“The true measure of a community is how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens.” 

We’ve heard the maxim many times, and there is little doubt most in Falls Church want to live up to it.  Indeed, in most cases we probably do.  But in one case, it comes into question:  the planned treatment of the current senior citizens living in the affordable housing units at Winter Hill Apartments. 

Under the plan for the City Center South Apartments, the Winter Hill Apartments would be sold to a private developer. Winter Hill Apartment residents would be moved to a City Center South high-rise. 

Unfortunately, there is an important fact going unconsidered:  some of the residents don’t want to move. 

As Anita Rosenberg told the Falls Church City Council (Community Comment: City Center South Lacks What Makes Winter Hill Home), senior citizens residing at Winter Hill Apartments would be significantly disadvantaged by the move to the planned high-rise facility.  And it is easy to see why.  Winter Hill Apartments are idyllic.  They offer senior citizens easy access, significant privacy, green grass, trees, a warm environment.  Ms. Rosenberg and her husband have lived there seventeen years, and they are not alone — walk by Winter Hill Apartments on a nice day and you will see senior citizens everywhere. 

Ms. Rosenberg believes life in a high-rise apartment building will be much less pleasant, and she is almost certainly right.  She mentions quiet comforts she will lose, such as watching a sunset from her small deck, the peace and quiet of her current apartment, the ease of access to it, the ability to walk to other public facilities like the library.  She’s right, of course.  Nobody could argue with her and keep a straight face.         

Perhaps senior citizens have no right to a specific type of affordable housing.  Technically, they have no right to affordable housing at all.  This is a capitalist society, after all.  And clearly, the property in question belongs to the Falls Church Housing Corporation, which legally can do with it what it wants.   

But there are two important considerations in this case.  First, even though there may be no right to a specific type of affordable housing, “doing right” by people of modest means has become an article of faith in Falls Church, and the topic of more than a few speeches.  So if we’re going to proclaim we are doing right, we should do it.  Second, the taxpayers of Falls Church are on the hook for a significant amount of money for the City Center South Apartments -– a $2 million “loan” and $750,000 or more a year in foregone tax revenue for many years.  So we have a right to an opinion about how things are handled. 

Here’s my opinion.  We should not disadvantage a group of elderly citizens to create additional space.   It doesn’t make sense, and it’s not right.

Want to provide more affordable housing in Falls Church?  OK.  Just find a way to do it that doesn’t hurt the people already being served.  The Housing Corporation and the City need to modify the plan and leave the Winter Hill seniors in place.

Anita and Jack Rosenberg have lived in Winter Hill Apartments for 17 years.  Actively involved in the Senior Center and Winter Hill community, they explain what makes Winter Hill so special and why they have written to the City Council in opposition to City Center South.

We love living in Winter Hill.  Our garden apartment gives us privacy, peace, and quiet, and allows us to live in Falls Church on our fixed income while still being able to afford other necessities.  City Center South as proposed will not offer us the same amenities, and if it is built, we understand that Winter Hill will cease to exist and we will be forced to move.

We are very aware of the need for more affordable housing.  If it weren’t for affordable housing, we could not live in Falls Church.  However, the proposed new housing will not offer many things that we currently have at Winter Hill. and that allow many of us to live independently.  We won’t be able to walk to the library, to the banks, to CVS, to the bus on Broad Street.  We won’t be able to sit on our balcony and enjoy the different seasons.  Our tight-knit community — who support each other when family members do not live near — will be split among floors.  We will be removed from our larger community, the Winter Hill condominiums.

We have previously lived in high-rise apartments and experienced elevators breaking down, noise, insufficient maintenance, and lack of security.  When we moved to Winter Hill, we had hoped to never face those things again.  But now, under the City Center South proposal, 80 families are being told they must uproot and move to a high-density building…or be given a voucher to find another housing option.

While affordable housing may be necessary for the Falls Church economy and of benefit to many younger people who otherwise would not be able to live in Falls Church, it should not be at the expense of the lives of its senior citizens who are members of its community.

Addressing Monday’s joint session of City Council and the Planning Commission, Carol Jackson of the Falls Church Housing Corporation said that instead of one building for both families and seniors, there now will be two smaller buildings, though the proportions are unclear.

The project faces a May 14 loan application deadline.

Ms Jackson stated that the variance  between the two planned structures could be as much as 20 percent.  In that case, one building might have as many as 78 units and the other as few as 52.  There likely would be more units assigned for seniors.

There will be significant architectural changes as well.  The structures now likely will be wood frame instead of concrete and steel frame. 

