Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
November 16, 2006, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
National Institutes of Health

HANDOUTS

• October 19, 2006 CLC Meeting Minutes
• November 3, 2006 NIH Record
• November 2006 NIH News in Health
• November 16, 2006 OCL Information Update: Nat’l Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): What is It & How Can Communities Participate in its Process
• NIH Campus Access Map
• New campus access schedule
• Copies of October 25, 2006 and October 31, 2006 emails from Brad Moss regarding new weekday hours of operation at designated entrances/exits
• NIH Master Plan 2003 Update: Phase 1 Status
• Artist’s renderings and detailed landscaping plan for Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility

CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

By: Dennis Coleman, Director, OCL, OD, NIH

Mr. Coleman thanked everyone for coming in such inclement weather and welcomed NIH staff and community members to the meeting. After noting that a welcome crisis had developed in that NIH is running out of wall space for portraits of its Nobel laureates, he asked Brad Moss, Communication Director of the Office of Research Services (ORS), to address some recurring questions about campus access and security.
                       
Mr. Moss prefaced his remarks by informing the Council that he could provide policy information but was not in a position to debate policy. He noted that the new director of the ORS, Dr. Johnson, had only been in office for two weeks and was not prepared to appear before the council at this time. The previous Associate Director for Security and Emergency Response (Dr. Noel) was on an off-site tour of duty and also unavailable to attend the meeting.  Mr. Moss then addressed four questions:

• Can anything further be done to make it easier for commuters to cross the campus? Mr. Moss stated that this was essentially a question about whether NIH would issue ID badges to visitors. The policy has been, and continues to be, that NIH does not issue ID badges to visitors unless they have official business on the NIH campus. For those adverse to security procedures and associated delays, he noted that the NIH perimeter shuttle will continue to provide transportation around the campus during much of each weekday (6:30AM-7:30PM) for the foreseeable future.

• Why does access have to be controlled? Mr. Moss stated that the answer to this question could be found at www.security.nih.gov. He encouraged Council members to visit that site, and he read a statement from the website that addresses this question. In short, NIH was required by the HHS Office of the Inspector General to enhance physical security in the wake of Okalahoma City and 9/11. The NIH director approved the enhanced perimeter security measures in early 2003. Mr. Moss noted that providing a secure environment without constraining the ability of staff to enter, exit and move freely about the campus was a significant challenge. A perimeter fence with multiple access points for employees, a restricted access point for visitors and patients, and a second restricted access point for commercial vehicles was deemed to be the most feasible approach to manage campus access. Mr. Moss noted that NIH security procedures reflected guidance and direction from a host of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the General Services Administration among other.

• Why are changes taking place in the hours that access gates are manned, and will this inconvenience anyone? Mr. Moss stated that ORS sent an email to all NIH employees explaining that the changes in the hours of operation made were in response to budgetary challenges and to implement more cost-effective staffing. He noted that traffic analysis had identified several entrances and exits that were essentially unused for long periods of time. The new hours of operation for those entrances and exits were more closely aligned with the usage patterns. Mr. Moss acknowledged that the changes would have an impact on members of the Council who use the West Gateway Visitors Center near South Drive and Old Georgetown Road as the hours have change to 6 am to 12 noon.  He also noted that signage showing the old hours of operation would soon be corrected.  Finally, he told the Council that ORS would continue its monitoring program to assess the impact of the new hours of operation, and that adjustments could be made to address issues identified through this analysis, if funds are available.

• In view of the occasional incidents involving perceived slowness or rudeness of contract security guards, are any process improvements or training steps being considered to improve their morale, motivation, and user interface skills? Mr. Moss stated that a number of steps were already in place regarding the guard contract. He noted that NIH police regularly monitor all aspects of the guard contract, including customer service and behavior, because the guard contract is performance based. The contractor can incur monetary penalties for under performance and has a strong incentive for monitoring the performance of the guards. Mr. Moss emphasized that the guards go through a training program prior to employment; however, turnover is high due to the high demand for security personnel in the DC area. Mr. Moss informed the Council that ORS had conducted an employee survey on the guard contract, which included questions regarding customer service, behavior, training, and interpersonal skills. He noted that adjustments would be made as necessary, based on the results of that survey.

Mr. Schofer stated that he had not received the email that Mr. Moss had referenced. Mr. Moss stated that the message had been sent to all NIH employees, and that OCL had forwarded it to Council members.

