Citizens Ask Court to Enforce Law, Protect Park.

Residents of Rock Creek Hills and the Kensington Park Retirement Community, led by the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association, have filed litigation in Montgomery County Circuit Court to protect Rock Creek Hills Park. The proposed conversion of Rock Creek Hills Park to non-park use would violate state and federal law, and so citizens have asked the court to enforce the law. The plaintiffs are hopeful that they will prevail, and that the park and all its recreational assets will be protected for future generations.

A Thank You to the Parks Department. [repost]

A thank you to the Parks Department, for recent landscape improvements to Rock Creek Hills Park, and the refreshed & repainted park sign.

(Photo 2/18/12; click image for full-screen.)

(Reposted from February of this year.)

Citizens Appeal to State, Seek to Protect Park.

Seeking to preserve an important county asset, citizens of Kensington’s Rock Creek Hills community have filed an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education, asking the State board to overturn the Montgomery County school board’s recent decision to take the site of Rock Creek Hills Park to build a middle school.

In their appeal, the citizens, joined by the Rock Creek Hills Citizens' Association, write that the county board "... failed to fulfill its obligation to select a site that would most adequately meet the program needs of its students and assure that it was making the most fiscally prudent decision."

The citizens also intend to file litigation to compel the state of Maryland to enforce its Program Open Space law and protect Rock Creek Hills Park from being improperly converted from park use.

Rock Creek Hills Park, the heart of the Rock Creek Hills community, is an important recreational asset for Montgomery County, featuring two regulation soccer fields, which are in high demand and short supply in the dense "DownCounty" area. Last year, the county's Parks Department issued permits for over 1200 hours of use of the fields (such permitted use is the only use for which records are kept) by groups from around the county, including the state-champion B-CC High School girls' soccer team.

The appellants are hopeful that they will prevail, and that the park and all its recreational assets will be protected for future generations.

Come to the RCHCA Meeting on Thursday!

Come to the Rock Creek Hills Citizens' Association meeting Thursday night!

Help save Rock Creek Hills Park, Thursday May 24th, by attending the 7:30 PM meeting of the RCHA at the Grace Episcopal School, 9411 Connecticut Ave., Kensington. And don't be late; please plan to arrive early.

Here is an update on the matter, as posted on May 11th on the Rock Creek Hills Citizen's Association website:

School Site and Litigation Update 

As most know, on April 17 the Montgomery County School Board again selected our local park, Rock Creek Hills Local Park, as the site for the B-CC Middle School #2. The School Board did so despite the limitations of our park as a school site, including its size, projected enrollment growth, and probable construction cost. While we are of course concerned with the implications for our community, it is important to emphasize that there are educational, budget, and recreation issues that transcend our immediate concerns and would affect many outside our community. The School Board’s decision was particularly troublesome because the Planning Board Chair expressed a willingness to cooperate and work with them to select a site of mutual benefit that would best fit the needs of both the school and park systems. 

Based on the instructions at our last meeting, RCHCA will file an administrative appeal shortly with the State Board of Education. We see no basis for the School Board’s decision that would destroy a valuable recreation resource. Because we will be handling this internally based on prior experience, we expect the cost to be minimal. 

A second issue is more complicated and would require the use of outside counsel with expertise in land use issues. We have consulted two land use attorneys and have confidential memos from both that indicate a strong cause to challenge the relevant state agency, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It is DNR’s practice that would make Rock Creek Hills Local Park available to the School Board when there is no statutory basis for DNR’s position. 

It is the conclusion of the lawyer we would retain that there are meritorious grounds to bring an action. If RCHCA prevails, the School Board would have to replace the land and all the facilities with a 13 acre site elsewhere in the surrounding community before it could take action to reclaim Rock Creek Hills Local Park. This is what we believe Maryland law requires of the School Board and this would be difficult for it to do. 

Any action would be in two phases. The first is an action in local court to challenge DNR’s practice as not supported by law. While our prospects are good, this action will require complete participation by the Kensington community. If our community comes together to save the integrity of our neighborhood and the heart of this community, Rock Creek Hills Local Park, and the valuable attributes that this green space brings to our neighborhood, then we will have a good chance of success. We are asking for contributions [emphasis added] per household of $250 (and welcome higher or lesser amounts) to fund the first phase of the litigation against DNR. If a second phase is needed, an appeal, we will examine the basis for any appeal before moving forward with any additional litigation. 

Remember that funding for the DNR litigation is a voluntary contribution. Any funds received will be placed in a separately designated account and will not be commingled with our normal operating funds. Nor will operating funds be used henceforth to support this DNR litigation. The amount of each contribution will be recorded on a spread sheet and if there are any surplus funds, they will be refunded pro rata to the households making the contributions. The check for funds should be made to the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association and be mailed to 9616 Old Spring Road, Kensington, MD, 20895. 

We will discuss this matter at our May 24 meeting, but if you support the proposed action against DNR it would be helpful to know the extent of support and your contribution in advance. All contributions and commitments regarding the proposed DNR litigation are confidential and inquiries should be made to the undersigned at jmarkrobinson@verizon.net. You do not need to be a member to support the proposed litigation [emphasis added], but you do need to be a member to vote at the May 24 meeting.

Coalition of Kensington Communities asks Montgomery County Council: "What is the compelling public interest and rationale for building a school that does not meet the minimum objective criteria of the MCPS selection process?"

Yesterday, the Coalition of Kensington Communities sent a letter to the Montgomery County Council restating their opposition to the replacement of Rock Creek Hills Park with a middle school:

Board of Education member: Rock Creek Hills Park not "adequate size," so Montgomery Hills site would also be needed.

Ms. Françoise Carrier, Chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board, attended the April 17th meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Education. There, Board of Education member Ms. Laura Berthiaume told Ms. Carrier that, due to the small size of Rock Creek Hills Park, if Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) were to take the park to build B-CC middle school #2, then it would soon become necessary to build a third B-CC middle school, on the site of the former Montgomery Hills Junior High (currently the Yeshiva and Torah School of Greater Washington).

Ms. Laura Berthiaume, Member of the Montgomery County Board of Education:

"Our duty is to build a school sufficient to the needs of our future population. If we were to come back and say what we think is, because there's more land at North Chevy Chase, if you would be willing to talk with us about that, there would be adequate size to build, to only build once, rather than going back in seven years for the Montgomery Hills Junior High site, which I project would be necessary – "

Ms. Françoise Carrier, Chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board:

"For the middle school?"