Parking may be underground. Originally, a garage was to have been built adjacent to the affordable housing in an arrangement with Mr Thomas Sawner, owner of the adjacent property. 

However, the Housing Corporation no longer favors this option and apparently is not partnering with Mr Sawner, who had planned to build a commercial building.  The status of that initiative is unclear.

Ms Jackson, who termed the changes radical, said that the applications to the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) have not been finalized.  FCHC president Steve Rogers stated that the corporation’s board had approved the strategy only last Wednesday.

The Housing Corporation now is partnering with The Community Builders (TCB), the nation’s largest non-profit urban housing developer, in formulating its applications to VHDA.

City Manager Wyatt Shields stated that he believed that another ammendment to the special exception ordinance, at least the project’s third, would be necessary in order for it to receive Council approval.

Council and Planning Commission members generally seemed to accept the downsizing as an inevitable result of the economic downturn. 

However, Councilman Dan Maller probably spoke for all when he noted that this was the City’s only opportunity to talk to the Housing Corporation prior to the submission of the applications and that neither the Council nor the Commission had any input into the process.

The proposed affordable housing project would replace buildings in the 300 block of S. Maple Street

The controversial proposal to build a 174-unit affordable housing project will be back on the agenda of the Falls Church City Council Monday night in the Council’s first meeting following contentious debate over the 2010 budget.  The Council will also hear presentations on other issues, including planned improvements to North and South Washington Streets, the Integrated Library System, redevelopment of the area around East Falls Church Metro, and the new GEORGE bus citizen task force.  The City Planning Commission will join the Council for the meeting

On Tuesday, the Council will meet in closed session to discuss Fairfax County’s lawsuit against the City regarding the City’s delivery of water services in Fairfax County.

The affordable housing project, called City Center South Apartments, was planned in conjunction with the larger City Center project as a way to create synergies.  The affordable housing proposal has encountered fierce criticism from residents of affected communities, however, and more recently has encountered difficulties regarding site planning and financing.

Last year, the City Planning Commission rejected the affordable housing project’s site plan due to the project’s lack of adequate parking.  The appointment of new commissioners thought to be friendly to the project was expected to result in a reversal of that decision, but the Falls Church Housing Corporation subsequently announced it would present a new plan for the project involving significant changes.  The Council and Planning Commission members expect to receive more information on the new proposal at Monday’s meeting.

Schematic of the proposed affordable housing project. S. Maple Street is at top, S. Washington at bottom.

Financing for the project has become difficult due to the slow economy, and the City’s planned contribution to the project has come under criticism.

Some observers have sharply criticised the City’s debt funded $2 million loan to the project, as well as annual foregone tax revenue of $750,000 or more.  Economic Development Authority member Ira Kaylin, a former chief risk Officer for the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, D.C., contends that the City’s funding scheme is intended to hide the true costs of the project from its citizens.  Kaylin charges that the $2 million loan is in fact a grant because loan repayments will not be returned to the City for general expenditures.  Moreover, he says, favorable repayments terms mean most of the loan is a give away.  Kaylin recently met with state officials to present his views on the project.

Last month, Councilman David Snyder said the City Center South Apartment proposal would force current affordable housing residents in Winter Hill, who presently live in town houses, to relocate to the high-rise facility at City Center South Apartments.  Snyder called for downsizing the project.

The other development item on the agenda pertains to redeveloping of the area around East Falls Church Metro.  Because the Metro stop is in Arlington, most redevelopment would likely occur there, although some Falls Church properties could be affected.

The appointment of a task force on the GEORGE bus service grew out of the contentious battle over the future of GEORGE during April’s budget negotiations.

The Council meeting will begin at 7:30pm in the Training Room at City Hall.

<–>

Update at Noon May 4

The memorandum below concerning changes to the affordable housing proposal was posted on the Falls Church City website this morning.  The memo indicates the revised proposal will feature two buildings instead of one, and that there will be fewer units and a lower height to the complex.  Presumably, the two-building approach is a way to deal with criticisms that older residents will not have needed peace and quiet when housed near families. 

DATE:            May 1, 2009   

TO:                 Mayor Gardner and City Council Members

                        Chairman Lawrence and Planning Commission Members

FROM:           Cindy Mester, Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT:     City Center South Apartments Project Update

The Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) has requested the opportunity to brief the Council and Planning Commission on the status of the City Center South Apartments (CCSA) affordable rental housing project.  This has been scheduled for Monday’s work session.

