Community Liaison Council Meeting
Minutes
February 15, 2007, 4:006:00 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.
With regard to the after hours perimeter transportation options,
Mr. Moss added that Mr. Hayden had made repeated attempts to
contact the County regarding the After Hours Taxi, but has
not received any response as yet. Mr. Hayden considers this
matter close and no additional follow-up will be conducted
by his office.
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 |