►
From YouTube: Community Facilities Study Meeting #5 Part 6 of 6
Description
Arlington VA Community Facilities Study Committee presentation about the County’s Siting Practices by Susan Bell, past director of Community Housing, Planning and Development. Wrap-up by committee chair John Milliken. Recorded April 8 2015 at Wakefield High School.
http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/community-facilities-study/
A
Oops,
I'm
just
not
as
tall
as
bob.
That's
just
not
going
to
happen
tonight.
Okay,
is
everybody
awake
everybody,
awake
good,
all
right!
Well,
thank
you
for
hanging
in
there
with
us
tonight
because
we
have.
We
have
covered
a
number
of
different
issues,
but
this
one
that
we're
going
to
cover
right
now
is
is
important
for
the
work
that
we're
doing,
which
is
the
antecedents
to
the
whole
discussion
of
citing
very
important.
A
A
But
I
think
what
you'll
find
is
that
there
is
a
great
deal
of
information
in
the
93
process
that
is
still
relevant
for
today,
but
it
does
need
to
be
updated
so
just
to
put
in
a
little
bit
of
context
at
our
next
meeting,
we'll
be
talking
about
the
facilities
and
the
inventory
that
staff
have
been
putting
together
on
both
the
county
and
school
sides.
Sides
tonight,
the
criteria,
the
past
citing
process
and
the
development
review.
And
then
the
13th
will
be
the
case
study.
A
A
A
There
was
just
not
a
lot
happening,
and
any
of
us
who
lived
here
then
knew
that
they
were
pretty
all
decrepit
cinderblock
buildings,
but
in
90
the
county
manager
recognized
that
he
was
really
staring
down
a
significant
issue
and
that's
why
that
multi-program
residential
center
in
barcroft
park
was
announced
without
a
lot
of
fanfare.
There
were
issues
in
the
detention
center.
The
previous
detention
center
enrollment
in
that
facility
was
actually
more
than
double
capacity.
A
It
was
a
question
of
scale
that
was
largely
being
done,
but
it
was
limited
to
county
government
facilities,
fire
stations
and
residential
facilities
for
eight
or
more
people
and
their
resident
counselors,
anything
smaller
than
that
is
exempted
by
the
state.
So,
in
june
of
93,
the
county
board
adopted
these
principles,
and
this
next
slide
this
one
that's
before
you
now
shows
the
six
principles
that
the
working
group
identified
and,
if
you
think
about
it,
these
are
all
very
reasonable
steps.
A
What
was
apparent
from
the
original,
citing
debacle
was
that
people
in
the
community
did
not
understand
the
pressing
need,
and
so
the
feeling
was
that
there
had
to
be
a
better
way
to
make
it
clear
to
the
community
from
people
in
the
community,
not
just
advisory
bodies,
not
just
county
staff.
What
that
need
was
so
a
fact-finding
group
would
be
chartered
at
the
initiation
of
the
process
to
actually
look
at
the
question.
Is
there
in
fact
a
need,
and
what
is
the
supporting
data?
A
Second
item
was
to
share
information,
and
that
is
so
self-evident
as
to
be
almost
embarrassing
that
it
has
to
even
be
written
down.
But
in
fact
there
is
always
a
challenge
to
getting
the
information
out
to
everybody.
Getting
everybody
to
the
same
level
of
information
and
the
term
that
was
used
by
that
group
was
information
equity.
It's
got
to
be
fair,
that
every
side,
the
staff
side,
the
public
side,
has
the
same
information
and
it's
really
challenging
because
the
county
frequently
receives
unsolicited
proprietary
information.
A
Confidential
land
information
when
you're
in
the
midst
of
a
process
dealing
with
those
kinds
of
issues
is
very
difficult.
Communication
and
notification
remember
this
was
1990
92
93,
when
this
was
being
done.
The
available
technologies
to
communicate
and
disseminate
were
snail,
mail
and
public
announcements,
and
things
like
that.
We
have
vastly
better
tools,
but
at
that
time
it
was,
you
know,
talking
to
channel
3.,
establishing
a
process.
