Arlington Public Comment Letters - Missing Middle and Plan Langston Boulevard

In the last several weeks, I have had the opportunity to provide additional public comment on planning and land use issues in Arlington County:

  • Missing Middle Housing: Additional analysis and data on affordability, plus ideas for effective compromises that deal with legitimate concerns without undermining the purpose of the proposal

  • Plan Langston Boulevard: Comments on the preliminary concept plan, the importance of planning to achieve the Affordable Housing Master Plan’s targets for the corridor, and opportunities to achieve those goals within the context of other priorities for growth along the corridor.

In addition, on October 13, 2022 I participated in an Arlington Civic Federation discussion on missing middle housing. That presentation addressed issues related to affordability, diversity, environmental sustainability, and the need for Arlington to continue to grow to achieve a more equitable, sustainable future.

Missing Middle as an Opportunity for More Comprehensive Solutions to Legitimate Challenges

By Michael A. Spotts

In the lead-up to the County Board’s July work session on County staff’s missing middle proposal in July, I submitted a brief comment letter to the Board on actions that they could take to improve the proposal and address some of the legitimate concerns about allowing gentle density increases in Arlington’s currently single-family exclusive neighborhoods. Anxiety about issues such as tree canopy, stormwater management, and the loss of attainable housing are understandable given some of the challenges the County has experienced on those fronts in recent decades. However, it is precisely because we are facing those challenges today that makes centering those critiques on missing middle housing so misplaced. It is the status quo that is creating those challenges, and keeping the status quo will only allow the current challenges to worsen, and push more and more development to the urban fringes where tree canopy and open space is being even more rapidly lost. Missing middle housing - especially if paired with complementary policies related to those core concerns - creates an opportunity to actually improve on these issues that the status quo does not. To be effective, these policies generally can apply to ALL neighborhoods and properties - including the single-family redevelopments that are contributing to the problem today. The following post outlines a non-exhaustive list of options that the County Board can consider to seize this opportunity.

EXCERPT: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM JULY 2022 COMMENT LETTER (1)

  • Among the common critiques of missing middle, the two that I find most understandable are stormwater and tree canopy. As I also covered in my May 2022 letter to the County Board, these are problems that we're having now - including in single-family neighborhoods - without missing middle. Therefore, missing middle housing (MMH) should not bear the burden of addressing it. However, there are generally applicable policies that the county board could adopt alongside MMH that would address these issues, specifically:

    • Allowing (via streamlined administrative approval, not the uncertain zoning appeals process) modest increases in height, flexibility in setbacks, or other spatial flexibility IF it enables the preservation of existing canopy trees (or planting of new canopy trees), the incorporation of an on-lot retention pond, reduction of lot coverage ratio, or other environmental benefits of that nature. (ADDENDUM - this streamlined process could be predicated on providing a conservation easement for these environmental benefits, which would address the current dynamic in which builders are required to plant trees, but there are few provisions on the type of tree (canopy trees vs. decorative trees) and the property owner has the right to cut them down at any point).

    • Announcing an expansion of existing initiatives to support canopy trees on private lots (with specific dollars attached).

    • Announcing an acceleration of utility undergrounding initiatives (ADDENDUM - canopy trees are often overly trimmed - and sometimes die as a result - to keep them away from power lines. In addition, the space available for planting new canopy trees is greatly reduced, since adequate clearance from utilities is necessary for them to grow and thrive. The amount of additional tree planting space that could be available absent power lines is considerable, and this change could open up space near all properties, regardless of whether they are existing or being redeveloped.)

    • Creating a "street tree easement" program, where the County enters into agreements with property owners to plant and maintain trees on private parcels on the property line that border the public realm.

    • Initiating a "public tree planting" accelerator program - conduct an audit of County owned and other public space where trees can be planted during the fall and spring season. This could be paired with an ambitious target - "2023 new trees in 2023" for example)

  • Affordable homeownership developers have testified to their belief that MMH can be a game changer. Some practitioners that I have spoken with believe they're currently de facto locked out of Arlington unless a "unicorn" property falls into their lap. To address concerns raised about who will actually benefit from MMH (such as those included in the NAACP's otherwise MMH - supportive letter), the County could pair MMH changes with a pilot program for affordable homeownership development. It could basically serve as a revolving loan fund/line-of-credit that is paid back when the builder closes with the income-eligible purchaser. (Practitioners interviewed on this topic) believe that this can be accomplished at dollar figures at or below AHIF rental amounts (and could be repayed much more quickly).

  • As I mentioned in (my May 2022 letter to the County Board), allowing lot subdivision to enable more "fee simple" ownership opportunities can reduce barriers to horizontal missing middle and create a simpler, less expensive ownership opportunities in some circumstances. This may require addressing minimum lot sizes and other issues related to non-conformity (which should apply generally, outside of the context of missing middle).

  • The County should give proactive consideration to the issue of predatory acquisition practices (covered in the aforementioned May 2022 letter). This could be a fairly low-cost intervention (education, mandatory notification, etc).

  • The designs that are shown in publications on missing middle vary widely in quality. Those of us that support MMH have tended to show pictures of the best that MMH can be, while those that oppose show what they believe to be the least appealing designs. In reality, there is going to be a mix of good and bad design, as there is with our current single-family neighborhoods. The County should not get in the business of making aesthetic judgments that are in the eye of the beholder. However, the County could create Arlington-specific educational materials tailored to our real-world conditions that promote design best practices (i.e., how to incorporate parking without paving over more of the lot, how to provide privacy, etc.). An example of this has been done in Norfolk, via a "Missing Middle Pattern Book": https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66555/MissingMiddlePatternBook. This could also be a way to implement the aforementioned recommendation on flexibility to preserve trees/permeable space. If an owner or builder follows the pattern book and pays a small fee for the administrative review they could receive quasi-by right approval for your variance. The County could also offer modest incentives for selecting a preferred design (i.e., replanted trees provided through the tree canopy fund instead of at the developers' expense). As a nod to community concerns about design, there could also be a community process that informs the preferred design process (as long as this is an educational guide rather than a mandatory, prescriptive design requirement).

