Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2008, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Conference Room D
National Institutes of Health

ANNOUNCEMENTS—Dennis Coleman, OCL Director & CLC Co-Chair; Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair

• Mr. Coleman introduced and welcomed Ms. Jan Clark, the newly arrived Director of Government and Community Affairs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS).  She brought literature for CLC members interested in receiving additional information about "Fighting for Life", a new documentary film about how USUHS-trained personnel pursue their military health care mission.

• NIH has launched a new public volunteer program for Patient Ambassadors.  The program will be introduced at a meeting in the patio beside the Hatfield Center (new hospital) gift shop on April 29 at 2:00 PM.  Like regular blood donors and other NIH volunteers, Patient Ambassadors will qualify for an extended visitor badge.

• Extensive tree work will be necessary this summer along the NIH property line that parallels McKinley Street.  Eleven large tulip poplars in that area require crown (top) pruning.  Also, 4 Canadian hemlocks will be removed since they have become infested with woolly aldegid, an invasive insect pest whose range includes this area.

• Mr. Schofer asked why 3 dead trees along Center Drive had been cut off flat at the top and left in place.  Mr. Coleman said that grounds keeping manager Lynn Mueller intentionally leaves certain dead trees in place to make more bird habitat readily available.  Ms. Hildebrand added that such trees are commonly called “snags.”

Streetscape (#355) Improvement Project
Data collection is the first part of this project to improve the aesthetics and integration of the NIH frontage along Route 355.  Site-specific steps such as planning of more and larger plantings to better screen the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF) have already taken place.  On March 25, Mr. Wilson met with the contractor, Rhodeside & Harwell Inc., and provided them with additional background material, such as campus Master Plan objectives, maps, drawings and photos of the frontage and individual facilities.  The CLC will be informed of the streetscape design milestones and schedule and opportunities to review and comment on the results as they take shape.

South Side Buffer & Community Access
Mr. Wilson showed an aerial photo of the southwest portion of the campus taken in March 2006 (the most recent available), looking westward. It showed three parking lots, Lot 41B being the largest. The area used for material and equipment staging during security fence construction was previously restored to green space, as was part of the original parking area, so that only Lots 41B and 41C remain active today. The future 1,100-space parking garage anticipated by the Master Plan would have a maximum height of 80 feet, given its perimeter location.  Interior campus facilities such as the Clinical Research Center can be taller.  Once replacement parking is provided by the future garage, Lot 41B will be restored to green space.  No date has been set for building the future garage, but it will be built in two phases, both of which will be consistent in design so the final result will be a single, integrated building.

The photo showed the NIH property line fence, inside of which is a security fence, 90 to 250 feet from the property line. The landscaped buffer planned to surround the entire campus is nominally 250 feet inside the property line and thus parallel to it.  The buffer is vacant of NIH facilities except for some “grand fathered” buildings like the on-campus residences and safety and security-related buildings like the CVIF and Gateway Center.  The Master Plan calls for the security fence to stay where it is throughout the 20-year life of the plan even after surface parking now in the buffer has been restored to green space.

The Master Plan preserves and enhances the 250-foot wide buffer area.  The buffer contributes to the park-like character of the south campus, reserves open space outside the security fence for recreational uses by the public, and visually screens NIH facilities from the residential area south of Lot 41. The Master Plan eventually removes surface parking from the buffer and does not allow any new construction in the buffer.  Implementation of the Master Plan is dependent on funding availability, the phasing of replacement parking, the need to maintain some “surge” parking to offset future parking losses, and the need to maintain an appropriate level of parking within each sector of the campus.

Discussion
Mr. Oberlander noted that an 1,100-space garage sounds bigger than what is necessary, especially given continuing increases in NIH staff transit use and other TDM measures like telework.  He wanted to know how 1,100 cars on the south side of the campus would get in and out and what the impact would be on the adjacent Whitehall Condominium area.  Mr. Wilson said that depending on external conditions, campus events, time of day, weather and other factors, occasional future congestion on the campus is probably unavoidable, just as it is now, but it is likely to be temporary in nature, just as it is now.  [I don’t recall saying this.  Dennis may have stated this.] Moreover, his recollection from the Master Plan is that the south campus area around Lot 41 now provides about 1,500 surface parking spaces.  Replacing that with an 1,100 car garage does not provide more parking, even though Lot 41C would remain after the garage is built.

