HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 02/16/2010 i► � u
south
Charles E. Hatter, City Manager
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Central School Cafeteria
Market Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010
1) Comments and Questions from the public (not related to the Agenda).
2) Announcements and City Manager's Report.
* 3) Presentation of South Burlington All-Hazards Mitigation Plan; Julie Potter, Senior Planner, CCRPC
* 4) Review and update of activities related to City Center development; Paul Conner, Director of Planning
and Zoning
* 5) Discussion of communications with US Air Force regarding potential deployment of F-35 fighters to
Burlington International Airport.
6) Update on Channel 17 activities; Lauren-Glen Davitian; Executive Director
*
7) Consideration of request for joint meeting with Burlington City Council to address Burlington
International Airport issues; Discussion of issues and procedure; Councilor Emery
* 8) Review and consideration of Code of Ethics for Elected and Appointed Officials and Conflict of
Interest policies
*
9) Consideration of award of construction of San Remo Drive Streetscape improvements to lower bidder
Engineers Construction, Inc.(ECI); STP 05(11)
*
10) Review of Development Review Board agenda for February 16, 2010.
* 11) Review and approve minutes from regular City Council meeting held on Feb. 1, 2010
12) Sign disbursement orders.
13) Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel issue.
14) Adjourn
Respectfully Submitted:
Charles Haft , City Manager
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com
UU
AO Ad
south
Charles E. Hafter, City Manager
February 9, 2010
Chair and City Council
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: Review and consideration of Code of Ethics for Elected and Appointed Officials and
Conflict of Interest policies
To All Members:
Council has asked that I present a model Code of Ethics and a Conflict of Interest Policy
for your consideration.
Attached is a Code of Ethics policy for elected and appointed officials for your review
and discussion. I examined many municipal policies and used the policy of Sunnyvale,
California for my baseline.
Also attached is a much more detailed Conflict of Interest policy. This is a model
national municipal policy and was adopted by Colchester, who gave me a copy.
If Council wants to proceed with either or both of these, I suggest they be sent to our
committees and boards for their review and comments prior to official action.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hafter
City Manager
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Code of Ethics for Elected and Appointed Officials
City of South Burlington, Vermont
POLICY PURPOSE
The South Burlington City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council
and the City's boards and commissions to assure public confidence in the integrity of local
government and its effective and fair operation.
POLICY STATEMENT
Preamble
The citizens and businesses of South Burlington are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable
local government which has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. In keeping with the
City of South Burlington's best public interests, the effective functioning of democratic
government therefore requires that:
• public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the
laws and policies affecting the operations of government;
• public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;
• public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and
• public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an
atmosphere of respect and civility.
To this end, the South Burlington City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the
City Council and of the City's boards and commissions to assure public confidence in the
integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.
1. Act in the Public Interest. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be
their primary concern,members will work for the common good of the people of South
Burlington and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal
treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the City Council,boards and
commissions.
2. Comply with the Law. Members shall comply with the laws of the nation,the State of
Vermont and the City of South Burlington in the performance of their public duties. These laws
include,but are not limited to: the United States and Vermont constitutions;the South Burlington
City Charter; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures,
employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.
3. Conduct of Members. The professional and personal conduct of members must be above
reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive
conduct,personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of
Council, boards and commissions,the staff or public.
4. Respect for Process. Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes
and rules of order established by the City Council and board and commissions governing the
deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of
policy decisions of the City Council by City staff.
5. Conduct of Public Meetings. Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen
courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at
hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not
germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of
meetings.
6. Decisions Based on Merit. Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance
of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.
7. Communication. Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to
a matter under consideration by the Council or boards and commissions, which they may have
received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.
8. Conflict of Interest. In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the
common good,members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in
which they have a material financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility
or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. In accordance
with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income,
and gifts; and they shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where
conflicts may exist.
9. Gifts and Favors. Members shall not take any special advantage of services or
opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public offices that are not available to the public
in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits
which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of
being compromised.
10. Confidential Information. Members shall respect the confidentiality of information
concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential
information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their
personal, financial or other private interests.
11. Use of Public Resources. Members shall not use public resources not available to the
public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or
personal purposes.
12. Representation of Private Interests. In keeping with their role as stewards of the public
interest, members of Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties
before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of
boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the
private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.
13. Advocacy. Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council,
board or commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose.
When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do
not represent their body or the City of South Burlington, nor will they allow the inference that
they so do.
14. Policy Role of Members. Members shall respect and adhere to the council-manager
structure of South Burlington city government as outlined by the City Charter. In this structure,
the City Council determines the policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis
provided by the public, boards and commissions, and City staff. Except as provided by the City
Charter, members therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or the
professional duties of City staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Council
policy decisions.
15. Independence of Boards and Commissions. Because of the value of the independent
advice of boards and commissions to the public decision-making process, members of Council
shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board
and commission proceedings.
16. Positive Work Place Environment. Members shall support the maintenance of a positive
and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses
dealing with the City. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City employees
to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.
17. Implementation. As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by
the City, the South Burlington Code of Ethics is intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore
becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its
provisions. For this reason, ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientations for new
members of the City Council, applicants to board and commissions, and newly elected and
appointed officials. Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and
understood the City of South Burlington code of ethics. In addition, the Code of Ethics shall be
annually reviewed by the City Council and the City Council shall consider recommendations
from boards and commissions and update it as necessary.
18. Compliance and Enforcement. The South Burlington Code of Ethics expresses standards
of ethical conduct expected for members of the South Burlington City Council, boards and
commissions. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical
standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the
integrity of government.
The chairs of boards and commissions and the Council Chair have the additional
responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the
Code of Ethics are brought to their attention. The City Council may impose sanctions on
members whose conduct does not comply with the City's ethical standards, such as
reprimand, formal censure, or loss of nominated leadership position. A violation of this
code of ethics shall not be considered a basis for challenging the validity of a Council,
board or commission decision.
For ease of reference in the Code of Ethics,the term"member"refers to any member of the South
Burlington City Council or any of the City's boards and commissions established by the City
Charter, City ordinance or Council policy.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
City of South Burlington
Article 1.Authority. Under the authority granted in 24 V.S.A.§ 2291(20),the City Council of
South Burlington hereby adopts the following policy concerning conflict of interest
Article 2. Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the business of South Burlington
will be conducted in such a way that no public official of the municipality will gain a personal or
financial advantage from his or her work for the municipality and so that the public trust in
municipal officials will be preserved. It is also the intent of this policy to insure that all decisions
made by municipal officials are based on the best interest of the community at large.
Article 3. Definitions. For the purposes of this policy,the following definitions shall apply:
.A. Conflict of interest means any of the following:
1. A direct or indirect personal interest of a public officer,his or her spouse,household
member, child, stepchild,parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt or uncle, brother
or sister in law, business associate, employer or employee, in the outcome of a cause,
proceeding, application or any other matter pending before the officer or before the
public body in which he or she holds office or is employed;
2. A direct or indirect financial interest of a public officer,his or her spouse, household
member, child, stepchild,parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt or uncle, brother
or sister in law, business associate, employer or employee, in the outcome of a cause,
proceeding, application or any other matter pending before the officer or before the
public body in which he or she holds office or is employed; .
3. A situation where a public officer has publicly displayed a prejudgment of the merits of a
particular quasi-judicial proceeding before the board. This shall not apply to a member's
particular political views or general opinion on a given issue; and
4. A situation where a public officer has not disclosed ex parte communications with a party
in a proceeding before the board.
B.Emergency means an imminent threat or peril to the pubic health, safety or welfare.
C. Official act or action means any legislative, administrative or judicial act performed by any
elected or appointed officer or employee while acting on behalf of the municipality.
D. Public body means any board, council, commission or committee of the municipality.
E. Public interest means an interest of the Community as a whole, conferred generally upon all
residents of the municipality.
F. Public officer or public official means a person elected or appointed to perform executive,
administrative, legislative ore quasi-judicial functions for the municipality.
G.. Quasi-judicial proceeding means a case in which the legal rights of one or more persons
who are granted party status are adjudicated, which is conducted in such a way that all parties
have opportunities to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses presented by other
parties,which results in a written decision,the result of which is appealable by a party to a
higher authority. .
Article 4. Disqualification.
A. A public office shall not participate in any official action if he or she has a conflict of interest
in the matter under consideration.
B. A public officer shall not personally, or through any member of his or her household,
business associate, employer or employee, represent, appear for, or negotiate in a private
capacity on behalf of any person or organization in a cause,proceeding, application or other
matter pending before the public body in which the officer holds office or is employed.
C. In the case of a public officer who is an appointee,the public body which appointed that
public officer shall have the authority to order that officer to recuse him or herself from. the
matter.
D. Public officers shall not accept gifts or other offerings for personal gain by virtue of their
public office that are not available to the public in general.
E. Public officers shall not use resources not available to the general public, including but not
limited to town staff time, equipment, supplies, .or facilities for private gain or personal
purposes.
Article 5.Disclosure.A public officer who has reason to believe that he or she has or may have a
conflict of interest but believes that he or she is able to act fairly, objectively and in the public
interest in spite of the conflict of interest shall prior to participating in any official action on the
matter disclose to the public body at a public hearing the matter under consideration., the nature
of the potential conflict of interest and why he or she believes that he or she is able to act in the
matter fairly, objectively and in the public interest. Nevertheless,the person or public body
which appointed that public officer retains the authority to order that officer to recuse him or
herself from the matter, subject to applicable law.
Article 6. Recusal.
A. A public officer shall recuse him or herself from any matter in which he or she has a conflict
of interest,pursuant to the following:
1. Any person may request that a member recuse him or herself due to a conflict of interest.
Such request shall not constitute a requirement that the member recuse him or herself;
2. A public officer who has recused him or herself from a proceeding shall not sit with the
board, deliberate with the board, or participate in that proceeding as a board member in
any capacity;
3. If a previously unknown conflict is discovered,the board may take evidence pertaining to
the conflict and, if appropriate, adjourn to a short deliberative session to address the
conflict; and
4. The board may adjourn the proceedings to a time certain if, after a recusal, it may not be
possible to take action through the concurrence of a majority of the board. The board may
then resume the proceeding with sufficient members present.
In the case of a public officer who is an appointee, the public body which appointed that
public officer shall have the authority to order that officer to recuse him or herself from the
matter, subject to applicable law.
Article 7. Enforcement; Progressive Consequences for Failure to Follow the Conflict of
Interest Procedures. In cases where the conflict of interest procedures in Articles 5 and 6 have
not been followed,the City Council may take progressive action to discipline an offending public
officer. In the discipline of a public officer,the board shall follow these steps in order:
A. The chair shall meet informally, in private,with the public officer to discuss possible conflict
of interest violation.
B. The board may meet to discuss the conduct of the public officer. Executive session may be
used for such discussion, in accordance with 1 V.S.A. § 313(4). The public officer may
request that this meeting occur in public. If appropriate,the board may admonish the
offending public officer in private.
C. If the board decides that further action is warranted, the board may admonish the offending
public officer at an open meeting and reflect this action in the minutes of the meeting. The
public officer shall be given the opportunity to respond to the admonishment.
D. Upon majority vote,the board may request that,the offending public officer resign from the
board.
Article 8. Exception.The recusal provisions of Article 6 shall not apply if the legislative body
of the municipality determines that an emergency exists- and that actions of the public body
.otherwise could not take place. In such cases, a public officer who has reason to believe he or she
has a conflict of interest shall disclose such conflict as provided. in Article 5.
Article 9. Effective Date. This policy shall become• effective immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council.
Request for joint meeting with Burlington City Council to address Burlington
International Airport issues—Councilor Emery
Relations and communications with Burlington International Airport administration have greatly
improved. Nonetheless,this request was motivated by the following concerns:
* South Burlington has very little direct oversight over airport policy and a limited voice(only
one of five commissioners on the board is a South Burlington resident).
* The South Burlington City Council does not have a clear understanding of the powers and
duties of the various offices and positions determining airport policy: e.g., Burlington mayor,
Burlington City Council,the Airport Commission,Airport administration(Brian Searles,
Director).
* Burlington residents and officials do not appear to have an understanding of the impacts of
airport expansion and development on the Chamberlin and Mayfair Park neighborhoods or on
our new town center. The neighborhoods, located one block to the west and four blocks
southwest of the airport, are densely populated. Our city center, which will in the future serve
and be served by the existing Chamberlin and Mayfair Park neighborhoods, is less than one mile
from the airport. Three blocks from the airport,there is a neighborhood school, Chamberlin
Elementary,whose future is at risk as more of the neighborhood homes are purchased and razed.
