Serriously!?! Let's see how successful they are down the street before we start increasing this plan closer to home & down town McLean. I never invision more people and less cars - just more people AND more cars.

Seriously? Comments have been flooding this board and other sites with huge concerns and objections regarding obscene traffic to the lack of playing fields for our youth. No more development. The reason for the attractiveness of mclean is our family friendly environs. We did not sign up for a high rise community when we moved here. There are plenty of other communities in thus arts got that. I'd like to know what is in it for cap one? I know fairfax county likes the increased tax base.north bethesda is looking better now.

Sorry for the typos above. Not easy to comment from an iphone. But I'm sure you figured out the correct words.

Twelve ofc buildings and four high rise buildings? And this is just one metro station (there are four!!).As if it isn't bad enough that they have destroyed Tysons Corner, now they are set to encroach upon the tranquility of McLean as well? What’s in it for Capital One and why does the Fx Board keep approving unchecked development (and you know that this will go through like others before it). We have already seen our landscapes destroyed by massive above-ground concrete train tracks and flyovers, and for some McLeanites, the sound of trains will soon become a daily annoyance. Car free? Does the Board honestly believe that these people will all live and work there, and not own a car? Right! What are these people smoking? What about schools, grocery stores, police and fire protection? And let's not talk about the large influx of subsidized housing that the developers must agree to build to get this level of density. This is a bad idea all around, and McLean is going to be greatly impacted with reduction of services; overcrowded roads; stores, and schools (have already read that kids from redevelopment near the Sheraton will be funneled in to McLean HS!) and diminished property values. We are a suburb and it looks like our leaders and greedy landowners are out to destroy the very core of why we came here in the first place.

This looks like a huge development for a small area. I live within 1/2 mile or so of where this metro stop and would enjoy having more things within walking distance. But I do worry about where these people will park?

This sounds great and wonderful for the developers and their ever-present squads of lawyers. Do we, the citizens of McLean, have anything to say about this? Or, is it just crammed down our throats, without any consideration what the rest of us, that is the people who live in this area, feel about it? Does the so-called Planning Commission have the authority to make decisions on our behalf? Has Mark Zetts considered that he is the Chair of the Planning Commission and not the Tsar of Regional Development?
We should know the details of what is being concocted. Citizens of McLean should get a copy of Mr. Calabrese's "great and enlightening presentation", so that we can all read it and see what is being done "for our benefit". We should demand that this monstrosity and the proposed development that will have serious and devastating effect on McLean, should be subject of a referendum and be voted on. Come, join me in this effort!

So where was everyone when the revised Comprehensive Plan for Tysons was being written and debated? How many people cheered on the Silver Line even though the studies showed it would not reduce traffic congestion and would trigger much more traffic congestion? How many bothered to go to Planning Commission meetings to testify about the plans for Tysons? Or even watch them on cable TV? How many people read Fairfax County's traffic study for Tysons or drafts of the revised Comprehensive Plan? How many know that the Tysons Land Use Task Force wanted to increase Tysons permitted size from today's 46 million square feet to more than 220 million square feet? How many people know that the Dulles Toll Road needs to be widened by as many as three-to-five lanes and that such widening requires the taking of land from Wolf Trap National Park? How many people know that the public may be required to pay more than half of the costs to build roads and transit for Tysons?
If you don't like what's being proposed for Tysons, you need to become involved in the process. You need to give up a weekend and read the pertinent documents. Sign up to testify before the Planning Commission in September and before the Board of Supervisors when it considers the rezoning application. Democracy is not a spectator sport. Give up some time; learn about Tysons and Virginia development law; and then tell your elected officials what you think and why. Complaining on the Patch won't work.

One way to make a statement against this egregious development plan is to simply cut your Cap One credit card in half (if you have one) and send it directly to the CEO of Cap One - and tell them why. If Cap One actually cares a nit about McLean, maybe the CEO will listen.