LB: "For a third middle school because there's just not going to be enough room – "

FC: "At the Rock Creek [Hills] site you mean?"

LB: "Yes, eventually. "

FC: "Well, that would certainly be a shame."

Ms. Carrier  told Ms. Berthiaume and the other members of the Board of Education that the Planning Board was willing to discuss the much larger North Chevy Chase Local Park, MCPS's recommended alternate site, in order to minimize impacts on park users:

LB: "It was suggested in some of the testimony that Parks and Planning is open to negotiations... What I want to know is... having looked at an aerial [photograph] of North Chevy Chase, there's lots of land there, and not much actual facilities in terms of park facilities. It looks to me like it wouldn't be that hard to put a school at the back of it. Is Parks and Planning willing to negotiate to take a look at a joint use of that site, rather than get into loggerheads over Rock Creek Hills or Lynnbroook?"

FC: "I think we're certainly willing to negotiate about North Chevy Chase..."

However, the Board of Education declined to discuss the issue further with the Planning Board.  (The first year of appropriation for the project is 2014; there's time to consider Planning Board options.)  Instead, in a decision that appears arbitrary and capricious, the Board of Education voted at that meeting to take Rock Creek Hills Park, even though the MCPS recommended alternate site is much larger, better comports with site evaluation criteria, and would likely reduce construction costs by $4-6 million.

Board of Education Votes to Take Rock Creek Hills Park.

Today the Montgomery County Board of Education voted unanimously to approve the Montgomery County Public Schools proposal to take the site of of Rock Creek Hills Park from the Parks Department in order to build a middle school.

Mr. John Robinson, President of the Rock Creek Hills Citizens' Association, said:

"The residents of Rock Creek Hills are very disappointed that the Board of Education selected Rock Creek Hills Local Park as the site for the proposed B-CC Middle School # 2 without further discussions with the Montgomery County Planning Board. Planning Board Chair Carrier made clear that the Planning Board was willing to discuss North Chevy Chase Local Park as another alternative. However the Board of Education declined to discuss the issue further even though the North Chevy Chase Local Park site is much larger and would likely involve less construction costs than the local park the Board of Education selected."

How can the Superintendent justify a decision that his own staff can't defend?

On Friday a letter was sent from Montgomery County Planning Board Chair Françoise Carrier to Montgomery County Board of Education President Shirley Brandman, reporting on the Planning Board's review of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) proposal to take the site of of Rock Creek Hills Park from the Parks Department in order to build a middle school. The letter is timely, as the Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the proposal tomorrow. More to the point, although MCPS claims to have conducted a thorough analysis of sites, it couldn't answer questions about sites considered, even the site it selected as the recommended alternative to Rock Creek Hills Park:

"The Board found it difficult to fully assess the cost to the park system of MCPS taking North Chevy Chase Local Park rather than Rock Creek Hills Local Park because no information was available about which parts of the North Chevy Chase site school facilities would occupy, and which existing park facilities might be preserved. While two MCPS personnel attended our mandatory referral meeting and participated when asked, neither had any information about what the MCPS program would look like on that site."

The Planning Board provides an evaluation of the recent MCPS Site Selection Advisory Committee (SSAC):

"The majority of the Planning Board expressed concerns about the SSAC process, most notably that the sites reviewed by the SSAC did not receive a thorough analysis in a manner that would allow the SSAC and the Planning Board to adequately compare and contrast impacts and cost."

The letter reports the vote of the Planning Board Commissioners that:

"MCPS should enter into serious discussions with the Parks Staff and the Planning Board to assess the feasibility of locating the middle school on the combined site of the former Lynnbrook Elementary School and Lynnbrook Local Park..." 

When agencies team up to develop the best outcome possible, everyone wins. The Parks Department offer of land that they own, to serve the needs of MCPS, is an example of the professionalism we should expect from our public servants.

You can read the three-page letter from Chair Carrier to President Brandman below:

"Taking away a park ... is not only an incalculable loss but a serious breach of public trust."

[Testimony by Ms. Ginny Barnes, Vice-Chair, Conservation Montgomery, at the April 9th meeting of the Montgomery County Planning Board]

Conservation Montgomery’s commitment to the environment in Montgomery County is based in large part on preserving and protecting public parkland. We have one of the most extensive and diverse park systems in the region. They are no accident but the result of real vision and careful, long term planning. It is disheartening to realize our much admired public school system is not engaged in the same approach to their future needs. How can it be when it assumes parkland is simply ‘vacant’ land, ‘free,’ theirs for the taking. Parks are not undeveloped land just waiting to be used. No parkland is ‘free,’ and no park is completely undeveloped. Taking away a park from a neighborhood or community is not only an incalculable loss but a serious breach of public trust.

Parks are our community schools of the outdoors. Our family classrooms where we play; where we learn to get along with each other through games, and touch the natural world beneath leafy canopies of trees. We exercise our imaginations as Robin Hood’s merry men or princesses of rural kingdoms and when we have children of our own, we bring them to do the same in the parks we loved when young. This is a rightful legacy. It should be inviolate. We should never have to make a choice between a school and a park. We don’t have to now.

From the beginning of this site selection process, there have been flaws piled one upon the other. First, in assuming the ‘right of recall’ was a given without need of justification. Then in holding the belief parkland is ‘vacant.’ The Board of Education has prioritized parkland because they don’t have to buy it. But what do they intend to give in exchange for taking it back after 20+ years? Anything? Serious process flaws in the second act of this drama are just as numerous as the first time. Why not include available private land in the site consideration? Failure to do so only makes parkland continue to be seen as the obvious priority. How can any valid choice be made without a principal component on the table?

Though resource atlas generated maps were available to the Site Selection Advisory Committee, Parks staff was not asked to give an evaluation of sites using the resource atlas tool. This is where science really serves establishment of the greater good. As a member of the Trails Working Group, I’ve seen firsthand how the resource atlas can provide invaluable multilayered data that verify, without spending scarce dollars, the physical constraints and environmental costs of one route over another, and even lead to options as yet unconsidered. In this case, that analysis, were it available to participants in the selection process through the parks staff, expertise with the tool itself would have benefitted all concerned.

