COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Sean T. Connaughton, Chairman 1 County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia 22192-9201 Maureen S. Caddigan, Vice Chairman (703) 792-6600 Metro 631-1703 FAX: (703) 792-7484 Hilda M. Barg W.S. “Wally” Covington, III John D. Jenkins Martin E. Nohe Corey A. Stewart Craig S. Gerhart John T. Stirrup County Executive May 10, 2006

TO: Board of County Supervisors

FROM: Stephen K. Griffin, AICP Director of Planning

THRU: Craig S. Gerhart County Executive

RE: CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Brentsville and Gainesville Magisterial Districts

I. Background is as follows:

A. Request - The Brentswood proposal is a four-part request that would allow the development of between 3.625 and 3.725 million square feet of non-residential uses and 6,800 dwellings. Each part of the proposal is addressed in individual staff reports and summarized here as follows:

1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #PLN2005-00215 is an application to amend the area Thoroughfare Plan and the Long-Range Land Use Plan on 1499.9 acres as follows:

a) Thoroughfare Plan - The Thoroughfare Plan indicates two planned arterial road corridors within the site. The first is University Boulevard (also known as the East/West Connector) which extends through the site south and west of the Nissan Pavilion and connects with the University Boulevard ramp over I-66 and up to Route 29. The second planned arterial corridor is an extension of realigned Glenkirk Road, now known as Rollins Ford Road. Rollins Ford Road is indicated as connecting to the East/West Connector with a T-intersection, south of Nissan Pavilion. The changes to the Thoroughfare Plan are summarized as follows (see maps in Attachment A):

(i) University Boulevard - Realignment from Devlin Road to connect with Wellington Road;

An Equal Opportunity Employer

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 2

(ii) Rollins Ford Road - Realignment westward to join into the University Boulevard Ramp over I-66 and replacement of its planned alignment with Brentswood Parkway;

(iii) Brentswood Parkway - Extension of what is planned as Rollins Ford Road to I-66, including an interchange; and

(iv) Wellington Road - Realignment northward to become New Wellington Road.

b) Long Range Land Use Plan - The requested change to the Long- Range Land Use Plan Map is as follows:

Long-Range Land Use Existing Area Proposed Area Map Designation Suburban Residential 333.2 acres 521.3 acres Low Suburban Residential 0 acres 165.1 acres Medium Suburban Residential 0 acres 385 acres High Flexible-Use 606.3 acres 34 acres Employment Center Industrial Employment 376.3 acres 0 acres Regional Employment 0 acres 278 acres Center Environmental 184.1 acres 116.5 acres* Resource Total 1499.9 acres 1499.9 acres *Based on Preservation Area Site Assessment Study of the actual limits of the Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area and 100-year floodplain.

2. Rezoning #PLN2005-00357 is a request to rezone 1,499.9 acres as follows:

Zoning Existing Zoning Acres Proposed Zoning Acres

A-1, Agricultural 999.2 0

M-2, Light Industrial 9.7 0

M-1, Heavy Industrial 448.7 0

M/T, Industrial 42.3 0 Transportation

PBD, Planned Business 0 34 CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 3

District

PMD, Planned Mixed 0 319.8 District

PMR, Planned Mixed 0 1146.1 Residential

Total 1499.9 1499.9

Several waivers and modifications of the Zoning Ordinance and the Design and Construction Standards Manual are also requested with the proffered conditions. For purposes of distinguishing ownership and responsibilities in the proffer statement, the proffers refer to the 416 acres north of Wellington Road as “Brentswood North”, and the 1,084 acres south of Wellington Road as “Brentswood South.”

3. Special Use Permit #PLN2005-00473, Brentswood Village Center is an application to build a +/-42.7-acre town center containing up to 500,000 square feet of non-residential development and a maximum of 312 dwellings. These amounts are included in, and not in addition, to the amounts proposed in the companion rezoning application. Several waivers and modifications of the Zoning Ordinance and the Design and Construction Standards Manual are also requested in order to develop the town center concept.

4. Special Use Permit #PLN2005-00555, Prince William Station at Brentswood is an application to build a +/-52.1-acre town center containing up to 1,450,000 square feet of non-residential development and a maximum of 275 dwellings. These amounts are included in, and not in addition to, the amounts proposed in the companion rezoning application. Several waivers and modifications of the Zoning Ordinance and the Design and Construction Standards Manual are also requested in order to develop the town center concept.

B. Location - The site is located on the north side of Linton Hall Road and the south side of Norfolk Southern Railroad, west of Devlin Road and east of Wentworth Green @ Virginia Gateway (see maps in Attachment A). The site consists of 13 parcels containing approximately 1499.9 acres, identified on County maps as GPINs #7496-17-7731, 7496-19-4118, 7496-25-2464, 7496-29-2826, 7496-37- 4872, 7496-68-3749, 7496-58-6173, 7496-65-3842, 7497-10-2628, 7497-11- 3702, 7497-11-6921, 7497-11-9149, and 7497-62-6700.

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 4

C. Existing Zoning - The site is zoned as follows:

Zoning Area A-1 999.2 acres M-1 448.7 acres M-2 9.7 acres M/T 42.3 acres Total 1499.9 acres

Approximately 33 acres of the site, zoned M-2 and M/T, are subject to the proffered conditions of Rezoning #PLN2003-00242, Bristow Industrial Park. The remainder of the site is mostly wooded and it is currently vacant.

D. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning - The property is bordered by Norfolk Southern Railroad to the north, Times Square Business Center, Progress Business Center, Virginia Gateway (Wentworth Green), and America On-Line to the west, Linton Hall Road to the south, Victory Lakes, Lanier Farm, Wellington Business Park, Gainesford Industrial Park, and the Prince William recycling facility to the east. The site is generally bordered by M-1 zoning to the west, M-1, M/T, and M- 2 zoning to the north, M-1, M-2, M/T, R-4, and A-1 to the east, and R-4, R-6, PMR, and A-1 to the south.

E. Initiation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment - The Board of County Supervisors initiated this Comprehensive Plan amendment request on March 15, 2005, as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process for 2005 (see Attachment D). The Board of County Supervisors initiated this amendment with four directives as follows:

1. Reduce the proposed number of dwellings below 6,800;

2. Appropriately mitigate the transportation impacts and integrate the development with commuter rail service;

3. Expand employment opportunities; and

4. Ensure balanced phasing of employment with residential and retail development.

F. Community Development Authority (CDA) - The applicant has submitted an application to establish a CDA to fund park facilities and off-site road improvements. A staff analysis of the CDA application is contained in Attachment B of the rezoning report under “Materially Relevant Issues.” Regarding the use of a Community Development Authority to obtain construction of I-66/Route 29/Linton Hall interchanges, VDOT representatives have indicated VDOT will not enter into an agreement with the Brentswood Community CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 5

Development Authority. VDOT suggested an alternative whereby the County would enter into an agreement with VDOT to administer the project. In this alternative, the County would then enter into an agreement with the Brentswood CDA. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the scale and complexity of the I/66/Route 29/Linton Hall interchange. The County is not positioned to administer a large federally funded interstate highway project.

G. Consultant Report - The County contracted with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc., whose team includes the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis, to analyze the long-term market in Prince William County and to assess the Brentswood proposal in the context of the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The consultant analyzed the existing and future housing, employment, and other non-residential market conditions for the County, focusing particularly on the western part of the County along the I-66 corridor and extending from Manassas to the Haymarket area. The consultant compared the projected future demand for residential and non-residential uses in the County to the available supply for such development.

1. Consultant Findings - The consultant then analyzed these findings in relation to the Brentswood proposal and concluded the following:

a) Industrial - The amount of industrial land currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan in the I-66 corridor is considerably more than is needed to accommodate demand in that area. The I-95 corridor, however, is relatively undersupplied. The County is currently at a competitive advantage in the regional market and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/research & development/limited light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. The subject property, located near I-66, provides an excellent site for expanding technology employment opportunities.

b) Office - The current office market is strong in the County, but there is more than enough land planned for office, particularly in the I-66 corridor, to accommodate office development. Office development at Brentswood would compete with other office sites in the area. There are sites in Prince William County already planned for office that are well-suited for major office development. Areas already planned REC in the western part of the County include the I-66/Route 15 area, I-66/Route 29 area, I- 66/Sudley Road area, and Innovation @ Prince William.

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 6

The County is currently at a competitive advantage in the regional market and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/research & development/limited light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. The subject property, located near I-66, provides an excellent site for expanding technology employment opportunities.

c) Retail - Retail is well oversupplied and there is insufficient market demand, now and in the future. The 875,000 square feet of retail space proposed in Brentswood is equivalent to a major regional retail center, yet the actual retail demand generated by the residents of Brentswood would be less than 200,000 square feet. This amount of retail space also diminishes space available for employment uses. The type of retail proposed at Brentswood, however, may generate some additional market demand that would not otherwise be achievable, but not to the extent proposed by the applicant.

d) Residential - With the fast-growing economy, demand for housing in Northern Virginia is strong. The 6,800 dwellings proposed in Brentswood, therefore, could be easily sold, but the addition of this amount of dwellings would work against the County’s goal of a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio.

The consultant further concluded that the lack of demand for proposed retail and office space and the strong demand for housing could impel the developers of Brentswood to request an amendment to their zoning in the future for more residential development. The approval of this Comprehensive Plan amendment would set a precedent for changing other remaining industrial and office/flex lands designated in the I-66 corridor.

2. Consultant Recommendations - Based on the above findings and conclusions, the consultant developed and evaluated four alternative scenarios for the Brentswood site and nearby areas that would further the County’s longer term goals regarding jobs/housing balance, transportation network, and marketability of land uses. A complete report of the consultant’s findings and alternative plans for this area are contained in Attachment C. CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 7

II. Current Situation is as follows:

A. Planning Commission Recommendation - The Planning Commission recommends denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood primarily because it is not consistent with the objectives of the Long-Range Land Use, Economic Development, and Transportation chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposal does not meet the directives of the Board of County Supervisors in their initiation of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. See Attachment B for the staff analysis.

B. Public Hearing - A public hearing has been advertised for May 16, 2006 before the Board of County Supervisors.

III. Issues are as follows:

A. Policy and Comprehensive Plan - What are the broad Board policy and Comprehensive Plan implications if this request is approved?

B. Zoning and Site Development - What zoning districts would be consistent with this CPA and what could ultimately be built on this parcel with a rezoning approval?

C. Community Development Authority (CDA) Application - Is the CDA application referenced in the proffered conditions of the companion rezoning application consistent with Board policy for establishment of a CDA?

D. Community Input - Have members of the community raised any issues?

E. Legal - What are the pertinent legal issues associated with this proposal?

F. Timing - Is there a time limit for the Board of County Supervisors to take action on this proposal?

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 8

IV. Alternatives are as follows:

A. Deny CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood.

1. Policy and Comprehensive Plan - A denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request would make the companion rezoning application inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would retain the existing EI, Industrial Employment; FEC, Flexible-Use Employment Center; SRL, Suburban Residential Low; and ER, Environmental Resource land use classifications on the site. There would be no change to the Thoroughfare Plan. Denial of the CPA would be appropriate for the following reasons:

a) Long-Range Land Use

(i) Employment - Denial of the CPA would not allow the replacement of the 671 acres of employment land with 738 acres of residential land. The County is currently at a competitive advantage and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. Denial of the rezoning would preserve land near I-66 that would provide an excellent site for expanding technology employment opportunities.

(ii) Retail - According to the Parsons Brinckerhoff/George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis study of land use and the County’s projections for retail, the County has more than an adequate supply of existing retail and future retail opportunities on undeveloped land. The applicant proposes 875,000 square feet of retail, which is an amount that would serve a regional market. This is about 700,000 square feet more retail than is actually needed to serve the residents of Brentswood.

(iii) Residential - The applicant proposes five times the maximum number of dwellings currently intended in the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Parsons Brinckerhoff/George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis study of land use and the County’s projections for housing, the County has an adequate supply of housing opportunities on undeveloped land for the next 30 to 55 years. The I-66 corridor has a 15 to 25-year supply. Additional housing under the current Comprehensive Plan, therefore, is not needed. Denial of CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 9

the CPA would ensure that residential development does not occur in close proximity to existing industrial uses and an outdoor entertainment facility.

b) Economic Development - Denial of the CPA would be appropriate because the proposal would result in a 671-acre reduction in land available for employment uses and an increase of 738 acres for residential uses. In addition, the proposal does not guarantee that the non-residential components will be built. The Economic Development Plan calls for the County to facilitate comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning applications that would result in an increase in acreage for prospective targeted industries and mixed- use development having these uses as a major component thereof. Although the applicant’s proposal includes two mixed-use town centers, these centers would only be about six percent of the 1,500 acre site. There is no timing for development of the town centers. The County is currently at a competitive advantage and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. As land becomes occupied there, the Brentswood site would provide an excellent site for expanding technology employment opportunities in the I-66 corridor.

c) Transportation - A number of unresolved issues relative to the companion rezoning application are as follows:

(i) Road Layout and Design - The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted with the companion rezoning application contemplates a new entrance onto I-66, which would require approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Virginia Department of Transportation has a number of technical issues with regard to Traffic Impact Analysis, the layout and design of the overall transportation network as well as the town center designs, including such items as through lanes, intersections, turning volumes, turn lanes, median crossovers, traffic signals, roundabouts, truck traffic, bicycle paths, planting areas, and drainage easements.

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 10

(ii) Phasing of Development with Road Improvements - There are a number of both on and off-site phasing issues that remain unresolved. The land use program should include a number of proffered development scenarios directly linked to key transportation improvements.

(ii) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - As of the date of this staff report, the TIA is not acceptable from a number of technical standpoints and thus cannot be relied upon for determining if the proposed transportation network is able to handle the proposed development.

(iii) Transportation Demand Management Analysis (TDM) - The TDM is not acceptable in that it does not provide: (1) acceptable justification of the internal trip capture rates; and (2) specific improvements that are needed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use.

(iv) Proffered Conditions - Numerous issues with the proffer statement in the companion rezoning application remain unresolved.

(v) Level of Service “D” - The applicant has proffered to maintain a level of service “D” or better in conjunction with each site or subdivision plan based on a subjective Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted with each site plan application. This could place the County and VDOT in a legal challenge to the denial of future site and subdivision plans if the County and VDOT do not agree with the applicant’s assumption and projections in the TIA.

2. Zoning and Site Development - The existing zoning would remain in place. A portion of the site, zoned M-2 and M/T, would be allowed to develop under the proffered conditions of Rezoning #PLN2005-00242, Bristow Industrial Park. 448.7 acres of the property is un-proffered M-1 zoning that could develop with a variety of industries allowed in that district, including the flex/office type uses being built at Innovation @ Prince William. The remainder of the site (999.2 acres) is A-1 zoning allowing agricultural uses, 10-acre residential lots or development allowed with an appropriate rezoning. 333 acres of the site, zoned A-1 are currently designated SRL, Suburban Residential Low in the Comprehensive Plan that could be rezoned in the future consistent with the SRL.

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 11

3. Community Development Authority - Denial of the CPA would be appropriate because the applicant proposes, with approval of the Board of County Supervisors, to establish a Community Development Authority (CDA) to fund proffered off-site road and recreation facility improvements. If the CDA is not established, the applicant has no obligation to make the proffered improvements. The CDA application is not consistent with the Board’s policy for establishing a CDA.

4. Community Input - The application has been transmitted to property owners within 200 feet of the site. Members of the Board of County Supervisors have conducted community meetings on the proposal. The Planning Office has received several comments from the community voicing their concerns about this application. Citizens at the Planning Commission public hearing on April 12, 2006 spoke both for and against the proposal.

5. Legal - Denial of the CPA would not impact the land uses allowed under the current M-1, M-2, M/T, and A-1 zoning of the property. A more detailed study of the land uses needed between the Innovation @ Prince William Sector Plan area and the I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan area is recommended for Board guidance in considering appropriate CPAs and rezoning actions in the future. Legal issues resulting from Board of County Supervisors’ action are appropriately addressed by the County Attorney.

6. Timing - The Board of County Supervisors does not have a deadline for acting on this CPA, but has until October 2006 to act on the companion rezoning application.

B. Recommend Initiation of a Study Area - The Board of County Supervisors should initiate a comprehensive study of the area between the Innovation Sector Plan and the I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan, using the consultant’s report as a beginning point for discussion. See the consultant’s report in Attachment C.

1. Policy and Comprehensive Plan - Initiation of an alternative plan for the area would further the County’s goal for managed growth that is orderly and beneficial to the County. The objectives of this goal are to protect the County’s financial health, provide an exceptional quality of life, improve the value of land and existing developed properties, preserve open space, and support and expand business. The alternative plan developed by the consultant is intended to achieve the development of a livable, planned community that offers upscale residential opportunities and provides public facilities, neighborhood goods and services, open space, recreational opportunities, and a reasonable amount of employment.

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 12

2. Community Development Authority - Not applicable with this alternative.

3. Zoning and Site Development - A more detailed study of the land uses between the Innovation @ Prince William Sector Plan area and the I- 66/Route 29 Sector Plan area is recommended for Board guidance in considering appropriate CPAs and rezoning actions in the future.

4. Community Input - The application has been transmitted to property owners within 200 feet of the site. Members of the Board of County Supervisors have conducted community meetings on the proposal. The Planning Office has received several comments from the community voicing their concerns regarding this application. Citizens at the Planning Commission public hearing on April 12, 2006 spoke both for and against the proposal.

5. Legal - Consideration of an alternative CPA would not impact the land uses allowed under the current M-1, M-2, M/T, and A-1 zoning of the property. A more detailed study of the land uses between the Innovation @ Prince William Sector Plan area and the I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan area is recommended for Board guidance in considering appropriate CPAs and rezoning actions in the future. Legal issues resulting from Board of County Supervisors’ action are appropriately addressed by the County Attorney.

6. Timing - The Board of County Supervisors does not have a deadline for acting on this CPA, but has until October 2006 to act on the companion rezoning application.

C. Approve CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood.

1. Policy and Comprehensive Plan - The approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment could allow the companion rezoning application to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The companion rezoning would result in consolidation of 501 acres of industrially-zoned land, with 999 acres of agriculturally-zoned land for the development of a planned community with a mix of uses. Approval would increase the retail and residential inventory and decrease the supply of industrial and office/flex land. The Comprehensive Plan would have a reduction of 671 acres of non-residential land and an increase of 738 acres of residential land. The Thoroughfare Plan would be amended as outlined in part I.A.1 of this report. Numerous transportation issues would remain unresolved.

2. Zoning and Site Development - A planned district zoning and development of a mixed-use community could be appropriate at this location. CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood Board of County Supervisors May 10, 2006 Page 13

3. Community Development Authority - The applicant proposes, with approval of the Board of County Supervisors, to establish a Community Development Authority (CDA) to fund proffered off-site road and recreation facility improvements. If the CDA is not established, the applicant has no obligation to make the proffered improvements. The CDA application is not consistent with the Board’s policy for establishing a CDA.

4. Community Input - The rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications have been transmitted to property owners within 200 feet of the site. Members of the Board of County Supervisors have conducted community meetings on the proposal. The Planning Office has received several comments from the community voicing their concerns regarding this application. Citizens at the Planning Commission public hearing on April 12, 2006 spoke both for and against the proposal.

5. Legal - Legal issues resulting from Board of County Supervisors’ action would be addressed by the County Attorney

6. Timing - The Board of County Supervisors does not have a deadline for acting on this CPA, but has until October 2006 to act on the companion rezoning application for this property.