•
Some procedural issues and points of negotiation to discuss with Burlington City Council:
* A bigger place at the table: South Burlington City Council would be interested in having a.
more active role in the governance of the airport's development since this directly impacts the
economic health and well-being of our City and residents.
* Loss of affordable, workforce housing: While individual homeowners are being compensated
for their homes as they relocate, South Burlington as a City is left with a deficit of affordable
housing. There are few if any incentives for developers to build affordable, workforce housing,
and this presents a stiff challenge to us as a City,where land values are high and where the need
for affordable, workforce housing is critical. In fact, many residents who have felt forced to
relocate through the home purchasing plan and who were unable to invest in more expensive
housing,have felt forced to leave South Burlington altogether. Can the two cities work together
on a financial plan(addressing cost-benefits for both cities)that would incentivize developers to
build more affordable housing to replace what has been lost due to airport expansion(e.g.,the
airport could donate a percentage of parking fees to a housing fund)?
* Green,open space: Some have looked to an increase of green, open space surrounding the
airport as a return on this loss of homes. However,many residents are concerned when they hear
talk of a hotel and perhaps additional amenities, such as restaurants, a Greyhound bus terminal,
increased parking, etc. Lack of firm parameters to commercial development is cause for their
uneasiness. Can the two councils come to agreement as to what acreage should be/will be left as
open space?
* The Greyhound bus terminal: While Burlington International Airport is a transportation hub, it
is not directly served by a highway and is located adjacent to a densely populated area in South
Burlington. Perhaps the only benefit for this part of South Burlington,which is already heavily
traveled, is in having the number of cars from Montreal, Quebec decrease. Based on
Greyhound's presentation to South Burlington Council on February 1, it seems likely that a bus
terminal would lead to an increase in local and regional automobile traffic through our city
center area and on into the neighborhood next to the airport. The idea of a shuttle service from
downtown Burlington to the airport might show promise, but there has been no commitment
from any player either to ensure this service or to ensure the efficacy of this service, whereas
Greyhound could relocate in"two weeks." In addition, S.B. businesses fear that they could
suffer from the Montreal-BTV service, especially if compounded by the construction of a new
hotel at the airport. Can the two councils collaborate on a solution that would 1) serve the
region's needs, 2) serve local colleges' and university's needs, 3) serve the airport's business
plan needs, and 4)find a new home for Greyhound?
Some thoughts on this:
* Amtrak: With Amtrak's new expansion plans,would it be worthwhile to investigate
whether it would make more sense to locate a new bus terminal closer to a new Amtrak
station? Shuttle service to and from the airport could operate from this terminal.
* 189 extension: The extension of 189 would make it possible for cars to reach a bus
terminal on Pine St. or nearby without aggravating noise/traffic levels in existing
neighborhoods. From purely a planning point of view,the location on Pine St. appears
better suited for long-term bus parking than does the neighborhood around the airport.
* Combination bus depot/parking/train(multi-modal transportation center): Where is
Burlington in its plans for this multi-modal transportation center? Does General
Dynamics' relocation open up space in its current location for a multi-modal
transportation center?
Burlington's interests and gains are clear in all of this discussion. Like Burlington, South
Burlington sees the airport's success as key to our region and our state and wishes to support its
development and future viability. To this end, South Burlington's interests and real losses need
to be a part of this picture as we,partners in the airport's future,work closer together in order to
find functional and politically palatable solutions.
Vermont Noise Regulationss http://www.airandnoise.com/VTNoiseRegs.html
COMPLIANCE
About Us Vermont Noise Regulations
Contact Us
The State of Vermont does not have regulations that
set community noise exposure criteria.
The Vermont Act 250 regulation requires new
construction projects that meet applicable thresholds
to undergo a rigorous review process. The Act 250
land use and development control law is administered
by the Environmental Board through nine district
commissions. The Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources is a statutory party to all Act 250 permit
requests.
The Act 250 regulations can require project noise
impact assessments if noise is perceived as a potential
problem. The Act 250 regulations do not contain
formal impact assessment procedures or criteria levels.
The State laws allow individual communities to
I of 2 2/16/2010 5:30 PM
Vermont Noise Regulationss http://www.airandnoise.com/VTNoiseRegs.html
establish noise regulations through community
by-laws. Many local communities have some form of
community noise ordinance. Inquire at the local town
hall, the clerk or manager's office, to see if local noise
regulations exist.
The material presented herein is intended for informational purposes only.
Regulations continually evolve and are subject to change. We do not warranty this
information and remind any users of this information to research the current
validity and applicability.
A,IR NOIRE
COMPLIANCE
2 of 2 2/16/2010 5:32 PM
ti
The City of San Diego General Plan Cf11'o
Noise Element °_ I' N
11
TABLE NE-1
Related Regulations and Plans Used to Implement the Noise Element
Regulation Description
Airport Noise Compatibility Part 150 identifies compatible land uses with various levels of noise
Planning(Code of Federal exposure to noise by individuals for local jurisdictions to use as guidelines,
Regulations,Part 150) since the federal government does not have local land use control.
California Environmental CEQA considers exposure to excessive noise an environmental impact.
Quality Act(CEQA) Implementation of CEQA ensures that during the decision-making stage of
development,city officials and the public will be informed of any
potentially excessive noise levels and available mitigation measures to
reduce them to acceptable levels.
California Noise Insulation Title 24 establishes an interior noise standard of 45-dBA for multiple unit
Standards(California Code of and hotel/motel structures.Acoustical studies must be prepared for proposed
Regulations,Title 24) multiple unit residential and hotel/motel structures within the Community
Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL)noise contours of 60-dBA or greater.The
studies must demonstrate that the design of the building will reduce interior
noise to 45-dBA CNEL or lower.
California Airport Noise Title 21 establishes that the 65-dbA CNEL is the acceptable level of aircraft
Standards(California Code of noise for persons living near an airport.
Regulations Title 21)
Air Installations Compatible The AICUZ study establishes land use strategies and noise and safety
Use Zones(AICUZ)Study(US criteria to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land use from
Department of Defense) degrading the operational capability of military air installations.
Airport Land Use The ALUCPs promote compatibility between airports and the land uses that
Compatibility Plans(ALUCP) surround them to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to
(Public Utilities Code,§21670, incompatible land uses.The city is required to modify its land use plans and
et seq.) ordinances to be consistent with the ALUCPs or to take steps to overrule the
Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC).
The City of San Diego Noise Provides controls for excessive and annoying noise from sources such as
Abatement and Control refuse vehicles,parking lot sweepers,watercraft,animals, leaf blowers,
Ordinance(Municipal Code alarms,loud music,and construction activities.
Section 59.5.0101 et seq.)
May 2006-Draft Page 3
The City of San Diego General Plan Crn c�
Noise Element "_ �' 1
NE-C.3. Establish train horn "quiet zones" consistent with the federal regulations, where
applicable.
NE-C.4. Work with the SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, and passenger and freight rail operators to
install grade separation at existing roadway-rail grade crossings as a noise and safety
measure.
D. Aircraft Noise
Goal
• Minimal excessive aircraft-related noise on residential and other noise-sensitive land uses
Discussion
Aircraft noise primarily affects communities within an airport influence area. The noise impact
or the perceived annoyance depends upon the noise volume, length of the noise event and the
time of day. In general, aircraft noise varies with the type and size of the aircraft, the power the
aircraft is using, and the altitude or distance of the aircraft from the receptor. Another variable
affecting the overall impact of noise is a perceived increase in aircraft noise at night.
Aircraft noise is one of the factors that the state-required Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
addresses and has established policies for land use compatibility. The Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, as discussed in the Land Use Element, incorporates the California Airport
Noise Standards that establishes the 65-dBA CNEL as the boundary for the normally acceptable
level of aircraft noise for noise-sensitive land uses including residential uses near airports.
Uses that have outdoor areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise cannot mitigate noise levels
to an acceptable level due to overflights.Noise-sensitive uses that have outdoor areas used daily
by the occupants, such as schools for children and childcare centers are incompatible in areas
that exceed the 65-dBA CNEL since mitigation measures cannot reduce exposure to outdoor
play areas from prolonged periods of high aircraft noise.
San Diego International Airport(SDIA)
San Diego International Airport (SDIA) at Lindbergh Field is the commercial air carrier airport
serving the region. Various industrial, commercial, and residential uses surround the airport.
Primarily commercial air carrier aircraft with a limited number of general aviation corporate jet
aircraft use SDIA. Normally, aircraft arrive from the east and depart to the west. Noise from
aircraft taking off and climbing affect more areas west or adjacent to SDIA, whereas noise from
aircraft approaching and landing affects few areas east of the airport. Commercial aircraft noise
May 2006- Draft Page 9
On op The City of San Diego General Plan
1"'I v't Noise Element
901
has been declining due to advances in engine technology. However, noise will affect more areas
as operations at SDIA increase in the future.
SDIA requires a variance from the California Airport Noise Standards in order to operate with
noise affecting residential uses in excess of the 65-dBA CNEL. As the airport operator, the San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority has implemented monitoring and mitigation measures
to minimize aircraft noise affecting residential areas. SDIA prohibits most late night takeoffs to
help limit noise impacts. As a mitigation measure, the Quieter Home Program retrofits affected
homes to reduce interior noise levels to an acceptable level.
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)Miramar
MCAS Miramar operates a mixture of jet fighter, transport, and helicopter aircraft. Noise from
military air installations presents different noise issues compared to civilian airports. Military
readiness requires constant training. Aircraft training includes touch and goes (takeoffs and
landings with a close-in circuit around the airport), aircraft carrier simulated landings, practice
instrument approaches, and normal departures to and arrivals from other installations or training
areas. As a result, noise can affect more areas than from civilian airports. Helicopter noise can be
an annoyance since helicopter noise events last longer and pulsate compared with noise from the
faster moving jet fighter.
As indicated by the Air Installations Compatibility Use Zones (AICUZ) study, adjacent
industrial and commercial uses are compatible with MCAS Miramar's noise levels. Noise from
MCAS Miramar affects residential areas in surrounding communities. To minimize aircraft noise
impact on residential areas, the Marine Corps implements noise abatement and monitoring
programs as described in the AICUZ study.
Brown Field and Montgomery Field
Noise levels from Brown Field and Montgomery Field municipal airports are not as extensive as
the noise levels from San Diego International Airport and MCAS Miramar. Typically, the
smaller general aviation aircraft, both propeller and jet aircraft operate from Brown and
Montgomery Fields.
Due to the length of its runways, Montgomery Field cannot accommodate all types of general
aviation aircraft. Noise-compatible commercial and industrial uses are adjacent to the airport.
Aircraft noise affects residential areas in surrounding communities. To minimize the impact on
residential areas, Montgomery Field has a noise-monitoring program to assess aircraft noise and
regulations, including a nighttime noise-based curfew and a weight limit for aircraft using the
airport.
Page 10 May 2006-Draft
The City of San Diego General Plan
Noise Element VL
General aviation propeller and jet aircraft as well as law enforcement and military aircraft use
Brown Field. Noise-compatible open space and industrial uses are primarily adjacent to Brown
Field. Aircraft noise affects residential uses to the west of the airport.
Airports Outside of the City
Aircraft noise from airports outside of the city is also less extensive. Military aircraft operations
at Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island and Naval Outlying Field (NOLF) Imperial Beach
primarily use the airspace over the Pacific Ocean and the San Diego Bay. Occasionally,there are
single event noises from aircraft operating from NAS North Island that can affect land uses
adjacent to San Diego Bay. The primary traffic pattern for helicopters training at NOLF Imperial
Beach is along the Tijuana River Valley and then offshore. Overflight noise from general
aviation aircraft operating at Gillespie Field has the potential to affect residential areas in the city
west of the airport. Aircraft noise from commercial air carrier operations at the Tijuana
International Airport in Mexico primarily affect open space and industrial uses adjacent to the
international border in the Otay Mesa area.
Heliports
The noise levels associated with operations at a heliport depend upon the flight path, the
helicopter types used, the number of operations, and the time of day. Helicopter activity from
military helicopters, private, police, fire/rescue, medical, and news/traffic monitoring helicopters
contribute to the general noise environment in the city. In particular, low-flying helicopters are a
source of noise complaints in the city, especially at night. Within the city, most helicopters
operate from existing airports. Emergency medical or public safety helicopters primarily use the
few certified off-airport heliports.