  • Finally, though I think the by-right proposal is a critical component, the County could allow neighborhoods to "plot their own course" for more "planned" versions of missing middle. Some Arlington residents I’ve spoken with have mentioned that while they are not thrilled by the concept of some of the lower density missing middle forms (i.e., duplexes and triplexes), they view some other forms that go beyond the current county proposal more favorably (for examples, rowhomes similar to Glebewood or Fairlingon). The County could provide a process through which individual neighborhoods could initiate planning processes (post-passage of MMH) to incorporate provisions to enable alternative forms of MM, like larger rowhome developments, cottage clusters, etc. Importantly, it should be stipulated that these plans would only be allowed if they had the effect of expanding, rather than restricting, what might otherwise be allowed under the by-right MMH proposal.

(1) This excerpt has been lightly edited from the version submitted to the County Board for readability and to provide clarity as a stand-alone post. Any substantive changes/additions are indicated by the “addendum” disclaimer.

Comments in Support of the County Staff Missing Middle Housing Proposal

I hope all is well. My name is Michael A. Spotts, and I am an Arlington resident; housing and community development policy research professional; and former Vice-Chair of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) Working Group.[1] I write today in my personal capacity to express support for the County staff Missing Middle proposal. The County staff members working on this initiative have done a tremendous job evaluating a complex, contentious issue over a multi-year process and have developed a high-quality proposal that is consistent with what is, in my professional opinion, national best practices.  The staff has created a proposal to directly address our critical housing shortage, while compromising in some areas and working to resolve the legitimate concerns raised by skeptics of the missing middle concept.

The County has been receiving feedback on this proposal, both in support and opposition. I believe that the proposal would be highly beneficial to the County and should be further developed and, eventually, adopted under the currently delineated timeframe. That does not mean that all concerns of skeptics and opponents are illegitimate. However, I believe that these issues can be adequately addressed within the current framework. As for concerns about the public engagement and outreach process, County staff have conducted outreach in various forums and using broad platforms to expand outreach beyond those that typically - and more easily – participate in such engagement efforts. The fact that the County staff engaged with established institutions (such as civic associations) and considered their concerns, but did not prioritize any individual constituency is a sign of the diligence with which staff undertook their charge. Now that County staff has addressed the technical challenges and identified a potential solution, I urge the County Board to take a leadership role in advancing this proposal by making the case for missing middle housing and addressing good-faith concerns of all constituencies – whether supportive or skeptical.

The following section outlines more detailed comments on both the broad issues and specific components of the Missing Middle Proposal. I have also enclosed a written expansion on a presentation I gave to the Arlington Committee of 100 in May 2021 on the Missing Middle issue, which addresses many of the core issues in more detail.

Thank you in advance for considering these comments. As always, please feel free to contact me at mspotts@neighborhodfundamentals.com with questions, requests for additional information, or supportive references/documentation that informs the comments to follow.

 

The Big Picture: To equitably thrive long-term, Arlington must evolve

Arlington’s long-term and prevailing growth model has been a success on many measures. However, as documented throughout the Missing Middle study process, the past growth model has led to both intended and unintended consequences that have contributed to racial disparities and declining affordability.

During my time in Arlington, the County has been held up as a leader in addressing population growth and producing committed affordable housing. This reputation has been well earned, through actions such as the County’s commitment to the creation and preservation of affordable units through AHIF and certain innovative land use policies (such as the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form Based Code and its focus on preservation of affordability).

However, the County’s underlying land use and zoning framework has not adequately evolved to meet the challenge of shifting markets, changing demographics, and the latest innovations in housing policy and practice. Specifically, the past model of high-density in a relatively small number of corridors and preservation of detached single-family neighborhoods has contributed to a hollowing out of the middle-cost housing stock.

While some argue that Arlington is “full” or should seek to push back against demand/growth, that perspective either does not adequately consider the needs of those currently lacking equal access to quality, affordable housing, and is often based on the fiction that “closing our doors” will make demand disappear. When we talk about “demand,” we are really talking about people. People need a place to live, and those with lesser means are the most likely to suffer the consequences if we (a) overly restrict growth; and (b) fail to take steps to support potentially vulnerable households. When debating whether Arlington should grow, it is important to consider the counterfactual – if we do not build in Arlington, where will people go?

The answers will vary. Some will be able to find a home in Arlington, but suffer financial distress. However, a non-trivial number of people will be priced out and seek housing opportunities elsewhere. This often drives development further from the urban core. Regions are complex ecosystems, and Arlington is acutely impacted by what happens elsewhere. Arlington is also “downstream,” figuratively and literally. We cannot address environmental issues (flooding, air quality) in Arlington by shifting housing production further out of the core, which results in even greater loss of tree cover, open space, impervious surface, etc. We cannot solve traffic by pushing people farther out, given that many people are commuting to – or through – Arlington.

The County’s Missing Middle proposal would rectify a mistake made decades ago to restrict all housing supply growth to a limited number of neighborhoods. This proposal allows all of Arlington to evolve. In the context of most things, evolution is a good thing. Enabling evolution allows communities to naturally respond (often, though not always, slowly over time) to market shifts, consumer preferences, and housing needs. Allowing diverse housing types can facilitate aging-in-place and provide more opportunities for people to stay in their community as their lives evolve and needs and/or preferences change.

Prescriptive policies – and lengthy processes for amending them – prevent this evolution and create the market distortions and pent-up demand that we are facing today. While this policy is not perfect from an “evolutionary” perspective (for example, maintaining the current framework for massing, setbacks, etc. is still restrictive), it would move Arlington County decidedly in a positive direction and represents a reasonable compromise. It also would provide datapoints for another critical component of sustainable growth – a focus on “iterative policymaking” based on real-world trial and error.