We support the Staff recommendation that the first priority should be the purchase of a private site and not the taking of any parkland from any community. When the Planning Commission wants land for parks, it has to buy it. Why shouldn’t the Board of Education do the same?

Planning Board Asks MCPS to Take a Harder Look at Lynnbrook.

Tonight the Montgomery County Planning Board conducted their "mandatory referral" review of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) proposal to construct a middle school for the Bethesda - Chevy Chase cluster on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park.

The meeting lasted almost four hours, comprised of staff reports, public testimony, and deliberation.

The Planning Board commissioners voted to recommend that MCPS take a harder look at the former Lynnbrook Elementary School site (owned by MCPS) and the adjacent Lynnbrook Local Park, and that the Planning Board and the Board of Education should negotiate regarding use of the Lynnbrook Local Park site for this purpose.

"I am here tonight to support the recommendation of your staff..."

[Testimony at the April 9, 2012 meeting of the Montgomery County Planning Board]

Good evening, Ms. Carrier, and fellow Commissioners.

My name is Dr. James Pekar, and I am a resident of Rock Creek Hills. I am here tonight to support the recommendation of your staff, and the testimony of Mr. John Robinson. I will not repeat any of the points they have made.

I would like to address, briefly, some specifics of the middle school that Montgomery County Public Schools proposes to build upon the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, according to the feasibility study they completed last summer, even though the park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of their middle school site evaluation criteria.

• The feasibility study proposes construction on the steep slope of the small site, in contravention of concerns expressed by this body [County Planning Board] and the County Council decades ago. This, and substantial regrading of the entire site, would raise costs; an Independent Construction Budget Estimate, commissioned by the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association, puts 2017 total costs at $64.5 million, almost 40% above the MCPS estimate. Entrances for those arriving by car and and by bus would be located on different levels of the school, heightening security demands and increasing staffing requirements.

• A middle school on this site would be the one on the smallest site, in the entire county, without an adjoining (or “co-located”) park to provide space for student recreation and sports. All final feasibility study options used "overlaid" playing fields, which would limit student athletics.

• The MCPS Director of Construction confirms that "none of the three options provide the 125 on-site parking [spaces] called for in the educational specifications," and parking is restricted in the narrow surrounding streets.

• The site fails to meet each element of the official "access" criterion: Frontage on a primary [70 foot right-of-way] road; three access points (for safety, to separate cars, buses, and trucks); community sidewalks. None of the final feasibility study options have three access points, or a separate service drive.

Under your stewardship, Rock Creek Hills Park is a success story of multipurpose recreational greenspace, serving the needs of three constituencies: the elderly, park users, and the community. It would be a shame to lose it for a school that fails to provide parity with other middle schools in the county.

Thank you.

Planning Board Staff Recommend Rejection of Site Selection Advisory Committee Recommendations.

"Staff recommends that the Planning Board not accept MCPS’s site selection advisory committee’s recommendation to construct the new BCC Middle School #2 on the site of either the current Rock Creek Hills Local Park or North Chevy Chase Local Park. Instead, staff recommends that MCPS take a harder look at the viability of three other options. These three options include:

• Purchase of a private site
• The former Montgomery Hills Junior High School Site
• The former Lynnbrook Elementary School site and the adjacent Lynnbrook Local Park

Both the Montgomery Hills and Lynbrook sites were on the original list evaluated by MCPS’s site selection advisory committee, as well as 13 private sites that were reviewed confidentially."

Ignoring the Facts, Indifferent to the Elderly.

Last Friday, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) issued a news release containing this erroneous description of Rock Creek Hills Park:

"The property was previously owned by the Board of Education and was the location of Kensington Junior High School, which closed in 1979. The Board transferred the land to the county, with the provision it could be reclaimed if the land was ever needed for a school. The property was subsequently transferred to the Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) in 1990 for use as a park."

That statement is inaccurate. Look:

The Kensington Park Retirement Community stands on much 
of the site of the former Kensington Junior High School.

After Kensington Junior High School (KJH) was closed, the site was broken up, with about the northern third deeded to our county's Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), which financed with tax exempt bonds the building of a facility providing independent living, assisted living, and Alzheimer's care to over 200 senior citizens. Thus, the old KJH site is now a dual-use site, balancing compatibility among three constituencies: The elder-care facility, park users, and the community.

Rock Creek Hills Park, itself, is substantially reduced from the former KJH site —  it is significantly smaller, and lacks a former access road to the North, as well as a through North-South roadway. Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the MCPS middle school site evaluation criteria; the 2011 MCPS feasibility study proposed building on the steep slope of the small site, in contravention of concerns expressed by the Planning Board and County Council decades ago.

Friday's error is disappointing, but not surprising, given MCPS's history of repeatedly ignoring facts and manifesting indifference towards the existence of the elderly residents of Kensington Park:

• In April of 2011, before the Board of Education voted to select the site of Rock Creek Hills Park as the location of B-CC middle school #2, MCPS failed to notify the HOC, Kensington Park management, or Kensington Park residents.
• In May of 2011, before the Board of Education voted to approve a "feasibility study" for B-CC middle school #2 on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, MCPS failed to notify the HOC, Kensington Park management, or Kensington Park residents.
• In December of 2011, when MCPS assembled the recent, supposedly inclusive, site selection advisory committee, they failed to provide representation to the HOC, Kensington Park management, or Kensington Park residents.

During the feasibility study conducted over the summer of 2011, MCPS officials were asked what steps would be taken to protect the elderly residents of Kensington Park from what was estimated to be a two-year period of heavy construction, right next to their home. The answer was, "That has not been an issue that's been brought up:"

After this issue was brought up, MCPS failed to address it. As Friday's news release shows yet again, MCPS seems to be more comfortable ignoring the facts about the site, and pretending that these elderly simply do not exist.

"These officials have a broad stewardship responsibility; they are charged with balancing greater community interests. When they point to a flawed process, weak analysis, and a directed result, it is our duty to take note."

[Testimony at the March 26th meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Education]

Good evening, Dr. Starr, President Brandman, and members of the Board.

My name is James Pekar, and I am here again to ask you not to build a middle school on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, which fails to meet the overwhelming majority of your middle school site evaluation criteria.

