RNAV Community Outreach March 23, 26, 28, and April 1, 2015

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Airport) RNAV Community Outreach

March 23, 26, 28, and April 1, 2015

Table of Contents

Overview……………………………………………………………………………..

Presentation…………………………………………………………………………

Questions and Answers…..………………………………………………………….

Appendix A – Meeting Advertisements and Sign-In Sheets

Appendix B – Meeting Agendas and Presentation

Appendix C – Q&A Session Summary

Appendix D – Comment Cards & Emails

1

Overview On September 18, 2014 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented changes in flight paths to and from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Airport) as part of its effort to streamline departures and arrivals using satellite-based navigation. Since then, the Airport and the FAA have received thousands of questions and complaints about the changes. On December 16, 2014, the Phoenix City Council formally directed the Aviation Department to conduct community outreach meetings to gather information regarding the effects of the new procedures. In addition, the City Council provided approval for staff to conduct noise monitoring in the communities overflown by the new procedures.

The Aviation Department hired Landrum & Brown, a national aviation planning firm, and PSM2, a local community outreach firm, to assist in developing and implementing a plan to accomplish the direction from City Council. The plan included the following steps:

1. Conduct initial community outreach meetings to gather information from the public, including suggestions for where temporary noise monitors should be placed.

2. Conduct temporary noise monitoring at locations based in large part on the suggestions made by the public.

3. Conduct follow-up community outreach meetings with the public to report the results of the temporary noise monitoring.

This report summarizes the follow-up community outreach meetings. Follow-Up Community Outreach Meetings The Aviation Department determined that a second series of four community outreach meetings, held at different times, on weekdays and a weekend, would provide the best opportunity for anyone interested in attending to do so at their convenience. The meeting locations were selected to be held within areas that have reported increased noise as a result of the new procedures. The community outreach meetings were advertised through a variety of ways in both English and Spanish. Appendix A includes the outlets and copies of the advertising that was conducted for the meetings, as well as the sign in sheets. The four community outreach meetings were held at the following locations:

Meeting Date Time Location Attendees Meeting 1 Monday, March 23,

2015 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM

City of Phoenix Council Chambers (Phoenix)

64 Attendees

Meeting 2 Thursday, March 26, 2015

6:00 PM until 8:00 PM

Cesar Chavez High School (Laveen)

96 Attendees

Meeting 3 Saturday, March 28, 2015

10:00 AM until 12:00 PM

Burton Barr Central Library (Phoenix)

72 Attendees

Meeting 4 Wednesday, April 1, 2015

6:00 PM until 8:00 PM

Hope VI – Community Training and Education Center (Phoenix)

38 Attendees

2

The meetings consisted of three main elements:

1. An introduction and opening remarks by the City of Phoenix 2. A presentation that summarized the previous outreach meetings,

summarized the temporary noise measurement results, and provided information on the progress since January 2015.

3. A Questions and Answers segment which provided opportunity for attendees to ask the Assistant Aviation Director, Chad Makovsky, City of Phoenix, and Landrum & Brown questions or provide comment.

Introduction Paul Blue, Deputy City Manager, City of Phoenix, provided remarks regarding the City’s efforts to continue to coordinate with the FAA and to try and resolve the noise issues related to the flight path changes.

Presentation Rob Adams, from Landrum & Brown, presented a summary of the previous public meetings held in January and February 2015. Copies of the public meeting summary document including all comments obtained at the four meetings were brought to the four public meetings held in March and April 2015 for attendees to view. The document is also available at skyharbor.com/flightpaths. Mr. Adams also presented summary information on the purpose, timeframes and amount of sites of the noise monitoring. Mr. Adams reviewed noise metrics and what data was collected for each monitoring site, as well as the results of three sites in order to assist the audience in reading the monitoring data collected. Copies of the noise monitoring data for each site was provided at the four public meetings held in March and April 2015 for attendees to view. The document is also available at skyharbor.com/flightpaths. Assistant Aviation Director, Chad Makovsky, City of Phoenix, presented the City of Phoenix efforts and progress made since January in regards to community, FAA and legislative engagement. Mr. Makovsky also reviewed what the next steps will be for the City of Phoenix as the City continues to work through the community concerns regarding the flight path changes. The agenda and complete presentation is included in Appendix B.

Questions and Answers A Questions and Answers segment was held at the end of each meeting. Attendees were provided the opportunity to speak during this time by completing a speaker comment card and submitting to City of Phoenix staff. Assistant Aviation Director, Mr. Makovsky, City of Phoenix, called upon each speaker individually and provided answers and feedback along with Rob Adams, Landrum & Brown. A summary of all questions and comments provided at each of the four meetings are included in Appendix C.

3

Meeting attendees were provided a comment card that allowed participants to submit a written comment at the meeting or to send in their comments after via email or regular mail through April 3, 2015. The speaker comment cards, written comments and emails are included in Appendix D.

Appendix A – Meeting Advertisements and Sign-In Sheets

Meeting Notices The meeting notices on the next two pages were made available through the following outlets: U.S. Mail – Sent to people who registered a noise complaint with Sky Harbor between 9/18/2014 and 2/28/15 Email – Sent to people who registered a noise complaint with Sky Harbor between 9/18/2014 and 2/28/15; City Council Districts and Mayor staff Websites – Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport website (www.skyharbor.com) and the City of Phoenix Meeting Calendar (www.phoenix.gov) Electronic Mailing Lists – City of Phoenix Historic Preservation; City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services; Councilwoman Kate Gallego, District 8; Councilwoman Laura Pastor, District 4; Councilman Michael Nowakowski, District 7 Social Media – Nextdoor.com; Facebook; Twitter

Meeting Sign-Ins The sign-in sheets for all four meetings are provided below.

Meeting 1, March 23, 2015

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle


clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle


clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

Meeting 4, April 1, 2015

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

Appendix B – Meeting Agendas and Presentation

PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RNAV COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS

Outreach Meeting #1

March 23, 2015 6:00-8:00 p.m.

City of Phoenix Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Doors Open --Sign in and find a seat 6:10 p.m. Welcome –

- Chad Makovsky, Assistant Aviation Director, City of Phoenix - Paul Blue, Deputy City Manager, City of Phoenix

6:30 p.m. Presentation

- Rob Adams, Landrum and Brown

- Review of previous outreach meetings - Overview of temporary monitoring program

- Chad Makovsky, City of Phoenix - Progress since January 2015 - Moving Forward

7:00 p.m. Questions and Answers – Chad Makovsky - Rob Adams

7:50 p.m. Closing Comments


Outreach Meeting #2

March 26, 2015 6:00-8:00 p.m.

Cesar Chavez High School 6:00 p.m. Doors Open --Sign in and find a seat 6:10 p.m. Welcome –









Outreach Meeting #3

March 28, 2015 10:00a.m.-12:00pm

Burton Barr Central Library 10:00a.m. Doors Open --Sign in and find a seat 10:10a.m. Welcome –


10:30a.m. Presentation




11:15a.m. Questions and Answers – Chad Makovsky - Rob Adams

11:50a.m. Closing Comments


Outreach Meeting #4

April 1, 2015 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.,

Hope VI – Community Center 6:00 p.m. Doors Open --Sign in and find a seat 6:10 p.m. Welcome –








4/27/2015

1

Aviation RNAV Community Outreach Follow-Up Meetings

March 23, March 26, March 28, & April 1, 2015

2

Purpose of Today’s Meeting

Summary of Previous Outreach Meetings

Summarize Temporary Noise Measurement Results

Progress Since January

4/27/2015

2

3

Summary of Previous Meetings

Held Four Public Meetings• January 20 – Cesar Chavez High School

• January 22 – Metro Tech High School

• January 24 – Phoenix Art Museum

• February 10 – Central City South Hope VI*

* Feb 10 meeting added at request of community

4


Public Meeting Overview• Over 300 people attended meetings

(50+ comment cards)

• Brief Presentation

• Breakout Group Sessions

• Finished with open Q&A

4/27/2015

3

5


Breakout Group Questions1. What are your specific concerns about the new

flight procedures?