Several CLC members identified other impacts of a future garage, such as visual, light, air and noise pollution.  Dr. Ozarin and Ms. Rice asked NIH staff to start thinking about planting trees along the southern property line to better screen the future building.  Trees take time to grow, and if NIH at least roughly knows where and how big the building will be, there is no reason to delay mitigating the visual and light impacts.  Dr. Ozarin wanted the CLC to be informed of garage planning and impact analysis as soon as information is available, or whenever the next Master Plan update begins, whichever comes first.

Mr. Sawicki recalled CLC meetings years ago, after NIH built garages near Roosevelt Street.  The result was that NIH mitigated impacts after the fact, when it would have been more efficient to build in adequate mitigation from the start.  Mr. Wilson agreed that NIH has had to screen parking structures and redirect their lighting so it shines downward and not outward.  He cited MLP-10 near Cedar Lane as an example where screening was built into the original design of the garage. Mr. Oberlander stated that post-occupancy mitigation indicates inadequate consideration of impacts during design.  Since future garages are being considered and corporate memory tends to fade, he recommended that Mr. Wilson use the next Master Plan update to clarify impact-reducing design objectives for perimeter buildings.  Mr. Wilson responded that the Master Plan does codify design objectives for various campus areas, and agreed that language incorporating lessons learned from past projects is appropriate to add.

Mr. Oberlander brought up the issue discussed at the last meeting about the possibility of moving part of the security fence along the southwest side of the campus so as to enlarge the area designated for public access and light recreation.  Mr. Wilson indicated that he does not think NIH will agree to move the fence for the reasons stated last month (namely that (1) there is no compelling land use problem or reason for NIH to limit future security buffers or land use options (both of which are required to serve biomedical research as opposed to public recreation), and (2) NIH facility funds are particularly limited during the current “flat” budget period, not to mention that their use for purposes other than furthering NIH’s mission requires compelling justification).  Recent CLC minutes further document NIH's reasoning. 

As to whether the public was promised access to the entire buffer, Mr. Coleman said that the Master Plan is not silent, as previously suggested.  Statements by NIH staff, managers or executives cannot overrule or change the Master Plan, which documents results of an extensive public hearing and review process governed by administrative law, not what individuals may say or be understood to say at a community or private meeting.  The Master Plan would have to be formally amended to change what it now says about public access to the buffer.  The Master Plan is updated every 5 years, and the current one was approved in January, 2005.  Mr. Wilson thinks that the next Master Plan update process will commence in 2009 or 2010.   Mr. Oberlander suggested that as soon as that process starts, the CLC should be made aware of it and have an opportunity to promote more public access in the draft update and subsequent submittals to reviewing agencies like M-NCPPC or NCPC.

ENVIRONMENT

No topic was scheduled this month

TRANSPORTATION— Brad Moss [for Tom Hayden, Director], Travel & Transportation Division, ORS

In response to questions he received at last month’s meeting, Mr. Hayden provided Mr. Moss with written answers based on information received from the State Highway Administration (SHA), Metrobus, and RideOn bus as follows:

Crossing Signal Activation at Wilson Drive & MD355
The buttons will have to be pushed to activate a call to the signal controller to cross either Wilson Drive or Route 355.  However, pedestrian button activation will not override the vehicle signal cycle.  It will instead trigger display of pedestrian crossing icons during the next cycle.  The icons will be a walking person in white light for 7 seconds, which would then become an orange flashing hand for 20 seconds. These are minimums set by the Federal Highway and the Maryland Highway Commissions. When the light will be active is not yet known.  Mr. Hayden understands that PEPCO is resolving power supply issues.

South Drive Throughput
It was previously noted that bus drivers do not seem to turn right on red at South Drive, which adds to traffic congestion.  Both Ride-On and Metro leave such decisions to the driver’s discretion based on whether such a maneuver would be safe under whatever conditions may exist.  NIH would eventually like to widen South Drive.  Results of this project would create safer conditions for right on red in the future, since the narrow lanes may contribute to current reluctance to make such turns.  The priority of South Dr. widening with respect to other projects is under review due to limited funding.