Mr. Schofer noted that there is an unmanned gate opposite Building 33. Some members of his citizens association were concerned that someone could obtain a pass, enter the unmanned gate, and approach Building 33. Mr. Moss replied that there are 24-hour surveillance cameras on every gate, this gate is the closest pedestrian portal to the NIH police station, and it is impossible to enter through a pedestrian portal without an active NIH ID. He added that the gate could be locked from a remote location if the surveillance cameras show any suspicious activity, so it is unlikely that multiple entries could be accomplished by passing a stolen ID back and forth through the gate. Even if this were to occur, the design and staffing of Building 33 would make unauthorized access very difficult.
                              
Mr. Schofer stated that he had spoken with Chief Hinton, who indicated that the guards do not check the badge number against the visual image on the computer screen and the software does not check to see whether a badge has been used multiple times going in before it is used to go out. Mr. Moss reiterated that there are cameras on every pedestrian entrance, and they are monitored 24 hours a day. He also noted that missing or stolen IDs are immediately deactivated when NIH security personnel are aware, making it difficult for the employee or someone else to gain access to the campus. While the scenario described by Mr. Schofer is possible, it is highly unlikely.

Ms. Michaels reminded the Council that she had previously expressed concern about cars running the red light as they crossed Wisconsin Avenue at Jones Bridge Road to enter NIH. She reported that she saw an NIH police van run the red light at 6:35 on the morning of the meeting. Mr. Moss assured Ms. Michaels that he would inform the Chief about this incident, though he noted that NIH police do not have jurisdiction outside the NIH campus.

Ms. Hoos expressed concern that the new hours of operation would restrict residents’ access to the Metro station. According to the new schedule, it appeared that residents who commute by Metro would be unable to cross the campus if their train arrives after 9:00 p.m.  Mr. Moss said it would not be realistic for NIH to extend the hours of operation for a handful of people. Ms. Hoos noted that the Metro station was not constructed exclusively for NIH employees, and she urged NIH to look at other options. She also noted that neighbors have a stake in NIH security because they live around the campus, while NIH employees are only there during business hours.  She expressed frustration that nothing seems open for discussion.

Mr. Moss stated that NIH had reviewed these issues many times and repeatedly explained them to the Council. He again noted that tightened security is standard policy now at all federal facilities. This may change in the future, but Mr. Moss stressed that the current policies were unlikely to be revised anytime soon.  Mr. Coleman assured CLC members that Mr. Moss would communicate their concerns to Dr. Johnson, and he reiterated that the Council was created to inform members and allow them to respond and influence NIH, but not to manage NIH.

Mr. Moss stated that NIH employees had expressed many of the same concerns regarding the new hours of operation. He urged Council members to call him directly at 301-594-0677 if they have additional questions or concerns regarding security or transportation.
 
Mr. Oberlander asked whether NIH police could provide transportation for residents who arrive at the Metro station after hours.  Mr. Moss said he would present that suggestion, but expressed concerns about potential liability, since NIH police vehicles are for on campus use, and with gates closed after 9PM, accepting the suggestion would require off-campus use.

Mr. Coleman suggested that if a significant number of people are routinely inconvenienced by the reduced hours, consideration could be given to making arrangements with a local cab company, similar to those made by local governments to reduce drunk driving.

Mr. Moss noted that the new hours of operation at the West Gate Visitors Center were currently being analyzed, especially in light of NIH collaboration with Suburban Hospital.

Ms. Mazuzan noted that some of her neighbors had complained that the shuttle bus does not come at the scheduled times. Mr. Hayden said that he had heard a similar complaint several months ago, but not lately. He stated that the shuttle bus service was a performance-based contract, and complaints would be held against the contractor. He emphasized that he needs to know about problems as soon after the fact as possible. Mr. Moss stated that calls about the shuttle bus could be directed to the phone number he mentioned earlier. In response to a question from a CLC member, Mr. Hayden stated that the phone number listed at the bus stops was for his old office, but that calls to that number would be routed to him. His direct office phone is 301-402-8981. Mr. Hildebrand noted that the existing signs do not clearly indicate whether residents can even use the shuttle.

Mr. Hildebrand expressed concern that the Council was only notified on October 31, when the new hours took effect on November 1. He asked why this issue was not presented to the Council at the last meeting.

Mr. Moss reiterated that notice went out to the entire NIH community on October 25; the October 31 message provided notice of additional hours of operation. He stated that ORS was not in position to provide this information at the last meeting because decisions were still being made. Even if CLC members had been notified the minute the decision to shorten gate hours had been made by ORS management, that decision was driven by financial realities (as opposed to any desire to keep the public off campus) and could not have been changed without compromising other necessary services.  He provided Council members with an NIH campus access map and a copy of the October 24 and October 31 emails.

