Please note that you can click on the image, or a "thumbnail," to see a larger version.

David-I don’t live across from the park, and I’m not sure what you mean by “carefully picked” information. I have no different access to information than you do. You can see the reports; they say what they say, and the photos demonstrate that the school and separate access road sat on a site that comprised what now is the park and the elder care facility.

You state that you “think it has been determined that [the site] is the best option available under the circumstances.” On that point, reasonable people, like us, can disagree. Given the objective data surfacing that undermines the basis for that determination, along with the opposition statements of county officials, and the inexplicable elimination of sites that actually conform to SSAC criteria, I believe that determination will not sustain a challenge. We’ll see what happens.-Tom

Agreed - example - BCC girls soccer team would lose their practice field - No, they just have to find another one - certainly is possible and probable

We all understand the park would be eliminated - it is a trade off many of us can live with so our kids dont have to be bussed 90 minutes a day

BCC naacp solution to increase the size of westland is no solution

12,000 hours of use? how the heck is that caculated? the fields are only available 7 months a year - there are only 4300 dayight hours in an average year (12*360) if you are talking people hours then a school would have over a million person hours used during a school year (1000*180*6) for education alone PLUS all the recreational facilities that come with a community school. that is a ratio of 100 to 1. I'll take that as a best use of land in a semi urban area.

Finally Rock creek hills has more park and park space on its borders and within its borders than most subdivisions I can think of. We need a school in this section of the cluster, period.

But I do agree, this thing is taking too long to get off the ground and built. We still have another 5 years until it opens - I say lets speed up the process and get it done, so our kids can utilize it.

Long on vitriol, short on facts. Please be for or against the middle school based on articulable facts. The feasibility study glossed over a lot of costs, for example infrastructure (water, sewage, electricity, I.T.) and the final plans called called for a school of under 900 students when MCPS says that a school of at least 1,200 is needed. John Holbrooke

Dear PTA Guy, thank you for writing.

1. It is not the case that Rock Creek Hills Park is "a little smaller than" the former Kensington Junior High School site. Rather, as the aerial photos make clear, with the establishment of the elder housing facility, the park is substantially reduced in size and in access (loss of an access road to the North and a through North-South roadway) with respect to the former school site (please, click on the photo to enlarge). Indeed, the park fails to meet most of the MCPS middle school site evaluation criteria.

2. The question was, is there a hurry to pick a site? According to the capital budget approved by our County Council, the first spending on the project would be on the design phase, in the 2013-2014 fiscal year, which is more than a year from now.

3. The Parks Director said that the proposed school would "obliterate" the park. A middle school on the site of the park would be, of all the middle schools in the county, the one on the smallest site without an adjacent (or "collocated") park to provide acreage and playing fields for school use. And yes, the MCPS feasibility study locates "portable classrooms" on the basketball courts (please click on the second thumbnail above).

4. The assertion that the park "is the cheapest alternative" does not appear to be based on an evaluation of alternatives. Furthermore, depending upon the outcome of possible litigation seeking enforcement of the clear language of the POS statute, the park could turn out to be among the most expensive alternatives, as replacement land of equal economic and recreational value in the community would have to be provided.

5. Regarding the assertion that "we keep coming back to this site," please recall that Rock Creek Hills Park was not the preferred site of the first site selection advisory committee. As for the recent process, Ms. Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor for Park and Trail Planning at our county Parks Department, wrote in her dissenting Minority Report that “Costs were not thoroughly evaluated in the process and misinformation may have prejudiced the votes of committee members.” The assertion that the outcome "is not a coincidence" comports with the statement in the Lyttonsville Civic Association's Minority Report that "Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."

1. The land records also make clear that an elder care facility wasn’t planned to take away over 1/3 of the site and the separate access road. The is altered permanently.