The current proposal to apply missing middle – and the opportunity for housing supply growth – to all parts of the County also addresses many of the concerns of those worried about the prospect of missing middle housing. Based on available literature, it is my belief that evolutionary growth and modest increases in density throughout the County (in addition to more intense development in key, robustly planned corridors) is fiscally beneficial, increasing tax revenue on a per acre basis (even while producing comparatively lower-cost housing than the prevailing model) and better supporting our existing, over-built infrastructure (inappropriately wide streets) in many low-density neighborhoods. However, even if one were to accept the disputed suggestion that restricting growth creates some fiscal benefits for Arlington (by reducing the need for infrastructure outlays), contributing to a more sprawling regional growth model would have negative fiscal impacts on the state, with long-term spillover impacts on the County’s budget. Research also supports the notion that a more diverse housing stock is more resilient in downturns. This makes logical sense, as a wider range of housing types and price points expands the potential “consumer base” seeking to live in a given place. Furthermore, allowing the whole county to absorb demand can limit speculation and dramatic land cost increases. Finally, spreading demand can also reduce the likelihood that any specific neighborhood experiences rapid, concentrated neighborhood change.

The Specific Proposal: By-Right within Existing Development Paradigm

For the reasons stated above, the by-right nature of the current proposal is one of its strongest elements and should be prioritized above most other considerations. If Arlington wants to shift the development paradigm to allow more diverse housing types, it must remove as many barriers to such development as possible. The current model of single-family additions, tear-downs, and expansions has proven to be a lucrative business model. Any barrier that continues to make the status quo the “path of least resistance” undermines the goals of actually producing middle-density homes.

A critical component of barrier removal is County staff’s proposal to reduce off-street parking requirements. The proposal is correct in prioritizing homes for people over “homes” for cars. In a space constrained environment, arduous parking requirements can reduce the viability of missing middle types or reduce the number of units a parcel can absorb. It is also important to remember that the proposal is for parking minimums, not maximums. Those producing missing middle homes will need to rent or sell homes that are viable in the market. In areas with sparse on-street parking, developers may choose to provide more than the minimum (just as many developers of larger single-family detached homes build two-car garages and include additional off-street space in excess of County minimums today). That is not to say that spillover parking challenges will not happen anywhere. However, I believe that these can be managed with more effective on-street parking management policies. The County has taken steps in that direction in recent years, but more can be done to address imbalances between managed and unmanaged zones.

Another clear benefit of this proposal is that it allows missing middle housing to be produced without tear­-downs. The act of demolishing a home – especially one that still is structurally sound – literally destroys value, adds costs, and thus decreases the feasibility of missing middle housing (or raises the minimum price point at which it can be produced. Under this proposal, new missing middle homes can viably be “added on” to existing homes, creating another alternative to large additions to single-family homes.

The proposal would also allow converting existing, larger single-family detached homes to missing middle housing without any increase in footprint. Given the significant number of very large units that have replaced smaller units, this provides another option for families that no longer need as much space and improves the resilience of Arlington’s housing market. The latter issue is particularly relevant in the context of a rising interest rate environment. Many of the current home expansions have occurred during a time of historically low interest rates. Demand for resales of such homes may be considerably diminished if mortgage rates rise to those that were considered “normal” during the 1980s and 1990s (let alone during the last period of high-inflation). This change could minimize the potential financial harm to current Arlington homeowners.

Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal

As the County develops specific code revisions, it should adopt policies that facilitate the subdivision of parcels being developed or redeveloped as missing middle into individual lots. Allowing subdivision will not change the number of units that could be built on a specific parcel (pre-subdivision). However, it could make it easier to develop horizontal attached housing without the need to establish condominium associations/agreements. This enables “fee simple” ownership. The combination of horizontal attached with fee simple structures can be less costly (no condo fees) and complicated (individual owners are responsible for their own properties, rather than having to collectively manage common maintenance) to both develop and steward over the long term.  To be clear, this comment should not be interpreted as a critique of condominium-style missing middle development and/or vertical missing middle models. Rather, it is a call to develop missing middle policies in a way that maximizes the number of potentially viable development and ownership models/structures.

Beyond that, I offer no specific comments on immediate opportunities for improving the proposal, other than that the County should maintain the current potential units counts and work diligently to ensure that as the proposal shifts to actual policy language that the specific details do not create de facto barriers to missing middle housing. To accomplish this, engagement with developers and builders (including nonprofit affordable homeownership developers active across the Washington, DC region) will be helpful.

Longer-Term Opportunities for Facilitating Effective Growth through Missing Middle Housing

Enabling evolutionary growth (as this proposal does) by-right is a critical first step. However, as the proposal’s initial projections suggest, the number of units produced are likely to be modest in any individual year, with benefits to housing supply growth accumulating over time. After observing initial, real-world impacts of the policy, the County could adopt complementary policies that enable additional missing middle types that do not fall within existing building envelopes, such as rowhomes (allowing the creation of neighborhoods like Glebewood) or garden-style apartments (as in Westover or Barcroft). These are existing typologies that the County has made efforts to preserve. If such neighborhoods are worth preserving, it makes sense that there should be policies that allow more of these housing types to be developed.

Flexibility in form, density, setbacks, height, coverage etc. allows for development creativity (enabling cost reductions) and can allow for the provision of community benefits such as committed affordability and the preservation of open space, trees, etc. (see additional discussion below).[2] For larger developments and/or parcel consolidation, such developments could merit additional planning beyond what the County envisions on a by-right basis. The form that such a policy could take can vary, but the County could create a specific path that enables such developments (such as a lower-density neighborhoods form-based code). Another option could be to allow neighborhoods to initiate, develop, and adopt specific plans that guide growth in their community (for example, prioritizing “cottage clusters”) provided that such plans do not have the de jure or de facto impact of restricting, rather than facilitating, missing middle beyond what the by-right provisions allow. To reiterate, the County should view such non-by-right policies as a complement to – and not a replacement for – the current by-right proposal, which is essential to the success of the missing middle policy.

Missing Middle and the Potential for Improved Affordability

Missing middle has the opportunity to serve as a platform for affordability. Some critiques of the proposal have emphasized that newly constructed missing middle housing will not be “affordable per se” to lower-income households. However, missing middle housing would certainly be comparably more affordable than the counterfactual – which is not existing, older single-family detached homes, but the results of the redevelopment of those homes into larger, higher-end single-family detached homes.

