It appears to many residents that the current community engagement methods are unevenly applied or have fundamentally changed and no longer consistently includes critical engagement principles and features, and where far-reaching decisions may be made without incorporating substantive resident input or broad community consensus.
- Appearing to Dismiss Widespread Community Input
- Appearing to renege on plans made through community consensus
- Processes appear to be approved without consensus, outreach and even an understanding of what it was trying to accomplish
- County Board states it wants the community to reduce expectations of engagement/ input/ concerns addressed in County process
- Arlington’s apparent lack of inclusivity, transparency and addressing the needs and concerns of residents are perceived to be widespread
- The County Appears to Fail to Address Community Concerns
- Public engagement appears to sometimes miss the mark
- The County does not consistently comply with their own community notification and placard processes.
- The County does not schedule public engagement opportunities at times which promote public participation
- There appears to be no independent community advocate relating to County activities
- The County Board has increased reliance on Consent Agenda, Closed Sessions and Closed-door meetings with little accountability and delayed availability of minutes and other records
- The County limits their engagement guide to capital projects
- The County makes it difficult to participate in processes, even if one is actively trying to do so
Appearing to Dismiss Widespread Community Input.
The Pentagon City Sector Plan190
Although more than 2,400 individuals191 opposed the county’s proposed plan citing significant issues, over one hundred individuals testified192 opposing the plan in several County meetings and at the February 2022 Arlington County Board193, 194 monthly meeting, two civic associations voted on resolutions to not approve the plan due to its questionable impact on the community, hundreds of people wrote to the County Board, and experts testified that this Plan would be detrimental to equity and livability, the county voted 5-0 to move the Pentagon City Sector Plan offering no acknowledgment of dissenting opinions.
The County Board did not address the issues or even extend the engagement period for the many thousands of people who just only learned about the project at the very end of the process.195 Letters from the public are not included with the County agenda.196
See advocacy group https://www.densethatmakessense.org/
190 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning-Study
191 https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-board-riverhouse-neighbors-for-sensible-density
192 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=13855
193 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040
194 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040&meta_id=208829
195 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4264
196 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040
Appearing to renege on plans made through community consensus.
The Clarendon Sector Plan established in 2006197 prioritized open space as one of the most important community benefits to make high density apartment living possible.
The 2006 plan included 50,000 square foot park on Irving St. The open space was negotiated in return for the massive increase in height and density.
During the revisions of the plans that followed between 2006 and 2022198, the open space vanished.
2006 | 2022 |
Designed to be an urban village with attention to step backs, setbacks, building facades and height/density for example 55’ along roads tapering up to 110’. | Step backs and tapering ELIMINATED. Joyce motors site is now planned to be one massive wall on 10th and on Irving for example. County staff requested height increases beyond even what the developers were asking for the Board approved the additional height. |
Required extraordinary community benefits for developers to get to max height and density. | New plan does not specify any additional community benefits for the massive award of height and density. |
A months-long negotiation across all Arlington constituencies. Affordable housing, parks, LRPC, staff, neighborhoods and others. | Staff and developer presentations did not incorporate significant input from constituents. |
Significant changes from the original plan with significant increases and elimination of originally planned community benefits199. Despite entreaties from all adjoining neighborhoods and the Parks Department, the original park was eliminated from the 2022 plan. The developers received additional height and density beyond even the massive increase in 2006. Residents’ input and concerns were not taken into account.
197 Clarendon Sector Plan (2006), https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2014/03/Clarendon-SectorPlan06.pdf
198 Clarendon Sector Plan Update (2022), https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Clarendon-Sector-Plan-Update
199 https://www.arlnow.com/2018/05/18/despite-public-pressure-county-unlikely-to-press-developers-for-schools-parks-contributions/
Processes appear to be approved without consensus, outreach and even an understanding of what it was trying to accomplish.
The Residential Parking Program (RPP) changes were not broadly communicated with the public. The County sent a mass mailing to residents after RPP approval.
County Staff Review began in summer of 2017200. The county-planned Spring 2020 deliberative dialogue with residents was cancelled because of COVID-19201. The County told residents that it would be inequitable to hold online forums. A virtual Q&A session in October 2020 was the only public dialogue with residents to take place after the proposal was released.
The County Board proceeded to advertise the plan at the December 2020 meeting and took action on February 20, 2021, to overhaul and adopt changes to the program202. “I look forward to deliberating on this next spring, it’s going to be a doozy,” said County Board Chair Christian Dorsey.203
On the day of the vote, the Board did respond to the community uproar and eliminated the proposed 2-hour paid parking on residential streets component, but the eligible parking permits for a typical home were reduced prejudicing against multi-generational homes and giving an inequitable preference to group homes by differentiating eligibility for passes. Fees also were increased.
