Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/19/2010CITY COUNCIL 19 APRIL 2010 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 April 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the Cafeteria, Tuttle Middle School, Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Adj. Gen. M. Dubie; Lt. Col. C. Caputo, Lt. Col. M. Manifold, Lt. Col. J. Key; S. Parker, J. Ladd, N. Hinge, S. Dopp, J. Schwartz, J. Buck, B. Thompson, D. Ross, S. Quest, R. Reno, J. M. Leas, J. Schwartz, P. Larsen, G. Sovsa, N. Sabin, J. Ramey, S. Cray, S. Sissal, L. Leavens, J. Floyd, E. Powell, B. Stuono, E. Spooner, A. Kinre, J. Hausrath, C. Hooper- Feeney, B. Walsh, K. Ruffe, J. Zaetz, G. Palumbo, P. Palumbo, P. Decelles, B. Nolfi, P. Lackowski, M. Dickenson, S. Audette, E. Bernstein, other members of the public 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Boucher announced that this would be City Manager Chuck Hafter’s final City Council meeting before his retirement. 2. Presentation from USAF representatives on Environmental Impact Statement process for proposed basing of F.- 35 fighter jets at the Vermont Air National Guard facility at the Burlington Airport; Ms. Sheryl Parker, F-35 Operational Basing EIS Coordinator, Langley, VA; Matthew Manifold: Lt. Col. Caputo, F-35 Project Lead presented factual information on the F-35 aircraft. He noted that the F­35A is being designed to replace all F­16’s and A­ 10’s. The F-35B is being designed for the Marines, and the F-35C is being designed for the Navy. Only 2 F­35A’s have currently been built. The first one had its initial flight in December. It is now being used as a target. AF-1 is the only F-35A currently flying. It is now in Ft. Worth where Lockheed is building these aircraft. The Air Force is planning to purchase more than 1000 of these aircraft, 680 will be purchased for the Navy and Marines. The F-35A is similar to the F-16 in size. It differs in the amount of fuel it can carry internally. The F-16 can carry only 7000 pounds of fuel inside the aircraft, which is very limiting when they are called out. They have to load up extra fuel tanks under the wings. The F-35 will carry 18,000 pounds. Ms. Parker then reviewed the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process. The process began in December, 2009 when the U.S. Air Force published a “Notice of Intent.” Ms. Parker explained the various levels of analysis that can be done and noted that the F-35 will have the highest level of EIS including scoping. Copies of the EIS will be provided to anyone who is interested. There will be a 45-day public comment period. Then a public hearing must be held by a judge. Once comments are submitted, the Air Force must provide certain responses that will then be placed in the final EIS. There will be 30 days between the submission of the final EIS to the rendering of a decision. That decision will determine where the F­35’s will go. Ms. Parker stressed that this is the beginning of the process, and they want to know what the concerns are. She noted that scoping meetings were held in Winooski, in Littleton, New Hampshire, and in Watertown, New York. In late summer or early fall, the EIS will be made available to the general public. The public will have 45 days to review it and provide comments. The final ES will be issued early in the winter of 2011. Lt. Col. Caputo cited the need to replace the aging F-16 fleet as there is not a lot of airframe time left on them. He then reviewed the reasons why Burlington has been chosen as a potential site for the F­35’s. The Department of Defense looked at and evaluated 205 airfields in the U.S. Burlington has some of the best air training space in the country. It also has appropriate weather, facilities (ramp space, runways, etc.), and environmental air quality. It is also in a strategic location. Lt. Col. Caputo showed a map of the current candidates for the F­35’s. Burlington is the only candidate in the northeast. Lt. Col. Caputo then addressed environmental concerns surrounding the F­35’s. He said the F-35 is somewhat louder than the current Legacy aircraft and is similar to the F-22 with respect to noise. He also explained why some comments that have been made regarding noise are inaccurate and have been taken out of context. The EIS that was done for Eglin Air Force Base was issued before there was a lot of test data. Lt. Col. Caputo said Burlington and the Eglin base cannot be compared as Eglin is a training base and would have many more flight operations a year (over 100,000) than Burlington would (about 5,100). Burlington also does not do multiple pattern flights as they do at Eglin. In Burlington, there are 6 takeoffs in the morning (a 30-second event) and 4 in the afternoon. Lt. Col. Caputo then reviewed a 10-year average of activity at Burlington International Airport, as follows: General Aviation - 54,000 flight operations Commercial Aviation - 46,548 flight operations Transient Military Aviation - 6176 flight operations VTANG - 5,100 flight operations (about 4.6% of all flight operations) The F­35 should be able to take off with “military power” instead of “after­burner power” which the F­16’s must use when they are carrying the 2 extra fuel tanks. Lt. Col. Caputo noted that at 116 knots, the F-35 registered 121 decibels and the F-16 