V. Recommendation is that the Board of County Supervisors accept Alternative A and adopt the attached Resolution.

Staff: Robert C. Bainbridge, 703-792-7359

Attachments: A. Area Maps B. Staff Analysis C. Consultant’s Report and Alternatives D. BOCS Initiating Resolution E. Planning Commission Resolution

MOTION: May 16, 2006 Regular Meeting SECOND: Res. No. 06-

RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) #PLN2005-00215, BRENTSWOOD - BRENTSVILLE AND GAINESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS

ACTION:

WHEREAS, under Section 15.2-2229 of the Virginia Code, the Board of County Supervisors may consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, an applicant requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in 2005 in accordance with the Board’s policy for consideration for comprehensive plan amendments on an annual basis; and

WHEREAS, on March 15, 2005, the Board of County Supervisors initiated review of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and referred it to the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS this is a request to amend the Long-Range Land Use Map from Industrial Employment (+/-376 ac.), Flexible-Use Employment Center (+/-606 ac.), Suburban Residential Low (+/-333 ac.), and Environmental Resource (+/-184 ac.) to Regional Employment Center (+/-278 ac.), Flexible-Use Employment Center (+/-34 ac.), Suburban Residential High (+/-385 ac.), Suburban Residential Medium (+/-165 ac.), Suburban Residential Low (+/-521 ac.), and Environmental Resource (+/-116 ac.), and to amend the Thoroughfare Plan for roads identified as MA-28, Rollins Ford Road; MA-36, University Boulevard; MA-38, Wellington Road, and to add Brentswood Parkway north of Linton Hall Road with a connection to I-66. The site is located on the north side of Linton Hall Road and the south side of Norfolk Southern Railroad, west of Devlin Road and Piney Branch Lane and east of Wentworth Green at Virginia Gateway and University Boulevard and identified on County maps as GPINs 7496-17-7731, 7496-19-4118, 7496-25-2464, 7496-29-2826, 7496-37- 4872, 7496-68-3749, 7496-58-6173, 7496-65-3842, 7497-10-2628, 7497-11-3702, 7497-11- 6921, 7497-11-9149, and 7497-62-6700; and

WHEREAS, the requested plan amendment is accompanied by a rezoning application to develop between 3.6 million and 3.7 million square feet of non-residential uses and a maximum of 6,800 dwellings; and

WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the subject application and recommends denial, as stated in the staff report; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on April 12, 2006, and recommends denial as stated in Planning Commission Res. No. 06-072; and

WHEREAS, a Board of County Supervisors’ public hearing, duly advertised in a local newspaper for a period of two weeks, was held on May 16, 2006, and interested citizens were heard; and

WHEREAS, general welfare and good zoning practice are served by the denial of the application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors does hereby deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood.

Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:

For information: Planning Director

Sherman Patrick, Jr. Dennis Cate C/O Compton & Duling, L. C. 14914 Jefferson Davis Highway Woodbridge, Va. 22191

CERTIFIED COPY______Clerk to the Board

Attachment A – Maps VICINITY MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-1 Attachment A – Maps AERIAL MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-2 Attachment A – Maps EXISTING ZONING MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-3 Attachment A – Maps EXISTING THOROUGHFARE MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-4 Attachment A – Maps PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-5 Attachment A – Maps EXISTING LONG-RANGE LAND USE MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-6

Attachment A – Maps PROPOSED LONG-RANGE LAND USE MAP

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page A-7

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis

Staff Recommendation: Denial

The following is a staff analysis of this proposal’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This analysis is based on the relevant 2003 Comprehensive Plan Long-Range Land Use Plan Objectives. These objectives are used as the criteria in determining appropriateness of a Comprehensive Plan amendment.

1. Economic Development Opportunity - Ensure adequate land to allow the County to compete for economic development opportunities that will bring new professional and other high-paying jobs.

Economic Development Plan Policy 2, Action Strategy 8 calls for the facilitiation of Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezoning applications that would result in an increase in acreage for targeted industries and mixed-use development, having these uses as the major component thereof.

The applicant proposes to eliminate 572 acres of FEC, Flexible-Use Employment Center land, a classification specifically designed to provide areas of employment uses such as start-up businesses and offices. The applicant also proposes to eliminate 376 acres of EI, Industrial Employment land, a classification designed for future economic growth in industries. These classifications would be replaced with 278 acres of REC, Regional Employment Center and 1,071 acres of high, medium, and low density residential land. In effect, this proposal converts 671 acres of employment land to residential. Additional residential is also included in the REC-designated portions of the site with the companion rezoning application.

The non-residential program in the companion rezoning application includes up to 3.7 million square feet of employment and retail uses, arranged mostly in two town center- type of developments. The development will not follow the intended Comprehensive Plan mix and phasing in the REC. The overall mix proposed is 58% employment, 19% retail, and 23% residential, while the Comprehensive Plan calls for 75% employment and 25% retail and residential. The employment square footage is not phased with any portion of the 6,800 dwellings proposed and is, therefore, not guaranteed. The intensity of non-residential development in Brentswood North ranges from 0.20 to 0.40 floor area ratio which translates to low-rise, suburban-style office buildings with supporting retail.

Parsons Brinckerhoff was hired to asssit the County with the analysis of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning application. Their market analysis of the County concluded (1) a strong residential market would support the applicant’s entire residenital component within the next 20 years, while there is already a supply of residential land in the I-66 corridor for the next 15 to 25 years; (2) the applicant’s retail component (875,000 square feet) is an amount equal to region-serving retail, while the need for retail that would be generated by the residents of Brentswood (6,800 dwellings)

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-1

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

would be around 200,000 square feet; and (3) employment, in general, will not be expected to occur at Brentswood within the next 20 years because of other existing areas planned for office in the I-66 corridor (I-66/Route 15, I-66/Route 29, I-66/Sudley Road, and Innovation @ Prince William).

Under the current land use classifications of the site in the Comprehensive Plan, the 948 acres of EI and FEC would be expected to generate approximately 6 million square feet of industrial, flex, office, and secondary retail uses at build out after 2030.

The current Long-Range Land Use Map classifies 333 acres as SRL, Suburban Residential Low within the site, allowing 1 to 4 dwellings per acre or 333 to 1,332 dwellings. The applicant proposes 6,800 dwellings or five times the maximum number of dwellings currently intended in the Comprehensive Plan.

The following table outlines the employment, retail and residential opportunities under the existing Comprehensive Plan, existing zoning, and the applicant’s proposal:

Land Use Amounts Under Amounts Under Amounts Under Existing Comp Existing Zoning Brentswood Plan Proposal Employment 4,976,137 sq. ft. 1,897,743 sq. ft. 2,788,000 sq. ft. Retail 630,405 sq. fet 347,207 sq. ft. 875,000 sq. ft. Residential 332 to 1,328 99 dwellings 6,800 dwellings dwellings

2. Diversity of Housing - Provide a diversity of housing types at appropriate locations in the County.

The goal of the housing plan is to identifiy sufficient locations for diverse housing opportunities for all segments of the County’s population and to assist in promoting economic development. The companion rezoning and special use permit applications provide a variety of housing types at high, medium, and low suburban densities. The town center proposals add additional housing diversity(mulit-family) that is more urban in nature. The housing proposed in Brentswood, however, is proposed in areas currently planned for employment.

The Brentswood proposal provides 68 affordable dwelling or one percent of the total housing, but does not address housing for a wide range of populations such as an adequate amount of work-force housing and housing for low and moderate income elderly. The proposal removes 671 acres of industrial/employment land adds 738 acres of residential land.

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-2

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

3. Compatible Land Uses - Protect existing and planned land uses from the encroachment of incompatible land uses.

Introduction of residential development in close proximity to existing industrial uses and an outdoor entertainment facility (Nissan Pavilion) will cause incompatible land use relationships, particularly with regard to noise. Residential development in the southern part of the property is, however, compatible with existing development in the Linton Hall corridor.

4. Density and Intensity - Encourage development in undeveloped portions of the Development Area at a density and intensity compatible with established neighborhoods.

The requested change to the Long-Range Land Use Map would allow similar residential development in the southern part of the property to that of other neighborhoods in the Linton Hall corridor. The interior and northern portions of the property transition to higher density residential and non-residential development that would be appropriate near the two proposed town centers and VRE station.

The applicant, however, proposes a distribution of suburban residential development across the site, beginning with SRL in the south and SRM to SRH in the interior and the northern portions of the site. Residential densities would be better distributed with lower densities than those proposed in the south and higher densities than those proposed in the north, particularly near the proposed VRE station. Near the Prince William Station Town Center and VRE station the residential density proposed is 12 dwellings per acre (Land Bay D). A residential density closer the MTN, Mass Transit Node concept with a minimum density of 30 dwellings per acre would better serve objectives for mass transit if a VRE station is built on the site.

5. Environment and Open Space - Protect environmentally sensitive land and maintain open space.

Through field conducted Preservation Area Site Assessment (PASA) studies conducted by the applicant on the property, the County mapped ER, Environmental Resource is reduced by 68 acres (from 184 acres to 116 acres).

The Atlantic Research Corporation (ARC) operated a research, development, and manufacturing facility for rocket propellants, rocket motors, and gas generators on the Brentswood North portion of the property from 1951 to 2005. Environmental conditions at the ARC site have been the subject of a series of investigations and cleanups over the last two decades or more. Clean-up procedures, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, for volatile organic compounds and perchlorates in the soil and water in this area are ongoing and will continue after new development occurs on the site. Whether development is appropriate while remediation is on-going is unknown, but the property and development approvals will be subject to oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-3

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

Approximately 1,200 acres, or 80 percent of the site is in forest cover. The applicant proposes in the companion rezoning application to clear over 1,000 acres of existing woodland. This amount of clearing will have a significant impact on water quality, wildlife habitat, and the overall appearance of the area.

The applicant proposes approximately 122 acres of public park land, 4 HOA-owned recreation centers, and comprehsive trail network on the property. The development, however, generates a need for 250 acres of public park land. Part of this impact will be addressed with the construction of on and off-site recreation facilities.

6. Mixed-Use Neighborhoods - Encourage in appropriate Development Area locations for livable, planned-communities with a mix of residential, nonresidential, and public and open space uses at a neighborhood scale.

The two proposed town centers, and particularly the one proposed in Brentswood North, achieve this objective. A mixed-use town center with multi-family housing oriented around a Virginia Railway Express station would be a very livable community providing a sense of place and less reliance on motor vehicles.

Overall, however, the applicant’s proposal is for extensive acreages devoted to exclusively residential development. The applicant’s plan should be more finely tuned to provide many more convenient neighborhood locations outside the town centers for small office complexes, day care, religious facilities, and neighborhood retail (e.g. carry-out restaurants, dry cleaners, banks, florist, bakery, etc.). This would provide more of a sense of community and reduce vehicle trips to locations outside the community.

7. Public Services in the Development Area - Focus future public services within the Development Area, giving priority to areas of economic development or redevelopment initiatives.

The companion rezoning application would consolidate existing disparate zoning districts into a cohesive planned community. Brentswood North would be a redevelopment of the Altantic Research “brownfield” site into a mixed-use town center focused on a VRE station that would also be surrounded by new residential and non-residential development. The proposed REC, Regional Employment Center portions of both Brentswood North and Brentswood South could provide economic development opportunities. Public services are already focused in this area and would be expanded in accordance with the companion rezoning application to adequately serve the proposed development. Most importantly, the development would provide missing links in the area transportation network.

8. Adequate Levels of Service - Encourage adequate public utilities, facilities, and associated levels of service to serve existing and anticipated populations and businesses.

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-4

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

An increase in the housing inventory will degrade the County’s goal to balance the jobs to housing ratio and increase the County’s dependence on residential property tax revenue to provide basic services. The number of dwellings proposed (6,800) is five times higher than the maximum intended in the current Comprehensive Plan (1,328). This translates to a population of approximately 17,000 people, generating a demand for additional public facilities and services. The proposal generates a need for two elementary schools, over half a middle school, nearly half a high school, a library, a fire station, 250 acres of public parkland, and substantial road improvements. The daily trip generation from the site alone would be three times higher than projected under the current Comprehensive Plan.

The applicant proposes some roadways and alignments that differ from the current Thoroughfare Plan. The completion of these roads could be expected to be accelerated with the Brentswood development. Some of the road improvements will require off-site right-of-way that the applicant does not own or would require some kind of federal or state involvement.

The applicant has submitted an application to establish a CDA to fund off-site infrastructure improvements. A staff analysis of the CDA application is contained in Attachment B of the rezoning report under “Materially Relevant Issues”. Regarding the use of a Community Development Authority to obtain construction of I-66/Route 29/Linton Hall interchanges, VDOT representatives have indicated VDOT will not enter into an agreement with the Brentswood Community Development Authority. VDOT suggested an alternative whereby the County would enter into an agreement with VDOT to administer the project. In this alternative, the County would then enter into an agreement with the Brentswood CDA. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the scale and complexity of the I/66/Route 29/Linton Hall interchange. The County is not positioned to administer a large federally funded interstate highway project.

The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted with the companion rezoning application contemplates a new entrance onto I-66, which would require approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Representatives of FHWA have indicated the proposed entrance would not likely be approved due to its geometry and the need for the applicant to prepare an acceptable analysis of alternative access. The Virginia Department of Transportation has a number of technical issues with regard to the Traffic Impact Analysis as well as the layout and design of the overall transportation network and the town center designs, including such items as through lanes, intersections, turning

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-5

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

volumes, turn lanes, median crossovers, traffic signals, roundabouts, truck traffic, bicycle paths, planting areas, and drainage easements.

The companion rezoning application, however, contributes to levels of service consistent with or exceeding that outlined in Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions dated June 1, 2004. In addition, the applicant has proffered a package of in-kind contributions of land and facility construction that may exceed the level of service standards in some aspects.

9. Sector Plans - Use the sector plans to address “areas of concern” that require more detailed planning.

The site lies immediately east of the I-66/ Route 29 Sector Plan area and west of the Innovation @ Prince William sector plan. Given the site’s close proximity and location between these more intensely planned areas, it would be appropriate to suggest more detailed comprehensive planning for the subject area. The Comprehensive Plan calls for sector plans to be prepared for mass transit lines and stations. The Brentswood project proposes a VRE commuter rail station. The County is currently at a competitive advantage and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. The County should be looking at designating or preserving land near I-66 that would provide excellent sites for expanding technology employment opportunities in the area.

10. Quality of Life - Maintain and improve the quality of life for all County residents by preserving open space, protecting valuable environmental resources, and encouraging growth in appropriate areas and locations.

The site is in the Development Area and is an appropriate location for future growth. In terms of future growth, Parsons Brinckerhoff was hired to assist the County with an analysis of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning applications and suggest alternatives. The information provided by the consultant could be used to adopt an alternative long-range land use map or as a starting point for staff to complete an analysis of the entire area and recommend a more comprehensive update of the long- range plan for future growth in this area. The County is currently at a competitive advantage and is experiencing demand for high-tech flex-type office/light industrial space such as the businesses locating in Innovation @ Prince William. The County should be looking at designating or preserving land near I-66 that would provide excellent sites for expanding technology employment opportunities as Innovation is built out.

The Community Design Plan states that an attractive, well-designed County will improve the visual character of the community and create a strong, positive image in the regional context. High standards of architecture and site design will assit the County in its efforts to attract and retain significant non-retail economic development. The two town centers proposed by the applicant could achieve these objectives.

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-6

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

Design Policy-12 calls for fitting new development into the natural land forms, particularly the existing woodland areas of the County. The Community Design Plan states that existing woodland areas contribute to the overall beauty of the County. The Environment Plan states that with development, the County ensures its natural beauty is preserved, water quality is protected, property values and quality of life are enhanced, and ecological diversity is preserved.

Approximately 1,200 acres, or 80 percent of the Brentswood site is currently in forest cover. The applicant proposes to clear over 1,000 acres of the existing forest cover. This amount of clearing will have a significant impact on the overall appearance and quality of the environment in the area. Perhaps lower residential density with large wooded lots in the southern section of the property and higher density around the proposed transit station would be more appropriate from both a land use and environmental standpoint.

11. Transit-Oriented Development - To achieve, at appropriate locations, high-density, mixed-use development near existing and future commuter rail, Metrorail, and other regional transit centers that will facilitate greater use of mass transit by County residents and bring new high-density, mixed use development nodes.

The site is generally well-located near existing and future transit corridors. The site is bounded by I-66 and Norfolk Southern railroad on the north. The applicant proposes a new direct connection of the site to I-66. Areas along the railroad are being considered for Virginia Railway Express (VRE) stations. Rollins Ford Road and University Boulevard, both Comprehensive Plan roads, are planned to traverse the site. Wellington Road also traverses the site and Linton Hall Road lies along the southern boundary. Devlin Road borders the site to the east.

The companion rezoning application offers land and $50 million for a future VRE station on the property. VRE is considering extension to Gainesville and Haymarket, but funding is yet to be committed. The cost for the extension is estimated at $174 to $281 million, including the necessary track and rail yard facility improvements, construction of three new passenger stations and associated parking, and purchase new rolling stock.

The Comprehensive Plan has a MTN, Mass Transit Node classification intended to recognize areas surrounding existing Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail stations, and to provide guidance for future VRE stations and other mass transit centers. MTN projects should be planned and developed in a comprehensive, coordinated manner. MTN projects should provide areas in the County for residents to have the opportunity to live, work, and recreate in the same area without being dependent on the automobile and should focus on integrating a VRE station into the development as an amenity and focal point. MTN projects should, therefore, be developed at a high density and intensity and should contain a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses. The acceptable housing type within any MTN project is multifamily, with a minimum density of 30 dwellings per acre.

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-7

Attachment B – Staff Analysis

Land Use Plan Action Strategy 30 calls for properties to develop at the higher end of the density range in areas designated SRH, REC, FEC, O, and RCC to encourage mass transit opportunities. This allows placement of higher density in appropriate areas, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas elsewhere in the County. The density of development proposed in Brentswood near the proposed VRE station site, however, is relatively low. Densities are more on the order of suburban residential development (12 dwellings per acre), rather than higher urban densities that would provide opportunity for greater numbers of people living near the VRE station. Perhaps lower residential density with large wooded lots in the southern section of the property and higher density around the proposed transit station would be more appropriate from both a land use and environmental standpoint.

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page B-8

Attachment C

Consultant’s Report and Alternatives

CPA #PLN2005-00215, Brentswood

Brentswood Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A Long Term Market and Alternatives Analysis

March 2006

Prepared for Prince William County Planning Office

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis This page intentionally left blank.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prince William County commissioned the Parsons Brinckerhoff/George Mason University team to evaluate the 1,500 acre (AC) Brentswood proposal in the western county and, if warranted, prepare alternative development concepts. We have reviewed the applicant’s submission and relevant County plans and met with the applicant team to hear their intentions and approach. We have also conducted a market assessment for the western county and its regional context. To address the implications of the assessment, we have conducted an analysis of the county’s “holding capacity” for future development based on its current Comprehensive Plan. Finally, we developed several alternatives to the current proposal make recommendations on preferred options. The information and findings from this work are all contained in this report and appendix.

Our charge did not include a consideration of the proffer package accompanying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or any detailed analysis and evaluation of traffic or fiscal impacts.

We find that the proposal’s non-residential program, particularly for office space but also for retail, is unrealistic and without market support in both the short and long run. Their residential program is undoubtedly market-supportable. Market viability, while crucial, should not be the only criterion. “Opportunity cost” is another. We thus question the overall viability of the proposal package and the tradeoff it forces in the loss of substantial flexible and industrial employment acreage.