The County Board attempted to place it in an equity framework and claimed that the community had a 50-50 split on this issue without any evidence. At the public hearing, 19 of the 20 speakers spoke against the RPP proposal. “Some people will be unhappy no matter how we do this program,” Board Chair Libby Garvey said. “The people who might benefit from this in terms of apartment buildings aren’t here.” “Aurora Highlands has been well-represented in the public comments,” Board member Matt de Ferranti said.204
A County-wide mailing was made after approval to notify the community.
200 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/RPPReview
201 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/02/22/county-board-approves-new-residential-permit-parking-program/
202 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/02/22/county-board-approves-new-residential-permit-parking-program/
203 https://www.arlnow.com/2019/11/20/residential-parking-changes-on-the-way-its-going-to-be-a-doozy/
204 https://www.arlnow.com/2020/12/18/public-hearing-on-residential-parking-program-deferred-to-february/
County Board states it wants the community to reduce expectations of engagement/ input/ concerns addressed in County process.
County Board discussing the need for the “Arlington Way 2.0” to reduce expectations.
At the December 14, 2021 Recessed Board Meeting, Ms. Libby Garvey stated that there was a major disconnect between the expectation of people and County expectations related to when and how to engage with the community when the topic is something the community will not be able to influence anyway. The Board discussed the need for “Arlington Way 2.0” to reduce expectations.205
205 https://youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y&feature=share&si=EMSIkaIECMiOmarE6JChQQ&t=2767
Arlington Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility206 appears to have insignificant community engagement opportunities.
In September 2020, the County Board addressed the award of a contract for the planning and design of the Arlington Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility207. County Board and staff informed the community that “public engagement” would be limited to only the “aesthetic elements of the buildings and perimeter treatments.”208, 209
206 https://www.arlnow.com/2020/09/17/county-board-approves-contract-for-new-art-bus-facility/
207 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=20807
208 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3793&meta_id=197398
209 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=22025
Arlington’s apparent lack of inclusivity, transparency and addressing the needs and concerns of residents are perceived to be widespread.
Comments about process failures appear to have become commonplace and pervasive in public forums.
Despite repeated concerns about the lack of incorporating residents’ input, the County Board has not made any improvements to the engagement process. Instead, the County has placed further restrictions on resident participation, see here
The County Appears to Fail to Address Community Concerns.
Civilian Review Board (CRB, later renamed the Community Oversight Board).
Due to potential conflicts of interest and policy-related outcomes, actions regarding the Police Practices Group210 recommendations were handled by the County Manager and County Board rather than through the Police Department.
210 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Police-Practices-Work-Group
NAACP went to media to be heard.
The NAACP sent a letter211 to the County Board prior to the final consideration of the Civilian Review Board proposal212. The letter stated that “The Arlington Branch NAACP strongly encourages you to exercise full CRB authority granted to Arlington County by State law, reevaluate the PPG’s many CRB recommendations put on hold, and put more resources and commitment into enacting them.”
The NAACP was forced to go to a news organization (WJLA) because “To date, we have not heard back from the County Manager, we (being the NAACP) nor has Arlington for Justice and many others, heard back from them about our recommendation and that’s concerning.” WJLA used a Christian Dorsey quote from a County Board meeting saying “…if we short-circuit, direct the Manager to alter his recommendations to fit with the views of some, then it discredits the opportunity to discuss it with all and it also undermines the capability of professional people to provide us with their best advice.”213
Further, the NAACP issued a press statement signed by President (Julius “JD” Spain) and First Vice President (Kent Carter) after the County Board’s adoption of the Community Oversight Board.214 The letter was adapted by Sun Gazette.215 The letter states “What remains problematic to us is the failure of elected leaders to embrace the moment and fully adopt authorities granted in [Virginia law] § 9.1-601. Law-enforcement civilian oversight bodies…”.216 Additionally, the NAACP letter went on to say that “Words Matter! What is truthful, factual, and indisputable is that the County Board rejected community input and its own Police Practices Group’s recommendations (Pg.’s 21-24) for true “independent investigatory” power and binding disciplinary actions for the COB. Though the Board and its members repeatedly refer to the COB’s ability to make findings, in fact, key provisions for the COB’s ability to make findings based on investigations were removed from the ordinance that was passed.” The link from the NAACP letter to the Police Practices Group’s recommendations on the County’s website is not accessible due to a broken link to a former County page.217 The NAACP letter was not included in public comments listed in the County Board agenda218.
The County Board and County Manager made local news because the community was forced to escalate the problem to news organizations to be heard.