2. OK.

3. If you mean that a school can be squeezed into the site, sure. The question is at what cost. As for the net loss of trees, you are incorrect. The feasibility study mentions involving 5.1 acres of deforestation. Also, you can’t lower a site by four feet and have root balls survive. Planting trees somewhere else does nothing for the site or its stream buffer. Regarding topology, the engineering consultant’s report identifies the inordinate cost associated with addressing it.

4. Have you read the filings and the transfer agreement? Putting aside the potential litigation over replacement land, the transfer agreement requires improvement compensation, and that’s on top of tree mitigation and excess construction costs. Further, how do you come to this conclusion? No criteria metrics were established for consistent comparison and no cost analysis was conducted across the spectrum of sites. Moreover, you speak of education as the only public benefit. It is _a_ public benefit that fits within a constellation of public benefits that must be balanced.

5. No, it’s not a coincidence. MCPS is not conducting a rational analysis, and now we have the data to prove it. As for reviewing the sites, again, read the comments of people who feel the review was incomplete.

PTA Guy-
As Derrick McGinty says, "Let's Be Real". We don't know if it is the cheapest site because no numbers and figures for other sites were offered by MCPS to compare to.
Parks and Planning is not in favor of this site.
We've been through the process 2x, yes. but both times had such severe flaws it is hard to consider them as fair. IN version 2, discussions such as the REAL cost of replacing a park or building on this piece of land, or purchasing that piece of land were muddled by MCPS having no numbers and information to discuss. It was also interesting that each PTA and citizen's association had 1 vote, but there were many votes held by MCPS-mostly staff who had worked on and believed in the original feasibility study.
Given past snafoos with Seven Lochs and Cabin John, it is important to create a truly good, inclusive and information packed site selection process before moving on. Yes, compare apples and apples, not kiwis and pickles.
Lastly, I encourage you to read the various minority reports from OUTSIDE of the Rock Creek Hills neighborhood. They are eye opening.

Both.

I don't share your view that the arguments would apply or be magnified at Lynbrook park. As Brooke Farquar pointed out, the Lynbrook site can meet MCPS’ newly-devised minimum building footprint. Half of it is owned by MCPS, and although trading the park on the other half of the site would be unfortunate, from a social cost standpoint, it represents the least-intrusive choice for the greater community. It is relatively flat, allowing the avoidance of inordinate construction costs; it doesn’t involve the decimation of specimen trees; it conforms to the location and other SSAC criteria better than the selected sites; it appears to have low improvement costs; and, to PTA Guy’s point, it is a school site in the community.

Although we don’t know anything about the private sites other than the fact that some people have complained that they were eliminated inappropriately, other choices that inexplicably were eliminated include Norwood Park, which is over 17 acres (though a little over an acre would be locked-up); has more abundant access (including off a major artery) than many sites, even Lynbrook; is relatively flat; has trees on the perimeter, reducing mitigation/replacement costs; and might help ease articulation issues. The Westland option also seems to have been dismissed for reasons still unclear, as described in the report

Brian-Gut feel or “on the maps” doesn't substitute for a baseline to a standard for a consistent evaluation of all sites. That wasn’t done (again). We have to rely on the standards and implementation from Park and Planning. RCH’s street is the bare minimum width and appears to be comparable to Lynbrook’s streets.

On access: RCHP – 1 road with a differently-named cusp as a 2nd road; 1-side parking banned; no sidewalks; parking can't fit on site. Lynbrook – at least 3 roads, including artery access; sidewalks. Norwood – From artery, 2 access roads >2x the width of RCH and Lynbrook roads; 5 other access roads currently blocked (but once open), not including potential use of perimeter road.

The post-building analysis you propose would be insufficient for parkland because county utilization is key to measuring benefit (BTW, RCH has 2 regulation fields and a hockey rink). Moreover, the loss of old tree stands can’t be accounted for in such an analysis. Your question regarding the imaging of a school on the sites, however, is very interesting and very timely.