registered 114 decibels in military power. In minimum power, the F-35 registered 94 decibels and the F-16 registered 89 decibels. Lt. Col. Caputo said they do not use military power when coming into Burlington. Lt. Caputo explained the history of the F­16’s and how that aircraft has evolved over time. He said the F­35 is a “stealth” design aircraft. Everything is done internally. The City Council was then given the opportunity to ask questions and to comment as follows: Mr. Knapp: Do you do your own studies or use existing data? Ms. Parker: Generally, existing data is used (from Chamber of Commerce, local/city/state environmental people, etc.). Ms. Emery: Do you consider issues such as home values? Ms. Parker: They would contact local municipal offices. Ms. Emery: What would the options be if the F­35’s were not in Burlington? And would Burlington still get transient military aircraft: Ms. Parker: That would have to be determined. Lt. Col. Caputo: Transient military aircraft would probably still come to Burlington. VTANG doesn’t control that. Ms. Emery: Noted the big tankers that come into Burlington and asked whether there is any thinking of bringing them to a less residential area base. Lt. Col. Caputo: That would depend on their mission. Ms. Emery: If the VTANG mission were to change, would fire and emergency operations leave the Airport. Gen. Dubie: There would be a $1,000,000 expense to the City of Burlington if fire and emergency operations were to cease. If VTANG doesn’t fly out of Burlington, there won’t be a Fire Department at the Airport. There would also be other jobs that are lost to the area without the planes. Ms. Emery: Was told there would be less maintenance if the F­35’s came because they require less maintenance. Gen. Dubie: The specifics on that are not known yet. The total payroll at VTANG is $50,000,000. That would be dramatically reduced if there were no aircraft. He said they will have to live with what the Air Force comes up with. Ms. Emery: If the F­35’s are based in Burlington and residents were to complain about noise, would VTANG/Air Force fund noise abatement? What would require the use of after-burners? Gen. Dubie: Aircraft never take off with more power than they need. They use the lowest safe power setting. He estimated they would use after-burners 5% of the time, when they are fully loaded for an overseas flight or a flight to Florida. Ms. Emery: Incrementally, with new engines the noise has gone up. Gen. Dubie: That is not necessarily true. The F-4 was much louder. Ms. Emery: What do you do to mitigate socio-economic impacts such as home-care providers who felt they would have to move because of noise? Ms. Parker: We do not subsidize loss of income. Ms. Emery: Will information on peak levels be available? Ms. Parker: That will be in the EIS. Ms. Dooley: Noted that information stated the new acoustic model would be ready by 2009. Ms. Parker: It is not ready because they are finding glitches, and it is not considered appropriate to be used now. Ms. Dooley: Would like something more precise than “people would be annoyed” by the noise. How far does an F-35 have to travel to get to 500 knots speed, and where would the aircraft be at that time? Lt. Col. Caputo: With F­16’s, they are at 300 knots at takeoff and stay at that speed to conserve fuel. Ms. Dooley: the Record of Decision for Eglin talks about a “supplemental EIS.” Ms. Parker: That is being worked on now. The Record of Decision was for 59 F­35’s. The supplemental would be for more aircraft. Mr. Murray: Is noise the only impact the city should be concerned with? Ms. Parker: Other areas they have seen include air quality and associated land use. She said air quality wouldn’t be affected in Burlington because it isn’t in “attainment” (where there are lots of pollutants). She noted that only 18 to 24 aircraft are proposed for Burlington. She stressed that Burlington should not be compared with operations at Eglin. Mr. Murray: What is the current thinking as to how operation of the aircraft could mitigate aircraft noise? Lt. Col. Caputo: They can take off in “military power,” they can modify local procedures (make the pattern altitude 500 feet higher), and they could modify “climb­ out” procedures. Ms. Parker added that they will analyze potential hearing loss to people working on the aircraft and to those below the take-off site. Mr. Murray: Is there a possibility of bringing an F-35 to Burlington so people can hear it? He felt this would be “good politics.” Ms. Parker: That would be up to the Air Force. Mr. Murray: When will the F­16’s use up their air time? Lt. Col. Caputo: 2017-2018. Mr. Murray: How many employees are involved? Gen. Dubie: 1100 for VTANG (400 full time and 700 “weekend warriors”) with an annual payroll of $53,000,000. Offered to provide average income information. He noted there is no move in the Air Force to go to unmanned planes. Mr. Hafter: Will the EIS have a map to show whether the noise contour line is moving? Ms. Parker: Absolutely. Mr. Boucher: Noted that the City Council wrote a letter in February expressing concerns, especially with the 65 decibel line. The public was then invited to comment and ask questions. The following comments and questions were offered: Mr. Hinge: Supports the project. Felt it was important to talk