2. Where should noise monitors be placed and for what conditions?

3. What types of information would be helpful?

4. What is the best way to keep you updated on this issue?

5. What suggestions do you have for improving the situation?

6


Public Meeting Summary Document• Available on SkyHarbor.com/flightpaths

• Includes all comments

4/27/2015

4

7

Temporary Noise Measurements

Summary Information• Purpose is to provide actual noise levels in the

communities affected by the new RNAV paths

• Measurements were conducted Feb 2 – Feb 11

• 33 short-term sites (1-2 hours)

• 4 long-term sites (~4 days)

• Locations were based on input received through the public outreach meetings

8


Community feedback - Where noise monitors should be placed and for what conditions?

4/27/2015

5

9


11

AA

Short Term Site

Long-Term Site

10


Noise Metrics• There are numerous ways to display noise levels

– Single-event: Maximum noise level (Lmax), Sound Exposure Level (SEL)

– Multiple-event: Average noise level (Leq)

40

50

60

70

80

90

Dec

ibel

s

Time (seconds)0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Lmax = 81 dB

Duration = 51 seconds

Leq = 68 dB

4/27/2015

6

11


Data Collected• Site information:

– Location, date/time, background noise level, weather

• Flight by flight statistics:– Time of event, aircraft type, type of flight

– Duration of event, altitude of aircraft, distance from site

– Maximum noise level (Lmax)

• General statistics for each site:– Average Lmax, average duration of events

– Average altitude, average distance

12


Site 2 – General Info• S. 31st Ave & W. Vineyard Rd

• February 3, 2015 – 3:03 pm to 5:03 pm

• Scattered Clouds, 76 degrees F

• Ambient (background) noise level: 57.5 dB

4/27/2015

7

13


14

Temporary Noise MeasurementsSite 2: S. 31st Ave & W. Vineyard

2/3/15

Event # Time Aircraft Type Flight ID Runway Arr/Dep

Altitude

(above MSL)

Altitude

(above ground)

Ground

Distance

Slant

Distance Lmax Duration1 3:10:40 PM B733 SWA687 25R D 5,072 3,972 1,066 4,146 71.3 0:38

2 3:17:18 PM B737 SWA1105 25R D 4,430 3,330 999 3,510 68.8 0:36

3 3:18:05 PM A321 AWE679 25R D 4,366 3,266 1,021 3,455 69.8 0:34

4 3:21:57 PM A319 FFT1050 25R D 4,225 3,125 1,071 3,337 69.6 0:32

5 3:23:28 PM CRJ2 SKW225L 25R D 5,001 3,901 1,180 4,109 57.8 0:50

6 3:48:37 PM A319 UAL262 25R A 9,597 8,497 14,284 16,638 66.8 0:25

7 3:51:24 PM CRJ2 AWE1854 26 A 9,570 8,470 14,205 16,556 63.5 0:19

8 3:59:12 PM A321 SKW2708 25R D 4,000 2,900 526 2,982 70.5 0:38

9 4:09:39 PM CRJ9 ASH5531 25R D 4,675 3,575 938 3,730 64.7 0:42

10 4:12:48 PM A319 AWE420 25R D 5,025 3,925 426 3,983 67.7 0:41

11 4:16:58 PM CRJ9 ASH5602 25R D 4,794 3,694 1,072 3,880 65.3 0:36

12 4:18:58 PM B737 SWA2711 25R D 5,206 4,106 572 4,180 67.1 0:31

13 4:20:25 PM B737 SWA1035 25R D 3,925 2,825 168 2,865 69.7 0:29

14 4:22:06 PM B737 SWA1927 25R D 5,455 4,355 821 4,466 67.1 0:46

15 4:24:18 PM A319 AWE594 25R D 5,265 4,165 337 4,214 69.9 0:41

16 4:30:22 PM B738 AAL1527 25R D 3,904 2,804 807 2,952 70.3 0:29

17 4:33:56 PM CRJ9 ASH5518 25R D 5,212 4,112 982 4,262 62 0:34

18 4:35:03 PM B739 UAL1059 25R D 4,602 3,502 922 3,655 70.9 0:40

19 4:51:35 PM A321 AWE551 25R D 4,325 3,225 886 3,378 68.7 0:45

20 5:01:24 PM A319 UAL468 25R D 4,906 3,806 894 3,944 67.5 0:44

21 5:03:32 PM CRJ9 ASH5605 25R D 4,436 3,336 845 3,475 64.4 0:35

4/27/2015

8

15


Site 2 – Summary Results• 21 Aircraft Events Collected

– 19 Departures, 2 Arrivals (west flow)

• Average Lmax: 67.3 dB

• Loudest Lmax: 71.3 dB– Boeing 737-300, Southwest Airlines at 3:10pm

– Altitude of 3,972 ft above ground

– Distance of 4,146 ft from noise monitoring site

• Average Event Duration: 36 secs

• Longest Event Duration: 50 secs

• Average Time Between Events: 5 min 6 secs

16


Site 8 – General Info• Capitol Elementary School

• February 8, 2015 – 3:10 pm to 4:20 pm

• Clear skies, 76 degrees F

• Ambient (background) noise level: 46.4 dB

4/27/2015

9

17


18

Temporary Noise MeasurementsSite 8: Capitol Elementary School

2/8/15

Event # Time Aircraft Type Flight ID Runway Arr/Dep

Altitude

(above MSL)

Altitude

(above ground)

Ground

Distance

Slant

Distance Lmax Duration1 3:15:28 PM A321 AWE2023 25R D 3,800 2,700 7,417 7899 61.0 0:56