A
Once
that
fact-finding
group
had
finished
its
work,
you
would
create
an
actual
working
group
that
would
review
their
the
options,
weigh
criteria
and
figure
out
what
the
county
board
should
hear
about.
What
were
the
recommendations
to
be
bringing
forward
in
the
way
of
a
process,
and
one
of
the
things
that
was
made
abundantly
clear
was
that
that
use
permit
process
that
bob
mentioned
or
subdivision
process
or
whatever
it
was.
None
of
that
was
being
set
aside.
A
One
of
the
other
challenges
that
they
put
forward
was
ensuring
equitable
distribution.
Now
that
doesn't
work
for
everything
unless
the
system
of
delivery
is
in
fact,
geographically
distributed.
But
this
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
recommended.
Selection
of
the
site
was
really
something
that
was
held
by
to
the
county
board.
It
was
the
work
of
the
working
group
to
make
this
recommendations,
but
the
county
board
would
make
the
ultimate
decision
through
a
public
process,
public
hearings
and
then
guaranteeing
standards
and
safety.
A
If
any
of
you,
through
your
civic
association,
deal
with
a
group
home,
you
probably
know
how
that
works,
and
it
makes
it
a
huge
difference
both
in
terms
of
support
from
the
neighborhood
and
also
ironing
out
issues
as
they
arise.
The
process
recommendations
also
included
making
known
as
soon
as
it
was
known
that
a
facility
was
desired.
So
don't
wait.
A
As
you
do
your
additional
work,
the
key
is
really
not
just
the
site
itself,
but
the
relationship
of
the
site
that
is
recommended
to
adjacent
uses
and
adjacent
activities,
how
it
impacts
what
is
happening
around
a
piece
of
ground
how
it
impacts
what
might
have
originally
been
planned
for
that
piece
of
ground.
The
example
that
was
given
in
the
in
the
original
sighting
memo
was
if
a
piece
of
property
is
identified
as
ideal
for
let's
say
a
fire
station.
Well,
what
was
originally
planned
or
was
it
open
space?
A
Was
it
next
to
a
school,
because
how
are
those
uses
going
to
work
next
to
each
other?
Are
the
adjacencies
appropriate
and
are
they
going
to
be
able
to
coexist
both
peacefully
and
successfully?
Timely
availability
is
incredibly
important.
It
doesn't
matter
if
a
site
is
not
is
available
in
10
years.
If
the
need
is
now
or,
as
is
typically
the
case
yesterday.
A
So
some
of
the
lessons
learned
out
of
this
process
as
it
was
adopted
and
it
was
adopted
largely
as
recommended-
is
that
the
methodical
process
laid
out
didn't
anticipate
all
the
situations
that
might
occur.
The
process
only
covered
county
facilities,
it
didn't
cover
schools,
it
was
never
designed
to
cover
schools
and
it
didn't
count
all
of
the
county
facilities.
It
does
include
libraries
or
open
space
or
community
centers.
A
It
doesn't
include
storage,
tanks
or
property
yards
or
any
of
those
kinds
of
things.
The
broad
definition
of
stakeholders
was
extremely
important
and,
to
some
degree,
a
new
concept-
and
I
didn't
highlight
it
earlier,
but
it
was
not
just
those
who
were
the
immediate
neighbors
of
the
site
or
the
immediate
users
of
the
proposed
facility,
but
those
who
might
have
an
interest
in
that
issue
from
the
larger
community.
A
So
it
might
be
an
interest
group
that
supports
that
that
particular
kind
of
activity-
and
there
was
a
huge
emphasis
on
open
process
and
that
word
transparent,
is
overused
today.
But
that
was
in
those
days
particularly
important.
One
of
the
issues
is
the
situation
of
a
lease
situation.
Leases
typically
happen
quickly.
They
tend
to
happen
in
closed
sessions,
closed
discussions
not
out
in
public,
and
this
is
one
of
the
places
where
there
was
a
there-
was
a
difficult
rub
as
you'll
see
so
in
99
we
did
our
three-year
review
of
the
citing
process.
A
A
How
do
we
deal
with
that
and
then
last
but
not
least,
adding
space
or
expanding
programs?
