11. Transparency in community benefits; negotiations and enforcement. -

11. Transparency in community benefits; negotiations and enforcement.

There is no accurate, measurable public accounting of the value of the “community benefits” developers offer as part of the site plan process and likewise no accurate public accounting of the value of the density and other benefits that property developers receive in return, leaving the public in the dark as to whether or not what is received is of roughly equivalent value.

There appears to be a lack of transparency and consistency regarding how community benefits are established with density increases as well as followed in implementation. Repeated requests for transparency on these concerns appear to be ignored.
Independent review of developer’s meeting site-plan conditions/ community benefits is not followed through by the County Board or County Manager

There is a lack of both transparency and consistency with implementation regarding community benefits affiliated with density increases. Requests for transparency go unaddressed.

Amazon HQ2 Penn Place Site Plan Approval appears to lack transparency of analysis and community benefits.

During the Amazon HQ2 PenPlace site plan approval process⁵⁹⁶, residents requested information to understand how the County was calculating an historic level of bonus density and what that would mean to community benefits. “Going forward, it is vital that the county reveal to the public, as part of site plan negotiations for all development, the underlying dollar value of the benefits of the bonus density being awarded and the community benefits promised in return⁵⁹⁷. It is the Board’s mandate to insist on such transparency” ⁵⁹⁸

Arlington Ridge Civic Association also submitted their concerns to the County saying, “we encourage the County Board to address a number of requests expressed by the county commissions and community members regarding the community benefits associated with the PenPlace project and transparency into the community benefit process in-general… the area still lacks a community center and library to sufficiently meet the needs of the growing population. Contributions to support more community parks and improved public facilities could mitigate the harmful effects of population increases and potentially improve the quality-of-life for many local citizens….we firmly believe the community deserves more transparency on the community benefits exchanged for continued development and density increases. As was noted in many of the commission letters, there is a lack of transparency in the community benefits process.”

The County still refused to make transparent the calculations it supposedly had conducted for the PenPlace development. Residents then worked to create an analysis of what benefits costs and density⁵⁹⁹ and found that the County’s “offer falls short $380 million to $1.1 billion of the value of that density.” County Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey calling the analysis provided by residents absent “suspect methodologies.”

But Vice Chair Dorsey refused to publish any information to dispute the residents’ analysis or provide the transparency in community benefits that was initially requested. Source: April 23, 2022, County Board Meeting.⁶⁰⁰

Vice Chair Dorsey also stated that the complex conversation “also kind of underscores why we don’t have these conversations fully in the public.”⁶⁰¹ Even for historic levels of density and multi-billion dollar developer projects, benefits are not disclosed and conversations are not in public.⁶⁰²

⁵⁹⁶ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types/Site-Plan/Pen-Place-2021

⁵⁹⁷ https://www.arlnow.com/2018/05/18/despite-public-pressure-county-unlikely-to-press-developers-for-schools-parks-contributions/

⁵⁹⁸ https://www.asf-virginia.org/key-issues-development

⁵⁹⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpDD2mJXNe8

⁶⁰⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWNLUI4zDs&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2406

⁶⁰¹ https://northernvirginiamag.com/culture/news/2022/05/04/hq2-phase-approval/

⁶⁰² https://www.virginiamercury.com/2018/11/21/how-hard-a-bargain-did-virginia-drive-on-amazon-secrecy-pledge-could-make-it-tough-to-find-out/

Initial proposals for the “Buck” (now “Quincy”) site included a land swap with Arcland Properties that would have given Arcland what appeared to be the most useable portion of the property.

The land swap proposal would have resulted in Arcland, a developer, receiving the most usable space on the parcel to construct a self-storage facility ⁶⁰³^, ⁶⁰⁴. While that swap did not occur, the site has not had the benefit of strategic planning for community uses.

Arlington has paid large sums for land near Metro but misuse it for bus parking and storage of vehicles and materials. Parking and storage should be reserved for less expensive properties and/or locations further from Metro. While the County has made a small allotment to study future uses in the CIP, no money has been allotted for development. ⁶⁰⁵^, ⁶⁰⁶^, ⁶⁰⁷^, ⁶⁰⁸^, ⁶⁰⁹^, ⁶¹⁰ Ms. Garvey raised the need for a discussion about the “Arlington Way 2.0”⁶¹¹ to work on community expectations.