211 https://storage.googleapis.com/production-constantcontact-v1-0-4/824/621824/9vj90fif/ecfcc6c725c5496daf10012531c74ba5?fileName=Arlington%20Branch%20NAACP%20PPG%20Letter%20of%20May%2013%202021%20FINAL.pdf
212 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Community-Oversight-Board
213 https://wjla.com/news/local/arlington-civilian-review-board-police-department
214 https://storage.googleapis.com/production-constantcontact-v1-0-4/824/621824/9vj90fif/7c14985cf4024f37aef8b8f0cfe46dfd?fileName=Arlington Branch NAACP – Public+Statement- July 23 2021 1.pdf
215 https://sungazette.news/commentary-arlington-effort-on-policing-fell-short/
216 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/9.1-601/
217 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/11/16/broken-links-on-countys-new-website-still-frustrating-some-residents/
218 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3956
Commission was concerned about decisions being made prior to public release of a related report.
The Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission (EPAC) requested that the County Board delay the CRB decision until after the County Manager released his full set of recommendations, based on recommendations from the PPG Consultant Report and PPG Subcommittee Report.219 EPAC stated that “The County Manager’s PPG report will allow EPAC and the community to systematically identify the status and timeline of County Manager actions and recommendations. Once the Board receives that report, the Board could lay out a draft timeline for public participation and Board action, thereby allowing the community to anticipate the opportunities and provide better input to informed Board decisions.”
Only the PPG Subcommittee Report220, 221 (volunteers), not the paid Consultant’s report, was publicly available prior the County Manager’s Community Review Board/Community Oversight Board recommendation222 and Board’s approval action.223, 224 The Consultant’s report final version was dated October 4, 2021225 but not transmitted by the County Manager to the public until January 12, 2022226. Therefore, the Advisory Groups and public were not able to have key information required for public comment about the decision. It is unclear whether the entire Board was fully informed prior to their decision.
Transparency, cost effectiveness and public confidence in decision making and County contract language suffered.
219 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3956&meta_id=204891
220https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/commissions/documents/ppwg/arlingtonpolicepracticegroup.subcommittee.report.final.2.15.21.pdf
221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhlKqU4kn8Y
222 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3956&meta_id=204895
223https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Farlington.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%
3Darlington_ae0bf032f3e8c78d420db40602aa942b.pdf%26view%3D1&embedded=true
224 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iR62-v8FUg
225 https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/departments/documents/hillard-heintze-administrative-policy-and-data-review-of-the-arlington-county-pd-10-04-21.pdf
226 https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/departments/documents/rev.01.12.2022_final- transmittal-letter.pdf
The County attempts to raise affordable housing Area Median Income (AMI) from 60% to 80%.
Columbia Heights Civic Association227, Arlington NAACP228, Penrose Neighborhood Association229, Douglas Park Civic Association230, elected officials, and other community advocates fought against county staff attempt to raise affordable housing Area Median Income (AMI) from 60% to 80% thresholds. The County withdrew an amendment to Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form Based Code (N-FBC)231 October 2020. See links for letters, testimony, and other materials 232, 233
Comments from the community:
- “Affordable housing tools should benefit the vulnerable. The County Board cannot credibly address racial and economic equity while promoting the displacement of so many of our neighbors on Columbia Pike, known as “‘the world in a zip code.’” “By using county standards, you are destroying the very diversity you claim to support. “Protect our most vulnerable residents who don’t have time to come to myriad of meetings or be a commissioner.” County policies should be raised to meet our Columbia Pike standards, not pushing Columbia Pike to lower ours.”
With enormous effort from the community, the County had to keep Columbia Pike standards for 60% AMI on affordable housing and developer density bonuses despite county staff attempts to change that.
227 https://columbiaheightsva.org
228 https://www.arlingtonnaacp.com
229 http://penroseneighborhood.org
230 http://www.douglasparkca.org
231 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/Form-Based-Code/Neighborhoods
232 https://columbiaheightsva.org/group-letter-opposing-n-fbc-amendment/
233 County Board meeting, item #47: https://arlington.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3808
Pentagon City Sector Plan234: Community, Civic Association, and a 22202 resident survey all demand an increase in green space and dedicated casual use space.
234 https://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-Pentagon-City-Plan-and-AHCA-comments.pdf
Pentagon City Study235 Open Space group, April 26, 2021
- Community members stated that they need the Pentagon City Study to contain a net increase in open green spaces and natural areas. Community members also stated that they kept saying that open green space is important, but they’re not seeing that reflected in any of the reports.
- The Consultant was reported to say that they were also hearing that the community wants to see more dedicated public space. The consultant stated that they were not showing the community enough.
