|
National Institutes of Health |
|
Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2000, 4:00 p.m. Natcher Conference Center, Building 45, Conference Room D Draft WELCOME Janyce Hedetniemi, director of the Office of Community Liaison (OCL), welcomed members, guests, and speakers.
Agenda ANNOUNCEMENTS Introductions December 14, 2000 Meeting and Holiday Party Ms. Hedetniemi said that a brief one-hour meeting will be followed by the annual CLC holiday party. She said that she has invited all of the CLC members, CLC meeting speakers, NIH presenters and key staff, and local and state politicians to attend the meeting and party on December 14, 2000. Ms. Hedetniemi added that she will have a chocolate raspberry cake in honor of Stella Serras-Fiotes promotion as well as a cheesecake for Barbara McDonald who has been recruited to serve in the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities. NIH Community Health Forum Report Ms. Hedetniemi told the CLC that this year's health forum was one of the best yet. She said that nearly 500 people participated in the OCL's third annual free community health forum, Share the Health: An Exposition from NIH to Its Neighbors, on October 21, 2000. Nearly every NIH Institute, Center, and Office participated in the health forum providing attendees with material on health promotion and disease prevention. She added that Dr. Francis Collins, who was the keynote speaker, gave a presentation on the Medical and Societal Consequences of the Human Genome Project to a packed audience of about 400 people. Ms. Hedetniemi said this year's event was unique in that area high schools assigned students to attend the health seminars and report on them. Next year's health forum has already been scheduled. Other Ms. Hedetniemi mentioned that the article on the front page of the current issue of The NIH Record showed the results of community input. She was referring to the Tree Census Report that had finally concluded based upon input and feedback from NIH's neighbors. Eleanor Rice of Locust Hill Civic Association told the CLC of the dangerous driving conditions along Rockville Pike between Cedar Lane and the Beltway, adding that one of their residents was killed last year while trying to cross the street. Ms. Hedetniemi said that she has been assigned to the Montgomery County Transportation Policy Task Force and was asked to chair the public involvement subcommittee. She added that the task force is looking at some of the issues and concerns that Ms. Rice mentioned. The task force web site is www.movemontgomery.org. Several CLC members mentioned some of the future building projects in the area that will further affect the traffic along Rockville Pike. PRESENTATIONS Presentation on the Draft RFP for Gas Line Project Ms. Serras-Fiotes distributed the draft RFP, which incorporated most of the Working Group on Pipeline's comments from revisions to earlier draft RFPs. She explained that the proposal criteria had been divided among three subsections (route/right of way selection, design and construction, and other), assigning points to each subsection. She said she had already received some comments questioning the wisdom of this. This area of the RFP would consist of 40 points out of a possible 100. She added that the other two areas of the RFP address firm capacity, the ability to deliver the gas service, for 35 points, and regulatory authorizations for 25 points. Ms. Serras-Fiotes then briefly described each subsection: Route/Right of Way Selection (15 points) Route/right of way selection addresses areas to be avoided and areas to be maximized. Areas to be avoided include easements across private property, wetlands, habitats for endangered species, parkland, flood plain, historic places, forests, and disturbance of trees. Public rights-of-way under paved public roadways are to be maximized for the pipeline route. Design and Construction (15 points) Ms. Serras-Fiotes explained that this section deals with the best practices for construction to minimize community impact, such as traffic, noise, and dust. It also addresses the construction schedule and operating hours. Other (10 points) This category addresses the potential bidders' community involvement plan, safety issues during construction, and the restoration of any damaged property during the construction process. Comments/Suggestions Mort Goldman, Sc.D. of Luxmanor Citizens Association suggested that the RFP focus on issues of importance to the public and that points be awarded based upon the degree to which these issues are addressed and/or met. He said that many of the criteria listed are elements that must be addressed by law, so awarding points for these may not make sense as discriminators since everyone must meet these criteria. He recommended separating the primary concerns of the public from the best construction practices. Dr. Goldman added that an introductory paragraph could be used in the RFP stating that those evaluation criteria based on the issues of primary concern to the public will be weighted more heavily than the rest of the criteria. Ralph Schofer of Maplewood Citizens Association said that the RFP did not seem clear on how it would evaluate the potential bidders. He asked if all of the subpoints within the subsections were equally rated. He was concerned that it would be difficult to fairly score the bidders if the scoring process was not clear. He wanted to ensure that the evaluation process could be reproduced with the same results if it were evaluated again. Ms. Hedetniemi said that there would be a panel of 12 reviewers who would be looking at the same set of criteria and scoring each bidder based upon the total amount of points. She added that bidders must go into detail on how they plan to carry out their intentions. A simple statement that they will do it is not adequate. She also said that the review process would go through a series of steps, looking at different aspects of the proposals. Not only will the plan itself be reviewed, but past performance and financial issues will also be considered. She added that the process was similar to a Quality Review Board, where the standards are distributed and discussed among the reviewers. If bidders do not respond or adequately address an issue then points are removed from their total possible score. She added that NIH is not constrained by being required to go with the lowest bidder. She said that NIH may consider other issues such as value and technical ability. Pat Southerland of Huntington Parkway Citizens Association said that he trusted NIH more than he did the potential contractors and added that he would like to remove the subcategories since the point structure is further broken down within the subcategories. He said he would prefer deferring to NIH's judgement on scoring the proposals as long as it was aware of the issues of most concern to the community. He added that he was pleased that NIH has addressed many of his community's concerns. Dr. Goldman reiterated the need for an introductory statement in the RFP indicating that the community issues are to be weighted more heavily than the others. Mr. Southerland listed the issues of primary concern to his community in order of priority:
