REBUILDING FIRE STATION #8 - Amazon Web Servicesarlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/10/FS-8...–Rebuilding Fire Station #8 at current location •Task Force

REBUILDING FIRE STATION #8

COUNTY BOARD

WORK SESSION

October 8, 2015

October 8, 2015

AGENDA

• Brief History

• Report process to date on Fire Station #8

– Board direction

– Meetings held

• Feedback from the Community

– Questions on validity of criteria for site selection

– Staff response

• Review of 20 sites considered

– Elimination of sites from further consideration

– Comparison of 5 short-list candidates

– Rebuilding Fire Station #8 at current location

• Task Force Discussion2

Brief History

• First Study Conducted in 1999 by Gordon

Routley

• 2000 Study by TriData Reviewed Routley and

made additional recommendations

• 2012 Tri-Data study initiated to look at how

changes to demographics and development

effected demand

• Summary of conclusions from study: several

areas of County need better response time –

northern part of County most affected

3

Brief History

• Property purchases at 26th and Old Dominion– 4714 26th Street, North (2007 -- $2,388,750)

– 4722 26th Street, North (1992 -- $1,040,000)

– Salt dome site purchased 1927/1935

– Mulch pile site purchased 1959/1960

• Statement in 2012 CIP– “Fire Stations No. 4, 7 and 8 indicate a need for replacement and

possible relocation to meet current standards, including four

apparatus bays…Fire Station #8 (the current location at 4845

Lee Highway does not provide desired response times to some

northern reaches of the County)…Each station will occupy 1.75

to 2.0 acres…”

4

Brief History

• Proposal in 2014 CIP– “Planning for the [North Side Salt Facility] will also establish a

designated area for the potential future relocation of Fire Station

8 from its outdated facility on Lee Highway.”

• Adopted 2014 CIP– “Relocation of Fire Station 8 is a priority project that is driven by

the results of the coverage/response time study completed in

2012.”

• Why the focus on Station 8?– Combination of physical condition and service area gap

5

Direction from the Board

• Replace aged and undersized FS #8

• Site Criteria described at June 25 meeting by

Chair Hynes1. Improve response times to N. Arlington

2. Compatible with current network

3. Site minimum size .8 acre,1.5 includes buffer; County-

owned or willing seller

4. Access to arterial street

• If possible, accomplish both goals (new

station/improved response) with a single site

6

MAP OF SERVICE GAP

7

MAP OF IMPROVED SERVICE

8

Process to Date

• Community Leaders Meeting

June 1

– Introduce proposed process

• Community Meetings 1 & 2

June 25, July 9 at St Mary’s Church

– Basis and criteria for relocating FS # 8

– Table sessions – identify issues, candidate

sites

9

Process to Date

• Community Meeting 3

July 30, at Langston Brown CC

– First review of site matrix

– Extended opportunity for community comment

• Community Meeting 4

September 17, at Yorktown HS

– Revisions to matrix and presentation of sites

warranting further consideration

– Staff presented option that best met criteria, to

be recommended to County Manager10

Questions on Criteria

Criterion #1:

Improve response times north of Lee Highway

• Questions:– Why not other efforts

first (e.g., turn-out times)

– Why prioritize FS #8? (not the worst)

– No one is complaining – what is the problem?

Answers to these and other questions can be found here(http://projects.arlingtonva.us/2015/07/fire-station-8-future-location-questions-and-answers/)

11

here (http:/projects.arlingtonva.us/2015/07/fire-station-8-future-location-questions-and-answers/



Criterion #2:

Network compatibility

• Questions:– Why not move FS #3

when you had the chance?

– Why move FS #8 farther away from population density (farther from FS #2)?


12




Criterion #3:

Site size of 1.5 acres, preferably County-owned

• Questions:– Why so big? (FS #3

on .5 acres)

– Why not fewer bays?

– Why not acquire more land in current location?

– Why not renovate existing station?

Answers to these and other questions can be found here(http://projects.arlingtonva.us/2015/07/fire-station-8-future-location-questions-and-answers/) 13




Criterion #4:

Proximity to an arterial street

• Questions:– How can Old

Dominion be workable? (too narrow)

– How can you select a site before doing a traffic study?


14



County Staff Response

• Robust Project website

(http://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/

fire-station-8/)– Notes and Q & As

– All referenced studies

– Raw data

– Extensive Maps

• Additional analysis from Tri-Data

15

http://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/fire-station-8/

Key Takeaway from Community Meetings

Many meeting attendees would de-

couple two goals for this project:

1. Where can/should we best replace

the Fire Station #8 building?

2. How can/should we close the

response-time gap to the north?

