|
Community Liaison Council Meeting
Minutes
May 18, 2006, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
National Institutes of Health
HANDOUTS
- March 16, 2006, CLC Meeting Minutes
- February 16, 2006, CLC Meeting Minutes
- May 2006 NIH News in Health
- Biographical Informational Sheet—Juanita Holler-Mildenberg
- Campus Perimeter Shuttle Schedule
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
By John T. Burklow, Acting Director, OCL, NIH
Mr. John Burklow called the meeting to order and announced
that Juanita Holler-Mildenberg, Acting Director of the Office
of Research Facilities, would give a presentation to answer
a number of questions raised by the Council.
PRESENTATIONS
General Updates
By Ron Wilson, Acting Director, Division of Facilities Planning,
ORF, OD, NIH
Mr. Ron Wilson reported that all temporary parking lots to
be closed are on target and are in the process of being returned
to green space. They will all be completed around mid-June
and lot 41-C should be completed by the end of next week.
Mr. Wilson also reported that ORF, working through the Division
of Physical Security, been able to turn down the lights during
the evening hours at the Commercial Vehicle Inspection (CVI)
station as suggested by some CLC members. Mr. Ralph Schofer
mentioned that his constituents have often expressed concern
about the lack of light between the Metro station and Cedar
Lane on the walking path adjacent to Rockville Pike. The pathway
is black asphalt and the glare of car lights in the pedestrian’s
eyes, combined with the lack of light fixtures on the walkway,
makes it difficult to see. Mr. Wilson replied that the illumination
plan for the CVI station area could solve some of the problem.
More discussion followed, with Ms. Ginny Miller asserting
that this is a problem all up and down Rockville Pike on both
sides. She suggested that this is a County and/or State Highway
Administration problem. Mr. George Oberlander added that a
similar situation exists on Old Georgetown Road. The problem
is much broader than just around NIH, according to Mr. Tom
Hayden.
Ms. Anna Franz of ORF updated the Council on the Building
36 demolition project by distributing a handout that summarized
the project’s approach to demolition noise mitigation.
The demolition is progressing well and should be completed
by early September, possibly even sooner. There are four main
types of equipment being used for the project. These include
the "hoe-ram," which breaks slabs into large pieces;
the "wap hammer," which pulls pieces apart after
rebar isolation, a Bobcat with bucket, which is used to remove
large pieces, and a crawler/excavator with grapple, which
is used to remove debris. The rebar is cut into pieces and
recycled, and a muncher processes debris, making it possible
to recycle the concrete also.
Ms. Franz introduced Mr. Bob McDonald, Building 36 Project
Officer for the demolition, who said that an extensive quality
control plan was in place for the project and it is strictly
followed. The project was designed to reduce noise and vibration
to a minimum because of ongoing research in nearby buildings,
as well as to avoid as much discomfort for the neighbors as
possible. The best-value procurement was used; they priced
less noisy methods, such as "munching" the entire
building, but found this would add tremendous additional cost,
on the order of $1 million. The hybrid or combination method
being used offered the best value; it is not the quietest
possible way to take the building down, but it offers the
best combination of cost efficiency and noise reduction. Another
consideration was the duration of the project; quieter methods
take longer, and completing the project more quickly has value
also. The material from the building is being processed so
that most of it can be recycled. For example, all of the steel
(from duct work, etc.) and the rebar can be recycled, and
even the concrete itself. The processing is done off-site
as much as possible; pieces are first reduced to movable size
and then trucked off-site. Noise measurements are taken every
day and the project has consistently been within County limits.
Work begins at 6 a.m., but nothing noisy is allowed before
8 a.m. Noise earlier than that is not intentional. Every attempt
is made to keep the noise down in the early hours and end
by 4 p.m.
Mr. Schofer asked how they separate rebar from concrete.
Mr. McDonald explained that the muncher eats the concrete
off the rebar, shaking the slab until only rebar is left.
