Density impacts may not be addressed.

At the June 2022 County Board meeting residents expressed concerns of density impacts to overcrowding schools and many other facilities and services before further along with the plan, “Before we do anything that’s going to bring a tremendous amount of additional density negatively impact our schools, please take the time to do the studies, walk the neighborhoods and talk to the residents.” ^{560, 561}

The County Board moved the Missing Middle framework forward and disregarded the request to ensure facilities, services, and impact analysis were conducted.

⁵⁶⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iANgRCYo5k

⁵⁶¹  https://www.arlnow.com/2017/06/08/peters-take-long-term-planning-needed-for-new-schools/

Plan Langston Boulevard may not include infrastructure needs caused by densification.

Arlingtonians for our Sustainable Future (ASF)⁵⁶² has voiced criticism of the Preliminary Concept Plan for Langston Boulevard corridor because the County has not committed itself to providing infrastructure upgrades required by of the impact of densification. They are of the opinion that Arlington needs to use a proffer model^{563, 564} because the existing Site Plan Review Process fails to adequately calculate the impact of densification. Their criticism is of the Preliminary Concept Plan, not of the Langston Boulevard Alliance Mentioned in Section 2.3.

The Preliminary Concept Plan (PCP)⁵⁶⁵ proposed is within the parameters of the County’s Site Plan Review process⁵⁶⁶ whereby community benefits, including infrastructure needs caused by densification, are negotiated with the developer on a site-by-site bases. The county so far has made no commitment to invest in major stormwater, school, park, or other infrastructure needs caused by densification. It is going to rely on ad hoc site plans or private development to coordinated infrastructure such as water and wastewater systems and mass transit. Hence the LHA will still need to work on the county staff to detail public investment that will be required to accommodate the additional density.

The below reply from the County to the ASF letter⁵⁶⁷ ignored the recommendation of considering a proffering system as opposed to the Site Plan Review process the County presently uses.

⁵⁶² https://www.asf-virginia.org

⁵⁶³ https://www.asf-virginia.org/key-issues-development

⁵⁶⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2018/05/18/despite-public-pressure-county-unlikely-to-press-developers-for- schools-parks-contributions/

⁵⁶⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/projects/documents/plan-langston- blvd/plb_pcp_08182022_final.pdf

⁵⁶⁶  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Review-Processes/Site-Plan

⁵⁶⁷ https://www.asf-virginia.org/_files/ugd/a48bae_6bd25e1a23e8454faca3870f9d165ec3.pdf

The County Board approved an expansion to Virginia Hospital Center in 2018 without doing “enough to fully engage the community”.

“The Board had also urged VHC executives to do more outreach in the community and ease concerns about everything from traffic to the size of the new facilities. The hospital

held several community meetings with nearby civic associations and other neighbors since the Board’s last vote, but the Board still expressed plenty of concern that the hospital didn’t do enough to fully engage the community.”^{568, 569} Additionally, the article continues: ““You continually throughout this process pushed the envelope every step of the way…but ultimately I think there’s a cost extracted for that,” Gutshall said. “And I’d strongly encourage you to look at what are the things that you can do to build a stronger relationship with the surrounding community to begin to lay the groundwork for the next time you come back for whatever the next phase of this is going to be.”” The item passed County Board approval, 3-2.

However, even community engagement requirements documented in site plan conditions do not appear to normally be enforced on behalf of the community. When asked about site plan conditions in other parts of the County, the County Board, County Manager and Staff have said their emphasis is on safety concerns.

⁵⁶⁸ https://www.arlnow.com/2018/11/28/despite-persistent-design-complaints-county-board-approves-virginia- hospital-center-expansion/

⁵⁶⁹  https://www.arlnow.com/2018/09/12/planning-commission-looks-to-pump-the-breaks-on-vhc-expansion/

A call to preserve the Febrey Lothrop property had nearly 1,500 supporters⁵⁷⁰.