Mr. Reilly said his community is most concerned about traffic congestion. He suggested adding the following issues to the list of priorities:
Mr. Southerland also suggested that the language regarding "best practices with regard to pipeline techniques" may be made clearer. He also asked about including the minutes from the Washington Gas community meetings. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that this information would be included in the cover of the RFP. Ms. Hedetniemi added that this information would also be available in the Environmental Reading Room. Mr. Southerland also asked about the 100-year flood plain. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that she needed to discuss this issue with Bob McKinney. Mr. Schofer said that pipeline bidders are not accustomed to submitting a report addressing issues such as these with their technical proposal. He suggested adding the following language before each requirement to ensure their compliance with a written response: "Contractor's proposed plan to ...." He also suggested making the bidder conference mandatory. Ms. Hedetniemi said that the language on this draft was not complete and appropriate language, such as "Describe your proposed method for...", would indeed be included in the final draft. Ms. Hedetniemi added said that the RFP process is public and if and when the contract is awarded, she will invite them to give a presentation to the CLC as well as provide updates as to their progress once construction begins. She also added that while the process is ongoing, the CLC is the place to bring up any concerns or problems with the construction process. Presentation of Proposed Temporary Construction Parking Ms. Serras-Fiotes distributed a copy of the temporary parking lot proposal which was submitted to NCPC for review. She clarified that this was the multi-page document; she said the single-page document was the letter to NCPC regarding the fire station. She said that the fire station parking lot proposal was approved at NCPC's November meeting. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said this proposal addressed the issue of parking for CRC construction workers. She provided some background on contractor parking on the NIH campus. She explained no construction contractors have been allowed to park on the NIH campus since much of NIH's employee parking has been lost due to construction projects. She added that currently NIH leases 250 parking spaces for construction projects at the Bethesda Marriott on Pooks Hill Road. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that currently 500 to 700 CRC construction workers park at satellite locations off-campus. She said that the cost of providing this satellite parking plus the additional man hours lost from commuting to and from campus could increase the cost of the CRC project to high levels. She said that these costs coupled with the added pressures of staying within budget in a booming construction market have forced NIH to look for ways to contain costs. As a result, the temporary parking lot has been proposed to help alleviate some of these costs. She proceeded to show the CLC a map of the proposed paved lot location in the southwest corner of the campus. She added that NIH was able to avoid the west buffer zone area, but some of the lot would be extended from the existing lot into the south buffer zone. The lot would provide 350 parking spaces for CRC construction workers and 118 parking spaces for employees while repairs to Multi-level Parking Garage 6 (MLP-6) are made. In order to accommodate the parking lot, the tennis courts would be removed and paved over. Ms. Serras-Fiotes added that NIH may consider a separate proposal in the future to relocate the tennis courts into the west buffer area. Ms. Serras-Fiotes added that if approved work on the lot would begin early next year and the lot would remain in place for approximately two and half years until the completion of MLP-6 and the CRC. She also added that the handout provides more detail about NIH's parking ratios. She said that NIH's employee parking ratio will drop to 0.43 during the repairs of MLP-6, which is below acceptable levels. Questions Richard Sipes of Whitehall Condominium Association clarified that the temporary parking lot would be a new addition to the existing lot already located in the buffer zone. Several CLC members were concerned about the placing the lot in the buffer zone when, according to the Master Plan, parking in the buffer zone is supposed to be removed. They were also concerned that like other lots, once in the buffer zone, a new use would always be found for keeping the parking. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that this is a temporary project, adding that this parking would be removed at the conclusion of the repairs to MLP-6 and the completion of the CRC probably in 2003. Some CLC members asked when the existing parking lot which is currently in the buffer zone will be removed. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that it would be removed when NIH receives funding for additional parking. She added that the parking spaces can not be removed without replacing them. NIH must maintain sufficient employee parking ratios. Mr. Schofer asked if there were any other options to preserve the tennis courts on campus. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that due to the topography of the land and avoidance of the west buffer zone, the parking area had to located in that area. Mr. Schofer said that the tennis courts were very heavily utilized and requested that NIH reconsider preserving the tennis courts. Other CLC members were concerned about parking lot lighting affecting some of the homes in the area. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that the parking lot would be lit 24-hours due to security issues, but that special shields would be installed to reflect the light inward, minimizing the impact on the surrounding communities. Ms. Miller said that NIH's continued encroachment into the buffer zone needed to be addressed in the Master Plan process. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that employee parking ratios were part of the criteria for the keeping the temporary parking lots in the buffer zone. She did add that NIH continues to include a new parking garage in its annual budget request.
