After three, often contentious, meetings and an array of citizen input, the Jones Point Park Work Group failed to reach a compromise on athletic fields during its final meeting. They will recommend two extremes to City Council hoping that body can succeed where they failed.
Assembled in the auditorium of Mount Vernon Elementary School, it was apparent from the outset that the animosity that has enveloped each of the group's meetings had solidified rather than dissipated. And facilitator Jinnie Benson, hired by the city Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs, failed to guide them to a consensus.
During a City Council work session in February, Mayor William D. Euille created the so-called "hybrid" Work Group to "hopefully be able to reach a compromise on the various issues," dealing with the development and uses of Jones Point Park, "in order to achieve a solution everyone can live with." That didn't happen.
Youth Sports Advisory Work Group Representative James Gibson summarized the end result at the conclusion of last Thursday night's meeting. "From the beginning we became polarized," he said.
THAT POLARIZATION produced the end result that City Council will be presented with two recommendations:
* Two athletic field north of the newly completed Woodrow Wilson Bridge, immediately adjacent to the wetlands; and
* No athletic fields within the park confines.
However, the council will also have all five of the proposed scenarios considered by the Work Group, to aid them in reaching their own conclusion which will then go forward to the National Park Service, owners of Jones Point Park. That is to happen in early July, according to the Recreation and Parks Department.
After thanking the Work Group for their efforts, Kirk Kincannon, director of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs, said, "We will work to capture all this information to help council with their decision." The Work Group's report is to go to council by June 14. Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the matter June 27.
Kicking off the two-hour session, Kincannon presented a slide show which focused on the parking challenges that need to be addressed since parking under the new spans has been outlawed as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The presentation also called for narrowing the athletic field options to be presented to City Council. Neither solving the parking dilemma or narrowing the options occurred.
Once again, those advocating future park uses be restricted to passive recreation and activities associated with access to the Potomac River, cited the fact that the original plans approved by the previous council were no longer applicable due to the loss of nearly 240 parking spaces designed for under the bridge spans.
"After 9/11 we lost two acres of parking. I hope that a good faith effort will be made and that all the issues will be put forward [to the council]," said Teresa Miller, Work Group member representing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Neighborhood Task Force.
AS NOTED in the power point presentation, the number of parking spaces needed varies depending on the number of athletic fields recommended. It would range from 110 spaces, if two fields were established, to 80 spaces for one or no fields. Both scenarios include 30 spaces for other park users and 80 spaces for city employees.
It was the latter, 80 spaces for city employees, that triggered a new level of dissension within the Work Group and those attending the session. "Every time I come to these meetings I get a new surprise," said Yvonne Weight, a member of the WWB Neighborhood Task Force.
"It's really all about city parking. That's one of the greatest insults I've heard," she said.
"Parking for city employees in this venue should be the third consideration. The first and second considerations should be given to the users of the park," said Michael Hobbs, president, Old Town Civic Association.
"This gets back again to the entire issue of parking. City employee parking should not be a consideration," said Richard Campbell, president, Yates Gardens Civic Association.
Kincannon responded, "There are no other sites available to be served by a shuttle." He was backed by Emily Baker, city Department of Transportation and Environmental Services, who noted, "City employees have been parking at Jones Point Park for years. They park at off-peak hours."
Campbell responded, "City parking was always under the bridge prior to 9/11." At the present time city employee spaces are located in the area proposed for the two athletic fields north of the new bridge, the former site of the Alexandria Seaport Foundation.
Parking concept assumptions as presented by Kincannon included:
* Maintain integrity of wetland boundaries
* Look for opportunities for substantial low impact "green" parking
* Establish an attractive pedestrian gateway to the park
* Maintain a community gardens buffer
* Mitigate any vegetation disruption
* Maintain parking between Lee and Royal streets within the park.
POUL HERTEL, civic activist, noted, "A study of city residents asked what they wanted to see in the city. Only 10 percent said soccer fields. This plan has no place in an urban environment. You are trying to force too much into this site."
At the Work Group's previous meeting public speakers were asked to express their preference for one of five proposed park development "Schemes." As to the incorporation and location of athletic fields in the park they were:
* Scheme A and B - Two large fields north of the bridge, one with fields in the same direction, the other in alternating directions;
* Scheme C - One multi-use field north of the bridge and one small field south of the bridge;
* Scheme D - One small field south of the bridge; and
* Scheme E - no fields.
According to a synopsis of that Work Group session assembled by Julie Crenshaw, Federal Stakeholder Panel Work Group Representative, those favoring the different proposals were as follows: Scheme A - four; Scheme B - four; Scheme C - two; Scheme D - eight; and Scheme E - 12. Five persons stated they wanted a field or fields but did not specify a preference, according to Crenshaw's report.
"All of the scheme drawings need to go forward to council so they have an accurate picture of what each is proposing," Crenshaw said. On the parking issue she said, "The Stakeholder's panel said that under no circumstances should parking go into the wetlands. And the Stakeholder would not agree with parking for city employees."
AT THE CONCLUSION of public comments, Kincannon asked the panel if any of the proposed schemes should be "taken off the table" in order to narrow the choices sent to the council. Miller suggested removing schemes A and B, the proposals advocating two field north of the bridge.
In a counter proposal, Park and Recreation Commission Work Group representative Judy Guse-Noritake requested schemes D and E, proposals advocating one field south of the bridge and no fields within the park respectively, be removed. Kincannon ruled that no scheme could be removed from the table without unanimous agreement.
That did not happen. However, his ruling seemed to become lost in the ensuing discussions with the end result that only schemes A and E will go to the council as the official recommendations. They will be accompanied by the other three schemes without comment.
Assessing the panel's actions over the three meetings, Miller said, "It looks like you have steamrolled people if you don't send their suggestion forward. I would recommend that all five plans go forward."
Benson, stepping out of the role of facilitator, answered, "I think you have a point of view that is not commonly held by the panel. It appears Scheme A has the most support of the panel and Scheme E has the support of the neighborhoods."
Miller said, "You sandbagged this thing before we even got going. There needs to be a fair balance here and council needs to know that. There is a very different situation here since 9/11. We also want Scheme D to be included [one athletic field south of the bridge]."
Noritake countered with, "Council has to know where we [the Work Group] stand. Council will figure out the compromise."
Kincannon reassured the group, "Everything that has been put on the record will be submitted to council."
Crenshaw emphasized, "What ever goes to council should be given to the panel beforehand so we can be aware of what is in the report."
Kincannon agreed to her request.