COMMUNITY COMMENT: Commercial Space OK, But Apartments Will Have Perverse Effect

By Carl W. Anderson
April 4, 2013

The following Community Comment reflects oral remarks of Carl W. Anderson before the Falls Church City Council on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 concerning the proposed development of mixed-use commercial and residential properties in the 300 block of West Broad Street.
—————-
A modestly-sized Harris Teeter (and some other commercial offices or restaurants) could be a constructive addition to the downtown Falls Church area, but Rushmark’s proposal to build 282 apartments at “301 West Broad Street” will have the perverse effect of keeping the City’s school budget in a continuous state of shortfall for years to come. Building 282 apartments will benefit Rushmark, not current residents of the City of Falls Church.

Moreover, adding 282 apartments in this already crowded area will destroy the quality of life for Winter Hill residents, many of whom have been paying taxes to the City for decades. Current residents of Winter Hill should not be forced to bear nearly all of the adverse effects of development that will primarily benefit new residents and Falls Church residents living in uncongested areas of the city. Winter Hill residents already made a choice to be “environmentally conscious” years ago by buying homes with “small environmental footprints.”

I think it was Council member Ira Kaylin who commented that the apartments and condos in the relatively new mixed-use high-rise developments in Falls Church had contributed “only 30 percent of the new additional student population” in Falls Church public schools.

A 30-percent increase in the population of “new students” is a very significant increase when one considers that the recent mixed-use high-rise developments have all been built since 2005. If the new residences had been occupied by childless couples starting in 2006, their eldest children would be in just the first or second grades as of 2013; so, obviously, many people with children moved into the new high-rises beginning in 2006.

Further, an argument that “only 30 percent of the new additional student population in Falls Church public schools comes from new high-rise development” reflects a lack of thought about how families grow. Almost every family I ever knew began with a couple renting an apartment. (I know that many well-to-do young couples have been able to buy a house with inherited or family money, but most young couples still start out in an apartment.) By the time the first child arrives, the couple is planning either to move to a larger apartment or to buy a house, depending upon their career paths. Few successful couples stay in the same apartment for more than a very few years. Furthermore, there are heavy economic incentives for them to move out of an apartment: they can’t build equity by renting an apartment, and owning a home acts as a hedge against inflation. If their careers are going well enough and they still like the area, they may choose to buy a home in Falls Church, in which case they will continue to add to the school population.

As soon as they move out of the apartment, that apartment is available for rent by another couple, also of child-bearing age. And the process of family building repeats itself with the new couple.

Does anyone know a significant number of families that have not developed according to the pattern I have just described?

I know that Rushmark proudly proclaims that most of the 282 apartments will be small enough to discourage rental by couples. Has anyone on the Council heard of single-parent families, by any chance? They are pretty common in the United States these days, especially in large urban areas like inside the Washington beltway. In these times of diminished employment opportunities, many single parents—or couples of modest means—are going to be willing to squeeze into a small apartment. This will continue at least until the single parent or couple finds means to move to larger accommodations, or accommodations of their own.

In my remarks to the City Council on Wednesday, March 27, I stated that allowing Rushmark to build 282 apartments is “sacrificing the future for short-term gain.”

Why did I say that? Primarily because according to the City’s latest estimates of expenditures for 2014, education will eat up 45 percent of the City’s expenditures. (And a few years back, the City staff indicated that schools ate up about 75 percent of the capital budget.) So by building 282 new apartments as proposed by Rushmark, the City will lock itself into a long-term budgetary shortfall. Because of the process I have described above about how families grow and move into better lodgings, building the apartments will only increase the likelihood that the City stays in a permanent state of budgetary shortfall with respect to funding the City school system.

Therefore, building 282 apartments is for Rushmark’s benefit, not the City’s. Moreover, building that many apartments above the proposed Harris Teeter supermarket will ruin the quality of life for residents already living in the Winter Hill area, primarily for three reasons.

First, there are already about 481 residential units in the Winter Hill area immediately adjacent to the proposed Rushmark development. This includes the 194 townhouses of the Winter Hill Community Association, the 200 condominiums of the Winter Hill Condominium Association, and about 87 subsidized apartment units for low-income families and individuals. Adding 282 apartments above the Harris Teeter supermarket will increase the number of residential units in the Winter Hill area by about 60 percent. That is an outrageous number of new residences to add to an already crowded neighborhood. Rushmark claims to be providing sufficient new parking for the apartments; but since, according to Rushmark, it will be mostly young single professionals inhabiting these apartments, has Rushmark planned parking for the two-car married couples and the assorted friends and relatives who come to visit for parties and overnight stays?