Frequently
you
have
would
have
space
come
available,
it's
ideal
to
expand
or
the
need
for
the
program
has
grown
if
you
have
to
go
through
a
whole
citing
process.
Is
that
really
useful
for
the
client
base?
Is
that
really
useful
for
the
staff?
So
the
committee
met,
as
they
often
do.
A
There
were
a
series
of
11
recommendations
that
were
intended
to
address
the
issues
that
staff
had
had
surfaced
through
the
county
manager
and,
as
you
can
see,
one
of
the
issues
was
separating
land
acquisition
from
the
whole
citing
process
not
dealing
with
leases
in
the
same
way
getting
clearer
criteria
not
covering
existing
facilities.
If
the
expansion
was
not
significant,
using
a
facilitator
for
the
process,
so
there's
a
myriad
of
suggestions
that
were
made
and
again,
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them.
A
But
ultimately
what
happened
was
that
the
staff,
the
senior
staff
who
were
reviewing
them
with
the
county
manager
and
the
county
board
did
not
come
to
complete
consensus
on
what
should
happen.
And
ultimately,
these
recommendations
essentially
were
not
adopted.
Some
pieces
were
drawn
into
what
staff
was
doing,
but
there
really
was
not
a
re-adoption
and
so
the
93
recommendations
stood,
even
though
staff
agreed
with
most,
but
not
all
of
the
recommendations.
A
A
This
work
had
begun
as
a
part
of
the
budget
process
in
2009,
and
there
were
a
number
of
ways:
everything
from
technology
to
just
a
variety
of
sort
of
back
of
house
functions
that
were
identified,
but
in
2011
it
became
clear
that
the
various
discussions
about
school
facility
needs
and
expansion
for
of
space
and
the
county's
own
needs
for
space
there.
But
there
might
be
some
synergies
that
could
be
created
by
working
together
and
so
building.
A
On
the
earlier
efforts,
a
memorandum
of
understanding
was
created
between
the
county
and
the
schools
and
adopted
by
both
the
school
board
and
the
county
board
that
actually
said
that
they
would
work
jointly
to
identify
opportunities
for
more
efficient
use
of
space.
It
didn't
change
any
underlying
processes,
but
it
was
an
opportunity
and
an
option
to
move
together
in
a
more
synergistic
way
to
see
if
there
were
places
where
things
could
happen.
So
there
were
discussions
at
various
points
like
read
school,
the
county
and
the
schools
were
there
together.
A
So,
let's
shift
gears
from
process
to
development,
review
and
building
level
planning
committees,
and
I
will
turn
to
meg
for
questions
as
we
get
go
forward
on
the
blpc
aspects
of
it.
But
there's
a
number
of
steps
again
that
needs
assessment.
What
is
the
need,
define
it
be
clear
about
it
figuring
out
what
the
right
site
is
and
then
going
through
development
review,
and
so
the
county
has
something
called
the
public
facility
review
process.
A
In
some
cases,
the
county
and
the
school
board,
one
or
the
other
may
be
both
applicants
and
reviewers,
which
is
real
different
than
a
typical
development
project,
and
they
are
both.
Both
of
these
groups
kick
off
after
a
site
has
been
determined.
So
this
is
the
third
step
of
the
process.
Is
that
graphic
highlighted
for
you?
The
blpc,
as
it's
called
for
the
schools,
is
appointed
by
the
school
board
and
reviews
only
school
projects.
A
So
let's
talk
about
the
blpc
for
a
minute
and,
as
you
can
see
at
the
top,
the
school
board
identifies
a
need
with
their
staff
and
a
process
begins
whereby
staff
develops
options
with
community
input.
The
school
board
provides
a
direction
staff
analyzes.
Those
various
options
receives
community
feedback
and
then
recommendations
based
on
that
feedback
move
through
the
staff
to
the
community
again
for
further
refinement
and
then
ultimately,
the
school
board
makes
a
decision.
So
there's
a
back
and
forth
process
of
input
and
engagement,
ultimately,
with
the
school
board,
making
the
decision
on
their
process.