FCHC will provide an update on the:

·        Impact of the economy, lending market and tax credit opportunities on the affordable project

·        Joint venture opportunity

o       The Community Builders (TCB) Mid Atlantic Region (www.TCBinc.org)

·        Revised concept design

o       Two building concept plan

o       Decreased number of units and height

·        2009 VHDA Low Income Housing Tax Credits

o       Applications in two competitive funding pools

o       Federal stimulus equity gap provisions

Representatives from FCHC and TCB will be presenting and available to answer questions.  Thank you.

cc:        Wyatt Shields, City Manager

            CCSA Staff Project Team

Tuohy’s sobering November “Revenue/Expenditure Gap” memo to the Mayor and the City Council projected flat revenues amid increasing costs over a five-year period. “An unrestrained budget is not sustainable,” he concluded.

The scenario Tuohy envisioned indicated a shortfall of $3.9 million for the fiscal year beginning this July, which, if made up through revenue increases, would likely require an increase in the real estate tax rate from the current $1.03 to about $1.14. That would rise to $1.24 in July 2010, to $1.34 in July 2011, and to $1.51 in July 2012. Tuohy’s projection assumed that the total value of real estate in the city would neither increase nor decrease.

Many observers predict, however, that given the ongoing global deflation in property values, a more likely outcome is that property values will continue to decrease for a time. If, for example, property values decrease by 10 percent this year, in the absence of any new property added to the rolls, an additional $3.65 million deficit would arise, requiring a tax rate closer to $1.26 instead of $1.14.

On the other side of the ledger, the Tuohy memo assumed that city spending would continue to increase as usual, with a 5 percent per year increase in personnel costs, 8 percent increase in benefits, 3 percent increase in other operating expenses, and a 5 percent increase in the school budget. In a dire economic climate, at least some of these hypothetical increases likely would not occur.

Following the release of Tuohy’s memo, Assistant City Manager Cindy Mester told the City Council that the memo did not include some revenues the city can expect to receive. Some note, however, that likely expenditures also were not reflected in the memo. “The City’s shortfall numbers are not conservative” said Falls Church Economic Development Authority member and former Inter-American Development Bank Chief Risk Officer Ira Kaylin. He pointed out that school budget requirements needed to maintain the quality of City schools are not fully addressed in the City’s numbers and that the tax rate will have to increase just to maintain real estate revenues at constant levels, given that assessments will certainly decline. “When I look at the numbers I see a big hole,” said Kaylin. “I am concerned about our fiscal situation.”

Indeed, speculation is that the budget gap has widened since Tuohy prepared his November memo. On Thursday night, Tuohy is expected to provide more current projections, and City Manager Wyatt Shields will suggest budget cutbacks to at least partially reduce the budget gap. City insiders say his list will include non-essential items such as skate parks and streetscape improvements, but may also include more important areas such as storm water management. It is not known whether Shields will suggest cutbacks of sufficient size to completely address the budget gap.

School costs are a major aspect of the debate. One former school board official suggested as early as 2007 that future facility updates could run as high as $60 million, and a city resident who has studied school construction costs, speaking on the condition of anonymity, suggested that school construction costs could approach $70 million in the next few years — significantly more than the City government has anticipated. A big factor in school costs will be student enrollment growth, which became an issue in the May 2008 City Council elections when opponents of mixed-use real estate developments circulated school data indicating most city schools would soon reach enrollment capacity.

Another issue in the debate has been the proposed affordable housing project, City Center South Apartments (CCSA). A number of City officials, including members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Economic Development Authority, have raised concerns over CCSA costs to the city during a period of projected budget shortfall.

The only certainty regarding the “Gap debate” seems to be that the debate will continue. “I’m afraid we’re going to be talking about this for some time,” said Kaylin.

To read the Tuohy memo from November, click HERE. Neither Tuohy’s updated financial projections nor Shields’ suggested budget cuts have been released at this time. They will be posted on Falls Church Times if released prior to the meeting.

(George Southern also contributed to this article.)

Another delay has occurred in discussions over the city’s affordable housing project, the City Center South Apartments (CCSA).  The work session between the Falls Church Housing Commission and the city Planning Commission (PC) has been removed from the February 2 PC agenda and bumped to February 17, with a vote on the site plan scheduled for March 2. 

 This calls into question statements by city officials in December that the PC’s rejection of the CCSA site plan due to inadequate parking would threaten the project’s tight financing deadlines.   

No explanation has been provided on why the work session will not proceed next week or whether financing deadlines have also slipped.   

Many observers had speculated that new appointees to the Falls Church Planning Commission would force a speedy rescission as early as January 5 of the PC’s December 2008 rejection of the site plan.  When that rescission did not occur, a work session with the Falls Church Housing Commission was scheduled to discuss that organization’s plan to remedy PC concerns over parking. 

The Planning Commission latest meeting information appears below.

