Highlights from the EHO Trial

EHO Trial Update

The trial itself is complete, after 5 days of testimony by over 20 witnesses. Rather than giving closing arguments, the parties agreed to file post-trial briefs by August 1. After that, the judge will decide his process and then we await his verdict, which could come in weeks or even months from now.

For more on how the trial played out, read the in-depth WAMU article on the proceedings. Below we provide a few takeaways by topic area.

Process:

The County's lawyer affirmed that the public engagement process and the RTA (Request to Advertise) process was the same as any other ordinance process, and is also the norm in Fairfax County and other local jurisdictions. He stated that the County follows the same process, to "engage the public, consult the staff, and use our Democratic process to address the County's challenges." Former Arlington County Planning Director, Bob Brosnan, reiterated that the purpose of the County's RTA process "is to give the public as much information about what will be considered" by the County Board as possible, and that this approach of advertising the broadest set of options to the public "is a best practice." 

Racial Discrimination:

The attorneys reviewed the history of segregation and housing discrimination in Arlington, including the Hall's Hill Wall and the history of the Pentagon and Freedman's Village.

NAACP Arlington Branch submitted an excellent Amicus Brief addressing zoning and segregation and arguing that rescinding the EHO ordinance would undo the progress toward re-integrating Arlington's neighborhoods.

Water and Sewer System:

The County's water-sewer expert, John Lawler, testified that "we have so much capacity" in our sewer system because of major efficiency improvements since the 1980s, such as low-flow plumbing fixtures. Their analysis showed that at the projected pace of EHO development, it would take 83 years for the County’s water-sewer usage just to reach the levels seen in 2008. He concluded that "there is just no impact" of the potential EHO developments.

Stormwater:

The County's watershed programs manager, Jason Papacosma, said that since the rules are the same as for single-family development, there would only be a very small incremental difference between what we see with single-family development and what we may see with EHOs. They disclosed that the internal proposal for EHO originally allowed higher lot coverage and smaller setbacks, but the watershed team pushed back strongly so the proposal was changed to match the existing single-family lot coverage and setbacks before it was released. Defense counsel asked "does it matter if it rains on a single family home or on an EHO?" and of course Jason said "No, it doesn't matter."

Tree Requirements:

The EHO ordinance requires roughly the same percentage (20%) as single-family development requires. The plaintiffs complained that this exceeds the state requirements of 10-15% tree canopy on non-single-family lots. The County replied that the EHO is an optional zoning, so there is not a legal requirement, only regulations if you opt into this additional development option. (This complaint is especially ironic, since opponents to EHO raised the concern of decreased tree canopy as a major rationale for their opposition.)

Traffic:

The County's transportation expert, Sarah Crawford, stated the additional traffic and any loss of curbspace from 150 new EHO residents expected each year was so "negligible, that it cannot be modeled." She also confirmed that "there is plenty of capacity on our entire transit system" to accommodate growth, and that 95% of all Arlington households are within 1/4 of a transit stop.