The recently concluded site selection advisory process gave committee members the opportunity to file Minority Reports. I would like to call to your attention two dissenting Minority Reports filed by members of our Park and Planning Commission. These officials have a broad stewardship responsibility; they are charged with balancing greater community interests. When they point to a flawed process, weak analysis, and a directed result, it is our duty to take note. [Copies of their reports are attached to my written testimony.]

Ms. Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor, Park and Trail Planning with the Parks Department, writes, in part: "Costs were not thoroughly evaluated in the process and misinformation may have prejudiced the votes of committee members.... The process lacked a robust analysis. The potential sites should have been analyzed more thoroughly, based on detailed information that would allow consistent comparison across the sites."

Mr. Frederick V. Boyd, Community Planner with the Planning Board, writes, in part: "Implicit throughout committee discussions was the idea that a decision had to be made quickly… [T]he rating process used for selecting sites did not provide a real opportunity to consider the community character and quality of life consequences of choosing a candidate site. Six of the eight criteria considered specific physical qualities of a site — its location, size, topography, access, availability of utilities and physical condition — in isolation from its neighborhood and from broader issues of recreation and environmental stewardship. The remaining two — availability and cost — are equally aimed at specific properties. Indeed, their descriptions appear to have been written to enable easier consideration of some public sites; cost is defined as 'The cost to acquire a site is considered, compared to sites that may be in public ownership.' This implies that there are fewer acquisition or other costs associated with public ownership than with private sites."

The capital budget approved by our County Council for B-CC middle school #2 has the first spending occurring on the design phase, in the 2013-2014 fiscal year, which is more than a year from now. So, without endangering the planned 2017 opening date, there is time to find a location superior to the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, which fails to meet the overwhelming majority of your middle school site evaluation criteria.

Thank you.

"I do not think it makes sense in this ever-growing and commercially developing area to completely replace a well-used and well-maintained park with a school. Both serve vital community needs, and replacing one with the other actually sets us back in terms of public use of land."

[An email from Ms. Jill Gallagher to Montgomery County Planning Board Chair Ms. Françoise Carrier]

From: Jill Gallagher
Date: March 20, 2012 3:23:06 PM
To: MCP-Chair@mncppc-mc.org
Subject: Rock Creek Hills Park

Dear Ms. Carrier,

I have serious concerns with the potential transfer of Rock Creek Hills Park to MCPS for construction of a middle school. As you know, the Rock Creek Hills neighborhood regards the park as a valued asset, one that is shared with thousands of county residents — both young and old — who come to the park each year to run, bike, walk, and play soccer, lacrosse, tennis, basketball, and roller hockey. Building a school at this park would remove most of the park’s current amenities, including two highly valued regulation-sized soccer fields.

Proof of the desperate need for soccer fields is the recent much-publicized effort by Montgomery Soccer Inc. (MSI) to secure fields for its soccer league at the Brickyard site in Potomac. MSI has spent several years and tens of thousands of dollars on lobbying efforts to lease public school land for private soccer fields because in its words, “The Montgomery County Department of Parks has documented huge needs for soccer fields in Montgomery County, especially in areas that range from Bethesda to North Potomac. There are limited opportunities to satisfy these needs, especially in terms of sites that can support more than one new field. As important as anything is the fact that these fields, and many more, need to be built somewhere, and need to be convenient to the families and children who will use them.” And, “There is no mistaking the fact that Montgomery County needs to increase and enhance their infrastructure of parks and athletic facilities for a growing population… Already, this infrastructure has failed to keep pace.” However, even MSI's Brickyard deal goes through, it will not satisfy the public's need for soccer fields.

I do not think it makes sense in this ever-growing and commercially developing area to completely replace a well-used and well-maintained park with a school. Both serve vital community needs, and replacing one with the other actually sets us back in terms of public use of land.

In a June 2, 2011, letter to Christopher Barclay, Ms. Carrier, you wrote of your desire to discuss “park-school co-locations which can favorably meet multiple public needs, provided the available acreage is sufficient,” adding that “substantive policy discussions” need to take place concerning the use of park property to fill the school system’s unanticipated and urgent need for land. Are you still committed to this idea?

Rock Creek Hills does not meet the standard of “park-school co-location.” Instead, the park will be lost completely. In January, MCPS said that 10.1 flat acres is the absolute minimum for building a middle school. At 11 buildable acres, with steep slopes, there is no margin for error and little room for growth at Rock Creek Hills Park. The costs associated with building a school for the minimum number of students also make it an expensive gamble for taxpayers.

The small site also means more impact on the surrounding neighborhood, which must bear the burden of insufficient on-site parking for cars and buses, and suffer the loss of most of the trees that provide buffer and environmental benefits.

Rock Creek Hills Park is currently co-located with Kensington Park Retirement Community, which sits on much of the former Kensington Junior High School site. Thirty years ago, MCPS chose to close Kensington Junior High School and transfer a large portion of the KJH site to the county to use to fulfill a community need for elderly housing, which is in short supply in our area. I believe the park is an appropriate joint land use with this facility, as opposed to a middle school.

I hope that our county will implement a sound land use policy in this case and in the future that would attempt to balance the need for both schools and parks, and choose sites that serve the community’s multiple needs and do not completely remove a well-used, well-loved park.

Sincerely,
Jill Gallagher
Kensington, Maryland

"The Bethesda-Chevy Chase middle school site selection process was rushed and did not allow for a complete cost and impact analysis, according to recently released minority reports."

The Gazette, March 21, 2012.

The article "Bethesda-Chevy Chase middle school site selection rushed, critics say" by Jessica Ablamsky appears in today's Gazette newspaper.

5 FAQs

"Five Frequently Asked Questions About the Middle School Proposed for the Site of Rock Creek Hills Park" appears on patch.com.

Lyttonsville Civic Association: "Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."

The Lyttonsville Civic Association has filed a Minority Report with the Site Selection Advisory Committee.

The report states: "In some cases, MCPS staff set inappropriate boundaries for discussion, for example not allowing discussion of combining two adjacent sites to produce a better single site. In other cases, MCPS staff cut off discussion to insist that a vote be taken before the committee had finished considering all their options. Staff also made procedural rulings that affected the ability of some representatives to speak freely. Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."