Policies
NE-D.1. Encourage noise-compatible land use within airport influence areas in accordance
with federal and state noise standards and guidelines.
NE-D.2. Limit future multiple-unit residential within airport influence areas to the 70-dBA
CNEL airport noise contour.
NE-D.3. Ensure that future multiple-unit residential uses within airport influence areas that
are located between the 65-dBA and 70-dBA CNEL airport noise contour do not
subject occupants to prolonged exposure to high noise levels in outdoor areas.
May 2006-Draft Page 11
Cal txz The City of San Diego General Plan
h1 Noise Element
97,
NE D.4. Discourage outdoor uses in areas greater than the 65-dBA CNEL airport noise
contour where aircraft operations would expose people to prolonged periods of
high noise levels.
NE D.5. Encourage civilian and military airport operators, to the extent practical, to
monitor aircraft noise, implement noise-reducing operation measures, and
promote pilot awareness of where aircraft noise affects noise-sensitive land uses.
E. Commercial and Mixed-Use Activity Noise
Goal
• Minimal exposure of residential and other sensitive land uses to excessive commercial and
mixed-use-related noise.
Discussion
Noise generated by ground floor commercial operations, maintenance, truck deliveries, and
vehicular and pedestrian traffic can affect adjacent and aboveground floor residential areas.
Noise attenuation methods in mixed-use buildings are essential to minimize excessive noise
associated with nonresidential uses. Day and night commercial/entertainment activities and
special and sporting events in the Centre City and other mixed residential/commercial-use areas
located citywide can generate urban noise throughout the year. The city requires bars and
nightclubs over five thousand square feet to minimize excessive noise to surrounding uses by
limiting their hours of operation. The city's noise ordinance also limits noise levels to 65-dBA
during the day and 60-dBA during the night generated on-site by commercial uses to minimize
the effect of noise on adjacent sensitive land uses.
Policies
NE-E.1. Encourage the design and construction of commercial and mixed-use structures with
noise attenuation methods to minimize excessive noise to the residential land use and
other noise-sensitive land uses.
NE-E.2. Encourage mixed-use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways,
trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noisier components away from the
residential component of the development.
NE-E.3. Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and
other noise-sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible
alternative or there are overriding transportation benefits by scheduling deliveries at
other hours.
Page 12 May 2006-Draft
City of Santa Monica(CA) Municipal Code
The Santa Monica Municipal Code, often referred to as SMMC or the "Noise Code",has
governed the operation of aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport since the airport's inception.
Pilots utilizing the Santa Monica Airport routinely or for the first time should become familiar
with Subchapter 10.04.04 "Aircraft Noise Abatement Code" as this subchapter includes specific
municipal code governing all aircraft operations and is used as a guideline for enforcement
purposes. Subsections include:
• Basic Principles
• Enforcement and Appeal
• Aircraft Exclusions
• Registration Requirements
• Maximum Noise Limit
• Performance Based Noise Limit
• Hours of Operation
• Restrictions on Aircraft Operations
• Helicopter Operations
Subchapter 10.04.04 "Noise Code"
Name, Purpose and Scope - Section 10.04.04.010
This Subchapter of the Airport Code may be called the "Aircraft Noise Abatement Code" or
"Noise Code." It is generally intended to encourage all pilots using the Airport to fly their aircraft
as quietly as possible consistent with aviation safety. It is also intended to set maximum limits on
permissible aircraft noise and to regulate night and repetitive operations as well as helicopter
operations. The Noise Code governs all take-offs from, landings at, and other operations from
the Airport. (Prior code § 10050; added by Ordinance No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Authority for Regulations - Section 10.04.04.020
The Noise Code is enacted under the power of the City, as proprietor of the Airport,to make
reasonable regulations intended to protect persons exposed to aircraft noise from noise pollution,
in accordance with the judgment in Santa Monica Airport Association v. City of Santa Monica,
479 F. Supp. 927 (C.D. Cal. 1979), affd 659 F. 2d 100 (9th Cir. 1981). The Noise Code is also
enacted in furtherance of the Agreement executed January 31, 1984, between the City and the
Federal Aviation Administration("the Airport Agreement" or "the '84 Agreement") and the
Noise Mitigation Program of the City's Airport Plan, both adopted by Resolution Number
6814(CCS). (Prior code § 10051; added by Ordinance. No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Basic Principles - Section 10.04.04.030
The Noise Code shall be interpreted and enforced to achieve abatement of aircraft noise to the
extent technologically practicable and consonant with air safety and to promote cooperation,
communication, and compliance with law. The following basic rules shall apply to the Noise
Code:
(a) The Airport Director shall cooperate with pilots and other airport users and with the Federal
Government in order to promote voluntary compliance with the provisions and purposes of the
Noise Code and shall assist, counsel, and educate regarding ways to improve the noise
performance of all aircraft using the Airport.
(b)No person shall operate an aircraft at the Airport in violation of any provision of the Noise
Code or in violation of any applicable Federal or State law or regulation or order of the Airport
Director. The term "at the Airport" includes operations while an aircraft is on the ground, as well
as landing at,taking off from, or other operations at or from the Airport.
(c) All privileges, licenses,permits, and contractual rights permitting a person or aircraft to use
or be based at the Airport are conditioned on adherence to the Noise Code and other applicable
laws, and may be revoked for multiple violations after a hearing pursuant to the procedures of
this Chapter. This remedy shall be supplementary to the rights of the City under contract.
(d) The Airport Director shall inform all persons using the Airport of applicable noise abatement
regulations and recognized safe noise abatement operating procedures for each type of aircraft,
shall counsel pilots on compliance with regulations, and shall record violations and take
appropriate action in accordance with Section 10.04.04.040. (Prior code § 10052; added by
Ordinance. No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Enforcement and Appeal - Section 10.04.04.040
The Airport Director shall issue orders imposing civil and administrative remedies for violations
of the Noise Code. Such remedies shall include, but are not limited to, civil penalties and
suspension or revocation of Airport privileges or permits. The following standards and
procedures shall apply:
(a)All violations of the Noise Code shall be remediable by order of the Airport Director.
Sanctions for willful or repeat violations may be imposed upon all parties responsible for aircraft
including each pilot, aircraft owner and operator. For purposes of this subchapter,the term
"owner" includes the registered owner of an aircraft and any person or entity possessing any
ownership interest in an aircraft. The term "operator" includes any person or entity operating,
managing or controlling an aircraft.
(b) Sanctions shall be progressive. The initial civil penalty for a repeat or willful violation shall
be two thousand dollars ($2,000). The penalty for a violation following the initial civil penalty
shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000), and the penalty for a violation following the second civil
penalty shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000). After imposition of the maximum fine of,
subsequent violations shall, after a hearing, result in a suspension of Airport privileges for six
months and, following that, revocation of privileges or permits. The Airport Director shall
notify the Federal Aviation Administration prior to ordering the suspension or revocation of
Airport privileges or permits under this subsection. If particular circumstances show that
progressive monetary sanctions will be ineffective to achieve compliance, suspension or
revocation may be ordered after a hearing prior to imposing the maximum monetary penalty.
(c) The Airport Director may also require the abatement of violations and compliance with
conditions related to abatement of further violations.
(d) The Airport Director shall consider all relevant factors in each case, including the willfulness,
severity and frequency of violations, and the existence and use of safe noise abatement operating
procedures appropriate to the aircraft. With respect to repeated operations of an aircraft in
violation of the noise limit of Section 10.04.04.060,the Airport Director, may, after investigation
to assure that a violation was not caused by extraneous factors such as loss of power,the need to
avoid other aircraft, or unusual weather conditions, impose sanctions under this Section.
(e)Any person aggrieved by an order of the Airport Director may appeal to the City' s Hearing
Examiner pursuant to the time limits and procedures of Chapter 6.16 of this Code. The decision
of the Hearing Examiner shall be final except for judicial review and shall not be appealable to
the City Council.
(f) A willful violation of an order of the Airport Director shall be a misdemeanor punishable
under Section 1.08.010 of this Code.
(g)A person who fails to pay a civil penalty within thirty days after the issuance of an order to
do so shall pay a separate charge of ten percent of the unpaid amount of the civil penalty. The
Airport Director may also exclude such person from the Airport until such time as the penalty
and any late payment charge are paid. Such an order shall be final and shall not be appealable to
the Hearing Examiner.
(h) The remedies as set forth in this Section are supplementary to any legal or equitable remedies
available to the City in its governmental and proprietary capacities, including but not limited to
the right to abate nuisances and hazards. (Prior code § 10053; added by Ordinance No.
1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85; amended by Ordinance No. 2025CCS § 1, adopted 11/13/01)
Aircraft Exclusions - Section 10.04.04.050
If a particular aircraft is operated in excess of noise limits,that aircraft may be excluded from the
Airport by order of the Airport Director in accordance with the following standards:
(a) The Airport Director shall maintain a list of aircraft types that are estimated to be unable to
meet the maximum noise limit of Section 10.04.04.060 under any conditions and operating
procedures. This list shall be based on actual measurement of aircraft operations. If there are
insufficient measured flights of a particular type, the Airport Director shall act upon the best
available information, including Federal Aviation Administration estimates. These "Listed
Aircraft" may, after one violation of the maximum noise limit, be excluded from the Airport.
(b)An aircraft other than a Listed Aircraft may be excluded from the Airport after repeated
violations of noise limits if the Airport Director determines that the "Permitted Aircraft" is likely
to violate noise limits even if flown according to recommended safe operating procedures under
normal weather conditions. (Prior code § 10054; added by Ordinance No. 1326CCS, adopted
1/22/85; amended by Ordinance No. 2025CCS § 2, adopted 11/13/02)
Registration Requirements - Section 10.04.04.055
After landing, each pilot or his or her representative must comply with all registration
requirements prescribed by the Airport Director by regulation including completing a registration
form and acknowledging receipt of a summary of Airport regulations.
Maximum Noise Limit- Section 10.04.04.060
No aircraft shall exceed a Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) or ninety-five (95)
decibels as measured at the Airport Noise Measuring Stations existing on January 1, 1985. If
additional stations are established, the maximum SENEL shall be set for each measuring point at
an equivalent level. (Prior code § 10055; added by Ordinance No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Performance Based Noise Limit- Section 10.04.04.070
(a) By regulation adopted in accordance with Section 10.04.02.030(d),the Airport Director shall
provide for a Performance Based Noise Limit by aircraft type. No aircraft shall exceed the
SENEL limit established by the Airport Director as the lowest SENEL limit that can be met by
the type of aircraft concerned consistent with safe operating procedures.
(b) The Performance Based Noise Limit shall be for a two (2) year experimental period
commencing on the date of its adoption and shall be developed in consultation with the Federal
Aviation Administration in accordance with the Airport Agreement.
(c)Performance Based Noise Limits shall be based on actual measurement of aircraft operations.
If there are insufficient measured flights of a particular type,the Airport Director shall set a limit
based on the best available information.
(d)Pending completion of this experimental program,no pilot who violates the Performance
Based Noise Limit but does not violate the maximum noise limit of ninety-five (95)dB may be
fined or excluded from the Airport. (Prior code § 10056; added by Ord. No. 1326CCS, adopted
1/22/85)
Hours of Operation- Section 10.04.04.080
The Airport shall be open for public use at all reasonable hours of the day and night, subject to
the following restrictions:
(a) The Airport Director may close the Airport because of conditions of the landing area,
necessary maintenance,the presentation of special events, and similar causes.
(b)No aircraft shall be started, run-up, or depart the Airport between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Mondays through Fridays nor between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and
Sundays, except in case of bona fide medical or public safety emergency, with the consent of the
Airport Director or, in his or her absence,the Watch Commander of the Police Department.
(Prior code § 10057; added by Ord.No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Restrictions on Aircraft Operations Section 10.04.04.090
The following regulations apply to operations at the Airport:
(a) Touch and Go and Stop and Go operations are prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays, and during weekdays between one-half(1/2)hour after sunset and 7:00 a.m. of the
following morning. This restriction shall not apply in emergencies, where necessitated by safety
considerations, or when required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Touch and Go operations shall be permitted only after the pilot of the aircraft has received
permission from the air traffic controller in the control tower and in no event shall be made
unless the aircraft has initiated takeoff prior to reaching the touch and go limit lines painted on
the runway.
