-
The current fence location is consistent with the approved 2003 Master Plan.
-
There is no compelling reason to limit NIH’s future land use options by putting more land outside the fence for public use.
-
NIH’s facilities and property are meant to serve NIH’s biomedical research mission, not community recreation needs, which the County manages.
-
NIH facility construction, renovation & maintenance funds are particularly limited during the current “flat” budget period. It is not affordable or reasonable for NIH to spend money to move the fence when there appears to be adequate public space for community use, and that use remains light. NIH will continue to work with the County to make the SW corner of the existing open space more useable during & after wet weather.
-
Even though it appears that the fence could now be moved without compromising the desired 250 foot blast standoff distance, NIH wants the extra 50 to 160 feet of space to stay inside the fence, since the scope & location of the future animal research center in that area of the campus is not entirely certain, nor is it assured that the standoff distance won’t be changed.
Discussion
Mr. Sawicki and Ms. Miller remembered discussion from a CLC meeting in 2001: The buffer area they regard as having been promised on the south side of the campus had been decreased from 250 feet to ~100 feet and fenced off from the community to accommodate security needs and what was stated to be a temporary parking shortage due to significant construction going on at that time. Stella Serras-Fiotes (the former Director of DFP in ORF) said that the temporary parking lot would be removed, and when it was, the area would be returned to open space. Seven years later, the temporary parking lot is still present, and new reasons are being given to limit public access when the buffer is finally restored.
Mr. Oberlander noted that security is a legitimate issue, and that the space along the southern perimeter is designated as an open space buffer on the Master Plan, so the question is who can use it. Mr. Moss added that 250 feet is a nominal safety zone, but safety also depends on the kind of adjacent building and its use. For certain, activities or more vulnerable buildings, the buffer requirement could be substantially larger. Ms. Michaels clarified that the 250-foot buffer zone is supposed to be a green, landscaped area to surround the campus and in effect, insulate adjacent neighborhoods from the light, noise and general activity of the campus.
Mr. Wilson added that the buffer was also intended to contribute to a natural, academic setting for the campus. Except for the South Lawn, the buffer does not necessarily coincide with public recreation space. Security issues arose nationwide after 9/11, and the fence is there because NIH must follow security policy determined by other agencies like Homeland Security & Justice Departments.
Mr. Schofer concluded that the fence location is about balancing public access with NIH funding and security issues. The buffer issue is about insulating NIH and adjacent neighborhoods from each other. NIH may have an obligation to provide a green, landscaped buffer around the campus for master planning, land use compatibility and impact mitigation reasons, but it's less apparent that NIH has an obligation to allow public access to the entire buffer. Moreover, NIH financial constraints and security requirements reflect separate rationales and decisions by other agencies.
In response to a suggestion that the master plan be revised to clarify the buffer's extent, purpose and public access policy, Mr. Wilson admitted that the Master Plan can and has been changed in the past. The current plan says that land south of future parking structure MLP-E that is now part of parking lot #41 will eventually be returned to green space and thus become part of a restored green buffer, but that is not expected to happen until the 3rd or 4th phase of that plan (i.e. last 10 years of the 20 year master plan which runs from 2003 thru 2023). That part of the buffer is now slated to remain inside the fence, although technically, nothing prevents the public from coming thru security with soccer balls or Frisbees and using it .
Mr. Oberlander suggested that, if the ARC and MLP-E buildings will not be built until after 2013, the fence could be moved so the community can use the space now until NIH needs it for something else. Mr. Moss reminded everyone that NIH is in such a tight budget period that some research programs are in funding jeopardy, so it would be difficult to sell the idea of moving the fence twice.
Mr. Sawicki observed that we don’t even know the cost of moving the fence, and he thought NIH staff was going to estimate or at least bracket that cost, which seems relevant to any decision. He also thinks that community members would use the existing public area more if it was graded and drained better. A substantial portion of that area is now compromised by drainage swales, and is still too wet to use during and after storms.
Mr. Wilson noted that NIH already moved the fence toward the center of the campus out of consideration for the community, but NIH is landlocked and there's a limit to how much public access can be provided. NIH land use decisions will necessarily be based on whatever uses are most supportive of NIH's biomedical research mission and consistent with the associated resources.