Even a cost-benefit analysis for the Febrey Lothrop property was conducted by a resident to show the benefits of the preservation, because Arlington County would not conduct or share any analysis it had done. ⁵⁷¹

County Manager and Board dismiss calls to preserve and use the property for community needs, “Designation of a majority of the 9-acre site as its own historic districts had been proposed by the Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HALRB), but County Board members slow-walked the timeline to consider the measure – purposely, in the eyes of some preservation advocates – leaving plenty of time for the owner of the parcel to receive the necessary permits to tear the buildings down.” ⁵⁷²

The area was a missed opportunity for park land acquisition, as highlighted in the Civic Federation 2016 Resolution for Increased Park Land Acquisition.⁵⁷³ The area expects 40 single family homes starting at $2m, with significant loss of old growth, stormwater reducing trees due to the construction.⁵⁷⁴

⁵⁷⁰ https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/save-the-historic-febrey-lothrop-rouse-estate

⁵⁷¹ https://arlington-analytics.com/papers/RouseProperty.pdf

⁵⁷² https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/arlington-manager-forget-about-historic-designation-for-rouse-estate/article_9c8265ac-93d0-11eb-8cb3-b7910cc956f4.html

⁵⁷³ https://www.civfed.org/about-us/committees/parks/

⁵⁷⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/07/26/work-continues-on-the-former-site-of-the-febrey-lothrop-house-in-dominion-hills/

Biophilic policy appears to be misused in a County process. Creator of the biophilic policy called County out for misuse and appears to be ignored.

On December 17, 2019, Arlington County adopted a Biophilic City resolution.^{575, 576} Caroline Haynes, Former Parks and Recreation Commission⁵⁷⁷ Chair, member of the Natural Resources Plan Update,⁵⁷⁸ champion of the Biophilic City resolution and contributor to Biophilic Arlington⁵⁷⁹ paper, called out county staff in public engagement meeting Pentagon City Study/Sector Plan as misusing biophilic principles when the staff asserts that the implementation of “nature themes” such as using stamped leaf pattern concrete or exterior facades of buildings with nature murals, rather than implementing living environment/nature into design. These concerns were echoed throughout the process by other residents as well.

County did not address these concerns and proceeded to call the Plan “biophilic” despite concerns and evidence provided to staff that their process did not align with their policies.

⁵⁷⁵ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2019/12/Biophilic.pdf

⁵⁷⁶  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Biophilic-Arlington

⁵⁷⁷ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Parks-Recreation-Commission/Parks-Recreation-Commission

⁵⁷⁸  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Natural-Resources-Management-Plan

⁵⁷⁹ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/02/PRCwebBioArl.pdf

An analysis on equity with access to open green space for county but it appears to have not been addressed.

An analysis created by expert residents using the County’s equity policies and its goals of access to parks, reviewed the the scenarios created from the Pentagon City Study/Sector Plan’s⁵⁸⁰ proposed density increases, “The Pentagon City Planning Study Reduces Open Public Green Space and found that, “If the plans articulated in the Pentagon City Planning Study materialize, Pentagon City residents—particularly its lower-income residents—will end up with some of the worst access to open public green space in the county.” ⁵⁸¹

The County Board and Staff dismissed the analysis and did not address the inequities, going against their own Equity Policy⁵⁸² in order to further increase density and developer’s goals.

⁵⁸⁰  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning-Study

⁵⁸¹ https://arlington-analytics.com/papers/OPS22202.pdf

⁵⁸²  https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2020/02/Equity-Resolution-FINAL-09-21-19.pdf

The County Board’s Equity Resolution questions appear to not be applied to all County business.

The County’s equity lens applies the stakeholder questions of “(1) Who benefits? (2) Who is burdened? (3) Who is missing? (4) How do we know?”⁵⁸³. Another reference includes “What Do/Did We Do?”⁵⁸⁴ to the above questions. These are the minimum criteria for all stakeholder and community engagement. However, the County is only selectively asking themselves the questions and is not known to share the information with the public. ⁵⁸⁵

Stakeholder groups do not appear to be consistently considered when making County decisions. Public confidence in government and processes is eroding.

⁵⁸³ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/02/5.-FY21P-Managers-Message-Equity.pdf

⁵⁸⁴ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Topics/Equity

⁵⁸⁵ Ibid.

The Planning Commission recommended that the County Board⁵⁸⁶ deny a use permit for a below-grade parking structure with a lighted synthetic turf field above; the Commission input appeared to be overruled when the Board approved the project.

The Planning Commission made the recommendation for 1601 Wilson Boulevard because, among other things: “The Planning Commission finds that (1) the proposed use permit, specifically the proposed field at 180 feet elevation and the corresponding proposed parking garage, (1) fails to conform to the West Rosslyn Area Plan; (2) fails to conform to the Rosslyn Sector Plan; and (3) is not in substantial accord with the Arlington County Comprehensive Plan.”^{587, 588} The County Board determined that requirements for government organizations are different than they would be for an independent or commercial interest⁵⁸⁹. The motion for use permit amendment County Board approval passed 4-1⁵⁹⁰.