(c) Simulated forced landings shall not be permitted until the aircraft reaches pattern altitude and
in no event shall be made opposite to the direction of take-off.
(d) For purposes of this Section, holiday shall mean New Year's Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day,provided, however, that if
any such holiday falls on Saturday or Sunday, and as a result such holiday is observed on the
preceding Friday or succeeding Monday, then such Friday or Monday, as the case may be, shall
be considered to be a holiday under this Section. (Prior code § 10058; added by Ord. No.
1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
Helicopter Operations Section 10.04.04.100
The following provisions apply to the use of helicopters at the airport:
(a) Until the completion of the study of helicopter noise authorized by the Airport Agreement, no
person shall be granted a permit or lease to use the Airport as a base for any operation involving
the substantial use of helicopters.
(b) Helicopter flight training operations at the Airport are prohibited at all times. (Prior code §
10059; added by Ord.No. 1326CCS, adopted 1/22/85)
General Aviation Noise Abatement for John Wayne Airport(SNA) http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/ganoise.htm
Home I About JWA I News&Facts I Business&Employment I Links I FAQ's I Contact Us Subscribe I Sitemap I Search
General Aviation
GA Noise Abatement v (77
John Wayne Airport (SNA) is one of the busiest and most noise
sensitive airports in the United States. The Airport is located in the p[-N VAYNE
center of Orange County, California with residential areas in close AIRPORT
proximity. To mitigate potential noise impacts from aircraft operations ON*NOE COUNTY
Airlines and to enhance compatibility with surrounding communities, the Airport
Parking & Directions maintains some of the most stringent noise rules in the United States.
The General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANO) has been adopted by GA Noise Abatement
Ground Transport the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the Brochure ipdf)
Terminal Info maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation
operations.
General Aviation
Visit Orange County This information has been prepared to introduce you to the GANO and Pilot Information
to encourage the operation of your aircraft in the quietest manner
possible consistent with safety. (Download the GA Noise Abatement i
Brochure)The Airport recognizes that pilot sensitivity is a key Wirc
component of a successful noise abatement program, and your
continued cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Disclaimer
Compliance with the GANO is mandatory unless deviations are made -•
'"
necessary by ATC instructions, a medical or in-flight emergency, or
other safety considerations. GulfstreamlLear
Noise Procedures
Noise Limits
The Airport maintains ten permanent noise monitoring stations (NMS)
located to the north and south of the Airport (see map on reverse
side). The GANO specifies noise limits at each NMS that vary by time r'" `
of day.
Emergency
General Aviation Noise Limits: Medical Flights
FORM pdf
Daytime Hours Nighttime Hours -
NMS 1S 101.8 dB SENEL NMS 1S 86.8 dB SENEL
NMS 2S 101.1 dB SENEL NMS 2S 86.9 dB SENEL
NMS 3S 100.7 dB SENEL All Others 86.0 dB SENEL
Daytime hours are(local time):
Departures Arrivals
Monday -Saturday 0700 to 2200 0700 to 2300
Sunday 0800 to 2200 0800 to 2300
All other hours are considered nighttime hours.
Compliance is determined by the clock at each NMS.
Description of Sanctions
Notice of Violation
In the event an aircraft exceeds the GANO noise limits at one or more
locations, a"Notice of Violation"will be issued to the registered owner
of the aircraft. The Notice of Violation applies to the aircraft owner,
the aircraft operator, and the aircraft. Notices of Violation remain in
effect for three years after the violation date.
1 of 4 2/16/2010 4:23 PM
General Aviation Noise Abatement for John Wayne Airport(SNA) http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/ganoise.htm
Denial of Use of John Wayne Airport
If three GANO violations occur within a three-year period, the aircraft
owner, the aircraft operator and the aircraft are subject to denial of
use of the Airport for a period of three years.
Proximity to the Community
The Airport is located just north of Newport Beach, west of Irvine,
east of Costa Mesa, and south of Tustin and Santa Ana. Residential
areas are located close to the Airport and the County of Orange is
committed to minimizing noise in these neighborhoods. See map of
residential areas on reverse side.
More Information
Access and Noise Office: (949) 252-5185
JWA Operations (949) 252-5256
Airport Web site: www.ocair.com
ATIS: 126.0
ATIS Phone Number: (714) 546-2279
Airport Elevation: + 54 ft. MSL
Warning:
Based on available historical noise data gathered by the Access and
Noise Office and as determined by the Airport Director, the following
list of aircraft are presumed incapable of meeting noise limitations
defined in the GANO and are not permitted to land, tie down, take off
or be based at the Airport, except in an emergency (this list is
periodically updated and is maintained by the Access and Noise
Office, 949.252.5185):
Aircraft Presumptively Incapable of Nighttime Departure
Operations:
HS125-1A-600 (Rolls Royce Viper engines)
Learjet 23, 24, 25, 28, 29
Gulfstream II, IIB, Ill
Jetstar II
Shooting Star T33/F80
Sabreliner 40, 60, 65, 70, 75
Aircraft Presumptively Incapable of Nighttime Arrival
Operations:
HS125-1A-600 (Rolls Royce Viper engines)
Gulfstream II, IIB, Ill
Sabreliner 40, 60, 65, 70, 75
Shooting Star T33/F80
Aircraft Presumptively Incapable of Any Operations at
Any Time:
BAC 111
Jet Commander
Paris Jet
Westwind 1123
As described in the GANO, any owner or operator of the above listed
aircraft will have the opportunity to furnish evidence to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Airport Director that such aircraft can operate within
acceptable noise levels.
2 of 4 2/16/2010 4:23 PM
General Aviation Noise Abatement for John Wayne Airport(SNA) http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/ganoise.htm
FBO general aviation aprons are limited to aircraft with maximum
certificated gross takeoff weight of 100,000 lbs. (dual gear) and with
wingspans less than 100 feet. General aviation aircraft are prohibited
from using any portion of the air carrier commercial ramp.
Note that manufacturers have developed noise abatement procedures
for the Gulfstream II, IIB, Ill and IV and Learjet 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29
aircraft. View special procedures
Download Emergency Medical Flight Form
Recommended Procedures
Safety permitting, pilots are encouraged to follow the aircraft
manufacturer's recommended noise abatement procedures on all
arrivals and departures.
DEPARTURES:
o Runway 19R/L are the preferred runways.
o Avoid high power setting at low altitude over noise sensitive
areas (see NMS map).
ARRIVALS:
o Pilots are encouraged to use minimum certificated landing flap
setting in accordance with FAR 91.126c.
o ATC/weather permitting, pilots are requested to make a visual
straight-in approach.
Noise Monitoring Locations, Sensitive Land Uses and
Radar Track Maps
The NMS map shows the Noise Monitoring Stations(NMS) and
residential areas on an aerial photograph. The flight track maps show
radar data plotted on a street map. These flight tracks show the
preferred range of flight tracks into and out of the Airport. Your
cooperation in minimizing noise in these areas by adhering to the
preferred flight tracks and complying with the mandatory noise limits is
greatly appreciated.
DME Distance to Noise Monitors*
NMS 1S 0.4 nm
NMS 2S 0.4 nm
NMS 3S 0.7 nm
NMS 4S 1.3 nm
NMS 5S 1.3 nm
NMS 6S 1.8 nm
NMS 7S 2.9 nm
NMS 8N 2.1 nm
NMS 9N 4.2 nm
NMS 10N 5.8 nm
*Approximate DME distance measured from ISNA localizer,
located south of Runway 19R.
18601 Airport Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707 (949)252-5200 TTY Number
About JWA I News&Facts I Business&Employment I Links I Search I Sitemap I Contact Us
Airlines I Parking I Ground Transport I Terminal Info I General Aviation I Visit Orange County I Disclaimer
3 of4 2/16/2010 4:23 PM
Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/laurence_hanscom.html
Boeing Home Commercial Home Noise Home
rporl information
egulations
•
8 FE/Arf
„,._
and schedu es
tarts - r
E —eat
D)„t e I, � ,., - ;
0 v
•
•
P. Kau- / - ' (---)171‘1, .
.....
. , _
Laurence G. Hanscom Field
IATA/ICAO CODE: BED/KBED
CITY: Bedford
STATE: MA
COUNTRY: USA
AIRPORT CONTACT
Information updated by the airport 2/2009
Name: Barbara Patzner Sara Arnold
Title: Airport Director Manager, Airport Administration
Airport: L.G. Hanscom Field L.G. Hanscom Field
Address: L.G. Hanscom Field Massachusetts Port Auth.
Civil Air Terminal L.G. Hanscom Field
200 Hanscom Drive Civil Air Terminal
Bedford, MA 01730 200 Hanscom Drive
Bedford, MA 01730
Phone: +1 781 869 8018 +1 781 869 8022
Fax: +1 781 869 8075 +1 781 869 8075
Email: CDaniel@massport.com (Cedric Daniel - Noise Abatement Coordinator)
Airport Web Site: www.massport.com/hansc/overview.html
ELEVATION: 133 ft.
RUNWAY INFORMATION
Orientation Length (ft) Displaced Glide Slope(deg) Width (ft)
Threshold (ft)
5/23 5106 - 3.75/3.25 150
11/29 7001 - 3.0/3.0 150
Link to FAA Airport Diagram Website
NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
Fly friendly Program: NBAA Close-in Procedures for jet aircraft; AOPA
recommended procedures for piston aircraft.
Noise Abatement Operating Restrictions
1 of 5 2/16/2010 5:11 PM
Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/laurence_hanscom.html
•
No fixed wing aircraft with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight greater
than 12,500 lbs shall conduct an operation at the airport, other than an operation
necessitated by an inflight emergency, unless that aircraft is certificated for
compliance with applicable noise emission standards established in FAR 36. For
purposes of this regulation an aircraft shall be treated as certificated for
compliance with FAR 36 if it is a fixed wing aircraft which had flight time prior to
12/31/74, and a showing is made to the reasonable satisfaction of the airport's
executive director that its noise level on takeoff is less than the FAR 36 noise level
for aircraft of its weight first flown subsequent to 12/31/74.
To make the showing of FAR 36 equivalence called for in the foregoing paragraph
an operator of the aircraft shall produce the following documentation satisfactory to
the executive director:
a)certificate including date of manufacture; and
b)(1)Noise emission measurement data taken during test conditions
approved by the FAA or which have been published in an FAA Advisory
Circular as the noise emission measurement or FAA estimated noise
measurement for the aircraft type in question for FAR 36 comparison
purposes.
(2)if (1) is unavailable, noise emission data and calculations which
demonstrate to the executive director probable compliance with the
applicable FAR 36 noise level for takeoff at the aircraft's certified
maximum gross takeoff weight are acceptable. If this alternative
method is the basis for obtaining permission to operate at the airport,
such permission may be revoked if subsequent measurement of its
takeoff noise at the airport exceeds the applicable FAR 36 takeoff noise
level. This measurement shall be taken at the takeoff position with
wind, humidity and temperature conditions meeting the allowable FAR
FAR 36 conditions. For the purpose of this determination, if the
A-weighted sound is measured, the EPNL is deemed to be 4 dB greater
than the A-weighted sound exposure level.
Other Aircraft Use Restrictions
No person, including an air carrier or a foreign air carrier, shall conduct at
Hanscom, an operation in commerical air passenger service in an aircraft with
seating capacity of greater than sixty seats.
CONTINUOUS DESCENT ARRIVAL (CDA) - NONE
AIRPORT CURFEWS
11:00 pm to 7:00 am, there is a fee for each operation (take-off or landing). This
fee is adjusted on an annual basis and is in effect for a period of one year
July 1 - June 30.
Effective July 2008 the nighttime field use charge is:
Aircraft 12,500 lbs or less - $59
Aircraft over 12,500 lbs - $382
In addition, an aircraft shall pay double the applicable charge for each nighttime
operation in excess of five nighttime operations in a calendar year.
PREFERENTIAL RUNWAYS - NONE
2 of 5 2/16/2010 5:14 PM
Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/laurence_hanscom.html
OPERATING QUOTA - NONE
ENGINE RUN-UP RESTRICTIONS
Aircraft engine runups shall be conducted only with prior permission from the
airport executive director and only in those areas of the airport specifically
designated for such purposes.