Missing middle can facilitate rental housing in predominantly owner-occupied neighborhoods, adding a degree of income diversity. It can also create a streamlined pathway to niche housing types that meet specific needs – for example, clusters of service enriched housing targeted toward older adults and/or persons with disabilities, which facilitates multigenerational neighborhoods and inclusive living regardless of age and ability.

That being said, much attention has been paid to the impacts of missing middle housing on homeownership affordability. To be clear, the current zoning paradigm ensures that over the long term, affordable homeownership is an impossibility. Given current housing costs and the pricing trajectory for single-family detached homes, there is no scalable, long-term solution that preserves even a modest level of affordability AND single-family exclusivity in such neighborhoods. It would be perverse to double down on our current, failed model in the name of affordability. Market-rate, missing middle development reaching levels of affordability for households at $108,000 (as the projections show) would be a substantial improvement over the status quo. To illustrate using data from the National Housing Conference’s Paycheck-to-Paycheck database, that price point would open up homeownership – without subsidy – to two-income households with a wide range of occupations (for example, an electrician and a bus driver, or a teacher and a janitor/cleaner).

 

Median Wage by Occupation for Washington, DC Metropolitan Region (Source: National Housing Conference)


Finally, missing middle provides a platform for deeper affordability. Based on initial “back-of-the-envelope” projections (and after discussions with practitioners who have constructed committed affordable homeownership developments for low-income households), the current, by-right proposal could enable 80% AMI, permanently affordable (i.e., community land trust or other forms of shared-equity structures) homeownership development with subsidy levels consistent with (and potentially below) the County’s expenditures for affordable rental housing (rather than the current status quo in which developing in single-family neighborhoods would require several multiples of that level of subsidy).

Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal

To leverage the opportunity that missing middle housing provides, the County should make its own “down payment” on affordability by committing funding for committed affordable homeownership development (potentially out of the close-out budget) concurrent with the passage of the missing middle zoning changes.

Finally, the County should work to combat predatory acquisition practices, such as harassing, all-cash offers substantially below market value that target lower-income or elderly homeowners. This can be accomplished through a combination of outreach/education and regulation. Regulatory examples include banning repeated/threatening solicitations and/or requiring that buyers provide estimates of a home’s fair market value through publicly available services such as Zillow or Redfin.

 

Ancillary Issues: Trees, Stormwater, Schools, and Other Infrastructure

As previously discussed, there are legitimate concerns about the impact of growth on Arlington County’s environment, infrastructure, and schools. Those concerns should be acknowledged and proactively addressed. However, these challenges exist today, before any potential changes are made related to missing middle housing. This means that our existing land use and development paradigm is contributing to, and in some cases creating those challenges. This is an argument for reform, not for maintaining the status quo, given that a “no growth” scenario is not a viable option given regional population and employment expansion, as people need to live somewhere. The question becomes where that growth should occur. The answer to that question needs to be “in every jurisdiction,” but some jurisdictions are better placed than others to sustainably grow.  Given Arlington’s location within the region’s urban core, status as a diverse jobs center, and comparably strong transit access, locating growth in Arlington would be among the most sustainable options, reducing per capita environmental impact, which is the most critical measure (see additional discussion in Committee of 100 attachment).

In some ways, missing middle helps directly address environmental concerns and capacity constraints. Attached housing has the potential to open up more lot area for green space (see: Fairlington). By creating a fuller spectrum of housing opportunities, missing middle housing can also create more predictability in school and service capacity planning, as families have more options within Arlington to meet their changing needs.

This does not mean that the County should not work to make growth in Arlington even more environmentally friendly and address any resulting capacity shortages. However, since missing middle did not cause our capacity problems, it should not bear a disproportionate burden in addressing them. As such, policies that address tree coverage, stormwater capacity, school capacity, etc. should be addressed in a comprehensive manner that includes ALL housing and development types, especially those that constitute the majority of Arlington’s developable areas.

Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal

To demonstrate the County’s commitment to environmentally and fiscally sustainable growth, the County should lay out a timeline (or reiterate the timelines for current projects that are already in-progress) for studies and policy changes that directly address the critical concerns that have been raised throughout this process. As with the affordable homeownership recommendation above, it can include a specific commitment of resources (potentially through the close-out budget) to support existing programs and accelerate planned projects.

Longer-Term Opportunities for Facilitating Effective Growth through Missing Middle Housing

The incremental density increases facilitated by missing middle housing can make investments in other aspects of sustainable growth more necessary and viable. Moving forward, the County should explore complementary policies such as:

·        Undergrounding utilities (overhead wires can dramatically restrict opportunities for canopy trees in existing single-family neighborhoods)

·        Expanding zoning for “neighborhood serving retail” and/or accessory commercial units and make modest infrastructure improvements to enable more “15 minute neighborhoods.”

·        Reforming parking policies to reduce off-street requirements while adopting a more market-oriented approach to on-street parking.

·        Facilitating “tactical” and longer-term investments in pedestrian infrastructure, with a focus on safety (i.e., slowing cars).

·        Investing in the bus system and shared use mobility programs.

A Final Note: Missing Middle and Fair Housing

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) prohibits active discrimination and policies that lead to disparate impacts in housing. Combatting this type of discrimination is often the focus of Fair Housing evaluations and activities. However, when the baseline conditions prior to passage of the Fair Housing Act included rampant de facto and de jure discrimination and segregation, simply eliminating those actions (which society has decidedly not achieved) without some sort of restitution or remedy for the harms created would perpetuate disadvantage for people of color and African-Americans in particular. As such, the Fair Housing Act established an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and require recipients of HUD funds “to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”[3] Regrettably, HUD has not robustly enforced this obligation throughout much of the law’s history. However, starting with the Obama Administration, HUD has taken steps to create a more robust regulatory framework around this obligation. The Trump Administration subsequently reversed these actions, but the Biden Administration has reinstituted many of the Obama-era provisions and has signaled that it would be more closely focused on the issue. Consequences for the failure to adhere to Fair Housing Act provisions include the forfeiture of federal housing resources allocated to the recipient, among other potential actions.