"B-CC HS [NAACP] Parents' Council cannot support the recommendation to build the new middle school in a potentially racially divisive and socially isolating location."

The B-CC High School NAACP Parents' Council has filed a Minority Report dissenting from the recommendation of the Site Selection Advisory Committee.

The report states that the "... B-CC HS Parents’ Council cannot support the recommendation to build the new middle school in a potentially racially divisive and socially isolating location. ... We, therefore, ask the Superintendent and the Board of Education to decline to adopt Rock Creek Hills Local Park as the site for the new middle school."

M-NCPPC staffer: "Misinformation may have prejudiced the votes of committee members."

Two staff members of the Maryland – National Capital Park & Planning Commission have filed Minority Reports dissenting from the recommendation of the Site Selection Advisory Committee.

Ms. Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor, Park and Trail Planning with the Parks Department, writes: "Costs were not thoroughly evaluated in the process and misinformation may have prejudiced the votes of committee members.... The process lacked a robust analysis. The potential sites should have been analyzed more thoroughly, based on detailed information that would allow consistent comparison across the sites."



Mr. Frederick V. Boyd, Community Planner with the Planning Board, writes: "[T]he rating process used for selecting sites did not provide a real opportunity to consider the community character and quality of life consequences of choosing a candidate site. Six of the eight criteria considered specific physical qualities of a site — its location, size, topography, access, availability of utilities and physical condition — in isolation from its neighborhood and from broader issues of recreation and environmental stewardship. The remaining two — availability and cost — are equally aimed at specific properties. Indeed, their descriptions appear to have been written to enable easier consideration of some public sites; cost is defined as 'The  cost to acquire a site is considered, compared to sites that may be in public ownership.' This implies that there are fewer acquisition or other costs associated with public ownership than with private sites."

Come to Thursday's RCHCA meeting!

Come to the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association meeting Thursday night!

Help save Rock Creek Hills Park, this Thursday night, by attending the 7:30 PM meeting of the RCHA at the Grace Episcopal Day School, 9411 Connecticut Ave., Kensington.

Without conducting comparative analysis of alternatives, and without relevant information needed to evaluate suitability of sites, a Montgomery County Public Schools advisory committee has recommended that the site of Rock Creek Hills Park be taken from the Parks Department for construction of a middle school, although the park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the Board of Education's middle school site evaluation criteria, and would not yield parity with other middle schools in the County.

And building on the steep slope of the small site would be an expensive waste of scarce taxpayer dollars: An independent construction budget estimate (ICBE) finds that the 2011 MCPS feasibility study for a middle school on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park underestimated costs by approximately eighteen million dollars. The ICBE puts 2017 total costs at $64.5 million, almost 40% above the MCPS estimate.

Learn more from the RCHCA Minority Report.

Don’t let the Board of Education impact the character of our community without your input. Now is the time to ask MCPS for a quality education for our children. Join us at the meeting!

[Only Rock Creek Hills residents who are dues-paying members of the RCHCA will be able to vote at the meeting. If you are a Rock Creek Hills resident who is not paid up, you can pay your $35 dues (by check only!) at the meeting. Please arrive early if you need to pay your dues. Dues are per household but votes are per person, so make it a date.]

Join friends of Rock Creek Hills Park on Thursday night!


RCHCA meeting at 7:30 PM.
Grace Episcopal Day School,
9411 Connecticut Ave.,
Kensington.

Expert: MCPS Underestimates Cost of Proposed School by $18 Million.

Total Cost to Taxpayers Would Be $64.5 Million.

An independent construction budget estimate (ICBE) finds that the 2011 Montgomery County Public Schools feasibility study for a middle school on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park underestimated costs by approximately eighteen million dollars. The ICBE puts 2017 total costs at $64.5 million, almost 40% above the MCPS estimate. See page 7 (and attached ICBE) of the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association Minority Report (below).

"This document contains the Minority Report of the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association (RCHCA) dissenting from the recommendation of the second Site Selection Advisory Committee (SSAC). 
...
The site selection process had some significant limitations, such as the lack of analytical application of each criterion, which we believe is reflected in the outcome here. Our comments, however, focus on only the most serious of these limitations: the lack of all relevant information required to evaluate and discern suitability of all sites accurately, thus compromising an informed determination. 
... 

The SSAC decision lacks analytical rigor and substantive integrity.
..."

-from the Minority Report of the RCHCA:

"I am urging you to choose an appropriate site for this school."

[an email from Ms. Maria Marzullo to Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Joshua P. Starr]

From: Maria Marzullo
Date: 7 March 2012 10:14
Subject: BCC Middle School Site Selection & Eight Criteria
To: Joshua_Starr@mcpsmd.org

Dear Superintendent Starr,

As a resident of Rock Creek Hills, I was very pleased with your decision to re-open the site selection process for the proposed BCC Milddle School. I was especially glad to see your detailed set of eight criteria by which each site should be evaluated. Unfortunately, an analysis of the eight criteria was not conducted for each site (or, at a minimum, the top 5-10 most viable ones) during the four Site Selection Committee meetings. The only time the eight criteria were considered was for the final vote on the last two sites (Rock Creek Hills and North Chevy Chase Park), and, even then, the two sites were not evaluated and reviewed side by side on those criteria (in fact, a member of the SSAC specifically asked for this review to be completed, and was dismissed).

Instead, there was a very subjective input and written detail provided on "pros" and "cons" for each site that were inconsistent and often inaccurate or misleading. I have highlighted just two, regarding park retention and street widths, below:

RETENTION OF A PARK:
In the Site Selection Committee notes, Rock Creek Hills had a "PRO" listed as "retention of a park". The facts are, based on the feasibility study, the site is not large enough to retain a park for community use.  Some facilities could be used after school hours and school use, but even these are greatly diminished:

Lost completely:

• Children's playground 
• Street Hockey rink
• Gazebo and picnic areas
• Regulation sized soccer field (2 regulation fields exist today)

Limited and diminished use:

• Basketball courts - short term (available only until portables are needed since this is the only area available to support portables on the site)
• Tennis courts
• One, smaller, multiple use field for soccer, soft ball, lacrosse
• Walking, biking trail

Rock Creek Hills Park was inaccurately portrayed as being able to retain a park; other sites that were twice or three times as large had "CONS" of losing fields, and did not have "PROS" of park retention.