APU OPERATING RESTRICTIONS
APUs and GPUs shall not be utilized outside hangars by any aircraft between the
hours of 11:00 pm to 7:00 am unless part of takeoff procedures or as part of
necessary maintenance procedures. Such runups shall only be conducted in areas
designated by the executive director for this purpose. Between 7:00 am and 11:00
pm, the duration of such unit operations is limited to 30 minutes and shall be
conducted only in those areas of the airport specifically designated for such purpose
by the executive director.
NOISE BUDGET RESTRICTIONS - NONE
NOISE SURCHARGE
In 1980, an 11pm to 7am field use fee was instituted to help reduce noise exposure
by encouraging the use of the field before 11 pm or after 7am. See airport curfew
information for details.
NOISE MITIGATION/LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAM INFORMATION
Type of Date Status
Program Implemented
Sound Insulation
(Residences and - N/A
Public Buildings)
Purchase
Assurance for
Homeowners - N/A
Located Within
the Airport Noise
Contours
Avigation - N/A
Easements
Zoning Laws - N/A
Real
Estate/Property - N/A
Disclosure Laws
3 of 5 2/16/2010 5:14 PM
Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/laurence_hanscom.html
Acquire Land for
Noise - N/A
Compatibility to
date
Population within
each noise
contour level 2000 26 (65-69 DNL)
relative to 0 (70 DNL and above)
aircraft
operations
Airport Noise c hansc noise 03.pdf (provided by the airport)
Contour Overlay - See Appendix A Figure 7-8
Maps
Total Cost of
Noise Mitigation 2000 N/A
Programs to
Date
Source of Noise
Mitigation _ N/A
Program Funding
for Aircraft Noise
NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM
�.i.f'?. -:� �\,i K•-_�.•ii4� :]V`y�c-..e.:`:r.-r ila�.ewow� _ :tie i••�rI' J �:Wit/ - �
:L ':A.:. .� '''�.� : .I. } -__ I r. %,!f.:-41- :L,1'.' .p�r:q,, '•.91 _r • >'
\. :�.t 9.I• .r,{'.0 `y: �'. '�'/r::fi': .��..•.�c� r' \:'.I'.:41`.'C•> �..(.::�'Y '�:1,:fi.l J�S'�.��=�: [,�I'1'i{^Ru. 7�`::�.
' 1
fir. •�.
.:l�:.',<;::. ?.=a;_.;....a�...Yet.(. .,. -.,i4:.,;_;J a':^:?,1,. - -..:1r;`..':.: a ,.:y ;•,;) kr;.l, i:�,,,� A.. J•.>><... :../ .y�.:i�`:�°-'
'J a rt y. .!•1:1. ;. l c - fk 1 �f. ?,4 / 1 l: {y�], lx...'
I Z 1 I 1 ';; l .�.,i� �I � 'I•. 1 /� 'Y{ I f i,.t �'f Sf���f� !:.:`;�6 ""c'S Y��,l�'k
d., „ s .,::L1 ::1': . .f,f,:.`:.i...4..:t,-,h t1 ,•in- h;rs.. -:.l'... - __ii ,"��ta .i'lA... �1 .:°-; :', .,.''-;r; !; ',.,: •• ••.: :->
�':; `:J>`• t , • �, l,.l�:.' ,t., ',a °•i tv!s„�l� � 'r k:•�y e� �1 I.. r �:y�+
`.1:'_ .i.tii1',: i;,-1 s,:"�:':� ?-- .i':'-Ss ;1!"�. .� Y'iT` ..t¢�.<cft- ar.�r<• ��� +�fi''Y�eT;, t. _,rN.+'rt. � if
v �: ;iL:'.".S.>,•{;.ly '::. y .q.r, § w� YL, a,}. : :.; ..�a;ti,.3i::,•� -:14.::Jr` ',",.
,�. '�4 " ,:'.:ifi:; r 4• Y'. R3 ti G 4'... 1 ,,,,,C,• c x .> -,ry):i r>;> R"�.r'4, '•� ,
I ;, J': " `sl... 54iir•,T'. :'P,. L:s 3.' _"<1 e., 1 = 7E •. a'
--h d,n�:r�
�a�'' ,.y s.. .�s.A's,^ ��y.x. a J '=i« � fr� F�,a � :; ,,; s . ''+
f k c v. 1. � '"r '', a 0,t•
- ::r':•.a:'ti:,,�r:,,���,v.r.. '�...' � .;z�� F.lv = .:..: .;� 'Y'r.' � .:r!,'�r,<:.� r�:5�ii::
�w s� Ci='.;.!";v"'R:" � �;.'" ;i.� 1 �=r;. t,.•�r�:re�T.w"i � .�,.4., c.r.���i..I� . �±rgC i�.sP:�'... ��.il�Y•• t��
.i'.'? " �._"1r �, ,It;�" ..rw}•�4;.�. :f s �iR.• .3, ,,,f_ P., it ; .;.�=s`•tv`'::" s. ."..�1.' � �=u
^':b• .� . . �+ :". S' ._11. ,r�; „a,j ��Y;. ,i�id,,: _ {{ :.(b. .' ,r.. :i�r, .r,.:'g..:!-
1� -,�1:.:..0, -,,,-, �C1., =:n; .tAk' � 11 '� I.. - 53�.. '.�: +�i - i+�:ltii
..��i�:`i.' ,;S.:�x}• - .t-•.S. .:Yid i '::/:/f 5� )`.�'.' _ �•I.I r. .1,_ i:,'C!l� -ri..'•1�� '�Y^:: - - s,:r Sri' .;-.e. F,5 ?`;?I, ..). n-d� �;:.;. r , :.4.. 1 , ..,,• .. .t:0.,•
1+5:,(e7'l +0)::)1 -r 4: •14 �r :I^•- '-- .cif°: t yt`wsi'ili?S'/�.'., :�:.;4 :1;1'. t� ��, Y{ ', ' i� ti.
L1',}.c drk1� :. J t�+.cam. ?1{���r
f\`���^Y!'�'}ti5 wi �Jje�t '!`"`X•�"`,, I €••-r a III.:!,.
:a F'•( z�-: hit r� 1 • .y
a=. ; ' llt . ^ljr- _. z r X"5 K`i • n 3i • :
tst rsi i :. :, �`> / .r,. I ;r a x� i 1 l� i
11111 � ^ '7 'o t. -rl. :.;.: 1 rk `f 'i 141.N T! r y • A ,f aJ ar t.
'"` .� MV�.I�a.:r•.., ,7, 4• i.< ,'J. R. y' \-. K y. 'i,Yf ,,. 1::: i••_I •., ;.7(tic" '73 ,•',7--, ':,i
rl .•,; F•',a ,J..' - . ,t ,i:'• .'• ,r a .4.,.4. is F�.•u • �•:.; :?�k y,.
k.i .•.•J .,.T���iiS% ::r� ;;1'Zl �Si.:T» � ":u .✓. .y: 5 ':� ti $,.o.:i
. S�': nis'� . :�" - ~�•�- �,-�;:;''i�`'�7;J:�"!}i• Zr7N kr:,kl.;a:?;;i7 :,1twR fb Y
',i'' tirr� -.12u.r2�,.,> �:rY'F'}, '��`'."�,, .-'.y}.;�i;'i.r,>! li: �:�,L .x ,�"''.,'� ` . •>.•y'r'°ri Ste• -"t 9:.
:..: •,. .7t�' \ ... :..1,.••rG)�)ff ��AA s. ��aa,: `. i��::- �" t t', :: �''� _ ��((,, f • �f, l
'.ry:.\.. 1�{.5) ."1�i't. '�S�t:''il`r : ��. M:a.r". ..�' '.: ,1. ,f = �'�i.:l;R`.�."1.f! \ 4T.i.'i`.,ey ♦lY.y�"'�
s' ,;1:� J -ti;,S:w:� ��!..- .i. ,..e� r:x�'`"'��:�i','"�.�' i:' .T� .il;'`'',?k�.r:a�Y '�i
i %; . •5'0VA r �S �r lVT? .:q;i�. � N;` +AcI L `1�:; i a• 1. ft .fir..•'r 'ycTJ�:r:�rt l:
, ti � e;{, � .ti.• .�� 1. •,�w ��Y•: g . 1p+��v r? � �j � d�. �/�,M
'i'��k kirs-Ls.i.. k sc..�:i.�i�i .r/.rs e. `.turj� 3e.{{ xl�ls 14' i 1d`Lsd ! --h�--f
,r. ..r:• 3!!•ltl i lG.',• " '?'�fs `K.� 1a ..,k -. _f=
massport
�,,,, o July��� i 995 Hanscom Field GERR Update
(13
o Avglsept rasa Noise Measurement Locations
EaPormanert!lrlalallatlon Figure 2.9-9
Note: Era Corporation will upgrade Hanscom's noise monitoring software/system in
2007/2008. New Bruel & Kjaer monitors were installed as part of the upgrade.
Bruel & Kiaer ENOMS system from Larson Davis LD870 with DI ARTS flight tracking.
4 of 5 2/16/2010 5:18 PM
Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/laurence_hanscom.html
Upgrades to the software for the 6 operating permanent noise monitors were
received in 1994, increasing the system's capability and providing access to most
FAA radar data on Hanscom activity. The noise monitoring system is adding actual
measured noise data to the noise estimates and will be a valuable resource in
increasing the understanding of the noise exposure around Hanscom.
The Noise Abatement Office prepares a yearly report which details the noise
exposure levels at the airport. We have a copy of the October 1998 which contains
a map showing the monitor locations. This is a very extensive report which contains
much useful information.
FLIGHT TRACK MONITORING SYSTEM - NONE
NOISE LEVEL LIMITS - NONE
STAGE2 RESTRICTIONS
Stage 2 airplanes >75,000 lbs are prohibited from operating at airports within the 48
contiguous states.
STAGE 2 PHASEOUT
U.S. Stage 2 Phase out complete as of 12/31/1999 (CFR Part 91.801). Stage 2 airplanes
>75,000 lbs are prohibited from operating at airports within the 48 contiguous states.
STAGE 3 RESTRICTIONS - NONE
5 of 5 2/16/2010 5:18 PM
Photos: -Aircraft Pictures l Airliners.net http://www.airliners.net/photo//1075198/L/
HOME PHOTOS FORUMS AVIATION NEWS AVIATION ARTICLES AIRCRAFT DATA COMMUNITY Login I Sign Up Color: Classic:
585 Users checked-in
Sign up now for - !
Photos I Forums I Articles I Site Wide
Search-
Sponsored Links:
Commercial Flight School, Charter Flights, Model Airplanes, Airport Parking, Cheap Flights, Discount Digital Cameras
[Medium Large Fit Screen
URL(link)to this photo: http://www.airliners.neUphoto//1075198/L/
This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission.More info.v
F iiii 9 $ K V
..
i
r
�,` '. �i F
_.,,_ ,14*-a.alr:--t- —. , r i iiii ottiiiip-.- ::X„:-_,...2: ,_ ,..._., 'NN,‘- :
F r �
,S' �t _ ,, r wy "
.N ar
/. Tie .- t
f �.a 77,A ._-
' 8 y ,4=
' , .:': .%-
`
• -,,..
r riPYrPir,HT TrltrY PP,MITF7'— _ `.': AivE"j S
Rate and comment on this hoto b clicking on the star ratio below:
Aircraft Taken at
More:- More: Bedford-Laurence G.
More:- Hanscom Field(BED/KBED)
More: USA-Massachusetts,June
12,2006
Remark Photographer
Overview of Bedford's Hanscom airfield.The photo was taken from More.Tony Printezis
AC Jazz CRJ C-GXJA from BOS to YOW.Olympus C-8080WZ. Contact Tony Printezis
®Link to me!
1 of 2 2/16/2010 5:23 PM
Scoping Meeting
United States Air Force
F-35A Operational Basing
Environmental Impact Statement
Comment Sheet
Location:
Date:
Thank you for providing your comments on the proposed F-35A Operational Basing EIS. Please provide us
with your comments no later than March 1, 2010. Comments may be submitted at the meeting or mailed to
the address below.
Over for more space —>
***Please Print***
Name:
Address:
Do you wish to be sent a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement? CD, Paper, Neither
Note: Your address will not be made public if you are just requesting a copy of the EIS.
