AHCA feedback to current Pentagon City Planning Study scenarios

The following letter summarizing AHCA officer and representative feedback on the Pentagon City Planning Study was sent to the Planning Study organizers on Tuesday, July 6. Refer to the County’s project page for presentation documents from focus group meetings for additional background.

---

Hi all,

I’m sharing feedback on the outlined PDSP, categorized and reflecting the heading based on the feedback I shared back in June, reflecting the survey.

Overall, we really want to understand what is being required, what is optional, what data that is based on (or if not data, what standards) and who is responsible for what and when. This could look like a chart or table of proposed changes/improvements that cover those points. 

Pedestrian Improvements – The staff and consultants have chosen to determine the highest level of specificity in the PDSP around pedestrian improvements, particularly through the headlining green ribbon. Improving walkability and biophilia has been an important issue for AHCA and Livability, so this focus makes sense. I encourage as much inclusion and focus on actual living elements, such as plantings and tree canopy, and specifically a product that anticipates a developer using concrete stampings and calling it a day.

As I have said, we really need to see where the anticipated funding for the pedestrian and biophilic improvements is coming from and what the timeline for achieving them will be. I have further comments below on biophilia/green ribbon, but we also need to anticipate how potential and unforeseen consequences will be mitigated as planning develops in a way that does not mean the improvements are lost. For example, we heard in the focus group that the Hayes St improvements may be difficult to achieve due to metro infrastructure. Because this is the area with most specificity in the PDSP, how will the community be assured of some benefits if the specifics cannot be achieved? 

New and Better Open Space – The new open space is not exactly inspiring, particularly given the calculated exclusion of the south River House lawn. The primarily green space is achieved through the combination of GMHP and VHP + the Joyce right of way, given the other open spaces appear to be primarily hard-scaped plazas. Based on Ben’s helpful answer to my questions, it sounds like the open space proposed is based more on urban design concepts than specific community benefit calculations, though it still would be good to see how those might figure out. I know some community members have shared that there is a desire for a calculation about open space to residents as a goal, as one pathway to consider, for both that and other facilities.

Overall though, I suspect the community won’t agree that the proposed level of open space is ideal and would like to see more, including, if needed, county purchasing of land. I’ll flag the already owned county lot on the north side of River House as one area to look at, given it appears JBG doesn’t want to develop there and the space is sort of abandoned. I think it would be good to also see open space worked through more of River House overall, perhaps with parklets, as well as envisioned in a long term transformation of the Fashion Centre, to be integrated into the green ribbon.

I’ll also note that the benefits of relocating GMHP to become integrated into VHP haven’t really been presented convincingly to me. While we gain new space from the Joyce ROW, the new awkward Joyce takes up developable space (or more because of how it’s configured?) that could instead itself be converted into parkland (or equivalent acreage). I agree that GMHP isn’t very accessible, but why not add and improve on it, perhaps with its own master plan? VHP is quite big as is, which is great, and additional space attached to it, vs elsewhere in the neighborhood, is not a big value add proportionally.

Locating Density Strategically – While the other proposed density/heights, based off the renderings appear okay to good, the River House proposal really doesn’t fit in with existing neighborhood planning. Both new buildings that are significantly higher than than existing River House buildings and heights almost directly at the southern edge (separated by one set of mid-rises it appears) much greater than the single family/duplexes off of 16th street are too much, especially given the distance from the Metro that might otherwise justify it. I believe a level of density closer to the original proposal from JBG would be more appropriate.

It would also be good to understand how infill or greater density on different sites will intersect with shadows, wind, and other elements that impact the neighborhood beyond the sites themselves. Was there mention of a goal of shadow impact on different open spaces? 

I do think it’s great that the Pentagon Parking lots have buildings on them, and I want to work through how to make that happen in the longer term, knowing DoD is likely not going to part with that land anytime soon.