- Planning Commissioner and former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Elizabeth Gearin, stated that the community has been consistent in wanting more open space. Ms. Gearin stated that she thought all 3 Civic Associations (Arlington Ridge Civic Association236, Aurora Highlands Civic Association237, and Crystal City Civic Association238) had been really clear. They are going to look at very carefully. Ms. Gearin asked why wasn’t there a greater increase in the open space because it would definitely raise a red flag if a site plan that’s being amended that proposes less open space or accessible in a different way, or lack of easement on it.
- The Consultant verbally summarized participant comments from the open space group engagement, stating there was a very strong sentiment that expanding public space is great but it’s all conditional on the fact that there needs to be casual use, unprogrammed open space because those are needs that are not being meet in the community. The other significant take away expressed was that any net loss of current green space on private development is a loss of public space even if it’s on private parcels; therefore, those needs to be taken into account in thinking about how much public space we need.
235 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning-Study/Documents
236 https://www.arcaonline.org
Important content not included in plan Pentagon City Phased Development Site Plan (PDSP).
Comment from the Aurora Highlands Civic Association239: “the plan lacks important content that AHCA has raised repeatedly throughout the process. Most significantly perhaps is the need to plan for adequate publicly funded community facilities including parks, library, community center and school to meet the needs of a growing population. In terms of park space, rather than leading to significant new space such as in the original Pentagon City plan from the 1970s, this plan focuses on only improving current open space and new additions are generally on the margin.”240
239 https://aurorahighlands.org
240 https://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-Pentagon-City-Plan-and-AHCA-comments.pdf
An Aurora Highlands survey of 22202 residents showed that the greatest thing needed was open (unprogrammed) park space.241
Despite the survey, staff still refused to insert acknowledgement of community need for unprogrammed open space into the Pentagon City Sector Plan and the County Board approved the Plan diminishing the existing publicly accessible green space for residents, while increasing density by double and triple the current density levels.242, 243, 244, 245
241 https://www.jotform.com/report/21132727719705613 (page 7)
242 https://arlington-analytics.com/papers/OPS22202.pdf
243 http://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/ARCA_Responses_PCSP_Jan2022.pdf
244 http://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/AHCA_Responses_PCSP_Jan2022.pdf
245 https://livability22202.org/wp-content/uploads/CCCA_Responses_PCSP_Jan2022.pdf
Public engagement appears to sometimes miss the mark.
Consensus-building leadership may appear to be lacking.
At the September 17, 2022 County Board Meeting, a resident’s call for consensus-building as a true hallmark of true leadership is dismissed and refuted. The County Board turned the resident’s public comments which implore inclusivity, transparency, and consensus- driven engagement and outreach, into statements that residents are “uncompromising.” The resident’s statements246:
- “We need a leadership that unites us.”
- “With a collaborative approach you get far superior results”
- “Citizens and their associations need to be invited back to have a weighted seat at the table.”
- “We your citizens are ready and willing to work with you.”
- “Public engagement must be real, not a check-the-box attitude”
- “It starts at the top.”
- “Surveys must solicit opinions, not limit them.”
Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey noted the community does not have shared values and so “we are not there yet on consensus on growth and development.”247
246 https://youtube.com/watch?v=pY_5oEluops&feature=share&si=EMSIkaIECMiOmarE6JChQQ&t=1317
247 Ibid.
Nelly Custis Park Project was about more than a playground.
According to the Friends of Aurora Parks, “The concern surrounding the Nelly Custis Park project was never just about a playground – it was and is about transparency, the role of special interests, fiscal and environmental responsibility, assessing needs, inclusiveness, community engagement, the role of County staff and civic associations, and ultimately ensuring that our valuable parks and public spaces remain available for everyone in the community.”248
Documents produced after a FOIA request led to a public, County statement concerning the County staff’s interaction with the community.249 As a result, the County Manager’s Office and Department of Parks and Recreation issued an apology:
“On behalf of the County Manager’s Office and the Department of Parks and Recreation, regarding the Neighborhood Conservation project at Nelly Custis Park we’d like to apologize to the community for a process that did not meet Arlington’s vision to be a diverse and inclusive community where people unite to form a caring, learning, participating, sustainable community in which each person is important. County staff made statements that were inappropriate and inconsiderate. The engagement within the community was not at the level that Arlington County expects to deliver to their residents. We are sorry. We are especially sorry to those residents who participated actively and voiced concerns and input, but felt left out of the process. We will strive to ensure that all members of the community are a critical part of the project moving forward.”250
248 https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=c6b15e2b9edbfc419372da47d&id=d16ebbe2d6
249 https://www.arlnow.com/2016/12/22/peters-take-toward-a-new-model-of-arlington-civic-engagement/
Bluemont Baseball Field Renovation public engagement was “not successful”.