Please give this form to one of the Air Force representatives tonight or mail to:
Ms. Sheryl Parker, HQ ACC/A7PS
129 Andrews St., Suite 337
Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769
(757) 764-9334
Request for joint meeting with Burlington City Council to address Burlington
International Airport issues—Councilor Emery
Relations and communications with Burlington International Airport administration have greatly
improved. Nonetheless,this request was motivated by the following concerns:
* South Burlington has very little direct oversight over airport policy and a limited voice (only
one of five commissioners on the board is a South Burlington resident).
* The South Burlington City Council does not have a clear understanding of the powers and
duties of the various offices and positions determining airport policy: e.g., Burlington mayor,
Burlington City Council,the Airport Commission,Airport administration(Brian Searles,
Director).
* Burlington residents and officials do not appear to have an understanding of the impacts of
airport expansion and development on the Chamberlin and Mayfair Park neighborhoods or on
our new town center. The neighborhoods, located one block to the west and four blocks
southwest of the airport, are densely populated. Our city center,which will in the future serve
and be served by the existing Chamberlin and Mayfair Park neighborhoods, is less than one mile
from the airport. Three blocks from the airport,there is a neighborhood school, Chamberlin
Elementary, whose future is at risk as more of the neighborhood homes are purchased and razed.
Some procedural issues and points of negotiation to discuss with Burlington City Council:
•
* A bigger place at the table: South Burlington City Council would be interested in having a
more active role in the governance of the airport's development since this directly impacts the
economic health and well-being of our City and residents.
* Loss of affordable, workforce housing: While individual homeowners are being compensated
for their homes as they relocate, South Burlington as a City is left with a deficit of affordable
housing. There are few if any incentives for developers to build affordable, workforce housing,
and this presents a stiff challenge to us as a City, where land values are high and where the need
for affordable, workforce housing is critical. In fact, many residents who have felt forced to
relocate through the home purchasing plan and who were unable to invest in more expensive
housing,have felt forced to leave South Burlington altogether. Can the two cities work together
on a financial plan(addressing cost-benefits for both cities)that would incentivize developers to
build more affordable housing to replace what has been lost due to airport expansion(e.g.,the
airport could donate a percentage of parking fees to a housing fund)?
* Green, open space: Some have looked to an increase of green, open space surrounding the
airport as a return on this loss of homes. However,many residents are concerned when they hear
talk of a hotel and perhaps additional amenities, such as restaurants, a Greyhound bus terminal,
increased parking, etc. Lack of firm parameters to commercial development is cause for their
uneasiness. Can the two councils come to agreement as to what acreage should be/will be left as
open space?
* The Greyhound bus terminal: While Burlington International Airport is a transportation hub, it
is not directly served by a highway and is located adjacent to a densely populated area in South
Burlington. Perhaps the only benefit for this part of South Burlington,which is already heavily
traveled, is in having the number of cars from Montreal, Quebec decrease. Based on
Greyhound's presentation to South Burlington Council on February 1, it seems likely that a bus
terminal would lead to an increase in local and regional automobile traffic through our city
center area and on into the neighborhood next to the airport. The idea of a shuttle service from
downtown Burlington to the airport might show promise, but there has been no commitment
from any player either to ensure this service or to ensure the efficacy of this service,whereas
Greyhound could relocate in"two weeks." In addition, S.B. businesses fear that they could
suffer from the Montreal-BTV service, especially if compounded by the construction of a new
hotel at the airport. Can the two councils collaborate on a solution that would 1) serve the
region's needs, 2) serve local colleges' and university's needs, 3) serve the airport's business
plan needs, and 4) find a new home for Greyhound?
Some thoughts on this:
* Amtrak: With Amtrak's new expansion plans,would it be worthwhile to investigate
whether it would make more sense to locate a new bus terminal closer to a new Amtrak
station? Shuttle service to and from the airport could operate from this terminal.
* 189 extension: The extension of 189 would make it possible for cars to reach a bus
terminal on Pine St. or nearby without aggravating noise/traffic levels in existing
neighborhoods. From purely a planning point of view,the location on Pine St. appears
better suited for long-term bus parking than does the neighborhood around the airport.
* Combination bus depot/parking/train(multi-modal transportation center): Where is
Burlington in its plans for this multi-modal transportation center? Does General
Dynamics' relocation open up space in its current location for a multi-modal
transportation center?
Burlington's interests and gains are clear in all of this discussion. Like Burlington, South
Burlington sees the airport's success as key to our region and our state and wishes to support its
development and future viability. To this end, South Burlington's interests and real losses need
to be a part of this picture as we,partners in the airport's future,work closer together in order to
find functional and politically palatable solutions.
411.4
r1".7
iff 2010 Cale d . I
f Events
JANUARY
5 Under the Dome Legislative Coverage Begins
11 Common Good VT: Annual Meeting — 12-2:30 p.m. LEARN
15 VT NPO Maven Series Premieres on commongoodvt.org Make Municipal TV!
21 Media Maven: Tag it! Tame the Firehose — 12 - 1 :30 p.m. Basic Camera-First Tuesday
28 Communications Security Meeting #4—3-4:30 p.m. Editing-Second Tuesday
FEBRUARY Uploading—1/19,4/20,6/22,9/21
10 a.m.
4 Town Meeting Debates it Forums Coverage Begins Media Maven Luncheons
11 Vermont Nonprofit Legislative Day Third Thursday, 12 1:30 p.m.
18 Media Maven: Social Mobilizing and Advocacy — 12 - 1 :30 p.m. TV Summer Camp
MARCH July 12-16
(9-12 years old)
2 Town Meeting Election Results—7:30 p.m. Register at
18 Media Maven: Accidental Techies — 12 - 1 :30 p.m. www.enjoyburlington.com
5th Annual Maven Luncheon
25 Communications Security Meeting #5— 12 - 1 :30 p.m. Networked Leadership
APRIL with Steve Shepard
15 Media Maven: NTEN Conference Report September 17, 12-2 p.m.
MAY wwww.cctv.org/learn
20 Media Maven: Digital Story Telling
JUNE ACT
12 CCTV Et Channel 17 (20th) Anniversary Parties Communications Security Meetings
Thursday, January 28, 3-4:30 p.m.
17 Media Maven: Find your "Zag": Brand Basics — 12- 1 :30 p.m. Thursday, March 25, 12-1:30 p.m.
JULY
Support Channel 17 Contract Renewal
12-16 I TV Summer Camp: (9-12 years old)—9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Learn more online at:
AUGUST www.cctv.org/act
9 I Primary Election Debates £t Forums Coverage Begins
SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETINGS
Channel 17 Trustees
13 I Channel 17 Anniversary (20th) Scheduled Monthly
17 I Media Maven 5th Annual Luncheon: Networked Leadership CCTV BOARD
27 I General Election Debates ft Forums Coverage Begins Third Thursday-4 p.m.
OCTOBER CCTV BOARD COMMITTEES
21 I Media Maven: Mobile Action Strategy—First Thursday, 12.p.m.
Finance—Second Tuesday,4:30 p.m.
NOVEMBER Resource—Second Monday, 12 p.m.
2 I General Election Day Coverage—7:30 p.m.
Governance—TBA
18 I Media Maven: Lessons from Election 2010 www.cctv.orglabout-uslgoverning-bodies
19 I Vermont Nonprofit Convention (To be Confirmed)
DECEMBER 802.862.1645
9 I Media Maven: Social Media Trends for the Next Decade
16 I Holiday Party 2010—4:30-6:30 p.m. WWW.CCtV.org
2010 aienda of vent
Fri j Center for Media
90 CCIVProductions & Democracy
VIDEO PRODUCTION 8 DUPLICATION
17 TownMeeting - TELL YOUR STORY
TELEVISION
Event Coverage I
WATCH Become a
Channel 17/Town Meeting Television Documentary-Style Production
Communications Consultingand Referrals
on Comcast and Burlington Telecom _ member and
Municipal Meetings: Live Webstreaming
Burlington, South Burlington, Essex, Essex Junction, 1 www.cctv.org/hire-us expand your
Winooski, Williston and Colchester.
Tune in-8p.m., 1 a.m. and7a.m. reach and
Burlington Meetings Live on BT317
"Clickable Meeting Agendas" OCTI4 17 ' `I impact.
online at www.channe117.org
Town Meeting Debates&Forums: February 4-12 STAY CONNECTED Learn more at www.cctv.org/join
Town Meeting Election Results: Sign Up For E-Newsletters: 0
Tuesday, March 2, Starting at 7:30 p.m. CCTV Monthly News
General Election Forums: September 27-October 11 This Week at Channel 17
Common Good Vermont Weekly News
General Election Results:
Tuesday, November 2, Starting at 7:30 p.m. On Twitter:
Chittenden County Regional Meetings ch 17
commongoodvt
Live at 5:25 p.m. ,.On Facebook:
Weeknights cctv.vermont
17 TownMeeting
Local Media Show: CommonGoodVT.org TELEVISION
Live on First Tuesday of most months
Common Good Vermont Nonprofit Group:
www.channel17.org httpSgroups google.com/group/common-good-vermont ii CCVProductions
VIDEO PRODUCTION & DUPLICATION
. .. f x� .,.. _ A, 4) CommonGood
0 CommonGaood VERMONT
VERMONT CI�� SEE CALENDAR INSIDE!
Annual Meeting: January 11, Noon IM
Vermont Nonprofit Legislative Day: February 11
CCTV Center for Media & Democracy 294 North Winooski Avenue
NPO Maven Series: Monthly 294 North Winooski Avenue Burlington VT 05401
Nonprofit Roadshow: April 16-June 25 Burlington VT 05401 www.channel17.org
www.channe117.org www.cctv.org
wvvw.commongoodvt.org www.cctv.org 802.862.1645
802.862.1645
Executive Summary
Hazard Mitigation is a sustained effort to permanently reduce or eliminate long-term risks to
people and property from the effects of reasonably predictable hazards. The purposes of this
updated Local All-Hazards Mitigation Plan are to:
• Identify specific natural,technological and societal hazards that impact the City of South
Burlington;
• Prioritize hazards for mitigation planning;
• Recommend town-level goals and strategies to reduce losses from those hazards;and
• Establish a coordinated process to implement the plan,taking advantage of a wide range of
resources.
This plan is a local annex to the Chittenden County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation
Plan. In order to become eligible to receive various forms of Federal hazard mitigation
grants,a Chittenden County municipality must formally adopt its Local All-Hazards
Mitigation Plan along with the Chittenden County Multi Jurisdictional All-Hazards
Mitigation Plan,or develop and adopt an independent,stand-along Local All-Hazards
Mitigation Plan.
Section 1: Introduction and Purpose explains the purpose, benefits, implications and goals of this
plan. This section also describes municipal demographics and development characteristics,and
describes the planning process used to develop this plan.
Section 2: Hazard Identification expands on the hazard identification in the Chittenden County
Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan with specific municipal-level details on
selected hazards.
Section 3: Risk Assessment discusses identified hazard areas in the municipality and reviews
previous federally-declared disasters as a means to identify what risks are likely in the future.
This section presents a hazard risk assessment for the municipality, identifying the most
significant and most likely hazards which merit mitigation activity. The most significant
identified hazards for South Burlington are:
Severe winter storm Major transportation incident Power loss
Telecommunications failure Multi-structure urban fire Flooding
Economic recession Epidemic Water service loss
Section 4: Vulnerability Assessment discusses buildings,critical facilities and infrastructure in
designated hazard areas and the issue of estimating potential losses.
Section 5: Mitigation Strategies is the heart of this All Hazards Mitigation Plan. This section
begins with an overview of goals and policies in the 2006 South Burlington Municipal Plan that
support hazard mitigation. This is followed by an analysis of existing municipal actions that
support hazard mitigation, such as planning and zoning, emergency services and public works.
This section presents the following all-hazards mitigation goals:
City of South Burlington All-Hazards Mitigation Plan adopted Month 20xx i
I) Reduce at a minimum, and prevent to the maximum extent possible,the loss of life and
injury resulting from all hazards.
2) Mitigation financial losses and environmental degradation incurred by municipal,
educational, residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural establishments due to various
hazards.
3) Maintain and increase awareness amongst the city's residents and businesses of the damages
caused by previous and potential future hazard events as identified specifically in this Local
All-Hazards Mitigation Plan and as identified generally in the Chittenden County Multi-
Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan.
4) Recognize the linkages between the relative frequency and severity of disaster events and the
design,development, use and maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, utilities and
stormwater management and the planning and development of various land uses.