Avoid Traffic Congestion – The proposed plan adds significant new density but we have not seen how tradeoffs to avoid traffic will be achieved in the final plan, though we have discussed some small to moderate public realm transit improvements in previous discussions. In the proposal, I think we’ll want to see what assumptions are under different use scenarios for how traffic could change, including an update on the assumed 20% increase you have previously discussed. The proposal does include potential changes to Joyce and Hayes that I’d want to understand the implications of, traffic wise. Ultimately, especially given the potential changes to Rt 1 and what neighbors have felt they’ve seen over time, increasing cut-through traffic through Aurora Highlands would be an area of concern.

Improve Bike Access – While we have not seen full details, and the previous comments about area wide improvements including east-west connections stand, the renderings of separated bike lanes on Hayes is good. I can’t quite tell if they are assumed for Fern, but I would hope so and about everywhere else that’s possible.

Improve Transit Access – I don’t believe we’ve seen additional details here, though I was disappointed not to see a potential second Metro entrance on the 

green ribbon rendering for 15th and Hayes. Like other improvements, especially given the need to shift the modes of travel, in the final product I’d really like to see specific actions, and how they will be funded, for improving bus and metro access, in addition to steps for achieving last mile improvements, including details about how they would be funded.

Biophilia/Green – I’ll focus on the green ribbon design framework but note again, it would be good to see the PDSP also encourage sustainability and other environmentally friendly elements. Biophilia does not address the need to plan for climate change. Tree canopy sits at the intersection here, it’s good to see it encouraged and it’d be good to do so as strongly as possible. We need to acknowledge that extreme heat will only grow over time and trees are essential to addressing it.

As I noted in the focus group, having a visual element common to the green ribbon pathway throughout Pentagon City would help better tie the neighborhood together and encourage use of the pathway as a walking trail. This could be a color scheme, paving type, art element, or beyond. But something recognizable and brandable.

The double planting zones are great, but I do think it is important they are permeable enough to allow for desire lines and other pathways connecting to retail, streets, parking, etc, to avoid them from being trampled. 

I’m far from a plant expert but I’d also like to see seasonality taken into account. Being surrounded by dead plant scrub during the winter will make these areas unpleasant to be in.

Overall, if this is we’re investing what I’ll call “certainty currency” I’d like to see a clear checklist that a developer and SPRC can compare proposals to. Suggestions are good, but there needs to be an accountability mechanism, both for private and public land. I’d also want a clear map about which areas are specifically going to be green ribbon and which areas are going to be improved sidewalk, and who is responsible for making the improvements (county or which property owner) at each site.

Address Housing – We haven’t talked about this at any of the focus groups. I’d like to see at least some mention of housing affordability goals or preservation.

Mall Pedestrian Passage/15th St – Simon’s comments during the focus group have not exactly been encouraging. Both a pedestrian passage and improvements between the mall parking lot, Pentagon row and 15th St are critical improvements desired by the neighborhood. Are there additional steps needed to make this more likely? 

Additional Planning Efforts – It is good to hear that the PDSP report will set up additional planning efforts, both for site specific studies, like roadways, as well as for open space. I echo those who have said that the county needs to plan, now, for what facilities and services the additional people coming to live here will need and how those living here already will not see a degradation due to increased use. This may mean a holistic look at all services/facilities now, from schools to recreational courts to dog parks to playgrounds to unstructured open space to utilities, and what exiting additional capacity they reasonably can take on and if not sufficient for the projected population under the PDSP, how the county will plan to spend money to achieve them. 

It would also be good to see an intersection with how the changes in the PDSP will intersect with other planning efforts underway. This includes neighborhood specific ones, like the Route 1 Study, as well as broader changes across the county like Missing Middle. These obviously will be unknowns by the time the study is done, but acknowledging them and ideally presenting a range of impact would be helpful.

We are acutely aware that this neighborhood is a major revenue driver for Arlington, compared to lower density areas that use more services than they pay into taxes for.  This will only increase over time as property values, and therefore taxes, increase. I want to make sure that we are properly served by the county government and not neglected as these changes, both new and existing under the PDSP, come. This means planning now for how to do so.

Thanks for reading all the the way through this feedback!

Category: Uncategorized