While the solution compromise is a positive documented in Section 2.4, public engagement on the Bluemont Baseball Field Renovation251 was not ideal. Opponents to the renovation plan insisted that they were blindsided by the plan. ““Schwartz acknowledged that the County’s engagement process in planning for the renovations, which included a community meeting and digital communications, was not successful. The concerns of those opposed to the fence became known to staff and elected officials only after the County Board approved the construction contract in July 2016. “We are working to improve the County’s processes for engaging the community across County government,” Schwartz said. “I’ve asked our new Assistant County Manager for Communications and Public Engagement, Bryna Helfer, to report back to me in early 2017 with recommendations.””252
In this case, the County worked with the community and negotiated a solution compromise on the field renovations.253 See Section 2.4.
251 https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/10/Bluemont- Park-Presentation-Oct-25.pdf
252 https://www.arlnow.com/2016/11/10/bluemont-baseball-field-compromise-approved-county-promises-better- outreach/
253 https://www.arlnow.com/2016/10/31/county-revises-bluemont-baseball-field-plan-in-attempt-at-compromise/
Significant issues at the Serrano lacked appropriate County attention.
““It’s sickening,” said NAACP President Julius “JD” Spain. “This is a dereliction of duty and someone needs to be held accountable.””254, 255
At a public hearing in June 2022, one resident said “this was ongoing for years and the County did step in and listen to our residents. It did take long though and that’s how I feel about it. I think I should say that. It took long.”256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261
Intense public scrutiny appeared to be required for the County Board and County Manager to take additional steps despite long term issues. Severity was so high that it garnered legislative and Virginia Attorney General attention.262, 263, 264, 265
For more information related to the Serrano and affordable housing, please refer to Section 2.6. In detailing the positive actions taken, the section also implies the issues and corrective actions required to address the serious issues.
254 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/05/06/rodents-mold-shoddy-maintenance-plague-affordable-apartment- building/
255 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/05/20/a-flurry-of-activity-descends-on-the-serrano-apartments-after-residents- decry-conditions-inside/
256 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ePk1Akv5AA&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=24047
257 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ePk1Akv5AA&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=21640
258 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/06/17/county-board-drills-into-ahc-about-serrano-apartment-conditions/
259 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203933
260 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203935
261 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924&meta_id=203934
262 https://www.arlnow.com/2022/01/18/new-ag-will-pursue-state-housing-discrimination-inquiry-into-serrano- apartments/
263 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3924
264 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/12/21/del-lopez-files-bills-strengthening-tenant-protections-after-serrano- saga/
265 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/06/17/county-board-drills-into-ahc-about-serrano-apartment-conditions/
Engagement related to development appears to require tracking of minute details.
A neighborhood was impacted by a one word (net)266 change in site plan conditions related to utility undergrounding. The neighborhood was previously powered by utility poles running through the site being redeveloped but the developer wanted to eliminate unsightly poles at their location. While community benefits included utility undergrounding and the neighborhood changes were a direct result of the site redevelopment, neighbors later discovered that the developer and County agreed that only the site utilities would be undergrounded.
A resident said “we were misled about plans to relocate utilities: [developer] informed us and other neighbors that our utilities would be undergrounded, while in fact they worked with County staff to approve a change in the site plan placing a new utility pole directly in front of our house.” She went on to explain that “the process of engineering plan review and site inspection does not include a public engagement component” and “instead of the original language of no new utility poles, developers and county staff added the word net to justify adding a new pole in front of my house. The County should not allow developers to mislead the public about their plans, then claim that changes to these plans do not require consultation.”267
The County Ombuds said the project does come up on other site plans where similar conditions exist.268 He cited technicalities as to the purpose of the poles and that the site plan process is limited to the site plan boundaries despite impacts outside the site plan area. Additionally he stated that “from a perception standpoint, you can see how confusion would arise from the community… and it is a compounding of issues that has been frustrating for the residents there”.269, 270
Mr. Karantonis said that the engineering issue requires attention because the type of problems related to undergrounding happen “way too often… it is quite a repeating complaint… it is a sudden, negative surprise… we need to be more attentive of how to mitigate the impact”.271
Mr. Dorsey expressed that while it may be seen as an engineering issue, it is also an engagement issue.272 He went on to explain that while what is required is a minimum expectation, “I think we need to figure out how to put a little bit more of the art into it and to recognize that if someone has an existing condition with no utility pole in front of their house and redevelopment is going to bring a new one to their house, they need to know about that. Part of what is driving this angst is not only was this something they weren’t able to weigh in on and maybe seek an alternative solution, but they just weren’t even notified. That’s something that’s not acceptable… We owe it to people to inform them of that.”