16

Identification of Candidate Sites

• At Meetings 1 and 2, community

members offered sites for

consideration

• 20 candidate sites identified– 14 did not improve response time or maintain

network compatibility

– 5 met response time/network compatibility,

varying issues on size and availability

– Fire Station #8: does not improve response

time, existing site undersized17

SITES NOT

RECOMMENDED BY STAFF

18

Review of Sites

19

Six Sites in Northern Portion of County:

Fail to meet Criterion 2 - they increase demand for

Stations 2 and 3, therefore disrupting network compatibility

1. VDOT Site 1 West

2. VDOT Site 2 East

3. Madison Community Center

4. Gulf Branch Nature Center

5. Gulf Run Lift Station

6. Glebe & Williamsburg

Sites Not Recommended

20

Four Sites Farther South on Military Road:

Fail to meet Criterion 1 and 2 – creates new service gaps

for response time and disrupts network compatibility

7. Washington Golf and Country Club, East Side

8. Zachary Taylor Park

9. Taylor Elementary School

10. Church of the Covenant – parking lot


21


Three Sites on Lee Highway

Fail to meet Criterion 1 – no significant change in response

time compared to existing FS #8 site

11. Virginia Hospital Center Sites, Lee Highway/N George

Mason

12. Wells Fargo Bank Site, Lee Highway/N Glebe

13. Federal Bakery Site

OtherFail to meet Criterion 1 - on extreme western edge of County,

with increased travel distances to N. Arlington

14. Upper Pimmit Run Park

Sites Meeting Operational Criteria

Sites for Further Study

• Five sites meeting operational criteria1. Glebe & Rock Spring (Country Club)

2. Rock Spring Park

3. Glebe & Yorktown

4. Arlington County salt dome site

5. St Mary’s Church residential properties

• Fire Station #8 and adjacent

properties

22

(RT

E. 1

20)

ROCK SPRIN

G RD.

32N

D S

T. N

.

OLD

DO

MIN

ION

DR

.

23


Glebe and Rock

Spring (Country

Club)• Improves response time

• Compatible with County network

• Unwilling Seller

• Meets minimum size

requirements

• Exits on major arterial street or

Blvd.

• Additional cost to County

• No Resource Protection Area

(RPA)

24


Rock Spring Park• Improves response time


• Displaces Neighborhood Park


requirements


Blvd.

• Entire Site in RPA

N. C

OLU

MBU

S S

T.

N. E

DIS

ON S

T.

N. FLORIDA ST.

LIT

TLE

FA

LLS

RD

.

ROCK SPRING RD.

30TH

ST. N

.

N. D

INW

IDD

IE S

T.

LITT

LE F

ALL

S R

D.

SON ST.

DIN

WID

DIE

ST

.

N.

MA

SO

N D

R.

N. DICKER-

30TH ST. N.

25

YORKTOWN

BLVD.

25TH ST. N

.

25T

H R

D. N

.

26T

H S

T. N

.

OLD

RD. N.

26TH

AN

AN

ST

.N

. BU

CH

-


Glebe and

Yorktown• Improves response time

• Compatible with County

network

• Displaces 3 Homes

• Owners not contacted


requirements (.9 AC)

without buffer

• Exits on major arterial street

or Blvd.


• No RPA

26

YORKTOWN

BLVD.

25TH ST. N

.

24TH RD. N.

25T

H R

D. N

.

26T

H S

T. N

.

OLD

DOM

INIO

N

DR.

N. B

UC

HA

N-

RD. N.

26TH

AN

AN

ST

.N

. BU

CH

-

26TH ST.N.


Arlington County

Salt Dome Site• Improves response time

• Compatible with County

network

• County Owned


requirements

• Exits on arterial street or Blvd.

• No RPA

27


YORKTOWN

BLVD.

25TH ST. N

.

24TH RD. N.

25T

H R

D. N

.

26TH

ST. N

.

OLD

DO

MIN

ION

DR.

N. B

UC

HA

N-

RD. N.

26TH

AN

AN

ST

.N

. BU

CH

-

26TH ST.N.

Saint Mary’s Church

Residential Property,

plus adjacent house• Improves response time


• Displaces at least one home

• Willing to discuss possible sale

(5 Lots)

• Status of 6th Lot Unknown

• Fails to meet minimum size

requirements (.73 AC)



Blvd.

• No RPA

28

Fire Station #8 – Existing Site

LEE HWY.

N. D

INW

IDD

IE S

T.

22ND

RD. N.

23RD ST. N

.

22ND RD. N

.

N. C

ULP

EPER

ST.

22ND ST. N.

N. C

OLU

MBU

S S

T.

Fire Station #8 and

Adjacent Properties• Does not improve response time


• Displaces 2 homes, 1 lot

• Willing to discuss possible sale (2

of 3 Lots)

• Meets minimum size requirements

(1.05 AC) without buffer


Blvd.