Here is information about the Fairfax County Planning Commissioners. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/planningcommissionmembers.htm And a link to send the commissioners email messages. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/contact/MailForm.aspx?agId=36
The staff reports can be found at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/staffreports/pcboscasestatus.pdf at page 6

I must correct a mistake I made. The public hearing for the Capital One rezoning application has already been held. But interested people can still contact the Planning Commission and let them know their views. The Commissioners are very interested in the views of county residents, as are our Supervisors. There will still be an opportunity to testify to the Board of Supervisors. I'm sorry for any confusion.

Can anyone name a large scale development in Mclean that the "board of developers" has ever denied. They never seem to represent the interests of the voters that put them in the position supposedly to protect and enhance the interests of the the existing Mclean residents and we never seem to have a determinate say on any of these proposals. As to the logic that somehow by public participation we can influence the outcome of these proposals is nothing more than wasted words. Remember Evans Farm Inn, been there done that. Maybe John Faust can explain how this works for his constituents. Describe the benefits from this latest proposed boondoggle. Please put lipstick on this pig. This should be entertaining if nothing else.
We are under assault from increased high density proposals everywhere.
Who cares about Capital One's profits, we will be stuck with the mess and fallout for long time. It's where we live ! The usual cheer leading about jobs, economic activity,blah, blah,blah are standard fare from the developers playbook.
Of course their financial plans don't work if they can't cram tens maybe hundreds of thousands of people into our community. We've let it happen by not demanding that our elected servants protect our community from this cadre of select powerful development groups. Enough is Enough. They don't do it for us they do it to us.
It really is hard not to be entirely cynical about the process because the outcome is already predetermined. We're so screwed.

I read Mr. Jackson's comments re: getting involved with amusement. I went down that route several years ago when Gannett decided to move its headquarters into the backyards of McLean Hamlet. The initial vote was taken quickly and late into the night at a meeting involving a lengthy contested public hearing over the then PRC proposed expansion. We didn't even know Gannett was on the agenda....So began the fight to defend the so-called Master Plan, which exists only in the naive minds of those who believe it exists....We attended meetings; hired lawyers; held fundraisers...to what end? Did they listen? No. Is there a highrise looming over the Hamlet today? Yes! Over the years, I have attended many a public hearing; signed petitions, etc. but in the end, our elected officials pretty much bow to the call of the developers.

Judith, that is a gloomy picture and I hope very much that you may be wrong. Still, there is a general sickness that seems to affect elected officials: they start thinking that they own the place and start acting like petty dictators, pursuing their own interests. This could be the case here. I don't know who the people are on the Planning Commission but I would like to know. Maybe the answer is in carefully vetting our candidates and voting for people who have our interests in mind and who don't get swayed by the perks of their offices and the promotional efforts lavished on them by the developers and others with financial interests in the outcomes. Of course, first we would have to vote out some of the current Commission members, such as Mr. Zetts, who were apparently jumping up and down in joy when listening to Mr. Calebrese's snake oil sales pitch. I am new to this scene and may be naive but maybe we can turn things around in the next election or organize a recall effort.

I understand and respect all of your concerns. The MCA spent the last several years working to reduce the permitted density and to keep it at the four rail stations instead of allowing it all over Tysons. We were largely successful. Had we not devoted countless hours to the Tysons re-planning, we would all see much, much more density allowed by the County throughout Tysons.
It's important to note that, even under the County's 1994 Plan for Tysons, the federal government's decision to fund the Silver Line was the trigger that permitted urban density levels in Tysons. So the strong community support for Metrorail had the effect of supporting large increases in density. The Silver Line and urban density go hand-in-hand. If you wanted rail, you also supported density whether you knew it or not. How come the media never bothered to tell this to the public? I can't answer that one.
Now the big issue, where the public can still weigh in, is: How much of the $3 billion cost of road and non-rail transit needed will be born by county taxpayers? County staff are proposing the public pay more than 50% of those costs. Read Sally Horn's excellent letter in the Fairfax Times. http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20120803/OPINION/708039901/1065/taxpayers-shouldnt-carry-financial-burden-for-tysons-redevelopment&template=fairfaxTimes

