The debate over the Mount Vernon Circle parking proposal does prove one thing — going round and round can produce consensus.
That was the end result at a meeting to the yearlong standoff dealing with proposed expansion of parking at the Mount Vernon Estate. Held last Wednesday at the Sherwood Hall Regional Library, the meeting produced an agreement that any present expansion of parking will take place at the existing West Parking Lot.
"It appears that matters have been resolved very well and to the satisfaction of all concerned," said Mount Vernon District supervisor Gerald W. Hyland (D). "It's marvelous when the system really works."
His enthusiasm for the agreement was buttressed by James Cossey, chairman, Stakeholder Participation Panel (SPP), the broad-based citizen group appointed by Hyland to represent the residents' interests throughout the negotiation process.
"It was really quite remarkable that everyone could finally agree on a solution that we have been proposing all along," Cossey said. "It's a reasonable solution and one that can be supported by everyone."
That solution was actually a modified version of No. 3 on the short list of "Preliminary Parking Alternatives" outlined at the meeting held on Jan. 21. It proposed "Expand the East and West parking lots and expand the existing employee lot behind the Mount Vernon wall for overflow parking."
AS FINALLY AGREED upon, the West Parking Lot will be expanded to accommodate an additional 160 vehicles. If events indicate more parking is needed beyond that number, future expansion will take place behind the wall that runs along Route 235 across from the Mount Vernon Post Office building.
Jim Rees, executive director, Mount Vernon Estate, who attended last Wednesday's meeting, expressed the opinion, "It's a good compromise plan. Everyone seems to agree that it has some built-in flexibility and it meets our immediate needs of getting overflow parking off the grassy circle."
He also noted, "We don't know when or if any additional parking will be needed beyond the planned 160 new spaces. Or even how often it would be required during our peak periods. We'll plan before it's needed. But, if we do go behind the wall, it will not be an asphalt lot. It will be an environmentally sensitive lot."
The controversy began last June when Mount Vernon Estate proposed to expand its parking facilities to alleviate parking on the grassy portion of the circle during peak periods. In addition to being unattractive and damaging to the circle plot, it was also deemed unsafe for both vehicle visibility and pedestrians.
OPPONENTS OF THE proposed parking expansion also saw it as an opening shot in expanding the George Washington Memorial Parkway for commuter traffic and the creation of a bypass to satisfy that end. That's when more than 100 Mount Vernon-area residents descended on the first meeting called by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Park Service (NPS) last June 26.
They were greeted by Larry Meisner, P.E., representing Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Raleigh, N.C., the consultants hired by the FHWA and NPS, who offered a series of charts and rendering that presented "all possibilities." Meisner told the crowd at that time, "The drawings you see are just potential suggestions of what may be possible solutions to not only the parking problems but increasing traffic on the Parkway."
SPP vice chairman, Frank Cohn, cautioned at that time, "Once they [FHWA and NPS] become fully aware of the opposition to any bypass by both the community and Mount Vernon Estate, hopefully they will drop the idea. But there has always been a fear that someone would suggest a bypass. Especially those that see the Parkway as an alternate commuter route."
Hyland has emphatically stated, "I absolutely do not support a bypass. A bypass is not in the best interests of the residents or the Estate. I hope the final report will not recommend it. If it does, there's going to be need for federal funds, and I doubt there will be any support among the local congressional delegation."
Rees has also been quick to point out, "The last thing we want is more commuter traffic. We totally agree with the residents that anything that expands or encourages commuter traffic is not good."
MOUNT VERNON ESTATE has projected that after its proposed expansion is complete, visitors will be staying longer, thereby exacerbating the existing parking shortfall during peak periods. "Over two years ago we informed the Park Service that parking had gotten noticeably worse. We now have people parking on the circle about 50 or 60 days a year," Rees explained.
"The Parkway was built as a ceremonial entrance to Mount Vernon. We do not want to see it become a commuter route," Rees insisted. "We would be perfectly happy if the Park Service would just allow us to sensibly expand the West Parking Lot."
Throughout the ensuing months SPP developed a list of 14 possible alternative to address the Estate's parking dilemma. But, at last winter's meeting with FWHA, the NPS and their consultants, it was revealed that their list had been boiled down to four alternatives:
1. Parking lot on Mount Vernon property west of Route 235;
2. Expand East and West parking lots plus overflow parking lot on Mount Vernon property west of Route 235;
3. Expand East and West parking lots and expand existing employee lot behind the Mount Vernon wall along Route 235 for overflow parking; and
4. "No-Build"
THE VAST MAJORITY of those who filled the auditorium of Walt Whitman Middle School that night favored either No. 3 or No. 4. But, as Cossey pointed out at that time, "We recommend that our Alternative 14, to expand the West Parking Lot to cover all the Estate's parking needs, be included in the decision process."
Cossey also stressed that SPP based its deliberation and its alternatives on five guiding principles:
1. Nothing should be proposed that would increase traffic;
2. Do nothing that will increase hazards to pedestrians or traffic;
3. There should be no rerouting of Route 235;
4. There should be no lots or exits on or onto Route 235;
5. Do nothing that would bring pressure in the future to realign Route 235.
As announced this past Wednesday, the final solution was to reinstate SPP's Alternative 14, which is also the consultant's No. 3 minus the reference to the East Parking Lot.
"They [the consultants and NPS] will still make reference to all possible alternatives in their draft report, which should be out in about 60 days. But we have an agreement," Cossey assured. He estimated the final solution is still about four or five months in the future.
THAT DRAFT REPORT is contingent on the NPS making a detailed environmental impact study and submitting it for review by all concerned, according to Audrey Calhoun, superintendent, George Washington Memorial Parkway.
"When you have federal land involved, it is absolutely necessary that you go through the process," Calhoun emphasized. "We intend to concentrate most of the study on the solution which everybody seemed to be in agreement with, but we have to look at everything. I anticipated it will be completed sometime during the summer."
Another SPP member, Sheldon W. Hoenig, in a memo to Hyland after the meeting, stated, "I notice that you did not dismiss the SPP. I think that some method of communication between the Park Service and Mount Vernon on the one hand and the citizens on the other is necessary. ... Just as the SPP met with the Federal Highway Administration and its contractor, the SPP could meet with the people who will do the detail design and building."
As Rees noted, "It was a long road to get to the solution. I give a lot of credit to both the government agencies, the Mount Vernon residents and the SPP for their perseverance."
In the final analysis, Cossey pointed out, "It only took one hour to reach agreement. It was the shortest meeting we [SPP] have ever had."