Second, parking in the entire Winter Hill Community has always been inadequate. The parking lots for the townhouses, the condominiums, and the subsidized apartments are on the old “footprint” established for the Tyler Garden Apartments that preceded the Winter Hill developments. The Tyler Garden Apartments were built in 1946, immediately after World War II, when a family was lucky to own one automobile, let alone several. Parking in our community has worked out over the past 35 years solely because most neighbors are considerate of each other’s needs.

When I walked home with a neighbor after the City Council meeting on the night of March 27, the parking lanes on Annandale Road behind the proposed development site were loaded with vehicles “spilled over” from Winter Hill parking lots. I can only imagine what the parking spillover from 282 additional apartments will do to parking in the neighborhood. I expect the parking situation in Winter Hill to degenerate to nasty and brutish “Hobbesian conditions” in which parking becomes “a war of all against all.” (Yes, this is a bit hyperbolic, but I supervised the maintenance of Winter Hill townhouse parking lots from 2000 to 2013 and found that people become nasty when their parking is threatened.) As it is, the late-night parking situation throughout all of Winter Hill is certainly as dense as any in Northern Virginia and may equal the densest parking conditions in downtown Washington DC.

Third, it is already difficult to enter or leave the Winter Hill area during the morning and evening rush hours. There is a long wait to cross Broad Street at South Virginia Avenue, and Annandale Road traffic impedes exit from Gundry Drive and parking lots opening onto Annandale Road. Moreover, Annandale Road—a main route to the entrances to the proposed Harris Teeter and overlying apartments—presents a huge problem. There is a strong tendency for distracted or scofflaw drivers to run the stop signs located at Annandale Road’s intersection with Gundry Drive. Drivers exiting Broad Street want to “get the heck out of Falls Church”; and drivers headed toward Broad Street are accustomed to driving at 35 miles an hour for miles up Annandale Road and don’t seem to want to be inconvenienced by having to slow down approaching Broad Street. In any case, they constantly run the stop signs in both directions, and the City has had to station police nearby to ticket people running the signs. The ill-fated stop signs are located about 300 feet from the proposed Annandale Road entrances to the Harris Teeter/Apartment complex. This traffic-control problem will not be solved without a traffic light controlling the entrances to the complex. Good luck to all Winter Hill residents trying to leave the neighborhood to get to work on time in the morning.

In summary, the 282 apartments are a completely counterproductive idea in terms of generating revenue for Falls Church City Schools, and they will destroy the quality of life for Winter Hill residents who have been paying taxes to the City for decades. If the City Council had really wanted to help the City, they would have asked for a more modest supermarket of 30,000 or 40,000 square feet instead of the 60,000-square-foot behemoth that’s proposed. (I understand the Harris Teeter at Lee-Harrison Shopping Center in Arlington is about 40,000 square feet.) The smaller footprint would have left more room between the development and existing townhouses located on Annandale Road. Also, there would have been more room to accommodate Anthony’s Restaurant, and perhaps several other small shops, thereby preserving the quality of “The Little City.” (The current proposal might make it more like Clarendon or Ballston, except that there will be no subway service to alleviate traffic and parking problems.)

Instead of seven or eight levels of apartments above the Harris Teeter, there could be but two or three levels above Harris Teeter for other types of businesses or offices. That would at least comply with the City’s own zoning ordinances on building height. Offices and shopping would add revenue to Falls Church without overloading the school system. Offices would supply employees to frequent city restaurants and businesses, and the employees would leave the area in the evenings. They could use underground parking for offices and the Harris Teeter, and construction for office parking would not require as much expensive excavation as that required to provide parking for an additional 282 residential units.

For those of you who will make the final vote on this proposal in May, I ask that you do three simple things:

(1) Please take a drive around all streets in the Winter Hill area during the morning rush hour. You will notice that the first block of South Virginia Avenue below Broad Street is very narrow—especially when residents are still parked along the street. It is amazing that more drivers do not sideswipe each other in that area.