Our market and holding capacity assessments yielded several observations that apply county wide: • The county plans for the western county designate excessive capacity for regional market, office land uses • The county plans for the western county show large blocks of industrial/manufacturing lands in excess of market and location realities • Current plans may not adequately protect the potential for flex-office space • Both office and industrial capacity are relatively undersupplied in the I-95 corridor • The county plans show an excessive amount of retail lands further impacting an overprovided sector • The county plans have an adequate and reasonable capacity for future residential growth

While a certain amount of excess capacity is desirable and healthy to provide choice and keep prices competitive, the excessive regional employment and retail capacity shown on the current plans can lead to fractured, uncoordinated development and spoiled opportunity, in which the whole is less than the sum of its dispersed parts. Our four alternatives for the proposal site and its vicinity respond to our market and holding capacity assessments in various ways. In order of preference they are:

i

1. Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential repositions much of the proposal site for flex-office uses similar to Innovation’s with about half the property in lower density residential use, a program with overall benefits to the county 2. Low Intensity-Open Space argues for a lower density oasis of higher end housing between two intense “nodes” (Gainesville and Innovation), with less traffic intensity and a simpler road network and beneficial long term fiscal/economic development spin-offs 3. Planned Regional Center implements a true urban concentration at higher residential and non-residential intensities than currently proposed, but specifies the tradeoffs and the real transportation and public sector roles needed for success 4. Market Trends reflects what we believe would really happen to the current Brentswood proposal over time – an almost wholly residential development at medium density with generally unfavorable impacts on the county.

Of the above alternatives, we recommend alternative 1 as the most favorable. It reduces the excessive area now dedicated to industrial/flex, a limited market, recommends proactive county action to protect the residual land for Innovation Park type uses, and assigns the remainder to lower density, higher end housing with substantial open space. Its traffic impacts would be less than the proposed Brentswood project since it would have half the units and fewer jobs (although we regard the Brentswood job projections as infeasible). We also believe this is a preferable plan than the current comprehensive plan. Our next preferred alternative is #2, the low intensity-open space one. While it sacrifices a long term employment site of undefined potential, it establishes a clear, higher end housing image for an area with an uncertain image, reinforced with a substantial county commitment to the acquisition or dedication of substantial open space/public park areas. It reduces traffic impacts and needed improvements substantially. While extremely ambitious, the planned center alternative (#3) can provide substantial public benefits if well-executed with direct county support. The Market trends alternative (#4) fares poorest, merely adding a lot of medium density housing to the area with limited public benefits. We do not view the current Brentswood proposal as favorable.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... i Table of Contents...... iii Introduction...... 1 Purpose of Project...... 1 Summary of Brentswood Development Proposal and Comprehensive Plan Amendment...... 4 Comprehensive Plan Policies and Map Designations...... 5 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan ...... 5 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Components and Policies ...... 8 Long-Range Land Use Plan...... 9 Sector Plans...... 10 Innovation Sector Plan...... 10 I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan...... 12 Proposed Brentswood Comprehensive Plan Amendment ...... 14 Comprehensive Plan Implications ...... 16 Supply Analysis ...... 18 Methodology...... 18 Holding Capacity Methodology...... 18 Yield Methodology ...... 18 Supply Projections ...... 25 Housing Supply...... 25 Office Supply...... 25 Flex-Office Supply...... 26 Industrial Supply...... 26 Retail Supply...... 28 Comparison of Supply and Brentswood Proposal ...... 28 Demand Analysis...... 30 Methodology...... 30 Comparison of 2030 Population, Housing and Employment Forecasts ...... 32 Demand Projections...... 33 Housing Demand ...... 33 Office Space Demand ...... 34 Flex-Office Demand ...... 35 Retail Demand ...... 35 Industrial Demand...... 37 Comparison of Demand and Brentswood Proposal...... 37 Comparisons of Supply and Demand ...... 40 Brentswood Proposal Relationship to Supply and Demand ...... 42 Housing...... 42 Office ...... 42 Retail...... 44 Market Analysis Conclusions ...... 45 Alternative Development Scenarios ...... 47

iii

Givens, Indeterminates and Evaluation Criteria ...... 47 The Four Alternative Scenarios ...... 48 Alternative 1: Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential ...... 48 Alternative 2: Low Intensity-Open Space...... 50 Alternative 3: Planned Regional Center ...... 50 Alternative 4: Market Trends...... 53 Evaluation of the Scenarios ...... 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Brentswood Site...... 2 Figure 2. County Study Areas...... 3 Figure 3. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Long-Range Land Use Plan ...... 6 Figure 4. Innovation Conceptual Land Use Plan...... 11 Figure 5. Long-Range Land Use Plan Map for the I-66/Route 29Sector Plan Area ...... 13 Figure 6. Proposed Brentswood Land Use Plan ...... 15 Figure 7. Long-Range Land Use Map for the I-66 Corridor ...... 17 Figure 8. Prince William County Land Utilization...... 19 Figure 9. Undeveloped Parcels ...... 20 Figure 10. Supply of Vacant Residential Designated Land in Prince William County (2005)...... 23 Figure 11. Supply of Vacant Non-Residential Designated Land in Prince William County (2005)...... 24 Figure 12. Major Northern Virginia Employment Centers...... 27 Figure 13. Alternative 1, Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential Scenario...... 49 Figure 14. Alternative 2, Low Intensity-Open Space Scenario ...... 51 Figure 15. Alternative 3, Planned Regional Center Scenario ...... 52 Figure 16. Alternative 4, Market Trends Scenario ...... 54 Figure 17. Summary Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios ...... 55

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Innovation Nonresidential Land Use Allocations...... 12 Table 2: Summary of Comprehensive Plan Land Use (Brentswood Site)...... 14 Table 3. Projected Yields of Undeveloped Lands ...... 21 Table 4. Projected Yields of Undeveloped Lands, Brentswood Site (Existing Land Use Designations) ...... 22 Table 5. Proposed Brentswood Development Program...... 28 Table 6. Current Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs (2005-2030) ...... 30 Table 7. 2030 Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs...... 31 Table 8. Projected 2030 Employment by Sector ...... 32 Table 9. Average Home Price of Northern Virginia Homes (November 2005)...... 33 Table 10. 2030 Retail Demand ...... 36 Table 11. 2030 Industrial Demand ...... 37 Table 12. Proposed Brentswood Development Program Summary ...... 38 Table 13. Brentswood Site Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs (2006-2030)...... 38 Table 14. 2025 Retail Demand ...... 39 Table 15. Supply and Demand Comparison (2030)...... 41

v

This page intentionally left blank.

vi March 2006

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Project Prince William County, Virginia has received a request for a major Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning application for a mixed-use development, known as Brentswood, located on 1,500 acres (AC) in the western portion of the county. The Brentswood site is located in the Brentsville Magisterial District and lays generally between Interstate 66 (I-66) to the north, Linton Hall Road (VA Route 619) to the south, Devlin Road to the east and the Virginia Gateway development and U.S. Route 29 (Lee Highway) to the west, as shown in Figure 1.

The land use mix and development program proposed for the Brentswood site are at odds with the largely flexible and industrial employment land uses proposed for this site in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. This raises fundamental questions about not only the site and its immediate area, but also the overall future development trajectory of Prince William County.

The County has contracted with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PB), whose team includes the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis (GMU), to assist in reviewing the application. This assistance includes a long-term market assessment of the viability of the proposed project relative to current and future market conditions and possible alternatives to it. The goal is to ensure that the County pursues the most advantageous development policy possible, consistent with the vision and goals of the County Comprehensive Plan.

This report provides the results of the analyses of existing and future housing, employment and non-residential market conditions for the Brentswood site and for the western part of Prince William County, along the I-66 Corridor (also referred to as the regional study area) extending from Manassas to the Haymarket area, shown as area number 2 in Figure 2. The Corridor includes not only the Brentswood site, but also the Innovation Business Park and George Mason University’s Prince William campus. The report also compares the projected future demand for residential and non-residential development to the available supply in the County and evaluates the potential influence of the Brentswood project on that supply and demand. Finally, the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan to the Brentswood project and to the projected market is evaluated as well as the potential for alternative development strategies given the projected market conditions.

1 March 2006

Figure 1. Brentswood Site

2 March 2006

Figure 2. County Study Areas

3 March 2006

Summary of Brentswood Development Proposal and Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Brentswood project encompasses approximately 1,500 AC and is proposed to include a combination of residential and non-residential (e.g., office, retail, other non- residential uses) land uses. Up to 6,800 residential dwelling units (DU) and 3.725 million square feet (SF) of non-residential space are proposed by 2026. The development consists of two distinct areas that are identified as Brentswood North and Brentswood South. Brentswood North consists of approximately 416 AC located north of Wellington Road. Brentswood South consists of approximately 1,083 AC located south of Wellington Road.

Approval of changes to the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan is being pursued to change the predominant future land use designations within the Brentswood site boundaries from flexible employment center and industrial uses to the proposed mixture of residential and non-residential or employment uses. A rezoning request for the properties is being pursued concurrently. In addition to the 6,800 DU and 3.725 million SF proposed by 2026, the rezoning and land use amendment would provide the opportunity for additional development on the site beyond 2026, including 475,000 SF of additional office space, 450,000 SF of additional retail space and 2.5 million SF of non- retail commercial development.

4 March 2006

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND MAP DESIGNATIONS

Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan A comprehensive plan is a general guide to the location, character, and extent of proposed or anticipated land use, including public facilities within a jurisdiction. It provides guidance for land use development decisions made by the jurisdiction’s governing body. In Prince William County that is the Board of County Supervisors.

Virginia law requires each jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of land within its boundaries. The comprehensive plan guides and implements “coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development” that, given present and “probable future needs and resources, best promote(s) the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare” of the residents. It is further required that comprehensive plans be reviewed every five years, to ensure that the plan is responsive to current circumstances and that its goals are still supported by the citizenry. The current Prince William County (PWC) Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003. It is due for an update in 2008.

A comprehensive plan contains long-range recommendations for land use, transportation systems, community services, historic resources, environmental resources, and other facilities, services, and resources, as required or determined. It is implemented through an official map, a capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, and a zoning ordinance and map.

The PWC Comprehensive Plan contains 19 land use categories, mapped in Figure 3, and divides the County into two general land use areas, each with a different land use character and different land development policies: the Development Area and the Rural Area.

The Development Area is that portion of Prince William County that has already been developed or is expected to be developed at residential densities greater than those in the remainder of the County (see Figure 2, areas 1 and 2). It also contains established commercial, office, and industrial areas, as well as undeveloped or under-developed land expected to accommodate the County’s projected growth, both residential and tax base- enhancing economic activities. The Development Area is divided into urban, suburban, and semi-rural sub-areas. The Comprehensive Plan encourages infill of the Development Area, to maximize the opportunities to provide public services in a cost-efficient manner and to provide an environmentally sound development pattern. Both public water and sewer would be provided in the Development Area.

5 March 2006

Figure 3. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Long-Range Land Use Plan 6 March 2006

Within the Development Area, the Urban Areas are either already the most intensely developed portions of Prince William County, or those areas planned for intensive development in the future. One of the intents of these urban designations is to encourage development at densities high enough to bring regional mass transit to Prince William County and better link the County to its region via mass transit. The Urban Areas contain the following Long-Range Land Use Plan Map classifications: • Mass Transit Node (MTN) • Regional Employment Center (REC) • Regional Commercial Center (RCC) • Regional Recreation Center (RRC) • General Commercial (GC)

Suburban Areas accommodate moderate-density residential, neighborhood-oriented retail and service uses, and smaller scale employment uses found in the more traditional neighborhoods and/or along major intra-County transportation corridors. The Suburban Areas contain the following Long-Range Land Use Plan Map classifications: • Flexible Use Employment Center (FEC) • Industrial Employment (EI) • Community Employment Center (CEC) • General Commercial (GC) • Office (O) • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) • Suburban Residential High (SRH) • Suburban Residential Medium (SRM) • Suburban Residential Low (SRL)

The Semi-Rural Residential (SRR) classification provides for areas where a wide range of larger-lot residential development can occur, as a transition between the agricultural and estate lot development in the Rural Area and the more dense residential development found in the Development Area.

The Rural Area is that portion of Prince William County containing agricultural, open space, forestry, and large-lot residential land uses, as well as two federal parks. The Rural Area designation helps preserve the County’s agricultural economy and resources, the quality of the groundwater supply, and the present open space and rural character of Prince William County. The Rural Area may be served by public water facilities but not by public sewer facilities, except under the emergency conditions identified in the Sewer Plan or to serve specific public facilities. Rural Area Long-Range Land Use Plan Map classifications are Agricultural or Estate (AE) and Convenience Retail (CR).

The Long-Range Land Use Plan Map classifications also include four county-wide classifications: • Environmental Resource (ER) • Designated Cultural Resource (DCR) • Parks and Open Space (POS) • Public Land (PL)

7 March 2006

Applicable Comprehensive Plan Components and Policies The 2003 Prince William County Comprehensive Plan is based upon four general goals for the future development of the County. 1. Strong economic growth 2. Affordable, practical and fiscally sound residential and economic development 3. Prince William County as an attractive, livable community 4. Cost-effective and Plan-based transportation systems

The four Comprehensive Plan goals are expressed through each of the chapters or component plans developed as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan. The plan consists of the following chapters: • Community Design • Cultural Resources • Economic Development • Environment • Fire and Rescue • Housing • Libraries • Long-Range Land Use • Parks and Open Space • Potable Water • Schools • Sewers • Telecommunications • Transportation

In each chapter, specific goals, policies and action strategies are presented that further the overall Comprehensive Plan goals for the County. The policies and strategies are, for the most part, not location-specific; rather they outline the need for the county to focus on the following topics: • New and expanded employment opportunities, particularly new professional and other high-paying jobs, with an emphasis on certain “targeted industries” (i.e., R&D, testing, design or assembly/manufacturing for biotechnology, information, and other technology facilities and corporate headquarters or technical/operations facilities) • A higher ratio of jobs to houses and non-residential to residential development • A diversity of housing unit types and higher income housing • Existing, proposed or future mass transportation hubs developed with high-density mixed use, transit-oriented land uses. • Infill development, mixed-use development, and the re-development of already developed areas, to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure. • A variety of land use types and densities • Adequate public utilities, facilities (including transportation facilities), and associated levels of service, to serve existing and anticipated populations and businesses.

8 March 2006

In addition to those general objectives, the Comprehensive Plan provides the following guidance regarding land use, Comprehensive Plan amendments/rezonings and future development, and capital improvements: • Ensure adequate land uses, by type, necessary to provide a supply of land that allows the County to compete for advanced technological industries and other economic development opportunities that will bring new jobs and expand the County’s non- residential tax base. • Give first priority to existing or new targeted industries when processing development applications for new and/or expanding businesses and facilitate Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings that would result in an increase in acreage for prospective targeted industries and mixed use development having these uses. • Protect existing and planned land uses from the encroachment of incompatible land uses. • Prioritize transportation, telecommunications, electricity, water, and sewer infrastructure-related capital improvements into areas identified REC, CEC, O, FEC, EI and MTN1. • Encourage mixed-use, planned developments in appropriate locations, to provide an efficient development pattern that can foster economic development, provide diversity in land use, and reduce the number and the length of automobile trips. Appropriate locations include the MTN, REC, RCC and CEC land use classifications, as shown on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map, and near existing proposed, and potential mass transportation modes. • Identify areas of the County, such as the Route 1 corridor, the Route 28 corridor, and the Route 234 corridor between I-66 and the City of Manassas, that are appropriate for redevelopment and density increases to encourage development and prepare revitalization studies. • Utilize the sector planning process to address "areas of concern" which require more detailed planning than is afforded by the Comprehensive Plan.

Long-Range Land Use Plan The Long-Range Land Use Plan includes four components: 1. Long-Range Land Use Plan map and associated text (Figure 3). 2. Land Use Compatibility Matrix. 3. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Compatibility Matrix. 4. Intent, Goal, Objectives, and Action Strategies.

The Long-Range Land Use Plan Map illustrates existing and potential development by land use classification and by density or building height. The Land Use Compatibility Matrix provides a general evaluation technique to ensure compatibility in areas where different land use categories meet. The reader is referred to Figure 1 in the Long-Range Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to view this matrix. Most relevant to the discussions in this report are the matrix designations that REC-designated land uses are

1 This land use classification has not yet been mapped in the County.

9 March 2006

compatible with other employment/commercial uses (FEC, RCC, CEC, O, GC), EI and some residential uses (SRH, SRM, SRL) only with the implementation of mitigation measures such as significant buffering and transitions between the different land uses. FEC and EI land use designations are incompatible with all residential land use categories (SRH, SRM, SRL, SRR, A/E).

The Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Compatibility Matrices are used by County staff, landowners, developers, and citizens for a variety of purposes, including guidance regarding the most appropriate land uses, densities, and other development considerations on zoned parcels where development proposals and site plans or subdivision plans have not yet been prepared. The matrices are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 of the Long-Range Land Use chapter.

Sector Plans A series of Sector Plans have also been developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan for specific areas of Prince William County. The sector plans expand upon the overall Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and action strategies by providing site or area- specific strategies or recommendations.

The Brentswood site is not located within a defined Sector Plan area and therefore is not the subject of such specific guidance. It is located between the Innovation Sector Plan area on the east and the I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan area on the west.

Innovation Sector Plan A major focus of the Innovation Sector Plan is the attraction of desirable advanced technology uses which respond to the County’s targeted industries program and which support activities at the GMU Prince William County campus, which is part of the Innovation Sector Plan area.

The Innovation Sector Plan area is intended to accommodate “primary employment uses” that include, but are not limited to: R&D, office, light manufacturing, university-related business and other non-retail developments normally associated with the REC. Retail uses are not primary employment uses. Total nonresidential development within the Innovation Sector Plan area is suggested in the range of 12,900,000 gross square feet (SF) minimum to 22,800,000 gross SF maximum, allocated as outlined in Table 1. Housing opportunities within convenient walking distance of the campus and employment opportunities will be accommodated by housing in the centrally located town center area. However, the overall number and location of residential units is restricted to prevent potential land use incompatibilities. A conceptual land use plan for Innovation is shown in Figure 4.

10 March 2006

Figure 4. Innovation Conceptual Land Use Plan 11 March 2006

Table 1: Innovation Nonresidential Land Use Allocations

Zoning District1 Minimum Area Maximum Area (Gross SF) (Gross SF) Town Center Uses (TM, TH and TO) 3,200,000 6,400,000 Employment Center Uses (HO, EH, EO, EL, 9,400,000 15,700,000 EM and ED) Support Commercial Uses (CR) 300,000 700,000 Total 12,900,000 22,800,000

Source: Innovation Sector Plan, Prince William County, September 6, 2005 1 See Innovation Sector Plan for more information on zoning districts.

A future North-South Road, parallel to Prince William County Parkway, is designated in the sector plan as the urban “main street” of Innovation to connect a town center core adjacent to the future GMU main entrance with a future VRE station and bus transit hub to the north. The County is coordinating with the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) and Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) to develop a plan for the incorporation of transit facilities and services within the Innovation Sector Plan area, including a future VRE commuter rail station within or immediately adjacent to the Innovation site.

I-66/Route 29 Sector Plan The sector plan area is strategically located with direct Interstate and regional highway routes and rail lines connecting Gainesville and Prince William County to the north, south, east, and west. This accessibility will be expanded with the completion of the planned I-66/Route 29 interchange improvement. Reconfiguration of the I-66/Route 29 interchange, grade separation of the Norfolk-Southern railroad as it crosses Route 29, and construction of a grade-separated interchange at the Route 29/Gallerher Road/Linton Hall Road intersection are proposed.