Politics is a blood sport. There are few winners and a whole lot of losers.If anyone one thinks Faust or any of the other feckless FC supervisors are gonna say NO to Capital One and all their money and influence they are delusional . As to the Federal govt. dictating our zoning because of Metro, then why even have local government. We do have a govt. that represents us, right ? As for the local, powerless organizations these people really just want to plant flowers at the local community center and pretend the have a purpose. They are the perfect definition of paper tigers. We need the Chicago way, get down and dirty and stand up and throw all the developer politicians out of office. We know who they are.

Sunset - the federal government is NOT controlling our zoning. Rather, the Fairfax County supervisors, back in 1994, decided in the Comp Plan for Tysons that the signing of a full-funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration, along with certain other conditions, would allow significant increases in density at Tysons. This trigger point is continued in the existing (2010) Comp Plan. For some time, it looked as if the FTA was NOT going to fund Phase 1 of Dulles Rail. But state and local pressure, including citizen support for rail, caused the FTA to agree to fund Phase 1. The time to stop urban development was before the FTA agreed to fund Dulles Rail. But few opposed it. Had Phase 1 funding not occurred, urban density would not have been approved by the Supervisors.
Ranting and raving about development is wasted energy. Instead, testify to the Supervisor and demonstrate why the Capital One rezoning should not occur. Too many people pay no attention to what's going on in their community and then, after decisions are made, complain. If you don't like the Capital One plan, get 25 people from your neighborhood to testify to the Supervisors and have good reasons for your opposition. Dig into the staff reports and traffic studies.

I find it out that a lot of people have so much hatred for this project without even knowing what it proposes or frankly where it is. This site has about as much to do with McLean as a project in Ballston. It is separated by nearly 2 miles by what most people consider McLean (the otherside of 267). The buildings will cause no shadow effect on any residential people except for garden style condos near by. Those same garden style condos also gain the benefit of better walkway paths to the metro, lots of places to eat, nightlife, and provide more residential units in an area which has a HUGE demand but not enough supply.

If you want to be educated in the debate, atleast take a look at the concept development plans and final development plans that have been available to the public for a long time.

http://thetysonscorner.com/capital-one-rezoning-takes-a-big-step-forward/

I am not naive to think there wont be some impact, but if you look at traffic through mclean it is mostly people trying to avoid 66 to get to Arlington. More density in office and residential use in Tysons doesnt necessarily mean more people on Great Falls, Old Dominion, Chain Bridge etc (thats just not how the traffic patterns are being created). Let me add that this project meets all the comp plan requirements and at build out will add over 100 million in R.E. taxes annually to the County so that your residential taxes can stay low.

Educate, then debate

Bendy Viragh

All information, including meeting agendas, public hearing and sign-up to speak, for the BoS can be found at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/board/ Similar information for the Planning Commission can be found at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/
I've testitied to both about Tysons-related matters numerous times. While my positions on issues have not always been adopted, some have, and I feel I was listened to. I believe officials will listen to, and consider, well-though-out and fact-supported views of all residents.

But one cannot expect to have an impact on county decisions without delving deep into state law, county policy and detailed facts and studies. "I don't like this" doesn't cut it.

The Capital One proposal is consistent with the Comp Plan. I have remaining concerns, including what happens if traffic reduction targets are not hit (I believe development must be paused until compliance occurs); both CapOne and LCOR must be jointly responsible for both the community center & a full rectangular field; and Cap One's prior rezoning does permit construction of the new buildings, such that it must pay the full transportation fund contribution.

An informed and active citizenry is critical to good government.

Mr Jackson I respect the work you have done in the community, but you disregard one thing. The traffic studies are formed by people who completely disregard correct science and empirical data. To believe that a VDOT model or design method can provide ANY improvement is pure folly disproven by history.