2 3:17:27 PM B738 AAL1682 25R D 2,975 1,875 6,924 7177 58.7 0:46

3 3:18:32 PM B752 AWE694 25R D 3,295 2,195 7,317 7644 62.8 0:38

4 3:20:09 PM A321 AWE1826 25R D 3,893 2,793 438 2844 71.3 0:39

5 3:21:58 PM B738 ASA633 25R D 3,671 2,571 208 2596 73.7 0:40

6 3:25:33 PM B733 SWA1718 25R D 3,950 2,850 7,184 7735 64.1 0:37

7 3:26:50 PM B737 SWA4061 25R D 4,306 3,206 6,878 7595 61.0 0:38

8 3:27:33 PM A320 NKS342 25R D 3,501 2,401 997 2615 74.5 0:43

9 3:28:23 PM B737 SWA542 25R D 3,782 2,682 6,809 7325 61.6 0:41

10 3:30:06 PM CRJ9 ASH5527 25R D 3,454 2,354 6,920 7315 54.8 1:04

11 3:36:41 PM A319 FFT1052 25R D 3,675 2,575 277 2607 74.5 0:35

12 3:38:22 PM A321 AWE1820 25R D 3,425 2,325 410 2378 77.1 0:47

13 3:39:08 PM B737 SWA1695 25R D 4,146 3,046 6,935 7581 61.3 0:55

14 3:44:39 PM B752 DAL1821 25R D 3,902 2,802 1,175 3054 72.7 0:43

15 3:46:44 PM B738 SWA298 25R D 3,700 2,600 241 2628 75.6 0:49

16 3:48:12 PM B737 SWA4883 25R D 4,620 3,520 409 3561 70.2 0:49

17 3:51:55 PM B737 SWA2128 25R D 4,182 3,082 963 3245 70.7 0:41

18 3:54:02 PM UNKN EV6 UNK O 1,600 500 2,819 2866 63.4 0:36

19 3:54:38 PM B737 SWA4626 25R D 4,667 3,567 216 3590 70.2 0:39

20 4:01:22 PM B739 UAL1706 25R D 3,455 2,355 615 2450 76.5 0:42

21 4:02:36 PM A321 AWE1854 25R D 3,595 2,495 481 2558 75.4 0:46

22 4:04:39 PM A319 ROU1839 25R D 3,979 2,879 958 3050 75.1 0:48

23 4:06:20 PM CRJ9 ASH5543 25R D 3,500 2,400 7,844 8208 55.4 0:45

24 4:09:21 PM B738 AAL278 25R D 3,400 2,300 514 2373 73.9 0:47

25 4:10:37 PM A320 AWE604 25R D 3,450 2,350 164 2373 73.8 0:39

26 4:11:41 PM A319 AWE634 25R D 3,665 2,565 826 2711 74.5 0:35

27 4:12:49 PM CRJ2 SKW207L 25R D 4,247 3,147 822 3269 66.2 0:30

28 4:13:35 PM G150 N502RP 25L D 4,093 2,993 478 3048 73.0 0:42

29 4:15:02 PM A320 AWE1712 25R D 3,436 2,336 865 2507 74.9 0:44

30 4:16:14 PM B737 SWA4555 25R D 3,887 2,787 501 2848 71.8 0:46

4/27/2015

10

19


Site 8 – Summary Results• 30 Aircraft Events Collected

– 29 Departures, 1 overflight by helicopter (west flow)


• Loudest Lmax: 77.1 dB– Airbus 321, US Airways at 3:36pm

– Altitude of 2,325 ft above ground

– Distance of 2,378 ft from noise monitoring site


• Longest Event Duration: 1 min 4 secs

• Average Time Between Events: 2 min 8 secs

20


Site A – General Info• 1321 W. Woodland Avenue

• February 2, 2015 – February 6, 2015

• Weather– February 2: Partly cloudy 73/48 degrees F

– February 3: Partly cloudy 76/50 degrees F

– February 4: Partly cloudy 77/52 degrees F

– February 5: Mainly clear 82/52 degrees F

– February 6: Mainly clear 84/54 degrees F

4/27/2015

11

21


22


Site A – Summary Results• 1,554 Aircraft Events Collected

– 509 Departures, 1,036 Arrivals, 9 overflight by helicopter (east and west flow)


• Loudest Lmax: 84.4 dB


4/27/2015

12

23


Site A: 1321 W. Woodland Ave

2/2/15 – 2/6/15

Site A – Summary Results• Aircraft Events

– 10 – 20 dB louder than the background noise level

24


Site A – Summary Results

Date

Average

Number of

Hourly Aircraft

Events

Average

Loudest

Aircraft Noise

Level

Average

Ambient

(background)

Noise Level

2/2/2015 19 70.4 52.8

2/3/2015 15 63.4 54.0

2/4/2015 17 63.4 54.5

2/5/2015 17 60.7 55.2

2/6/2015 15 60.0 53.9

Date

Average

Number of

Hourly Aircraft

Events

Average

Loudest

Aircraft Noise

Level

Average

Ambient

(background)

Noise Level

2/2/2015 19 70.4 52.8

2/3/2015 15 63.4 54.0

2/4/2015 17 63.4 54.5

2/5/2015 17 60.7 55.2

2/6/2015 15 60.0 53.9

4/27/2015

13

25


Community Engagement• Updated SkyHarbor.com/flightpaths/

• Engaged more on social media (nextdoor.com)

• Testing flight tracking system (April 2015)

• Evaluating airport noise information office capabilities

• Attended local community meetings

26


FAA Engagement• December 22 – Requested all information related to RNAV

from FAA (FOIA)

• December 23 – Formally requested FAA return flight paths

• January 22 – FAA denied request; reconvened RNAV

working group

• February 12 & 19 – FAA held RNAV Working Group Meetings

• February 17 – City filed Legal Protest with FAA

4/27/2015

14

27


Legislative Engagement

• February 20 – Senator Flake issued letter to FAA Administrator Huerta

• February 24 – Aviation staff met with industry organizations to advocate for legislative actions

• March 2-5 – Aviation staff attended Aviation Legislative conference and met with members of congress

• March 9-11 – City Council members attended National League of Cities conference. Met with Department of Transportation, FAA, and White House staff

28

Moving Forward

Community Engagement

• Advocate on behalf of the local community

• Enhance noise office resources

• Attend community meetings as requested

• Provide information on SkyHarbor.com/flightpaths

4/27/2015

15

29

Moving Forward

FAA Engagement

• Participate in the FAA working group

• Press FAA to timely produce records requested through Freedom of Information Act

• Continue meetings with DOT and FAA administration regarding flight path impacts

• Modify and update Legal Protest

30

Moving Forward

Legislative Engagement

• Request letters from remaining Arizona congressional delegation

• Coordinate support from other impacted communities

• Attend industry meetings to tell Phoenix Story and advocate for legislative changes

• Coordinate with Congress to advocate legislative action as part of FAA Reauthorization

4/27/2015

16

31

www.skyharbor.com/flightpaths

Appendix C – Q&A Summary


March 23, 2015– Meeting #1, Questions and Answers

A Questions and Answers segment was held at the end of the meeting. Attendees were provided the opportunity to speak during this time by completing a speaker comment card and submitting to City of Phoenix staff. City of Phoenix Assistant Aviation Director Chad Makovsky (AVN Rep. Makovsky) called upon each speaker individually and provided answers and feedback. The following is a summary of questions presented by attendees. An audience member asked why the FAA does not return phone calls as they have tried numerous times to reach someone to discuss the RNAV changes. AVN Rep. Makovsky replied that the City of Phoenix Aviation Department would notify the FAA regarding this issue. AVN Rep. Makovsky provided a phone number (602-273-4072) for community members to request City of Phoenix Aviation Department presence at local community meetings to further discuss RNAV. An audience member asked what flight procedures were currently in place. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered in terms of the RNAV there are nine RNAV departure paths and five RNAV arrival paths which were implemented on September 18, 2014. Two corridors are being addressed by the PBN working group, which the FAA will present to the City of Phoenix. The audience member further inquired what the potential is for the flight procedures to returning to their original conditions (prior to September 18, 2014 change). AVN Rep. Makovsky replied the alternatives have not been presented as of yet however the focus is to identify routes for the aircraft that are over compatible areas such as industrial areas and freeway corridors. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed that development of the routes is the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA is also responsible for presenting proposed routes to the City of Phoenix for comment and discussion. The audience member asked if AVN Rep. Makovsky would be traveling to Washington D.C. to discuss the RNAV issue. AVN Rep. Makovsky clarified that City of Phoenix, Aviation