The sector plan, although not developed to the level of detail as the Innovation sector plan, promotes economic growth for the area based on its accessibility. Commercial investment that is compatible with and supportive of a quality residential environment within the sector plan area and nearby areas is encouraged, especially those businesses that promote the creation of a Town Center. High-density regional employment, regional retail, mixed-use, and (light) industrial employment uses are planned around the I-66 and Linton Hall Road intersections with Route 29. Lower density commercial and residential development will transition to the western portion of the sector plan area. Heavy industrial uses are discouraged outside of areas already planned as EI land uses. The sector plan also promotes acquiring one community park of 30 to 50 acres within the sector plan area to provide both active and passive recreation opportunities and readily accessible from the major collector or arterial roadways. Specific land use recommendations are shown on Figure 5.

12 March 2006

Figure 5. Long-Range Land Use Plan Map for the I-66/Route 29Sector Plan Area.

13 March 2006

Proposed Brentswood Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Brentswood applicant proposes to change the areas of the site designated as FEC in the current Comprehensive Plan to a mix of REC, SRH, SRM and SRL uses (see Figure 6). Existing EI areas are proposed to change to REC and SRH. The SRL portions of the site remain, for the most part, unchanged. The amended plan enables the Brentswood development to provide a greater mix of housing densities and an emphasis on regional employment uses. Table 2 summarizes the mix of land uses for the site under the existing Comprehensive Plan and with the proposed amendment.

A companion rezoning application proposes to rezone the site to planned mixed district (PMD), planned mixed residential (PMR) and planned business district (PBD). The existing FEC and EI land use designations and compatible zoning districts2 do not allow the housing or density of office/flex employment development requested by the Brentswood applicant.

Table 2: Summary of Comprehensive Plan Land Use (Brentswood Site)

Long-Range Land Use Plan Designation Existing Comprehensive Proposed Brentswood Plan (AC) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (AC) Industrial Employment (EI) 376.25 0 Flexible Employment Center (FEC) 605.63 0 Regional Employment Center (REC) N/A 333.03 Suburban Residential Low (SRL) 333.16 521.34 Suburban Residential Medium (SRM) N/A 165.10 Suburban Residential High (SRH) N/A 363.24 Environmental Resource (ER) 1 184.13 116.46 Total 1,499.17 1,499.17

Notes: 1 Specific boundary will be determined during development review.

2 See the Compatibility Matrix: Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations for residential and non- residential uses included in the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan, Long-Range Land Use Plan, Figures 2 and 3 (June 24, 2003).

14

March 2006

Comprehensive Plan Implications The existing Comprehensive Plan land use map for the I-66 Corridor, including the Brentswood site, is shown in Figure 7. As the map illustrates, the Brentswood site is part of a swath of land currently planned for low density flex/industrial/office/residential uses. It is flanked on one end by higher density (although not that much higher density) flex/industrial/office/commercial uses as represented by the Innovation Business Park and on the other by high density office/commercial/flex/residential uses represented by the I-66/Route 29 sector plan area. Town centers are proposed for both the Innovation and I-66/Route 29 areas.

The proposed Brentswood project creates new pockets of higher density office/commercial/flex/residential uses, with two town centers, between the Innovation and I-66/Route 29 sites. The REC and SRH uses proposed for Brentswood are nearly completely surrounded by FEC and EI uses on the adjacent, off-site parcels. The proposed land use changes create new land use incompatibilities between the SRH and FEC/EI uses. The proposed REC use is compatible with FEC and EI uses only if significant buffering or other mitigation measures are provided around the REC use.

Relative to the Comprehensive Plan, the Brentswood development program, if fully implemented, would offer new and expanded regional employment opportunities for the county. Additionally, the development program supports County goals to increase the ratio of jobs to houses, non-residential to residential development, and diversity of housing unit types. The mixed use town center and proposed VRE station create a mass transportation hub, although not at the high intensities of urban transit-oriented development. Whether there will be sufficient market demand for the proposed Brentswood development program to be realized will shortly be addressed in this report. The question of market demand is tied to that of supply. If there is an overabundance of similarly designated and available lands, then demand may be diffused among many choices. We, therefore, address the supply question next and then the demand question.

16 March 2006

Figure 7. Long-Range Land Use Map for the I-66 Corridor

17 March 2006

SUPPLY ANALYSIS

Methodology

Holding Capacity Methodology Holding capacity was determined by utilizing GIS data provided by Prince William County’s Office of Information Technology (GIS Division). The county parcel layer was queried and all properties categorized as undeveloped were extracted out. Additional parcels were then removed from this undeveloped set if they were permanently protected open space. The parcels were then overlaid with the County’s future land use layer generated from their 2003 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. After each undeveloped parcel had been assigned a Comprehensive Plan land use code, acreages were summed up across the Comprehensive Plan categories. Finally, various multipliers were applied to the acreages to yield dwelling units, office area, retail space, etc., as described under Yield Methodology. The amount of undeveloped land in the County compared to developed/protected lands is shown in Figures 8. Approximately 23 percent of the total County land area or 43,600 AC is undeveloped; nearly 19,000 AC or 10 percent of undeveloped land is in the designated development areas. Figure 9 graphically depicts undeveloped parcels by Comprehensive Plan land use categories.

In addition to identifying undeveloped land, we also estimated how much underdeveloped land there was in the County, as the pie chart suggests. Underdeveloped land may mean one building on a large tract that might allow more development or could be readily redeveloped. The tax assessor’s database was analyzed to identify parcels whose land value exceeded their improvement value, a crude measure of underdevelopment. Parcels with structures built after 2000 and very small parcels (less than ½ acre) were excluded. The resultant acreage of 41,403 or 22% of the county’s land area should be regarded as a tentative finding.

Yield Methodology Yields for the undeveloped acreages, minus protected open space, and uses were generated using the Prince William County Comprehensive Plan land use categories. The land use categories listed their allowable uses and densities/intensities. Prince William County Planning Office staff specified the appropriate intensity/density and use assumptions based on their analysis and experience with development submissions over the years. Maximum residential densities were used to calculate the yield for the applicable land use categories. For example, the yield for the Suburban Residential Medium (SRM) category, which has a density range of four to six DU per acre, was calculated at six DU per acre. These assumptions are shown in Appendix A. Each land use category was divided into residential and non-residential uses where necessary and multiplied by density (residential) and FAR (non-residential) factors to obtain the number of dwelling units and/or square footage for each type of space. This analysis, also disaggregated by three subareas, is included in Appendix A.

18 March 2006

Figure 8. Prince William County Land Utilization

Table 3 summarizes the projected supply of residential and non-residential space, based on existing Prince William County Comprehensive Plan land use designations, for undeveloped land in the I-66 Corridor and County-wide, while Table 4 addresses projected yields for the Brentswood site. These calculations will be discussed further in later sections of this chapter. Figures 10 and 11 depict the supply of vacant residential and non-residential land, respectively, based upon the yields shown in Table 3.

19 March 2006

Figure 9. Undeveloped Parcels 20 March 2006

Table 3. Projected Yields of Undeveloped Lands

Sub Area 3 Sub Area 1 Sub Area 2 (Rural and County Totals (I-95 Corridor) (I-66 Corridor) Semi-Rural Areas) Non-Residential

Industrial (sq. ft.) 1 2,048,090 15,095,487 1,121,990 18,265,567

Office (sq. ft.) 2 40,220,887 55,642,236 13,246,375 109,109,498

Regional Offices 28,348,931 33,688,584 6,517,118 68,554,633

Local Offices 8,165,394 14,015,430 5,607,267 27,788,092

Flex Offices 3,706,562 7,938,222 1,121,990 12,766,773

Retail (sq. ft.) 3 6,288,956 17,729,340 710,431 24,728,727

SUBTOTAL (sq. ft.) 48,557,933 88,467,063 15,078,796 152,103,792

Residential

Single Family Detached (du) 4 15,499 8,930 6,004 30,433

Single Family Attached (du) 5 8,303 2,409 1,497 12,209

Multi-Family (du) 6 14,024 9,045 2,936 26,005

SUBTOTAL (du) 37,826 20,384 10,437 68,647

NOTES: 1 - Assumed 45% of Flexible Employment Center (FEC) is Industrial 2 - Assumed 45% of FEC is Office; 75% of Regional Employment Center (REC) is Office; 75% of Community Employment Center (CEC) is Office; 30% of Urban Mixed Use (UMU) is Office. 3 - Assumed 10% of FEC is Retail; 75% of Regional Commercial Center (RCC) is Retail; 20% of UMU is Retail; 10% of REC is Retail; 10% of CEC is Retail. 4 - Assumed 33% of Residential Planned Community (RPC) is Single Family Detached (SFD); 50% of Suburban Residential Medium (SRM) is SFD; 50% of Urban Residential Low (URL) is SFD. 5 - Assumed 33% of RPC is SFA; 50% of SRM is SFA; 50% of URL is SFA. 6 - Assumed 33% of RPC is Multi-Family Residential; 15% of REC is Multi-Family Residential; 15% of CEC is Multi-Family Residential; 25% of RCC is Multi-Family Residential; 50% of UMU is Multi-Family Residential. 7 – Yields are for undeveloped land only; calculations do not include underdeveloped land

21 March 2006

Table 4. Projected Yields of Undeveloped Lands, Brentswood Site (Existing Land Use Designations)

USECODE Area Residential (du) Non-Residential (Sq. Ft.) (Acres) Single Family Single Family Multi-Family Total Industrial Office Retail Total Non- Detached Attached Residential Residential

Non-Residential Use

FEC - Flexible Employment Center 606 2,967,890 2,967,890 659,531 6,595,311 EI - Industrial Employment 376 2,458,418 - - 2,458,418 SUBTOTAL Non Residential Use 982 5,426,307 2,967,890 659,531 9,053,728 Residential Use

SRL - Suburban Residential Low 333 1,333 1,333 SRM - Suburban Residential Medium SRH - Suburban Residential High

SUBTOTAL Residential Use 333 1,333 1,333 Mixed Use REC - Regional Employment Center

SUBTOTAL Mixed Use TOTAL 1,315 1,333 1,333 5,426,307 2,967,890 659,531 9,053,728 NOTES: 1 - Several uses, including conservation districts are excluded from this analysis: CITY, Environmental Resource (ER), Public Land (PL), Parks & Open Space (P&OS), POSP, POSA, Designated Cultural Resource (DCR), RR, TOWN, and VMU. 2 - Does not include underdeveloped lands.

22 March 2006

Figure 10. Supply of Vacant Residential Designated Land in Prince William County (2005)

23 March 2006

Figure 11. Supply of Vacant Non-Residential Designated Land in Prince William County (2005)

24 March 2006

Supply Projections

Housing Supply The County’s housing production for the period 2000 to 2005, as indicated by building permits issued, was approximately 5,000 units per year. The I-66 Corridor production for that same period was just under 700 units per year. The holding capacity analysis results for housing, shown in Table 4, yields the potential to construct an additional 20,000 housing units in the I-66 Corridor area and a total of almost 70,000 units County-wide. The Brentswood site share of that supply is 1,333 units.

Office Supply At the end of 2004, there were an estimated 145 million SF of existing office space in the Northern Virginia area, including 2.8 million SF of new or renovated space delivered in 2004. As of December 2004, there were 4.9 million SF of office space under construction or renovation in Northern Virginia with a pre-lease rate of 66.3 percent.3 Prince William County currently has approximately 5.1 million SF of office space with another half million currently under construction.

The non-residential, office capacity for the I-66 Corridor is approximately 56 million SF, as indicated in Table 3. This category can be further broken down into three sub- categories: regional offices, local offices and flex-office. A further discussion of flex- office supply is provided in the following section. The 56 million SF of office potential for the I-66 corridor breaks down to 34 million, 14 million and 8 million SF of regional, local and flex office space respectively. The allocation of comprehensive plan categories to each of these three types of office space is shown in Figure 11. It is worth noting that the FAR for regional offices (REC) used in our yield calculations is 0.75, as targeted by the comprehensive Plan. The market has so far been producing 0.33 FAR on REC parcels. The Brentswood site contains nearly 3 million SF of total office potential under its current Comprehensive Plan land use designations.

Looking beyond Prince William County to the region, the amount of office space available for lease in Northern Virginia is declining somewhat as vacancy rates have recently declined. Office vacancy rates rose dramatically following the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 and the 2001 dot.com bust, but they have started to moderate somewhat. At the end of 2004, the office vacancy rate (with sublet) in Northern Virginia was 12.0 percent. The office vacancy rate in Prince William County tends to be lower than the rest of the Northern Virginia region, but it is more susceptible to large swings one way or another because it has the smallest amount of leased office square footage. Prince William County had a 2nd quarter 2005 office vacancy rate of 5.7 percent, compared with 10.2 percent for the overall Northern Virginia region, 10.7 percent in Tyson’s Corner and 16.5 percent in Loudoun County.4

3 Greater Washington Commercial Association of Realtors, 2004 Year-End Market Report. 4 Spaulding & Slye Colliers International, Market Statistics Washington DC 2nd quarter 2005.

25 March 2006

According to the MWCOG employment forecasts, it is estimated that the Northern Virginia region will add more than 118 million square feet of office space between 2005 and 2030. The nine biggest employment centers in Northern Virginia – Tyson's Corner, Dulles Corridor, Fairfax Center, Springfield/Franconia/Ft. Belvoir, Merrifield/Dunn Loring, Dulles North, Manassas Area5, Dulles South, Potomac Mills Area – are projected to add almost 50 million square feet of office space between 2005 and 2030, with the biggest increases will be in the Dulles Corridor and Tyson’s Corner (see Figure 12).

Flex-Office Supply A variation on traditional office space that is found in Prince William County and that the County is targeting for further growth is flex-office space. Flex-office uses include research and development centers, office, institutional and minimal impact industrial uses. An industry segment that uses flex type space is the telecommunications sector, which has probably completed its down-sizing, merging and restructuring. Included in this segment would be data centers which appear to be on the way to recovery from the bust of 2001-2002. The Innovation Business Park is currently the focus for potential flex- space users in the western part of the county. Existing or planned industries at Innovation include pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities and an FBI office building as well as research and laboratory facilities supporting the George Mason University Prince William County campus, also located at Innovation.

As indicated in the previous section and Table 3, the I-66 Corridor has the capacity to accommodate approximately 8 million SF of flex-office uses, based on existing Comprehensive Plan designations.

Industrial Supply The region’s economy is dominated by the services and government sectors, and the sectors that develop on industrial land are very small throughout the Washington area. Additionally, industrial uses tend to be more “light” industrial type uses or flex-office uses rather than manufacturing or other traditional or “heavy” industrial uses.

Undeveloped land in the I-66 Corridor has the capacity to yield an additional 15 million SF of industrial space, based on the existing land use designations and indicated in Table 3. The Brentswood site’s share of that potential supply is 5.4 million SF, as indicated in Table 4. It is notable that the I-66 Corridor contains 80% of the County’s remaining, undeveloped industrial land. The Brentswood site comprises approximately 30 percent of Prince William County’s total industrial land supply.

5 Excludes the Brentswood site.

26 March 2006

Figure 12. Major Northern Virginia Employment Centers 27 March 2006

Retail Supply Prince William County Planning Office staff noted that Prince William County contains an abundance of retail businesses. The County has one of the highest retail square footage per capita of any jurisdiction on the east coast. As indicated in Table 3, undeveloped land in the I-66 Corridor has the capacity to yield an additional 17.7 million SF of retail space, with approximately 660,000 SF of potential capacity at the Brentswood site, based on existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations.

Comparison of Supply and Brentswood Proposal The expected contributions of the Brentswood development to the residential and non- residential markets are summarized in Table 5. The proposed Brentswood development will greatly expand the number of residential units at the site compared to the number that could be built under the existing land use designations. It would expand the potential housing supply in the I-66 Corridor by approximately 28%, from approximately 20,000 units, as indicated in Table 3, to almost 26,000 units.

Table 5. Proposed Brentswood Development Program

Brentswood North1 Brentswood South1 Total1 Residential Phase I (2011) 2,000 dwelling units 2,000 DU (DU) Phase II (2018) 1,725 DU 1,775 DU 3,500 DU Phase III (2024) 550 DU 750 DU 1,300 DU Total 2,275 DU 4,525 DU 6,800 DU

Non-Residential Phase I N/A 200,000 square feet (SF) 200,000 SF retail retail Phase II 2 million SF office 500,000 SF office 2.5 million SF office 500,000 SF retail 100,000 SF retail 600,000 SF retail Phase III 350,000 SF office 350,000 SF office 75,000 SF retail 75,000 SF retail Total 2.35 million SF office 500,000 SF office 2.85 million SF office 575,000 SF retail 300,000 SF retail 875,000 SF retail Source: Brentswood Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, September 2, 2005. Notes: 1 Maximum proposed quantities between 2006 and 2026. The proposal shows an additional 3.425 million SF of non-residential space (475,000 SF office, 450,000 SF retail, 2.5 million SF non-retail services) to be constructed at the Brentswood site beyond 2026.

28 March 2006

The Brentswood project’s office supply as proposed implies an average annual office absorption of 136,000 SF, compared to the County’s average annual absorption rate of 120,000 SF for office space over the past decade, according to the County’s property database. The Brentswood proposal also includes a substantial retail component – 875,000 square feet by 2025. That amount of space will expand the potential I-66 Corridor retail space capacity from 17.7 million SF to about 17.9 million6 SF, based upon existing land use designations.

6 The Brentswood proposal reflects a net increase of approximately 215,000 SF of retail uses compared to the retail capacity under the existing comprehensive plan land use designations as shown in Table 4.

29 March 2006

DEMAND ANALYSIS

Methodology GMU reviewed projections for Prince William population, employment and housing for 2005-2030 from several sources: Prince William County forecasts and projections prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Cooperative Forecasting Program7. Prince William County and MWCOG forecasts are presented in Table 6, broken out for the County as a whole, the I-66 Corridor and the Brentswood site.

Table 6. Current Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs (2005-2030)

2010 2020 2030 2005 Prince MWCOG Prince MWCOG Prince MWCOG William (Round William (Round William (Round County 7.0) County 7.0) County 7.0) Prince William County Population 352,063 416,783 416,785 489,349 489,898 536,994 556,300 Housing Units 117,912 140,914 140,914 169,400 169,400 187,505 193,127 Jobs 100,525 120,346 120,346 156,855 156,855 186,030 186,030

I-66 Corridor Population 83,801 108,549 108,549 131,786 131,786 145,698 154,148 Housing Units 28,614 37,332 37,332 46,534 46,534 52,105 54,918 Jobs 31,665 41,393 41,393 59,270 59,270 71,596 71,596

1 Brentswood Site (existing land use) Population 247 247 247 3,699 3,699 6,808 7,202 Housing Units 73 73 73 1,483 1,483 2,730 2,878 Jobs 1,124 1,218 1,218 1,316 1,316 1,487 1,487

Sources: Prince William County forecasts; MWCOG; GMU Notes: 1 GMU defined the Brentswood site by the following Prince William TAZs: 2029B, 2029C (25%), 2029D, 2029E (80%), 2029F (30%), 2029G, 2029H, and 2030B.

7 The Cooperative Forecasting Program enables local, regional, and federal agencies to coordinate planning using common assumptions about future growth and development in the region. The process employs both a regional econometric model and local jurisdictional forecasts to develop the forecasts. Each series of forecasts, or a “Round,” provides land use activity forecasts of employment, population, and households by five-year increments. Each round covers a period of 20 to 30 years. The current series of forecasts covering the period 2005-2030 are referred to as Round 7.0.