Mr. Coleman reiterated that Mr. Moss would relay the Council’s concerns to Dr. Johnson. He noted that the key unresolved issue is what if anything can be done if a handful of residents are continually inconvenienced by the change in gate hours.

Ms. Mazuzan noted that the Council had devoted a great deal of discussion to involving the community in the decision-making process rather than simply handing down edicts. She stated that if the ORS had simply informed the Council that it was considering changes, and gotten even negative feedback at that stage, Council members would still have felt that they were involved, even if some  regarded further limits on campus access as a betrayal of their prior understanding that NIH would not do this. Mr. Moss reminded the Council that the ORS had presented the results of the usage studies to the Council some months ago, and stated at that time that there was a possibility that the hours of access would be changed. He reiterated that ORS had not made a final decision until after the October 19 CLC meeting.

Mr. Schofer stated for the record that the ORS should provide 30 days notice before implementing any changes in access or transportation.  This would give those affected sufficient time to develop alternative courses of naction.  No Council action was taken in this regard since the item being discussed was a policy announcement, as opposed to a debate about what policy should be.  Mr. Moss had made clear at the start of his remarks that he was not in a position to debate policy since the appropriate ORS manager (Dr. Johnson) was newly appointed and could not attend the present meeting, but could do so in the future if a policy change was agendized to determine feedback or consensus input from the Council.

Mr. Coleman thanked Mr. Moss for addressing these issues. He noted that he was considering the possibility of having the budget office make a presentation next year so the Council could better understand the necessity of NIH increasing efficiency.

FACILITIES

By: Ron Wilson, Acting Director, Division of Facilities Planning, Office of Research Facilities, NIH

Mr. Wilson addressed two items:

• Phasing status of the campus Master Plan
• Landscaping for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF)

Mr. Wilson provided a handout showing the Master Plan 2003 Update, which was approved in January 2005. He stated that the plan was based on a maximum campus population of 22,000 staff, ~20% beyond the current population of ~18,000. Limiting the proposed maximum population reflects factors such as traffic, utilities, and environmental considerations, including impact on the surrounding community.

The Master Plan is a 20-year plan, broken into 5-year increments. Although the Plan does not include any specific dates, it provides a general sense of project priorities and timing. Ultimately, actual development will be a function of Congressional and Presidential directives and budget considerations. The Master Plan is in short a coherent vision with no requirement that any given element will be implemented.

Mr. Wilson then provided an overview of the first 5-year phase of the Master Plan, which covers 2004-2009. He noted that several projects listed in Phase One were actually completed before Plan was approved, including the fire station (2003), the north substation (2002), the CRC (September 2004), and the Children’s Inn addition (May 2004). Several others have also been completed, including the Porter Neuroscience Research Center (June 2004), Safra Family Lodge (May 2005), Building 33 (May 2006), and MLP 9 and 10. The Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility and the Gateway Center are currently under construction. Removal and restoration of some surface parking areas has also been completed.

Items that remain to be completed include the second phase of the Porter Neuroscience Research Center, a childcare center, waste handling facilities, a zebra fish addition, and the Stoney Creek Pond. Except for the Stoney Creek Pond, it is unlikely that funding will be available to complete these items by 2009.

Responding to a question from Mr. Coleman, Mr. Wilson replied that it was difficult to speculate what percentage of the Master Plan is likely to be accomplished in the end. The plan provides a framework to meet biomedical research needs if and when national priorities and funding allow it.

Mr. Wilson then moved to an overview of the screening plan for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility. Mr. Coleman noted that he had included this item on the agenda because Council members’ had remarked that the facility ended up looking like a glorified gas station.

Mr. Wilson distributed a detailed site plan showing what would be planted where, and artist’s renderings of the completed landscaping project from three views.  Mr. Wilson noted that the illustrations depict the mature size of trees and plantings, not the size they are now.

Mr. Oberlander noted that the facility was built in an area that serves as the main buffer strip between Rockville Pike and the campus. He recognized that security considerations were involved in the decision to locate the facility in this space, but he felt it was unfortunate that an industrial looking building is the first impression of  NIH for those coming south on Rockville Pike.

Mr. Schofer reminded the Council that Mr. Hayden had stated at the last meeting that light from the CVIF may help improve visibility on the sidewalks along Rockville Pike, and he expressed concern that the proposed landscaping may interfere with that effect. Mr. Coleman replied that Mr. Hayden would address the issue of sidewalk visibility during the next section of the meeting.