A
A
Others
within
the
attendant
zone,
someone
from
the
facility
advisory
council
and
then
as
appropriate,
county
boards
or
commissions
like
the
h-a-l-r-b,
and
then
there
will
be
a
chair
that
is
elected
these
next,
several
slides
speak
to
more
detail
on
the
building
level
planning
committee,
such
as
the
threshold
for
when
they
are
actually
appointed
by
the
school
board,
which
is
a
construction
cost
of
10
million
or
greater
and
for
which
a
use
permit.
The
county
side
must
be
obtained.
A
One
of
the
things
that
the
blpc
deals
with
is
the
optimal
learning
environment.
The
focus
is
not
on
the
design
or
the
adjacencies.
In
particular,
it
is
making
sure
that
the
addition
or
the
new
facility
provides
an
optimal
learning
environment,
both
indoor
and
outdoor,
for
the
students.
It
also
takes
into
account
the
history
of
the
existing
school
or
the
site.
A
I'm
going
to
move
on
quickly
beyond
that,
there's
a
variety
of
resources
that
are
provided
operations,
staff
instruction
staff
and
then
county
staff
participate
as
appropriate.
If
there's
going
to
be
a
use
permit
or
if
there
are
particular
planning
or
land
use
or
transportation
issues
or
preservation,
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed.
A
So
the
pfrc
is
set
up
to
work
in
parallel
and
to
avoid
those
kind
of
conflicts
coming
late
in
the
game,
because
it's
both
expensive
and
time
consuming,
and
it
clearly
makes
it
look
like
one
hand,
doesn't
know
what
the
other
is
doing
if
those
conflicts
are
arising
at
the
end
now
the
blpc
is
not
addressing
the
broader
county
concerns.
As
I
mentioned,
it's
really
the
responsibility
of
the
county
to
identify
those
broader
policies
and
plan
elements,
and
really
the
focus
is
on
quality,
land
use
and
transportation
planning
in
civic
projects.
It's
not
just
schools.
A
The
public
facilities
review
committee
also
provides
an
opportunity
for
advisory
commissions
to
participate,
a
forum
for
dialogue
on
civic
design
and
promoting
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
it
really
tries
to
get
those
issues
before
they
come
to
the
county
board
for
adoption
of
that
use
permit
because
again,
by
the
time
the
process
is
finished
at
the
pfrc
and
then
moves
to
the
public
facilities
review
committee.
You
really
don't
want
to
have
things
hanging
out
there
that
are
huge
bones
of
contention.
A
You
want
to
be
starting
to
tie
those
issues
down,
so
it
is
modeled
after
the
site
plan
review
committee,
if
you're
familiar
with
that
at
all.
But
it
is
not
a
subcommittee
of
the
planning
commission
per
se.
The
members
are
appointed
by
the
county
board
and
the
projects
reviewed,
as
I
mentioned,
include
both
use
permits
and
buy
right
facilities,
not
just
site
plans.
A
So,
as
you
can
see,
there
are
checkpoints
along
the
way
to
try
and
make
sure
that
those
big
rock
policy
issues
and
design
issues
are
addressed
before
there
is
a
lot
of
work
that
has
to
be
redone.
It
is
an
attempt
to
buckle
together
both
county
policy
and
that
issue
of
getting
the
best
school
for
the
children
early
in
the
process
and
consistently
across
the
board.
A
A
B
B
C
Is
buff
is
bob
still
here
yeah,
I'm
still
here,
I
had
a
question
for
you
bob.
My
question
is
about
we're
talking
about
the
vision
of
arlington
and
I'm
going
to
use
an
example
to
to
for
my
question.
I
attended
a
site
plan
review
for
a
project
the
project
doesn't
matter,
but
at
at
the
project,
at
the
review
in
initial
stages,
county
planning
announced
that
the
project
does
did
not
conform
with
the
the
glop.
D
Hello
all
right,
that's
always
that's
a
decision.
It's
going
to
be
made
by
the
county
board,
and
so
I
tried
to
mention
that
we
have.
We
do
have
a
new
process
where,
if
a,
if
a
plan
is
submitted,
that's
not
consistent
with
the
general
land
use
plan,
then
there
is
a
special
process
that
has
to
happen
before
the
site
plan
gets
considered.