30 March 2006

GMU also reviewed market-based forecasts8 for Prince William County and derived an alternative set of forecasts for 2030 for the County as a whole, the I-66 Corridor and the Brentswood site. Those forecasts are shown in Table 7, along with the Prince William County and MWCOG 2030 forecasts, for comparison purposes. The market-based forecasts are not constrained by the local jurisdictions land use plans, zoning, or other plans or policies. They reflect substantially greater growth in population (+86,906) and housing (+42,795) and more employment (+7,770) than the county’s projections.

Table 7. 2030 Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs

2030 2030 2030 Prince Market- 2005 MWCOG William Based (Round 7.0) County Forecasts Prince William County Population 352,063 536,994 556,300 623,900 Housing Units 117,912 187,505 193,127 230,300 Jobs 100,525 186,030 186,030 193,800

I-66 Corridor Population 83,801 145,698 154,148 172,500 Housing Units 28,614 52,105 54,918 65,200 Jobs 31,665 71,596 71,596 75,200

1 Brentswood Site (existing land use) Population 247 6,808 7,202 8,000 Housing Units 73 2,730 2,878 3,400 Jobs 1,124 1,487 1,487 1,600

Sources: Prince William County forecasts; MWCOG; NPA Data Services, Inc.; GMU Notes: 1 GMU defined the Brentswood site by the following Prince William TAZs: 2029B, 2029C (25%), 2029D, 2029E (80%), 2029F (30%), 2029G, 2029H, and 2030B.

The following discussion focuses on the impact of the Brentswood development planned to be completed by 2030. For the purpose of making comparisons with other forecasts of housing units and employment, the initial phases of the Brentswood project (i.e., up to 6,800 housing units and 3.725 million SF of non-residential development) is assumed to be built between 2005 and 2030, instead of 2026. Growth is expressed as a range of options, reflecting the corresponding range of forecasts. GMU’s complete report is included in Appendix B.

8 Derived by GMU from forecasts by NPA Data Services, Inc.

31 March 2006

Comparison of 2030 Population, Housing and Employment Forecasts

The I-66 corridor is forecast to grow faster than the County between 2005 and 2030, adding 62,000-89,000 people, 23,000-37,000 housing units and 40,000-44,000 jobs (Table 7). Prince William County projections are reflected in the low end of the range while the market based forecasts are reflected in the high end of the range for all three.

The largest growth, in percentage terms, is in jobs. Projected increases in total employment, as shown in Table 7, ranges from 126 to 137 percent. Table 8 breaks down the projected job increases by employment sector, utilizing Prince William County projections. Market-based job projections are available for total employment only and are not broken down by employment sector. As shown in the table, the largest increase is anticipated in the office employment sector where the County forecasts 15,600 new jobs for the I-66 Corridor.

Table 8. Projected 2030 Employment by Sector

Prince William Brentswood I-66 Corridor County (Existing Land Use) 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030

Jobs 100,525 186,030 31,665 71,596 1,124 1,487 Office 28,516 68,893 6,907 22,494 85 150 Retail 30,601 56,853 8,713 20,270 0 0 Industrial 22,957 35,413 12,018 22,931 993 1,278 Other 18,452 24,871 4,028 5,900 46 59

Sources: Prince William County forecasts; GMU

Looking at regional trends, the Washington DC area has added more jobs over the past five years, a total of 287,000, than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. The Northern Virginia area alone added 144,000 new jobs in the five-year period 2000-2005. According to the MWCOG Round 7 forecasts, Northern Virginia jurisdictions expect to add 730,000 new jobs between 2005 and 2030. Prince William County’s share is approximately 85,500 jobs or about 12 % of the Northern Virginia total. The nine largest employment centers in Northern Virginia – Tyson’s Corner, the Dulles Corridor, Fairfax Center, Springfield/Franconia, Merrifield/Dunn Loring, Dulles North, the Manassas area9, Dulles South and the Potomac Mills area – which contain about 40 percent of all jobs in Northern Virginia – are forecasted to gain more than 288,000 jobs during that time period.

9 Excludes the Brentswood site.

32 March 2006

Demand Projections

Housing Demand The fast-growing economy and housing supply constraints has led to increased demand for housing and escalating housing prices in the Northern Virginia region. At the same time, there has been pressure within some jurisdictions to slow the rate of growth of residential development. However, the availability of a highly skilled labor force can be a driver of local economic growth. Thus, attracting residents can be an asset, rather than a burden, because employers are attracted to places with a strong labor force.

The most obvious result of the increased demand for housing in the Northern Virginia region is the increase in home prices. The average single-family detached home price in Northern Virginia rose by 122 percent from 1999 to 2005. The average price of Northern Virginia townhouses and condominiums rose by 149 and 173 percent, respectively, between 2004 and 2005. The average Prince William County home price of $438,829, however, remains 11 percent below the Northern Virginia average of $491,064 (see Table 9). Because its housing is a relative bargain, the County’s housing market is stronger than the regional market and will continue to experience strong price appreciation even as most of the rest of Northern Virginia feels a moderation in house price growth. Between November 2004 and November 2005, for example, the average home price increased by 26 percent in Prince William County compared with 20 percent in Northern Virginia.

Table 9. Average Home Price of Northern Virginia Homes (November 2005)

Jurisdiction Average Price ($) Fairfax City 592,016 Arlington 549,450 Fairfax 542,078 Loudoun 535,878 Fauquier 510,986 Alexandria City 498,137 Falls Church City 481,338 Prince William 438,829 Clarke 424,827 Stafford 386,962 Manassas Park City 372,018 Fredericksburg City 366,677 Manassas City 358,648 Spotsylvania 344,701 Warren 279,576

Northern Virginia Average 491,064

Source: GMU

33 March 2006

Another result of the increased demand for housing has been an increase in the number of people commuting into the Washington DC region from southern Virginia, West Virginia, Baltimore and points further away. According to the MWCOG Round 7 forecasts, the production of new housing units in the Northern Virginia region will not be at all sufficient to meet the anticipated demand. This disparity between supply and demand means that jobs in Northern Virginia will likely be increasingly filled by people who live outside of the region, either in the District of Columbia, Suburban Maryland, the Rappahannock-Culpeper area or West Virginia.

Prince William County has planned more aggressively for housing than either Loudoun County or Fairfax County, two of its neighboring counties. In the next 25 years, it is estimated the County will add between 70,000 and 112,000 units (depending upon the forecast, see Table 7), more than Loudoun County and almost as much as Fairfax County. However, Northern Virginia is both a regional job market and a regional housing market. The continued strong demand for housing in Northern Virginia—and the relative affordability of homes in Prince William County—creates opportunities for the County to expand its housing production even further.

Historically Prince William has been a net exporter of workers, with many residents commuting to jobs outside the county. This puts the County in the position of needing more jobs relative to housing to achieve a better balance between the two, unlike other jurisdictions that need more housing to achieve a similar balance. The County currently has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.85. A ratio below 1.0 means that a community has fewer jobs than houses. A ratio above 1.0 means that a community has more jobs than houses. It is likely to import workers. Prince William County’s adopted forecasts of jobs and households to 2030 would give the county a ratio of 0.99 by 2030, achieving a much better balance. The forecast growth of 85,500 jobs from 2005 to 2030 generates a demand for new housing in the range of 54,000 to 58,000 new units (households). The County forecasts a nearly 70,000 increase in households by 2030. Therefore, Prince William County’s adopted plans are providing more than the County’s share of housing for the Northern Virginia region.

Housing forecasts for the I-66 Corridor, indicated in Table 7, yield an average housing demand between roughly 900 and 1,500 units per year for the period 2006-2030, compared to the Corridor’s current annual absorption rate of 700 units.

Office Space Demand Total employment in the Prince William County I-66 Corridor is expected to grow by 40,000-44,000 jobs between 2005 and 2030 based on Table 7 projections. Office employment in the Corridor is expected to grow by approximately 15,600 jobs, as shown in Table 8, which corresponds to roughly 4.6 million SF of office space10, or an average absorption of 183,000 SF annually for the next 25 years. This is almost double the Corridor’s 2000-2005 absorption rate of 64,000 SF and reflects County assumptions regarding job growth in this area, including the Innovation Business Park. County-wide

10 GMU estimates assume 250 SF per office employee and assume a 10% office vacancy rate.

34 March 2006

office demand is projected to increase to approximately 475,000 SF per year by 2030, based upon projected County-wide growth in office employment.

Projected employment growth, particularly in the professional and business services sector, will be fueled primarily by federal procurement spending. Between 2003 and 2004, federal procurement spending to firms in Northern Virginia increased by 3.5 billion dollars and there are no signs of that spending slowing down. In order for office employment growth to be realized, there needs to be sufficient office space available in desirable locations.

There are several areas within the I-66 Corridor that the County has targeted as office employment centers: the Innovation Business Park, the I-66/Route 29 interchange, and the Haymarket/Gainesville area. Outside of the I-66 Corridor, the Route 1 Corridor of the County is also targeted as an employment center. As a result of the most recent process of the base realignment and closure (BRAC) commission, the Army’s Ft. Belvoir and the Quantico Marine Corps Base are expected to gain over 20,000 Department of Defense (DoD) jobs. These DoD jobs are being moved out of leased commercial space inside the Beltway (e.g. Crystal City, Rosslyn-Ballston, and Bailey’s Crossroads) and will be re- locating in the 2009-2010 timeframe. In addition to the 20,000 DOD jobs, an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 federal government contractors will also be moving to this area in the next five to ten years11 to maintain proximity to the relocated DOD agencies.

Flex-Office Demand While the demand for traditional office space is marginal, there is some demand being met for flex space in Prince William County, and flex space has been the focus for Innovation Business Park development. Some firms that develop flex space in Eastern Loudoun and Western Fairfax may look to Western Prince William for expansion, particularly given the large land parcels available and favorable tax advantages for certain types of flex space development. Prince William has a definite competitive edge regarding taxes on equipment used by this industry segment: a rate of $1.25 property tax versus over $4.00 in Fairfax and Loudoun. Potential users of flex space, such as defense or federal government contractors, may also seek available sites that enable setback requirements for the new Dodd and/or federal security regulations that could be met on the large land parcels in Prince William, as well as being drawn to the County because of lower land prices than Loudoun and Fairfax Counties.

Retail Demand Retail demand for the I-66 Corridor and for the Brentswood site, based solely upon the forecast (2030) residential population and office employment increases for those areas and the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations is shown in Table 10. The population and employment growth translates to a retail demand between about 550,000- 700,000 SF for the Corridor and roughly 50,000-60,000 SF for the Brentswood site.

11 The Round 7 forecasts were prepared before the BRAC process was completed and therefore do not reflect the movement of federal and contractor jobs out of the inner core to outer suburban locations.

35 March 2006

Table 10. 2030 Retail Demand

Population Increase (Persons) Retail Demand (SF) 1 Prince MWCOG Market- Prince MWCOG Market- William based William based County Forecasts County Forecasts Prince William County 184,931 204,237 271,837 1,479,448 1,633,896 2,174,696 population (2030) Prince William County 40,377 161,508 161,508 161,508 office employment population (2030) Total 1,640,956 1,795,404 2,336,204

I-66 Corridor population 61,896 70,347 78,599 495,168 562,776 628,792 (2030) I-66 Corridor office 15,587 62,348 62,348 62,348 employment population (2030) Total 557,516 625,124 691,140

Brentswood site 6,561 6,956 7,341 52,488 55,648 58,728 population (2030) under existing land use Brentswood office 65 260 260 260 employment population (2030) under existing land use Total 52,748 55,908 58,988

Sources: Prince William County forecasts; MWCOG Round 7 forecasts; NPA Data Services, Inc.; GMU Notes: 1 Retail demand assumed to serve local residents and workers; 8 SF per person for residential population, 4 SF per person for office employment

The Nissan Pavilion could potentially generate some demand for restaurants on nights when there are events at the arena, so long as there were good interconnections between the arena and the restaurants. However, Nissan Pavilion is much more like FedEx field than it is like the MCI Center or Camden Yards. In other words, people attending events at Nissan Pavilion are likely to simply drive into the arena parking lot, attend the show, and drive out. Many of the shows are on weekday evenings, when people must leave early from work simply to make it before the opening act. And many attending the shows come from other parts of the Northern Virginia region and face a long drive home after the show. Therefore, demand from Nissan Pavilion attendees should not be counted upon to support a major retail/restaurant complex.

36 March 2006

Industrial Demand Over the past fifteen years, the sectors making up the region’s industrial activity – manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, utilities – have grown from 197,000 jobs to 204,000 jobs, an increase of only 7,000 jobs and 3.5% since 1990. At the same time the rest of the economy was growing by 670,000 jobs, so industrial activity has accounted for just about 1 percent of the region’s economy. This historical trend is not expected to change in the future. While there will be some marginal demand for industrial space in the Prince William part of the region, there would be more demand in the County’s segment of the I-95 Corridor closer to the primary distribution corridor of the East Coast. Very little demand is anticipated for conventional industrial space in the I-66 corridor.

Projected 2030 industrial space demand for the I-66 Corridor and the Brentswood site under the current Comprehensive Plan land use and based on projected growth in industrial employment is shown in Table 11. Industrial space needs are anticipated to grow by approximately 8 million SF throughout the Corridor and approximately 200,000 SF for the Brentswood site.

Table 11. 2030 Industrial Demand

Population Increase Industrial Demand (Persons) 1 (SF) Prince William County Prince William County industrial employment 12,456 9,342,000 population I-66 Corridor industrial employment population 10,913 8,184,750 Brentswood site industrial employment 285 213,750 population (2030) under existing land use

Sources: Prince William County forecasts Notes: 1 Assumes 750 SF per industrial job

Comparison of Demand and Brentswood Proposal

The proposed Brentswood development program is summarized in Table 12. The projected population, housing units and jobs generated by the Brentswood development and associated land uses are listed in Table 13. Approval of the land use changes requested by the Brentswood applicant will significantly increase the number of residents and workers at the site between 2005 and 2030 compared to the County’s forecasts under existing land use. The County’s forecasts assume no new housing units will be built between 2005 and 2010, but between 2010 and 2030 the number of units is projected to grow by nearly 2,700. Steady, but very slow employment growth is projected for the site in the County forecasts, with the number of jobs increasing by less than 400 by 2030. In contrast, the Brentswood proposal calls for the construction of 6,800 housing units and commercial space that would generate over 12,000 jobs by 2025.

37 March 2006

The 2.85 million SF of office space contemplated by 2026 in the Brentswood proposal is approximately 60% of the total projected office space demand for the entire I-66 Corridor and is more than 50 percent of the office space currently in the County. That amount of office space will accommodate nearly a quarter of the projected 12.0 million SF office space demand for the County as a whole.

Table 12. Proposed Brentswood Development Program Summary

Brentswood North1 Brentswood South1 Total1 Residential Single Family 1,510 dwelling units (DU) 1,510 DU Townhouse 1,100 DU 1,015 DU 2,115 DU Multi-Family 1,175 DU 2,000 DU 3,175 DU Total 2,275 DU 4,525 DU 6,800 DU

Non-Residential Office 2,350,000 SF 500,000 SF 2,850,000 SF Retail 575,000 SF 300,000 SF 875,000 SF Total 2,925,000 SF 800,000 SF 3,725,000 SF

Source: Brentswood Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, September 2, 2005. Notes: 1 Maximum proposed quantities between 2006 and 2026. The capacity exists for an additional 3.425 million SF of non-residential space to be constructed at the Brentswood site beyond 2026.

Table 13. Brentswood Site Forecasts of Population, Housing Units and Jobs (2006-2030)

Brentswood Site1 (Proposed Land Use) 2005 2015 2030 Population 247 6,305 16,954

Housing Units 73 2,000 6,800

Jobs2 1,124 1,673 12,010 Office 85 129 10,260 Retail 0 400 1,750 Industrial 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0

Sources: Prince William County forecasts; GMU estimates Notes: 1 GMU defined the Brentswood site by the following Prince William TAZs: 2029B, 2029C (25%), 2029D, 2029E (80%), 2029F (30%), 2029G, 2029H, and 2030B. 2 GMU estimates assume 250 sf per office employee, 500 sf per retail employee and office vacancy rates of 10% in 2005 and 15% for the rest of the study period.

38 March 2006

The Brentswood project also contains a substantial retail component, which the Brentswood developer proposes as a new regional retail center. The proposed retail is intended as high-end retail in an attractive, Main Street-like setting, although it is not clear how the developer intends to build 875,000 SF of retail space (by 2026) in a compact, urban, Main Street-style setting.

The Nissan Pavilion, located adjacent to the Brentswood site, could potentially generate some demand for retail uses such as restaurants on nights when events are scheduled, so long as there are good interconnections between the venue and the restaurants. However, as discussed in the previous section, people attending events at Nissan Pavilion are likely to simply drive into the venue’s parking lot, attend the show, and drive out, especially for shows held on weekday evenings, when people must leave early from work simply to make it before the opening act.

New retail development at the Brentswood site would more likely serve the site’s new residents and office workers, with the possibility of attracting Prince William County residents living close by and perhaps a relatively small number of people attending events at Nissan Pavilion. Regarding the mix of retail uses, County planners indicate that what western Prince William County residents may be missing most is specialty retail and groceries. Area residents have expressed a desire for a high-end grocery store, such as Whole Foods or Wegmans, specialty shops and restaurants such as those found a closer- in retail centers such as Fairfax Corner in Fairfax County or the Market Common at Clarendon in Arlington County.

Finally, the proposed 2026 Brentswood retail component is 175,000 - 300,000 SF greater than the retail demand projected for the entire I-66 corridor. Based on projected retail demand generated by the Brentswood project, the appropriate amount of retail space in the project is around 177,000 SF, to serve the local Brentswood population and workers. This figure is nearly 700,000 square feet less than what the developer forecasts will be completed by 2026 (Table 14) and more than one million square feet less than proposed at the site’s ultimate build out.

Table 14. 2025 Retail Demand

Population Retail (Persons) Demand (SF) Brentswood site residential population (2025) 16,954 135,632 8 SF per person under proposed land use Brentswood office employment population 10,260 41,040 4 SF per person (2025) under proposed land use Total 176,672

Proposed Brentswood Retail Space 875,000 SF Excess Retail Proposed 698,328 SF

Sources: GMU estimates

39 March 2006

COMPARISONS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Projected supply and demand for residential and non-residential space at County-wide, I- 66 Corridor and Brentswood site levels is shown in Table 15.

The I-66 Corridor has a 15-25 year supply of housing units in undeveloped land, based on an estimated annual production of 900-1,500 units, as derived from the 2030 housing projections12. The County-wide supply is about the same, based upon projected annual production of between 2,800-4,500 units per year. This situation is in line with the County’s goal to provide its regional share of housing while also achieving a balanced job/housing ratio.

The County is vastly oversupplied with undeveloped land planned for retail uses. The projected retail demand of approximately 700,000 SF for the I-66 Corridor, based on projected residential and employment growth, barely scratches the surface in absorbing the 17.7 million SF potential supply.

The potential office supply remaining in the County and the I-66 Corridor, 109.1 million SF and 55.6 million respectively, far exceeds the anticipated County-wide demand of 12.3 million SF and Corridor-wide demand of 4.7 million SF. It should be noted that the supply reflects the Comprehensive Plan’s target FAR of 0.75 for REC lands, rather than current market realities of 0.33 FAR for these lands. The current intensity would reduce the regional office capacity by about one third, still leaving a large overage. It should be further noted that the office supply includes lands that could accommodate flex-office type uses that are less people intensive and developed at a lower density than traditional office development. The supply analysis estimates approximately 12%of undeveloped land designated for office uses County-wide and 14% of land within the I-66 Corridor has the potential to be utilized for flex-office uses, based upon development trends and the County’s emphasis on attracting industries that require flex-type space.