Ms. Hoos expressed concern that some of the plants shown on the landscape plan are quite small, even when mature.  She asked how long it would take for the plants to reach the size shown in the rendering. Mr. Wilson replied that he would ask the landscape designer to provide that information.

Ms. Michaels noted that the plan includes many deciduous trees, which would lose their screening effect in winter. She asked whether more evergreens could be included in the design.  Mr. Wilson will report back on whether the screening plan could be tailored in minor ways without triggering further administrative reviews.

Mr. Oberlander noted that many architects are now using roof plantings to soften the impact of large structures, citing the Canadian embassy as an example. Mr. Wilson said he was familiar with the green roof concept, but he stated that weight must be considered in such designs.

Responding to a question from Mr. Coleman, Mr. Wilson stated that the CVIF would likely be fully operational during the first quarter of 2007.

Mr. Coleman asked whether there are some simple cosmetic ideas, such as hanging artificial plants or vines from the roof, that could help soften the industrial look of the building, even temporarily while waiting some number of years for plantings to mature.  He suggested that Mr. Wilson invite Lynn Mueller to the next meeting to answer questions about plantings.  Mr. Wilson agreed and added that he would check whether the CVIF project officer had any input to contribute about roofline cosmetic possibilities.

Ms. Hoos noted that Chicago recently implemented a policy to use green roofs throughout the city and suggested that NIH consider the possibility of using green roofs throughout the campus. Mr. Oberlander stated that the Washington, D.C. City Council is considering similar legislation. Mr. Wilson replied that a major sustainability effort is currently underway at NIH. The green roof concept is one approach that is being considered, and NIH is required to incorporate a green roof into at least one new project. He noted that the Gateway Center would essentially have a green roof, since it is partially built into a hillside.

TRANSPORTATION
By: Tom Hayden, Director, Division of Travel & Transportation, Office of Research Services

Mr. Hayden reported on results of the South Drive pavement inspection. He reminded the Council that two preliminary construction projects had been undertaken to address pedestrian safety and traffic issues caused by a section of broken concrete. These included a temporary patch with steel plates, followed by some additional patching. The work was done on weekends to minimize impact. The third phase is still under discussion to determine whether to do a temporary patch to get through the winter, or a more permanent solution. These discussions may begin as early as next week. Mr. Hayden noted that the road must accommodate large, articulating buses, which Metro was not using when it was first built.

Mr. Hayden then addressed the issue of improving sidewalk visibility along Rockville Pike, from Wilson Boulevard to South Drive. He reported that his team looked at the area near the CVIF with lights on and lights off. Unfortunately, the building does not provide as much lighting as they had hoped, and the proposed landscaping will most likely decrease the amount of light that is available.  Short-term solutions may include redirecting some lights in the area of North Drive to Cedar Lane and installing at least two generators to illuminate the area from Wilson Boulevard to South Drive.  The long-term solution will probably entail a comprehensive study of the sidewalk from Jones Bridge to Cedar Lane to develop a plan and budget for adequate lighting.
                    
Addressing the pedestrian signals at Wilson Drive and Route 355 and at South Drive and Old Georgetown Road, Mr. Hayden stated that he and Mr. Wilson are coordinating with the State Highway Administration (SHA). They are also working with the NIH Office of General Counsel to obtain an easement that will allow SHA to install and maintain the lights on NIH property. The project will entail removal of the old poles, installation of aluminum poles, pedestrian flashing units, and curb cuts to improve handicap access. Mr. Hayden promised the Council that he would provide dates for this project as they become available, but he emphasized that the project was still subject to a review process.

Mr. Schofer noted that the Visitor Center access plan originally included a U-turn lane for southbound traffic. He suggested that this might need to be revisited in light of plans to enlarge the Naval Hospital. Mr. Coleman stated that he had contacted the Navy and would invite them to discuss these plans at a future meeting.

Mr. Clifford stated that the painting of sidewalk between Wilson and South Drive, which had been discussed at previous meetings, should begin any day.  Pedestrian visibility should therefore be improved before winter weather hits.