A market exists for concrete rubble; it can be used as highway
bed filler and reprocessed into aggregate for new concrete,
etc. Mr. Steve Sawicki said that at times, the noise levels
became nearly unbearable in his neighborhood. It is loud and
constant. He wondered why they had not used implosion and
taken the building down all at once. Mr. McDonald answered
that they had looked at implosion, but had concluded that
the building was not tall enough to break things up sufficiently.
Even after the building was destroyed, slabs would still have
to be broken up on the ground. They looked at every possible
demolition method and decided that the present method was
the way to proceed. Mr. Oberlander asked if their sound measurements
took all the ambient noise into account, or just that from
the demolition. Mr. McDonald said the measurements include
noise from Porter, etc., and from the demolition, but noise
from Old Georgetown Road cannot be considered. Once the project
is completed, the site will be maintained as a fenced construction
site, with grass planted to maintain the soil. Mr. McDonald
explained that congressional language states the area is intended
to be maintained in an interim condition until Porter, Phase
II, construction funding is approved. The cleared site will
not be used for a parking lot, but the staging area will be
maintained rather than restored and torn up again. Mr. Schofer
asked why NIH did not simply remain in the building when it
found out it could not proceed with the Porter, Phase II,
construction. Mr. McDonald pointed out that it would have
cost a great deal of money to re-occupy the building, and
NIH had already undergone considerable expense to move people
out.
ORF Initiatives
By Juanita Holler-Mildenberg, Acting Director, ORF, OD, NIH
Ms. Juanita Holler-Mildenberg explained that the ORF is responsible
for and has the authority to manage and maintain the NIH physical
plant. She believes it is taken care of well. Ms. Mildenberg
said that during the period when NIH’s budget was being
doubled, construction was robust. The budget increases resulted
in requirements for new facilities. Thus the Clinical Research
Center, a very large, state-of-the-art hospital, was built;
the Family Lodge was replaced by the new Children’s
Inn; a new Fire Station replaced the outmoded and ineffective,
antiquated facility; a new electrical substation was built;
and Building 50 was built; all largely within a five-year
period. Most of this construction was in research and support
areas. Administrative expansion was handled mostly with off-campus
leases. These were consolidated into a few places, such as
the Twinbrook and Executive Boulevard complexes and the Rock
Spring area.
Present construction includes the CVI station and the Gateway
Center, with its 350-vehicle underground parking lot. These
facilities are intended to allow access to NIH and provide
the needed security. Both are in the buffer zone because of
security regulations as a result of 9/11. All vehicles or
persons entering the campus must now be checked. Both facilities
must therefore be on the perimeter of the campus outside the
security fence. Ms. Mildenberg assured the Council that no
other facilities are planned for placement in the buffer zone.
NIH does have three major building priorities. These are Porter,
Phase II, a new animal holding facility, and the Building
10 core renovation project. However, with present funding,
none of these is likely to start within the next three to
five years. The FY2007 budget for the physical plant is the
same as in 2006: no money is allocated for new construction.
The budget allows for maintenance of the current infrastructure,
including essential safety and repairs, changes necessary
to comply with handicapped access regulations, and projects
aimed at keeping the existing facilities completely operational.
Ms. Lesley Hildebrand wondered why money was allocated for
demolition, but none for the replacement construction of the
Porter, Phase II, building. Ms. Mildenberg replied that money
had been requested for Phase II but none had been approved.
The federal budget is tight because of many things, including
the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina relief, etc.
Ms. Mildenberg reported that the NIH Master Plan was updated
in 2003, and the total projected employee capacity on the
Bethesda campus is about 22,000. Some Council members have
expressed concern about growth on campus. She reported that
in the late ’90s, 17,400 employees were housed on the
Bethesda campus, but in 2005, there were roughly 18,000. In
other words, growth has nearly stopped, directly as a result
of budget cuts. Leased facilities in the region formerly housed
about 5,600 employees, but this has grown to about 9,800,
and these facilities include approximately 3.3 million square
feet. Thus, the main campus has not grown, but administrative
increases have caused growth in the surrounding area. Ms.
Mildenberg told the Council that NIH cannot predict when the
22,000-employee ceiling will be hit. She noted that it is
difficult to predict the future. For example, a pandemic flu
or some other such emergency could necessitate rapid growth.