about noise, especially for so small a community. He felt the area is lucky to have a diverse economy, and the Air Guard is part of that. Expressed pride in what these men and women are doing. Ms. Schwartz: Share that pride, but when F­16’s fly, her grandchildren hold their ears and at night they can’t sleep. She asked the Air Force to use common sense and pick a spot away from a residential area. Ms. Buck: Asked if the “accident potential zone” will be in the EIS. Ms. Parker responded that it will. She said they can also recommend against incompatible land use. Mr. Hafter noted there is currently Airport Overlay Zoning. Though there may be some commercial uses in that area that were built before the overly, there are no homes. Mr. Thompson: One practice they used in the Navy in the past was to dump fuel at the end of a fiscal period. He asked if that is still done. Gen. Dubie said no, they wouldn’t waste the fuel. Mr. Ross: Thanked the military for their service. Cited a potential “unconsidered consequence” to veterans who are being treated for post combat stress who could be subject to recurrent bad memories. Ms. Quest: The entire Army National Guard of Vermont is overseas now and is not here to help in Vermont if they were needed. The F-35 is a stronger killing machine. It is time to stop. Ms. Reno: Concern is about accumulated stress levels over the long term as decibels increase. Asked how much wider of a geographic area would be impacted. Ms. Parker said the EIS will include any increase in acreage and the number of people impacted based on census data. Mr. Leas: The F­35 won’t benefit Vermont. The quality of life will be harmed as will the environment. Classes at school will be disrupted. South Burlington will become a military target. Each F-35 costs $35,000,000. Vermont needs money for everything else, and these planes will do nothing for Vermont. Planes enrich military contractors and impoverish American citizens. Mr. Larsen: Supports the change in aircraft. Cited the debt owed to the military. The best way to thank them is to give them the best equipment. Would listen to more noise if they had better planes. Mr. Sovsa: Friends say their quality of life will be affected. His concern is with air pollution from emissions and its affect on lakes, rivers, etc. Did not question that the Air Guard is doing a great job, but said the quality of life is why people live in Vermont. Noted that the State of Maine prohibits flights over some areas because of quality of life issues. Ms. Sabin: When she hears a jet overhead she is thankful it isn’t a MIG. They fly at tree-top level. Mr. Ramey: Is from a military family and feels that what is important for the troops is important for him. But he asked that Burlington be removed as a site for the F- 35’s. Current noise levels are unacceptable. The planes are a waste of money. 1.5 American kids live under the poverty level. Spend the money elsewhere. Mr. Hubbard: Would the City Council be willing to gather information and make it available on the website for the public? In the beginning, the F­16’s didn’t need afterburners. Why do they need them now? Lt. Col. Caputo said they take off with afterburners when they need extra fuel tanks or on a hot temperature day. Mr. Hubbard said a rock concert is at 100 decibels. The F-35 would be higher. Gen. Cray: 600 members of VTANG live in the community and are affected by the noise as well. Do not use data from the Eglin study. The EIS will be developed based on how F­35’s would be used here. Ms. Sissal: Lives next to the Airport, and it is unbearable when the F­16’s take off. Windows in her home have been broken, and she is concerned with structural damage. Who would buy her house and who would live there? Mr. Leavens: The F­35’s are 7 decibels louder than the F­16’s. Moving jets produce a cone of sound. The full effect is not measured because the full effect gets there later. More sound is created when the F­35 is turning and landing, and this wasn’t measured. The F-35 produces low frequency sounds which are not being revealed. Mr. Floyd: Would like to keep every job and have no more noise. Most homes in the area pre-date fighter jets at the Airport. Newcomers should have to make adjustments. Since homes are being torn down because of noise, it is obvious that someone recognizes the damage being done by the noise. Ms. Powell: A study shows a 27% loss of market value of homes because of noise issues. Every time an F­16 goes overhead it is like “an ice pick in my ear.” She can’t walk her dog in the neighborhood anymore. Anything about 85 decibels causes ear damage. She wants a quality of life. Mr. Stuono: Does the EIS specifically address single event noise impact on those with disabilities, health issues, or non-standard work hours. Ms. Parker said the EIS will identify single event noise levels. There is a 10 decibel “penalty” for noise after 10 p.m. Mr. Spooner: The F­35’s would solidify the future of families dependent on VTANG for employment. The loss of 1000 jobs is unthinkable. Felt that sound walls and other mitigation are long overdue. Ms. Kinre: Was in the Army for 10 years. The U.S. doesn’t have enemies that F­35’s are useful for, and they would just be making things worse and not any safer. They hurt the environment. In a time when schools