5) Maintain existing municipal plans, programs,regulations, bylaws and ordinances that
directly or indirectly support hazard mitigation.
6) Consider formal incorporation of this Local All-Hazards Mitigation Plan into the municipal
comprehensive plan as described in 24 VSA, Section 4403(5),as well as incorporation of
proposed new mitigation actions into the muncipality's/town's bylaws, regulations and
ordinances, including, but not limited to,zoning bylaws and subdivision regulations and
building codes.
7) Consider formal incorporation of this Local All-Hazards Mitigation Plan,particularly the
recommended mitigation actions, into the municipal/town operating and capital plans and
infrastructure, utilities, highways and emergency services.
This section also identifies and provides a detailed discussion of the following eleven Mitigation
Actions:
• Action#1: Maintain sufficient emergency service capabilities to address all hazards and
community threats.
• Action#2: Investigate and develop options to increase usage of smoke detectors and
installation of sprinkler systems.
• Action#3: Investigate and develop options to quickly alert City residents and visitors in the
event of a significant emergency or threat.
• Action#4: Evaluate and improve capabilities of existing and potential public
shelters/relocation sites.
• Action#5: Maintain adequate measures to mitigate against hazards affecting City roads and
bridges, wastewater systems, stormwater management, and water systems.
• Action#6: Complete fluvial geomorphology assessment and develop strategies in response
to identified risk.
• Action#7: Evaluate capabilities of existing road and stormwater management infrastructure.
• Action#8: Review and modify evacuation and sheltering plans based on the results of drills
and exercises or procedures implemented in an actual incident.
City of South Burlington All-Hazards Mitigation Plan adopted Month 20xx ii
• Action#9: Ensure town and school emergency plans are fully coordinated; maintain
operation of School Safety Committee.
• Action#10: Raise public awareness of hazards, hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness.
• Action#11: Conduct landslide hazard assessments and develop strategies in response to
identified risk.
Finally,this section provides an Implementation Matrix to aid the municipality in implementing
the Mitigation Actions and annual monitoring of this Plan.
City of South Burlington All-Hazards Mitigation Plan adopted Month 20xx iii
Page 1 of 3
Subject: RE: South Burlington All Hazards Mitigation Plan
From: "Julie Potter" <jpotter@ccrpcvt.org>
To: "Charles Hafter" <chafter@sburl.com>
Hi Chuck,
If someone is interested,the complete draft South Burlington All Hazards Mitigation Plan and maps are posted on our
website:
http://ccrpcvt.org/index.asp?Type=B BASIC&SEC={352130F3-FB5E-4485-82DA-4E907875810B)
(or you can go our website,www.ccrpcvt.org,and use the draft All Hazards Mitigation Plan link on the right).
Julie Potter
Senior Planner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street,Suite 202
Winooski,VT 05404
802/846-4490 x30
jpotter@ccrpcvt.org
From: Charles Hafter [mailto:chafter@sburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:42 PM
To: Julie Potter
Subject: RE: South Burlington All Hazards Mitigation Plan
Do you have a one-page executive summary?
Chuck
At 01:07 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
Perfect! Thank you, Chuck.
It sounds like the Council may prefer not getting hard copies of the plan. When I get the plan posted on
our website, I will send you a link in case someone wants to see it. But if you think that they want hard
copies of the plan, I'll be glad to make some.
Julie Potter
Senior Planner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
802/846-4490 x30
jpotter@ccrpcvt.org
From: Charles Hafter [ mailto:chafter(asburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday,January 06, 2010 1:01 PM
To: Julie Potter
Subject: RE: South Burlington All Hazards Mitigation Plan
How about 2/16 meeting at 7:00 pm?
Chuck
file://C:\Users\chuck\AppData\Local\Temp\eud6.htm 2/10/2010
Page 2 of 3
At 12:00 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
Hi Chuck,
I think I should let the Council to know about the plan before we submit it to VEM and FEMA for
approval and before the Council is asked to formally adopt the plan. If the Council has never had much
concern about the plan, then a very brief presentation should be adequate to let them know what is going
on. February will be fine;please let me know the date and time.
Meanwhile, I'll post the draft plan on our website in case anyone wants to read it.
Thank you for your help.
Julie Potter
Senior Planner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski,VT 05404
802/846-4490 x30
jpotter@ccrpcvt.org
From: Charles Hatter [mailto:chafterna,sburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday,January 06,2010 11:19 AM
To: Julie Potter
Cc: mboucher@sburl.com
Subject: Re: South Burlington All Hazards Mitigation Plan
Julie: The Council has been thru this several times already and has never expressed a great interest
in spending time discussing the plan. They have left it to city staff to work with the RPC on the
last several iterations of this plan. Is a presentation to Council required? If so, I can get you on a
February
agenda, but 10 minutes will do.
Let me know if you still want to bring the plan to Council at this time. Or if it can wait for the formal
adoption process.
Chuck Hafter
At 10:18 AM 1/6/2010. you wrote:
Dear Chuck,
CCRPC staff are preparing the All Hazards Mitigation Plan for Chittenden County and each of its
communities. We have reviewed the draft plan for South Burlington with key staff from Planning, Fire,
Police, Stormwater, and Highways, and the attached draft reflects their input.
We would like to make a presentation to the City Council, say 30 minutes to include discussion, at the
soonest opportunity that they can give it their attention. (I know it is budget season.) Would you let me
know when this presentation can be scheduled and how many copies of the plan I should deliver for
Council members? I'd also be happy to answer any questions you have about the draft plan.
Ultimately,we need to get Vermont Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to review and approve the county and municipal All Hazards Mitigation Plans, and go through a
file://C:\Users\chuck\AppData\Local\Temp\eud6.htm 2/10/2010
Page 3 of 3
formal adoption process with the City Council. We are working on a tight schedule to get all of this
done this spring, and appreciate your help in keeping this moving.
Julie Potter
Senior Planner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
802/846-4490 x30
jpotter@ccrpcvt.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - vtivV Wi.av2.c«m
Version: 9.0.725 /Virus Database: 270.14.127/2603 - Release Date: 01/06/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG-www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 /Virus Database: 270.14.127/2603 - Release Date: 01/06/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - w.\ti.av .cum
Version: 9.0.725 /Virus Database: 270.14.127/2603 - Release Date: 01/06/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 /Virus Database: 270.14.139/2620 - Release Date: 01/14/10 02:35:00
file://C:\Users\chuck\AppData\Local\Temp\eud6.htm 2/10/2010
04417
•
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
DATE: February 16, 2010
SUBJECT: City Center Status Update
The Council's meeting at Central School this week provides us with a great opportunity
to provide an update on City Center. Unfortunately, as all who drive to the meeting will
no doubt be reminded, Market Street has not yet been reconstructed. But we do have
some important progress to report on, and perhaps more importantly, have some
important upcoming decisions to preview.
Attached to is an updated timeline of work completed to date on City Center. I'll provide
a brief summary of the highlights at the meeting.
The most recent update, as of this week, is that the Federal Highway Administration is
reviewing what we hope is a complete, final draft of the Environmental Assessment for
Market Street. The ultimate approval of this EA will allow us to formally enter the next
phase of the project, moving forward with the Vermont Agency of Transportation, Act
250 and local permits for our stormwater and road reconstruction projects, and beginning
to design Market Street itself. Rob Sikora, our Federal Highway Administration liaison,
reported last week that his goal is to resolve all outstanding issues on the EA by the end
of February.
Next Steps:
Below is a brief outline of next steps from the city side of the equation. Of special
importance to the Council and the voters, I think, is the question of whether there will be
any significant structured parking in City Center, and how such a facility will be funded.
At Tuesday's meeting, I would like to briefly introduce the issue and gather some
feedback as we research the land use implications of a City Center with and without
structured parking, and as we identify the costs, revenues, and financial implications to
the private sector and voters of instruments such as tax increment financing. On this
topic, we have been working closely with our principal private sector partner in this
project, South Burlington Realty, LLC.
1
I'd also like to take this opportunity to begin a dialogue of what presence municipal
facilities, such as a city hall, library or seniors center could and should have in City
Center. This is a subject that has been raised by the public at all of our community
meetings and may be worth examining as we look how all of our existing facilities will be
used in the future.
City Center Goals for 2010 / 2011:
Stormwater:
Complete Stormwater improvements to Potash Brook Tributary 3 (the purpose of which
is to help improve off-site stormwater runoff from the Chamberlain and Mayfair Park
neighborhoods that flow into City Center). In order to do this, we must:
• Gain approval and easements from private landowners
• Gain approval of the Army Corps of Engineers on the final off-site wetland mitigation
plan and of the overall project environmental assessment
• Finalize acquisition of off-site easements for wetland mitigation.
• Apply for and receive local and State permits
• Complete construction
Market Street
• Apply for Act 250 Master Plan approval for the reconstruction of Market Street and
associated impacts (ie, City Center development)
• Complete engineering and begin reconstruction of Market Street (timing is entirely
dependent on receipt of final permits)
Land Development
• Host public discussion over the implications of constructing/not constructing a
parking garage in City Center;
• Determine whether public will be involved in financing construction of a parking
garage using tax increment financing or other tools.
• Examine purpose, need, and costs for municipal facilities in City Center
• Complete amendments to Land Development Regulations as necessary
• Review private-sector applications for local Master Permit (timing is dependent on
status of other permits and development market).
2
*`fie
south
............................_...
PLANNING & ZONING
City Center Timeline Highlights: 2003 to present
2003
Spring City receives$1 million Federal funding for improvements to Market Street
City receives$1,1 million Federal funding for stream restoration improvements to
Tributary 3 of the Potash Brook
2004
November City of South Burlington takes over Market Street right-of-way
December Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. engaged as lead consultant to develop City
Center Master Plan
2005
Spring City receives$5 million Federal funding for improvements to Market Street
March City hosts two-day public charette: "City Center— Building the Vision" (Over 100
participants attend)
June Presentation of initial findings from charette to Planning Commission
November Draft conceptual master plans & market study presented to the City
2006
Spring VT Legislature authorizes the use of Tax Increment Finance Districts for
Downtown Infrastructure
Summer Consultant and City meet with area property owners; begin traffic and
environmental assessments for future permitting
November City receives funding for community branding project
December Public workshop held to present and discuss refined conceptual plans for City
Center; introduce design concepts
Updated 2-10-2010 1
City Center Timeline Highlights: 2003 to present (cont'd)
2007
Spring Real estate committee formed to discuss land exchanges and develop process
City and Healthy Living put forward a Request for Proposals for a gateway
artwork project
Summer First Draft Environmental Assessment for Market Street Improvements prepared
City and Army Corps of Engineers sign agreement for Design and Construction
assistance for the Potash Brook Restoration Project
Exploration of wetland mitigation alternatives for potential impacts to Potash
Brook
Public work session/review meeting with Planning Commission held on City
branding project
July Presentation to City Council: Full Status report on City Center project
October City branding report presented; City departments begin use of new logo
December Outline of design guidelines for City Center discussed with Planning Commission
2008
Winter New Healthy Living store opens adjacent to a future "gateway" for City Center
Spring VT Legislature amends Tax Increment Finance Districts to allow for
infrastructure costs serving the District and authorizing broader financing
alternatives
Spring Final Draft Environmental Assessment for City Center prepared
June Draft Design Guidelines and Public Realm Guidelines presented to Planning
Commission
August City/Healthy Living gateway artwork project unveiled
September Ongoing fieldwork for archeological resources, performed on City Center and
Dumont Park properties, and for wetland mitigation alternatives
November Draft Federal Environmental Assessment published for public review and
comment(copies mailed to property owners; letters sent to neighbors; made
available on the City website, at City Hall, and at Library). Comment period
extends through December 31st, 2008.
December Planning Commission hosts formal public hearing on the draft Environmental
Assessment, attended by approx. 50 residents
Updated 2-10-2010 2
City Center Timeline Highlights: 2003 to present (cont'd)
2009
January Staff hosts preliminary meetings with property owners potentially affected by
key road network improvements.
Staff hosts neighborhood meeting with Iby Street residents to discuss
alternatives for the alignment of Market Street at its eastern end
February Planning &Zoning Department distributes Request for Proposals for a
consultant to complete a Tax Increment Finance District Analysis using planning
grant funds.
March Planning Commission reviews draft City application for State Designation of the
Dorset Street/Williston Road/Hinesburg Road area as a "New Town Center."