(2) Please do the same thing for the evening rush hour. You will notice that there are numerous young families with young children along all areas of Winter Hill during warm weather. It would be a good thing if all of those young children reached adulthood by virtue of having lived in a safe neighborhood. You will also notice how inconvenient it is to cross Broad Street and how unruly traffic is on Annandale Road.

(3) Please take a drive through all streets in the Winter Hill area after 9:30 pm. on a normal week night. You will see that the parking situation is very tight. A number of neighbors have complained to me that when they arrive home from a late night at work or an evening out, they have to park several blocks from home. That doesn’t sound very much like “home” to me, and the City Council can make things much worse with the approval of this misguided project.

Finally, one of the Council members on March 27 stated that it was important for the City to resist being absorbed back into Fairfax County, or with Arlington County—with which the City of Falls Church has merged its legal system. Well, if the City Council is going to insist on approving “mixed-use high-rise developments” that are self-defeating, increase gridlock, and which ensure that the City stays in budgetary shortfall with respect to its future school system—“chasing its tail,” so to speak—then I think that integrating with one or the other of the larger jurisdictions will become an inevitability, rather than a matter of choice. (You’ve already had to sell the water system to Fairfax.) Furthermore, if you’re going to approve projects that create gridlock and make Falls Church a choke point for Northern Virginia commuters trying to move along Route 7 or Route 29, then the puffed-up “Little City” will soon become a subject of derision and scorn. (To really emulate Clarendon and Ballston, you must have a subway.)

Carl W. Anderson has lived in the Winter Hill section of Falls Church City for 35 years.

SATURDAY, 4/27: South Washington Street Community Forum

A community meeting on the South Washington Street Small Area Plan will be held on Saturday, April 27, 2013, from 9 – 11 a.m. at the Columbia Baptist Church, 103 West Columbia Street, in the Fellowship Hall. The City encourages feedback on what we heard about community desires for development and redevelopment within the designated planning area.

The City will present potential redevelopment opportunities, how ideas expressed at the kickoff meeting were incorporated into the South Washington Street Small Area Plan, and next steps. Attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions following the presentation.

Attendees are encouraged to walk, bike, or use the parking lot behind Columbia Baptist Church. Entrances to the parking lot are off of North Maple Avenue and from southbound on North Washington Street. Enter the building through the double glass doors closest to North Maple Avenue. After entering the building, the staircase is on your left and the elevator is on your right, just around the corner from the entryway. Take the stairs or the elevator to the second floor. The Fellowship hall is across the corridor from the elevator shaft and on your left after exiting the stairwell.

Please RSVP plan@fallschurchva.gov or 703.248.5040 so the City can provide sufficient seating.

New Mixed Use Building Appears Likely to Rise at Broad and West

By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
February 16, 2013

A developer is poised to formally announce plans to build a new, mixed-use four-to-six story building at the northeast corner of Broad and West streets, the Falls Church Times has learned.

The corner, which now houses a Sunoco gas station, 7-11 convenience store, and the popular Mike’s Deli at Lazy Sundae, among other businesses, had been slated a few years ago to become the new home for a Capital One bank branch. But that was nixed by City officials, who refused to allow an exception to permit a drive-through that the bank demanded.

The drive-through wasn’t the City’s real objection, though; what they really objected to was that an enormous commercial parcel in a prominent location at a major intersection was going to get only a small, single-story structure, instead of a larger building that would bring in more tax revenue, sources have said.

Now, City officials seem likely to get their wish, but it’s not clear just how quickly this project will move forward. City officials aren’t talking, and multiple people in a position to know declined to comment until the unnamed and unknown developer formally submits a proposal to City planners.

One commercial real estate agent, asked what she knew about the proposal, said, “I don’t know anything. I can’t talk about it.” Asked which it was, she responded, “Both!”

Another agent with multiple commercial listings in the city, when asked what he knew, said: “Why would you think I would know anything about it?”

John Shreve, who owns the land where the project would be built, also didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But other sources confirmed the basic outlines of the proposal. It would be a similar building to many others either under construction or proposed and working their way toward City approvals.

Examples of such buildings include Northgate, at 472 N. Washington Street, which is well under way, and a proposal known as The Reserve at Tinner Hill, which would rise where Saab dealer International Motors now stands on South Washington. Another example is the proposed Harris Teeter project, at 301 West Broad.

Like those examples, the new building would have a first floor earmarked for retail stores, and apartments or condos on several floors above.