The supply of industrial land, based upon the calculation of undeveloped land planned for industrial land uses, also exceeds the projected demand, as derived from projected employment in the industrial sector. The County has a 45-50 year supply of land capable of accommodating industrial uses. Included in this category as well are flex-type industrial uses (e.g., light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution activities). The supply and demand is based upon planned land use, however, and does not take into account other factors affecting demand such as proximity to shipping and distribution transportation corridors. In Prince William County the I-95 Corridor is the primary shipping and distribution corridor serving regional markets and beyond and the preferred location for those types of industrial facilities.

12 The low number in the range utilizes Prince William County housing projections. The high number is derived from market-based housing projections developed by GMU. The MWCOG Round 7.0 projection is in the mid-range.

40 March 2006

Table 15. Supply and Demand Comparison (2030)

Residential (DU) Office (SF) Retail (SF) Industrial (SF) Non-Residential (SF) Supply Prince William County 1 72,698 109,109,498 24,728,727 18,265,567 152,103,792 I-66 Corridor 1 24,161 55,642,236 17,729,340 15,095,487 88,467,063 Brentswood Site (Existing Land Use) 1 1,333 2,967,890 659,531 5,426,307 9,053,728

Demand 2 Prince William County 69,593 12,341,536 2,336,204 9,342,000 24,019,740 I-66 Corridor 23,491 4,697,271 691,140 8,184,750 13,573,161 Brentswood Site (Existing Land Use) 2,657 20,507 58,988 213,750 293,245

Supply Minus Demand3 Prince William County 3,105 96,767,962 22,392,523 8,923,567 128,084,052 I-66 Corridor 670 50,944,965 17,038,200 6,910,737 74,893,902 Brentswood Site (Existing Land Use) (1,324) 2,947,383 600,543 5,212,557 8,760,483

Brentswood Site Proposed Land Use 4 6,800 2,850,000 875,000 3,725,000

Sources: Prince William County Planning Office, Parsons Brinckerhoff, GMU Notes: 1 - Assumes 10% of Flexible Employment Center (FEC) is Office and 10% of FEC is Retail; 75% of Regional Employment Center (REC) is Office and 25% of REC is Multi-Family Residential; 75% of Community Employment Center (CEC) is Office and 25% of CEC is Multi-Family Residential; 30% of Urban Mixed Use (UMU) is Office, 20% of UMU is Retail and 50% of UMU is Multi-Family Residential; 75% of Regional Commercial Center (RCC) is Retail; 50% of Urban Residential Low (URL) is Single Family Detached (SFD), 50% is Single Family Attached (SFA); 50% of Suburban Residential Medium (SRM) is SFD; 33% of Residential Planned Community (RPC) is SFD, 33% is SFA, and 33% is Multi-Family Residential. 2 – Derived from 2030 forecasts of population, housing and employment utilizing market based forecasts where data is available. 3 – Numbers in parenthesis indicate a deficiency. 4 – Brentswood development program proposed through 2026.

41 March 2006

Brentswood Proposal Relationship to Supply and Demand

Housing The projected housing supply for the I-66 Corridor is sufficient to satisfy the corresponding housing demand by 2030. However, as noted in the demand analysis, the continued strong demand for housing in Northern Virginia by new residents and those working in the region who currently commute from points beyond – plus the relative affordability of homes in Prince William County – creates opportunities for the County to expand its housing production. The housing proposed for the Brentswood site will likely compete well in the County housing market. As noted in the previous section, the County’s projected housing growth enables it to contribute its share to the regional housing market while also improving its jobs/housing balance. While the additional housing at Brentswood would still allow the County to achieve an increased job-to- housing ratio of 0.96, repeating this situation throughout the County (e.g., allowing more housing than projected) will serve to slow the movement to a balanced job/housing ratio.

Office The projected growth in office employment for the I-66 Corridor implies a need for about 4.7 million SF of office space in that area (or an 188,000 SF annual absorption rate). Based on those projections, the Brentswood project would, in theory, satisfy about 60% of the Corridor-wide office market and would represent nearly a quarter of the office market County wide.

Additionally, Prince William sector plans for the Innovation Business Park and I- 66/Route 29 areas in the I-66 Corridor also have the potential to add substantial office development. The Innovation Business Park is an emerging technology business park that is already experiencing very substantial growth. Several biotechnology firms, including American Type Culture Collection, Geo-Centers, Inc. and Mediatech, and several defense contractors have either recently located or plan to locate in 2006. Eli Lilly and Company has a 300,000 square foot manufacturing plant planned for the Innovation district that will eventually employ 350 people.

42 March 2006

Although the Innovation district is located a greater distance from I-66 than is the Brentswood site, it possesses other advantages that make it attractive to continued development. First, the area has already been studied extensively and a sector plan has been developed and approved. The Innovation sector plan calls for between 12.9 and 22.8 million square feet of office, retail, R&D and manufacturing space at buildout.13 Second, George Mason University’s Prince William campus is seen as a major stimulus and focus for additional economic development at Innovation. Third, the district currently has momentum as several high profile firms have recently located there. Technology research and development firms benefit from agglomeration economies – that is, economic benefits that arise from knowledge sharing that occurs when firms doing similar and complementary research are located in close proximity.

Although not developed to the level of detail as the Innovation sector plan, the I-66/Route 29 sector plan proposes to develop the intersection of I-66 and Route 29 with high- density regional employment, regional retail, mixed-use, and industrial employment uses. The plan encourages higher density commercial development, including the possibility of a Town Center, around the I-66 and Linton Hall Road intersections with Route 29, with lower density commercial and residential development to the west. The Brentswood site is located east of the I-66/Route 29 intersection and is not included in the sector plan boundaries.

Another key Prince William County subarea outside the I-66 Corridor also offers particularly advantageous locational benefits: the I-95/Quantico/Ft. Belvoir area. As previously discussed, that area will gain up to 25,000 new jobs as a result of the relocation of DoD jobs from inside the Beltway (e.g. Crystal City, Rosslyn-Ballston, and Bailey’s Crossroads) to Ft. Belvoir and the Marine Corps Base Quantico. The County should initiate a redevelopment plan for the I-95/Quantico/Ft. Belvoir area for more office uses and market this area as a hub of federal government contracting activity and an alternative to long-distance commutes to the District of Columbia and Arlington.

Finally, it is important to note that Prince William County competes with other Northern Virginia employment centers to attract employers who want to shorten commute times for their employees who work in the outer suburbs. The alternative employment centers in Northern Virginia, shown in Figure 5, generally offer better opportunities for office space, better access to transportation, benefits associated with proximity to other firms, and established identities compared with the Brentswood site. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it appears unlikely that the Brentswood office development would fare well competing against existing and growing employment centers in both Prince William County and the larger Northern Virginia region.

13 Prince William County 2003 Comprehensive Plan.

43 March 2006

Retail The proposed retail space is equivalent to a major regional retail center, which generally contain a million SF or more of retail and include multiple buildings. The Potomac Mills area in Prince William County and Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax County serve as the major regional retail destinations in Northern Virginia, encompassing several million square feet of retail space. As indicated in the demand analysis, there is not enough demand for the proposed level of retail on the site, based on the residential and non-residential population proposed for the development. Other nearby sites, such as those located in closer proximity to the I-66/Route 29 intersection, offer more convenient transportation access than the Brentswood site, but even those are not positioned to capture a regional market.

A lesser amount of retail space, in the range of 177,000 SF, tailored to serve the residential and non-residential population proposed for the Brentswood development is a more appropriate scale for the site. High-end grocery store and trendy shops and restaurants desired by local residents, and currently absent in this part of the County, could be easily accommodated in that amount of retail space and would be compatible with the urban design approach and amenities proposed by the Brentswood developer.

44 March 2006

MARKET ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

This analysis sheds light on both the potential of the Brentswood development to successfully compete in the I-66 Corridor, Prince William County and Northern Virginia markets and on the relative capacity of the County to accommodate the level of future development, especially flex-office/industrial development, envisioned by its Comprehensive Plan Long-Range Land Use Plan relative to future employment projections.

The Brentswood proposal is one of several major development projects proposed for the Prince William County that introduces land use changes to the County. It is also an ambitious overture for mixed use development with a large office and retail component. The overall conclusion of the analysis is that the market for substantial office and retail development at this site does not exist, although there is potential demand for flex- office/industrial space and there is sufficient demand for the amount of housing proposed. It appears the Brentswood developer is hoping to create demand for office and retail space with infrastructure improvements and amenities. By taking a “build it and they will come” approach on the Brentswood site, Prince William County may risk pursuing a less than optimal development program for this site, as well as losing potentially more strategic opportunities to target commercial development elsewhere in the County.

Four major themes emerged from the market demand analysis:

• The non-residential market demand analysis provides little support for the level of office and retail development included in the Brentswood proposal. The development program anticipates that the improvements included as part of the project will induce companies to locate offices at Brentswood and entice consumers to travel to shop and dine there. However, there are many commercial centers in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties that have an established regional presence and provide superior location advantages compared to the Brentswood site. The Brentswood site would likely have a difficult time attracting businesses away from these intervening opportunities, even with the infrastructure improvements and urban design approach proposed by the developer.

• There are sites in Prince William County that are better suited for major office and retail development. The County’s job forecasts to 2030 are very reasonable and the County can currently accommodate all of the forecasted jobs at other locations in the County. In particularly, the County will have remarkable opportunities for job growth over the next 10 years in the Fort Belvoir/Quantico/I-95 area and Innovation@Prince William technology district. As a result of synergies and development momentum that already exist; these areas will be much better able to attract businesses between 2005 and 2015 than will the Brentswood site. As these sites become more developed, probably after the 2015 time frame, there will be potential for more development to be attracted to other sites targeted for development by the county, such as Brentswood. For the short-term and mid-term, however,

45 March 2006

capitalizing on the potential of the current growth areas should be the principal focus of the County’s economic development strategy.

• There is potential demand for flex-office space in western Prince William and some of this demand could be met at Brentswood, especially over time as prime sites in Innovation are developed. The potential demand would come from current flex space users in Loudoun and western Fairfax looking for expansion, from data centers, and from DOD contractors who would seek sites where they can meet DOD setback requirements at a lower land cost than Fairfax and Loudoun.

• Strong regional job growth generates strong demand for housing in Prince William County and the rest of Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia housing market will not be able to satisfy the increasing demand for housing in the region over the next 25 years. The result of this situation is upward pressure on housing prices and increasing numbers of workers commuting from outside of the region. Prince William County has planned more aggressively for housing than most other Northern Virginia jurisdictions. However, demand for housing regionally and the relative affordability of Prince William County implies the County could accommodate more housing than is currently planned, if it desires.

46 March 2006

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS This section of the report summarizes the findings regarding a set of development scenarios the PB-GMU team developed and evaluated as alternatives to the original proposal to develop the 1,500 acre Brentswood properties.

The main question this investigation pursued was whether the Brentswood proposal made sense in relation to County’s overall growth needs and capacities. If not, what programs and site layouts would? The main conclusion of the PB-GMU team was that a regional market analysis of the original proposal indicates that the proposed residential program would be supported but that there is insufficient market demand for the level of retail and office space proposed.

The lack of demand for the proposed office and retail space would likely lead the developers, or their successors, to request rezoning for more residential at a future date. To allow the original proposal to proceed, therefore, would pose risks to the County with regard to traffic impacts, fiscal consequences and the ability to develop this area and other planned centers in an orderly and efficient way.

Based on this conclusion and in accordance with the team’s work scope, the PB-GMU team developed and evaluated, in a qualitative way, four alternative development scenarios for the Brentswood site and nearby areas that might better further the county’s planning needs and goals regarding jobs/housing balance, transportation network improvements and marketability of proposed land uses. These alternatives were also considered for their impacts on local infrastructure and County finances. Also, factored into the evaluation was the degree to which public interventions and investments would be needed to make the scenarios work and the likely risk/reward trade offs of such investments.

Givens, Indeterminates and Evaluation Criteria Each of the four scenarios was built on a foundation of “givens” – existing or expected conditions that would apply in all cases. Each scenario differs in how it responds to these givens, but they do not change them. The scenarios also respond to a set of “indeterminates” – key factors whose final outcomes are hard to specify and are subject to widely divergent choices. The indeterminates are varied to serve different priorities or desired outcomes.

The Givens applicable to all scenarios were: • No changes to the Master Plan of Roads for areas outside the project • VRE will serve the area • The County’s rural and semi-rural areas remains intact • No changes to current municipal boundaries • Retention of the County’s target of 1:1 for its Jobs/Housing Ratio • Continued shift of industrial and office growth to I-95 corridor. • The Nissan Pavilion to remain

47 March 2006

The indeterminates, whose variations are key differentiators in the alternative scenarios, were: • Alterations to the local road network to serve different land use programs • The exact location of any VRE stations • The location, mix and intensities of land uses within Innovation • The location, mix and intensities of land uses in the area between Brentswood and Innovation • The location, mix and intensities of land uses of the Gainesville area • The total amount and intensity of office, retail and residential uses of Brentswood • Use of existing Nissan Pavilion parking areas

In addition to setting up the Givens and Indeterminates, the team also selected the key, differentiating criteria against which to evaluate each scenario. These criteria were: • The market for proposed employment and its impact on the Jobs/Housing ratio • Local traffic impacts • Regional traffic impacts • Infrastructure financing and feasibility • Ultimate return to county of public investments • Park and open space impacts • Neighborhood acceptability

The Four Alternative Scenarios With the givens and indeterminates as background, the team developed four alternative scenarios that range widely in their land use goals, impacts on local and regional infrastructure and degree of public intervention needed to make them work. These scenarios were: 1. Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential 2. Low Intensity-Open Space 3. Market Trends 4. Planned Regional Center

Alternative 1: Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential This scenario (Figure 13) responds to the limited current and future regionally-oriented, class A type office market for this area and provides for some on-site development that can tap into the long term market for flex-office space. A significant employment designation for the site on about 550 acres is thus sustained but the emphasis shifts from industrial to office /flex/ lab/R & D/limited manufacturing uses. Proactive action by the county (e.g. an overlay zone) to protect the land against piecemeal low-grade industrial uses is assumed.

48 March 2006

Figure 13. Alternative 1, Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential Scenario

49 March 2006

Though not cut as drastically as the Low Intensity scenario, residential development is more modest than the original proposal with some 3,000 to 4,000 units –geared to an upscale housing market--distributed across 750 acres within of the southeast section of the site. About 3000 jobs in 21/4 million square feet of space are projected by 2030, about double the current county projection of 1,500 jobs. These are assumed to be new jobs from outside the county, predicated on the market forecasts and discussions by GMU referenced earlier.

Because of lessened intensities, greater area is preserved in green or open space and as buffers between uses. Such modest residential levels and the retention of employment at modest intensities can be supported by fewer local roads than the original proposal and locating an onsite VRE station is not essential to make the project successful, but is still very desirable to reserve the potential for a future small-scale TOD area on what would initially be a park and ride site. Several future roadways traverse the site but these are less extensive than in the Brentswood proposal.

Alternative 2: Low Intensity-Open Space This scenario (Figure 14) makes major land use adjustments to the original proposal in its emphasis on low key residential villages at an overall project wide density of 1.0 to l.5 units per gross acre. This results in only 1,500 to 2,000 units. This scenario also omits any new industrial development.

A key on-site attraction, requiring developer contributions and/or county action, would be a new regional sports center that could share new parking facilities with the Nissan Pavilion. The overall downscaling of uses and intensities permits creation of an extensive and expansive open space network with maximum protection of all stream valleys. The green emphasis is reinforced by inclusion of a new regional park with a nature center and an arboretum as its key features.

Because of the resulting low intensities and the heavy green emphasis, much of the local road network would be two-lane facilities, perhaps with bike lanes. No stresses on the regional road network are foreseen and a lesser network is needed. Finally, this scenario assumes no on-site VRE station which allows it to shift to a better location for park and ride convenience.

Alternative 3: Planned Regional Center The fourth scenario (Figure 15) is a very ambitious upgrading of the site into a major regional mixed-use center based on development at higher intensities – 15,000 residential units and 6 million SF of employment – double the original Brentswood proposal. This Regional Planned Center scenario would require significant adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan and a redirection of much employment growth from other county centers to this location, because of the limited market for such uses and the need to concentrate them for maximum synergy. Most of the employment here would be office and the remaining potential industrial development directed elsewhere.

50 March 2006

Figure 14. Alternative 2, Low Intensity-Open Space Scenario

51 March 2006

Figure 15. Alternative 3, Planned Regional Center Scenario

52 March 2006

Major regional and local transportation network changes would be needed to support these intensifications. These would include: • Upgrading the regional arterial connections to this area, including major redesign of the I-66/Prince William Parkway interchange • A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) link to I-66 • A shift of the VRE line southward to enable location of a station more within the regional center and more usable land to the north against I-66 • Planning of this station as a major multi-modal center • Use of an urban grid network to help organize and more efficiently relate the different components of the center • Design of much of this grid as urban parkways • Generous provision of urban green space and landscaping as well as necessary environmental protection set asides

A key difference of this scenario and the other three is in the need for the County to be an active development partner rather than only an administrator and regulator of development. This role and the scale of this scenario require the County to take increased risks, but doing so in anticipation of greater overall rewards.

Alternative 4: Market Trends The market trends scenario (Figure 16) depicts what would likely happen to the Brentswood site under current market conditions and is intended to be a more realistic outcome than the original Brentswood proposal. The emphasis is on moderate to low density residential development with an average of 4 to 5 units per gross acre, resulting in some 7.000 to 8,000 new units. There is some new industrial development near the existing uses and Nissan Pavilion. The retail component of this scenario is modest and locally oriented.

This alternative allows for a stronger open or green space emphasis than the original proposal. Because of its relatively modest intensities, locating a VRE station here is not a prerequisite to successful development, but could still occur.

53 March 2006

Figure 16. Alternative 4, Market Trends Scenario

54 March 2006

Evaluation of the Scenarios After developing the four alternative scenarios, the PB-GMU team evaluated them against those criteria that were earlier described and deemed the most relevant to the County’s long range planning needs and able to help discriminate between alternatives. The scenarios are compared against each other rather than any given standards. We also added the current Comprehensive Plan to the matrix as a reference point. We did not evaluate the Brentswood proposal since we have indicated that we did consider it viable. The market trends scenario is our approximation of what the Brentswood proposal would become. Figure 17 summarizes the results of this evaluation. The Positive/Neutral/Negative symbols are a simple but crude measure of rating and we try draw out nuances in the text below.

Figure17. Summary Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios

Evaluation Criteria Existing PWC 1. 2. 3. 4. Comprehensive Lower Low Planned Market Plan Intensity Intensity / Regional Trends Flex-Office / Open Space Center Residential

Employment Market (J / H ratio) z { z z z Local Traffic Impact { { z z { Regional Traffic Impact { { z z z Infrastructure Financing / Feasibility { { z { z Park and Open Space Impact z z z { { Ultimate Return to County { { { z z Neighborhood Acceptability { z z z {

z Positive Impact { Neutral Impact

z Negative Impact

The chart shows very clearly that despite all four scenarios being neutral or positively rated with regard to the infrastructure or park and open space criteria, they vary greatly in their impacts on the other criteria.