One major criticism of the SSAC “analysis” is that MCPS failed to adopt MNCPPC’s recommendation to use GIS technology when assessing sites. This error undermined the analysis of criteria, like access and tree loss, because there was no way to compare sites consistently. It also worked to RCH’s disadvantage, because, flawed as it was, that site had a proposed plan for a school.-Tom

No gut feel in my observations. I'd give up on the access argument or you'll get laughed out of the room.

After reading the recommendation report and going through your many redundant comments it is clear that this is solely a NIMBY movement that should not have any traction going forward. I must give you credit though you doing an effective job of getting your opinions heard and published.

Dear Brian, please note that in November, when MCPS Superintendent Dr. Joshua P. Starr recommended to the Board of Education that the site selection process be restarted, he said:

"The controversy over this site has spread beyond the immediate community. At this point I am concerned that we may not have the support of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) — that is critical to having the property transferred back to the Board of Education — and of the County Council — who we need to fund construction of the school."

Brian-The NIMBY push-back is becoming the last resort of people who don't have a substantive response. FYI, I visited the Lynbrook site on the way to work today. I challenge you to do the same at RCH. Also, measure the streets. On raw data, you simply can't argue that Lynbrook's access is worse than RCH's. It has more roads, including a full perimeter road.

As for redundancy, in some instances, you're right. Arguments have been repeated because people comment without reading material, forcing the discussion back to square one.

In any case, the decision likely will be disputed, and then we'll see which argument survives.-Tom

The NIMBY response is not a response of last resort but the only logical response remaining after evaluating the pros and cons voiced on this site and in the SSAC report.

I'm sure your group will dispute the decision and I'm very confident that the original decision will stand a third round of reviews. There's no perfect site but RCH is the best public option available. I find it hard to believe that there is a cost effective private alternative out there anywhere in the B-CC cluster leaving RCH as the best available site. Given the significant amount of new high rise residential construction planned for downtown Bethesda over the next few years it's very likely Lynnbrook Park will be transitioned back into an elementary school, a use for which it is much more suited for given the smaller size of the site. When this happens there will likely be group of East Bethesda residents who will oppose this but the greater good should eventually win out.

Dear Brian, regarding the assertion that "the original decision will stand a third round of reviews," please note that Rock Creek Hills Park was not the preferred site of the first site selection advisory committee.

Dear Ed, please note that the Sawtooth Oaks of Rock Creek Hills Park, which would be destroyed under the MCPS proposal, are almost 150 years old.

Regarding the assertion that various amenities would be "available for community use," please note that the entire site would be off-limits to the community most of the time.

Ed-You don't have to believe me on this. Look at the lease for the elder care facility. Over 1/3 of the land was transferred. That's not opinion; that objective fact.

In the picture on the left, you can see the road that goes from the base of Saul to the base of Littledale. School or no school, that road is gone, and with it, substantial access to the site. You also can see that the fields to the north no longer exists. Hence, the need for multiple field overlays. As for the trees, the specimen trees in question appear in both photos. They didn't just grow over 25 years.

As for superimposing a school on the photo, it doesn't help because it's not in 3D, and thus, you don't see the effects of topology. Also, to be fair, you don't see how a school looks on a suitable site. Further, as you know, the faciltiies are restricted significantly once a school is located on the site.-Tom

I hate to say it, but another piece of misinformation masquarading as a fact (like th 12000 hours of use) until challenged. Sawtooth Oak is an invasive species, not a speciman tree. from National Park Service website http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/plants-to-watch.htm

"Sawtooth oak, a tree native to eastern Asia, is popular for use in street tree plantings due to its interesting foliage and fruits (acorns). It spreads by seed that is produced in large numbers and has been found in recent years to be escaping from plantings to become invasive in wild areas, displacing native plants. Because of this, land managers recommend against the use of sawtooth oak and suggest instead that landscapers use native oaks, of which there are many species to choose. One observer noted that it readily seeds into woodland edges, meadow habitats and open areas. Sawtooth oak successfully establishes in edge habitats that are not managed by mowing or other woody plant control. With regular, annual and semiannual mowing it does not seem to persist. If not mowed, however, it is fast growing, tolerant of a wide range of moisture and temperature conditions and can become a troublesome invasive. Do not plant sawtooth oaks"

but I value education over trees.