It would seem to be an attractive location for retailers and residents alike. Retailers would be situated at a very visible corner near one of the busiest intersections in town. Broad Street, of course, is heavy all day long, and West Street sees steady traffic, especially at rush hour.

Meanwhile, residents considering living there might appreciate the walkability of the location — less than a mile to the West Falls Church Metro Station and immediate access to the Washington & Old Dominion Trail, which runs mere feet from the proposed project’s rear.

Despite those advantages, the project also would add density and traffic to the already-congested intersection, and potentially put more pressure on the already-burgeoning City schools, depending on the size and quantity of the residential units.

Smaller units are not as attractive to families with children, and that’s what many developers, who see demand for small, more affordable units, have been proposing. For example, 70 percent of the units at the Tinner Hill project are slated to be just one bedroom, which would draw almost no new students. It’s unclear how many units are being proposed in this case, or what their size would be, so it’s difficult to evaluate the impact on the schools at this point.

It’s also a bit early to assume any retail stores are already in the fold for this project, but one source told the Times that Bank of America already has expressed interest in the space. The huge bank’s only other City location is 1.5 miles away on North Washington, across from Northgate. However, the source who confirmed for the Times the basic outlines of the proposal said he hadn’t heard anything about the bank’s interest.

Multiple sources also said they understood that improvements to the congested Broad-West intersection would be part of the proposal and that some preliminary ideas already have been bounced around between the developer and City planners. However, it could not be learned what those proposals are.

The busy intersection is especially heavy in part because it’s what traffic engineers refer to as an “offset” intersection, in which northbound West Street is located further southeast than southbound West Street, which would create a potentially dangerous situation if both sides were allowed to proceed at the same time.

As a result, northbound traffic currently has a green light and a left arrow first, followed by the southbound traffic. That creates a longer light cycle for the intersection, backing up traffic more than it otherwise might. A possible change, therefore, would be a realignment of West Street to eliminate the offset.

Like the Harris Teeter proposal down the street, this project also would mean the loss of a local favorite. At the Harris Teeter, it is Anthony’s Italian Restaurant. As of Friday, 873 people had signed an online petition urging the city to help save Anthony’s. Ultimately, the decision is out of the city’s hands, although officials certainly could encourage the developer to find a way to incorporate Anthony’s into the new project.

In the case of the Broad and West project, it would be Mike’s Deli at Lazy Sundae, a popular spot, especially on hot summer evenings when people line up for the store’s ice cream.

Worrying about that loss may be getting ahead of ourselves, however, as this proposal has a long way to go before it ever becomes a reality.

Homeowners Voice Concerns About H-T Project

By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff

December 1, 2012

Winter Hill homeowners were out in force last Thursday evening to hear a briefing on the proposed Harris-Teeter store and apartment complex at 301 W. Broad St.   Many in the standing-room-only crowd did not like what they heard.

The six story building, which would replace Anthony’s Restaurant and the old post office property, may provide a significant tax windfall for the city.  However, given the residents’ strong objections, the project clearly will face a struggle when it comes before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Ten Winter Hill townhouses are adjacent to the site and many others are in close proximity.  Owners of some of those homes and many other area residents objected to several features of the project’s design and how it will impact the neighborhood.

Many of their objections concerned the location of the access route for trucks and the loading docks for the grocery store and the apartments.  As designed, this alley will parallel the property line on the west side of the building.  Residents felt that it would be better to shift these features to the opposite side of the complex, where the noise and air pollution generated by vehicles would be away from their homes.

The residents noted that the building also would cast extensive shadows over their properties much of the day.   As proposed, the structure will be 83 feet high, which is 8 feet over the standard city limit.  This will require a special exception, which already has been filed.

Residents also were concerned that the combination of a supermarket and an apartment building would significantly increase traffic in the area and contribute to the neighborhood’s parking problem, long severe due to the lack of space in Winter Hill lots.  Attendees’ suggestions included a traffic signal at the intersection of Gundry Drive and Annandale Road and a special parking district with spaces reserved for area residents.

The city projects that the apartments will add only 34 additional pupils to its crowded schools, but some people were skeptical of this estimate.  Thirty percent of the apartments will be two bedroom units.  This is a much lower ratio than found in Pearson Square (401 S. Maple Ave.), which includes 133 two bedroom and 25 three bedroom apartments.