Ms. Lueders thought the fence was probably placed where it is because of the position of the temporary parking lot. Mr. Wilson pointed out that whatever the reason for the current south fence location, NIH cannot afford to spend money on anything beyond its mission or to foreclose future land use options by making more land accessible to the public. The Master Plan specifies a buffer, but is relatively silent about its use or how much of it is accessible to the public. Clarification of the issue may be warranted in future updates.
Mr. Oberlander agreed that providing community recreation space is not part of NIH’s mission. Neither does the Master Plan say much if anything about a blast zone, which he agrees has a different purpose from a buffer zone. Public expectations should be more accurately set with regard to the entire buffer.
Mr. Coleman said that he would update the neighbors’ position based on today’s discussion. Members should keep in mind that the NIH Master Plan was prepared and submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) in 2003, before the fence and new security measures were established in 2005. He reminded participants that this is not a debate, but an airing and discussion of NIH staff & community member positions. When the positions of both sides are refined and vetted through discussion like today's, they will be referred to ORF and ORS mgmt for decision.
Mr. Coleman said that he had heard two new elements of the neighbor position today. One can be summarized by a question; namely, why not move the fence now and move it back later when NIH needs the space. He also heard Mr. Sawicki say that a past NIH planning manager (Stella Serras-Fiotes) had “promised” that temporary surface parking space would eventually be restored to green space, and that the public would be able to access that space. Mr. Coleman will research what the minutes document in this regard.
Mr. Sawicki wants Rep. Van Hollen’s office to be aware of this issue, what promises were made in the past, what new issues have arisen, and what decisions are eventually made. Mr. Coleman pointed out that District staff (Joan Kleinman) is well aware of the buffer/public access issue, has attended numerous CLC meetings, and regularly gets CLC meeting notices, agendas and minutes.
ENVIRONMENT-Don Wilson, ORF
Recycling & Composting at NIH—Don Wilson, DEP, ORF
Recycling is a Montgomery County business regulation. NIH recycles because of federal executive orders, not to mention being committed to an underlying philosophy of environmental stewardship, which is consistent with NIH's health-oriented mission.
Solid materials used on the NIH campus can be recycled in numerous ways. Recycling bins are present throughout the campus, and their placement is tailored to the work of each building. The bins are labeled to separate categories of waste such as paper products (staples do not have to be removed), plastic, cardboard and paperboard, construction waste, and demolition waste.
Electronic waste (computer equipment & supplies like toner cartridges) is also accepted. These items are either re-used by government suppliers or donated when possible to interested public organizations, such as school districts and libraries.
Plastic, glass and non-aluminum containers (code 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7) may be commingled, except for code 6 plastics (polystyrene). Plastics that previously contained chemical or hazardous waste (including medical waste) are not recycled but rather separated for special processing. That processing was summarized in a CLC presentation last year.
During the last year, 4500 tons of NIH solid waste was recycled, which represents 42% of the entire waste stream. NIH gets at least some pay back for paper and also for aluminum cans, wooden pallets, and inkjet cartridges. NIH has to pay however, to have construction debris recycled. Reimbursements periodically come back to NIH as a material credit from various contractors of up to 10% per year.
Discussion
Mr. Sawicki reported that some unsightly debris was apparently being stored on the surface of temporary parking lot 41, including what appeared to be landscaping material and wooden pallets. Mr. Wilson said this was probably temporary and associated with spring landscaping, but he will look into it and have any pallets moved and the area cleaned up.
Mr. Coleman asked whether NIH’s 450 dump trucks full of recyclable waste were comparable to that generated at Navy Med, which has less staff on site, but many more patients. Mr. Wilson was unsure of Navy Med's solid waste volume, but thought that NIH had the stronger program because of longer experience.
Ms. Lueders noted that NIH recycles some products that Montgomery County does not. Mr. Wilson admitted that this is a controversial subject. Originally the county pushed NIH to recycle. Montgomery County recycles only plastics #1 and 2. All NIH plastic now goes to Georgetown Paper Stock where they have a market for non-1 and -2 plastics. Georgetown Paper deals with commercial firms and institutions, but not individuals.
NIH cafeterias are considering going to biodegradable cups and utensils in the future, contingent on funding”. The long-term goal is to have all materials in the cafeteria be either biodegradable, useful as compost, or recyclable.
Custodial staff, takes non-recycled solid waste (garbage) from office and facility receptacles around the campus to large dumpsters. When full, these are in turn taken to the Montgomery County transfer station in Gaithersburg. NIH next plans to collect food waste and deliver it to a composting facility in Prince George’s County.