ACCESS and STREET WIDTHS: 
One of the preferences detailed in the site selection meetings was to have 60 foot [wide] roads that access the site. The size of streets was not detailed in the notes or presentations to the Site Selection Committee. Mr. Stapelton, from the bus depot, verbalized some measurements at the third meeting.  However, what was presented was misleading and in one case completely inaccurate.  Norwood Park was cited as having 26 foot roads. However, the main access road to this park, Norwood Road, is 55 feet wide.  It currently has a 15 foot median, which still leaves a 40 foot width. Yet, this site was eliminated due to "narrow" roads.

Here are some facts on the roads that access Rock Creek Hills Park:

• Both Saul Road and Haverhill Drive are only 26-27 feet wide. There is no arterial road access to this site.
• If there are cars parked on both sides of the street, there is only, at a maximum, 10-11 feet of clearance in total.
• Per the feasibility study, there will not be enough parking at this site from day one. That will mean that cars will need to park on the streets in the neighborhood.  This fact was not highlighted in the meetings.
• The elderly housing facility, that is located on the third of the original site, does not have sufficient parking. Cars are parked along Littledale Road and Haverhill Drive to support their needs.
• There is nothing in the feasibility study, nor any mention, of the need to widen the roads to support the school.
• More importantly - there is no cost budgeted or included in the projections of building this school to widen roads.

The fact that MCPS can easily acquire this site due to the reclaim provision does not mean that Rock Creek Hills Park is an appropriate, let alone the best, site for a middle school. Any dollars, time and negotiations that are perceived to be saved by using this reclaim provision are negated by the expensive reality of building a school on such a small, challenging site.

The feasibility study for Rock Creek Hills Park has already shown that the site is too small to allow for any growth, parking will be deficient on the day the school opens, there are not enough spaces to support the required number of buses, and the only space for portables is on the basketball courts. Given the growth we have seen in the county over the last few years coupled with the growth expected for the revitalization plans for Bethesda, the Kensington Sector, and Chevy Chase Lake, it would be foolhardy to spend taxpayer dollars on a school that will be inadequate in size from the start.

The reclaim provision, the fact that a feasibility study has been completed, and the rush to construct this school are all factors leading to a poor decision that will hurt our public schools and our community for many, many years. I am urging you to choose an appropriate site for this school. Much better sites have already been identified, will not delay the opening of the school, and can be constructed with lower costs and less impact to the community.

Thank you,
Maria Marzullo
Kensington, Maryland

Revised Schedule.

Recent reports (here & from the Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association) stated that the Planning Board would review the report of the B-CC middle school #2 site selection advisory committee, before the Superintendent of Schools makes his recommendation to the Board of Education. However, the Planning Board will review both the committee's report and the Superintendent’s recommendation, before the Board of Education votes:

• March 12th (Monday). Site selection advisory committee report released.
• March 15th (Thursday). Planning Board briefed on site selection advisory committee report & recommendations. 
• March 26th (Monday). Board of Education discusses B-CC middle school #2 site selection.
• March 30th (Friday). Superintendent of Schools issues his recommendation. 
• April 9th (Monday). Planning Board conducts "mandatory referral" review.
• April 12th (Thursday). Board of Education votes on Superintendent's recommendation. 

Last night...

Last night the site selection advisory committee for Bethesda - Chevy Chase Middle School #2 held its final meeting. After lengthly consideration of private sites, the group evaluated the two remaining public sites, ranking Rock Creek Hills Park above North Chevy Chase Park.

The two park sites will undergo "mandatory referral" review by the Planning Board, after which the Superintendent of Schools will recommend a site to the Board of Education, who would then request the County Council to fund construction.

Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official site evaluation criteria. The site does not appear to provide parity with other middle schools in the county.

A thank you to the Parks Department.

A thank you to the Parks Department, for recent landscape improvements to Rock Creek Hills Park, and the refreshed & repainted park sign.

(Photo 2/18/12; click image for larger version.)

"The role of parks in a community..." [repost]

"The role of parks in a community is really so important to people of all ages."

 - from comments by Montgomery County Councilmember Ms. Nancy Floreen at the 7/25/11 joint meeting of the Council's Education (ED) and Planning, Housing & Economic Development (PHED) Committees.

"I moved into my house ... because it's down the street from a park." [repost]

"I moved into my house  –  it's rather small, not much room  –  because it's down the street from a park."

 - from comments by Mr. Christopher Barclay, Vice President, Montgomery County Board of Education, at the 6/30/11 joint meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Education and the Maryland – National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

What does the 2011 "feasibility study" say about Rock Creek Hills Park? [repost]

Rock Creek Hills Park is unique among listed candidate sites for B-CC middle school #2 in that a "feasibility study" regarding the proposal to replace the park with a middle school complex has been completed. Given the expenditure of money, time, and effort on this feasibility study, it is prudent to ask: What does the 2011 feasibility study say about Rock Creek Hills Park as a potential middle school site? In fact, the feasibility study illuminates site deficiencies that are consequences of the decision made thirty years ago to deed one-third of the former Kensington Junior High School site to the Housing Opportunities Commission, which built the Kensington Park Retirement Community on much of the footprint of the old school. Consider:

The 2011 feasibility study shows that Rock Creek Hills Park is too small.

• In June, when the first design schematics were presented by Samaha Associates, the Virginia firm that was paid $67,500 to conduct the feasibility study, two of the three options presented routed school buses over basketball courts:

Busball, anyone? Early signs of struggles with the small site.

• In October, all three final feasibility study options used "overlaid" playing fields:

When is a soccer field not a soccer field? 

Whenever someone's playing softball.

When is a tennis court not a tennis court?

Whenever someone's running track.

(And when is a basketball court not a basketball court? 

When "portable classrooms" are parked on it.)

• In December, the Montgomery County Public Schools Director of Construction wrote that "none of the three [final feasibility study] options provide the 125 on-site parking [spaces] called for in the educational specifications".

The 2011 feasibility study shows that Rock Creek Hills Park has inadequate access.

One official site criterion is "access", which has four parts: Frontage on a primary (70 foot right-of-way) road; three access points; a separate service drive; community sidewalks.  The park fails to meet each of these elements, and in particular: 

• None of the three final feasibility study "options" have three access points;

• None of the three final feasibility study "options" have a separate service drive.