It starts with false traffic generation that equates all vehicle trips to be the same regardless of the length of travel. It follows with believing that the only way to change traffic is to increase widths. Mixed use planning has PROVEN empirically, unlike road widenings and mega highway projects, that traffic patterns are drastically improved. You can see this just in your backyard in Arlington, where without a single major highway improvement in the past 20 years they have increased millions of square feet of developments and REDUCED travel times. You can see this in many suburban to urban developments.

The problem wasnt the density of Tysons, it was the land use. They built just like they wanted, an office park on steroids. A development that demands people from the outside to drive into the city. 100000 commuters, 10000 residents. The correction to this is not to keep it as it is, it is to providing housing options for many people (typically generationally younger) who would choose to live there instead and through proper transit, all of which are part of this project. Dont oppose density for the sake of being against density, thats how you end up with sprawl.

Mr. Roshan, your analysis is not correct. These studies were done locally by Fairfax County DOT, with input from consultants. The studies have considered the valuable contributions of high-quality mixed use development; the availability of not only the Silver Line, but substantial increases in bus transit to and from Tysons; major improvements in pedestrian and bike access; the completion of a grid of streets; and extremely aggressive TDM (traffic demand management) measures. See Table 5 to the Tysons Comp Plan. Yet, after all of this, we will still see massive increases in motor vehicle traffic. Not one single soul has provided any analysis that demonstrates to the contrary. (I'll address Arlington in a separate post.)
I've heard your argument made multiple times before, but no one has stepped up and demonstrated FC DOT's studies are wrong. Indeed, VDOT's reviewing engineer concluded the analysis was probably too optimistic in places.
We are going to see high-quality mixed use development at Tysons. With proper amenities, many more people will live there. That will reduce the growth in traffic congestion, but, as Tysons grows, so will auto traffic.
I am not opposed to urban development at Tysons. I testified in support of the Plan amendment. But I also won't pretend traffic gets better.

Arlington vs Tysons. The Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington is successful. The area has absorbed substantial growth in population without the same proportion increase in auto traffic.
But the RB corridor is very different from Tysons. It is narrow and concentrates all growth immediately at the rail stations. The approved density in the RB corridor is also much less than at Tysons. There are only 3 or 4 parcels zoned to a 10.0 FAR (floor area ratio). On the other hand, all properties within the immediate TOD areas at Tysons have unlimited density. Over time, most landowners can be expected to take advantage of this opportunity.
Tysons can and will develop, over time, into an attractive urban community. Many more people will work and live there. Many more will take transit. Bike and pedestrian use will increase. But so will auto traffic. We need to make sure that the increased auto traffic can be managed so that nearby communities, such as McLean, are protected against major decreases in the quality of life. The best way to do that, IMO, is to ensure people are aware of the threats of large increases in traffic.

I was in Silver Spring recently where there has been a lot of new, dense development in the downtown area. I'm not a traffic engineer, so I can't say whether it increased vehicular traffic in the area and, if so, by how much. The general impression is that it primarily attracts younger residents or families without children who are looking for a more walkable, transit-oriented lifestyle. Travel a few blocks futher west towards Chevy Chase and the traffic tapers off very quickly as one enters the residential neighborhoods of single-family homes (on arteries, by the way, that have superior bus service to what's available in Fairfax).

For those who complain about the potential for any development near McLean to ruin its "family-friendly" lifestyle, I have to say that you're kidding yourselves and/or living in the 1960s. McLean has some great assets - an affluent population, top schools, excellent residential housing and an enviable location. It also faces some major challenges - an aging population, a very ugly downtown, and an image as a place where a small group of long-time, NIMBY residents try to block anything and everything that might make McLean more attractive to younger residents without a very fat bank account. Are you really so terribly afraid of a bit more urbanism - if anything, it seems to me that middle-age and older residents who need the exercise and may not always be able to drive places would welcome it.