• Temporary station needed during

construction $2-3M plus land

acquisition

• No RPA

Shortlist Evaluation

29

Note: Costs reflect CY 2015 Tax Assessment

Values

SITE CRITICAL ISSUE(S) CASCADING ISSUE(S)

Glebe/Rock Springs Country Club not interested in pursuing Additional cost of at least $800,000

Rock Spring Park Displacement of County park

Entire site is located within Resource

Protection Area

Glebe/Yorktown Willingness of owners to sell is unknown

Requires acquisition of at least 3 modern

houses with aggregate assessed value of

more than $3 million

26th/Old Dominion None None

St. Mary's Plus

St. Mary's decision-making protracted;

adjacent house may not be available; site may

be too tight and require additional property Additional cost of at least $2.8 million

Fire Station #8 Plus

Two willing sellers are ready to sell now; one

owner is unwilling to sell

Additional cost of at least $3.6 million ($1.6

million for property acquisition + $2-$3 million

for temporary station)

Acting Manager’s Report

• County Manager recommended a work

session and task force

• Board should clarify what is on the table

and what is off the table

• We need to rebuild trust while respecting

operational imperatives

• Manager implemented a survey to obtain

broad community input for the charge

30

SURVEY RESULTS

Criterion #1:

• Improve the speed

of response to

more homes,

particularly in the

northern part of

Arlington

Results:

79% keep

21% don’t keep

Results reflect all respondents,

not only On-Forum responses

31

SURVEY RESULTS

Criterion #2:

• Future site should

improve ACFD’s

ability to serve the

entire County w/o

adversely affecting

service elsewhere

(relative to national

4-6 min standard)

Results:

83% keep

17% don’t keep



32

SURVEY RESULTS

Criterion #3:

• Site size of approx

1.5 acres,

preferably County-

owned

Results:

65% keep

35% don’t keep



33

SURVEY RESULTS

Criterion #4:

• Site must be

on/near an arterial

street

Results:

85% keep

15% don’t keep



34

Discussion of Draft Charge

• Operational criteria should not be

the subject of the Task Force

• Community Facilities Study draft

Siting Principles and Process: “[Siting

requirements] should be determined by the

service provider and should be limited to

the most critical requirements needed to

meet delivery standards.”

35

Discussion of draft charge

• Flexibility is most appropriate on the

size of the fire station (3 bay v 4 bay)

and on the cost of the overall project

• Meetings held over the summer

reinforce that only a few sites merit

consideration

36

TASK FORCE -- DRAFT CHARGE

The Task Force will:

• Review viable sites for a replacement Fire Station 8 (currently located at Lee Highway and North

Culpepper Street). Any site selected by the Task Force must meet the following Fire Department

operational criteria:

– Effective fire/EMS response times consistent with national standards

– Location(s) that does not adversely affect response elsewhere in the County

– Location is able to accommodate a 3 or 4 bay station with drive-through access and parking

for 12 personal vehicles

– Location is in proximity to, or on an arterial street

• Work with County staff to identify

– the capital costs of any alternative that exceed the CIP estimate of $12 million and

– the on-going operating costs of any alternative above the status quo

• Recommend to the County Board, by March 15, 2016, a site based on the consensus of the Task

Force membership; if no consensus can be reached, provide two possible sites with justifications

for each

37

TASK FORCE -- PROPOSED COMPOSITION

• CHAIR (1)

• Members of affected civic associations (4)

• Neighbors of other fire stations in County (2)

• Civic Federation appointee (1)

• Member of EPAC (1)

• Member of FAAC (1)

• Member of Planning Commission (1)

38

Affected Neighborhoods:

Arlingwood Chain Bridge Forest

Rivercrest Old Glebe

Stafford/Albemarle/Glebe Gulf Branch

Bellevue Forest Country Club Hills

Rock Spring Yorktown

Donaldson Run Old Dominion

Williamsburg Leeway/Overlee

Tara/LeewayHeights John M Langston

Glebewood Waverly Hills

Waycroft/Woodlawn

The Path Forward

• What happens after March 2016?– CIP

• Inclusion of funds in CIP for new fire station

• Inclusion of funds for land acquisition and/or temporary

station, as needed

– Master Plan for 26th/Old Dominion Site

• Minimum one acre park

• Salt dome replacement and adjunct facility

• Leaf mulch pile

• Other County use

– Master Plan for current location of Fire Station #8

could parallel a future planning process following the

current Lee Highway Visioning effort

39

Documents

REBUILDING FIRE STATION #8 - Amazon Web Servicesarlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/10/FS-8...–Rebuilding Fire Station #8 at current location •Task Force