West Rosslyn Planning Study (WRAPS)

A process, which included a much needed Rosslyn park, showed that before the community engagement process began, the County Manager had already signed off on a letter of intent³⁹² for the project and most of its specifications.^{393, 394} The letter of intent was only discovered after the process had taken place.

Despite the uncovering of this letter of intent and predetermined process, “The County Board approved the West Rosslyn Planning Study (WRAPS)³⁹⁵ …with very minor changes. Four of the five Board members said that they owed the residents of Rosslyn an apology.”³⁹⁶ And, “Sadly, most neighbors had already given up hope of being heard by their County Board on this issue. It was a small consolation that board members talked about “lessons learned” and apologized for their handling of the planning of western Rosslyn.”³⁹⁷

³⁹²  https://s26551.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2013-01-15-Executed-County-Penzance-LOI.pdf

³⁹³ https://www.arlnow.com/2015/06/25/peters-take-un-wrapping-western-rosslyn/

³⁹⁴ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2014/06/WRAPS_RevisedWorkingGroupCharge_2014-0513-formatted.pdf

³⁹⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/WRAPS

³⁹⁶ https://www.facebook.com/Save-Rosslyn-Highlands-Park-836645906401390/

³⁹⁷ https://www.facebook.com/Save-Rosslyn-Highlands-Park-836645906401390/

Radnor-Ft. Myer heights appeared to lack community notification and well-defined policy guidance.

Residents of a townhouse community next to older garden apartments in Radnor Ft. Myer Heights (the Marbella³⁹⁸) were told in February 2022 “highest and best use” should be considered more than “by-right potential”³⁹⁹ as the Board rolled out its first-ever award of unlimited bonus density for affordable housing^{.400, 401, 402, 403} This unanimous vote came despite staff noting in the Board report that “lacking well-defined planning and urban design guidelines or other applicable policy guidance, the review of this development proposal faced several key challenges”.^{404, 405}

The Planning Commission Presentation to the Board included a unanimous motion to recommend better notification of proposed projects by on-site billboards while they are still conceptual.⁴⁰⁶

Even when staff says that the project is lacking what is necessary for good planning, the County Board approves the project.

³⁹⁸  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types/Site-Plan/1300-1305-N-Pierce-St

³⁹⁹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=9112

⁴⁰⁰ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040&meta_id=208816

⁴⁰¹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/About-Arlington/News/Articles/2019/County-Board-Revises-Bonus-Density- Provisions-to-Encourage-Affordable

⁴⁰² https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjqgcgiQkQ

⁴⁰³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=9112

⁴⁰⁴ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040&meta_id=208816

⁴⁰⁵ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&t=9112s

⁴⁰⁶ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4264

The Residential Parking Program (RPP) was recently under review⁴⁰⁷, with Board approval of changes in 2021 despite what appeared to be limited community engagement and knowledge.

During multi-year RPP review, changes to residential parking rules were not allowed. While normally Site Plan Reviews would include potential RPP changes, the freeze meant that RPP impacts by new development was not allowed to be considered. SPR is approving lower parking ratios for new construction. Yet, neighborhood concerns related to the lower parking ratio impacts on neighborhood parking could not be addressed through RPP changes during the freeze period. Lower parking ratios are even more likely near public transportation, with the logic that people will use public transportation. Yet not all residents near metro completely eliminate car ownership. The County does not have a mechanism to revisit neighborhood parking hours, signage, etc. after approval and the end of the RPP review. Even on streets with limited parking, changing parking restrictions outside of the SPRC process is very difficult. Additionally, at least 16 RPP change applications were put on hold during the review and now must comply with more strict change requirements.^{408, 409, 410}

The RPP changes make it even more difficult to change parking restrictions in residential areas. While it is impacting parking for residences, even residences without driveways who are reliant on street parking, the new thresholds for change outside the SPRC project are very limiting. This could push out seniors, those with disabilities and other existing and future residents who may need to rely on personal vehicles. It also reduces overall community satisfaction.