D
D
C
E
You
could
you
talk
to
the
timing
of
the
in
terms
of,
I
know
the
elements,
the
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
What
is
the
goal
for
those
being
updated
and
then
what?
What
have
we
actually
been
able
to
accomplish?
Because
I
know
many
of
them
don't
get
updated
in
the
timely
fashion
they
should,
which
can
create
some
issues.
D
D
Again
we
don't
have,
as
I
hopefully
tried
to
express,
we
don't
have
a
comprehensive
plan.
We
have
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
those
are
almost
constantly
going
through
revision.
General
andrew's
plan
we
just
talked
about
the
old
master,
open
spaces
plan
is
about
to
start,
and
I
think
that
was
done
last
six
years
ago.
You
probably
know
okay,
so
time
time.
F
E
D
So
what
we
do,
what
the
planning
division
does
is
every
five
years
they
pull
together.
All
of
the
changes
that
have
been
made
and
package
it
into
a
a
revi
called
a
review
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
it's
also
the
time
where
we
have
the
broad
discussion
with
the
board
of
what
are
the
studies
we're
going
to
try
to
undertake
or
the
plans
we're
going
to
try
to
update
in
the
coming
five
years,
but
they
always
do
take
longer.
I
mean
we've
been
trying
to
get
the
master
open
space
plan.
D
You
know
up
and
going
for
a
while.
I
think
there's
a
one
of
the
elements.
The
mass
transportation
plan
is
supposed
to
be
looked
at
again,
so
I
I
won't
say
we
do
it
every
five
years,
it's
probably
more.
Every
seven
to
ten
years
is
probably
the
more
realistic
and
I
I
would
say
of
what
I
know
of
fairfax
and
prince
william
and
loudon,
who
have
comprehensive
plans.
They
don't
get
them
done
every
five
years
either.
F
And,
moreover,
if
they
look
back
40
years,
they
would
say
that
perhaps
there
are
some
results
of
what
we
have
achieved
in
those
40
years
that
do
not
constitute
what
they
want
to
see
continue,
namely
when
we
have
there
was
someone
who
talked.
I
thought
rather
eloquently
about
three
areas
of
arlington,
the
ones
along
the
two
metro
corridors,
the
not
so
well
to
do
other
parts
of
south
arlington
and
the
more
well-to-do
north
arlington.
F
That
sort
of
by
someone
was
compared
with
well,
perhaps
more
mclean
and
fairfax
county,
and
that
I
was
furthermore
not
much
of
a
unity
and
mutual
understanding
and
empathy
among
those
three
parts
of
arlington,
so
that,
therefore,
that
sort
of
strengthened
it
in
a
sense
of
a
need
for
a
vision
as
we
go
forward
rather
than
and
when
looking
back
and
that
what
we
have
in
the
group
and
club
bender
and
the
comprehensive
plan
is
not
really
adequate.
For
that
purpose.
F
Could
one
envisage
when
we
now
have
established
a
model
here
in
the
form
of
this
study,
although
it
has
its
limits
and
has
nothing
to
do
with
establishing
or
recommending
a
vision
for
arlington?
Could
one
envisage
that
in
fact,
arlington
county
undertook
an
exercise
whereby
the
community,
in
this
way,
along
the
that
we
are
going
through
here,
really
is
tries
to
engage
the
community
in
determining
a
vision
going
forward
rather
than
telling
all
of
us?
Oh,
you
can
just
read
the
glove.
That's
where
the
vision
is
well.
D
I
I
mean,
I
think
those
are
good
points.
We
haven't
revisited
it
since
1986.,
and
so
I
wasn't
trying
to
convince
you
that
it
was
a
good
vision
or
a
bad
vision.
It
is,
it
is
the
development
vision
that
we
have
you
know.
Could
this
group
recommend
that
you
know
as
a
phase
two
we
move
into
evaluating
whether
we're
heading
in
the
right
direction
or
not?
That's
you
know.
That
would
be
the
board's
call
eventually,
since
it's
the
board's
group,
but
you
know
that
could
be
an
outcome,
but
it's
you
know
it's.
D
We
have
not
looked
at
it
since
1986.