55 March 2006

Alternative 1, Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential scenario has several positive open space, park and environmental benefits. It helps further the Jobs/Housing Ratio goal of the County though it has less job capacity than the current plan. . The lower intensity of the scenarios residential component permits a more expansive and extensive network of protected environmental features such as stream valleys and steeper slopes. This alternative also retains the nature center and arboretum concept of Alternative 2 and uses it as buffer between the residential areas to the west and the on-site employment development south of the Nissan Pavilion. The lessened intensity of the residential component of this scenario, compared to the Brentswood proposal or to Alternative 3, Market Trends, will somewhat lessen the impact of development on the local road network, although it does not have the same benefits regarding traffic impacts as Alternative 2, Low Intensity/Open Space. Finally, while probably not to the same degree as the Low Intensity/Open Space scenario, this Lower Intensity Flex-Office/Residential scenario should have less problems regarding neighborhood acceptability than alternatives 3 and 4 and the original proposal.

Alternative 2, Low Intensity-Open Space scenario, does not further the Jobs/Housing Ratio goal, but that is not important to the overall purposes of this scenario – to reduce overall impacts, provide for upper end housing (that is more likely to “pay for itself”) in an attractive environment and use well the opportunities to create a significant green infrastructure and recreation and environmental amenities that will benefit the region at large. In all these areas this scenario rates very well. Higher end housing would consolidate the image of the area and indirectly, over the longer term, facilitate economic development in proximity to this executive level housing.

Alternative 3, Planned Regional Center scenario, would likely have negative impacts on the regional and local transportation networks if further improvements beyond the current comprehensive plan roads were not implemented. Consequently the ability of the Planned Regional Center to benefit the County’s goal of a 1:1 Jobs/Housing ratio could come at a high cost, but the benefits of a sense of place and real TOD synergy and housing choices are not trivial. The scale and the impacts of the Planned Regional Center would likely create strong neighborhood opposition given the proximity of existing residential neighborhoods to the south and east of the site.

Alternative 4, Market Trends scenario, would have negative impacts on the regional transportation network but not result in convincing positive returns to the County – a poor trade off. Also the limited employment component of this scenario does not further the County goal of working toward a 1:1 Jobs/Housing Ratio.

Based on the above results, we recommend Alternative 1, Lower Intensity Flex- Office/Residential scenario, as the most favorable, and followed by Alternative 2, Low Intensity-Open Space. We view both as preferable to the existing comprehensive plan.

We do not view the current proposal as favorable for the reasons documented throughout this report.

56 March 2006

APPENDIX A YIELD ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYSIS

March 2006

Holding Capacity Analysis: Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories and Yield Assumptions

Comp Plan Designation Description Residential –Density Non-Residential – FAR Assumptions and Use Intensity Assumptions and Use

AE, Agriculture or Estate Agriculture or single 1 du/10 acres family detached (SFD) Large Lots SRR, Semi-Rural SFD Large lots 1 du/2.5 acres after flood Residential plain deducted SRL, Suburban SFD small subdivision 4 dus/net acre Residential Low SRM, Suburban SFD and Townhomes 6 dus/net acre Residential Medium SRH, Suburban Multi-Family and 16 dus/net acre Residential High Apartments NC, Neighborhood Small neighborhood retail, 0.15 FAR Commercial with maximum project size 15 acres and maximum size no larger than 80,000 sq. ft. Note: must not be located nearer than one mile from any other retail. O, Office Office .35 FAR GC, General Commercial Retail .32 FAR CEC, Community Mixed project, primarily 12 dus/gross acre less ER .75 FAR for office; Employment Center low to mid rise offices. .15 FAR for retail Requires minimum 75% 15% - Multi-family office uses; remaining 25% 75% - Office can be any combination of 10% - Retail retail and multi-family residential. EI, Industrial Parallels M-1 zoning .15 FAR for industrial use; Employment district, Heavy Industrial FEC, Flexible Flex uses: light retail and .25 FAR Employment Center office; maximum 10% 45% - Office retail 45% - Industrial 10% - Retail RRC, Regional Convention and or Negotiated on a case by Recreation Center recreational uses. case basis. RCC, Regional Regional Commercial. No 30 units per gross area, less .36 FAR Commercial Center more than 25% of project ER can be local serving retail 75% - Retail and/or multifamily 25% - Multi-family residential. REC, Regional Mid rise or high rise 30 units per gross area, less .75 FAR for office Employment Center offices. No more than 25% ER .15 FAR for retail of project can be retail and/or multi-family 15% - Multi-family 75% - Office residential. 10% - Retail RPC, Residential Planned Residential communities 4.5 units per gross acres As negotiated Communities subject to an individually 33% - Single Family negotiated plan Detached 33% - Single Family Attached 33% - Multi-Family

March 2006

Comp Plan Designation Description Residential –Density Non-Residential – FAR Assumptions and Use Intensity Assumptions and Use Potomac Communities Classifications URL, Urban Residential Attached or detached 8 du/acre Low residences 50% - Single Family Detached 50% - Single Family Attached URM, Urban Residential Attached Residences 20 du/acre Medium URH, Urban Residential Attached Residences 30 du/acre High VMU, Village Mixed Use Combination of homes and 6 du/acre .25 FAR retail UMU, Urban Mixed Use High density Mixed use 20 du/acre .75 FAR – Office projects containing at least 30% - Office 3 components – residential, 50% - Multifamily office, recreation, retail. .25 FAR – Retail Density dependent on 20% - Retail location. UMU-Woodbridge Highest density near 35 du/acre 1 FAR: office Woodbridge VRE .36 FAR: retail UMU—Neabsco Mid range density near 20 du/acre .5 FAR-office Northern Virginia .25 FAR - retail Community College UMU-Dumfries Mid range density 20 du/acre .5 FAR office .25 FAR retail

Note: In the case of residential densities, the maximum density was assumed, based on Prince William County Planning Office staff input.

Prince William County Development Districts - Yields of Undeveloped Lands - Sub Area 1 - I-95 Corridor

USECODE Area (Acres)Residential (du) Area (Acres) Non-Residential (Sq. Ft.)

Single Family Single Family Total Non- Multi-Family Total Residential Industrial Office Retail Detached Attached Residential Non-Residential Use O - Office - - - - - 412 - 6,284,790 - 6,284,790 FEC - Flexible Employment Center - - - - - 417 2,041,990 2,041,990 453,776 4,537,755 GC - General Commercial - - - - - 209 - - 2,909,397 2,909,397 NC - Neighborhood Commercial - - - - - 210 - - 1,375,209 1,375,209 EI - Industrial Employment - - - - - 1 6,100 - - 6,100 SUBTOTAL Non Residential Use - - - - - 1,249 2,048,090 8,326,780 4,738,381 15,113,251 Residential Use SRL - Suburban Residential Low 2,205 8,821 - - 8,821 - - - - - RPC - Residential Planned Communities 2,223 3,301 3,301 3,301 9,904 - - - - - SRM - Suburban Residential Medium 636 1,908 1,908 - 3,815 - - - - - SRR - Semi-Rural Residential 713 285 - - 285 - - - - - SRH - Suburban Residential High 282 - - 4,505 4,505 - - - - - AE - Agriculture Estate 338 34 - - 34 - - - - - URM - Urban Residential Medium 148 - 2,965 - 2,965 - - - - - URL - Urban Residential Low 32 130 130 - 259 - - - - - URH - Urban Residential High 34 1,020 - - 1,020 - - - - - SUBTOTAL Residential Use 6,612 15,499 8,303 7,806 31,608 - - - - - Mixed Use REC - Regional Employment Center 135 - - 4,052 4,052 765 - 22,064,141 588,377 22,652,518 CEC - Community Employment Center 50 - - 600 600 283 - 8,165,394 217,744 8,383,138 RCC - Regional Employment Center 24 - - 717 717 72 - - 374,548 374,548 UMU - Urban Mixed Use 42 - - 849 849 42 - 1,664,572 369,905 2,034,477 SUBTOTAL Mixed Use 251 - - 6,218 6,218 1,163 - 31,894,108 1,550,574 33,444,682 TOTAL 6,863 15,499 8,303 14,024 37,826 2,412 2,048,090 40,220,887 6,288,956 48,557,933

NOTES: 1 - Several uses, including conservation districts are excluded from this analysis: CITY, Environmental Resource (ER), Public Land (PL), Parks & Open Space (P&OS), POSP, POSA, Designated Cultural Resource (DCR), RR, TOWN, and VMU. 2 - Does not included underdeveloped lands. Prince William County Development Districts - Yields of Undeveloped Lands - Sub Area 2 - I-66 Corridor

USECODE Area (Acres)Residential (du) Area (Acres) Non-Residential (Sq. Ft.)

Single Family Single Family Total Non- Multi-Family Total Residential Industrial Office Retail Detached Attached Residential Non-Residential Use O - Office - - - - - 40 - 610,601 - 610,601 FEC - Flexible Employment Center - - - - - 1,620 7,938,222 7,938,222 1,764,049 17,640,493 GC - General Commercial - - - - - 1,051 - - 14,651,883 14,651,883 NC - Neighborhood Commercial - - - - - 9 - - 57,583 57,583 EI - Industrial Employment - - - - - 1,095 7,157,265 - - 7,157,265 SUBTOTAL Non Residential Use - - - - - 3,815 15,095,487 8,548,823 16,473,516 40,117,825 Residential Use SRL - Suburban Residential Low 1,600 6,400 - - 6,400 - - - - - RPC - Residential Planned Communities 344 511 511 511 1,533 - - - - - SRM - Suburban Residential Medium 633 1,898 1,898 - 3,796 - - - - - SRR - Semi-Rural Residential 207 83 - - 83 - - - - - SRH - Suburban Residential High 161 - - 2,579 2,579 - - - - - AE - Agriculture Estate 386 39 - - 39 - - - - - URM - Urban Residential Medium ------URL - Urban Residential Low ------URH - Urban Residential High ------SUBTOTAL Residential Use 3,331 8,930 2,409 3,090 14,429 - - - - - Mixed Use REC - Regional Employment Center 202 - - 6,075 6,075 1,147 - 33,077,983 882,080 33,960,063 CEC - Community Employment Center 86 - - 1,030 1,030 486 - 14,015,430 373,745 14,389,175 RCC - Regional Employment Center 65 - - 1,940 1,940 194 - - - - UMU - Urban Mixed Use ------SUBTOTAL Mixed Use 353 - - 9,045 9,045 1,828 - 47,093,413 1,255,824 48,349,237 TOTAL 3,684 8,930 2,409 12,135 23,474 5,643 15,095,487 55,642,236 17,729,340 88,467,063

NOTES: 1 - Several uses, including conservation districts are excluded from this analysis: CITY, Environmental Resource (ER), Public Land (PL), Parks & Open Space (P&OS), POSP, POSA, Designated Cultural Resource (DCR), RR, TOWN, and VMU. 2 - Does not included underdeveloped lands. Prince William County Development Districts - Yields of Undeveloped Lands - Sub Area 3 - Rural and Semi-Rural Areas

USECODE Area (Acres)Residential (du) Area (Acres) Non-Residential (Sq. Ft.)

Single Family Single Family Total Non- Multi-Family Total Residential Industrial Office Retail Detached Attached Residential Non-Residential Use O - Office - - - - - 4 - 54,479 - 54,479 FEC - Flexible Employment Center - - - - - 229 1,121,990 1,121,990 249,331 2,493,310 GC - General Commercial ------NC - Neighborhood Commercial - - - - - 21 - - 139,236 139,236 EI - Industrial Employment ------SUBTOTAL Non Residential Use - - - - - 254 1,121,990 1,176,468 388,567 2,687,025 Residential Use SRL - Suburban Residential Low 332 1,328 - - 1,328 - - - - - RPC - Residential Planned Communities 901 1,337 1,337 1,337 4,012 - - - - - SRM - Suburban Residential Medium 53 160 160 - 319 - - - - - SRR - Semi-Rural Residential 2,944 1,178 - - 1,178 - - - - - SRH - Suburban Residential High ------AE - Agriculture Estate 20,013 2,001 - - 2,001 - - - - - URM - Urban Residential Medium ------URL - Urban Residential Low ------URH - Urban Residential High ------SUBTOTAL Residential Use 24,243 6,004 1,497 1,337 8,839 - - - - - Mixed Use REC - Regional Employment Center 40 - - 1,187 1,187 224 - 6,462,640 172,337 6,634,977 CEC - Community Employment Center 34 - - 412 412 195 - 5,607,267 149,527 5,756,794 RCC - Regional Employment Center ------UMU - Urban Mixed Use ------SUBTOTAL Mixed Use 74 - - 1,599 1,599 419 - 12,069,907 321,864 12,391,771 TOTAL 24,317 6,004 1,497 2,936 10,437 673 1,121,990 13,246,375 710,431 15,078,796

NOTES: 1 - Several uses, including conservation districts are excluded from this analysis: CITY, Environmental Resource (ER), Public Land (PL), Parks & Open Space (P&OS), POSP, POSA, Designated Cultural Resource (DCR), RR, TOWN, and VMU. 2 - Does not included underdeveloped lands. Prince William County Development Districts - Acreages of Undeveloped Lands Sub Area 3 (Rural and USECODE Sub Area 1 (I-95 Corridor) Sub Area 2 (I-66 Corridor) TOTAL Semi-Rural Areas) Non-Residential Use O - Office 412 40 4 456 FEC - Flexible Employment Center 417 1,620 229 2,266 GC - General Commercial 209 1,051 - 1,260 NC - Neighborhood Commercial 210 9 21 241 EI - Industrial Employment 1 1,095 - 1,096 SUBTOTAL Non Residential Use 1,249 3,815 254 5,318 Residential Use SRL - Suburban Residential Low 2,205 1,600 332 4,137 RPC - Residential Planned Communities 2,223 344 901 3,468 SRM - Suburban Residential Medium 636 633 53 1,322 SRR - Semi-Rural Residential 713 207 2,944 3,863 SRH - Suburban Residential High 282 161 - 443 AE - Agriculture Estate 338 386 20,013 20,738 URM - Urban Residential Medium 148 - - 148 URL - Urban Residential Low 32 - - 32 URH - Urban Residential High 34 - - 34 SUBTOTAL Residential Use 6,612 3,331 24,243 34,186 Mixed Use REC - Regional Employment Center 900 1,350 264 2,514 CEC - Community Employment Center 333 572 229 1,134 RCC - Regional Employment Center 96 259 - 354 UMU - Urban Mixed Use 85 - - 85 SUBTOTAL Mixed Use 1,414 2,181 493 4,088 TOTAL (Acres) 9,275 9,327 24,989 43,591

NOTES: 1 - Several uses, including conservation districts are excluded from this analysis: CITY, Environmental Resource (ER), Public Land (PL), Parks & Open Space (P&OS), POSP, POSA, Designated Cultural Resource (DCR), RR, TOWN, and VMU. 2 - Does not included underdeveloped lands. March 2006

APPENDIX B MARKET ANALYSIS OF POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT

March 27, 2006

Executive Summary

The Brentswood development proposal and comprehensive plan amendment would substantially change the densities and use mixes for the 1,500 acre site located in western Prince William County. The Brentswood project includes plans to build 2.85 million square feet of office space, 875,000 square feet of retail space and 6,800 residential units by 2026. Beyond 2026 the proposed rezoning and land use amendment would provide the opportunity for an additional 475,000 square feet of office space and 450,000 square feet of retail space, along with 2.5 million square feet of non-retail (services) development, on the site. The development program requests considerable revisions to the County land use plan, which designates this site primarily for industrial uses. The County has commissioned the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis (GMU) to conduct a regional market analysis to assess the viability of the proposed project and to ensure that the County pursues the most advantageous development policy possible.

Our overall conclusion is that the market for substantial office and retail development at this site does not exist, but there is potential demand for flex space and there is sufficient demand for the amount of housing proposed. The developer is hoping to create demand for office and retail space with infrastructure improvements and amenities. By taking a “build it and they will come” approach on the Brentswood site, Prince William County may risk pursuing a less than optimal development program for this site, as well as losing potentially more strategic opportunities to target commercial development elsewhere in the County.

Four themes emerged from our market demand analysis:

• The non-residential market demand analysis provides little support for the level of office and retail development included in the Brentswood proposal. The development program anticipates that the improvements included as part of the project will induce companies to locate offices at Brentswood and entice consumers to travel to shop and dine there. However, there are many intervening commercial centers in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties that provide superior locational advantages than does the Brentswood site. These places are already well-established and proven regional destinations. The Brentswood site would have a difficult time attracting businesses away from these intervening opportunities, even with the proposed infrastructure improvements and urban design approach.

• There are sites in Prince William County that are much better suited for major office and retail development. The County’s job forecasts to 2030 are very reasonable, perhaps somewhat understated even, and the County can currently accommodate all of the forecasted jobs at other locations in the County. In particularly, the County will have remarkable opportunities for job growth over the next 10 years in the Fort Belvoir/Quantico/I-95 area and Innovation@Prince William technology district. As a result of synergies and development momentum that already exist; these areas will be much better able to attract businesses between 2005 and 2015 than will the Brentswood site. As these sites become more developed, probably after the 2015 time frame, there will be potential for more development, though not class A office space, to be attracted

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 1 March 27, 2006

to other sites targeted for development by the county, such as Brenstwood. For the short- term and mid-term, however, capitalizing on the potential of the current growth areas should be the principal focus of the County’s economic development strategy.

• There is potential demand for flex-office space in western Prince William and some of this demand could be met at Brentswood, especially over time as prime sites in Innovation are developed. The potential demand would come from current flex space users in Loudoun and western Fairfax looking for expansion, from data centers, and from DoD contractors who would seek sites where they can meet the new DoD setback requirements at a lower land cost than Fairfax and Loudoun.

• Strong regional job growth generates strong demand for housing in Prince William County and the rest of Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia region faces a housing shortfall that will increase significantly over the next 25 years. The result of this shortfall is upward pressure on housing prices and increasing numbers of workers commuting from outside of the region. Prince William County has planned more aggressively for housing than most other Northern Virginia jurisdictions. However, demand for housing regionally and the relative affordability of Prince William County implies the County could accommodate more housing than is currently planned.

Our analysis of regional demand does not validate the traditional office and retail components of the proposed development program at this site and at this time. However, given that the development proposal includes only 20,000 sq ft of office in the 2006-2012 period, and that the region’s economy will likely experience another business cycle in the next six years, this assessment of office potential at this site could be revisited later (2011-2012) and a review made of the market potential for office demand at the Brentswood site.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 2 March 27, 2006

The Proposal

Between 2005 and 2026, Brentswood plans to build 2.85 million square feet of office space, 875,000 square feet of retail space and 6,800 residential units. The proposed rezoning and land use plan amendment would provide the opportunity for an additional 475,000 square feet of office space, 450,000 square feet of retail space and 2.5 million square feet of non-retail (services) space at buildout. The following discussion focuses on the impact of the development planned to be completed by 2026, though a 2030 end date is used to allow comparison with other forecasts.

The land use changes requested by Brentswood significantly increase the number of residents and workers at the site between 2005 and 2030. Based on the County’s Round 7 forecasts, no new housing units will be built between 2005 and 2010, but between 2010 and 2030, the number of units is projected to grow by 2,658. Steady, but very slow employment growth is projected for the site in the Round 7 forecasts, with the number of jobs increasing by less than 500 by 2030. The Brentswood proposal calls for the construction of 6,800 housing units and commercial space that would generate over 12,000 jobs by 2030 (Table 1).