and libraries, etc., are in trouble, priorities are being incredibly mismanaged. Mr. Hausrath: An Army veteran. Asked if these planes will carry munitions. Sound travels differently on cold, clear days, and there are a lot of those in Vermont. Any average would be false unless you use Vermont conditions. There is very little humidity to buffer sound. Ms. Hooper-Feeney: Is the daughter of a WWII veteran and is grateful to the military. Her concern is with deploying these jets at a commercial airport in a densely populated area. She is concerned with the impact on school and the disruption of learning. Felt it was inappropriate to deploy F­35’s here. Ms. Emery read a statement from Rep. Helen Head: She understands this would modernize the fleet, but at the same time, South Burlington citizens are wary of environmental impacts such as noise and pollution. She noted this is a densely populated area, and the city can’t afford to lose any more affordable housing in that area. She was also concerned with job loss because of the F­35’s coming to Burlington. Mr. & Mrs. Walsh: Concerned with noise levels. Noise is a constant in their lives, and the F­35’s would produce more noise. Requested that F­35’s be assigned elsewhere. Mr. Ruffe: Burlington resident. Addressed the issue of job loss if the F­35’s don’t come. Said that for a few billion dollars of taxpayer money, South Burlington would lose a few jobs and more affordable homes. F­35’s don’t help Vermont in any way and make us a target. He hoped the Air Force scraps the program. Mr. Zaetz: lives ¼ mile from the Guard, and they are good neighbors. He is accustomed to the planes overhead and it is only a few seconds of noise a few times a day. The fleet is old and outdated. New technology needs to be in place. Didn’t think Vermont can afford to lose any more jobs. Mr. Palumbo: Vermont skeptical that this is a good idea. Why not move the runway? What if the 70 decibel line goes to Mayfair Park? Do we tear down those homes? Andrews Air Force Base is in the middle of the desert, not a highly populated area. Mr. Decelles: Member of the Burlington City Council. Attested to the noise levels. Thanked VTANG for what they do. He cited the problems when Plattsburg Air Force Base was closed and asked the City Council to work with VTANG. Ms. Nolfi: Affected by noise. How will the decisions be made as to whether there are 18 or 24 planes? Ms. Parker said there are several scenarios to present, with impacts for both. There are 18 F­16’s but typically there are 24 in a fleet. Gen. Dubie said he has been told there would be 18 planes. Mr. Lackowski: This affects people all over the region, not just South Burlington. It’s deafening where he lives in Burlington. 10 additional decibels is double the noise. There is a fine mist of fuel that comes down with jet planes. Felt these planes belong out in the country not in the midst of the most populated area in the state. Mr. Dickinson: What the data doesn’t show peaks his curiosity. Noted there is only one east coast base proposed. Thinks the DNL is a “watered down” number. A 24- hour average is used but the planes fly only 15 hours. Need supplemental metrics to be used on today’s aircraft. This would shed more light on the noise impact. Mr. Audette: The Airport was a field before the Airport was built. It is now an economic engine for the State, and its worth is astronomical. That is because the Air Force built it up. Ms. Bernstein: The Department of health notes a problem with benzene in our air in this area. Ms. Parker said that discussion is on-going. Mr. Boucher thanked Ms. Parker and the Air Guard representatives for coming. He suggested neighbors work with VTANG on common goals and find a way to cohabit. 3. Review and Approve Minutes of 5 April 2010: Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 5 April 2010 as written. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Murray moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented the following Liquor License renewal applications: Champlain Farms Exxon -1800 Williston Rd. Champlain Farms Exxon -801 Williston Rd. Champlain Farms Exxon -1118 Williston Rd. Champlain Farms Gulf -1041 Shelburne Rd. Franny O’s ­733 Queen City Park Rd. Holiday Inn -1068 Williston rd. Pauline’s ­1834 Shelburne Rd. Simon’s Store & Deli ­974 Shelburne Rd. Uno Pizzeria -1330 Shelburne Rd. Vermont National CC -1227 Dorset St. Vermont Sports grill -1705 Williston Rd. Zen Garden -7 Fayette Dr. Cheese Traders -1186 Williston Rd. Gonzo’s Indoor Golf -1860 Williston Rd. Jolley #107 -977 Shelburne Rd. K-Mart #7039 -947 Shelburne Rd. Lake-View Bar & Grill -1710 Shelburne Rd. Mama Mia’s Pizzeria ­516 Shelburne Rd. Marco’s Pizza ­1301 Williston Rd. Nothing But Noodles -150 Dorset St. #340 Pizza Club -360 Spear Street The Rotisserie -1355 Williston Rd. Short Stop #105 -1314 Williston Rd. Waterfront Catering -1712 Shelburne Rd. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Liquor License renewals of the 4 Champlain Farms locations. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Knapp abstaining. Mr. Murray moved to approve all the Liquor License renewals except the Champlain Farms locations. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ___________________________, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.