Mr. de Ferranti whole-heartedly agreed with Mr. Dorsey’s suggested review of the process.273 Chair Garvey endorsed figuring out a way to enhance communication to avoid “nasty surprises”.274
However, the utility pole problem was not changed. Additionally, the existing community was forced to deal with limited enforcement of site plan conditions (including those related to safety); dumping and storing materials in unapproved locations; and low levels of community engagement by the developer. Additionally, there were unannounced “administrative” changes such as paving materials, design of pedestrian access and lighting. The site plan conditions, administrative changes and later, “clarifying” approvals are not publicly available via the project’s page. County justifications have relied on vague wording rather than diagrams and drawings to justify actions. At other times, the County has relied on miscellaneous “standards” rather than drawing specifications.
The County repeatedly said they could not intervene because it was a civil matter, despite the County having a construction oversight role and one as an investor/lender. In the case of lighting, the ownership of new streetlights was transferred to the County, still without the ability and/or desire to resolve light levels to eliminate light trespass on neighboring homes.275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281 The developer’s suggestion to reduce light impacts was exterior shutters on neighborhood homes which was not an acceptable community outcome.
The community is often inexperienced in the development process and does not often possess engineering, architectural and other certifications. Instead, the community relies on the County to be good advocates with a fair process. However, the process appeared to skew to favor the County and developers.
266 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3597&meta_id=183944
267 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=1265
268 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2404
269 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2478
270 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2556
271 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2590
272 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2669
273 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2780
274 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0jfSpztBtI&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2844
275 https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/
276 https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2020/02/SMP-FINAL-REPORT-2020.pdf
277 https://www.insidenova.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-new-arlington-street-lighting-not-meeting-dark- sky-needs/article_1604537a-bf85-11e5-8afc-1f3fe9b71211.html
278 https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sample-letter-to-your-neighbor_DP.doc
279 http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=44&event_id=1171&meta_id=166632
280 https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-safety/
The County does not consistently comply with their own community notification and placard processes.
County construction and lack of notification hinders business and enrages residents282
“A construction project along Columbia Pike is causing confusion, congestion, and outrage near Four Mile Run in Arlington. It’s also led to an apology from several top county leaders, who admit they failed to properly communicate and prepare people for the changes.”283
“I am frustrated we’ve executed a project so poorly here,” said then Arlington County Board Chair Christian Dorsey. “I wanted to make sure that we not only posted signs on the road itself, we also sent things via social media and would even go door to door to affected residents, to give people an opportunity to hear about the changes that were coming and to have their questions answered.”284
283 Ibid.
284 Ibid.
County May Lack of Proper Community Notification of Use Permits.
At the February 2022 Recessed Board Meeting, it was revealed that 14 previously approved use permits and site plans had to be reconsidered because the County had not properly notified the public with required on-site placard notifications.285, 286
The County Board’s actions on items considered without proper placard notification were void. The Board was forced to properly post the notices and spend time with additional public hearings to reconsider the items. This also cost community members engagement time.
285 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wDD9aQGco
286 https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/
The County has very limited circulation of legal notices.
The February 2022 Recessed Board meeting errors prompted larger discussion on the purpose and methods of public legal notices. “Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey said. “Many have long decried our practice of advertising in the Washington Times, given its relatively low circulation in the county. While it meets the legal requirements, it doesn’t necessarily meet the spirit of broad notice.””287 “[Board Chair Katie Cristol] said she “would love” to advertise with an online news source, but state law mandates that such notices be placed in print publications.”288 The Board discussed the Washington Times notifications as meeting the state’s notice requirements despite low circulation. Delegate Patrick Hope said “The thing about the current law… [is] it flies in the face of putting notices in a place where people see them.”289
Arlington should find a way for public notices to reach a larger audience and comply with the broad notice spirit of the law, perhaps by find a way to also post notices online. The Dillon rule290 may require that the County work with legislators for permission to change notification requirements. However, the County may determine that print notification is the minimum required by law, with online notices in addition to reach larger audiences. The County’s legislative priorities will soon be submitted to the Commonwealth.291
288 https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/
289 https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/16/typo-causes-hassle-for-county-prompts-critique-of-public-notice-laws-limits/
290 https://law.lis.virginia.gov
291 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Legislative-Affairs
The County appears to tell community what they’re going to do before County Board action.