But you dont see that 65% of the traffic we experience in Fairfax is from that sprawl development model. Its not just HOW many cars, its how long a car stays on the road. This is a HUGE flaw in the california traffic generation model. To discredit me (who has a professional engineering license in civil engineering and who has done traffic analysis before) as not credible is odd. Think logically about this question.

Two cars are on the same road. One stays on the road for four times as long as the other vehicle who simply jumps on and then jumps off at the next exit. Wouldnt you think that the traffic impact of the car who stays the entire length of the road is far greater than the impact of the person who yes is a trip generated on the road, but only for a brief moment? Well if you agree that this is logical, then you too agree that the VDOT modelling method is not accurate in its traffic impact estimation.

I agree Tysons needs infrastructure improvements. More importantly it needs parks, schools, fire stations. All of these things the developers have agreed to date on and are even providing some in their plans. The issue is with Roads, and more specifically roads that arent even in Tysons Corner.

Our roads are covered with people who dont even pay taxes in this county, and yet we have to maintain their roads. That is the real issue.

I wont hold my breath for a road design department to fully grasp the effects of land use and transit on traffic. Lets just hope they do better than their "study" on route 66, which showed that road widening would provide less efficient improvements than other options... and yet they went with the least efficient and highest cost solution.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14805/vdot-ignores-own-data-pushes-widening-i-66/

Segmental analysis requires a fully comprehensive assumption on where people will live etc. At the heart of this model they have not analyzed who will be living in Tysons. When prices are comparable and in some cases more expensive than Arlington almost no one in their right mind will choose to live in Tysons who doesnt work in Tysons. Otherwise they could live in the much more urban friendly Clarendon/Courthouse/Eastern Market/DuPont all of which will have lower rental and purchase rates. The people who will live in Tysons will work in Tysons, otherwise why would they live there? However by 2050 the additional 100,000 population of Tysons is being treated at similar rates as today with the 10:1 commuter to resident population. The new 100,000 employment positions will have significant overlap of who will be new residents as well (additional 90,000 residents) creating a far smaller net than the model suggests.

These are HUGE assumptions being made about things occurring 30 years from now. When you compare the accuracy of these kinds of estimates previously by DOTs they are extremely inaccurate at depicting future conditions.

I do agree about one thing, commercial sprawl in the name of density is the enemy here. So a project like the Mitre Expansion, which I oppose vehemently, which proposes more of the same, garages, single use office, reliance on commuters driving in, those should be reviewed for their benefit and rejected if they do not provide community benefit. But a project that proposes so many good things like Capital One, assures that they will increase the job positions they have in this area by increasing the space of their own headquarters, and provides residential units for a future 5000 people who will rely heavily on transit and not vehicles, should not be as vehemently opposed as some have stated in this thread.

Density is good when it comes as mixed use and fixes the lack of residential space in this city. The real question becomes the increase in 2010s density, what uses did it go towards. If its office then I am in complete agreement. If it is residential then I could not oppose your points more. I believe you will find much of it occurs along Westpark Drive (slightly off of the metro radials) and proposes significant resident and retail improvements which you should not be against. That development has nothing to do with McLean.

To best understand Navid's support of this development, a quick google search shows that he is an employee of Bowman Consulting who has a vested interest in this development.

http://www.bowmanconsulting.com/downloads/2009_BCG_AR.pdf

Navid's profile on LinkedIn verifies this position.

I state this only because it appears the majority of the responses in this discussion thread are not supportive of this project. It is not because we 'fear' urbanization, after all, we do live and work in the DC metro area. We chose not to live in other similar areas such as Bethesda or Arlington and now it appears that we are becoming nothing more than Bethesda or Arlington. Both are nice areas. But we didn't want to live there. We wanted the best of both worlds, the 'town' living that McLean offers without the high rise, congested environs of the other areas. Now it seems we're not having a choice.