The 2011 feasibility study shows that the proposed construction would obliterate Rock Creek Hills Park.

• In July, the Montgomery County Parks Director said that construction would "obliterate" the park.

• In August, Montgomery County Public Schools appeared to agree that "there's not going to be any trees left":

"... you're doing grading and adjusting the levels everyplace, 

so there's not going to be any trees left."

The 2011 feasibility study proposed a middle school that is too small to meet projected enrollment; to meet bus, faculty, parent and visitor parking; and to provide adequate playing fields. To accommodate 1200 students would require expansion, which will increase costs and limit sports programs even more. The site does not provide parity with other middle schools in the county.

Don't Pave Paradise. [repost]

[Watch on YouTube]

But Can They Build It?

Rock Creek Hills Park is unique among listed candidate sites for B-CC middle school #2 in that a "feasibility study" regarding the proposal to replace the park with a 3–4 story middle school complex has been completed. At Wednesday's meeting of the site selection advisory committee, Montgomery County Public Schools staff briefed committee members on the results of that study, without mentioning that all final feasibility study options require extensive & expensive regrading (for example, the athletic field would be dropped four feet) and the destruction of stands of specimen and significant trees, which would require Planning Board approval.

MCPS has not submitted a Forest Conservation Plan to the Planning Board, whose review is required and binding. An appropriate Forest Conservation Plan that preserves identified priority-one forest would result in 8.17 acres of buildable land, smaller than the MCPS-specified 10.1 acre minimum for a middle school (at Wednesday's meeting, the site of the former Lynbrook Elementary School was eliminated from consideration after its buildable area was found to be 8.5 acres).

Also at Wednesday's meeting, Parks Department staff reiterated Planning Board Chair Carrier's stated position that "parks are not free," and that compensation would be required for the loss of this very valuable asset.

Double Feature!

Today's Gazette newspaper includes two articles by Alex Ruoff:

• "Residents, officials debate parks in Kensington, Silver Spring: Neighborhood groups say use of federal funds prohibits building school"
• "School search could pit could pit parks against schools: Neighborhood groups, high prices present daunting tasks for school system"

For more on the latest site selection advisory committee meeting, see:

• "The Battle Continues" in Julie Rasicot's "Education Matters" blog at BethesdaMagazine.com
• "Middle School Siting Could Pit MCPS Against Parks: The Two Departments Disagree on the Use of Open Space" by Damian Garde at Patch.com

Is Rock Creek Hills Park "available"?

Last night, the second meeting of the site selection advisory committee for Bethesda – Chevy Chase middle school #2 took place. Presentations by staff from Montgomery County Public Schools and the Maryland - National Capital Park and Planning Commission touched on the question of whether Rock Creek Hills Park is "available":

• MCPS staff testified that the use of federal Land and Water Conservation Funds and/or state Program Open Space funds to develop Rock Creek Hills Park does not result in any encumbrances to conversion of the site to non-park use. They based this conclusion on one letter taken from a stream of communications between citizens and government officials. However, both the recipients and the author of the letter acknowledge that the letter was followed by other communications, that substantive issues still exist and are pending, and that the author of the letter committed to responding to the substantive issues. The core issue is that parks developed with LWCF and/or POS funds are protected by strict conversion restrictions, and arbitrary limits on enforcement of these restrictions have no basis in law.

• M-NCPPC staff explained the process of "mandatory referral," which is the technical term for Planning Board review of a construction proposal. Staff explained that while mandatory referral review is generally only advisory, their review of a site Forest Conservation Plan is binding. This raises questions about the availability of candidate sites with significant forested areas, including Rock Creek Hills Park.

Last year, MCPS conducted a "feasibility study" for construction of a middle school on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park. The 2011 feasibility study proposed a middle school that is too small to meet projected enrollment; to meet bus, faculty, parent and visitor parking; and to provide adequate playing fields. To accommodate 1200 students would require expansion, which will increase costs and limit sports programs even more. The site does not provide parity with other middle schools in the county. We are confident that the new site selection process will yield solutions superior to the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, which fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official site evaluation criteria.

"Dear Dr. Starr,"

An email to the Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent:

A Shocking Omission.

Montgomery County Public Schools staff threaten credibility of new site selection process.

In November, MCPS Superintendent Dr. Joshua P. Starr explained that our county's use of Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and/or Maryland Program Open Space (POS) funds to develop Rock Creek Hills Park "... was inconsistent with the reclamation terms of the transfer agreement under which the M-NCPPC took title to the property. This was the case since use of these funds places restrictions on future public use of parks, in contradiction with the terms of the original transfer agreement."

Indeed, the Act authorizing LWCF states that "No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary [of the Department of the Interior], be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses." Under the law, parks developed with these funds may not be converted from park use without providing replacement land of equal value in the community. Similar restrictions apply to parks developed with funds from Maryland's POS.

So, it was very surprising last week, at the first meeting of the new site selection advisory committee for B-CC middle school #2, during a discussion of "pros" and "cons", when MCPS staff claimed that a "pro" for selection of Rock Creek Hills Park was that MCPS has a "reclaim right" to the park, without mentioning Dr. Starr's stated concerns regarding strict conversion restrictions resulting from use of LWCF/POS funds.

MCPS staff asserted a conclusion on the status of the site, despite the fact that the Superintendent requested that the site selection be restarted, in part, because the status of the site is in question. By claiming that there exists an unencumbered reclaim right – and omitting mention of the concerns noted by Dr. Starr – MCPS staff risked misleading the public and the members of the committee who are charged with making decisions based on such statements. Sadly, this shocking omission threatens the credibility of the new site selection process.

(Public records show that Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds, administered through Maryland's Program Open Space, were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park.)

[Please note: This posting was delayed in order to give MCPS staff time to clarify their remarks. However, it has now been more than a week since these concerns were communicated to MCPS.]

Quick Question:

The Montgomery County Public Schools official descriptions of the candidate sites for B-CC middle school #2, which form part of the formal basis for the work of the site selection advisory committee, contain significant factual inaccuracies.

