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."

Is Rock Creek Hills Park "available"?

This Wednesday, 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".)

Rock Creek Hills Park is unique among listed candidate sites in that it is the only site whose availability has been questioned by our Superintendent of Schools.

Thirty years ago, after Kensington Junior High School 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 was developed into Rock Creek Hills Park by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) using federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and/or state Program Open Space funds:

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

In November, Dr. Joshua P. Starr, Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools, explained that this "... 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 our state's Program Open Space.

We are confident that the new site selection process will find solutions superior to Rock Creek Hills Park, which fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official site selection criteria  –  including that most essential criterion, availability.

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

In ten days, 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".)

Rock Creek Hills Park is unique among listed candidate sites 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. We are confident that the new site selection process will yield superior solutions.

Kids Need Parks!

Soccer at Rock Creek Hills Park, 11/5/11. (Click image for larger version.)