⁴⁰⁷  https://www.arlnow.com/2021/02/22/county-board-approves-new-residential-permit-parking-program/

⁴⁰⁸ https://www.arlnow.com/2019/01/07/parking-emerges-as-key-concern-as-virginia-square-american-legion- redevelopment-advances/

⁴⁰⁹ https://sungazette.news/arlington-board-oks-residential-parking-permit-revamp/

⁴¹⁰https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/transportation/documents/rpp_administrativeguidelines_10182021.pdf

Missing Middle appears to change focus toward increased density.

One of the largest changes in zoning in decades, branded as the “Missing Middle”, the County changed its initial objective part way through the process. The processes is riddled with a lack of transparency and data, and the community engagement opportunities⁴¹¹ are calculated, controlled and are to convey rather than to collect insights. Furthermore, the County’s own surveys and feedback illustrate that the County is misrepresenting the community’s consensus and strongly oppose the proposed Plan. The initiative’s scope changed drastically over two years:

• December 2019: Board has a hearing and publishes a press release to kickoff Missing Middle, stating how they “emphasized that neither an across-the-board rezoning, nor an elimination of single-family zoning, would be the right fit for Arlington.”⁴¹²
• Board Chair Katie Cristol’s inaugural address January 2022, where she talks about triplexes and never mentions 4, 6 or 8 plexes              ⁴¹³
• April 28, 2022: Staff releases 85 pages of its plan for across-the-board rezoning that eliminates all single-family zoning, and consultant’s report. “Allow townhouses and buildings with 2-8 units in zoning districts currently limited to single-household development (R-5 to R-20)⁴¹⁴
• May 2, 2022: Staff holds its only public Q&A on the Missing Middle Framework, with 74 minutes for questions. ⁴¹⁵
• April-June 2022: Staff carry out what Board Vice Chair Christian Dorsey calls, an “unprecedented and quite creative” engagement that “hit all of the elements of what effective engagement means” “at a level of depth and accessibility unlike any I can remember.”⁴¹⁶
• July 12, 2022: Staff reveals results from the County’s survey (from its “unprecedented” engagement for 30 months). Only 295 people had a “positive” “general opinion” of the County’s Missing Middle Plan. Those opposing or critical outnumber supporters 3:1.^{417, 418, 419}
• Thursday, August 11, 2022: the County opens 11 micro town halls (“community conversations”) for only 15-20 people each (220 total involvement in a county of 250,000 people, with no control or certification to ensure that only county residents are participating); to occur up to 2 months away. All community options to participate are reserved within 72 hours.
• Friday, August 19, 2022: the County quietly expands the micro town halls, in a vaguely worded email⁴²⁰, to 30 people (330 max). They fill up in 72 hours over a late August vacation-filled weekend.
• August 23, 2022: online petition against the Board’s plan tops 3,000⁴²¹

⁴¹¹ https://sungazette.news/letter-more-outreach-needed-on-missing-middle/

⁴¹² https://www.arlingtonva.us/About-Arlington/News/Articles/2019/Arlington-County-to-Begin-Missing-Middle- Housing-Study-in-2020

⁴¹³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjN2tC7qx0

⁴¹⁴ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/housing/documents/missing-middle/mmhs-phase-2- public-presentation_05.02.pdf (p.13.)

⁴¹⁵ https://teams.microsoft.com/_#/l/meetup- join/19:meeting_ZjIwNGU0MmItNTlkOC00YTVmLTkwNTctNmNlNzhmNzc1ZGM2@thread.v2/0?context=%7B%22Ti d%22:%2280354804-1fdf-428e-9f5f-5091e994cf54%22,%22Oid%22:%2223002100-e08d-40a6-bfaf f2c5f978d344%22,%22IsBroadcastMeeting%22:true%7D&btype=a&role=a&anon=true&deeplinkId=fcd7c915- e6e8-4624-af1a-d24a8765f6ad