Personally, I've lived in NYC metro and Boston. I more than understand urbanization. I chose NOT to live there anymore. It's draining. If you've ever tried to navigate Fort Lee or any of the norther NJ areas, you'd understand. I had sorely hoped that this would not occur in McLean.

As for Rich driving the area, wrong. He has a personal limo driver (tho' I'm sure on a day or so may drive himself) like most CEOs of his stature. Congestion is a non-issue for him.

North Bethesda is looking better and better...

Navid - thanks for the clarification! There are obviously limits to a google search :-D. I did see your blog, nice.

However, with an obvious interest in redevelopment, I still believe your experience is relevant and informs your perspective in this discussion. I understand you believe this a totally isolate project - please do forgive the skepticism. Creep happens. The increase in density most definitely will impact those of us in McLean simply because of proximity. How much is too much? How much is really needed? And, seriously, this area is not already profitable?

Unrestrained growth is a real concern. Being involved in urban development as it appears you've been, surely you understand the concerns not only with the ex-urb sprawl, but with over development. Many families in this area (as recently discussed on the Patch) have grave concerns over open green space and playing fields. Here's another field gone with this plan.

This just appears to be more about tax revenue than it is about development.

Urbanization is not the answer. Saw the quality of the area I grew up in King of Prussia, PA just drown in congestion, mish mash of so called "planned' development. I've seen in northern NJ. The sprawl is in the ex-urbs (since there's not much room for sprawl within the beltway!). At some point, enough is enough.

Also, I didnt say no one should voice their concerns over a project, all that I ask is that people become educated in what the thing they supposedly hate is first before condemning it. I think some of the comments on this thread show that a couple of people were not aware of what they were suddenly hating. This information is ALL public realm you can find development plans on the counties website as it is the law for them to provide them as well as it is for them to allow public comment at posted meetings. Once that point is complete, they usually use public input to guide the process but if you think that your comments will injudiciously end a project, well that isnt fair either now is it? The point of public input isnt to simply create a one sided conviction against a developer, it is to guide the developer to what will help a community. In that way the community can not simply say "we dont want this" because the county stands no legal ground on denying an application that meets requirements. What you can do is provide constructive discussion on what could help the community, and when you do that you will find that developers dont have to be deemed as enemies and many will actually listen to what the community wants because that is the market they are aiming for with their retail and residential project anyways.

Education is paramount to proper procedure, no one wants a muted populous but the responsibility is on the community to provide constructive criticism andopinion

Alex, I looked at your recent comments to recent articles and comments and am inspired by your incisive and intelligent comments (see below). What an intellect!

Capital One Proposes New ..
."go jump off a bridge"
-by Alex

-by alex
"shut up richie"
Poll: Should Obama Propose ...

-by alex
"McDonnell is a class-A moron"
Gov. Bob McDonnell Passed ...
-by alex

Who are all you people who have inordinate amounts of tiime to continue to post on this subject? As to Mr. Roshan, in response to your comment re: the Gannett debacle and the Hamlet, it is obvious to me that you live nowhere near there, and thankfully, neither do I anymore! The signage and height of the building do indeed "loom" over many a home in the development.... their presence is just another reminder of the lack of a strict master plan... at the time of Gannett's original proposal, there were height retstrictions in that part of Tysons...the so-called "gateway of Tysons" concept....but we all know that money talks, and that will be the case again with the Capital One project. And, BTW, how is it that all these people working retail and admin jobs at Tyson's Corner are going to afford to live there? Am I going to be subsidizing their rent in exchange for them not driving to work? And if they do live there, do you really think they won't have a ca and drive everywhere elser?? Excuse me if I sound cynical., but let's get real... As for McLean remaining a quiet suburan town, let's have a reality check here as well....Anyone who lives here and reads knows that one key person has bought up tons of property in the downtown area and that it's just a matter of time before he gets his way, too, and transforms McLean into a Bethesda with highrises over grocery stores and paid underground parking garages and the need to park in them even to go to the grocery store. Just beware!