We
did
have
a
process
to
come
up
with
a
vision
statement,
but
you
know
if,
when
I,
when
people
talk
to
me,
that
doesn't
help
them
in
looking
at
the
kinds
of
things
that
you
are
looking
at
and
that's
why
we
wanted
to
do
it
from
a
land
use
perspective,
but
I
mean
you
raise
good
points
I
want
to
make.
D
Do
I
have
a
minute
to
make
one
question
I
showed
on
the
the
growth
columbia
pike
and
I
did
not
talk
about
the
columbia
pike
plan
much
so
you
know
because
there
was
just
wasn't
enough
time.
That
would
be
another
presentation,
but
I
I
didn't
want
it
to
be
misconception.
There
is
growth
projected
on
columbia,
pike.
D
B
B
G
Does
that
imply
that
we
should
also
look
at
changing
these
processes
between
the
schools
and
the
county
and
maybe
perhaps
merging
them,
or
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
as
a
question
and
then
the
second
one
was
around
the
transportation
aspect,
particularly
around
schools
and
school
siting,
and
made
this
a
question
for
schools
as
to
when,
when
that
comes
into
the
picture-
and
I
just
want
a
little
more
clarification-
I
guess
on
that
point.
Let's.
B
B
H
D
H
Piece
is
correct.
The
reason
I
mention
that
is
because
in
the
70s,
segregation
was
fairly
prominent
in
arlington,
and
I
imagine
that
minorities
in
low
income
were
not
represented
in
the
people
making
the
glub,
and
maybe
that's
why
we're
having
a
lot
of
conflicts
with
the
glup
and
current
projects
and
vis
visions,
and
maybe
conflicts,
is
the
wrong
word,
but
just
things
that
aren't
quite
matching
up.
B
I
I
May
not
be
it
may
not
work
the
same.
Given
the
economic
development
discussion
we
had,
and
I
think
that's
that
goes
into
how
we
pay
for
all
the
facilities.
I
think
and
then
I'm
glad
you
mentioned
the
columbia
pike
plan,
because
it's
a
pretty
interesting
approach
to
planning
it's
a
in
a
bit
of
a
spot
right
now
because
of
the
transportation
issue,
but
that's
gotta.
That's
another
long-term
issue
with
facilities
as
well
as
development.
B
B
The
economic
subcommittee
which
I'm
going
to
chair
and
the
demographic
subcommittee
which
ginger
is
chairing
are
both
meeting
next
tuesday
night,
the
14th
of
april
in
the
evening
at
courthouse,
plaza
and
the
specifics
are,
are
on
the
website.
So,
in
addition
to
writing
it
down
now
you
can
always
look
it
up
on
the
website.
B
Our
next
meeting
as
a
full
group,
as
you
saw
on
the
slide
before,
is
the
22nd
of
this
month
april
and
at
that
meeting,
we're
going
to
take
up
the
last
of
the
informational
pieces
that
we
need
in
order
to
assemble
all
of
the
data
and
information
that
we
need
to
do
our
jobs.
We
started
with
financial
resources.
B
B
The
facilities
subcommittee
then
armed
with
that
will
have
its
first
meeting
and
the
citing
subcommittee
have
its
first
meeting
after
that.
Then,
in
the
next
meeting,
which
is
the
27th
of
may
you
recall,
you
got
emails
saying:
are
you
more
available
right
before
memorial,
day
or
right
after
memorial
day?
Well,
more
people
are
available
on
the
27th
than
were
available
on
the
20th,
so
that's
the
day
we've
settled
upon
and
again
all
of
this
is
on
the
website.
So
you
don't
have
to
rely
on
your
notes
for
tonight.
E
B
I'm
told
there's
a
meeting
on
may
13th
as
well,
but
again
I
I
appreciate
your
indulgence
tonight.
I
know
it's
been
a
lot
of
stuff,
but
it's
essential
information
we
need
to
get
out
and
on
the
table,
get
people
thinking
about
it
and
the
four
subcommittees
are
now
going
to
begin
their
work
armed
with
the
information
that
they've
gotten
and
the
study
group
as
a
whole
will
continue,
participating
and
listening
you're
going
to
get
reports
back
from
the
subcommittees
comment
on
those
send
them
back
to
do
further
work.