Nonetheless, the intent is still to not exceed 22,000 employees
on the Bethesda campus.
In response to a Council question about what lessons NIH
has learned to prevent another Porter-like noise problem,
Ms. Mildenberg said that her office is always learning from
projects. On all future construction, they are looking at
design specifications and where mechanical housings are placed
and are being especially careful about quality control of
the construction. NIH has well-qualified individuals who can
assess projects. Some proposals are excellent but follow-through
is lacking. She acknowledged that NIH Project Officers must
be part of the process, and they are being trained in oversight.
Assessment of contractor work is a critical step, and failure
to perform sometimes results in termination, but this can
be very costly. Good quality control is important to the whole
process. The Council discussed the Porter Building noise problem
and the length of time involved to mitigate the issue. There
is a perceived resistance by the NIH to correcting things.
Ms. Mildenberg agreed that there had been some problems, but
noted that every project was different. The trick is to bring
lessons back into the system so problems are not repeated.
Another Council question was if any other federal agencies
had offices on the Bethesda campus. Ms. Mildenberg answered
that only the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had any presence,
with about 450 employees in the Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (CBER). They are scheduled to leave in 2014.
She told the Council it would be difficult to ask them to
leave earlier. FDA is a sister HHS agency and the group is
relatively small. They have been on the campus for years,
and FDA’s budget is just as tight as NIH’s; besides,
they do similar research, so their presence is logical. NIH
has no plans for any other agency to come onto campus.
Ms. Mildenberg told the Council that the new Gateway Center
is scheduled for completion between March and April 2007,
and the new Vehicle Inspection Station will open in mid-October
of this year. She assured the Council that the hours of the
new facilities would be the same as at present, so she anticipates
no new disruption once they open. Mr. Schofer wondered if
the Commercial Vehicle Inspection hours could be scheduled
to be outside peak traffic hours. She answered that if you
attempt to schedule deliveries at specific times, you pay
a premium price. Mr. Oberlander asked if NIH had any intent
to consolidate any of the leased facility personnel onto campus.
She assured the Council that NIH has no such plans but that
if the budget continues flat or declines, it might be necessary
to reduce staff. And if enough space opened up, they could
perhaps pull people to the campus to save money. In any case,
the number of employees on the Bethesda main campus should
not exceed 22,000.
NIH Reforestation Plan Update
By Kenny Floyd, Director, Division of Environmental Protection,
ORF, OD, NIH
Mr. Lonnie Darr showed a photograph of the area in 1951,
where the 310-acre NIH campus had 85.47 acres of forest and
the Cedar Lane woods were still in place. A photograph from
1998 showed development reduced this area to 55.18 acres of
woods. In 2004, a tree inventory was completed, with more
than 6,000 individual trees on the campus mapped. Despite
some infill planting and natural regeneration, the canopy
had been reduced by about 6 acres to 49.89 acres. This apparent
reduction, Mr. Darr explained, was probably more due to better
resolution than to actual tree loss. The campus in 2006 still
has about 50 acres of woods. He estimated that by 2023, the
period covered by the current Master Plan, the campus will
have roughly 110 acres of woods. In 1951, many of the trees
had just been planted. These are now more mature. The NIH
works hard to keep trees in good condition. Mr. Darr pointed
to lots of reforestation near Building 10, and said that areas
along the hillside are to be enhanced. He said that even though
the campus has lost around 400 trees due to the visitor’s
center, mostly white pines, they are all replaced at slightly
more than a 1-to-1 ratio. NIH works very hard, retagging trees,
keeping the inventory up to date, noting what needs to be
removed, and planting new trees.
Ms. Miller noted that along the Old Georgetown Road corridor
the campus was unattractive because you don’t see many
trees. Mr. Darr replied that this area has lots of lawn. He
pointed out that an effort was being made to reduce the amount
of turf in the buffer zone, but this takes time, especially
on a limited budget. He expressed hope that the whole corridor
is a priority for reforestation. Mr. Oberlander suggested
that the NIH should add reforestation priorities to their
Master Planning. Mr. Wilson replied that the open space character
is planned. At the present, more of a lawn treatment is the
plan for the Old Georgetown Road side. To change this, they
would have to modify the Master Plan.
