Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2007, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Conference Room D
National Institutes of Health

CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dennis Coleman called the meeting to order and welcomed members who had braved icy conditions to attend the meeting.  He welcomed Susan Tabach, a member of Senator Barbara Mikulski’s staff.  Mr. Coleman then announced that the first item on the agenda concerned facilities and the presenters would be Ron Wilson, Bob MacDonald and Lynn Mueller.

PRESENTATIONS

FACILITIES

Ron Wilson stated that he would address Development of the Streetscape Improvement Plan; Bob MacDonald would cover the Building 35 Site and Planning Revisions being submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), and Lynn Mueller would discuss enhanced screening for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF).

Streetscape Improvement Plan

Mr. Wilson related that several OD, ORS and ORF staff had met and reviewed the need for CVIF screening and streetscape improvements during a recent site visit.  The reviewers agreed that improvements were needed in both areas.  The main issues were decreasing CVIF visibility from Rt. 355 and integrating the look of the campus frontage along Rt. 355.  It was decided to deal first with near term CVIF screening improvements, and then prepare a Rt. 355 streetscape improvement plan.  Longer term study would be needed to integrate the various separate projects along Rt. 355, the light fixtures needed to improve pedestrian safety, and the signage for the Gateway Center and other entrances.  The integrated plan would have to be coordinated with Montgomery County, the State Hwy Administration, and NCPC.  The plan would become part of the NIH Master Plan and its development would be shared with the CLC.

George Oberlander hoped that when Mr. Wilson used the term “tied together with security,” he meant softening the landscape of the security facilities that were within the buffer, as opposed to adding more security facilities.  He noted that the Master Plan had a 250 foot buffer around the campus in which no structures, other than parking, would be allowed.  He thought that the underground garage fit better into the buffer than the industrial looking CVIF.

Mr. Wilson answered that the approved Master Plan shows both facilities in the buffer.  He was aware of the original buffer plan, but added that since the plan was approved, NIH had to place security projects outside the fence.

Mr. Coleman said that he attended the meeting at the CVIF site and wanted to CLC to know that Mr. Wilson and his manager (Facilities Director Dan Wheeland) were both interested in having a more integrated look along that side of the campus.  Mr. Oberlander said that if “integrated ‘ meant more landscaping, he was in agreement.  Mr. Wilson assured him that the term meant more landscaping.

Mr. Schofer asked how NIH had been able to justify the CVIF when there is no comparable facility at Andrews Air Force Base, the Pentagon, and the Naval Hospital, all of which have more need for security.

Mr. Wilson responded that NIH could not be compared to military facilities which fall under the Department of Defense guidelines.  NIH is a Level 4 facility and falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.  NIH has one of the densest populations of Federal employees in the country.  The Pentagon does in fact have a facility similar to the CVIF, but it is built into a hillside and not as visible to the public.

Mr. Coleman suggested that the discussion follow the agenda of what is being planned to improve the appearance of what has been built, and not rehash whether existing facilities should have been built to begin with.

Mr. Schofer suggested that landscaping and signage should be considered earlier in the design process.  Mr. Wilson responded that landscaping was designed for both facilities and there had been an effort to tie them together but after construction, some gaps are apparent that can be remedied by the proposed streetscape improvement plan

Lynn Mueller then discussed the CVIF issues, including the height of the structure, the height of the berms, and the trees planted on them.  After the building was in place, it looks different than was originally visualized.  When staff recently viewed the building from Cedar Lane and Rockville Pike, they determined that the screening was inadequate.  A small contract purchase order is now being written to obtain ten 18-24-foot White Pines that would eventually grow more than 100 feet.  These will definitely help screen the CVIF as soon as they are planted, as well as in the future.

A CLC member asked what would happen if a disease or pine bark beetles struck the white pines, which are susceptible to such things.

Mr. Mueller answered that any diseased trees could be replaced and that the pine bark beetle does not infest this part of MD.  His major concern was ozone poisoning from traffic-generated air pollution, which can turns pine needles yellow.

Mr. Oberlander asked where exactly would the trees be planted? 

Mr. Mueller answered that one cluster would be planted near the visual gap that exists at Cedar Lane and Rockville Pike.  Other trees would be planted elsewhere and some smaller ones closer to the CVIF structure.  Mr. Coleman asked that a better illustration be provided at the next meeting.  He applauded Mr. Mueller’s efforts to provide $20,000 during a time of funding cuts for additional plantings that directly address CLC concerns.