Arlington bought a parcel near Metro with significant land use restrictions yet is using the site for industrial and storage purposes. The County is not realizing the potential of the location despite the large cost to taxpayers. The community does not feel that the County is listening to and addressing resident concerns.

⁶⁰³ https://www.arlnow.com/2017/06/28/jfac-settles-on-three-options-for-buck-vhc-properties/

⁶⁰⁴ https://www.arlnow.com/2016/11/30/county-considering-land-swap-self-storage-facility-across-from-w-l/

⁶⁰⁵ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y

⁶⁰⁶ https://www.arlnow.com/2017/06/01/peters-take-no-to-self-storage-use-of-buck-property/

⁶⁰⁷ https://www.arlnow.com/2015/05/05/county-buys-land-in-virginia-square-for-30-million/

⁶⁰⁸ https://www.arlnow.com/2019/05/29/classrooms-police-cars-and-more-proposed-for-buck-site/

⁶⁰⁹ https://www.arlnow.com/2021/12/15/county-to-temporarily-relocate-some-art-bus-operations-to-va-square-property/

⁶¹⁰ https://www.arlnow.com/2015/05/05/county-buys-land-in-virginia-square-for-30-million/

⁶¹¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJ-nOGt-6Y&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=2812

Pentagon City Sector Plan appears to lack transparency of community benefit- to-density calculations.

“Community Benefits: The [Pentagon City Sector Plan] listed community benefits should clearly be listed as not fully inclusive of what a site plan’s benefits actually end up being. A developer should not see the PDSP’s suggestions here as a maximum to be pointed to and fulfilled, but rather a minimum to be built on.” ⁶¹²

“Overall, we really want to understand what is being required, what is optional, what data that is based on (or if not data, what standards) and who is responsible for what and when. This could look like a chart or table of proposed changes/improvements that cover those points.” ⁶¹³ The County appeared to ignore the requests for transparency in community benefit-to- density calculations for all its projects. The County did not provide clarity regarding how community benefits are calculated, how/when they will be delivered and so on for the Pentagon City Sector Plan with a multi- billion dollar approval of density for developers.

⁶¹² https://aurorahighlands.org/news/pcps-draft-comments/

⁶¹³ https://aurorahighlands.org/news/ahca-feedback-to-current-pentagon-city-planning-study-scenarios/

Independent review of developer’s meeting site-plan conditions/ community benefits is not followed through by the County Board or County Manager.

Consultant Report on Site Plan Conditions (2005 or 2006) recommendations appear to have not been implemented.

“The county government hired a consultant to determine whether site-plan conditions were being met in 2005 or 2006. The consultant delivered the report and, while some recommendations for improving the tracking process were adopted, a number never were addressed… “Some [recommendations] have been implemented, but a whole lot haven’t,” Schwartz acknowledged.”⁶¹⁴

In 2022, the County Manager acknowledged that the County Manager and Board did not fully address “a whole lot” of recommendations in the previous consultant report regarding ensuring site plan conditions and benefits are met.⁶¹⁵

⁶¹⁴ https://sungazette.news/auditor-may-mull-whether-site-plan-conditions-are-carried-out/

⁶¹⁵ Ibid.

Audit of site plan conditions and benefits has not been conducted.

In 2022, the County expanded the County’s allowed audit positions to help bolster the auditor function⁶¹⁶. While the FY2023 Audit Plan includes an audit area for site plan conditions and benefits, the County Auditor resignation⁶¹⁷ and search may result in this audit being delayed and/or dismissed.⁶¹⁸^, ⁶¹⁹ This item was also on the Auditor’s FY 2022 Work Plan⁶²⁰, FY 2021 Work Plan⁶²¹, FY 2020 Work Plan⁶²² and the FY 2019 Work Plan⁶²³^, ⁶²⁴. Comments in the FY 2019 Work Plan indicate that it was added based on public feedback. However, it was also listed in the FY 2018 Audit Horizon⁶²⁵ and a 2016 article regarding the departure of the first County Auditor⁶²⁶^, ⁶²⁷. Records prior to FY 2018 are not available on the County Auditor page.

The County Auditor page⁶²⁸ reflects that the FY2023 Audit Plan was approved on June 21, 2022. However, the Audit Plan approval is not included in the Board Minutes⁶²⁹ nor linked on the County Auditor page.