Joint City Council/Planning Commission Work session Presentation on Application 20081039, Conditional Rezoning (T-1 to B-1), 120 North Lee Street/609 Park Avenue City Hall – Training Center 7 PM
AGENDA
MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE

CITY OF FALLS CHURCH PLANNING COMMISSION

TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER

300 PARK AVENUE, FALLS CHURCH, VA

MONDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2009, 7:45 PM

 The Planning Commission’s Rules of Procedure limit each speaker, other than an applicant, to a three (3) minute initial presentation.  Plats, plans, and reports are available for review in the Planning Division, 300 Park Avenue, Monday-Friday, 8 AM – 5 PM; and at the Mary Riley Styles Public Library, Reference Section, 120 North Virginia Avenue, Monday-Thursday, 9 AM-9 PM, Fridays and Saturdays, 9 AM – 5 PM, and Sundays, 1 PM – 5 PM.

 1.        Call to Order:

 2.        Roll Call:

 3.        Planning Commission Reports:

 4.        Receipt of Petitions:

 5.        Planning Director’s Report:

 6.        Old Business:

 A.       Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2014

            Hold Public Hearing and Continue to 17 February 2009

 B.       Annual Report to the City Council

            Review Draft, Modify as Needed, Approve and Forward to the City Council

7.         New Business:

            Application 20080979, Special Exception Amendment, Retail, Retail Service, and

            Office Uses, 410 South Maple Avenue, Pearson Square

 Advertised Public Hearing (Applicant requests continuance to 17 February 2009)

 8.        Other Business:

 A.       Amendments to Planning Commission Rules of Procedure

            Adoption of Amendments

 B.       Certificates of Appreciation to Former Planning Commissioners

            Adoption of Certificates

 9.        Approval of Minutes:  21 January 2009

 10. Adjournment

 AGENDA

City of Falls Church Planning Commission

Work session Immediately Following the Meeting

 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Public Works (General Fund and Utility Fund) Transportation; and Outstanding Issues

 The City of Falls Church is committed to the letter and to the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  To request a reasonable accommodation for any type of disability call 703.248.5040 (TTY 711).

 MATTERS SCHEDULED CURRENTLY FOR FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND LISTING OF WORKSESSIONS SCHEDULED

 Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Fiscal Years 2010-2014 – Public Hearing and Recommendation to the City Council Application 20080979, Special Exception Amendment, Retail/Service and Business, Professional, Medical, and Dental Office Uses, 410 South Maple Avenue, Pearson Square – Public Hearing and Recommendation to the City Council Work session on Site Plan for City Center South Apartments/360 Office, and Subdivision (Consolidation) for City Center South Apartments/360 Office, Three Lots to Two Lots

 Monday, 2 March 2009

Site Plan for City Center South Apartments/360 Office – Preliminary and Final Approval Subdivision (Consolidation) for City Center South Apartments/360 Office, Three Lots to Two Lots – Preliminary and Final Approval

Monday, 30 March 2009

Joint City Council/Planning Commission Worksession – Capital Improvements Program

            (CIP) Fiscal Years 2010-2014 and General Fund Budget

MATTERS NOT CURRENTLY SCHEDULED

Application 20070528, Special Exception-Height/Special Exception-Mixed Use/Rezoning  for 500, 510, and 520 North Washington Street, “Gateway”

Application 20080512, Site Plan for City Center South

Application 20080767, Special Use Permit for Bank with a Drive-Through Use at 1230 West Broad Street (U1488-08)

Application 20081039, Conditional Rezoning (T-1 to B-1), 120 North Lee Street/ 609 Park Avenue

Application 2009004, Subdivision, 411 East Jefferson Street North Washington Street Streetscape Design

For weeks, there has been speculation around town that the new appointees to the Falls Church Planning Commission (PC) would force a speedy rescission of the PC’s December 2008 rejection of the site plan for the proposed affordable housing project, the City Center South Apartments (CCSA).  The PC’s December vote, in which they rejected the CCSA site plan because of inadequate parking, has been said to threaten the CCSA itself due to the project’s tight financing deadlines.   

But if a rescission is coming, it appears not to be coming in January.

The next meeting of the PC, scheduled for January 21, will be the first in a series of public meetings and work sessions on the Capital Improvement Plan.  The PC has been requested to hold a work session that same night with the Falls Church Housing Corporation on the City Center South Apartments project to address the site plan parking deficit. 

So what’s going on?  Will there be no move to force a quick rescission vote?  Does FCHC have more time than originally thought to file its financing applications? 

Hopefully we will know more after the January 21 meeting.

