Will the developers and their representatives be in attendance at this meeting?

It would be nice to let all the interested citizens come and chat with them one last time before show time before the Planning Commission. I think it would be a show of corporate responsibility and responsiveness for Pulte, Clark and their representatives to be there to talk to all the citizens who want to talk to them.

I'd urge some order, so that a variety of questions can be asked by a variety of people. There were town hall meetings put on by FairGrowth that I thought were very well handled in that regard because you could line up at the mic and speak for a set period of time that kept the line (and the questions and opinions) moving along.

Now that there is a staff report, there are lots to things to talk about, not just with the directly adjoining communities but with all comers in the general area. A lot of people care about what happens here. And they should care.

I know I certainly have some questions based upon reading the Staff Report (it's huge and will make a fine doorstop after the hearing) that I would far rather direct to the developer at this point, since they are the applicant. I don't care too much if anyone from the County comes because the staff has written its report for good or bad and the Planning Commission will be having its hearing, just as the Board will be doing, although I think there would be some benefit to the County staff's attendnance since planning is about people as much as places. (We sometimes forget the "people" aspect.)

Mostly, though, I'd like to talk to the applicant one last time as a concerned citizen and in a moderated forum style that respects all views and that is open to all comers.

Anne: I went to a meeting the other night hosted by the developers. This was not a "public" meeting as the PDC one will be, but it was useful to have a couple hours to ask questions and make sure citizens understand exactly what is being proposed. I do thank the developers for doing that.

But having said that, there are many HUGE concerns remaining. One big one has to do with the fact that the Vienna/Fairfax station is the terminus of the Orange Line. There are no plans to extend it in the future. Anyone who wants to use the Orange Line from Fairfax, Oakton, Centreville, Reston and all outlying areas will have to drive to the Vienna/Fairfax terminus station and compete for parking.

Currently Metro has 500 "temporary" parking spaces on land that it has just agreed to sell to the MetroWest developer. These will not be replaced. Metro does not have any land for more parking spaces. Metro has no plans or funding for any kind of parking structure. The developer will not provide any additional parking for Metro commuters. Thus, the permanent parking spaces currently provided at the Vienna/Fairfax station are all there will ever be, at least for the foreseeable future.

While Metro currently plans to extend its trains to eight cars to absorb the extra ridership it expects as a result of the new development, the frequency of Orange Line trains will be cut 10% once the Silver Line to Tysons is operational. Both the Orange Line and the Silver Line will use the same tunnel at Rosslyn to get into D.C.

Will the net effect of the MetroWest development be that Fairfax residents must escalate their already fierce competition for parking spaces, jockey for space with ever more riders (even as seats are removed from the train cars), and wait even longer in the dark waiting for a turn to go through the Rosslyn tunnel?

A second concern is for our parks and sports fields. Not once, but twice, Fairfax County Park Authority warned that the available parkland and recreational facilities near the proposed MetroWest development were inadequate for current needs, much less for a new high density development. In a July 19, 2004 memo to county planners, FCPA staff declared that thousands of new residents in the area would "further exacerbate the service level deficiencies at existing park facilities."

On February 9, 2005, the Park Authority stated that: "The development needs to provide significant park and recreational opportunities on site for the residents. The 5,227 residents generated by the development result in the need for tens of acres of active recreation and passive area parkland as well as numerous facilities. The development should be redesigned to accommodate sufficient park and recreational areas and facilities....The applicant should provide $1,385,155 ... to the Park Authority for recreational facility development at one or more of our sites located within the service area of this development."

At various points during the process, numerous residents and citizen groups voiced concerns about inadequate park facilities in the area. Despite these concerns and the warnings of the Park Authority, the developer, Pulte Homes, is offering limited onsite, often seasonal, recreational facilities for residents plus one indoor basketball court that will be open to residents and the public. There are no private yards in the entire development, not one!

Thousands of new MetroWest residents will be competing with current park users for trails, ball fields and other public outdoor recreational facilities. In an area where outdoor recreational facilities are already overcrowded, the developer is proposing to proffer just over an acre of tree save area to the Park Authority at East Blake Lane Park, adjacent to the development, and No Parkland nor funding for facility development OffSite. Moreover, new residents will have to drive to reach offsite facilities if they are not within walking distance, adding to local traffic jams.

And if MetroWest students are housed in modular classrooms, even more recreational land at school sites will be lost.

A third concern is the contingent and delayed nature of the commercial/retail building. Pulte said the other night he can build 200 of the smaller residential units a year; the larger commercial/residential towers take 18 months each, and it is likely that the first tower to be built will not be the one to house the eventual grocery store. So the 200 families moving in at the 12 month mark, and the the 200 moving in over the next 12 months, will HAVE to go to the Pan Am Safeway or into Vienna for groceries (and everything else) until at least the 36 month mark, maybe longer.

Whatever is done to develop the land at the Vienna/Fairfax station, it won't be "smart growth" unless all these concerns are addressed.

Unfortunately, they are not being addressed; we're just being told it will all work out somehow.

I have a slightly "odd" view w/r/t the soon to be eliminated parking spaces at Vienna Metro, but I'll share it for discussion's sake (and let the Games begin!):

I'd like to know WHERE the drivers who use those temporary spaces now come from and WHY they are driving rather than arriving via other means. I'm not sure anyone knows that. That is a very basic and necessary piece of information to help us gauge how many spaces need to be "replaced." So:

What % of the people coming from places that have Metro bus service, for example, but choose to drive because it is convenient as long as a parking space exists? What % would get back on I-66 and forget Metro altogether if their parking space vanished? Based upon my own little review of TDM studies elsewhere, I'm not convinced the answers to these questions are always as obvious as we'd like to think! Might it have been part of the Metro West TDM "study" that I missed? (Does anyone know if this was covered?)

The recreational space issue troubles me immensely w/r/t Metro West. There definitely isn't enough open, recreational space considering the the number of people to be added and in light of the fact that many will be families. In this case, it's an easy call. There isn't enough open, recreational space for the people already living in the area. I think the County should definitely squeeeeeze the developer for a meaningful contribution of money or land to an enhance an existing local park or rec center in a substantive way. (Basically, I want the County to squeeze harder.) Also, I think the on-site rec aspects for residents and the proposed public bldg/rec facility need severe tweaking.