Temporary Lot Status & Restoration Map
In response to a past question about whether temporary parking lots have all been restored to green space, Mr. Hayden provided an aerial photo of the campus.  Rather than unnecessarily spending money on custom graphics which may not address the issue, he asked CLC members to review the photo, circle the lots in question, and provide the results to Mr. Coleman.  He noted that if temporary means gravel-covered, there are no more temporary lots within the buffer zone.  Mr. Coleman suggested that some CLC members may regard any lot in the buffer (gravel or paved) to be a temporary lot, since the Master Plan calls for all surface parking in the buffer (except for specifically identified grand fathered parking) to eventually be restored to green space.  Mr. Coleman agreed to collect the requested CLC member input and provide it to Mr. Hayden.

Discussion
Mr. Oberlander noted that the lot in the northeast corner of the photo no longer exists.  Mr. Wilson said that the photo dates from 2006, so it is somewhat out of date.  Mr. Moss said that a contractor is now in the process of taking aerial photos to document the campus as of 2008.  Ms. Miller feels that at least some temporary parking spaces have been paved, which adds to the confusion about what CLC members and NIH staff regard as a temporary lot.

Additional Information
Mr. Moss offered to get answers to any questions that arise from the handouts he distributed.
He added that Mr. Hayden has begun highlighting upcoming TDM events in the signature block of his emails.  For example, the email provided today promotes a 4/23/08 presentation on commuting to NIH by bike.  A transportation list-serve (email distribution list) has also been implemented, which is open to the public. To be put on the list serve, interested persons should e-mail Mr. Hayden (haydent@mail.nih.gov).

Discussion
Mr. Coleman wanted to focus the discussion, which had drifted beyond transportation to land use.  On the south end of the campus, there are 3 issues:  (1) the buffer area has been set aside, but it has not been fully landscaped as the Master Plan eventually requires; (2) the public cannot access all of the buffer area under the current Master Plan; and (3) removal of items stored in Lot 41B is warranted since storage is not a Master Plan use of that area.  Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hayden are discussing how to accomplish removal of stored items, which requires ascertaining ownership and finding alternate locations for legitimate storage items.

Ms. Miller thought the original intent of the Master Plan was to have no buildings, storage, or anything else in the buffer zone.  In Mr. Oberlander’s experience with the NCPC, there is no distinction between temporary or permanent parking.  Also, the buffer's purpose was to insulate adjacent neighborhoods from NIH facilities.  Whether "facilities" includes parking lots may be debatable, but buildings are definitely in that category.

Storage Issue
Mr. Sawicki noted that items being stored on lot 41 include police equipment (orange cones, trailers, etc.), wooden palettes, landscaping materials, and apparently unused vehicles.  Mr. Wilson assured CLC members that Dan Wheeland (ORF Director) understands the issue and supports clean up of the area.  ORF must first inventory the items and establish who is responsible for them.  Since ORF approves staging and construction areas on the campus, ORF may have to relocate some items, and screening may be necessary for others.  Mr. Schofer agreed that NIH is large, and may need some outdoor storage, but management should discourage careless placement or abandonment of owned or orphaned items in areas visible to adjacent neighborhoods.  Mr. Oberlander asked for a status report at a future meeting.  Dr. Ozarin reported seeing white vehicles parked for extended periods along the edge of lot 41. “Mr. Moss said that Mr. Hayden will also investigate that issue, since some of the vehicles were surplused and waiting for the General Services Administration (GSA) to come and collect them.”  

NIH Growth
In response to Ms. Rice’s question about the maximum NIH main campus population under the Master Plan, Mr. Wilson reminded the group that the ceiling is 22,000, which would translate to 8000 or 9000 cars assuming current TDM participation, which is likely to increase.  Mr. Oberlander thought that the next Master Plan should consider a “smart car” policy, requiring anyone who parks on campus to have a compact car.   Mr. Coleman reminded members that NIH commuter traffic (~7600 peak period trips) remains ~30% less than 1992 levels (~11000 peak period trips), largely because of staff’s 45% transit use and other successful TDM measures.  NIH’s comment letters on the BRAC EIS process in fact offered to assist the Navy in its own TDM program development so as to increase the participation of base staff in transit reimbursement beyond the current 10-20% level.