Department Acting Aviation Director Tamie Fisher would be traveling to Washington D.C. this week to meet with delegates. Brent Kleinman inquired if there is an opportunity for a citizen member to be represented on the FAA working group. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained appointments to the FAA working group can only be selected by the FAA and the City of Phoenix is not able to appoint members. Brent Kleinman asked who with the FAA could be contacted to further inquire about citizen representation on their working group. AVN Rep. Makovsky will provide a contact. City of Phoenix Councilman Nowakowski provided comment that the appointed member to this working group being Congressman Pastor who is a great advocate for the City of Phoenix having represented the area for numerous years, resides in the historic district and is being affected by RNAV as well. Brent Kleinman expressed concern with politicians being represented without citizens having a voice. Carl Prettyman, Desert Ridge Board Member provided comment on behalf of the Desert Ridge Community located near Tatum and Deer Valley. The Desert Ridge Board have received numerous calls from residents regarding aircraft flying over and expressing concern about the value of homes, noise and lifestyle. Susan Edwards asked how many alternatives the FAA would be presenting to the City of Phoenix. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that while the FAA has not shared how many alternatives they will be presenting it is anticipated they will present two primary options with additional options to discuss if the primary two would be rejected. Hellene McGriff residing at 1512 West Sherman Street, commented that she has frequently noticed aircraft flying right over her home and it has disrupted her quality of life and is hopeful the alternative being developed provides great improvement. AVN Rep. Makovsky commented they City of Phoenix is excited for the alternatives however the process to implement will take time. An audience member asked how long implementation would take. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that a broad timeframe being six months to a year. Nicole Marquez inquired the alternative will not be implemented until after the working group has convened and an additional six months to a year. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed and added that Congressman Pastor has been very focused on getting the focus group meeting scheduled. Nicole Marquez provided comment that it is sad citizens have to take time to learn about and attend meetings regarding RNAV. Russ Cousins asked what Grand Avenue Corridor refers to. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained it includes three to four RNAV departures that line up to the Grand Avenue Corridor which are being considered for the alternatives. Russ Cousins commented he has not received response from the City of Phoenix Aviation Department in regards to his concerns of numerous early turns around 7th Avenue to Grand Avenue. AVN Rep.

Makovsky responded that the City of Phoenix Aviation Department has been discussing the issue of aircraft not following flight procedures and are looking at issuing a compliance report to be shared with the FAA and airlines to make them aware of when aircraft are deviating from the route. Russ Cousins and an audience member suggested the airport be shut down for a timeframe to force aircraft to follow flight procedure. Russ Cousins inquired about NextGen 2, the next round of NextGen. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed there will be continued refinement to flight procedures with the next step to the metroplex process coming up. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed he will serve on the NextGen Metroplex Process Committee to ensure the City of Phoenix is part of the conversation prior to changes to flight procedures. Russ Cousins asked if the City of Phoenix can prevent situations like the RNAV from taking place with action against the aircraft or with legislation. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the aircraft are controlled by the Federal Government and legal research would need to take place in order to determine if the City of Phoenix could act to further restrict the Federal Government. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed the City of Phoenix Aviation Department will proactively engage the FAA to ensure the department is informed of future changes. The City of Phoenix Council has issued a mandate that requires the City of Phoenix Aviation Department to advise the council of any proposed FAA changes within 30-days of being notified. Russ Cousins asked if an additional runway was planned to be developed at the Airport. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered there is no plan for a new runway. Russ Cousins commented the community has contacted Maricopa County to address the environmental impacts and pollution produced from the aircraft. Russ Cousins asked about the aircraft that do not have the technology to follow the path. AVN Rep. Makovsky stated the majority of aircraft flying out of the Airport do have this technology. An audience member asked why many of the aircraft are not recording because community members have not been able to find out who many of the flights are and their associated call signs. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the only flights that are not documented are those removed for federal needs such as Air Force One and possibly general aviation flights. The audience member further inquired if aircraft are not turning on the technology to be tracked as they fly over homes. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that research would need to take place to determine if that is occurring. Russ Cousins commented that with another six months to a year to fix the RNAV issue there will not be a historic district in Phoenix as most people are selling homes. Eva Olivas who resides in Central City South commented that her area was in the flight paths for many years and continuously requested help from the City of Phoenix and when the RNAV changes were implemented their neighborhood was relieved. However they are not happy to see this issue pushed on another neighborhood. Eva Olivas stated she challenges the City Council members to consider all the alternatives and identify a better outcome for everyone and for areas to share the noise.

Mike Fox resides in a condo at Central and Bethany Home and has noticed approximately 20 aircraft overhead an hour causing very loud living conditions. Mike

Fox asked City Council members to express to our governmental elects how mad the community is. Mike Fox commented he has contacted the FAA to complain and the representative he spoke with assured him there has been no change in the arrivals, just departures. Mike Fox further expressed that until congressional delegation is involved there will be no change. Jose Reynolds commented he has noticed aircraft over his home, the walls shake and he cannot hear the TV, all the pictures and mirrors hung on the wall have shifted. He has experienced difficulty carrying on conversation within his home due to the aircraft noise and the aircraft is disrupting his quality of life and he is very angry. Dennis Burke commented the City of Phoenix should hire legal representation and lobbyists to ensure this issue is being addressed by the Federal Government. Dennis Burke further commented that the air quality is an issue for the neighborhoods and suggest the City of Phoenix work with Maricopa County to put pressure on the FAA and airlines. Dennis Burke asked if the airlines could fly the old path. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered there is no reason the airlines could not fly the old paths however the City of Phoenix Aviation Department would have to evaluate if the airlines are willing to do so and the impact on communities. Dennis Burke suggested putting pressure on the airlines that are deviating from flight procedures the most. Dennis Burke added that the City of Phoenix should research city servers for emails between staff members and the FAA to research what happened prior to implementation of the flight path changes. Lane Carraway resides in Tempe and has had noise mitigation measures completed on his home. He has noticed that since September the noise mitigation no longer works and the aircraft overhead have been noticeably louder. Lane Carraway asked how long it takes to develop the RNAV flight procedures. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the RNAV took over two years to develop. Lane Carraway commented that the City of Phoenix staff had to have been involved in the development during this time. Derk Finstad clarified that for the historic district the RNAV is a huge disruption to life. Derk Finstad inquired if the FAA has to implement an environmental assessment study and what the City of Phoenix’s standing is against the FAA. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that in the City of Phoenix’s case, the FAA used categorical exclusion and relied in part on the legislation enacted. It is believed the FAA treated the City of Phoenix differently with the lack of environmental assessment and community outreach. Litigation is a possibility that the City of Phoenix is evaluating. An audience member asked what the City of Phoenix considers to be an acceptable alternative and at what point will the city go beyond legal protest. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the City of Phoenix Aviation Department has received direction from the City Council to return to the original flight paths, therefore the City of Phoenix will press the FAA to implement returning the paths. A solution will be reviewed by the City Council and if the council determines at any point to pursue litigation the city will proceed. The