The final regulatory form and specific actions required by HUD are not yet finalized (and are subject to further rulemaking). As such, it is unclear at this time what actions HUD will definitively consider as affirmatively furthering fair housing, and what actions would prompt action from the HUD Office of Fair Housing Enforcement.[4] However, given the specifics of the interim final rule and the Biden Administration’s stated focus on eliminating exclusionary zoning, it would be prudent for Arlington County to consider any action that reinforces or creates exclusionary zoning barriers to be suspect and potentially increase the risk of legal and regulatory action from HUD.

Furthermore, the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing has existed since 1968. Given the County’s vision of being “a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community,” Arlington should hold itself to a standard of ethics and practice that advances this goal, independent of specific federal regulatory requirements.

Increasing housing supply and diversity in all neighborhoods is also critically important to achieving the goals of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP). During that process, the County and the AHMP Working Group identified considerable challenges related to the lack of geographic distribution of committed affordable units and other relatively attainable housing choices.

The development opportunities brought on by missing middle reforms represent a critical opportunity for achieving a more balanced housing distribution and fulfilling the spirit of the distribution targets established in the AHMP. Failure to leverage this opportunity will only exacerbate a cycle in which market-rate housing becomes increasingly out-of-reach and rising land/property values reduce the impact of County affordable housing subsidies, widening discrepancies in income, wealth and opportunity (or put more bluntly, intensifying socioeconomic segregation).

The County has taken robust action to expand and preserve affordable housing opportunities in Arlington’s core corridors. Notable examples include the affordability incentives embedded in the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan and Form-Based Code, and the recent investment in preserving the affordability of the Barcroft Apartments. To be clear, these actions are warranted, necessary, and consistent with the principles of equity and fair housing. However, to affirmatively further fair housing it is critically necessary to show similar commitment to affordability everywhere in the County.  The County has established a pattern in which it is willing to invest resources in areas that are already socioeconomically diverse and has made case-specific investments in certain higher-income neighborhoods. However, it has not established the same level of commitment to affirmatively confronting exclusionary zoning and taking proactive steps through zoning changes and financial investments to desegregating neighborhoods. The County staff proposal for missing middle reforms is a critical and commendable course correction, and the team that has worked on this study should be lauded for their leadership in this area.

Moving forward, if the County is to comply with the spirit (and potentially the letter) of the Fair Housing Act, it must take action. The legitimate concerns of those skeptical of this proposal can and should be acknowledged (as discussed above) and adequately addressed. Beyond that, failure to prioritize housing affordability and diversity would at a minimum expose as hollow the County’s stated commitment to equity. At a maximum, it could potentially and justifiably lead to regulatory action and litigation if HUD begins robust enforcement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligation. To make true progress the County must take action to remove concrete barriers to opportunity and improve the material conditions of those that have experienced discrimination and/or are economically struggling. Now is the time for the County Board to demonstrate leadership and live up to its ideals and its obligations under the Fair Housing Act by committing to pass missing middle reforms, paired with proactive investment in reducing disparities across socioeconomic groups.

 



[1] Disclosure: I am a volunteer member of the Board of Directors for both the Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing and Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance. In my professional capacity, I provide research support for the Arlington Community Foundation on housing-related issues. These comments are my own, and do not represent the perspective of those organizations.

[2] For example: Portland’s Residential Infill Program allows additional height and units if ½ of units are affordable. Fully market-rate development is allowed, but at smaller scale.

[3] https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh

[4] Though I follow the issue of Fair Housing closely from a policy perspective, I am not a fair housing lawyer and this commentary does not constitute legal advice.

Comments on Arlington's S. George Mason Drive Multimodal Study

By Mike Spotts

Earlier this month, Arlington County launched the planning and outreach process for the South George Mason Drive Multimodal Transportation Study (read more at: https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types/Transportation-Projects/S.-George-Mason-Drive-Multimodal-Transportation-Study). This project (literally) hits close to home – my family’s home is directly on S. George Mason Drive. I walk, drive, and/or bike along this corridor daily.  So while I am not a disinterested observer and obviously have some personal thoughts on what the County should do, I am trying to also keep the big picture in mind in how this fits into the County’s priorities for growth and development. The following is a series of public comments I recently shared with Arlington County. If you intend to comment, first phase comments must be received before May 1.

Arlington has too few north-south connections that are efficient and safe for any transportation mode other than vehicles. This underscores the importance of this planning effort to improve mobility across the spectrum of modes.

George Mason Drive (both north and south of Arlington Boulevard, and across the County line) has enormous potential as a multimodal corridor. In particular, the potential for improved transit service (preferably bus rapid transit or at a minimum, dedicated lane) is enormous. Consider the existing high-density nodes/developments and major employment centers that already exist – the currently expanding Virginia Hospital Center; the new developments and existing Barcroft Apartments at the intersection with Columbia Pike; the high rental and homeownership density along Four Mile Run Drive; Skyline, which is increasing in density as offices are converted to residential; and the high-rise residential development and medical campuses both north and south of the I395 junction. In addition, a future node may be envisioned along Langston Boulevard. The high density of both jobs and people, as well as the diversity of residents and workers, housing types, levels of affordability, and wages along the corridor makes this an optimal route for increasing the reliability and frequency of bus service. While that type of investment may be outside of the scope of this specific study (requiring study of bus frequency and updating route maps), it can and should set a foundation for additional planning around achieving a new transit vision for the corridor.

My understanding is that George Mason Drive is not a state or federal road. As such, Arlington County has more leeway to be creative outside of the often-restrictive priorities and design priorities imposed by the federal and state DOTs.

Currently, the corridor’s primary priority (by design, even if not current intent) is to move vehicles at a high rate of speed, and the result is less-efficient transit, unsafe intersections for pedestrians, and unsafe conditions throughout for cyclists.