TRANSPORTATION—Brad Moss [for Tom Hayden], ORS
Wilson Drive & #355
Pedestrian signals at Wilson Drive and Route 355 will be activated by push-button. In response to Mr. Schofer’s questions about where the signals face, timing of the pedestrian interval, and which direction can be controlled, Mr. Coleman said he has the engineering drawing of the intersection and will find out if the signal phasing is noted on it.
There has, as yet, been no answer as to when the light at Wilson Drive will be activated.
The crosswalk "zebra striping" has been repainted at Route 355 and Center, Route 355 and South, and Route 355 and Wilson.
To get a “no left turn” sign on north bound Rt. 355 at the commercial vehicle inspection facility (CVIF), the SHA (State Hwy Admin.) has jurisdiction. As it is, NIH security staff at the CVIF remind trucks making that turn that it is not permitted. NIH will advise SHA that some trucks continue to make that turn and block through traffic on Rt 355 when they do so.
South Drive Thoughput
Neither Ride-on nor Metro has yet answered Mr. Hayden’s question about why buses don’t ever seem to go right on red at South Dr. If they did, it seems that unnecessary congestion could be avoided.
Perimeter Shuttle
Mr. Hayden continues to receive no complaints about the shuttle service, which indicates that the buses are running on time & making all their stops.
SPECIAL PROJECTS—Tony Clifford, ORF
South Lawn Drainage Issue
After the recent heavy rain, Mr. Clifford documented the drainage problem by photographing the muddy lawn, erosion, and piled up leaves resulting from water flowing out of the County storm drain. He also photographed the stagnant water and brush on county property, which can become a breeding place for mosquitoes when the weather gets warmer.
As an interim solution, Mr. Clifford wants to put light berm around the watery area to allow the runoff more time to filter into the soil. He is going back to DPW mgmt (Bruce Johnson) to request that maintenance on the County side of the fence. The area around the pipe outlet is eroded and likely to need some gravel fill. The difficulty is that the outfall is below grade, so they will have to engineer something to prevent the gravel from being washed away onto NIH property during the next storm.
Discussion
Ms. Michaels suggested that, since the South Lawn drainage situation is getting worse, Mr. Clifford should go above Mr. Johnson. Mr. Coleman pointed out that the highest NIH staff can go is Mr. Holmes (DPW Director), which NIH has done. It was Mr. Holmes who assigned Mr. Johnson to investigate the County’s responsibility & role in any remedy. NIH can’t go above Mr. Holmes since County Executive Leggett is an elected official. Mr. Holmes may think the problem has been addressed, so he may need to be informed that it has not. Mr. Clifford’s recent photos should help in this regard.
Mr. Schofer suggested that Mr. Clifford seek the opinion of NIH legal counsel to find out whether the county is allowed to direct so much water onto NIH property. Whether this involves riparian rights is not clear, but if the drainage follows a traditional channel, that might be the case. CLC members might want to inform their local Council representative that no remedial action has taken place after a year of documentation and communication.
Competent engineers (A. Morton Thomas) were engaged at NIH expense to evaluate the drainage issue & recommend solutions. Their recommendation was to install an underground pipe or a rain garden, but it now seems that the rain garden will not work because the amount of water is large and arrives rapidly. The county suggested an underground pipe or a swale along the fence. The problem with the swale is that the drop of the swale will be slight and may allow water to stagnate in any depression. Mr. Coleman said that the underground pipe may not be the most environmentally friendly option, nobody wants to pay for it, and the presence of utility lines along the fence requires special care. Mr. Clifford has reviewed the history of activities here, confirming the impression that everything they have done so far has made the South Lawn worse. He doesn’t want to pay for more experiments, but he will get a price for the pipe.
Mr. Sawicki noted that the County is building a large storm water retention pond on NIH property, a few hundred feet from the South Lawn. Isn’t there some leverage to be had from that relationship or the presence of the retention pond project team? The issue there is that with ~$900M of BRAC construction starting in June, it’s still not certain whether any pond construction would start this year in any event.
INFORMATION FORUM—Dennis Coleman, OCL, Co-Chair
Miscellaneous Hand-out Items
Mr. Coleman drew attention to the new aerial photo of the campus provided in the handout which was provided in both labeled and unlabeled versions. He also reminded CLC members that the Information Forum Outline at the front of the handout is a useful guide to locate specific topics of interest.