Ms. Deborah Michaels asked if the new Commercial Vehicle
Inspection Station, in the buffer zone, would be landscaped
with trees along the road. Mr. Wilson answered that the site
plan has a substantial landscaped buffer along Rockville Pike,
with a berm, and will provide a nicer frontage, a softer edge
to the campus. Mr. Darr mentioned that deer are usually a
big problem with reforestation projects. Ms. Hildebrand asked
what the projected forest canopy cover would be in 2023 and
wondered if a plan for this already existed. Mr. Darr answered
that a plan was in place. NIH will make a concerted effort
to fill in, and with natural growth, maximize the canopy cover
on campus. He said the approved forest conservation plan projected
110.75 acres by 2023, approximately double the canopy cover
today. This means that although the County requirement is
around 20%, the NIH will then have roughly 35% canopy cover.
Mr. Oberlander commented that he had seen roses on the retaining
wall near the Clinical Center and noted how beautiful they
were.
Noise Abatement Update
By: Kenny Floyd, Director, Division of Environmental Protection,
ORF, OD, NIH
Mr. Kenny Floyd showed a map of all the noise-sampling points,
both on campus and off. He showed photographs of sampling
devices on the roof of Building 37, aimed toward Porter. He
gave the Council a list of things the NIH needed to consider
for mitigation, noting that quite a number of buildings were
affected. Many are things like silencers and acoustical louvers
that can be accomplished relatively quickly. He mentioned
that they are behind in obtaining recommendations from the
consultant. He must review the list to see which projects
can go forward. Mr. Floyd showed a picture of things already
done. These include machinery mounted on spring-like vibration
dampers and a similar noise-dampening joint on stacks. He
explained that the NIH technical people will select the recommendations
on which they can move forward, and the projects they select
will be fast-tracked through design and implementation. The
next phase of the noise study will be the modeling, which
will continue into summer, with final recommendations based
on the model. These will include short- and long-term projects.
Ms. Hildebrand commented that this project seemed very slow;
she would have appreciated a better response from the consultant.
The CLC Noise Committee also feels left in the dark a bit.
They feel the updates have been insufficient and would really
have appreciated better organization so they could have provided
real input. Mr. Floyd agreed that the consultant has not been
as responsive as desired; he said he was following up with
steps he could take to move him forward.
South Lawn Update
By Tony Clifford, Chief Engineer, NIH, OD, ORF
The consultants working with Mr. Tony Clifford have planned
a complete survey of the southwest portion of campus, including
underground utilities and anything that has an impact on the
project. They will include a hydrologic analysis and a profile
of the soil for drainage and absorption. This survey will
be completed by June 26, 2006. Mr. Clifford mentioned that
the county drain line was getting worse, causing erosion and
threatening damage to a nearby large tree. Solving this problem
is complicated by the tree and must involve the County. By
July 17 they will also have completed an assessment of safety
aspects of the field. The consultant wants to hold a workshop
with community representatives to obtain their input. The
time for this will be determined by their availability. By
July 31, a draft report will be ready for comment by the community.
He hopes to have a formal presentation ready by August, with
the final report ready to submit to NIH by September. Mr.
Clifford reiterated that the consultant wants interaction
with the community. He believes the survey will establish
the facts and a work group will spend time looking at the
site with the consultant and will then spend time around the
table to discuss options and solutions. The consultant agrees
with Mr. Clifford that the County must be involved, but it
needs a clear understanding of the problem first. Mr. Sawicki
commented that they needed to make sure the County does not
slow or impede progress. Mr. Clifford said to be fair to the
County, that it is not resistant. Ms. Miller noted that this
time line seemed too long. Mr. Clifford clarified that it
included time for interaction with the community, and he wants
to be sure the Council and the community have time to comment
on the draft plan. Mr. Oberlander asked for assurance that
Mr. Clifford would keep the Council informed. Mr. Clifford
replied that he certainly would, both at the monthly meetings
and in the work group sessions. Ms. Michaels asked if they
needed to collect data during rainy periods and drought, etc.