The County should rebalance its modal priorities. While such an approach often gets labeled as anti-car (or a “war on cars”), this is not the case at all. If anything, traffic calming measures paired with a reallocation of a marginal amount of space away from automobiles to other modes can actually improve car commuting by making it safer, as speed is the main determinant in traffic injuries and deaths (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/). While some commuters’ lives may be marginally inconvenienced if it takes longer to traverse the corridor, the lives of drivers who are not injured or killed are dramatically better. As someone who does drive along the corridor frequently, this is a trade-off that is in my interests as a driver as well.

Current anti-speeding measures are not effective. Though some drivers studiously obey traffic laws, there is a natural tendency to drive to the speed of perceived safety. Given that there is relatively minimal traffic (i.e., of a sufficient volume across multiple lanes to create the instinctive inclination to slow down) outside of short periods of the day, traffic flows freely, which encourages speeding. While free-flowing traffic may reduce minor accidents/collisions, this benefit is offset by the severity of the higher speed collisions that do occur. Adding traffic calming measures that force drivers to pay more attention and drive more conscientiously will make the corridor safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Adding traffic calming measures will hopefully curb some of the more intentionally reckless driving that is frequent along the corridor, particularly in portions of the corridor that feature the most foot traffic (in particular, around Barcroft Apartments, the Four Mile Run Drive intersection, and in the Wakefield High School walkshed).

There is considerable scope for space reallocation along the corridor. Peak traffic levels should not be the sole determinant of how much space each mode receives. Just as retail establishments do not maintain “Black Friday” staffing capacity 365 days per year, designing streets for peak traffic leads to waste and creates safety hazards for all users during off-peak periods (by encouraging speeding). In this specific context, it is arguable whether the current 4-lane configuration is even necessary along the full corridor for peak periods. Throughout the rest of the day, the current configuration is excessive. Given the uncertainty of how longer-term work-from-home trends will durably affect commuting patterns, it is imperative that transportation plans facilitate mobility for all modes at all times of day.

It is always easy to say “reprioritize space.” It is much more difficult to actually take space from a current use and dedicate to another. These decisions are not easy and there are always tradeoffs with no solution that makes everyone happy. Given the specific configuration of the corridor (variable widths, different use frontages, median types, etc.), flexibility and incremental improvements will be crucial. Current demand for non-automotive uses is depressed due to the priority given to automobiles. If a basic threshold of cyclist protection (which we are nowhere near today) can be achieved as part of this process, it could create the test-case necessary to see if use increases sufficiently to justify “gold standard” bicycle infrastructure in the future.

More specifically, the County should consider the following ideas for improving multimodal mobility across South George Mason Drive.

  • Consider reallocating one lane of travel in each direction to a dedicated busway. Interim or “compromise” approaches would be to have a “bus plus” lane that also allows limited traffic to flow through that lane (for example: emergency vehicles, school busses, shuttles, HOV 4+ vehicles and other modes designed to carry multiple passengers), marginally reducing traffic in the remaining open-access lane. This latter approach has two additional benefits:

  • George Mason Drive is an important emergency vehicle artery, given its proximity to high-crash roads (for example, I395) and the location of Virginia Hospital Center. A dedicated lane could improve emergency response times, particularly during higher volume periods.

  • It is unclear if there are prospects for WMATA or ART to achieve “blue sky” service concepts such as a new BRT corridor. However, in the absence of (or while awaiting) that level of service, allowing limited types of vehicles to travel the dedicated lanes could make it possible for private shuttles to emerge that can supplement bus service in off-peak times. Such a system should be calibrated to avoid “cannibalizing” existing public transit ridership, and could include fees that are dedicated to improving public transit service.

  • At a minimum, the County should adopt bus signal priority and improved stops/boarding facilities, and study opportunities for enhanced bus service and ensuring that any improvements do not preclude bus lanes and enhanced routing/service frequency in the future.

  • This plan should include provisions to “right-size” parking. Many people want to maintain current levels of street parking, which has highly variable utilization across the corridor. Conversely, there have been some suggestions that protected bike lanes and/or transit service can replace current on-street parking. This latter option is probably – on balance – better than the status quo if it results in transit and/or protected bike lanes and should be considered, especially considering that the County currently mandates off-street parking in residential development. However, there are some clear tradeoffs with this approach. Street parking may be useful for some elderly residents and those with mobility impairments. Most importantly, there can be some negative impacts on pedestrian crossing, as people on foot would have to cross six lanes of moving traffic instead of four in most places. For this reason, reallocating a current vehicular lane is a preferable approach. If that cannot be achieved, there are interim steps between “street-parking everywhere” (the least preferred scenario) and fully eliminating street parking:

    • One lane of street parking could be eliminated, with the other moved from the outer curb to the center curb (there are examples of this approach in cities such as Philadelphia). This would still maintain a large number of on-street spaces and those utilizing the space would not have to cross the full width of South George Mason Drive to get to either side of the street. This could also provide a protective buffer if “greenway bikelanes” are added (see below).  The trade-off would be that fewer people could park directly in front of their homes without crossing, though this is less problematic given the abundance of (and ongoing requirements for) off-street parking for each residential unit. Center-loaded parking would need to be accompanied by more frequent, safer crossings, but this is something that should be occurring in any case.

    • If a single lane of parallel parking is eliminated, the net loss of street parking spots could be reduced below 50% if the remaining space was diagonal instead of parallel parking. The difference in traffic safety is likely marginal – there are hazards with parallel parking given sudden stops and the back-and-forth of the parking process, just as there are with backing into the road out of diagonal parking spaces. If traffic calming measures are successful, it would reduce the potential for crashes in either scenario.

    • Another approach utilizing diagonal parking would be to include “parking pods” in certain locations on each block (and/or increase parking by adding diagonal slots at the corners of the intersecting streets). These could be strategically placed to boost on-street parking while taking advantage of tactical opportunities (for example, a portion of the road that is slightly wider). If cycling lanes took the place of parking, adding pods periodically could lead to more frequent diversions and/or multi-use sections. However, that would still be an improvement over the status quo (in which there is no truly protected, safe cycling infrastructure along the corridor). The variability in the space allocation created by pods is, in and of itself, a traffic calming measure, and if paired with comprehensive traffic calming interventions, could mitigate conflict between users.