Discussion of Working Group Mission Statements for Master Plan
Update Ms. Serras-Fiotes briefly summarized the purpose of each of the three Master Plan Working Groups and the topics that they are to cover: Transportation Provide support to the planning team in updating Transportation Management Plan as part of the Master Plan Update. Review parking supply and demand information and forecasts to ensure adequate parking for employees, patients, and visitors within the context of the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding regarding traffic generation. Consider State and County efforts to address regional and local traffic impacts and their cumulative effect on the road networks surrounding NIH.
Construction Impacts Review experiences gained over the past five years with construction at NIH. Provide support to the planning team in identifying mitigation measures to reduce impacts to residential neighborhoods from construction activities.
Environmental Impacts (non-construction related) Establish context for evaluating potential impacts of NIH development, balancing the interests of mandated biomedical research, NIH employees, patients and visitors, government review agencies, neighborhood citizens, and the general public. Review impact assessments and mitigation measures as proposed by the planning team within this context.
Ms. Serras-Fiotes explained that these working groups would discuss these issues in detail, meeting in between regular CLC meetings, and then present their findings each CLC meeting. She added that the meetings should start in January and run through June. Ms. Hedetniemi circulated a sign-up sheet for CLC members to assign themselves to the appropriate working group. She added that she will send out the mission statement sheet with a letter to her OCL mailing list asking for additional participation on the Master Plan working groups. She asked the CLC to let her know if they have any suggestions or additional changes to the mission statements for the working groups. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that since the repairs on MLP-6 will be in close proximity to residents' homes, she suggested establishing a community task force on this issue to help reduce the impact to the community.
Ms. Hedetniemi said she will provide a chocolate raspberry cake and a cheesecake in honor of the promotions of Stella Serras-Fiotes and Barbara McDonald at the December CLC meeting and holiday party. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said that she would include the minutes from the Washington Gas community meetings in the cover of the RFP. Ms. Hedetniemi added that this information would also be available in the Environmental Reading Room. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said she would discuss the 100-year flood plain with Bob McKinney at Mr. Southerland's request. Ms. Hedetniemi said she will send out the Master Plan working group mission statement sheet with a letter to her OCL mailing list asking for additional participation on the Master Plan working groups. NEXT MEETING The next meeting and holiday party will be held on Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in Conference Room F of the Natcher Conference Center, Building 45, on the NIH campus. Janyce N. Hedetniemi, OCL, NIH Ginny Miller, Wyngate Citizens Association Jeanne Billings, Wisconsin Condominium Association Anthony Clifford, Division of Engineering Services, ORS, NIH Robyn Des Roches, Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association Morton Goldman, Sc.D., Luxmanor Citizens Association Jeanne Goldstein, Montgomery County Civic Federation Jonathan Isaacs, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association Barbara McDonald, OCL, NIH Lucy Ozarin, Whitehall Condominium Association Lynn Portmann, Suburban Hospital Foundation Eleanor Rice, Locust Hill Civic Federation Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association Randy Schools, Recreation & Welfare Association Stella Serras-Fiotes, OFP, ORS, NIH Richard Sipes, Whitehall Condominium Association Pat Southerland, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Walter Armstrong, ORS, NIH Kurt Drake, Boston Properties Fred Heider, Athavale, Lystad, and Associates Keith Pew, Greenwich Park Citizens Association Sean Reilly, Greenwich Park Citizens Association Don Sebastian, ORS, NIH |
|
Back