Mr. Clifford provided an update on the Southside lawn drainage issue resulting from outfall onto NIH property from a 21-inch pipe located on land belonging to Montgomery County. On October 10, Mr. Clifford met with a County engineer, who looked at the site and acknowledged the problem. As he reported at the last meeting, Mr. Clifford followed up with a letter to the chief of the County Department of Public Works and Transportation, indicating that NIH expected the County to address the problem and requesting a written response. Mr. Clifford had also expressed concerns that the open storm drain could pose a safety hazard for children. After several follow up calls, he received an email just prior to this meeting indicating that a letter to the NIH was awaiting signature, and that the County was in the process of installing bars on the open storm drain, as requested.
                                                     
Mr. Clifford stated that the County had not yet indicated how it would respond to the problem of the outflow from the pipe. He stated that both the County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation and the Department of Environmental Protection have both been made aware of the situation.

Mr. Clifford said that he met with an NIH drainage consultant to review the technical report the consultant had prepared on this issue. The consultant recommends that outfall from the County be sent to the County’s drainage system through a hard pipe. At Mr. Clifford’s request, the final version of the report will also discuss whether use of a biofield is feasible. The report will also discuss some safety issues that cannot be resolved until it is clear what kind of construction will take place.

Mr. Clifford reported that NIH staff had observed the outflow during the storm that occurred prior to the meeting. Both reported a significant amount of water flowing through the area. Mr. Clifford will send their observations and photographs to the County. He will distribute  the County’s drainage response letter as soon as he receives it, as well as share the consultant’s final report with the Southside Lawn work group.

In response to a question from a Council member, Mr. Clifford indicated that the proposed biofield, if constructed, would be fairly large and would be constructed on federal property. He clarified the distinction between a biofield and the temporary construction pond that was created when the Southside Lawn was built. Mr. Clifford noted that the consultant was unsure whether a biofield would be sufficient to address the quantity of water in question.

Mr. Clifford noted that erosion is increasing exponentially due to the outflow from the pipe, and he expressed special concern for a large tree. Ms. Michaels asked if this had been classified as a “century tree” and noted that the County had a policy of protecting such trees.

Mr. Clifford emphasized that this is a Country problem, and they need to bear the costs. Mr. Oberlander suggested that NIH might have to consider suing the county if they are not responsive. Mr. Clifford replied that NIH did not want to pursue litigation if it could be avoided.

ROUND ROBIN

• At the October meeting, Mr. Coleman informed the Council about a November 2 meeting with the State Highway Commission regarding potential projects. NIH cannot attend such meetings because federal agencies are not allowed to lobby state or local governments. Mr. Coleman stated that he would make time for a report on the meeting, if anyone went. He noted that he hoped someone from the Council had attended the meeting, as it was very relevant to concerns raised by the Council.

• Mr. Coleman reminded the Council to indicate their top five community health concerns. The responses to these surveys will be used to schedule presentations by NIH specialists in the areas that are of greatest interest to the community.  If CLC members do not respond, they are letting others decide for them.                                                                                     

• Mr. Coleman informed the Council that he recently received a complaint that a fox had been seen entering the NIH campus. The neighbor accused NIH of “harboring dangerous animals unfit for an urban environment.” NIH investigated, but the fox was not found, and may have just been passing through.

• Suburban Hospital’s new cardiac center is treating a significant number of patients from other states and fewer than expected from Montgomery County. Mr. Coleman would like to invite the hospital to make a presentation at a future meeting to raise local awareness of this important local resource.

• Mr. Schools reminded the Council that the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association conducts an annual goodwill holiday dinner for needy families, in collaboration with the Bethesda Rescue Squad. This year’s event will take place at the Hyatt Hotel on December 12. The Association can also provide a complete holiday for families in need. For more information, contact Mr. Schools at 301-496-6061.

• The next meeting of the CLC will take place on Thursday, December 21. The agenda will consist of a tour of the Safra Family Lodge, followed by light refreshments at the Natcher Building.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting ended at 5:55 p.m.

FUTURE MEETING TOPICS

• Campus Tour to include
• Edmond J. Safra Lodge (Family Inn) – confirmed for December 21, 2006
• Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility

CLC Members Present
Dennis Coleman, Director, OCL, OD, NIH
Jerry Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Association
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma Citizens Association
Kira Lueders, NIH Alumni Association
Marilyn Mazuzan, Town of Oakmont
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Homeowners Association

NIH Staff Present
Anthony Clifford, ORF, NIH
Ronald Wilson, ORFDO, NIH
Tom Hayden, ORS, OD, NIH
Brad Moss ORS, OD, NIH
Sharon Robinson, OD, OCL, NIH
Randy Schools, Recreation & Welfare Association, NIH

Guests
Joan Kleinman, Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s Office

back to top