersections would operate over capacity (at LOS F).

Seven Corners is the intersection of four major roads in a very small space.  Rt 50, Rt 7, Wilson Blvd, and Sleepy Hollow Rd carry heavy peak hour traffic loads, and there are limited options for better routing the traffic within the immediate area.  The conclusion is that Seven Corners is not an appropriate site for high-rise, high-density redevelopment.

The public hearing re the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for Bailey’s Crossroads scheduled for 2 December has been postponed to 13 January.  The purpose of the plan amendment is to allow a public elementary school to be constructed on the SE Quadrant in conjunction with a high-rise apartment building.  On 1 December, Superintendent of Schools Karen Garza formally asked the Board of Supervisors for the Willston School site for use as a school.  The meeting among Dr. Garza, County Executive Edward Long, Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova, and Mason District Supervisor Penelope Gross is described by  an article on the Annandale Blog.  Presumably, the meeting precipitated the hearing cancellation.

As described by an earlier post, the plan amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on 5 November despite community written comments and testimony opposing the proposal.  The Holmes Run Valley Citizen’s Association submitted written testimony to the Board for the 2 December hearing and plans to testify during the 13 January hearing.  Hopefully, in the meantime, the Board will agree to allow our schools to have the Willston site.

On October 23, the Planning Commission published a proposal 2014-I-B2 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow a second “urban” elementary school to be constructed in the Seven Corners/Bailey’s Crossroads area. The first urban elementary school (constructed on black top) opened at 6245 Leesburg Pike opposite Seven Corners in Fall 2014. The proposed second urban school would be constructed on Columbia Pike on the west side of Radley Acura opposite Trader Joe’s in Bailey’s Crossroads.  The Bailey’s site is even less suitable for a school than the Bailey’s Upper site.  The school should be constructed on the green Willston School site above Arlington Blvd opposite Seven Corners shopping center.

The Planning Commission approved the plan amendment at a hearing on Nov 5.  While several commissioners asked perceptive questions about the proposal, in the end approval was unanimous.  It was apparent that approval was predetermined; community concerns expressed before and during the hearing were not going to affect the outcome.  A letter protesting the conduct of the hearing was sent to both the commission and the Board of Supervisors.

As described in testimony prepared for the Nov 5 commission hearing, there are two principal reasons for  opposing the plan amendment:

• The site proposed for a second urban school is not suitable for an elementary school
• The county has not discussed the proposal with the affected communities

The 3-page testimony  provides a concise summary of the issues and the opportunity to move the school to the Willston School site, a site well suited for an elementary school.

Residents are encouraged to express their opposition to the plan amendment by sending e-mails to the Board of Supervisors and by speaking at the Board hearing.  The hearing is scheduled for 5:00 P.M. on Dec 2  in the Board Auditorium at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.

To Send an E-Mail to the Board:

1. Send it to: clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov
2. Identify the hearing and plan amendment in the Subject line as follows:  “Hearing Dec 2, 5:00 PM, Opposition to PA 2014-I-B2”
3. In the body of the e-mail, state the reason for your opposition. It can be as brief as stating opposition because the plan amendment was not discussed with the community.
4. Include your name and address so they know you live in Fairfax County
5. Send the e-mail before Thanksgiving to assure that the Board sees it before the hearing.

To Speak at the Hearing:

1. Register to speak at the Board hearing Web site. The link to register is on the first line at the top of the page.
2. You will be allowed 5 minutes if you speak for a neighborhood association, 3 minutes otherwise.

The 6 Nov meeting of the Area C Working Group included a Q&A regarding the affordable housing provisions in the 23 Sep task force report.  It seemed clear that some confusion remained at the end of the discussion, in particular, regarding the rent levels of the units replacing the 589 existing units that would be demolished.  TF Affordable Housing Proposal summarizes the affordable housing proposal in the TF report and describes the likely rent levels of the 589 replacement units.

Under current conditions and the TF proposal, it seems certain that a large percentage of the households residing in the 589 affordable units today would be displaced by the proposed redevelopment.

Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 222 e-mail messages exchanged between the county staff supporting the task force and Co-Chairman John Thillman have been obtained and published on this blog. This post describes the results of a review of those e-mails undertaken to better understand task force discussions of the East County Center and  the influences that created the land use concept produced by the task force.

East County Center: The first reference to the ECC appears to be the 130819 E-Mail from JT to Joanne Fiebe requesting a meeting with her and Liz.  JT states that he had had a meeting with Penny, “the County Building is an issue,” and “we have a suggested fix.” The message date, 08/19/2013, is two months after the 27 Jun 2013 design charrette.

This e-mail is the first one of two among the staff e-mails that suggests that JT may have been taking direction from Supervisor Gross and passing it on to county staff. The second is the 140624_August_Meeting_(17) E-Mail in which JT asks for a meeting with six county staff members for the purpose of passing on his discussion with Penny “re land use etc.”

The second reference to the ECC in the staff e-mails is the 131009_Atlantic_Station E-Mail from JT to the task force that mentions a Government center building integrated into the commercial and residential “Main Boulevard.” That is the last reference to the ECC found in the staff e-mails.

The 10 Jun 2014 draft of the task force report (plan amendment) mentions a “government center” as a possible public facility among a number of redevelopment options for Seven Corners on page 11. The 23 Sep task force report states on page 10 that, in the Willston Village Center, “office use may be developed as a new East County Center that would provide human services to the local community.” Nothing was found in task force meeting minutes between Mar and Sep 2014 inclusive that recommended a particular site for a government center now identified as the ECC.  Apparently, there is no public record describing how the task force agreed on the nomenclature and location of the ECC between 10 Jun and 23 Sep.

Whose Land Use Concept Is It? The stated objective of the task force was to develop a community vision of the future of Seven Corners. The legitimate stakeholders in that vision include residents of the study area and surrounding neighborhoods, certainly, as well as owners of Seven Corners businesses and properties. Developers have financial interests in the outcome, but hopefully those interests do not determine the vision. Supervisor Gross has agreed to stand aside and let the community decide. Is county staff a stakeholder in the outcome, or is their legitimate interest limited to helping the community achieve its vision?

And what has been the community’s experience of the task force and its report? Have the legitimate stakeholders determined the vision or has the vision been pressed upon us?  Is the report’s vision of our future our vision?

An earlier post, provided two folders of e-mails that had been obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request.  One folder contained e-mails exchanged between Supervisor Gross and Mr. John Thillman; the second contained e-mails exchanged between county staff members and Mr. Thillman.  The e-mails in those folders were not in chronological order.  The two folders below contain e-mails ordered by date.  They have been ordered by adding a prefix to the file names in the format yymmdd.  Some of the documents provided in response to the FOIA request were not dated.  The prefix for all of these is 141031. The Supervisor Gross e-mails below include six messages exchanged between 1 Jan and 1 Jun 2013 that were not included in the earlier post.  Attachments to e-mail were not requested.

Supervisor Gross E-Mails In Order:  County response to request for all messages exchanged between Supervisor Gross and John Thillman between the dates 1 Jan 2013 and 21 Oct 2014 (157 messages).

Staff E-Mails in Order:  County response to request for all messages exchanged between JoAnne Fiebe, Task Force Revitalization Program Manager, and John Thillman between the dates 1 Jun 2013 and 21 Oct 2014 (222 messages).

A number of county c-mail messages have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in an effort to better understand the circumstances and influences under which (1) the Seven Corners Task Force did its work and (2) plans for the East County Center moved from Bailey’s Crossroads to the Willston School site.   The e-mails are in two files.  You can download the messages by clicking on the links below.

• Supervisor Gross E-Mails:  County response to request for all messages exchanged between Supervisor Gross and John Thillman between the dates 1 June 2013 and 21 Oct 2014 (152 messages).
• County Staff E-Mails:  County response to request for all messages exchanged between JoAnne Fiebe, Task Force Revitalization Program Manager, and John Thillman for the same dates (222 messages).