audience member commented there to be no accountability among the city leaders and city staff. Mark Hodges commented that the community really wants strong leaders and if that can’t be achieved, new leaders can be elected. Mark Hodges further commented there are strict air quality laws involving public comment which the FAA has bypassed. Opal Wagner posed a question for Mayor Stanton and asked why the City of Phoenix did not hold a press conference prior to the implementation of the change to inform the community rather than allowing community members to wake-up to aircraft flying overhead without any warning as it was traumatic for the community. AVN Rep. Makovsky introduced Mayor Stanton’s staff representative, Ruben. Ruben commented that Mayor Stanton has been working closely with the council members on this issue and he would be available to further discuss this topic with attendees on the Mayor’s behalf. An audience member asked in the possibility of the City of Phoenix suing the FAA, what would the city’s standing be with city staff having assisted the FAA in developing the paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the city council is evaluating this extensively. The FAA has a long history of consulting executive level staff at the City of Phoenix Aviation Department for lesser issues and this being the only time that has not taken place. Involvement of a low level technical staff member will not substantially change the City of Phoenix’s position on the RNAV issue. The audience member further commented that the City of Phoenix should have been aware of any involvement staff participated on the RNAV. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered the investigation being held will help the City of Phoenix understand to what level the staff member was involved in conversations with the FAA. An audience member asked what the benefits of the Grand Avenue path are. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that safety and efficient flight routes have been identified however the FAA nor the airlines have quantified the benefits of the new routes. AVN Rep. Makovsky read submitted written questions and comments to attendees. Submitted Comment 1 read “How can I obtain the noise measurements without accessing the website?” AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the City of Phoenix Aviation Department staff will contact the person directly and provide this information. Submitted Comment 2 read “Grant Park residents were told only FAA could make flight changes, the city had no input and 25-years later the FAA makes changes. Why is the city taking this new approach and letting FAA continue with this new flight path. Is it Grant Park residents are negotiable?” Submitted Comment 3 read “I am here because I don’t want things to change, we need to continue to share the noise as it is now”. Submitted Comment 4 read “Can we see hard action timeline with dates now?” AVN Rep. Makovsky responded that a timeline depicting events up to this date will be created and will be updated as more information is uncovered. Submitted Comment 5

read “What is being done about the airplanes that are not flying along the new and improved flight path”. AVN Rep. Makovsky reiterated that the department is looking into developing a compliance strategy. An audience member inquired when the web based application showing the flights will be available. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the vendor is currently working on some customizations and it is anticipated to be available by the end of April 2015. An audience member asked what the possibly is of building a new airport located adjacent to undeveloped land like Denver did. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the City of Phoenix Aviation Department is focused how the airport functioned prior to September 2014. The Airport is in the top ten in the nation with a low amount of complaints which supports the effectiveness of the flight paths prior to September. An audience member asked if the City of Phoenix is working with any other cities on the legal protest. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the legal protest is specific to the City of Phoenix however does reference challenges other cities have faced. An audience member asked if any other city that have experienced the same RNAV issues been successful in changing the paths? AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that there has not been a city successful in completely reverting the paths however have experience varying degrees of success. An example being to repeat an environmental assessment and perform community outreach. An audience member asked if the FAA had redone an environmental assessment in other cities did the FAA then change the flight paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky responded that staff could perform research on this subject in order to provide an answer. An audience member commented that regardless where one is in the city, low flying aircraft is recently been noticeable and disruptive. An audience member further explained she had contacted the FAA regarding this and Glen Martin informed her nothing has changed on the arrivals side which does not appear to be accurate. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed there were five RNAV arrivals that have changed. An audience member commented that her and her family have experienced stress and lack of sleep due to the aircraft. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that due to the weather, Phoenix is a sought-out area for flight training therefore some of the noticeable increase could be training along with the RNAV changes. An audience member asked if the increase in noticeable aircraft is permanent. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that there is opportunity during the Metroplex process at which time all flight routes will be subject to discussion. An audience member commented there are three airports which have experienced successful outcomes implementing changes from the NextGen program and working collaboratively with the FAA to develop flight paths. These airports are located in Portland, Minneapolis and Atlanta. The audience member commented that she was

told to educate herself on everything associated with NextGen and it is being implemented across the world. While the community can’t fight NextGen there is opportunity for collaborative outcomes. AVN Rep. Makovsky reiterated his commitment during the Metroplex Process in keeping the City of Phoenix Aviation Department, City Council and community apprised of developments. AVN Rep. Makovsky thanked attendees



A Questions and Answers segment was held at the end of the meeting. Attendees were provided the opportunity to speak during this time. City of Phoenix Assistant Aviation Director Chad Makovsky (AVN Rep. Makovsky) called upon each speaker individually and provided answers and feedback with the assistance of Rob Adams, Landrum & Brown (Consultant Rep. Adams). The following is a summary of questions presented by attendees. An audience member provided comment they felt it would have been better for the noise monitoring to have taken place for an entire week as the traffic fluctuates from day-to-day. Consultant Rep. Adams explained the reason for the monitoring was to show data to support the public feedback regarding the substantial noise generated from the aircraft. The monitoring completed in February was able to capture this data and support what the area is experiencing in relation to the aircraft noise. An audience member inquired what the boundaries of the “Laveen Corridor” are as mentioned in the presentation. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the “Laveen Corridor” refer to three RNAV departure paths that travel over the Laveen area. The public can visit skyharbor.com/flightpaths to see these routes. Jan Bacich provided comment that the presentation today did an exceptional job at answering many of her questions. Jan Bacich ask if a map could be provided to the public displaying the flight paths prior to September 2014 and the new RNAV flight paths that were implemented in September 2014. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed the City of Phoenix will provide a map displaying this information on skyharbor.com/flightpaths. Jan Bacich also inquired if a forum could be provided on skyharbor.com/flightpaths for the public to post their stories and what they have gone through with the changes to the flight paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered the City of Phoenix will look into doing this. A Frequently Asked Questions sheet containing all the questions and provided answers will be posted to the site for the public to reference. Jan Bacich asked if there was a noise level that is considered intolerable. Consultant

Rep. Adams explained that while this different for each person the FAA has identified the noise level in which there are “significant impacts” being 65 decibels of DNL. The Lmax as shown in the noise monitoring collected in February 2015 is different from DNL. An audience member provided comment that they have resided in their home over 10-years and recently have observed structural damage, cracks in the stucco and drywall. They would like to see a webpage for online forum which the community can document and converse regarding these issues and observations that have taken place since the flight path changes of September 2014. AVN Rep. Makovsky replied the City of Phoenix will look into this and what they can do with their existing social media forums. An audience member provided comment that they have lost values in their homes due to the flight paths changes and asked what can be done about this. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the FAA does have sole control of the flight paths and the evaluation that goes into mitigation. The working group is working quickly towards proposed alternatives for review. After potential alternatives are selected the FAA will possibly perform an Environmental Assessment or implement the adjustments to flight paths under a CATEX. Either way the FAA has committed to performing community outreach prior. The timeframe of seeing any adjustments to flight paths is tentatively expected to take 6-months to a year. With the construction of the South Mountain Freeway recently adopted by ADOT the flight paths have potential to be adjusted over the freeway area. An audience member asked why it will take so long to resolve this flight path issue but to change the paths happened without people being aware and quickly. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the City of Phoenix has recently been made aware that the FAA had been working on these RNAV flight path changes for approximately two years before the changes were implemented. While the FAA has engaged City of Phoenix Aviation Department technical staff during this time, none of the usual engagement had been made with City of Phoenix Aviation Department management and as mentioned an internal investigation is being held by the City of Phoenix to better understand the extent of involvement this technical staff member has during the time leading up to the flight path changes. An audience member asked if there has been any discussion regarding air quality monitoring. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered the City of Phoenix is waiting on documentation from the FAA on the required compliance with the Clean Air Act as part of the NEPA evaluation to fully understand this component. However, Maricopa County does provide air quality monitoring that can be resourced through the website to better understand the conditions prior to September 2014 and after which the public are encouraged to utilize.