A CLC member asked if the original CVIF planners had used 3-dimensional models which could have anticipated the screening problem.
 
Mr. Mueller responded that mature trees had been drawn in the CVIF renderings.  Mr. Oberlander remarked that the building designer must not have looked at it from Rockville Pike. Mr. Wilson responded that there was a conscious awareness of the structure’s height, which is why berms and plantings had been specified to the extent allowed by limited perimeter space.

A member suggested using more biodiversity in trees than just White Pines.  Mr. Mueller responded that hollies and other more desirable trees were much more expensive.  Mr. Wilson added that some of the trees in the original planting had died and that the contract provides for replacements.  In response to a question about the use of Ginkos, he said they were slow growing as they matured.  The larger trees proposed would provide some immediate screening and get significantly larger.

Mr. Mueller noted that the planting dates would be determined to achieve the best results, which means early Fall 2007 or Spring 2008.  An issue receiving quicker attention will be enforcing the guarantee for the plants that had died.

Mr. Oberlander thought that the streetscape improvement plan details provided by the staff were promising, but that the CLC would reserve judgment as the broader picture emerged.

Mr. Coleman asked Mr. Wilson to introduce the speaker who would discuss Building 35 Site and Planning Revisions to be reviewed by the NCPC.  Mr. Wilson introduced Bob McDonald as the Program Manager for Phase II of the Porter Neuroscience Research Center.  He would explain the submission to NCPC’s March 1, 2007 meeting.

Building 35 Site Design and Planning Revisions

Bob McDonald, ORF Program Manager explained that he had previously discussed the Porter Building project with the CLC some six years ago.  He provided some handouts depicting the building.  The architect had designed and placed the Phase I, 285,000 square foot building on Old Georgetown Road.  The project was originally designed as one 600,000 square foot building.  A different architect, Perkins and Will, had designed Phase II.   Building 36 was demolished a year ago to accommodate Phase II.  The grounds have been restored and await future construction.  Revised design materials have been submitted to NCPC for review. 

Mr. McDonald showed the portion of the Master Plan map focusing on the Porter Building.  Funds for Phase II construction have not yet been provided, so the NCPC is only considering design issues.  In addition to the Phase II building, the plans showed the laydown or staging area, which is already protected by a fence and some trees.  In response to questions about remaining trees, Mr. McDonald said that no more trees would be removed.

Changes by the new architect include a building design compatible with surrounding buildings; exterior materials of glass, metal, and pre-cast concrete; and stacks on the top which would be visible from the South and North elevations, but not from Old Georgetown Road.  On the exterior, the two buildings would look very different, but on the interior they will be integrated.
Mr. Schofer asked if they were using the same contractor.  Mr. McDonald responded that they were using a different contractor, Affiliated Engineers, Incorporated (ATI), who did the Building 37 renovations and the Clinical Research Center (CRC).  Mr. McDonald assured Mr. Schofer that noise attenuation was part of the plan.  Mr. Coleman added that this is an issue because the Phase I Building had generated recent noise complaints.

A CLC member commented that the Phase I building with the louvers was massive, did not blend into its surroundings, and was obviously designed to serve NIH needs without regard to community impact.  She was concerned that the Phase I and II buildings now looked incompatible with each other, so the lack of harmony would attract even more attention.  

Mr. Oberlander noted that the new building would be three floors and a roof and the old building is nine levels and a roof.  He agreed that they were very different in form, even though the functions were supposedly the same.  He noted that the old building looks like an addition to the new building.

Mr. McDonald replied that the former architectural design used louvers to lower the visual image of the building.  The new building is more conventional and covers up the green wall that now exists between Phase I and II.  The front of the new building is interior to the campus, so the building’s back is towards Old Georgetown Road.  The new building is intended to be a part of the campus and is more like Building 40 than Building 35.  The issues with the Phase I building are being corrected with the Phase II building.  Mr. Oberlander re-stated his objection to the design—that the two buildings were not architecturally compatible.  Mr. Wilson stated the plans would be reviewed by the NCPC and if there are negative comments from them, then changes might be necessary.

Another CLC member commented that the Phase I building did not fit into Bethesda architecturally, but that the new building fits better.  Mr. McDonald illustrated with Slide 6 that the new building was designed to merge with the rest of the campus.  He said that other architects reviewed the plans and were favorable to the new design and agreed that the building fit better into the campus than the Phase I building, which he had initially preferred.  