As now designed, the project’s ground level includes the 60,800 square feet Harris-Teeter store and an additional 3,110 of retail space.  Five upper floors will offer 294 multi-family rental apartments.  There will be 30 studio apartments, 176 one bedroom, and 88 two bedroom units.

The development also will include a three level underground parking  garage which will provide 586 spaces.  Parking on the first level  will be reserved for shoppers.  The residential parking ratio will be 1.33 spaces per unit.

Architect Doug Carter of Davis, Carter, Scott and Patrick Kearney of Rushmark Properties responded to the homeowners’ questions and concerns.  Carter, who was the architect of the Byron (513 W. Broad St.), welcomed the comments and stressed that the project process is in a very early stage.  Mayor Nader Baroukh, a Winter Hill resident, and Council member Johannah Barry attended the meeting but did not speak.

Information on the complex is available in five files at the city’s website.  Architectural elevations and conceptual floor and parking level plans are in Part 4.  Project specifications and a preliminary fiscal impact analysis are in Part 5.

This effort is the latest attempt to restart the City Center project, originally proposed in 2007 but set aside during the recession.  Attempts to approve a senior citizens apartment house at 350 S. Washington St. and an adjacent office and retail building failed in 2010.

In October 2012, the  City Council approved the sale of two city-owned lots in the 200 and 300 blocks of West Broad Street to a development company called Falls Church Development Partners, LLC, of which Rushmark is a member.   One lot, adjacent to the Burke and Herbert Bank, is technically owned by the City’s Economic Development Authority.  Together, the city is selling them for $4,322,000, a value arrived at in an appraisal done for the city earlier this year.

However, other issues must be resolved before the project can begin.  The developer won’t be able to close on the land until it applies for and receives a building permit.  The city also is including a performance requirement that would allow officials to buy the land back if the project is not started in 12 months or completed in 24 months of the sale.

Also, the city’s suit flied last year against City Center developer Atlantic Realty must be resolved.  Falls Church  sent a “notice of default” to Atlantic on March 2, 2011, arguing that the developer “failed to perform its obligations under the agreement” between the city and the developer.  Until the court declares that project null and void, the city cannot proceed in other directions with the land.

SATURDAY, 6/23: Washington Street Area Plan Meeting

A community meeting to kick off the South Washington Street Small Area Planning will be held on Saturday, June 23, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the Columbia Baptist Church, 103 West Columbia Street, in the Fellowship Hall.  The purpose of the small area plan process is to determine community desires for development and redevelopment within the planning area.

For a map of the boundaries of the Small Area Plan, see http://bit.ly/Me0M6n. The bold section in the center, outlined in red, is the parameter of the study area.

At the meeting, community residents, property owners, and other interested persons will receive a presentation that includes existing conditions and potential redevelopment opportunities. After a presentation on existing conditions, attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions and/or to provide comments and ideas on desired land uses, density, transportation, and environmental/open space features.

Attendees are encouraged to walk, bike, or use the parking lot behind Columbia Baptist Church. Entrances to the parking lot are off of North Maple Avenue and from south bound on North Washington Street (Route 29). Enter the building through the double glass doors closest to North Maple Avenue. After entering the building, the staircase and the elevator are in the hallway to the right. Take the stairs or the elevator to the second floor. The Fellowship Hall is across the corridor from the elevator shaft and the staircase.

Attendees are asked to RSVP to plan@fallschurchva.gov or 703-248-5040 so the organizers can provide sufficient seating.

Washington Street Area Plan to be Discussed June 23

By FALLS CHURCH CITY COMMUNICATIONS
June 11, 2012

A community meeting to kick off the South Washington Street Small Area Planning will be held on Saturday, June 23, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the Columbia Baptist Church, 103 West Columbia Street, in the Fellowship Hall.  The purpose of the small area plan process is to determine community desires for development and redevelopment within the planning area.

For a map of the boundaries of the Small Area Plan, see http://bit.ly/Me0M6n. The bold section in the center, outlined in red, is the parameter of the study area.

At the meeting, community residents, property owners, and other interested persons will receive a presentation that includes existing conditions and potential redevelopment opportunities. After a presentation on existing conditions, attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions and/or to provide comments and ideas on desired land uses, density, transportation, and environmental/open space features.