    • In areas with street parking that is utilized for business/non-residential purposes (such as the Foreign Service/National Guard facility), the County should negotiate replacing street parking with shared parking at nearby properties. There are at least two underutilized surface parking lots adjacent to this site that could serve this process. Though these are privately owned, the County could facilitate and/or incentivize this process.

    • Maintaining street parking across the entirety of both sides of the corridor is justifiable if – and only if – off-street residential parking mandates are lifted. Given the tight space constraints, there is no need for redundant impervious surface that adds to the cost of housing (which is well-documented in the literature, most notably in The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup), contributes to runoff, and limits our green space.

    • Whatever the approach to street parking infrastructure is ultimately chosen, the County should revisit its permitting and pricing systems for more efficient and equitable utilization of this public space. To illustrate how the status quo is dysfunctional, permits are required southbound between S. Four Mile Run Drive and the County line, but not northbound. As a result, on most days parking is less than 50% occupied for most of this stretch on the southbound side (again, due to off-street parking availability) but more difficult to find on the northbound side. This imbalance can be rectified via changes to permitting and pricing. As a personal aside, I benefit from the status quo as a resident on the southbound side, but recognize that this is inequitable to our neighbors across the street.

  • The center median greenspace and trees should be maintained and expanded if possible. At a baseline, it adds to the livability of the adjacent neighborhoods and creates a “refuge” for people crossing the street, as official crosswalks are too infrequent to be practical. On an anecdotal level, I’ve used and frequently observe others using this space for pedestrian purposes during crossings. Since there is already demonstrated demand and utility, this plan should consider formalizing this informal pedestrian infrastructure asset. Specifically, the plan can create a protected pedestrian/cycling “greenway” within this center median, which would provide a degree of grade separation from automobile traffic and would increase the utility of “softer” barriers (such as the plastic reflective bollards or additional trees/plantings). Combined with shifting parking to the median, this could dramatically improve safety within the greenway. This may not be viable through the full length of the corridor due to varying road widths. However, the improvement in utility and safety would be transformational if this truly safe multimodal asset was combined with more incremental safety improvements and/or smooth detours to other, safer paths along the balance of the corridor. Furthermore, this improvement could be achieved at a relatively minimal cost, given that this space already exists and would not have to be purchased or diverted from other uses.





Plan Langston Boulevard Process, the Affordable Housing Master Plan, and the County’s Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

On Friday, December 14, 2022 I submitted the following public comments to the Arlington County Board and other stakeholders involved in the Plan Langston Boulevard process related to the need to prioritize housing attainability and affordability to meet the County’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Download comment letter in PDF format.

January 14, 2022

To: Arlington County Board; Arlington Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development; Plan Langston Boulevard Planning Team; and the Langston Boulevard Alliance

Subject: Plan Langston Boulevard Process, the Affordable Housing Master Plan, and the County’s Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

I hope all is well. My name is Michael A. Spotts, and I am an Arlington resident; housing and community development policy research professional; and former Vice-Chair of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) Working Group.[1] This letter provides public comments on the issue of fair housing as it relates to potential zoning and land use initiatives, in particular the Plan Langston Boulevard process. This letter expands upon my May 2021 comment letter on that process. A brief summary of the key comments/recommendations from that letter is appended to the end of this document. Today’s letter emphasizes the pressing need for action to support more affordable and attainable housing options in the Langston Boulevard corridor to avoid violating the letter and spirit of the Fair Housing Act. Failure to do so could potentially open the county to punitive legal/regulatory measures.

The Fair Housing Act and the duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) prohibits active discrimination and policies that lead to disparate impacts in housing. Combatting this type of discrimination is of often the focus of Fair Housing evaluations and activities. However, when the baseline conditions prior to passage of the Fair Housing Act included rampant de facto and de jure discrimination and segregation, simply eliminating those actions (which society has decidedly not achieved) without some sort of restitution or remedy for the harms created would perpetuate disadvantage for people of color and African-Americans in particular. As such, the Fair Housing Act established an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and require recipients of HUD funds “to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”[2] Regrettably, HUD has not robustly enforced this obligation throughout much of the law’s history. However, starting with the Obama Administration, HUD has taken steps to create a more robust regulatory framework around this obligation. The Trump Administration subsequently reversed these actions, but the Biden Administration has reinstituted many of the Obama-era provisions and has signaled that it would be more closely focused on the issue. Consequences for the failure to adhere to Fair Housing Act provisions include the forfeiture of federal housing resources allocated to the recipient, among other potential actions.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in the Arlington Context

The final regulatory form and specific actions required by HUD are not yet finalized (and are subject to further rulemaking). As such, it is unclear at this time what actions HUD will definitively consider as affirmatively furthering fair housing, and what actions would prompt action from the HUD Office of Fair Housing Enforcement.[3] However, given the specifics of the interim final rule and the Biden Administration’s stated focus on eliminating exclusionary zoning, it would be prudent for Arlington County to consider any action that reinforces or creates exclusionary zoning barriers to be suspect and potentially increase the risk of legal and regulatory action from HUD.

Furthermore, the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing has existed since 1968. Given the County’s vision of being “a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community,” Arlington should hold itself to a standard of ethics and practice that advances this goal, independent of specific federal regulatory requirements.

The Importance of Plan Langston Boulevard to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

Increasing housing supply and diversity in the Langston Boulevard corridor is also critically important to achieving the specific goals of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP), which is now under 5-year review. During that process, the County and the AHMP Working Group identified considerable challenges related to the geographic distribution of affordable housing, with attainable housing opportunities (and Committed Affordable Units) more constrained in North Arlington and north of Langston Boulevard in particular. To meet the County’s goals for affordable housing by 2040, the Langston Boulevard/East Falls Church corridor would need an increase of nearly 2,000 units affordable up to 60% AMI. Regrettably, the final targets projected a 50 unit loss of units in the nearby Westover neighborhood over the same time period.