One more thought Mr P. - the 1200 hours of permitted use is actually less than the number of hours just five kids at our bus stop will be forced to spend on a bus to Westland every year. I vote to keep my kids off the bus for that much time when there are so many other park and recreational facilities in and around Rock Creek Hills. I don't need one of my kids spending nearly 300 hours a year on a bus to Westland every year.

Dear Ed, please note that the state of Maryland does not consider the Sawtooth Oak (Quercus acutissima) to be an invasive species. The Sawtooth Oaks of Rock Creek Hills Park are some of the oldest in the state. They were planted, soon after the introduction of the tree into this country, by Alfred Ray (1824—1895). In the post Civil War boom, Ray improved his farm, "The Highlands," by enriching the soil, diversifying crops, and planting trees.

Dear Ed, regarding the assertion that the playing fields would be "intact," please note that the MCPS feasibility study calls for the fields to be dropped by four feet (killing all trees nearby), and reduced in size, necessitating "overlaid" fields that would limit athletics (please click on the second thumbnail above). A middle school on the site of the park would be, of all the middle schools in the county, the one on the smallest site without an adjacent (or "collocated") park to provide acreage and playing fields for school use.

Folks:
I do not live in the affected district, but I do live across town from Rock Creek Hills Park. The park is heavily used, by organized groups and the surrounding community. I never see mentioned in the discussions the street hockey rink, tucked in among the trees down the hill, which supports a community street hockey league and is used frequently by neighborhood kids -- and they play there anytime they are out of school and there is not ice on the surface of the rink! As to the park fields and playgrounds not being missed: on a recent Friday evening (6 pm), there were four community soccer league practices going on in the field; about 2 dozen people walking/running the measured track; a local Boy Scout troop conducting physical fitness tests for scouts; dog walkers; parents teaching their children to ride their two-wheelers; about 20 kids playing on the playground (recently refurbished.) I did not drive around to the entrance to the hockey rink to see who was playing there -- but I could hear them. The one neighborhood road that lets you access the park (unless you are walking -- which few of the projected students would be able to do, alas) is narrow and winding. I understand the deep desire to cut the commute for the students on the eastern half of this school cluster. I don't understand the insistence on this site, which seems to have so much to offer the community in its present form, and so little to recommend it as a school site.

Ed-Be that as it may, now would be an appropriate time to apologize for accusing Mr. P. of misrepresentation. He has objective data supporting his point. In addition, it would be honorable if you acknowledged that he immediately clarified the 1,200 hour typo.-Tom

Dear Ed, as you may know, most high school clusters in Montgomery County have two middle schools; our B-CC cluster is unusual in that it has only one (located in the far South of the cluster). Building a second B-CC middle school, in a more central location, will reduce the hours that children spend on busses, which will be a good thing.

Students deserve good schools, which require good sites. Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet most of the MCPS middle school site evaluation criteria. The children deserve better.

Tom - I believe that the mispreresentations have been allowed to exist for many months now - this particular thread of comments is the first time that MR. P has allowed any challenges to his assertions - I appreciate him correcting his mistakes, but they have not been corrected on his blog or any other public statements other than here. I too admire how he and others have gotten the attention, but I have over the months pointed out these inconsistencies of fact, which you also, engage in. Streets can be widened on the park side if necessary. It may be opinion masquarading as fact, but I cannot believe it is not intentional. there are only 3.5 acres of trees/brush on the property - some will remain. Yes trees will come down - deal with it. Happens all the time, they are a renewable resource. I still have not seen any evidence that the trees are 150 years old.