Mr. Clifford answered that this was not necessary. He thinks
the previous contractor did not understand the water source.
The Council wondered if the projected August report would
be full and complete. Mr. Clifford answered yes; he is hoping
for a pretty straightforward solution. He added that the field
will be accessible to people for the summer, he does not plan
to replant the grass. He pointed out that soccer players were
the biggest problem; their cleats are ripping up the grass,
which unfortunately never really got started. Ms. Hildebrand
wondered where the workshop would be held and Mr. Clifford
answered that it would be somewhere convenient for Council
members. The consultant suggested that the workgroup include
a visit to the field as a part of the first meeting so all
can clearly see the issues and concerns. Seeing the field
and the issues first hand would be more productive than looking
at drawings.
CLC ROUND ROBIN
Mr. Burklow acknowledged that this was the first time the
Council has had a formal meeting since the death of John Dattoli.
He died very suddenly, of a heart attack, leaving his wife
and three children. Mr. Burklow said that Mr. Dattoli; was
an outstanding NIH employee and will be sorely missed. Mr.
Burklow announced that a fund has been established for the
education of the children. Ms. Amy Blackburn has more information
for any who would like to contribute.
Mr. Burklow also announced that a selection has been made
for the new director of the OCL. His name is Dennis Coleman,
and he was previously mayor of Half Moon Bay, California.
Mr. Burklow said he is well qualified and in the interviews
had shown a keen insight into the demands and needs of the
job. He has a law degree and as both a Councilman and a mayor
of Half Moon Bay, he has had to deal with community issues.
Mr. Burklow announced that Mr. Coleman will join the NIH by
late summer.
Mr. Burklow also thanked Mr. Hayden and Mr. Wilson for their
work on the intersection of South Drive and Old Georgetown
Road. He noted that their persistence had paid off: the State
will install a left-turn light, sidewalks and crossing buttons,
and a dip for wheelchairs and bicycles and will square off
the crosswalk. The schedule is to start the project in September
and have it completed in November. On the North Drive side,
they will block off the side streets so the illegal left turns
will no longer be possible within the next 60 days. Finally,
Mr. Hayden said that rumors that the perimeter shuttle would
be discontinued are not true; the shuttle will continue to
run on its current schedule. The perimeter shuttle ridership
is being monitored daily and adjustments may be made in the
future. Any changes to routing, scheduling and times would
be brought before the CLC prior to implementation. Changes
to the route would be based on sound financial and business
data.
ADJOURNMENT
The formal meeting ended at 6:15 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
- Mr. Floyd will follow up with the noise consultant and
report developments to the CLC.
- Mr. Clifford will work with the hydrographic consultant
to complete the survey of the South Lawn and report back
to the CLC.
- Mr. Clifford will notify the South Lawn committee and
the CLC at large of the proposed workshop, and a time and
place will be determined and announced.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
- Campus Tour to include
- Edmond J. Safra Lodge (Family Inn)
- Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility
CLC Members Present
Amy Blackburn, OCL, OD, NIH
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Citizens Association
John Burklow, Acting Director, OCL, OD, NIH
Anthony Clifford, ORF, OD, NIH
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Association
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma Citizens Association
Deborah Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair, Wyngate Citizens Association
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Sharon Robinson, OCL, OD, NIH
Stephen Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association
Randy Schools, Recreation and Welfare Association, NIH
Deborah Snead, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center
Ronald Wilson, ORFDO, NIH
J. Paul Van Nevel, NIH Alumni Association
Guests
Lonnie Darr, Geographic Information Systems
Kenny Floyd, ORF, OD, NIH
Anna Franz, ORF, OD, NIH
Tom Hayden, ORS, OD, NIH
Chief Alvin Hinton, Security, ORS, OD, NIH
Joan Kleinman, Congressman Van Hollen's Office
Robert McDonald, ORF, OD, NIH
Brad Moss, ORS, OD, NIH
Shelly Pollard, OCPL
Terry Taylor, Palladian Partners, Inc.
Chris Williams, Gazette News
back to top
|