Neighbors near the Buck/Quincy site have stated concern that placing buses on the Buck/Quincy site would lead to issues with noise during quiet hours.292 The Civic Association President stated that the site was not zoned for bus dispatch and storage.293 There was reportedly only one community meeting where DES “told residents what they were going to do. Questions were dismissed as soon as they were asked.”294
One community member wrote an opinion piece “Obituary: The Arlington Way is Dead295. An commenter referred readers to a Sun-Gazette piece “‘Arlogance’ rears its ugly head once more”296 which describes “Arlogance” “as the self-satisfied contempt that one-party rule had allowed county officials to lord over the populace”.
Previous engagement efforts related to other site uses prompted Ms. Garvey to share that there is a disconnect between people’s expectations and the County’s when and how to engage when the County is working on something the community can’t change.297
The community insisted that the County follow their own laws and policies. 298 While JFAC looked at long-term uses of the site, the scope specifically excluded the ability for JFAC to look at short-term or temporary uses.299, 300 Despite the significant purchase price, proximity to Metro, and long-term uses discussed by JFAC, Chair Cristol wished there had been greater transparency from the beginning about the site being acquired for “back of the house” uses.301 Despite Ms. Garvey appearing to vote for approval and opposed, the item was considered as unanimously passed.302
The County’s link to JFAC’s Phase 3 report303 and other related information304 redirected to a general page on Commissions rather than to the appropriate content.
293 https://www.arlnow.com/2022/05/13/county-board-to-consider-bus-storage-as-art-facility-construction-nears/
294 https://nextdoor.com/p/PsCqXZ9XSXBD?view=detail
295 https://nextdoor.com/p/PsCqXZ9XSXBD?view=detail
296 https://sungazette.news/editorial-arlogance-rears-its-ugly-head-once-more/
297 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2767
298 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4900
299 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=11615
300 https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/05/042518-JFAC-Letter-N-Bagley- Ballston-VA-Square-April-25-2018.pdf
301 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=11899
302 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTEgabplks&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=12393
303 https://commissions.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/JFAC-Ph-3-Feb-28-2018-R1.pdf
304 https://commissions.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/ES-Boundaries-Draft-WS-Final.pdf
The County does not schedule public engagement opportunities at times which promote public participation
The County schedules critical engagement during or near holidays.
The Court House West Special GLUP Study305 process conducted the only Virtual Open House on Thursday, September 1, 2022. This was the Thursday before Labor Day during a period when even the County Board was on recess. The online engagement session was scheduled for Dec 14, 2021 – January 9, 2022.306, 307, 308 The online engagement for Clarendon Sector Plan update was Dec. 18, 2020 – January 8, 2021309. This holiday timing limits the ability of people to participate. The feedback on the Pentagon City Sector Plan was due on December 31, 2021310.
A Digital Broadband study survey was mailed to some Arlington household mid-August, 2022. The written surveys were due to be returned by August 31, 2022. Again, this timing was during the Board’s recess and at the end of summer. The limited timing limited engagement. Further, a digital “e-Checkup311” was offered without clarity of the prior written survey.
As the result, engagement was limited because many people were still on vacations or celebrating holidays.
306 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/General-Land-Use-Plan/Studies/Courthouse-West
307 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4123&meta_id=212225
308 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1754&meta_id=212568
310 https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/projects/documents/pentagon-city-planning-study/pentagoncitysectorplan_final_for_print.pdf
311 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/Community-Planning-Housing-Development/Digital-Equity/Broadband-Study
The County may schedule only daytime sessions.
Many engagement timeframes allow for participation of limited members of the population. This may mean only daytime, only evening, only weekday, only weekend or an assortment of times poorly scheduled.
Please refer to the below Twitter post by Chris Slatt, Chair of the Transportation Commission. Mr. Slatt apparently noticed that all the listed engagement sessions are between 11 am and 5 pm. This limited timeframe may prevent members of the community from participating in any of the similarly timed sessions. While the times may be more convenient for staff, the times may not be convenient for a majority of the community.
There appears to be no independent community advocate relating to County activities.
Arlington County’s Ombuds is not independent, nor neutral despite the title’s requirement and expectation to be such.
The ombuds is tasked with “handling complaints made concerning County services or activities”. However, the Ombuds reports to the County Manager312, who is able to influence Ombuds outcomes and diminish the Ombuds’ role as a neutral party to resolve disputes. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, an Ombuds is “an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.”
It is a conflict of interest for the County Manager to oversee this function, which often involves issues with County functions or services reporting to the County Manager. In addition, the County Manager has responsibilities for the Ombuds’ performance evaluation and pay.
Therefore, the County Manager is able to assert influence on outcomes and the Ombuds is unable to impartially represent the views of the community when there is a dispute with County policies, processes, and/or actions.
312 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Constituent-Services
The County Board has increased reliance on Consent Agenda, Closed Sessions and Closed-door meetings with little accountability and delayed availability of minutes and other records.