You can't possibly believe that all the newcomers to Tysons are going to be making six figure salaries... and that the few who do will actually choose to live there....and not own cars....and where do you think all the retail clerks; admin staff; dishwashers; waiters; etc etc are gong to live? They will continue to come from the far outer suburbs in search of jobs and while some may arrive and leave by train, you are naive to think that McLean will not be impacted by greater traffic congestion. Tysons development has everything to do with those of us living in the abutting towns of Falls Church, McLean and Vienna.....we have already been intruded by the increased noise and congestion and it's only going to get worse. Good for you if you want to live in congestion on your six figure salary...some of us prefer to escape it.

Can't believe I"m being drawn back into this discussion. I may need saving. But here it goes.

Judith, in agreement with you.

Navid, believe it or not, as posters against this project, we do believe you are putting forth a valid perspective. WE are educated on this subject - and in general. We simply do not agree with the same outcomes.

Again, those of us that moved to the McLean / Tysons area did so because we chose not to live in the high rise 'downtown' environs of Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Arlington. That's NOT the community we chose. We instead were drawn by the downtown environs of McLean, where we could escape to a more relaxed, less congested community. We've seen development like Tysons before, it consumes everything. As much as we all would wish for less traffic congestion and minimal impact to the area, we know that is sooooo not reality.

We understand what the Cap One proposal's vision is. Very simply, it's not our vision for our community. We know what will happen. We have lived it. We understand your perspective and we we do not share that vision.

Very simply, All development is not Good development. We see this as a 'greed' play for more tax revenues at the expense of a quality of life.

We're not uneducated on the subject. We simply do not want any further development at this time.

Thank you, Judith! I suspect that the powers that be wish to expedite the Cap One project for the simple reason that once the Tyson's Redevelopment is done, there will be considerably more opposition to any more development. Guess they feel move now before anyone really comprehends the impact.

Mr Roshan. I agree with your comment the Comp Plan for Tysons contemplates urban density at the four rail stations, including at the Cap One site. In order to prevent the building of urban density there, an amendment of the Comp Plan is required. However, people may still attempt to show the Cap One proposal is inconsistent with the Plan or otherwise violates county ordinance or policy. (Personally, I think the proposal is consistent with the Plan and most, but not all, county policies. But others are free to disagree.)
But, IMO, your view an urban Tysons will not have negative impacts on McLean is wrong. First, all of Tysons north of Route 7 is located within the McLean Planning District. Next, there will be much more traffic that is Tysons-generated traversing McLean streets, according to existing and ongoing traffic studies. In fact, traffic volumes in McLean may well prohibit substantial redevelopment in downtown McLean. There are huge volumes, which will increase as Tysons grows, using 123, Old Dominion, Georgetown Pike, Great Falls-Lewinsville, Westmoreland) to get to and from Tysons. You may not like the FC DOT studies, but they are the ones being used to guide community advocacy and county and state decision-making. McLean residents need to insist the county adhere to the Comp Plan and aggressive Traffic Demand Management (TDM) methods. Laxity could degrade life in McLean further.

And I dont disagree with that. There shouldnt be any creep of the design that is in place. Most importantly horizontally there should be no creep, but I also think that if higher densities are wanted then it should have to wait until the next time the comp plan is up for revisiting.

So we are in agreement there. But in this particular case, I think the argument is not looking at what is already allowed, what is healthy growth, and what will improve the economy for all of Fairfax. To say that this is blind siding, or was a surprise is simply not true. The urbanization of Tysons has been a work in progress for longer than most people have lived here (average residency time in Fairfax county is less than a decade).

The capital one project is a good project. They have built their density appropriately, they have a very high mix of residents to office compared to other projects, and they are going to provide a lot of much needed beautification to the 123 corridor via plazas, parks, and landscaping. If they were violating something with the comp plan then it might have some grounds for objection, as is everyone has agreed that this is the way forward and at this point it would be unfair to land owners and residents who do want this kind of growth to halt it after 2 decades of compromise and discussion.