⁵⁸⁶ Item 37: http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4123

⁵⁸⁷ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4123&meta_id=212214

⁵⁸⁸ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1q6gdLdKMk&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4489

⁵⁸⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1q6gdLdKMk&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=8372

⁵⁹⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1q6gdLdKMk&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=8535

The Aurora Highlands Civic Association’s infrastructure density impact concerns appeared to be discounted and unaddressed.

“Impact of Increased Density on Existing Facilities: The [Pentagon City Phased Development Site Plan]⁵⁹¹ alludes to potential new facilities, such as expanding Virginia Highlands Park, a potential new school, potential low level transportation improvements, etc. But it does not contain a clear analysis about how many people would be expected to join the neighborhood under different development scenarios and timelines, how those new residents could impact the capacity of existing public facilities and how the county will ensure standards and services are met. The PDSP should include this discussion, including a review of what facilities currently serve the area in key sectors, like schools, recreation, sewers, etc., and what their current use capacity is and how the county will respond to new development scenarios by increasing those services. For example, while it’s positive that a new school is mentioned, though at a very high level, there is not detail about what level of new students would trigger its creation. Yes, separate processes exist for these decisions, but this should be a holistic planning document.” ⁵⁹²

Despite requests from these community-led Civic Associations, the County appears to not follow up on or address concerns raised by the communities in which they are to serve.

⁵⁹¹  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning-Study

⁵⁹² https://aurorahighlands.org/news/pcps-draft-comments/

Pentagon City Sector Plan.

Nearly 2,500 people oppose the Pentagon City Sector Plan and hundreds of residents expressed concern about lack of planning for community needs, especially insufficient parkland and the Plan’s reduction of green space on River House.

Below⁵⁹³ are just some of the many comments in the change.org petition opposing the plan based on a lack of planning for the community needs.

• “The Pentagon City Plan is another egregious example of the County failing to assess fully the impact of higher density on its finances, infrastructure, environment, and schools. Arlington’s Planning Commission and staff are broken, and the Board needs to hit the brakes and correct course.” — JZ

• “Increasing density without addressing the already strained surrounding infrastructure (like overcrowded schools limited green space for community activities and sports) is irresponsible and destructive.” — JC

• “I will be moving out of the area if this plan is approved. I moved here for the green space and community. If it becomes overcrowded with buildings and people, I will no longer wish to stay.” — M

• “I prefer the green and open space to massive amounts of people and congestion.” — A

• “I’m a resident of the Pentagon City neighborhood and this “development” would destroy the neighborhood.” — JS

• “I agree with the countless residents who enjoy the quality of life in this area which already is being destroyed by the massive building going on. There is no green space left unturned and yes, I think it’s not necessary at all and simply greed of landowners cashing in…Another poster wrote “enough is enough” and those are my thoughts exactly! I’ve been here for 8 years and it’s painful to see everything built up so the sun and sky are blocked and the trees are gone…” — K

• “The Riverhouse community is known for its balance between nature, green spaces and services. This plane would affect the quality of life without an appropriate planning.” — R

• “The loss of greenspace and the increase in congestion, noise, and chaos is unacceptable. If this proposal goes through, I will most certainly be moving out of the area. The Riverhouse community is comfortable as is. The need for more housing at the expense of the amenities, will make the property worth less to those of us who value a pleasant place to live.” — M

• “Tree canopy and green space needs protection. More buildings with removal of trees and green space means more potential for serious flooding.” — S

County did not address and remedy the situation to ensure equitable access to green space proportioned to the density increases and refused to provide any assurances that it would ever be addressed.

County-wide concerns over the lack of planning for the expressed needs, services, and infrastructure for the community. There appears to be no evidence that the County intends to plan for the facilities and services to meet the density that the County has approved and continues to approve.^594, 595

⁵⁹³  https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-board-riverhouse-neighbors-for-sensible-density/c

⁵⁹⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/11/pentagon-city-sector-plan-to-reach-county-board-on-saturday-amid-some-vocal-opposition/

⁵⁹⁵ https://www.arcaonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ARCA_Submission_CountyBoardVote_PCSP_9FEB22_v2.pdf