—————————– 

Below is the complete schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 2009.  (Whoa – Every meeting through December already calendared.  Well, after all, they are the . . . Planning Commission.)

Wednesday, 21 January

Monday, 2 February

Tuesday, 17 February

Monday, 2 March

Monday, 16 March

Monday, 6 April

Monday, 20 April

Monday, 4 May

Monday, 18 May

Monday, 1 June

Monday, 15 June

Monday, 6 July

Monday, 20 July

Monday, 3 August

Monday, 17 August

Tuesday, 8 September

Monday, 21 September

Monday, 5 October

Monday, 19 October

Monday, 2 November

Monday, 16 November

Monday, 7 December

Monday, 21 December

All meetings are held in the Council Chamber and are scheduled to begin at 7:45 PM.

Below that appears notice of a developer forum planned for the EDA’s January 6 meeting on the future of the Eden Center, followed by other items on that evening’s agenda.

———————–

City of Falls Church

Economic Development Authority

DRAFT Minutes

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 – 6:30 p.m.

Falls Church City Hall

Training Center – G Level

300 Park Avenue, Falls Church, VA 22046

I. Call to Order – the meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m.

EDA Board Members: A.C. Miller, David Tarter, Ed Saltzberg, Warren Cohen, Barry Buschow, Bruce Swenson

Excused: Bob Butchko

ED Staff: Richard Goff, Becky Witsman, Lovey Testa

Public: Cindy Mester (Assistant City Manager); Lindy Hockenberry (Planning Commission); John Metya (resident); Ira Kaylen (resident); Mark Kaye (resident); Bernadette Fancuberta (resident); Lisa Miller (resident)

II. Petitions from the Public (5 minutes per petitioner) – none

III. Petitions from the Board (5 minutes per petitioner) – none

IV. Approval of November 4 and November 18, 2008 minutes – approved

V. New Business

a. Falls Church Housing Corp./City Center South Apartments

1. Deferred Payment Loan

2. Real Estate Tax Exemption

3. Utility Connection Fee Waivers

Assistant City Manager Cindy Mester reported on the status of the Falls Church Housing Corp./City Center South Apartments (CCSA). She referred to staff reports previously submitted to City Council. Ms. Mester also elaborated on some vital points of the financial package. She said that the CCSA is asking the city to leverage the $2 million CIP affordable housing fund, as well as to grant tax exemptions and waivers on water and sewer utility fees. She added that the majority of the funding would come from Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) through tax exempt bonds and tax credits. Ms. Mester also discussed the sources and uses of funds document and said that the real estate tax exemption is a stand alone item. She also said that the state code has eight criteria that need to be met in order for CCSA to be considered, e.g., provide affordable housing, transitional job training, etc. She explained that 360 S. Washington is not part of the tax exemption deal. It is currently bringing in $31,000 in taxes; projections indicate that with the new office component, total tax revenues would jump to $85,000 on the 360 S. Washington property.

With regard to Winter Hill, the plan is to convert and sell the properties, similar to the ADU program, since Winter Hill is currently losing HUD money. Once Winter Hill is sold, the money goes back to affordable housing. Bruce Swenson expressed his concerns about the cost of government services to CCSA and that tax revenues would not be able to cover the costs of the project. Ms. Mester said that the 174 residential units would benefit those in the workforce who earn $41,000-$60,000 per year. Richard Goff, Economic Development Director, added that school costs would be the biggest expense to the city if there are families with school-age children. Ms. Mester explained that the $2 million loan is part of a long-term financing agreement to be paid in 15 years with a 15 year bond. She added that the money to pay for the debt service will come from the affordable housing fund.

Ms. Mester also explained the annual budget impact covering a five-year period. She said that the financing will not close until October 2009. The city will continue to collect taxes; tax exemption will start upon occupancy of the units. EDA Chairman Dave Tarter wanted to know how Atlantic Realty’s cash contribution fits in the scenario. Ms. Mester said that there is a $4.2 million cash proffer from Atlantic Realty and that depending on the timing of the project, the funds should be available for use. In addition, FC Housing Corp. will take out a loan from the equity of the Winter Hill project. Warren Cohen wanted to know the chances of getting the VHDA grant and what exactly is the EDA board supposed to comment on. Ms. Mester admitted that competition is tight and that several key criteria need to be met by the applicant, e.g., site plan approval, source of funds, per unit cost, etc. She clarified that the EDA is being requested to comment on the financing aspect of the project as stated in the staff reports, either on a detailed or broad level. Using a spreadsheet that compares the mixed-use projects already built in the city, Mr. Swenson observed that the city would be giving up around $400,000 per year in revenues given that the projected revenue of the CCSA would be around $320,000 versus the projected revenue generated by the Spectrum valued at $700,000. Ms. Mester clarified that condominiums are assessed higher than rentals. John Metya, a resident, requested Ms. Mester to further clarify what “permanent loan” means on the reports. He said that it sounds more like a grant and wanted to know what the real purpose of the loan is. Ms. Mester replied that the $2 million is a long-term financing loan in which the terms require that it be paid in 15 years with interest, through a deferred payment schedule with a lien. If FC Housing Corp./CCSA default, the city has security of over $2 million and a second lien position. She added that the VHDA can also cure the default. Otherwise, if all else fails, the properties would go to foreclosure.

