May 13, 2015

Case Study: Thomas Jefferson Site EvaluationCarrie Johnson, Chair, Thomas Jefferson Working Group

Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation – Presentation Outline

• Background & APS Site Selection• Thomas Jefferson Working Group Charter & Composition• Site Evaluation Criteria & Process• Findings & Recommendations• Collaborative Process Pros & Cons• Outcome & Next Steps

Full report and additional materials:http://projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/thomas-jefferson-site-evaluation/

2

Background: 2015 APS CIP

3

Background: Parcel Ownership

4

Working Group Charge

“… charged with evaluating the Thomas Jefferson site and making a recommendation on whether or not an elementary school should be built on any part of this site.

This site evaluation may result in one of two conclusions:1. Recommendation for siting a new school at a particular

location within the TJ site, in which case the TJWG would develop general conditions and design principles to address both the site context and neighborhood context and to mitigate impacts on existing public areas and uses.

2. Recommendation not to site new school at TJ based on specific findings.”

5

Working Group Composition

At-largePFRC - Planning CommissionPFRC - Transportation CommissionPFRC - E2C2PFRC - Parks & Rec CommissionSports CommissionUrban Forestry Commission Arlington Heights Civic AssociationAlcova Heights Civic AssociationAshton Heights Civic AssociationBarcroft Civic AssociationDouglas Park Civic AssociationLyon Park Civic AssociationPenrose Civic AssociationArlington County Fair BoardAPS Facilities Advisory Council (x2)Friends of TJ ParkThomas Jefferson PTA

County Board Liaison: Mary HynesSchool Board Liaison: Emma Violand-Sanchez

Chair: Carrie Johnson

6

Site Evaluation Criteria and Process

• Internal APS site selection had emphasized criteria for proposed new school (site size, proximity to another school, transportation, operational flexibility)

• Site evaluation started from existing community and APS uses

• Criteria in 2011 County/APS MOU re cooperation include conformance with County plans and ability to continue or enhance existing County services

• Also considered impact of new elementary school on Jefferson Middle School

• Proposed new uses not given priority – question was what more could be accommodated

7

Site Evaluation Criteria and Process: Goals from Charge

• Retain the current wooded eastern end of “TJ Park” as is• Ensure no significant loss of green space and no net loss

of recreational programming• Maintain a cohesive park• Ensure adequate consideration is given to neighborhood

impacts of traffic and parking• Enhance safety on existing pedestrian walkways and

bikeways• Ensure community center remains available for use• Ensure that building massing is compatible with the

adjacent neighborhood

8

Site Evaluation Criteria and Process: Existing Conditions

9

Site Evaluation Criteria and Process: APS Concepts

10

Meetings and Community Outreach

Sept. 20Walking Tour

Oct. 18Open House

Energetic outreach included open meetings, community surveys & updates by WG members, requests for comment via website.

11

Findings and Recommendations

12

Findings and Recommendations

13

Findings and Recommendations

• The Working Group generally agrees that a new elementary school could physically fit on the western side of the Jefferson campus, under certain conditions.

• The Working Group remains divided on the question of whether a new elementary school should be built at Jefferson right now.

• The Working Group is united in recommending the list of site-specific design principles for any school construction, as outlined at the end of the report.

• The Working Group agrees on the desirability of open, transparent, community-based, coordinated long-range planning for parks, school and other needed facilities.

14

Findings and Recommendations:Should a New School Be Built at TJ Right Now?

YES• seats are urgently needed and

this proposal is well vetted• new school is more economical

(and yields more seats) than additions at Barcroft and Randolph

• site is well located• relatively low impact from an

environmental standpoint• co-location with middle school

and park is advantageous and provides future flexibility

• larger study will take too long and likely to point to TJ anyway

NO• building on west end of site would

preclude future expansion of the park• open discussion is needed about

programming and planning of other sites (especially at Patrick Henry and the Career Center)

• decision should wait until Arlington Community Facilities Study is complete

• an in-depth alternatives analysis should be done

• allocated funds don’t include structured parking

• construction needs to be coordinated with park/community center improvements

15

Findings and Recommendations:Guidelines, Conditions & Design Principles

• add, recover or improve green space

• maintain TJ Park and community programs

• anticipate and address construction impacts

• improve community amenities

• meet student recreation needs separately

• include structured parking

• address transportation issues fully

• provide early, open community process to decide school programming

16

Meetings and Community Outreach

17

Collaborative Process Pros & Cons

Essential elements of collaborative process:• No surprises• Openness & information sharing• Opportunities for meaningful input for all participants• Cooperative planning among staff and citizen managers of

process• Mutual respect• Frequent check-ins to help stay on course and on

schedule• Group involvement in shaping recommendations & reports

18

Collaborative Process Pros & Cons

• Includes many participants & perspectives• Promotes broad input & diverse ideas• Requires strong support; resource-intensive

• Allows information to percolate through community• Builds public understanding of issues & options• Relatively slow & inefficient

• Engages many to help shape solutions• Fosters community support for results• Reduces decision-makers’ autonomy• Requires good management to stay on track• Requires good will & flexibility to reach consensus

19

Outcome and Next Steps

• County Board action January 27, 2015:• Affirm that area east/north of APS property (“TJ Park”) shall

remain essentially “as is” for open space and recreational uses• Not grant approval for new school now; willing to reconsider

if/when School Board provides broader analysis of S. Arlington student needs, sites, non-construction strategies, and costs

• Per TJWG conclusions, any new school at Jefferson should be on NW corner of site, with multi-storied compact building, structured parking, dedicated play areas and traffic improvements.

• Commit to partner with School Board on interim & permanent facilities to gain 725+ elementary school seats in S. Arlington by fall 2018.

• School Board next steps

20