An audience member inquired if aircraft were traveling nine-miles out prior to turning before September 2014 and are now only traveling out three-miles out before turning since the September 2014 flight path changes. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained this change is specific to the “Grant Avenue Corridor”. An audience member further inquired if the changes in flight paths were associated with fuel contracts for American Airlines/US Airways and Southwest Airlines having expired and the airlines saving money. The flight paths were at a time over the Arcadia area and that seemed to have been resolved quickly. Community members should boycott these airlines. The aircraft are lower than they have ever been. Another audience member added that the aircraft are so low community members can see the landing gear from the ground.

An audience member provided comment that the community need to elevate the issue, ensure bad press for the FAA and airlines to push change.

An audience member inquired what the City of Phoenix thinks the citizens of the city should do. AVN Rep. Makovsky suggested community members write to elected officials and the media. An audience member suggested links to who letters can be submitted to should be added to the skyharbor.com/flightpaths website for the public to resource.

An audience member inquired in reference to the earlier discussion on air quality if the follow-up was up to community members. AVN Rep. Makovsky that the information provided regarding the Maricopa County monitors was suggested for community member to resource if desired. The site will provide real-time information and opportunity for community members to file a complaint. This being just another tool for community members.

An audience member provided comment regarding the economic transfer of wealth taking place due to the flight path changes and that while money is being saved on fuel at what and who’s expense.

An audience member provided comment that the changes to the flight paths seemed to be implemented very quickly however to change this seems to need to take a long time. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that while the actual change to the path does happen quickly, the planning leading up to these changes is what takes the time. The City of Phoenix will press the FAA as hard as possible to take action.

An audience member provided comment that there was a KPHO article online regarding this issue containing a falsely advertised City of Phoenix information link that led to home insulation advertisement. AVN Rep. Makovsky encouraged audience members to utilized the skyharbor.com/flightpaths webpage to gain all information regarding the flight path issue.

An audience member provided comment that on cloudy days the aircraft are louder and there appears to be more flight activity. The audience member inquired if this was

displayed on a graph associated with the noise monitoring collected. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that data for every monitoring site displays the weather condition and this type of affect the weather has on the noise level is captured in the monitoring that took place in February 2015.

AVN Rep. Makovsky read aloud written commented submitted including: I am a prisoner in my own home, the constant noise with a low-flying plane over

my house every three to five minutes all day long is intolerable. I am directly under the flight path in Laveen. The engines point right into my backyard as the jets accelerate to go over Carver Mountain. I cannot enjoy my backyard the noise is so terrific. We had no opportunity to provide our input when the decision was made in September 2014. Please alter the route. My property values will sink and no one will want to by my house if I sell.

My home is directly under the flight path at 31st and Vineyard. Not only is the sale of this home being impacted but just prior to the change, I purchased land southwest (again directly under the flight path) I contracted and started construction on a large custom home of my dreams. My dream, my life savings, and my future has all been destroyed. My dream home is now my nightmare. I am watching the home be built every day; not only knowing if I will ever live in it, but that I will also sell it at a huge financial loss and have a devastating impact on my financial stability. I cannot sleep or live there. Sleeping pills every night!

An audience member inquired if the eastbound flight paths change as well. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the eastbound departures currently fly over the Salt River to the 101/202 freeway interchange which the FAA decided not to modify. However, the paths were modified at the 101/202 freeway interchange area. An audience member further inquired if most of the flight path changes were on the west end. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed the most significant changes to the flight paths were implemented on the west side of the airport.

An audience member suggested a fee be implemented for aircraft that fly westbound as opposed to those who fly eastbound. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the City of Phoenix could not legally impose a fee on aircraft.

An audience member inquired if the monitoring measured pitch as well as decibels. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that the noise monitors did capture what as onsite. Pitch is not a specific element that is considered by the FAA however is was captured by the monitors.

An audience member inquired if aircraft could perform noise abatement procedures as they do at the Orange County airport. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that Orange County is a grandfathered airport and the noise abatement procedures were prior to 1990 when legislation limiting an airport’s ability to impose access restriction procedures. While the ability to implement this is limited, airlines can implement

voluntary procedures. The City of Phoenix continues to have discussions with the airlines.

An audience member asked if the flight paths are changes how do we know the aircraft will not just affect another community in this way. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the right “fix” will need to be implemented. The City of Phoenix General Plan and zoning will be considered and evaluated prior to providing the FAA with suggestions. An audience member asked if at the end of this process the City of Phoenix and community does not obtain what is desired, what will be done next. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the City Council is considering litigation which even community members can do. That while litigation can unlikely force the flight paths back to the original paths, the litigation can force the FAA to redo their analysis which could very well lead to a different outcome/different paths. An audience member asked if Phoenix Sky Harbor had a noise abatement and voluntary acquisition and relocation program that ended in 2013 followed by the flight path changes in 2014. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed this was correct. The program ended in 2013 with a final outreach to those who qualified for these services. AVN Rep. Makovsky further explained that with the noise contours tracking the way they are, even with the path changes, most communities would not be eligible for the program services even if the program existed. An audience member asked if the City of Phoenix would open the program back up. AVN Rep. Makovsky was unable to provide answer on behalf of the City of Phoenix regarding this item. An audience member commented that not only is the level of noise an issue but the time of day and night in which the aircraft are flying is an issue. This includes before 8:00 AM, at 11:30 PM and around 1:30 AM. The audience member inquired if The City of Phoenix could approach the FAA and inquire if flights could be modified for these time periods. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the aircraft always need to fly into the wind, therefore when there is wind the aircraft operate accordingly. Where there is no wind the FAA tower attempts to equalize the traffic eastbound and westbound. An audience member provided comment that on Saturdays the noise and aircraft frequency appears to be worse. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that while the number of flights is predictable the direction in which they fly changes with the wind. An audience member provided comment that the 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM flights seem to be especially bad lately. An audience member asked who owns the airport. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered The City of Phoenix owns the airport. The audience member asked if the City of Phoenix could close the airport at a certain time not allowing flights. AVN Rep. Makovsky clarified that it would be illegal for the City of Phoenix to restrict the airport in this way.

An audience member asked if there was information on the Metroplex website regarding the why the RNAV flight paths are being implemented.