⁴¹⁶ https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1723&v=jcYojkudmBY&feature=youtu.be

⁴¹⁷  https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/housing/documents/missing-middle/mmhs-phase-2-

public-engagement-details-analysis.pdf (pg 18)

⁴¹⁸ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2022-05/2022- 05%20ACCF%20PSComm%20Res%20Extend%20Missing%20Middle%20Comment%20Period%202022-05- 10%20APPROVED.pdf

⁴¹⁹  https://sungazette.news/candidate-housing-survey-rigged-to-get-county-answers-it-wants/

⁴²⁰ https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/VAARLINGTON/bulletins/328a080

⁴²¹ https://www.change.org/p/arlingtonians-opposed-to-upzoning

“Maintenance” Capital Improvement Projects (CIP); Virginia Highlands Park⁴²² may have extend beyond “maintenance”.

Arlington County appears to have mis-represented the project as a “maintenance” CIP project. And in doing so very likely violated a series of ordinances, policies and even public engagement procedures. In 2014⁴²³, at Virginia Highlands Park, DPR claimed improperly and inappropriately that the extensive work it authorized to be performed was “maintenance.” Maintenance projects are clearly defined as not working outside the scope of the existing facilities or infrastructure and therefore would also contain special exclusions regarding stormwater runoff and Chesapeake Bay regulations since these projects would not disturb land or change the imperviousness of the surface or would alter the uses and therefore would also not need to involve the community in a typical engagement process.

However, the Virginia Highlands CIP “maintenance” project included:

• Approximately $3 million in funding
• 100,000 sq ft of land disturbance
• Estimated 17,000 sq ft of new paved areas just for the maintenance project. Increase of 11,300 sf. of paved athletic courts (up from 48,100 sf.) and an addition of 5,300 sf. of sidewalk/plaza space (up from 3,400 sf.).
• New facilities (soccer field and youth court) added
• Numerous site amenities such as electronic reservation system, 18 new benches, bleachers, shade sails, etc…
• A complete redesign of the east side of park
• And much more…

⁴²² http://friendsofahparks.org/virginia-highlands-park/

⁴²³  http://friendsofahparks.org/sample-page/environmental-regulations-and-cip-maintenance-documents/

Calling a process a “Study,” and then changing it to a “Sector Plan” at the end of the process. Pentagon City Study/ Sector Plan.

The County labeled a process called the Pentagon City Study⁴²⁴. Residents asked throughout the process how this “study” was going to be applied and what its goal and intention was. When questioned, staff said they were just seeing what is possible.

Arlington County’s Pentagon City Planning Study: Documents page⁴²⁵:

• October 12, 2021 – Pentagon City Planning Study Virtual Open House (still a Study)
• November 2, 2021 – Pentagon City Planning Study Virtual Discussion (still a Study) November 24, 2021 – Pentagon City Sector Plan v3 (suddenly a plan 18 days later)
• February 7, 2022 – Pentagon City Planning Study Virtual Listening Session (a Study again to pretend that they still can make changes)
• February 12, 2022 – Approved as “Pentagon City Sector Plan” 5 days later

This creates the appearance that the County intentionally misled the community by not properly calling it a Sector Plan from the onset.

⁴²⁴ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning- Study/Documents

⁴²⁵ Ibid.

Pentagon City Study’s 18-month process appeared to talk mainly about connectivity and minor details about sidewalk widths and so on.