EDA Chairman David Tarter suggested that each board member provide their comments.

Mr. Swenson said that he will remain consistent with his minority position. He reiterated his concern that there is a need to examine how much this project will cost the city.

Mr. Cohen said that if City Council has already decided that they want affordable housing, then government should do its part to take care of its citizens. He added that if the city turns down this project, the city may not see another project of this nature for a long time.

Ed Saltzberg said that from an economic standpoint, the project has negative implications. However, he also pointed out that it has positive social merits. He added that the primary economic benefits should not be the sole concern since they are not easily quantifiable, and suggested to instead examine the secondary economic benefits of the project.

Mr. Tarter agreed that it is more of a social question, and that the EDA’s role is to examine the financial aspect, but not to re-hash the issues. He added that while the city needs affordable housing, his primary concern is that all the ADU’s would be located in one building. He said that it would be better if these were dispersed throughout the community, which would thereby not stigmatize the area and those who live there.

Barry Buschow commented that this is all about political will and that he wishes City Council well. He added that while he has been for affordable housing, he does not really see the project as contributing to the city’s economic development.

A.C. Miller wondered if the CCSA project would survive if City Center falls apart, particularly since the former will generate lower tax revenues because of their lower tax assessments. However, he likes the idea of having affordable housing as part of the city’s social fabric because he thinks it will serve the city’s economic development interests.

b. Pearson Square Special Exception Amendment (ITEM DEFERRED)

Mr. Goff explained that during the November 10 City Council public meeting, the applicant requested a Special Exception Amendment for the Pearson Square building at 410 S. Maple Avenue so that some of its retail space can be used for service uses. City Council requested more information and referred the application to the Planning Commission and EDA for recommendation. However, the applicant has now requested a deferral of its application so they can regroup in order to give a better presentation.

c. Approval of 2009 meeting calendar (item included right before the meeting started) –

Unanimously approved by the board. For the January meeting, Mr. Tarter said that he has invited Alan Frank, a representative of Eden Center, as a guest speaker.

d. Appointment of an EDA Board member to the FC Arts and Culture Task Force (item included right before the meeting started)

Ms. Mester explained that on behalf of FC Arts/Creative Cauldron, City Council is requesting various groups in the city to appoint a representative to a taskforce that will analyze and determine whether the city should designate an “arts and culture district.” Recommendations from the task force should be submitted to City Council by February or March 2009. A.C. Miller volunteered to serve on the task force, as long as the objectives are met by March since he plans to resign from the board soon thereafter.

VI.Old Business

a. Branding and Marketing Initiative status

Mr. Goff reported that the city received two proposals and has selected SmithGifford. He will work on drafting a contract.

b. October 16 Roundtable Follow Up Work

ED staff plans to contact the roundtable participants again and offer to continue a dialogue with them. They also plan to report back on some of the initiatives undertaken resulting from the survey responses received, e.g., posting an ad in The Hill; pursuing the branding/marketing initiative; working on putting a traffic light at Broad Street/Pennsylvania Avenue; shifting streetscape funds for utility undergrounding; providing key funding for Watch Night; etc.

VII.Staff Reports

a. Development Projects

b. Business Assistance Activities

c. Upcoming Meetings/Events:

1. December 4 City Council Special Session: City Center Update (TENTATIVE)

Mr. Goff said that Atlantic Realty is looking forward to having its site plan approved. Atlantic Realty is seeking to do some revisions on its site plan, such as reducing the height of the Harris Teeter building and the potential down-sizing of the hotel. Mr. Swenson was concerned that the current state of the economy could hamper further development in the project and wanted to know if the city should just wait until the economy improves, and if there was a way to get a guarantee from Atlantic Realty. Mr. Goff pointed out the issue of land control and that the agreement with Bowl America has a deadline. Mr. Cohen added that the lowering of the building height should be considered a positive change considering the previous citizens’ objections on the building height. Mr. Goff also said that the number of residential units to the Harris Teeter building will remain the same.