The Commission asks staff to work with the Vermont Downtown Board and
Vermont Economic Progress Council to ensure consistency with a potential tax
increment finance district
March/April City Council gathers public input and reviews potential alignments of the end of
Market Street. The Council votes to retain Market Street in its current alignment
rather than shifting the road to the south at its east end and to the north at the
west end as had been conceptualized.
April City contracts with Doug Kennedy Advisors to complete a City Center Tax
Increment Finance Revenue Study using funds from a Vermont Municipal
Planning Grant.
June Final report from Doug Kennedy Advisors delivered to the City.
July/August Staff continue to work with the Army Corps of Engineers,Vermont Agency of
Transportation, and local property owners on development of permits and plans
for required off-site wetland mitigation.
September Revised Environmental Assessment,with responses to written comments
provided by the public and revised Market Street alignments completed and
submitted to Federal Highway Administration for review.
Planning Commission reviews and approves revised New Town Center
application;forwards to City Council for final approval.
October Planning Commission hosts City Center Work Session, including public update of
project status and small-group discussion of zoning within and adjacent to City
Center.
November City Council reviews and approved New Town Center application
Federal Highway Administration provides feedback to City on Environmental
Assessment, requests additional amendments.
Updated 2-10-2010 3
December Staff and consultants meet with Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Act
250 District Commission to define schedule for submission of state permits.
2010
January Revised Environmental Assessment submitted to Federal Highway
Administration for review and consideration of approval.
Vermont Downtown Board designates City Center/ San Remo Drive area as a
New Town Center following review of application and presentation by the city.
Updated 2-10-2010 4
Meaghan Emery, 12:40 PM 2/8/2010, RE: Meeting with Burlington City Council Page 1 of 2
Subject: RE: Meeting with Burlington City Council
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:40:17 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TN EF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Meeting with Burlington City Council
Thread-Index: AcgoxVUXY8H2coKQQ0SM47sX4KDNSAAIHIpc
From: "Meaghan Emery" <memery@sburl.com>
To: "Charles Hafter" <chafter@sburl.com>,
"Mark Boucher" <mboucher@sburl.com>
Cc: "Sandy Dooley" <sdooley@sburl.com>,
"Frank Murray" <fmurray@sburl.com>,
"James Knapp" <jknapp@sburl.com>,
"Denis Gravelin" <dgravelin@sburl.com>
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 9.0.733 [271.1.1/2675]
Hello again,
I've added another point to the list(please see below):
Airport expansion (I'm thinking that an initial meeting could focus on this topic, but there are other issues,
especially with regard to traffic and bike routes, that we could address--I'm thinking in particular of Williston Rd,
and Grove St. down Patchen Rd.)
* Loss of affordable, workforce housing: While individual homeowners are being compensated for their homes as
they relocate, South Burlington as a City is left with a deficit of affordable housing. There are few if any incentives
for developers to build affordable, workforce housing, and this presents a stiff challenge to us as a City, where
land values are high. In fact, many residents who have felt forced to relocate through the home purchasing plan
and who were unable to invest in more expensive housing, have felt forced to leave South Burlington altogether.
Can the two cities work together to come up with a plan that would incentivize developers to build more affordable
housing to replace what has been lost due to airport expansion? Perhaps the airport could donate to a housing
fund?
* Green, open space: Some have looked to an increase of green, open space as a return on this loss of homes.
However, many residents are concerned when they hear talk of a hotel and perhaps additional amenities, such as
restaurants, a Greyhound bus terminal, increased parking, etc. What acreage should be/will be left as open
space?
*The Greyhound bus terminal: The only positive for this part of South Burlington, which is already heavily
traveled, is in having the number of cars from Montreal, Quebec decrease. Based on Greyhound's presentation
to South Burlington Council on February 1, it seems likely that a bus terminal would lead to an increase in
automobile traffic through our city center area and on into the neighborhood next to the airport. The idea of a
shuttle service from downtown Burlington to the airport might show promise, but there has been no commitment
from any player either to ensure this service or to ensure the efficacy of this service, whereas Greyhound could
relocate in "two weeks." In addition, S.B. businesses fear that they would suffer from this service, especially if
compounded by the construction of a new hotel.
*Amtrak: With Amtrak's new expansion plans, would it be worthwhile to investigate whether it would make more
sense for a bus terminal to be closer to a new Amtrak station? Shuttle service to and from the airport could
operate from this terminal.
* 189 extension: The extension of 189 would make it possible for cars to reach a bus terminal on Pine St. or
nearby without aggravating noise/traffic levels in existing neighborhoods. From purely a planning point of view,
the location on Pine St. appears better suited for long-term bus parking than does the neighborhood around the
airport, which is densely populated and near our city center, which will in the future serve and be served by the
existing Chamberlin neighborhood.
* Combination bus depot/parking/train (multi-modal transportation center): Where is Burlington in its plans for this
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/8/2010
Meaghan Emery, 12:40 PM 2/8/2010, RE: Meeting with Burlington City Council Page 2 of 2
multi-modal transportation center? Does the fact that General Dynamics moving open up space there for a multi-
modal transportation center?
Meaghan
Original Message
From: Charles Hafter[mailto:chafterasburl.com]
Sent: Mon 2/8/2010 8:55 AM
To: Meaghan Emery; Mark Boucher
Cc: Sandy Dooley; Frank Murray; James Knapp; Denis Gravelin
Subject: Re: Meeting with Burlington City Council
Meaghan: I will be glad to put this on an agenda for discussion. If the Council wants to meet with Burlington's
Council,
I suggest that you develop a list of items for discussion and let respective staffs meet to work up details of the
issues
ahead of the meeting, so the meeting can be focused and productive.
Chuck
At 01:03 PM 2/7/2010, Meaghan Emery wrote:
Dear All,
I hope that we can meet with the Burlington City Council soon in order to lay out our residents' concerns
regarding the airport, Greyhound, etc. Could you place this on an agenda, Mark, Chuck? Would it be appropriate
to discuss this at a regular City Council meeting or in some other forum? Thanks for following up on this.
Regards,
Meaghan
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG-www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 9.0.733/Virus Database: 271.1.1/2675 - Release Date: 02/08/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 /Virus Database: 271.1.1/2675 - Release Date: 02/08/10 02:35:00
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/8/2010
In Page 1 of 2
Subject: RE: Meeting with Burlington City Council
From: "Meaghan Emery" <memery@sburl.com>
To: "Charles Hafter" <chafter ...snip... Boucher" <mboucher@sburl.com>
Cc: "Sandy Dooley" <sdooley@sburl.com ...snip... Gravelin" <dgravelin@sburl.com>
Chuck,
In addition to the other points I list, I would like to add the following to the top of the list(and I appreciate Mark's
input on this).
Governance
* South Burlington has very little oversight over the airport (only 1 commissioner on the board), and we would be
interested in having a more active role in the governance of the airport's development
*The South Burlington City Council would also like to have a clearer idea of the powers and duties of the various
Key players in the airport's governance: Burlington mayor, Burlington City Council, the Airport Commission, Brian
Searles (Director of the Airport).
As introduction to the remaining items on my list, I would encourage these policy makers to consider the impact of
the airport on the surrounding Chamberlin neighborhood first, prior to all policy decisions
Thanks again,
Meaghan
Original Message
From: Charles Hafter[mailto:chafterc sburl.corn]
Sent: Mon 2/8/2010 8:55 AM
To: Meaghan Emery; Mark Boucher
Cc: Sandy Dooley; Frank Murray; James Knapp; Denis Gravelin
Subject: Re: Meeting with Burlington City Council
Meaghan: I will be glad to put this on an agenda for discussion. If the Council wants to meet with Burlington's
Council.
I suggest that you develop a list of items for discussion and let respective staffs meet to work up details of the
issues
ahead of the meeting, so the meeting can be focused and productive.
Chuck
At 01:03 PM 2/7/2010, Meaghan Emery wrote:
Dear All.
I hope that we can meet with the Burlington City Council soon in order to lay out our residents' concerns
regarding the airport, Greyhound, etc. Could you place this on an agenda, Mark, Chuck? Would it be appropriate
to discuss this at a regular City Council meeting or in some other forum? Thanks for following up on this.
Regards,
Meaghan
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/9/2010
- Scoping Meeting
United States Air Force
F-35A Operational Basing
Environmental Impact Statement
Comment Sheet
Location:
Date:
Thank you for providing your comments on the proposed F-35A Operational Basing EIS. Please provide us
with your comments no later than March 1, 2010. Comments may be submitted at the meeting or mailed to
the address below.
Over for more space -3
***Please Print***
Name:
Address:
Do you wish to be sent a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement? CD, Paper, Neither
Note: Your address will not be made public if you are just requesting a copy of the EIS.
Please give this form to one of the Air Force representatives tonight or mail to:
Ms. Sheryl Parker, HQ ACC/A7PS
129 Andrews St., Suite 337
Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769
(757) 764-9334
ft.%
southh����� fr
PLANNING & ZONING
AGENDA
South Burlington Development Review Board
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:30pm Regular Meeting
City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT
1. Other business/announcements
2. Minutes of January 19 and February 2, 2010.
3. Miscellaneous application #MS-10-02 of Claudia Berger and Sheldon Katz to expand a
non-complying single family dwelling, 54 Central Avenue.
4. Site plan application #SP-10-09 of Michele Kupersmith to convert 354 sq. ft. of a single
family dwelling into an accessory residential unit, 23 Brewer Parkway. -
5. Site plan application #SP-10-11 of Ralph Deslauriers, Jr. for re-approval of a 32 unit
multi-family dwelling, 264 Quarry Hill Road.
6. Site plan application #SP-10-12 of Tammy Schey to convert 7,575 sq. ft. of an 11,200
sq. ft. building used for auto sales, service and repair to pet day care use, 5 Green
Mountain Drive
7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit
development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The
proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single
family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two (2) family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three
(3) unit multi-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street.
Respec Sub d,
ay and J.
Administrative Officer
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
41 wit im
south
Charles E. Hatter, City Manager
February 10, 2010
Chair and City Council
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: Consideration of award of construction of San Remo Drive Streetscape
improvements to lower bidder Engineers Construction, Inc, (ECI); STP 05(11)
To All:
Attached is a letter from Craig Plumb, Deputy Director of Public Works, recommending
the City award a construction contract for the San Remo Drive a Streetscape project to
ECI in the amount of$241,962. ECI was the lowest of five bidders.
The City has received a state enhancement award of$250,000 for the project. The City
has to make a 20%match, which it plans to provide through in-kind work. As the project
is within budget, we recommend that you approve the award.
The San Remo project has been in the design/permitting stage for several years so the
newest Council members may not be totally familiar with the work. Sidewalks, trees and
other amenities will be placed on each side of the street consistent with the intent of City
Center. The road will be resurfaced. It is the City's hope that the improved road and
amenities will provide an economic development purpose by encouraging an up-use of
the property and the combination of smaller parcels.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hafter
City Manager
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
0011111PIP*
South Burlington Public Works
/i,4l'�„'1,�,' 575 DORSET STREET
��. SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT 05403
___ � TEL:(802)658-7961
.: FAX:18021658 7576 of
, aoF u w u RC
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID
Date:February 8,2010
Joel Perrigo,LTF Project Engineer
Local Transportation Facilities
Vermont Agency of Transportation
1 National Life Drive—Drawer 33
Montpelier,Vermont 05633-5001
Re:City of South Burlington;San Remo Drive Street Scape Improvements STP 05(11)
Dear Joel,
I have fully reviewed the bid documents that were received on Thursday February 4,2010 for the above
referenced project. Bids were received from Engineers Construction,Inc.,Don Weston Excavating,Inc.,
SD Ireland Companies,All Season Excavating and Landscaping,Inc.and J.Hutchins,Inc.After full
review,all bidders are deemed to be responsive with the apparent low-bidder being Engineers
Construction,Inc.(ECI).
Total Bid price for the San Remo Drive Street Scape Improvements STP 05(11)is$241,962.00.
It is my recommendation after fully reviewing the submitted bid documents that the contract for the City of
South Burlington San Remo Drive Street Scape Improvements STP 05(11)should be awarded to Engineers
Construction,Inc.
Respectfully Submitted,
Craig P. Plumb
Craig P.Plumb
Deputy Director of Public Works/Director of Operations
CC: Justin Rabidoux,Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Charles Hafter,City Manager
File
File:/Letter of Recommendation to award bid