A Questions and Answers segment was held at the end of the meeting. Attendees were provided the opportunity to speak during this time by completing a speaker comment card and submitting to City of Phoenix staff. City of Phoenix Assistant Aviation Director Chad Makovsky (AVN Rep. Makovsky) called upon each speaker individually and provided answers and feedback along with Rob Adams, Landrum and Brown (Consultant Rep. Adams). The following is a summary of questions presented by attendees. Joan Miller asked what was being done to pressure the airlines. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the City of Phoenix has encouraged the airlines to be part of the process and have not yet seen involvement. However, there will be a time with the City of Phoenix insists the airlines be part of the flight path conversation. City of Phoenix staff will travel to Dallas Fort Worth to meet with Southwest Airlines and American Airlines headquarters regarding this issue. Larry Smalley provided comment that he would like to see noise monitors placed within the Piestewa Peak area to capture the arrival flights. The monitored areas are fairly noisy already however the monitors should capture an area that like Piestewa Peak which has very little background noise that is now experiencing the disruption of aircraft noise. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that the monitors were placed in locations requested by the community. Larry Smalley further inquired if the noise monitoring captured the acoustic measure and the high frequency. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that the monitoring utilizes the A-scale for the measurement. John Piper provided comment that he is being treated for hearth arrhythmia. Sleep disruption has been tied to heart issues. He feels it is important that the airport implement a flight curfew restricting flights after midnight in order for the community to obtain eight uninterrupted hours of sleep. He felt the noise monitoring did not take place during the evening hours and did not capture the 9:00 PM until midnight flight activity that is disruptive. He is not able to open the windows of his home at night to

cool the house resulting in spending more on air conditioning. John Piper suggested flight paths be over industrial areas and the low noise approach used at Pittsburgh airport should be investigated for use at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. John Piper also suggested that zoning maps should have been provided to the FAA prior to these flight path changes. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that the unknown for the Aviation Department was how loud the noise the community is experiencing was. The objective of the noise monitoring was to found out how loud the noise was which was captured by the monitoring that took place. Four long term sites were set-up to capture the noise 24-hours in order to monitor during the quieter times of day/night. AVN Rep. Makovsky added that the City of Phoenix would have provided the FAA with zoning maps however were never provided the opportunity to do so or even made aware of the potential of changing the flight paths. The working group can provide the FAA with the zoning information moving forward. The upcoming Metroplex process will provide opportunity for additional discussion with the FAA for future adjustments to paths. Prior to any future adjustments the FAA has committed provide a public outreach process. Richard Gayer who resides in the Willo District provided comment that he felt the low frequency noise was not being accounted for in the monitoring due to the a-weighting standard used which favors the FAA. Richard Gayer also commented that he visited the Sky Harbor website and was unable to find any graphics displaying where the flight paths are. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that by early the next week a graphic showing the before and after flight paths will be posted onto the website for the community to resource. AVN Rep. Makovsky added in regards to the a-weighting versus c-weighting standards is nationally being disputed as the a-weighted scale is not believed to accurately account for what is being experienced in regards to noise. Consultant Rep. Adams clarified that the a-weighted scale does remove out low frequency noise. However, even using the a-weighted scale, the noise monitoring still clearly shows the noise levels throughout the communities are exceeding background noises by a significant amount which was the intent of the noise monitoring. Chuck Muñoz provided comment that as a former Air Traffic Control Tower controller he believes it is misleading on the part of the FAA to call these “RNAV routes”. RNAV is not needed to fly these routes nor do they have to fly these routes to use RNAV. Chuck Muñoz further commented that he finds it hard to believe there is any scientific data supporting the CATEX. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed the City of Phoenix has been provided with incomplete information and are waiting on more information from the FAA to further understand the situation. Joe Young provided comment he wanted to emphasize the importance of the arrivals as he has heard a lot of discussion regarding the noise generated from departures. The noise generated from arrivals is a high pitch roaring that he believes is more aggravating then the noise generated from take-offs. Joe Young also inquired if there was a map available showing the previous flight paths versus what the flight paths are today. AVN Rep. Makovsky agreed the flight path issue is not just about departures.

There are nine RNAV departures and 5 RNAV arrivals that began in September 2014. There are two corridors the FAA has agreed to evaluate as part of the working group which are the “Grand Avenue Corridor” and the “Laveen Corridor” which are both departure routes. However the upcoming Metroplex process will provide the City of Phoenix opportunity to comment on the arrivals. AVN Rep. Makovsky further confirmed that maps will be posted to the skyharbor.com/flightpaths website showing the flight paths prior to and after September 2014. Mr. Khalsa provided comment that he has noticed an increase in coughing and his eyes watering since the flight path changes and has discovered from visits to the doctor that there are micro-particles given off by the aircraft which the body cannot defend against. He asked the City of Phoenix consider this issue when putting pressure on the FAA along with the 100 early deaths of people who resided under the Heathrow flight paths. Mr. Khalsa added his doctor has experienced an increase in patience with respiratory issues since September 2014. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that this issues does speak directly to the environmental analysis and have heard this issue mentioned in other community meetings. This concern is documented and is an issue the City of Phoenix attorneys are looking at. Mark Willetts provided comment he felt that City of Phoenix Aviation Department staff had to be aware of the flight path changes prior to implementation and inquired if the City of Phoenix felt is did not have to notify the public. Mark Willetts further inquired if there are documentation of safety issues in the past that these paths are answering as the FAA maintains these changes are to improve safety. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that there was involvement by a low level City of Phoenix Aviation Department staff member leading up to the flight path changes and the City of Phoenix continues to implement an investigation to better understand this involvement. AVN Rep. Makovsky further explained the flight path changes were explained to have been implemented as “continuous safety improvements” as satellite base navigation provides clear communication and allows little room for miscommunication and error in air traffic control. Brad Almond asked if the new flight paths are safer and what makes them safer and what is better about these paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky commented that in regards to safety, the City of Phoenix believes the FAA can revert back to the original flight paths and achieve the same level of safety benefits. Brad Almond suggested that the community limits need for air travel in order to limit the increase in flight traffic which can be achieved by video conferencing and virtual meeting to alleviate the need for business travel. Dale Taylor provided comment that he felt the noise monitoring held in February did not capture all the flight activity experienced by the community. He and his family experience disruption of sleep throughout the day and the night, can’t sleep through the night or take a nap during the day to compensate. He had to take his wife to the doctor

and hospital due to medical issues resulting from lack of continuous sleep. Additionally, due to the air pollution cause by the aircraft he now takes allergy medication daily. Roger Moore commented their airlines have better lobbyist and governmental representation that the community and the noise monitoring did not capture the I-17 and 75th avenue corridor. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the goal with the noise monitoring was to quantify what the community was hearing which they now have to show the FAA what they have been hearing from the community is supported by data. Roger Moore further commented that helicopters use Grand Avenue as a guide which he did not see in the monitoring results. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the noise monitors did capture all noise and helicopters were included. Susan Fleming who resides in Encanto commented that the early turns provides for a louder noise impact. Larry Mack provided comment that he has been emailing the airlines and spoke to a Southwest Airline representative regarding this issue and encourages all fellow community members to make their issues known to the airlines. Larry Mack inquired if any improved safety since the changes have been tracked. He has heard on the radio that a Southwest Airlines aircraft mistakenly flew under a helicopter recently which did not seem safe. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the City of Phoenix Aviation Department has not received any information regarding improvement of safety nor have the FAA or the airlines reported any safety issues as mentioned regarding the helicopter incident. They do have to report any “loss of separation”. Brad Almond commented that he has noticed the helicopters are flying lower to avoid aircraft which is creating a larger safety and noise issue. Daniel Parrish who resides at Pinnacle Peak and Scottsdale commented that the flight path issue reaches up into Scottsdale. He has noticed and confirmed with Scottsdale Airport that the corporate flights as well as the Deer Valley Airport flight training planes are being pushed to fly lower due to the Sky Harbor RNAV flights. He has tried to reach out to TransPac who has not returned his calls. Daniel Parrish further commented that all the maps shown regarding this issue are two dimensional and do not show altitude. AVN Rep. Makovsky commented that he heard the Scottsdale Airport flight traffic was being depressed under the RNAV routes just yesterday. AVN Rep. Makovsky further commented that the City of Phoenix could provide maps showing that third dimension. AVN Rep. Makovsky also encouraged community members to invite City of Phoenix Aviation Staff to future community meetings to further discuss these issues among their members. Scottsdale Airport could also be invited to further discuss the issues. Les Greenfield who resides in Mesa around the Extension/Baseline area submitted comment (read by AVN Rep. Makovsky) that no noise monitors were place in their area and is concerned his are is receiving poor representation. AVN Rep. Makovsky

explained that the focus of the noise monitoring locations were around the lower altitude flights and the locations submitted by the community. The data collected represents what the community is saying. Sally Nordahl commented that the noise is creating health issues which has caused her to internalize the stress. She has experienced extremely sore muscles and spent large amount of money just to get rid of her pain. AVN Rep. Makovsky commented that the comment submitted by Sally Nordahl was shared with the FAA. Dianne Barker who resides in Downtown Phoenix commented she has noticed health issues resulted from the aircraft. She has had to continuously take allergy medication as of recently. Dianne Barker further commented that the City Council should have called a meeting immediately upon discovering these flight path changes. AVN Rep. Makovsky read written comments that were submitted by attendees who did not want to speak which included:

What will the Mayor of City Council do if no changes made to correct the noise? AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that litigation will be looked at by the City Council.