There appears to be increasing use of Consent Agenda even when the item is not “non-controversial”.
The County’s September 2022 Regular County Board Meeting had 43 items on Consent Agenda313 the October 2022 Consent Agenda had 30314. The items were approved en masse with limited, if any, discussion. In the past, the Community was able to have an item removed from Consent Agenda. However, current rules allow only a Board Member remove an item from the Consent Agenda.315
An increasing number of County actions are being taken with no on-the-record discussion, limiting transparency. Consent agenda316 is intended to be used for “non-controversial” topics. Even when the Staff reports that the community, Civic Association(s) and/or Advisory Groups have voiced concerns, the consent agenda is used. The community and civic association concerns by definition mean that it is controversial and not eligible for consent agenda. However, an apparent lack of clear, written, detailed criteria means that controversial topics are being added to the Consent Agenda, reducing public trust in the processes. The Board has privately stated that they are aware that consent agenda is being misused but the same actions persist.
313 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1754
314 http://arlington.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4145
315 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/County-Board/County-Board-Meetings/2022-County-Board-Meeting-Procedures
316 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/County-Board/County-Board-Meetings/2022-County-Board-Meeting-Procedures
Closed Sessions are not properly documented.
As of mid-October, 2022, there are still no minutes, audio or video links related to the Closed Sessions317 on August 16, 2022; May 12, 2022; July 13, 2021; or January 6, 2021. There are a number of previous dates reflecting the same. Other dates are inconsistent as to the availability of information.
Rather than announcing Closed Sessions in advance, Arlington sometimes includes them in another meeting.318 These sessions are especially hard for the public to find because there is no public announcement nor record on the County’s Closed Sessions list.319, 320
Additionally, Closed Sessions documentation appears to not have recorded all of the closed sessions conducted, even if the Closed Session was announced to the public. The most obvious example is that the record reflects that Board would have gone almost a year (July 9, 2019 to July 2, 2020) without a closed session. Yet, during this period, there were public notices of Closed Sessions, including implied sessions related to personnel matters.321
In an effort to increase transparency and public confidence, the Board should ensure that Closed Sessions include proper public notification and documentation (minutes, video and audio).
See also Section 13.1.5.
317 http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
318 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y7L5WEtQN8&t=16521s
319 http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
320 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWqR4Rw-XKU&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=9909
321 https://www.arlnow.com/2020/02/13/county-board-considering-next-appropriate-steps-for-christian-dorsey/
The County limits their engagement guide to capital projects.
The County has developed a Six Step Guide to Community Engagement for Capital Projects. The Six Step Guide, if used, helps to ensure that a written project definition is created, stakeholders are identified, engagement level expectations are defined, engagement and communications strategies are created and implemented, inputs are reviewed and analyzed, projects are closed out and after-action reviews are conducted to determine and document lessons learned and enable improvements. 322, 323
A Community Engagement framework for non-capital projects does not exist though the same concepts apply. The County has not focused on identifying all stakeholders, engagement levels, how to reach the entire community, or how to gather lessons learned and regularly continuously improve. The PLACE324 engagement guide appears to have been applied more universally.
As the result, stakeholders, roles, engagement levels and other items are not always considered. The level of engagement is not consistently applied across project types. The engagement documents do not appear to be regularly posted if they are created, even for capital projects.
322 https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/03/Six-Step-Public-Engagement-Guide-for-Capital-Projects.pdf
323 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAQtHGlcI8A&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=5197
324 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=2438&meta_id=105775
The County makes it difficult to participate in processes, even if one is actively trying to do so.
County’s structure makes it difficult for the community to participate in engagement opportunities, i.e., short time frames, little notice, one participation time and/or language.
There is no set minimum timeline and method for advertising and promoting public input and participation request. The County does not list all engagement opportunities on the County’s website325 and/or provides a very short notice or time to engage. As the result community has very short timeframes to engage or does not receive advance notice to participate in meetings. People who want to participate are unable to plan (work, childcare, life, transportation) to participate in the meeting, much less prepare.
Meeting materials are not always posted in advance.
While meetings require advance notice, often meeting materials are posted without enough advance notice to allow commissions and/or the public to opine verbally or in writing. In fact, some meetings include adding meeting materials at the last minute or later.
Adding an advance-posting policy would help with both transparency and confidence in government. While two articles326, 327 limit the application, broader application of the rule would enhance community participation, leading to better results328.
326 https://www.arlnow.com/2017/02/16/peters-take-improve-civic-engagement-by-adopting-a-72-hour-rule/
327 https://www.arlnow.com/2021/04/20/the-right-note-more-transparency-please/
328 https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/Commissions/Documents/Advisory-Group-Handbook-2014.pdf Introduction