The development opportunities brought on by the Plan Langston Boulevard process represent a critical opportunity for achieving a more balanced housing distribution and meeting (or hopefully, exceeding) the distribution targets established in the AHMP. Failure to leverage this opportunity will only exacerbate a cycle in which market-rate housing becomes increasingly out-of-reach and rising land/property values reduce the impact of County affordable housing subsidies, widening discrepancies in income, wealth and opportunity (or put more bluntly, intensifying socioeconomic segregation).

Neighborhood change can be controversial, and the County has acknowledged the concerns that some nearby residents have regarding increased development and potential densification along Langston Boulevard. In some cases (particularly the historically African-American neighborhood of Halls Hill) those concerns warrant particular attention, given the County’s legacy of segregation and its fair housing obligations. However, the County also conducted an extensive community engagement process in the development of the AHMP, during which highly imbalanced geographic distribution of housing opportunities was raised as a critical consideration. This community engagement must also be considered a part of the Plan Langston Boulevard equation.

Furthermore, the County has taken robust action to expand and preserve affordable housing opportunities in in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and in South Arlington. Notable examples include the affordability incentives embedded in the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan and Form-Based Code, and the recent investment in preserving the affordability of the Barcroft Apartments. To be clear, these actions are warranted, necessary, and consistent with the principles of equity and fair housing. However, to affirmatively further fair housing it is critically necessary to show similar commitment to affordability everywhere in the County.  The County has established a pattern in which it is willing to invest resources in areas that are already socioeconomically diverse and has made case-specific investments in certain higher-income neighborhoods. However, it has not established the same level of commitment to affirmatively confronting exclusionary zoning and taking proactive steps through zoning changes and financial investments to desegregating neighborhoods. If the County is to comply with the spirit (and potentially the letter) of the Fair Housing Act, it cannot commit to one-for-one preservation/replacement of affordable units along Columbia Pike, but plan for a loss of affordable units in Westover. It cannot abandon the commitment to affordability along Langston Boulevard established in the AHMP because of the concerns of opponents hoping to preserve low density in the County’s wealthiest and least diverse neighborhoods. This is particularly important when placed in the context of the commitments made (and neighborhood change facilitated) along in the Columbia Pike corridor. Failure to prioritize housing affordability and diversity would at a minimum expose as hollow the County’s stated commitment to equity. At a maximum, it could potentially and justifiably lead to regulatory action and litigation if HUD begins robust enforcement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligation.

The Path Forward

Recently, Arlington County took the step of changing the name of the Route 29 Corridor from Lee Highway to Langston Boulevard in order to move forward from the racist policies and practices of the past. This was a positive first step, but to make true progress the County must take action to remove concrete barriers to opportunity and improve the material conditions of those that have experienced discrimination and/or are economically struggling. To live up to its ideals and its obligations under the Fair Housing Act, Arlington County must commit to a plan for Langston Boulevard that provides the tools necessary to meet or exceed affordable housing targets established in the AHMP. It should also revisit land use policies and other housing incentives in order to encourage housing affordability and housing stock diversity in other predominantly high-income neighborhoods (such as single-family exclusive zones) and/or rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods (such as Westover). Given the unique nature of each neighborhood, the plans, tools, and incentives used in North Arlington may differ from past efforts in other parts of the County. However, the County must seize the opportunity today and commit to taking whatever actions are necessary to deconstruct exclusionary barriers. Otherwise, future generations will look back at the renaming process as a purely symbolic gesture of a community not truly committed to expanding opportunity for all.

Thank you for considering these comments. As always, please feel free to contact me if I can volunteer time and information in support of developing sound and effective policies, programs, and tools to accomplish the goals discussed in this letter.

 

Sincerely,


Michael A. Spotts
mspotts@neighborhoodfundamentals.com

Summary of Comments from May 2021 Plan Langston Boulevard Comment Letter

See full letter at: https://www.neighborhoodfundamentals.com/news/2021/5/20/comments-in-response-to-plan-lee-highway-community-engagement-effort

  • Arlington will be hard-pressed to achieve its goals related to diversity, equity, and housing attainability (including compliance with MWCOG housing targets) without adopting a strong, forward-looking policy and planning framework for the Langston Boulevard corridor.

  • Most importantly, policies resulting from the Plan Lee Highway process should ensure that there is sufficient height, density, and form flexibility to make affordable housing (and other prioritized community benefits) economically feasible.

  • The County should reconsider its approach to the Arlington East Falls Church neighborhood. The East Falls Church neighborhood has access to what is perhaps the corridor’s best transportation asset – a Metro station that allows for a “one-seat ride” to critical centers such as Tysons, the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor (and downtown Washington, DC), and the emerging node at Dunn Loring/Mosaic District. Prioritizing low-density housing (and thus making more attainable housing development less feasible) in an area where property values are boosted by the region’s investment in transit constitutes a wealth transfer from the tax-paying public to a small number of private property owners. This investment will be substantially more effective if more people have access to the neighborhood, which only can be accomplished through more housing units and more diverse housing types.

  • Open space and environmental requirements should prioritize contiguous areas and public space. Environmental research suggests that contiguous (particularly forested) natural space yields the best outcomes for stormwater retention, habitat preservation, and tree cover maintenance.  While private yards/open space may be better than impervious cover in many cases, they do not offer the same benefits and are subject to change by private property owners.

  • Neighborhoods (like ecosystems) are complex, interactive, and evolve by nature. Planning is an imperfect science. As such plans should avoid the tendency to micromanage and account for every scenario, and embrace flexibility and experimentation.

[1] Disclosure: I am a volunteer member of the Board of Directors for both the Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing and Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance. These comments are my own, and do not represent the perspective of those organizations.

[2] https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh

[3] Though I follow the issue of Fair Housing closely from a policy perspective, I am not a fair housing lawyer and this letter does not constitute legal advice.