Mr. Clifford stated that he liked the new building, but wanted to mention the process that resulted in Phase I and II looking so different.  If funds had initially been available for the whole Porter building project, then the current architectural incompatibility would not have occurred.  The problem is that costs have gone up and federal budgets have gone down, so NIH was forced to get the maximum square footage to meet research needs.  The result is a building with fewer exterior features that looks a lot different from what went before.

In response to a question about the time frame, Mr. McDonald said that once the building is approved and funded, construction would take 36 months.  The plans are not complete, but the design is under contract. 

Mr. Coleman stated that NCPC review would certainly include the look of the proposed Phase II design in the context of an already present Phase I building.  He said that the CLC had made itself clear for now and should await a report on what NCPC thinks of the Phase II design.  He then introduced the next topic.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Coleman stated that the presenter, Tom Hayden of ORS, was presently renegotiating the NIH shuttle contract because of budgetary cutbacks.   Mr. Hayden has provided information to Brad Moss, who will discuss the Wilson & 355 Intersection project and the after hours perimeter transportation options.  Ron Wilson will first address the Wilson to South Drive Sidewalk Visibility issue.

Wilson to South Drive Sidewalk Visibility Upgrade

Ron Wilson explained that in addition to the onset of winter, an impasse had developed between the contractor and the sub-contractor with regard to who is responsible for such work.  If the impasse remains for much longer, Mr. Wilson will simply hire a new contractor with small purchase funds to paint white lines on the sidewalk.  He intends to improve the nighttime visibility problem before next winter.

Maryland State Highway Administration’s Wilson and Rt. 355 Intersection Project.

Mr. Moss said the SHA’s project was to improve pedestrian safety at the Wilson and Rt. 355 intersection.  NIH has prepared a Right of Entry permit that would allow the state to place certain equipment on the NIH property.  The legal office is reviewing the agreement and any changes will be sent back to the state within a few weeks.  Similar paperwork is still needed from the Navy however, since the project includes equipment on both sides of Rt. 355, and NIH cannot guarantee the timeliness of that interface

In response to concern about how long this project has taken, Mr. Coleman said that the position of SHA Regional Manager for Montgomery County had changed three times in the past six months, and that probably had something to do with delay of this work.  The current manager informed him that the project would include a pedestrian-controlled button to cross Rt. 355 and a pedestrian indicator for those walking on the NIH side of the trail to warn them about status of the light facing the NIH driveway.  The current traffic light is hung on wires and a new, more visible one will be installed on a pole that meets current standards.

SPECIAL PROJECTS
Mr. Coleman reminded CLC members that the last development on the Southside Lawn Drainage issue had been the County’s denial that any drainage problem originated with their pipe and their statement that leaves on NIH property were being trapped by NIH’s fence, thus interrupting storm water run off and causing the problem .  He asked Tony Clifford to explain whether NIH had responded.  Mr. Clifford said that he and CLC member Steve Zawicki have teamed up to find someone at the County who was more receptive to helping with the problem. 

Mr. Clifford provided some background which included his initial letter to Keith Compton of County Public Works, which documented the drainage problem and asked the County to resolve it.  Mr. Compton replied that all the County could do was to rake the leaves.  Another letter was then sent to Arthur Holmes, Chief, Department of Public Works and Transportation asking to identify the appropriate person to contact about the drainage problem.

Steve Sawicki had also been concerned about the drainage issue and had independently received a letter from County Public Works saying that they were planning a major renovation of streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and neighborhood beautification in the Edgewood/Glenwood area.  Steve Sawicki had then talked to Adam Derrick at PublicWorks, who has a budget for the renovations and who is willing to work with NIH and the neighbors.  This work will start in early Spring, but Mr. Clifford was not sure if the funds would cover what was needed to redirect outfall from the County’s pipe.

Mr. Clifford will follow up with the Mr. Holmes to make sure he is dealing with the appropriate person.  Both he and Mr. Mueller agree that the solution by Mr. Compton to rake the leaves would probably cause more erosion than it solves.  After member comments that they would like to see someone resolve this issue, Mr. Coleman explained that it could involve significant expense and the County was being contacted in this regard since the source of run off is on County property.

OCL INFORMATION REPORT
Mr. Coleman said that the handouts included recent BRAC-related newspaper clippings, a Chamber of Commerce Newsletter, and two EIS Scoping comments that had been submitted on the last day of the comment window from Stone Ridge School and the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce.