The last few months of the process before the vote, staff shared a presentation showing 18 high-rise buildings on the River House lot⁴²⁶, tripling the existing density. When River House residents were made aware of this, only by their fellow neighbors, they protested that they were never told about these significant changes⁴²⁷. Staff and County Board repeatedly replied that they were not part of the process and that there were a few yard signs a nearby park asking them to participate in a study with no mention of River House or tripling the density. Landowners had tried multiple times to increase and further develop the River House lot under a special GLUP with neighborhood concerns.^{428, 429, 430,} 431

The community perceived that the Pentagon City “study” later called a “Sector Plan” was really an attempt to pass significant density under the misnomer of a “study” instead of the special GLUP process.⁴³²

• The “Study” started in Jan 2020, just before COVID.
• Monthly focus groups were conducted with a preselected group, heavy on developer representatives and special interests start in Sept 2020. Focus group sessions were managed by an outside firm with very general presentations on concepts but no actual plans. The focus was on what the community wants –
• walkability, bike lanes, sitting spaces⁴³³. The River House lot was not the focus of the discussions.
• Initial Version of Draft Plan – July 29, 2021⁴³⁴. The first time anyone actually sees triple density on the River House lot – 1.5 years after the study started and 10 months after the “community engagement” started.

⁴²⁶ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2021/07/FocusGroup_July29_DraftPlan.pdf

⁴²⁷  https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-board-riverhouse-neighbors-for-sensible-density

⁴²⁸ https://www.arcaonline.org/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2022/02/ARCA_Submission_CountyBoardVote_PCSP_9FEB22_v2.pdf

⁴²⁹ https://www.arlnow.com/2022/02/11/pentagon-city-sector-plan-to-reach-county-board-on-saturday-amid- some-vocal-opposition/

⁴³⁰ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2022-06/2022- 06%20ACCF%20PSComm%20Res%20GLUP_Planning_Input%20APPROVED.pdf

⁴³¹  https://www.arlnow.com/2022/10/17/jbg-smith-files-plans-to-turn-riverhouse-parking-lots-into-more-housing/

⁴³² https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning- Study/Documents

⁴³³ Ibid.

⁴³⁴ https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2021/07/FocusGroup_July29_DraftPlan.pdf

Longtime civically engaged residents speak openly about what appears to be the County’s predetermined processes.

Washington Post, “The cake is often half-baked and people’s ability to impact what’s happening is often more marginal” compared to other projects, said Christer Ahl, the former chair of the Crystal City Citizens Review Council, which represents residents of that neighborhood. “The county, landowners and developers have loads of opportunities behind the scenes to discuss what would be agreeable before the community gets involved.”⁴³⁵

The County will not acknowledge or reveal that a process, in part or in its entirety, has already been determined before it’s presented to the public for their review and “input.”

⁴³⁵  https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/04/22/amazon-headquarters-penplace-arlington-plan/

Police Practices Review: Consultant’s Report release delayed by County Manager.

The Arlington County Civic Federation passed a resolution^{436, 437} to request immediate action by the County staff to deliver External Assessment by paid external consultants, despite on-time report delivery of a separate report by community volunteers. County executives stated that the report or draft report was in County possession six month past the consultant’s deadline. Yet, it was not released to the public by the County Manager until more than two months after the final report’s listed date.^{438, 439} Then Board Chair Matthew de Ferranti said the report would be released “next week” (over a period of months) when asked for an update. A report was finally released by the County Manager approximately 13 months after it was due from the consultant, with no explanation to the Civic Federation or public regarding contractual and/or payment implications of the report delinquency. Even when the final report was available to the County, per Mark Schwartz “While HH worked over the past year, the report was not completed until a few months ago. The delays in completion were due to changes in personnel at HH.”^{440, 441}

The public wants to know that the County has implemented and enforced contractual obligations for missed contractor/consultant deadlines. Additionally, momentum gained through the Police Practices Review was slowed. The report was obsolete by the time it was released to the public because the delays allowed most of the recommendations to already be implemented. For example the Community Oversight Board⁴⁴², County Budget⁴⁴³ and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)⁴⁴⁴ were approved without the public having benefited from the report contents and been able to provide input. The community questions County transparency when reports are released months after promised and received.

⁴³⁶ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2021-06/2021-06-ACCF-PubSvcCmte-Res-External-Police-Consulant-APPROVED.pdf

⁴³⁷ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/departments/documents/rev.01.12.2022_final-transmittal-letter.pdf

⁴³⁸ 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

⁴³⁹ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/departments/documents/rev.01.12.2022_final-transmittal-letter.pdf

⁴⁴⁰ Ibid.