Driveway Speeding Issue
At the February meeting, Ms. Volz reported a continuing pedestrian safety issue at the northernmost entrance to NIH on MD355.  Mr. Coleman said that follow up discussion had transpired and thanked Mr. Moss and the NIH police for coming up with creative ideas to efficiently and effectively address the speeding issue:  One idea is to simply park an NIH police car near the pedestrian crossing where drivers tend to speed.  The police already station a car at the gate end of that driveway during peak commute periods.  If that idea is tried, the car would be parked where inbound commuters could see it.  However, Mr. Moss said that any action to be taken is not decided, and there may be other approaches, such as radar, flashing lights or something else.

Speed bumps had been discounted because they obstruct snow removal equipment and create liability issues.  Ms. Miller said that speed bumps of the right design do not necessarily obstruct snow removal, as shown by their frequent use on County streets. 

Mr. Schofer asked whether a study had been done of speeding frequency at that location, so it would be possible to determine whether the parked police car or other remedy was doing any good.  He noted that the result could be useful for other situations.  Mr. Coleman said that a halt to pedestrian complaints seems enough indication that a remedy has worked.

In closing, Mr. Coleman noted that Mr. Hayden had been quoted in the April 16 issue of the Montgomery County Gazette, which reported on the effectiveness of NIH and Central Business District efforts to reduce traffic congestion in Bethesda.

Dennis Coleman, OCL Director, CLC Co-Chair [for Tony Clifford, Chief Engineer, ORF]

South Lawn Drainage Issue
Mr. Coleman presented an aerial view of the County drainage area adjacent to the south campus.  The photo was part of a 2007 presentation on the proposed NIH retention pond by the County’s Environmental Protection Department.  It shows that the water shed encompasses more than 200 acres.  The 3-acre pond is planned for the southeast corner of the campus where storm water exits the campus and flows east towards Rock Creek.  The existing county storm-drains are marked in red.  The western most 30 acres apparently has no storm drains nor connections to the drainage system on the eastern 170 acres. 

Mr. Clifford was asked to find out from the NIH General Counsel’s Office if the County or NIH had any duty to remedy the drainage issue under riparian, appropriative, land use or other property-related law.  If any such duty was identified, it could strengthen the community case and identify remedial responsibility.  Ms. Bradford added that her area (Camelot Mews) is subjected to unmanaged drainage flowing from County land to NIH’s South Lawn.  Mr. Schofer feels that history, land contour, and the natural flow of water play a role in what if anything can be done and who if anyone should do it.

Trail Lights
A maintenance work order was issued to replace some NIH trail lights that Mr. Sawicki reported as being burned out last month.

Steam-venting Noise
Mr. Coleman reported in February that the periodic (every 8-10 weeks) and loud steam-venting from Bldg. 37 had apparently been resolved since it did not reoccur in January.  The fix had involved both software and hardware problems.  However, Mr. Sawicki again heard jackhammer-like noises from the west side of the campus on Sunday March 29, at 8:00 AM.  Mr. Clifford asked west side building managers and the engineers who had diagnosed the Bldg 37 steam venting issue to identify the cause, which is assumed for now to be an isolated (i.e. single) occurrence, as opposed to the periodic Bldg. 37 occurrence.

INFORMATION FORUM—Dennis Coleman, OCL, Co-Chair

BRAC Final EIS
On 4/4/08, the Navy published a 700-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the expansion proposed under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) law.  To see how the FEIS answered questions from NIH (per Mr. Wheeland) and the County (per Mr. Leggett and Council President Knapp), Mr. Coleman compiled for each a 1-page, color-coded table.   Yellow indicates improvement over the Draft EIS; orange means that a future response is expected; red means an ambivalent or uncertain response; blue means that the Navy has done all it can do; and green means that no substantive response was provided. 

Improvements included the Navy hiring a TDM Coordinator, providing better documentation of expanded on-base housing, conforming to environmental building (LEED) standards, and a deciding to apply for Defense Access Road (DAR) funding for 2 kinds of mitigation projects; namely, (1) extra lanes on MD355 and Jones Bridge Road that directly connect to base driveways and (2) improved access to transit infrastructure from the base tunnel or bridge across 355, or separate Metro access on the east side of 355). 

Several items were deferred until completion of Transportation and Master Plan updates planned for later in 2008.  The Navy representative at the most recent mtg of the County’s BRAC Cmte stated that the EIS Record of Decision (RoD) will commit to conducting the analyses identified in the FEIS as being required to fill current information gaps. 