Attendees are encouraged to walk, bike, or use the parking lot behind Columbia Baptist Church. Entrances to the parking lot are off of North Maple Avenue and from south bound on North Washington Street (Route 29). Enter the building through the double glass doors closest to North Maple Avenue. After entering the building, the staircase and the elevator are in the hallway to the right. Take the stairs or the elevator to the second floor. The Fellowship Hall is across the corridor from the elevator shaft and the staircase.

Attendees are asked to RSVP to plan@fallschurchva.gov or 703-248-5040 so the organizers can provide sufficient seating.

City Council Extends CDC Lease for Two Years,
Continues Review of Stormwater Problems

By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff

October 24, 2011

The Falls Church City Council this evening approved a resolution authorizing a two year extension of the lease for the Child Development Center (CDC).  The new term will extend until November 30, 2013 at a rate of $3,000 per month.

The Council’s debate followed a 40 minute closed session, during which members thrashed out unresolved issues concerning the lease.  Draft documents issued to the media prior to the meeting had indicated that the rent would be much higher.

The City-owned facility has been leased to Easter Seals for $1.00 per year since 1961.  The current 25 year term ends on November 11.  At several prior Council meetings many parents of children attending the CDC had implored officials to extend the lease, since there are few other options for day care in the area.

After brief discussion, the resolution passed, 4-1, with Councilmen Gardner and Peppe absent.  Councilman Ira Kaylin cast the sole negative vote.

Kaylin, who spent many years of his federal career in risk management, said that the relationship between Easter Seals of the Greater Washington-Baltimore region and the CDC is not transparent.  “I have never agreed to a financial proposal until I have understood it,” said Kaylin.  “This is going to be voted on, and no doubt approved, prior to us having a clear understanding of where and how the money flows and I find that extremely difficult to go along with.”

CDC parents expressed their appreciation when it became clear that the Council was leaning toward extending the lease.  ”It seems like the City has been taking a lot of lumps lately,” said Stuart Rubin.  “I feel a vote in favor [of the extension] is a win for the City, the Council, and CDC.”

Mayor Nader Baroukh said the process had been arduous and that the terms of the lease are not necessarily ideal, but that both sides had worked very hard to find a middle ground.  “There are a variety of things that we have to balance,” said the mayor.  “I want to be clear the schools have an interest in the property.  I hope we will have a resolution during our budget and CIP process.”

City Manager Wyatt Shields confirmed that the school system has formally expressed their continued interest in the CDC, as recently as last weekend.

Response to Stormwater Town Hall Meeting

Shields encouraged all residents to view the entire video of the October 17 town hall, which is available on the City website.

The city manager described the problem as having two tracks.  One is the issue of the stormwater backflow into the sanitary sewer, which should not be happening.  He said that the City needs to identify where this occurs and take measures to prevent it.

Shields termed the other issue as “classic stormwater management”; i.e., systemic problems not involving the sewers,.  He said that the good news is that the City is well advanced on its watershed management plan, which should be ready by December.  However, a major unresolved policy question is the impact of federal mandates regarding Chesapeake Bay, which he termed a huge state and region-wide issue.

As more data is necessary a survey is being developed for residents to report problems they encountered during the September 8 flood.

Shields and the Council agreed that solutions to Falls Church’s stormwater problems will be expensive.  He said that a higher property tax or a dedicated funding stream through a stormwater utility would be required.  The councilmen leaned toward the second alternative.

The only funds immediately available for stormwater improvements are through a $1.7 million federal grant for improvements on the Pearson and Coe branches of Tripps Run.  Shields said such work should help some of the residents on Sherrow Avenue.

Other Business

The city manager advised that leaf collection is now underway.  Crews currently are working north of Broad St. and will shift to the south side next week.  There are three pickups for each side of town.  The full schedule is available on the City’s website.  He asked that residents keep brush away from the leaf piles.

Shields endorsed the City’s mentoring program, noting that adults can work with youth who could use additional support.   Those interested should contac Jessica Reyes at 703-219-2106.

At the city manager’s request the Council voted unanimously to defer action on a resolution to adopt the Northern Virginia Regional Water Supply Plan, the primary purpose of which is to ensure adequate and safe drinking water.  Shields suggested the Council wait until November 28 to allow time to review the final draft of the plan.  Vice Mayor Dave Snyder asked that the staff determine how many hours were devoted to responding to what he termed ” a classic no compensation mandate that makes absolutely no sense, considering the condition of the region.”