2. December 8 City Council Regular Meeting: JBG Final Agreement on BJ’s; City Center South Apartments

BJ’s – a draft agreement was presented to City Council during its December 1 work session. It is expected to move forward for Council approval on December 8. Mr. Goff suggested that a member of the EDA board attend the upcoming meeting since the EDA is included in the three-party agreement with JBG. The draft agreement addresses some of the board members’ concerns expressed during the November 18 Special EDA board meeting. With regard to the issue of assignability of leases/sub-lease, there will be language included in the agreement stating that 50 percent of the space should be leased to a nationally recognized retailer(s). The proposed lease will stipulate that the store open as a BJ’s Wholesale Club Store for at least one day. A wall or barrier will also be constructed between the store and the residential area to mitigate the noise. Likewise, some of the city’s requirements by means of the site plan will be included, e.g., having an upgraded building façade; building innovative technology for storm-water management; practicing energy conservation; and a termination date if BJ’s does not open by January 2013. Mr. Goff added that the City Attorney will go into further deliberations with the developer’s counsel because of concerns expressed by a Council member regarding the terms of agreement.

VIII.EDA Member Reports

IX.Other Business

With reference to the letter submitted by the owners of 2 Sisters Coffee dated November 30, 2008, giving their 30-day notice to terminate their lease of agreement, Mr. Tarter asked ED staff to see if they can find a suitable tenant or to ask 2 Sisters to stay at a reduced rental rate. Business Development Manager Becky Witsman explained that one of the owners will be relocating, and they just want to sell the business.

X.Adjournment –Upon proper motion and unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

———————————-

THE EDEN CENTER:

What is the Future for this Unique Regional Hub

of Dining and Shopping Activity?

The City of Falls Church Economic Development Authority Presents:

Developers Forum

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

6:30 p.m.

WHO: Alan B. Frank is the general counsel and senior vice president of Capital Commercial Properties, Inc., owners of the Eden Center on Wilson Boulevard in the Seven Corners area of the City of Falls Church.

WHAT: The Eden Center is Northern Virginia’s premier Asian shopping destination, with over 130 businesses. Its Vietnamese restaurants, eclectic array of shops, vendors and cultural events regularly draw visitors from neighboring states and chartered buses from as far away as Toronto.

Built in 1961as the “Plaza Seven Shopping Center,” the Eden Center emerged and grew rapidly in the mid-1980’s as a Vietnamese-American business hub. Its great location and consistently high commercial occupancy rate make the Eden Center one of the highest performing shopping centers in the Washington, DC area. The recent commitment of BJ’s Wholesale Club to build a “big box” store nearby on Wilson Boulevard creates increased consumer interest and an exciting new dynamic on the commercial east end of the City of Falls Church.

In November National Wholesale Liquidators declared bankruptcy and announced it will close its store at the Eden Center. The property owners are considering new uses for the store’s 78,000 square feet of space or a potential redevelopment of the NWL site.

Hear what the owners have to say about the future of the Eden Center. There will be an opportunity for questions and answers at this timely and informative presentation.

WHEN: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 6:30 – 8 p.m.

WHERE: Falls Church City Hall Training Room, “G” Level (enter through the Police Station on the east end of the building and take a half-flight of stairs; first room on the right).

——————————————–

City of Falls Church

Economic Development Authority

Agenda – TENTATIVE

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 – 6:30 p.m.

Falls Church City Hall

Training Center – G Level

300 Park Avenue, Falls Church, VA 22046

I. Call to Order

II. Developers Forum: The Eden Center (Alan Frank, Capital Commercial Properties)

III. Petitions from the Public (5 minutes per petitioner)

IV. Petitions from the Board (5 minutes per petitioner)

V. Approval of December 2, 2008 minutes

VI. New Business

a. Falls Church Education Foundation Sponsorship

VII. Old Business

VIII. Staff Reports

d. Development Projects

e. Business Assistance Activities

IX. EDA Member Reports

a. Recognition of Chairmanship Service of Ed Saltzberg

X. Other Business

XI. Adjournment

The Council approved an ordinance granting a tax exemption for the project and resolutions authorizing the City to provide long term financing for CCSA and designating the site as a Revitalization District. All three measures passed with ample majorities with Mayor Robin Gardner, Vice Mayor Hal Lippman, and Councilmen Daniel Maller and Daniel Sze joining in the affirmative on each.  Specific votes and links to the appropriate documents appear below.

Prior to the votes Councilman David Snyder made motions, seconded by Councilman Nader Baroukh, to subject the question to a public referendum and to defer action pending receipt of information as to what additional taxes or cuts in services might be necessary to fund the project. Each motion was defeated by a 5-2 vote.