The FEIS regards several other items (including off-base traffic impacts and pedestrian/bike infrastructure improvements) as being the responsibility of state and county agencies.

Mr. Coleman was hopeful that the RoD would reflect more awareness of and sensitivity to local issues compared to the FEIS, which was prepared by an out of state consulting firm.

BRAC Impact on Local Traffic
To help visualize the impact of BRAC on local traffic, Mr. Coleman combined and analyzed known information from FEIS and NIH sources.  Available congestion indicators (e.g. the County Highway Mobility Report, State Hwy Administration (SHA) traffic counts, the FEIS map of potential intersection improvements, the FEIS tables of pre and post BRAC traffic Level of Service (LoS), and the LoS definitions themselves) have not really provided a clear graphical comparison of peak period (commute) traffic before & after BRAC. 

Mr. Coleman showed that before BRAC, NIH peak period commute traffic totals ~7600 trips, and Navy Med traffic totals ~6400 trips.  After BRAC (i.e. after 2011), NIH staff will be comparable to now, and associated NIH commute traffic (which has a history of decline) will likely be less than the current number of trips.   Post-BRAC commute traffic into and out of Navy Med will increase to ~8400 trips.  The AM and PM peak periods for each campus are assumed to last ~3 hours, consistent with observation.  Since Navy base shifts start and end an hour before NIH shifts however, the combined peak periods last ~4 hours.

Graphing the peak period traffic distribution (assumed to follow a simplified bell curve); Mr. Coleman then converted it into corresponding numbers of vehicle trips for each commute hour.  He concluded that after-BRAC, the Navy’s peak period traffic will exceed that of NIH’s, and the peak hour will be shifted 1 hour earlier for both AM and PM peak periods. 

Due to Bethesda’s high background (non-NIH & non-Navy) traffic volume, the relative BRAC increase of peak period traffic appears to be in the 10 to 20% range, not 50 or 100%.  Whether this causes unmanageable congestion requires computerized traffic modeling. 

Without such modeling, the daily traffic distribution can still be shown as low, average and high volume periods of 8 hours each.  Since the peak period is known, and low traffic obviously occurs after hours, the average period occurs during business hours, which is when the impact of ~1900 additional BRAC outpatients and an unknown amount of other BRAC traffic will occur.  Not enough is known now to allow the BRAC effect on business hour traffic to be estimated or visualized.

Mr. Coleman has encouraged NIH planners to develop their own traffic model that could better quantify and illustrate the BRAC effect on the location and extent of local backups, travel time through the area, campus master planning, and emergency planning among the Bethesda Partners (Navy Med, NIH, Suburban Hospital)

Discussion
Mr. Oberlander and Mr. Schofer said that adding 10 or 20% traffic to intersections that now operate at LoS F will cause other intersections to fail, as well as lengthen existing backups.

Mr. Sawicki said that BRAC could trigger implementation of previous Bethesda Sector plans to make a reversible lane on Old Georgetown Road for rush hour and emergency use.  This would require removal of the median strip and many trees.  Ms. Miller said that residents had lobbied long and hard to get those trees planted, so removing them is not likely to have broad community support.

ROUND ROBIN—Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair

Comments and Concerns

• Ms. Bradford reported seeing surveyors on Wisconsin Ave. and Old Georgetown Roads.  Mr. Coleman said the surveyors have been determining what intersection improvements the State Highway Administration can accomplish for the $45 million recently granted for BRAC traffic mitigation.  Later in the summer, SHA says that they should have a 30% design (or concept plan), and by November they should be able to show the public their 90% design (or proposed plan). 

• Mr. Oberlander said that SHA surveyors appear to be verifying rights of way.

• In closing, Mr. Coleman pointed out the handout notice and photo of NIH Director Zerhouni recently receiving France’s highest civilian award from French President Sarkozy.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Next meeting:  May 15, 2008, Conference Room G1

PARTICIPANTS

CLC Members
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace
Marilyn Mazuzan, Oakmont
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway
Lucy Ozarin, Whitehall
Eleanor Rice, East Bethesda
Stephen Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood
Beth Volz, Locust Hill

Guests
Janet Clark, Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences
Joan Kleinman, District Director, Office of Rep. Van Hollen

NIH Staff
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Howard Hochman, ORF
Susan Permut, ORF
Brad Moss, ORS
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Ron Wilson, ORF

back to top