Consent Items

The Council passed a motion authorizing the city manager to award a contract to National Asphalt Manufacturing Corporation for the purchase of liquid asphalt hot mix as required for road repairs and maintenance.  The total FY 2012 expenditures will not exceed $200,000.

The Council approved the following appointments:

Andrew Curtin to the Falls Church Cable Access Advisory Board to a term ending October 31, 2014.
Lori LaFave to an unexpired term on the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board ending August 31, 2014.
Addison Heard to an unexpired term on the  Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Transportation ending Jaunary 31, 2012.

The following persons were reappointed to their respective positions:

Jerome Barrett to the City Employee Review Board to a term ending October 31, 2014.
Justin Berg to the Economic Development Authority to a term ending November 30, 2014.

COMMUNITY COMMENT: Bullish on Falls Church

By IRA KAYLIN

October 5, 2011

On October 29th, Falls Church Director of Planning James Snyder will host a Community Meeting regarding the “N. Washington Street Small Area Plan.”

There has been much discussion about the need for “Area Plans”, which are intended to promote economic development in a manner that represents community values and development priorities, while generating sufficient revenue to maintain the city’s fiscal independence.

The meeting is important for a number of reasons.  It provides city residents an opportunity to discuss a small area plan (as compared to larger, more comprehensive plans), what it means, and why this approach is important to the city.  It will also demonstrate the city’s agility by taking advantage of smaller development opportunities, while continuing to press forward on the larger Area Plans.

It is my view that Falls Church is poised to take advantage of its physical assets; particularly its location, access to major transportation routes, and availability of underutilized land.  Though counter intuitive, the city may also benefit from current market instability.  Investment in the stock market, which reacts to everything all the time, is no longer an attractive place to warehouse liquid assets.  Alternative risk free investments yield practically nothing.  For those companies that have cash and are looking to put their money to work, Falls Church has much to offer, if we “set the table” properly.

The availability of underutilized land (defined as property where the land is more valuable than buildings) for a city as mature as Falls Church is relatively large, amounting to some 200 acres.  Current zoning restrictions that limit building density have encouraged “by right” development, which is often limited to relatively small projects that generate little revenue, and larger projects that are crammed into small parcels, making the city a less welcoming place to live.

As has been often stated, the city has to increase and diversify its revenue base if it is to survive.  In spite of the technically correct but misunderstood $4.1 million surplus, the city fundamentally is in no better fiscal shape than it was a year ago.  Almost half of the surplus is comprised of already approved Fund Balance restoration and legal costs that did not occur last year but may occur this year.  The remaining approximately $2.1 million is primarily the result of 1) delaying needed street and sidewalk improvements and, 2) the additional revenues created by increased real estate assessments and taxes as well as fee increases.  Unfortunately, the latter revenue generators do not reflect increased economic activity.  The only clear bright spot was an increase in sales tax revenues, but that did not materially impact the city’s finances.

Surpluses generated by delaying needed capital expenditures are much like increasing one’s savings by not making mortgage payments

Nonetheless, expenditure pressures continue to increase.  In addition to the above, there is evidence that contractor costs reductions have not only not ceased, but that going forward will increase.  In addition, school funding requests show projected increases of 4% to 6% per year for at least the next three years.  That increase does not include possible school capital expenditures, primarily school rehabilitation/construction resulting from enrollment that continues to trend upwards and restoration of aging buildings.

Given a national economy that is expected to remain in a slow growth environment until 2015-2017, it is inconceivable that real estate values will increase sufficiently to cover projected budget shortfalls

In spite of the above constraints, I am “bullish” on the future of Falls Church.  To promote the type of economic development that we need it is necessary to create an environment that attracts high quality developers.  One of the most important considerations will be to move proactively to rezone the city’s business districts in order to make underutilized land more attractive to development by promoting a reasonable level of higher density (and parcel consolidation).  In a city where all the business corridors are bordered by established neighborhoods this may not be simple.  Yet the fact is we have few, if any, alternatives.

Our location, the relatively good economic performance of the Washington area (compared to other metropolitan areas), combined with solid Area Plans, could attract and secure development sufficient not only for Falls Church to survive but to prosper.  Yes, the face of Falls Church will change, but it will change the way the citizens want.

Ira Kaylin is a member of the Falls Church City Council.

Next Page »