⁴⁴¹ 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

⁴⁴²  https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Community-Oversight-Board

⁴⁴³ https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/budget/documents/fy-2023/fy-2023-adopted/fy23-adopted-all-in-one-budget.pdf

⁴⁴⁴ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Budget-Finance/CIP/Adopted-FY-2023-FY-2032-Capital-Improvement-Plan

Pentagon City Study/Sector Plan.

Despite repeated requests for changes in the draft Within the Pentagon City Study/Sector Plan,⁴⁴⁵ staff continued to exclude the majority of community recommendations and did not address many of their concerns. Staff stated that they did not address these resident concerns due to a large number of opposing viewpoints. When residents demanded to see this “opposing feedback,” staff shared all 10 public responses⁴⁴⁶ along with three from Venable, the National Landing BID and JBG Smith. Of those 13 comments, none “opposed” the community’s concerns and instead often echoed the concerns and validated community input. Staff was asked to again validate the conclusions and reasons for not addressing community concerns and was provided with the below statement via screenshot.

Staff could not produce any evidence to support their conclusions and recommendations. They made broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions that they had tremendous feedback and consensus, opposite of the residents, when in fact staff could not provide evidence to show it. Residents, including nearly 2,500 people^{447, 448} and even data-analysis on inequity in open space⁴⁴⁹ contradicted much of the project’s conclusions and recommendations. County Board did not hold the staff accountable, did not take the community’s outrage into consideration and voted 5-0 to proceed with the project.^{450, 451}

⁴⁴⁵ https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Land-Use/Pentagon-City-Planning- Study/Documents

⁴⁴⁶ https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4040&meta_id=208837

⁴⁴⁷  https://www.change.org/p/arlington-county-board-riverhouse-neighbors-for-sensible-density/c

⁴⁴⁸ https://aurorahighlands.org/news/pcps-draft-comments/

⁴⁴⁹ https://www.arlington-analytics.com/papers/OPS22202.pdf

⁴⁵⁰ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=9744

⁴⁵¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=  8dCOoYwFw&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=36916

Consultants appear to not produce data-driven analysis based on their own independent review and suggestion.

Instead, staff frequently works with consultants to produce reports and even figures representing the results that the county (staff/County Manager or County Board) want to achieve.

Public Spaces Master Plans⁴⁵² staff could not validate how they achieved the Level of Service numbers. In fact, their own internal data were not aligned with the numbers that they were showing in the process for the Public Spaces Master Plan. The results of a FOIA request (below) showed that staff had been asking the consultants to arbitrarily adjust the Level of Service figures to meet a certain result. After an extensive presentation in the Civic Federation in January 2019,⁴⁵³ a resolution passed^{454, 455, 456} demanding that the County use real data in the Public Spaces Master Plan process for field need.

Community perception is that there is little confidence in process and even what appears to be a “data-driven” result when there is evidence to support that the “data” is being arbitrarily tweaked by the consultants at the request of staff to adjust to a pre-determined result⁴⁵⁷.

⁴⁵² https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Plans-Studies/Comprehensive-Plan/Public-Spaces-Master-Plan

⁴⁵³ https://vimeo.com/311702790#t=3544s

⁴⁵⁴ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2019-01/2019-01%20ParksRec%20PSMP%20LoS%20Res%202019-01-08%20APPROVED.pdf

⁴⁵⁵ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2019-01/2019- 01%20ParksRec%20PSMP%20LoS%20Res%20Support%20Doc.pdf

⁴⁵⁶ https://www.civfed.org/newContent/2019-01/2019-01%20ParksRec%20PSMP%20LoS%20Letter%20to%20County%20Board%202019-01-13.pdf

⁴⁵⁷ https://thearlingtonway.org/2020/01/20/vindication-for-advocates-calling-for-transparency-open-data-and-equitable-public-spaces/