The Stone Ridge School comment had been developed by the school’s Planning and Building Committee and had some novel content, which had not been mentioned in any of the citizen associations’ letters.  The comments included:

• An increase in local traffic congestion caused by BRAC could be a tipping point which negatively impacts school enrollment in a competitive market place.
• BRAC could trigger a grade separation project that took land now occupied by the school’s commemorative garden, which dates from 1923.
• The Navy should construct its own entrance off Rt. 495 and simply keep all their traffic off local streets.
• Traffic increases would increase air and noise pollution, which detracts from an  educational environment.
• Building millions of square feet of additional medical facilities and parking could overload the Navy’s existing storm drainage system, which occupies an easement through the middle of the Stone Ridge campus.
• Increased BRAC traffic, employment, patients and visitors could expose 750 teenage girls typically enrolled at the school to potentially undesirable elements.
• BRAC could prevent the school from implementing its own master plan because the little remaining local development capacity would be depleted by it.
• The Navy should pay their fair share for expanded infrastructure instead of relying on state and county agencies. 

The Bethesda Chevy Chase (BCC) Chamber of Commerce letter said that the project presents opportunities for the business and entertainment community, but it could have severe negative impacts if not carefully done.  The BCC adopted the comments provided to the Navy by the Action Committee for Transit (ACT).  These comments included:

• Not providing any additional parking to force people to use mass transit. (planned additional parking is for 3000 cars.)
• Rely on mass transit; don’t just encourage it.
• Move the fence back and put mixed use facilities near to the highway so people wouldn’t have to line up for security checks, just to shop at the PX.

BCC’s other comments call for implementing the Purple Metro Line, providing funds to construct a south entrance to the Bethesda Metro station, and placing new administrative, non-medical personnel in vacant rental offices in Bethesda’s Central Business District. 

Mr. Coleman said that having diverse community voices comment on environmental impacts is what the National Environmental Policy Act intended.  In this case, comments had been provided by individual residents, community associations, NIH, a school, a political action committee, the business community, and possibly the local hospital.  Regardless of what was done with the comments, he thought that the various community elements had represented their views as much as they could have.

Congested Intersections Near NIH

Mr. Coleman then showed a graph he had put together from state and county planning documents showing six congested intersections on local roads near the NIH and Navy campuses.  It does not appear that any near term improvements are funded for construction, although some preliminary engineering has been accomplished for two intersections.  Four of the other intersections are among the top 10 most congested ones in the county.  Improvements at one of these (Cedar Lane & 355) are estimated to cost $31 million, which indicates that improving all of them could cost more than $100M. 

In terms of labeling highway improvements as BRAC-related, the state appears to have concentrated on 3 large, multi-billion dollar projects, as opposed to any local projects near the NIH or Navy campuses.  These include upgrading 42 miles of I-495, the I-270 Multi-modal Corridor, and the Intercounty Connector.

Mrs. Michaels asked about the origin of the map, which had information on it indicating some but not all of the community associations surrounding NIH.  Mr. Coleman said it was an enlarged section from the original 1995 map, when NIH had established the CLC.  He had chosen it not for its accuracy in showing all the community associations but rather because it provided a clear view of local roads surrounding the NIH and Navy campuses

ROUND ROBIN

Considering the lateness of the hour, Mr. Coleman then initiated the open discussion portion of the meeting and asked if CLC members had any comments or concerns to bring up. 

Mrs. Hoos pushed for next month’s agenda to include a presentation by ACT so that people could better understand the Purple Line, a proposed transit connection between Bethesda and New Carrollton.  Mr. Coleman said that if the CLC Agenda Committee was interested in that topic, he would rather have someone from the state transit authority or maybe even the Chamber of Commerce explain it.  That is because ACT by its very name (Action Cmte for Transit) seems to be a political action committee, and a CLC meeting at NIH facilities is not a proper forum for them.  Mr. Coleman said that he would explore whether anyone at the state or business community level might have relevant information about the Purple Line.

ADJOURNMENT

The formal meeting ended at 5:58 p.m.

CLC Members Present
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Homeowners Association
Ms. Jean Harnish, Whitehall Condominium
Leslie Hilderbrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Association
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma Citizens Association
Darrell Lemke, Bethesda Parkview Citizens Association
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Eleanor Rice, Locust Hill Civic Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association

NIH Staff Present
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Anthony Clifford, ORF
Bob McDonald, ORF
Brad Moss, ORS
Lynn Mueller, ORF
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Ronald Wilson, ORFDO

Guests
Susan Tabach, Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s Office

back to top