Public Planning Processes

ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY ISSUES

There are many important individual public space planning process, which should also have access to all relevant information to ensure we are making the best decisions for all residents and users in our public spaces

However, the lack of transparency to review facility needs in public space planning processes are preventing a truthful and fair evaluation of Arlington’s actual field usage and needs, especially when these facilities are being expanded or retained over other community needs.

Summary:

  • The Four Mile Run Valley planning process mandated from the outset that all uses of existing facilities would be retained, preventing review of actual facility needs.
  • Williamsburg Lights – the charge for the working group prevented the residents from reviewing utilization rates for the fields and therefore whether lights were even needed.
  • Virginia Highlands Park (West Side/Softball fields)  A community request to have a process to review the usage and need of the softball fields in order to convert to community needs was deferred indefinitely when the community found out that DPR had no intention of going through the process to review the softball utilization and would not provide any data to support the field’s usage or need.
  • POPS/Public Spaces Master Plan: 20 year master planning processes affecting all facilities on parkland and even APS fields and facility decisions contain no data to substantiate the need to retain, expand or invest in costly improvements like synthetic turf and light conversions without any utilization data presented in the process.
  •  Capital Improvement Maintenance funds used inappropriately to add recreational facilities, expanding their footprint and even adding new ones using what are supposed to be “maintenance” funds for projects to be renovated as is.

 

How a Review of Field Usage & Need Has NOT occurred in ANY Public Process. 

Several other park planning processes are happening concurrently with the POPS planning. Retention of fields is mandated without any analyses to ensure there is no alternative use that may be more prudent – either for local residents specifically or for land use in general.

NO Review of Field Usage & Field Need:

The charge for the Four Mile Run Valley (4MRV) process included the restriction that all current facility usages be retained. Thus, the community had no opportunity to critically consider the mix of fields that might be the most appropriate not just for the immediate neighborhood, but also the county.

“The Park Master Plan will provide a vision for the comprehensive replacement and realignment of existing park features (exclusively for park purposes) and the addition of new park amenities to meet the growing demand for active and passive recreation, cultural resources and natural resource preservation.”

Outcomes Are Found to Be Pre-Determined Sometimes Before the Community Engagement Process n Even Begins

The West Side of Virginia Highlands Park was slated for redesign in the 2016 CIP. The Aurora Highlands community requested in 2016 that the softball field be converted to open space and to meet other community needs. DPR staff held a meeting to discuss the community’s request but then revealed that the fields were non-negotiable, declaring that the fields were needed without any data to support the assertion. The County Board and the Department have ignored and a Change.org petition with over 500 signatures.  DPR then indefinitely deferred the public process and the ~ $592,000 dedicated to the process has not been allocated to a new one.  Ref: Peter’s Take article “DPR Department of Parks and Recreation Needs A Civic Engagement Makeover.” and Aurora Highlands Civic Association letter

If the Process is Called a “Capital Improvement Maintenance”  then the Process Avoids a Review by Commissions or the Public.

In 2015, DPR began the CIP maintenance project for Virginia Highlands Park. CIP maintenance funds are not to be used for projects that would increase the footprint of on-site structures, nor are maintenance projects to result in significant disturbance of land or new facilities. (Capital Improvement Program page 5, section F)  Although even to commissioners when asked directly about how they are handling CIP Maintenance projects, staff asserted that only existing facilities were being replaced. DPR greatly increased the footprint of existing courts and added new facilities, removing acres of open, unprogrammed community space. Ref: Aurora Highlands Civic Association Letter and Friends of Aurora Highlands Park documentation of DPR’s “maintenance” project. Categorizing such projects as CIP Maintenance allows staff to avoid environmental impact analyses or review of these projects by the appropriate commissions (Planning, Urban Forestry, E2C2, etc.) or by the community.

“An Environmental Assessment was not completed for the recent Capital Maintenance Project that renovated the courts and gardens [at Virginia Highlands Park].  Capital maintenance replacement projects are either exempted or categorically excluded from Environmental Assessments according to Arlington County Admin Regulation 4.4. ” Christopher Willett cwillett@arlingtonva.us Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:05:13

While, an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be “categorically excluded” from a Capital Maintenance Project, the only reason it is, is because the very definition of the Capital Maintenance Project is that is it non-expansionary—therefore if the footprint of the project doesn’t expand then an EA is unnecessary. If in fact, the project does expand it both requires an Environmental Assessment and is not a Capital Maintenance Project by definition. However as seen here, DPR’s explanation for not having an EA which requires public and county review, is because they are using CIP Maintenance funds, yet are NOT following the requirements of those funds for CIP Maintenance Projects. DPR explains that they need to expand sidewalks for ADA requirements. However, this supposed requirement for ADA in parks was also found to be unsubstantiated when residents requested from DPR to provide evidence of ADA requirements in parks. Furthermore, DPR is doing far more than just making paths wider, they are expanding and re-arrange courts and even adding more recreational facilities all while using CIP Maintenance Funds without a complete public and county review and Environmental Assessment.