Our community's representative brought these to the attention of MCPS staff before the first meeting of the committee, but MCPS declined to make any corrections before or at that meeting. Indeed, as of this writing, MCPS still has not corrected these errors.

So, we ask:

Why would anyone think that a decision based on faulty information would withstand scrutiny?

A Curious Omission.

Last week, during the first meeting of the new site selection advisory committee for B-CC middle school #2, Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented, with no advance public notice, a new minimum requirement of 10.1 acres for a middle school site. Setting a minimum site size is not unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the official list of candidate sites for last year's deeply flawed site selection process was widely criticized for including sites as small as 4 acres, which is clearly inadequate. However, the new official minimum requirement of 10.1 acres is still remarkably small when compared to all existing county middle schools (when "co-located" parks are factored in; see below) – and given that the official list of public candidate sites for B-CC middle school #2 now includes six sites of 17 acres or more (including two sites larger than 30 acres). Furthermore, the presentation of this new minimum was marked by a curious omission.

Here is the MCPS powerpoint slide that presents the new minimum:

The slide states that the new minimum is based, in part, on the building footprint of a single middle school, identified as "Lakelands MS":

In fact, the school in question is the Lakelands Park Middle School:

(Go Falcons! Banner from official school website.)

Got that? The name of the school is "Lakelands Park":

(Good luck on exams! School sign.)

The Lakelands Park Middle School is so named because it is adjacent to the 11.6 acre Lakelands Park, and the school uses the park's fields for physical education classes and for team sports. The combined size of the school and park is 19.7 acres:

(click image for larger version)

This is an example of school/park "co-location". Indeed, every MCPS middle school on a site that is smaller than 13 acres is adjacent to a park. A middle school built on a 10.1 acre site, without an adjacent (or "co-located") park providing field space, would be uniquely inadequate, county-wide. Would anyone in the Bethesda – Chevy Chase cluster want that?

So, why did MCPS staff omit the word "Park" from their slide? It certainly wasn't for lack of room:

(Plenty of room  –  shown in yellow  –   for a "Park"!)

In July, Mr. Damian Garde reported in the Kensington Patch on an interview with Ms. Mary Bradford, Montgomery County Director of Parks:

Bradford said the Parks Department has long been amenable to sharing the use of sites with MCPS, but that the proposed middle school [in Rock Creek Hills Park] would leave no room for that. "This is not a matter of finding a space where it works together with the park," she said. "It would obliterate the park, and that's different from sharing the site. We want to work to find a better way."

The Parks Department wants to work to find a better way, but MCPS risked misleading the site selection advisory committee by failing to acknowledge that their "template" school is co-located with a park. In their presentation to the committee, MCPS staff even chose to omit the word "Park" from the name of the school. What a curious omission.

Let's make things better!

This evening, the new site selection advisory committee for Bethesda - Chevy Chase middle school #2 will hold its first meeting. Our community is looking forward to participating in an open fact-based site selection process that we are confident will find solutions superior to Rock Creek Hills Park, which fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official site selection criteria. (On November 17th our County Board of Education rescinded their April 28th decision to take Rock Creek Hills Park from the Parks Department, but the park remains at risk as a "candidate site".)

In November,  Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Joshua Starr wrote: ‎"As we enter into a new site selection process for the new middle school, a priority is to avoid the pitfalls we experienced on the Rock Creek Hills Local Park site selection." Accurate descriptions of candidate sites are critical to avoid the pitfalls of the last site selection. Unfortunately, the new MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park (which forms part of the official starting point for site evaluation by the new site selection advisory committee) contains significant factual inaccuracies:

• DESCRIPTION:
The MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park as "Formerly Kensington Junior High School" does not reflect current land use:

Rock Creek Hills Park is a portion of the former KJH site. Thirty years ago, after KJH was closed, about one-third of the former school site was deeded to the Housing Opportunities Commission, which built the Kensington Park Retirement Community on much of the footprint of the old school. The remainder of the former school site (minus one-third of the land, road access to the North, and a through roadway) was developed into Rock Creek Hills Park.

• TOPOGRAPHY:
The MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park topography states: “Level area with lower level additional parking. Generally slopes towards stream valley to the west.” That's inaccurate. Look:

(Click image for larger version.)

As the topographical map shows, the park slopes to the South and the West, and has a steep 50-70' drop. Indeed, a June 10, 1985, MNCPPC memo from Jim Crawford to Gail Price noted that the site slopes “steeply toward the Kensington Parkway stream valley park.” The memo noted that “[s]teep slopes ... limit development potential," and that “development would be constrained” because of the “severe topology”.

• ACCESS:
The MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park states that the park has two access roads. That's misleading. As seen on the map (above), from the standpoint of physical roadways, there is no arterial road, and there really is only one road along the park, which changes naming conventions.  Haverhill is merely a small connection road between Littledale and Saul Roads.  Had the developers chosen to name the right fork of the traffic triangle Haverhill and the left fork Saul, we would be speaking of only one road. In contrast, other candidate sites have multiple physical roadways.

• CONSTRAINTS:
The MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park states that the only "constraints" are the use of the site as a park, and its topography. That's wrong. Look:

As this document shows, Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and/or State Program Open Space (POS) funds were used to develop the park. The respective governing statutes make clear that land “acquired or developed” with such funds may not be converted to non-park use without undergoing a restrictive conversion process that includes the identification of replacement land of equal monetary and recreational value in the community. This constraint is substantial, and inquiries are pending on the matter with the Maryland Secretary of Natural Resources. To our knowledge, other sites do not face this significant constraint, and thus, its implications for Rock Creek Hills Park should be acknowledged.

• AVAILABILITY:
The MCPS description of Rock Creek Hills Park states that its "availability" is "unknown". As stated above, Federal and/or State law create significant uncertainly regarding the legal availability of the site for construction, which should be acknowledged.


Recently, our community representatives brought these and other site description errors and concerns to the attention of MCPS with a request for clarification. Unfortunately, the site descriptions will not be clarified in time for tonight's meeting. We hope that MCPS will correct these important inaccuracies. After all, an official MCPS "Core Value" (from "Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence. The Strategic Plan for the Montgomery County Public Schools") is: "MCPS demonstrates commitment to continuous improvement by reviewing, evaluating, and improving our work..." And, as Dr. Starr has said, "... we are never fully absolved from our responsibility to make things better."