Table 1. Forecasts of Housing Units and Jobs: 2010, 2020 and 2030 Brentswood Site 2010 2020 2030 Round 7 Proposed Round 7 Proposed Round 7 Proposed Housing Units 73 73 1,483 5,500 2,730 6,800 Jobs 1,218 1,2181,316 10,600 1,487 12,010 Sources: Prince William County Round 7 forecasts; GMU estimates Note: GMU estimates assume 250 sf per office employee, 500 sf per retail employee and office vacancy rates of 10%. GMU defined the Brentswood site by the following Prince William TAZs: 2029B, 2029C (25%), 2029D, 2029E (80%), 2029F (30%), 2029G, 2029H, and 2030B

The Brentswood proposal is a large and significant development that will change the composition and character of western Prince William County. The office development completed by 2026 is equivalent to more than 50 percent of the office space currently in the County. The project also contains a substantial retail component with retail square footage on par with a regional complex. The scale of the Brentswood project means that it will be driven by market trends not only in the County but also in the rest of Northern Virginia.

The development application does not contain a market demand study for the proposed development program. As a result, we have conducted an independent assessment of the demand for the office space, housing units, and retail space proposed for the Brentswood site. The remainder of this report reviews regional economic conditions that cast doubt on the viability of the commercial development program proposed by Brentswood. This review provides Prince William County an opportunity not only to assess the Brentswood project, but also to deliberate on potential economic development strategies for other parts of the County.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 3 March 27, 2006

Office Employment

Prince William County currently has more than 5.1 million square feet of office space and 16.9 million square feet of retail space, according to the County’s property database. The office market has accelerated in the past few years as economic growth has strengthened. The proposed Brentswood development would add 2.85 million square feet of office space and 875,000 square feet of retail space by 2030. The level of office development proposed implies future annual absorption rates on this site alone that are equivalent to the absorption rates for the entire County in the past decade or so. In the last decade, an average of 120,000 square feet of office space was absorbed annually in Prince William County, according to the County’s property database. The Brentswood project as proposed implies an average annual absorption of 136,000 square feet of office space. Based on Prince William County’s historic capability for office space absorption, the Brentswood project would leave little opportunity for office development in other parts of the County.

The commercial development on the Brentswood site would generate 12,010 jobs in Prince William County by 2030, reflecting a net increase of more than 10,500 over current projections for the site. The majority of new jobs would be added between 2010 and 2020. This growth in office space and employment represents a significant change in the orientation of this part of Prince William County. The ability for the site and the County to absorb this much office space depends heavily on the health of the regional economy, as well as the growth of intervening employment centers both inside and outside of Prince William County. Based on our assessment, there is insufficient demand and a plethora of better alternatives in Northern Virginia to justify almost three million square feet of office space at this location. The majority of office tenants at this site would likely be personal service offices, such as dentists, doctors, lawyers, and accountants, which serve the immediate population. This implies that a much lower amount of office space could be supported at this site over the next 25 years.

In the last five years, the Washington DC region has added more jobs – 287,000 - than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. The Northern Virginia area alone added 144,000 new jobs in the five-year period. According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Round 7 forecasts, Northern Virginia jurisdictions expect to add 730,000 new jobs between 2005 and 2030. The nine largest employment centers, which contain about 40 percent of all jobs in Northern Virginia, are forecasted to gain more than 288,000 jobs during that time period (Table 2).

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 4 March 27, 2006

Table 2. Forecasts of Employmenta Major Employment Centers in Northern Virginia 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Tyson's Corner 105,567 122,562 131,604 142,301 151,023 157,022 Dulles Corridor 111,156 132,682 144,952 157,348 168,792 179,058 Fairfax Center 79,692 87,262 93,146 98,716 104,234 109,107 Springfield/Franconia 67,260 79,361 86,030 92,413 95,991 98,844 Merrifield/Dunn Loring 51,009 56,332 60,246 62,661 65,637 67,520 Dulles North 43,747 52,368 62,589 70,139 78,954 88,774 Manassas Areab 36,214 39,454 42,805 45,015 47,271 49,773 Dulles South 26,639 30,479 33,583 36,106 38,962 41,090 Potomac Mills Area 24,706 28,789 33,135 36,345 39,630 42,842 Largest Employment 545,990 629,289 688,090 741,044 790,494 834,030 Center Totals Northern Virginia Totals 1,325,553 1,519,938 1,668,069 1,810,466 1,940,800 2,059,487 Source: COG Round 7 Cooperative Forecasts, GMU a includes office, retail, industrial and other employment b does not include Brentswood site

Projected employment growth, particularly in the professional and business services sector, will be fueled primarily by federal procurement spending. Between 2003 and 2004, federal procurement spending to firms in Northern Virginia increased by 3.5 billion dollars and there are no signs of that spending slowing down. In order for office employment growth to be realized, there needs to be sufficient office space available in desirable locations. At the end of 2004, there were an estimated 145 million square feet of existing office space in the Northern Virginia area, including 2.8 million square feet of new or renovated space delivered in 2004. As of December 2004, there were 4.9 million square feet of office space under construction or renovation in Northern Virginia with a pre-lease rate of 66.3 percent.1 Prince William County currently has approximately five million square feet of office space with another half million currently under construction.

The amount of office space available for lease in Northern Virginia is declining somewhat as vacancy rates have recently declined. Office vacancy rates rose dramatically following the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 and the 2001 dot.com bust, but they have started to moderate somewhat (Table 3). At the end of 2004, the office vacancy rate (with sublet) in Northern Virginia was 12.0 percent. The office vacancy rate in Prince William County tends to be lower than the rest of the Northern Virginia region, but it is more susceptible to large swings one way or another because it has the smallest amount of leased office square footage. Prince William County had a 2nd quarter 2005 office vacancy rate of 5.7 percent, compared with 10.2 percent for the overall Northern Virginia region, 10.7 percent in Tyson’s Corner and 16.5 percent in Loudoun County.2

1 Greater Washington Commercial Association of Realtors, 2004 Year-End Market Report. 2 Spaulding & Slye Colliers International, Market Statistics Washington DC 2nd quarter 2005.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 5 March 27, 2006

Table 3. Annual Office Vacancy Rates* Northern Virginia Year Vacancy Rate 1998 4.8 1999 5.3 2000 4.8 2001 13.6 2002 17.9 2003 15.1 2004 12.0 Source: Greater Washington Commercial Association of Realtors *includes sublet

Based on projected regional demand and supply, it is unlikely that the Brentswood office development will be able to compete with existing and growing employment centers in Northern Virginia that offer better opportunities for office space. According to the COG employment forecasts, it is estimated that the Northern Virginia region will add more than 118 million square feet of office space between 2005 and 2030. The nine biggest employment centers in Northern Virginia are projected to add almost 50 million square feet of office space between 2005 and 2030, with the biggest increases in the Dulles Corridor and Tyson’s Corner (Table 4).

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 6 March 27, 2006

Table 4. Forecasts of Office Space Major Employment Centers in Northern Virginia (millions of square feet) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Tyson's Corner 25.4 29.4 31.6 34.2 36.3 37.7 Dulles Corridor 27.8 33.2 36.2 39.3 42.2 44.8 Fairfax Center 9.2 10.1 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.6 I-95/Springfield/Ft. Belvoir 3.9 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 Merrifield/Dunn Loring 9.8 10.8 11.5 12.0 12.6 12.9 Dulles North 7.0 8.4 10.1 11.3 12.7 14.3 Manassas Area 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 Dulles South 4.3 4.9 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.6 Potomac Mills Area 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 Largest Employment 91.6 106.2 115.9 125.1 133.7 141.1 Centers Totals Northern Virginia Totals 213.5 244.9 268.7 291.7 312.7 331.8 Source: GMU estimates based on COG Round 6.4/7 cooperative forecasts

Prince William County will be competing with these other employment centers to attract employers who want to shorten commute times for many of their employees who work in the outer suburbs. The alternative employment centers in Northern Virginia, including other areas of Prince William County, generally offer better access to transportation, benefits associated with proximity to other firms, and established identities compared with the Brentswood site.

In the Prince William County Round 7 forecasts, it is estimated that there will be an additional 85,500 jobs in the County between 2005 and 2030. Independent estimates by GMU indicates a slightly larger job growth—93,000 in the 25-year period. However, Prince William County has better alternatives for office development than the Brentswood site. Two key sites in Prince William County offer particularly advantageous locational benefits and should be the focus of the County’s economic development strategy: the I-95/Quantico/Ft. Belvoir area and the Innovation@Prince William district.

• I-95/Quantico/Ft. Belvoir area. As a result of the most recent process of the base realignment and closure (BRAC) commission, Ft. Belvoir and Quantico are expected to gain over 20,000 Department of Defense (DoD) jobs. These DoD jobs are being moved out of leased commercial space inside the Beltway (e.g. Crystal City, Rosslyn- Ballston, and Bailey’s Crossroads) and will be re-locating in the 2009-2010 timeframe.

In addition to the 20,000 DoD jobs, an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 federal government contractors will also be moving to this area in the next five to ten years.3 These private government contracting firms represent an enormous opportunity for Prince William County. These firms will benefit not only from proximity to their DoD agencies, but also from proximity to other government contractors and back office business services.

3 The Round 7 forecasts were prepared before the BRAC process was completed and therefore do not reflect the movement of federal and contractor jobs out of the inner core to outer suburban locations.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 7 March 27, 2006

This corridor benefits from superior transportation access along I-95 and Route 1. The County should re-plan the I-95/Quantico/Ft. Belvoir area for more office uses and market this area as a hub of federal government contracting activity and an alternative to long-distance commutes to the District of Columbia and Arlington.

• Innovation@Prince William district. Innovation@Prince William is an emerging technology business park that is experiencing tremendous growth. Several biotechnology firms, including American Type Culture Collection, Geo-Centers, Inc. and Mediatech, and several defense contractors have either recently located or plan to locate in 2006. Eli Lilly and Company has a 300,000 square foot manufacturing plant planned for the Innovation district that will eventually employ 350 people.

Although the Innovation district is located a greater distance off I-66 than is the Brentswood site, it possesses other advantages. First, the area will benefit from the County’s investment and initiative in it; second, the area has already been studied extensively and a sector plan has been developed and approved. The Innovation sector plan calls for between 12.9 and 22.8 million square feet of office, retail, R&D and manufacturing space at buildout.4 Finally,,George Mason University’s Prince William campus is seen as a major stimulus and focus for additional economic development at Innovation. Third, the district currently has momentum as several high profile firms have recently located there. Technology research and development firms benefit from agglomeration economies—that is, economic benefits that arise from knowledge sharing that occurs when firms doing similar and complementary research are located in close proximity. The County should develop a strategy for implementing the Innovation plan, including a strategy for phasing in development and a targeted approach for attracting technology firms.

Flex-Office

While the demand for traditional office space is marginal, there is some demand being met for flex space in Prince William County, and flex space has been the focus for Innovation development. Some firms that develop flex space in Eastern Loudoun and Western Fairfax may look to Western Prince William for expansion, particularly given the large land parcels available and favorable tax advantages for certain types of flex space development.

An industry segment that uses flex type space is the telecommunications sector, which has probably completed its down-sizing, merging and restructuring. As this segment regains traction, it may well look to Prince William for locations. Prince William has a definite competitive edge regarding taxes on equipment used by this industry segment: a rate of $1.25 property tax versus over $4.00 in Fairfax and Loudoun. Included in this segment would be data centers which appear to be on the way to recovery from the bust of 2001-2002.

These and other potential users of flex space, such as defense contractors, may also seek available sites that enable setback requirements for the new DoD security regulations that could

4 Prince William County 2003 Comprehensive Plan.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 8 March 27, 2006 be met on the large land parcels in Prince William, as well as being drawn to the County because of lower land prices than Loudoun and Prince William.

While Innovation may currently be the focus of potential flex-space users in the western part of the county, as development of Innovation uses up available sites over the next several years, there would likely be increased demand for sites in the Brentswood development. And even in the short-term, some companies may have requirements for space that cannot be met in Innovation that could be met at sites in Brentswood.

Industrial

The region’s economy is dominated by the services and government sectors, and the sectors that develop on industrial land are very small throughout the Washington area. Over the past fifteen years, the sectors making up industrial activity – manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, utilities – have grown from 197,000 jobs to 204,000 jobs, an increase of only 7,000 jobs and 3.5% since 1990. At the same time the rest of the economy was growing by 670,000 jobs, so industrial activity has accounted for just about 1 percent of the region’s economy. This historical trend is not expected to change in the future. While there will be some marginal demand for industrial space in the Prince William part of the region, there would be more demand in the I-95 corridor closer to the primary distribution corridor of the East Coast. There will be very little demand for conventional industrial space in the I-66 corridor.

Housing

The fast-growing economy and housing supply constraints has led to increased demand for housing and escalating housing prices in the Northern Virginia region. At the same time, there has been pressure within some jurisdictions to slow the rate of growth of residential development. However, an important driver of local economic growth is the availability of a highly skilled labor force. Thus, attracting residents can be an asset, rather than a burden, because employers are attracted to places with a strong labor force.

The most obvious result of the increased demand for housing in the Northern Virginia region is the increase in home prices. The average price for a single-family detached home rose from $265,000 in 1999 to $587,000 in 2005, an increase of 122 percent (Figure 1). The average price of townhouses and condominiums in Northern Virginia rose 149 and 173 percent, respectively, between 2004 and 2005.

Another result of the increased demand for housing has been an increase in the number of people commuting into the Washington DC region from southern Virginia, West Virginia, Baltimore and points further away. According to the COG Round 7 forecasts, the development of new housing units in the Northern Virginia region will not be at all sufficient to meet the demand. Estimates indicate a modest deficit of housing units in 2005 in Northern Virginia but the housing shortage will increase dramatically to 79,000 by 2030. This deficit means that jobs in Northern Virginia will be increasingly filled be people who live outside of the region, either in the District

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 9 March 27, 2006 of Columbia, Suburban Maryland, the Rappahannock-Culpeper area or West Virginia. The result will be increasing traffic congestion on already congested roadways in Northern Virginia.

Figure 1. Average Home Price: 1999 and 2005 Northern Virginia $700,000

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000 $586,972 1999

$300,000 $264,973 2005* $416,559

$200,000 $167,191 $118,228 $322,388 $100,000 *Through Nov. $0 SFD TH Condo *Through Nov.

The average home price in Prince William County remains below the Northern Virginia average (Table 5). Because housing is a relative bargain, the County’s housing market is stronger than the regional market and will continue to experience strong price appreciation even as most of the rest of Northern Virginia feels a moderation in house price growth. Between November 2004 and November 2005, the average home price increased by 26 percent in Prince William County compared with 20 percent in Northern Virginia.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 10 March 27, 2006

Table 5. Average Home Price – Existing Homes: November 2005 (in dollars) Fairfax City 592,016 Arlington 549,450 Fairfax 542,078 Loudoun 535,878 Fauquier 510,986 Alexandria City 498,137 Northern Virginia 491,064 Falls Church City 481,338 Prince William 438,829 Clarke 424,827 Stafford 386,962 Manassas Park City 372,018 Fredericksburg City 366,677 Manassas City 358,648 Spotsylvania 344,701 Warren 279,576

Prince William County has planned more aggressively for housing than either Loudoun County and or Fairfax County. According to Prince William County’s Round 7 forecasts, in the next 25 years, the County will add 70,000 new residential units.. This growth represents a 60% increase over 25 years, compared with a 28% increase in Fairfax County and a 94% in Loudoun County (beginning with a much lower base).

However, Northern Virginia is both a regional job market and a regional housing market. The continued strong demand for housing in Northern Virginia—and the relative affordability of homes in Prince William County—creates opportunities for the County to expand its housing production even further.

Historically Prince William has been a net exporter of work force, with many workers commuting to jobs outside the county. In 2000, there were 68,900 residents commuting to jobs within the county while 90,100 residents were commuting to jobs in Fairfax, D.C., Arlington, and Alexandria. This puts the County in the position of needing more jobs relative to housing to achieve a better balance, unlike other jurisdictions that need more housing to achieve the balance. The County currently has a jobs/housing ratio of 0.85 and its adopted Round 7 forecasts of jobs to households to 2030 would give the county a ratio of 0.99 by 2030, achieving a much better balance. The Round 7 forecasts of new jobs in the County from 2005-2030 is a growth of 85,500. This level of job growth would mean a demand for new housing, based on a jobs-to- housing ratio of approximately 1.5, in the range of 54,000 – 58,000 new units (households) and the County’s Round 7 forecast is an increase in households of 69,600. Therefore, Prince William County’s adopted plans are providing more than the County’s share of housing for the Northern Virginia economy and projected job growth.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 11 March 27, 2006

However, there is little doubt that the demand for housing in Northern Virginia and Prince William County is strong. The 6,800 housing units proposed for the Brentswood site would be easily sold, particularly the single-family attached and detached homes.

Retail

The Brentswood proposal includes a substantial retail component—875,000 square feet by 2025. About 200,000 is a proposed community shopping center in the southern part of the site. The developer proposes the northern area , adjacent to the proposed VRE station, as the site of a new regional retail center. A major regional retail center generally contains a million square feet or more of retail in multiple buildings at a site that is a destination for households from around the region. The Potomac Mills area in Prince William County and Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax County serve as the major regional retail destinations in Northern Virginia, encompassing several million square feet of retail space. Smaller regional retail centers, like Pentagon City in Arlington County, contain a million or more square feet or retail.

The proposed retail is intended as high-end retail in an attractive, Main Street-like setting. The amount of retail proposed in the Brentswood development is surprising. There is not enough demand for the proposed level of retail on the site. The Brentswood site offers no locational advantages for a regional retail center. There are numerous other well-established regional retail centers that are easier to access by auto (e.g. Tyson’s, Fair Oaks) or by transit (e.g. Pentagon City). Other sites close to the Brentswood property, like the Route 29-Interstate 66 intersection, offer superior transportation access than the Brentswood site, but even those are not positioned well to capture a regional market.

New retail development at the Brentswood site primarily would serve the site’s new residents and office workers, with the possibility of attracting Prince William County residents living close by and perhaps a relatively small number of people attending events at Nissan Pavilion. Based on projected retail demand generated by the Brentswood project, the appropriate amount of retail space in the project is around 177,000 square feet to serve the local Brentswood population and workers. (Table 6).

Based on discussions with Prince William County Planning staff, it is apparent that Prince William County residents have an abundance of retail. The County has one of the highest retail square footage per capita of any jurisdiction on the east coast. What western Prince William County residents may be missing is specialty retail and groceries. A high-end grocery store and trendy shops and restaurants could be easily accommodated in 200,000 square feet of retail at this site.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 12 March 27, 2006

Table 6. Analysis of Proposed Retail Demand Brentswood Site Proposed Retail (sq. ft.) 875,000 Brentswood site Forecast Population (2030) 16,954 Forecast Office Employment (2030) 10,260

Retail Demand Residential (8 sq. ft. per person) 135,632 Office Workers (4 sq. ft. per person) 41,040 Total Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 176,672

Excess Retail Proposed (sq. ft.) 698,328 Source: GMU

The Nissan Pavilion could potentially generate some demand for restaurants on nights when there are events at the arena, so long as there were good interconnections between the arena and the restaurants. However, Nissan Pavilion is much more like FedEx field than it is like the MCI Center or Camden Yards. In other words, people attending events at Nissan Pavilion are likely to simply drive into the arena parking lot, attend the show, and drive out. Many of the shows are on weekday evenings, when people must leave early from work simply to make it before the opening act. And many attending the shows come from other parts of the Northern Virginia region and face a long drive home after the show. Therefore, the County and the developer cannot bank on demand from Nissan Pavilion attendees to support a major retail/restaurant complex.

George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis 13 Attachment D BOCS Initiating Resolution

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page D-1 Attachment D BOCS Initiating Resolution

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page D-2 Attachment E Planning Commission Resolution

CPA #PLN 2005-00215, Brentswood Page E-1