On 23 October, the Planning Commission published on their Web site a proposal 2014-I-B2 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow a second high-rise elementary school to be constructed in the Seven Corners/Bailey’s Crossroads area.  The first high-rise elementary school (constructed on black top) opened at 6245 Leesburg Pike opposite Seven Corners in Fall 2014. The proposed second high-rise elementary school would be constructed on Columbia Pike just west of Radley Acura opposite Trader Joe’s in Bailey’s Crossroads.

The hearing on the proposed amendment is scheduled for 5 November, only nine business days after it first appeared on the Planning Commission Web site.  No review of the proposal has been conducted with the community in a process that allowed the community to submit comments and the county to respond to those comments prior to publication.  The proposal was briefed as a finished product to the Bailey’s Crossroads Revitalization Corporation two days prior to publication on the Web site and to Supervisor Gross’s Land Use Committee three business days following publication.  The fast-track processing of the amendment has the appearance of a heavy-handed effort to throttle community engagement with an issue critical to its future, namely, its public schools.

On 31 October, a statement opposing the proposed amendment was submitted to the Planning Commission with copies to Supervisor Gross and Fairfax County Public Schools.  The reasons for opposition cited were:

• The proposed site is not suitable for a Fairfax County Public School
• The county has not vetted the proposal with the affected communities

The statement pointed out a number of alternatives whereby the school could be located on the Willston School site at Seven Corners, a site well suited for an elementary school.

Residents are encouraged to express their support or opposition to the school proposal by sending e-mails to the Planning Commission, with copies to Supervisor Penny Gross, prior to close of business Tuesday, 4 November.  The hearing is scheduled for the evening of 5 November in the Board Auditorium at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.  If you plan to address the Planning Commission during the hearing, sign up on the speakers’ list on the Planning Commission Web Site.

E-Mail Addresses:
Planning Commission (Dear Planning Commission): plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov.
Board of Supervisors (Dear Chairman Bulova): Chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov
Penny Gross (Dear Supervisor Gross): Mason@fairfaxcounty.gov
Include your name and address on all e-mails so recipients know you live in the county.

Both Seven Corners and Bailey’s Crossroads have been selected by the Board of Supervisors for urbanization as two of eight commercial revitalization areas in the county. The objective of the revitalization/redevelopment of the two areas is to provide “activity centers” where future growth can be concentrated. With this unsolicited urbanization have come “urban vertical schools,” first at Seven Corners (Bailey’s Upper Elementary), now a second one at Bailey’s Crossroads in the proposed plan amendment for the SE Quadrant. The community has a choice; we can accept the Board’s urbanization with its urban vertical schools, or we can say NO and change the development scenario to one more in keeping with the community’s character.

This paper describes the Board of Supervisor’s policy regarding urbanization of Seven Corners and Bailey’s Crossroads, including the 2010 amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for Bailey’s Crossroads and the advent of “urban vertical schools” for our neighborhoods.  County officials have said that the urban school is the best that can be done. But that’s not true. There is no requirement for the community to accept urbanization and no requirement to accept the urban vertical school. There are alternatives for the further development of our community and alternatives available for our schools. But changing the conversation from the county’s current intent upon urbanization to a scenario more in keeping with our character will require a concerted community effort.

The task force membership was comprised mainly of people unknown to residents, and several efforts to obtain from Supervisor Gross a minimum of background information on the individuals were unsuccessful.  Furthermore, Co-Chair John Thillman had a glaring conflict of interest in his responsibility to produce a community vision of the future of Seven Corners.  A  27 September letter addressed to Supervisor Gross with copies to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors addressed these flaws in the composition of the task force and concluded that the flaws preclude any claim that the task force plan represents a community vision of its future.  The letter recommended improvements in the process that the county has used for establishing task forces.  County officials thus far have not acknowledged that the task force was poorly constituted.  The effort to achieve acknowledgment is ongoing.