ROUND ROBIN—Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair
Comments and Concerns
-
Ms. Lueders reported that she was unimpressed by how briefly the security guard looked at her badge when she came on campus at multi-parking lot 6 (where they do not scan badges). Such a quick glance seems useless. Mr. Moss will tell Security about this. With respect to vehicle security checks, Mr. Coleman reported that 3 meeting mgmt consultants (here to support today’s meeting of hundreds of people interested in public access to NIH research) told him that they could not understand why it took so long to go through the vehicle inspection tent.
-
Mr. Sawicki reported that more lights were burned out along the south perimeter trail. He thought that there would be more regular trail inspection so NIH staff would catch burned out lights without neighbors having to do it.
-
Mr. Schofer said the Navy is supposed to respond to comments in their final environmental impact statement (FEIS). However, they issued a request for proposals (RFP) in December and have already awarded the contract to design a new hospital, despite having no FEIS. Nevertheless, Ms. Michaels said, they cannot move forward on any permanent construction without completing the EIS process. The Navy assured the Montgomery County BRAC Implementation Committee (BIC) that they were taking this approach. Moreover, the Navy is at least trying to listen to the community, as shown by the Admiral recently meeting with a group of neighbors.
-
The community remains concerned about new staff and construction workers parking in the neighborhoods, and the new base expansion contract even states that there is to be limited parking for construction workers at the base. No building will start until after the EIS record of decision (RoD) has been released in May. The Navy is trying to establish a world-class hospital, which they cannot do effectively without community input.
-
Ms. Miller complimented Mr. Coleman for his help in researching and communicating BRAC information and developments as they have evolved. She is involved with the local fire department, and they are also interested in keeping up with BRAC activities.
-
Mr. Coleman assured everyone that NIH planners in ORF (e.g. Ron Wilson, Kenny Floyd and Dan Wheeland) are following BRAC. Other than Tom Hayden, ORS staff has been somewhat less involved since BRAC is about land use & environmental impacts, but Mr. Coleman had an oppty to brief the ORS Management Council about BRAC a few weeks ago. They see potential BRAC impact on the ORS emergency planning function.
-
In response to a question, Mr. Coleman indicated that the Navy has apparently rethought the situation and is going to build their own vehicle inspection facility, rather than try to share NIH’s. Mr. Moss clarified the difficulties of having the Navy inspect vehicles at NIH and then getting them back across a busy Rt. 355.
-
In response to a question about where land to widen Rt 355 could come from, Mr. Coleman said that (1) the DEIS indicated that Navy Med would cooperate with SHA with regard to land bordering the base the base and (2) SHA indicated that they would not know any land requirements until after they see the Navy’s plan for expanded gates.
-
It was mentioned that the state transportation plan has apparently prioritized transportation funding for Aberdeen and Fort Meade, where BRAC is forecast to create the most new jobs. Members hope that the transportation needs of Bethesda’s already built out urban condition and its 3 vital and adjacent medical facilities are not forgotten in the rush to accommodate new jobs elsewhere.
-
Of the 4 intersections SHA is working on, 3 have already failed. The Navy says there’s little impact, but Mr. Schofer doesn’t agree because the daily traffic peak will lengthen. Intersections will then be congested all day.
-
Mr. Coleman said that the BRAC impact may need computer modeling to ascertain its impact more specifically. In short, Bethesda’s background traffic is already heavy, so the relative BRAC effect is only 5 to 15% more traffic volume, not 50 or 100%. No one knows yet whether or not 5-15% more traffic added to existing LoS F (i.e. highly congested) conditions on local roads will cause a tipping point to be reached where congestion becomes crippling and unpredictable, as opposed to something that simply requires planning for extra travel time.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Next meeting: April 17, 2008
PARTICIPANTS
CLC Members
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews
Harvey Eisen, Edgewood Glenwood
Jean Harnish, Whitehall
Lucy Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace
Deborah Michaels, Glenbrook Village
Ginny Miller, Wyngate
Darrell Lemke, Bethesda Parkview
Marilyn Mazuzan, Oakmont
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway
Lucy Ozarin, Whitehall
Stephen Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood
Beth Volz, Locust Hill
Liaison Representative
Kira Lueders, NIH Alumni Association
NIH Staff
Anthony Clifford, ORF
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Howard Hochman, ORF
Brad Moss, ORS
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Don Wilson, ORF/DEP
Ron Wilson, ORF
back to top