Ed-From C4 of the FS: “[F]orestation requirement for approximately 5.1 acres. Should the forestation requirements not be met on-site, off-site forestation will be required. [I]mpacts to root zones of specimen trees will require a variance from the County Arborist.”

From Res. 10-1989: “Any use must give primary consideration to the conservation of the trees and other unique natural features of the site … . [D]evelopment on other than the flat portions of the site are to be restricted and carefully controlled.”

From June 10, 1985, MNCPPC Memo: After defining portions for recreational use, MNCPPC noted that the remaining “approximately one-half of the site” would be available for other use, but “[s]teep slopes [elsewhere called severe topology] on this remaining portion of the site would limit development potential.” Commercial, residential, multi-family, and other development were not in harmony with the neighborhood given “the intensity and character of activity, traffic and parking conditions. … Considering the area, major improvements to the street system to serve such development would be inappropriate.”

If my facts are wrong, point them out, but I haven’t misrepresented anything, and a man of honor does not cast such allegations with caprice.-Tom

Dear Ed, A "Natural Resources Inventory & Forest Stand Delineation" (a.k.a. "tree survey") for Rock Creek Hills Park may be found at http://scr.bi/GHDfn1 (sheet 1) and http://scr.bi/GGHzo2 (sheet 2).

Excerpt: "The site contains 4 forest stands with a total of 3.55 acres of forest onsite. There are significant/specimen trees located within the forest stands."

then why engage with me you silly goose...........

Ed-I appreciate your comments. The postings speak for themselves. You may have felt insulted, but I have not set out to insult you.-Tom

Mister ed - I still have the sweet post directed at me which was deleted as inappropriate by aol - just wondering how do you feel about the kensington sector plan - My wife and I have a bet - Is this you theresa? would love to get your views on that,

The minority reports do not specifically say bus your kids to Westland. They take issue with the currently chosen location and the process. I support a truly fair, well informed, fully functional, well vetted site selection process that will be a model for how to do this in the future to make the community feel fully engaged and to make the BEST decisions as opposed to band-aid decisions. I support a School Board that stops selling off inventory that they may need (this has been done within the last 2 years). I support great schools in great locations.

Dear Brian, yes. For example:

• Ms. Lynn Amano, Co-President of the Rosemary Hills Neighbors' Association, testified in September before the county Board of Education, expressing concerns about the park as a location for a school.

• Ms. Donna Savage, Chair of the Coalition of Kensington Communities, representing over five thousand homes in nine communities, wrote in July to (then) Council President Valerie Ervin, opposing the Board's plans to build a school on the site of the park.

• Ms. Caren Madsen, Chair of Conservation Montgomery, wrote in June to (then) Board of Education President Christopher Barclay, mentioning the "many stakeholders that take advantage of [Rock Creek Hills Park] year round", and urging a meeting with the Planning Board to find an alternate site.

• The Montgomery County Civic Federation resolved in June that that "... parkland should not be treated as surplus or vacant property... "

Any chance you have a similar list of people in favor of the site?

Brian – Thank you for a very thought-provoking question. Norwood was eliminated by a vote of 20 to 15 with 2 abstentions. Given the makeup of the SSAC, specifically, the proximity of Norwood to the communities represented, it would be interesting to see if there was anyone who supported _including_ Norwood on the site list that lived in (or around) the neighborhood or worked for MCPS. – Tom

Norwood is a park so the same people who are concerned about the loss of RCH parkland would oppose Norwood on the same basis. Unless of course people really aren't concerned about maintaining county parkland and are only concerned about their own backyard.

Brian - That's why shifting the discussion to individual motives is a waste of time.  It adds nothing to the analysis because we're talking about human beings, not saints.  Of course they're going to act in their own interests.  So, in the case of Norwood, it shouldn't matter whether people voted based on their interest in preserving a neighborhood park, or because they love parks in general, or because they simply don't want a school in their backyard.

