Lights are out. Two proposed fields are now just one. Bathroom facilities are likely not an option anymore and parking would be all on-site. But the residents who have mobilized in opposition to the Stafford ball field proposal still aren’t satisfied.
The group, comprising several Mosby Woods and Cambridge Station residents and a few members of the Friends of Accotink Creek group, say environmental concerns for the site should raise enough eyebrows to stop the project, at least for the time being. The project in question, a park featuring a large, rectangular soccer field, on-site parking and play areas, is up for the City Council’s approval at its Tuesday, June 12 meeting.
In response to a full house at the City Council’s last public hearing on the issue, Tuesday, May 22, the city hosted a public outreach meeting to field questions and provide more details about the proposal. The Thursday, May 31, meeting, at PJ Skidoos, attracted about 50 people, most of whom boarded CUE buses and took a city-guided on-foot tour of the property in question — a large green space located just north of Route 50, between Stafford Drive and the Plantation Parkway.
The field would take up about five acres of the 23-acre property, said Lederer. A large section of the space between the proposed field and the Mosby Woods and Cambridge Station residents would remain untouched. But some neighbors fear that runoff from the park and other environmental concerns could damage the Accotink Creek and eventually the Potomac River, displace wildlife and ruin the city’s chance at preserving a special piece of land in the city.
Duane Murphy and Philip Latasa, of the Friends of Accotink Creek organization, worry about several environmental issues for the project. In a May 23 letter to the City Council, mayor and city manager, Latasa and Murphy listed their major concerns, including the loss of native species habitat, the degradation of an already stressed stream habitat, bank erosion, the spread of invasive plant species, increased nutrient loads in streams, loss of tree and other natural cover, and the encroachment on protected status lands, or wetlands.
"Virginia waters are in crisis," said their letter. "The area must be preserved in its natural state."
Several neighbors also want the city to keep the property as it is, and use it for the local schools as a nature laboratory and classroom.
"I really think there are some wonderful environmental opportunities that we’re not considering," said Elizabeth Gee, president of the Cambridge Station homeowners association.
Brian Cipriano, the project’s architect, said major environmental studies haven’t been conducted yet because the city needs some assurance that the project would get approved before it can justify the high expense of such a study. If the council approves the proposal on June 12, more studies and permits would be necessary to move the project forward.
"If the environment wins, in the long run, so does everybody," said Stanwyn Shetler, a retired botanist, in a May 31 letter to City Council.
LEDERER said the property’s future hasn’t really been up for discussion since it was purchased in 2001. At that time, developers were pushing a proposed townhouse development through the process when the city stepped in to buy the $6 million property for open space. Under the city’s Comprehensive Plan, open space is defined in three categories: preservation, conservation and recreation.
The Stafford opponents claim they were misled in the 2000 advisory referendum that asked voters whether they supported a real estate property tax increase that would provide a dedicated fund "to purchase available land for the purpose of maintaining the land as open space or park land," according to the Comprehensive Plan.
"It’s really clear that we’re not on the same page as far as the interpretation of open space," said Gee, at the May 31 public outreach meeting.
But Lederer said that if ball fields were never discussed back in 2001, the city wouldn’t have utilized the condemnation process to buy the property in the first place. Nearby residents would likely be neighbors to the townhouse development that was in the application process, rather than a 5-acre athletic park. At the time, letters to council from the surrounding community were in support of the city’s purchase of the land, including the construction of ball fields, said Lederer.
"Ball fields were not put on the table in the 11th hour," said Lederer. "I believe the community was in overwhelming support of buying the property as open space, and if it meant putting a ball field or two on there, so be it … what got the votes to do it, in my mind, was the proposal for ball fields."
THE OPEN SPACE Citizens Advisory Committee was established after the 2-to-1 passing of the referendum. The committee assembled and evaluated the merits of 31 candidate parcels of land. "The committee ranked the parcels in priority order based on a set of common goals at which the committee arrived through consensus-building discussions," according to the Comprehensive Plan. Lederer said the Stafford property wasn’t even a top 10-priority level for the city.
"It was not a slam dunk to purchase the $6 million property for open space," said Lederer.
Work sessions and public outreach meetings also date back to 2001, said Lederer, who presented slides showing the exact dates of nearly 20 different public meetings. He reminded the project’s opponents about the several meetings because many of them have recently accused the City Council of hushing up the project and failing to provide the community with enough information about the proposal. Lederer said he couldn’t think of another issue that councilmembers spent more time or restless nights over. "It’s not fair, and it’s not factual," he said.
"We believe the council and staff put a lot of thought and effort into this," said Dennis and Gioia Egan, city residents.
OPPONENTS TO the plan placed much of the blame on city staff for what they think is a careless proposal. In addition to the several environmental concerns brought up by the property’s neighboring residents, many of them also worry about the traffic flow along Stafford Drive. Several Cambridge Station residents claim that Stafford is their only realistic access road to Route 50. If Stafford became too congested, the residents would have to drive "all the way down Ranger [Road] to Plantation [Parkway], said Veronique Klimonda, a Cambridge Station resident, in a May 23 e-mail recommending several of her neighbors attend the Thursday, May 31, public outreach meeting.
Some of the project’s opponents also think the city’s traffic study for the park is bogus. Mike McCarty, the city’s parks and recreation director, said the study indicated that about 5 percent of the traffic to the fields would come up Route 50 from the east. The study anticipated traffic growth in the area until 2010, without the field. The on-site parking for the park proposes 52 spaces — a number some residents think is far too low. City staff doesn’t agree though, said Lederer.
"We have ball fields all over the city … none of which have 52 spaces and they all seem to work fine," said Lederer.
The walk through the property showed the trees that would have to come down, with about six mature trees marked on the northwest corner of the proposed field. Four of those trees are already diseased or dying, said McCarty. Looking north from that portion of the proposed field, the tree buffers between the homes and the park would still be significant.
"I think it’s going to be so beautiful," said Gioia Egan. "It’s well thought-out; it’s going to be great for families."