In endorsing the project, which she termed a community priority and “first in line”, Mayor Gardner stated that it will serve those hardest hit by the ongoing financial crisis and help create the diversity we all want.

Mr. Maller concurred, stating “The project deserves to be first in line. I don’t think this is a close call. We are talking about what kind of a community we want to live in. [The project] will start to generate a city that reflects our infrastructure of values. This is a community that stands up for what it believes in and puts its money where its mouth is.”

Throughout the debate Mr. Snyder and Mr. Baroukh both voiced their concerns that the project represented a substantial risk, given the current economic climate, and that other public services might be jeopardized. Mr. Baroukh stated his position was not based upon fear of the unknown but on his concern for financial prudence and priority setting. Mr. Snyder echoed this view, calling for what he termed “a rational financial decision making process.”

The tax exemption for the CCSA will extend for 15 years.  Under the long term financing agreement the City will extend a $2 million loan to CC South Housing, a Virginia limited liability company and the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC), a Virginia non-stock, non-profit corporation.  The designation of the site as a Revitalization District will enhance the FCHC’s chances of obtaining state funding for the project.

As proposed the CCSA will consist of 174 affordable housing units, with office/program space on the first floor.  The plan calls for 126 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and 18 three bedroom units.

Eighty-two one bedroom units will be reserved for seniors (62+).   Current residents of the Winter Hill Apartments most likely will receive priority preference.  Ninety-two units will be reserved for households earning 60% of the area median income.

The project still faces an additional hurdle as the Planning Commission vetoed the current site plan on December 1.  Unless that vote is subsequently reversed it will be very difficult for the FCHC to obtain essential funding from Richmond.

Council Votes on Affordable Housing Initiative:

Ordinance to Grant Real Estate Tax Exemption to CCSA Housing LLC for CCSA for the Purpose of Affordable Housing (TO8-15):

Yes - Gardner, Lippman, Maller, Sze.  No – Baroukh, Webb.  Abstain – Snyder.

http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Agendas/Dec8CC/CCSARETaxExmptOrd120808.pdf

Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a “Committment to Provide Long Term Financing” for the City Center South Apartment Project (TR8-53):

Yes – Gardner, Lippman, Maller, Sze, Webb.  No – Baroukh.  Abstain – Snyder.

http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Agendas/Dec8CC/CCSALTFCommitment120808.pdf

Resolution to Approve CCSA Affordable Housing Revitalization District (TR8-63):

Yes – Gardner, Lippman, Maller, Snyder, Sze, Webb.       No – Baroukh.

http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Agendas/Dec8CC/CCSARevitDistRes120808.pdf

By John D. Lawrence, Vice Chair, Falls Church Planning Commission

I have little doubt that the Planning Commission vote on the Falls Church Housing Corporation project will be taken to task (to be polite), so I thought I’d just write a brief note.

Critics vote will say that this was about “19 parking spaces.” Far from it. There were fundamental concerns about many aspects of this project, parking was just one of the most egregious. From the start, FCHC refused to change or consider change. Add more parking? Can’t do it. Find offsite places that meet Code? Can’t do it. We were told to bend, ignore, or waive multiple sections of Code and, in effect, to treat affordable housing with less respect than regular housing in a dramatic departure from City history.

If we had voted for a site plan that was so drastically under-parked, we would have been saying, “Oh, well, it’s good enough for poor people.” I’m not going to say that and I won’t let my vote say that. This wasn’t good enough.

We even took the unprecedented step of specifically asking the Council for help on parking. When we voted in the summer (I voted for it), we said we needed help and urged the Council not to “leave it to Site Plan.” We got no help. Numbers stayed the same. We were told parking is a Site Plan issue and it was up to the PC. So here we are.

A local study of low income transportation patterns didn’t even help. When I used their figures for low income access to cars, I came up with a deficit of more than 100 spaces. The bottom line is that FCHC acted like the Red Queen in Alice. They wanted “sentence first, verdict after.” They wanted Site Plan first and then a discussion of how to make it work. Site Plan IS about how to make it work. Other applicants have always worked with us to find compromises. I wish that had been the case here and I’m still willing to look at real solutions to the problems.

Albert Einstein said that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” FCHC came back to the PC many times over many months with the same parking number and was told that wasn’t going to work. Now people are surprised at the result? That’s crazy.

Editor’s note: Readers are invited to submit comments to the Falls Church Times, either in response to another published item or as a separate “Community Comment.” Just use the comment function following any post. If you would like to have your submission considered for a “Community Comment,” please so state in your submission.