Balancing competing interests across communities is a challenge because those in the position of balancing the interests have the difficult task of finding a common, acceptable result.  From my standpoint, the only way for such balancing to be achieved in as fair a way as possible is to base it on a measurable set of objective criteria, and then to measure those criteria consistently. - Tom

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

Clearly we're both insane, me for trying to reason with you and you for trying to convince others outside your neighborhood and the parks department that the SSAC failed a 2nd time.

Brian - Actually, you didn't.  In effect, you re-stated the NIMBY argument, and ignored my point that motive, NIMBY or otherwise, is irrelevant, which is fine.  I don't think you're insane.  I think we just have different points of view.

I hope you enjoy the beautiful day and have a nice weekend. - Tom

I am only more convinced now.

The Lyttonsville site has 3-4 buildable acres when you take out the footprint of the community center and the land purchased with Maryland Program Open Space funds (i.e., off limits for any paving and development). Therein lies the major flaw of the SSAC process -- they didn't provide enough information about each site other than the acreage listed on the land deed.

David- I think you are wrong. If a REAL site selection process with REAL numbers and figures and advance information from Parks & Planning were to happen, AND the votes weren't stacked with 15% MCPS staff, the end result would prevail and the folks in opposition would feel that due diligence and process was well served. I know MANy people who have said that.

David - Interesting how some people who want to convert the site are long on swipes, but short on substantive arguments, and all the swipes, in effect, reduce to one accusation: you're NIMBYs.  

Independent consultant estimates building costs up to 40% > the feasibility study? NIMBY.  Costs for trees? NIMBY.  Improvements/other replacement costs in the Transfer Agreement up to > $6M? NIMBY.  Street at the site the bare minimum, with restricted parking? NIMBY.  Streets at other site measured > 53' wide? NIMBY.  Historical concern about restricting building on the slopes, expressed in council resolutions and an Executive Order _and_ incorporated in the Transfer Agreement? NIMBY.  Historical Planning opinion that streets aren't suitable for alteration? NIMBY.  Social cost associated with the loss of scarce facilities? NIMBY.  Lowering of site 4'? NIMBY.  Non-resident members of the SSAC critical of the weak process and apparent directed result? NIMBY.

Perhaps you can understand if readers wonder when those who support converting the park will feel an obligation to address these issues or at least back up their position with more than flaccid statements akin to, "the process could have been better." - Tom

Per the report the scoring was 130 for RCH and 28 for NCC not exactly a close contest.

Putting aside the flawed criteria (e.g., cost defined only as the cost to acquire), look at the individual scores.  For each of 8 criteria, members ranked the sites -1 (poor); 0 (okay); or 1 (good). Thus, each person's total score can range from -8 to +8.

A _dozen_ scores of +6 were registered for RCH versus one +6 for NCC.  Sorry, that rank alone strains credibility.  Given the two sites, the voting manifests either the absence of a common understanding of each criteria or the intent to mischaracterize the site.

We don't know whose votes these were, but remember, MCPS put 9 members of its own staff on this advisory committee, and by luck of the draw or population density, some locations enjoyed better representation than others.

Which brings us back to criteria.  Without adequate definition and metrics, criteria were open to all sorts of interpretation.  Sadly, early on in the SSAC, the request was made of MCPS to weight criteria. The request was rejected.

Ed-Tree age: I don't know; I didn't raise the age of the oak.  On the tree survey, I think it's one of the trees identified as a specimen or near champion, and given the statements of others that it was planted by the original owner, I guess it can be deduced.  

Accountability: MCPS staff.  I think Dr. Starr was courageous in calling for the re-start. 

What to do: If the work can't be salvaged, re-do it, but _do not_ let MCPS run it.  In my opinion, it has demonstrated incompetence in identifying criteria that can be measured and applying that criteria.  Turn the process over to MNCPPC.-Tom