What can we do to rally support public pressure to create a change and protect our neighborhood? AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the community is being very effective in what has been done so far additionally encourage community members to write elected officials and other stakeholders in this matter.

I live near Site 24. At what point are there flight safety concerns? What is, flights over my house come from four other airports and now Sky Harbor flights are directly overhead. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the FAA would not implement paths is they did not feel they were safe.

According to measured flight path data, some planes are greatly deviating from the FAA paths. How are flight paths enforced and what are the penalties for not heeding? AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that it is illegal under current federal law for the airport to penalize for something the airport has not authority to control. The City of Phoenix can influence things however not enforce/fine them.

Is Scottsdale active in the changes with the FAA? I want to make sure Northeast valley is represented. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that Scottsdale has requested information from the City of Phoenix that was provided and discussion will continue.

Since the first study apparently told the FAA that the new paths would not impact our neighborhoods enough to stop the path – which was obviously false – why do we believe the FAA on anything?

Why is the bird conservation area on the east side of the airport more important than the residents? East side is being barely used compared to west. Also why are planes coming from Las Vegas crossing Scottsdale, to Mesa, circling around to the west approach when full? Suggestion would be to go from the Salt River west side as old route. Also near misses over Phoenix Mountain Preserve and Cave Creek because flight control is not being handed off from Albuquerque to

Phoenix until almost Camelback and 16th Street. Also, no North/South runway, who come in low from the North? AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that under the Community Noise section of the Sky Harbor website is a monthly report which addresses equalization of flights. The FAA tower attempts to equalize flights when there is no wind. When there is wind, aircraft flies into the wind. The flight paths questions need to be answered by the FAA and the City of Phoenix hopes to understand more as to why the paths are what they are.

An audience member asked if the City of Phoenix would be willing to pull together a group to evaluate what is wrong with the new path in order to take the approach of attacking the new paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the focus right now is developing alternatives. An audience member asked that legislation has been changed resulting in not needing local comment, why is the City of Phoenix not attacking the legislation and why was no one aware this legislation was being put into effect in 2012. An audience member further inquired what the estimate time to see change. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered regarding a timeframe within the next couple of months the committee will put forth legislation with notification to the community.

An audience member provided comment that when the temperature goes up, aircraft fly lower and suggest noise monitoring take place during the July/August timeframe to capture what it will be like when it is hotter out and the aircraft are lower. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the City of Phoenix will look at this.

An audience member inquired if all the noise monitoring locations suggested by the community are shown on the maps as his suggested monitoring location was not monitored. Consultant Rep. Adams confirmed the yellow dots shown on the maps at the meeting were locations suggested by the community for monitoring. The audience member inquired why his location was not considered. Consultant Rep. Adams explained sites were selected in attempt to provide areas that were most represented by suggestions received from the community. An audience member inquired if the location he suggested was documented somewhere. Consultant Rep. Adams clarified this information was included in the meeting summary report which is available on the sky harbor website.


April 1, 2015– Meeting #4, Questions and Answers

A Questions and Answers segment was held at the end of the meeting. Attendees were provided the opportunity to speak during this time by completing a speaker comment card and submitting to City of Phoenix staff. City of Phoenix Assistant Aviation Director Chad Makovsky (AVN Rep. Makovsky) called upon each speaker individually and provided answers and feedback along with Rob Adams, Landrum and Brown (Consultant Rep. Adams). The following is a summary of questions presented by attendees. Diana Petitti inquired as to why no noise monitoring took place at South Mountain Park and why the map provided by the FAA does not show it. Consultant Rep. Adams explained that not every site suggested for monitoring could be monitored however a monitor was placed in areas that best represented a general area suggested by the community. The information collected by the noise monitors does support what the public has been saying regarding the noise level. AVN Rep. Makovsky added that the City of Phoenix’s legal protest which is available to the public at skyharbor.com/flightpaths does explain where each park is located. Anita Richardson Frijia provided comment that she received notice of the Environmental Assessment which the FAA will implement for the Metroplex Project however it was difficult to find more information on it. She asked if the FAA was looking at new routes and not necessarily piggybacking on the routes that are existing. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the changes on September 2014 was a component of Metroplex however the tower decided to implement this component locally prior to Metroplex and when discovered, the FAA suspended the larger Metroplex process. Metroplex will look at all airports in the valley and optimizing all routes and even further out. The FAA begun to look at the arrivals as part of Metroplex and expects to have alternatives routes for review in July. The FAA has committed to perform an Environmental Assessment and provide the city with advance review of these alternatives. Anita Richardson Frijia further inquired what would be the baseline condition and what would the no action be? AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the FAA considers the way the flight paths are now as

the baseline condition which the City of Phoenix has disagreed with and suggested the FAA review the way the flight paths were prior and review the damage done with the new flight paths. The FAA has countered that the flight paths are existing is the baseline and anything modified will be from existing paths. If the City of Phoenix goes to litigation on this matter this maybe an issue discussed. Carlos Avila provided comment that he was concerned about Landrum and Brown having been the consultant on the City of Phoenix Noise Exposure Map Update. Carlos Avila further commented that there was no monitoring from Buckeye to the Freeway and Site #33 was 100% of monitoring based off of arrival flights. Sites #26 and #27 were the closest referencing departures however they were located North of Buckeye Road. Carlos Avila also inquired what the City of Phoenix will do for the community and what will they do with all of this data. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the Noise Exposure Map Updates are completed in order for the airport to be eligible for federal funding for noise mitigation therefore the study must be done under FAA guidelines of DNL. The noise monitoring done in February 2015 was completed to provide an objective data to support the community feedback that the aircraft noise as the flight paths are now is not at background noise level. Carlos Avila asked if the February 2015 was done with decibels and the Noise Exposure Map Update was done with DNL, what will be taking back to the FAA. AVN Rep. Makovsky clarified that the objective of the noise monitoring performed in February 2015 was to assist the City of Phoenix refute FAA claims that there was no significant impact associated with the flight path changes. AVN Rep. Makovsky added that in regards to the community, the City of Phoenix will begin a Land Reuse Study that was recently commissioned which will look at the properties that are now vacant and how to make the area a vibrant community going forward. Christy Jackman resides in the northeast valley within the McDowell Mountain area and provided comment that she does not feel anyone has represented this area, however in the last three months the area as gone from quiet to experiencing aircraft noise every three to four minutes with a noise of about 80 decibels in an area that typically has a 30 decibel background noise. Christy Jackman added that the aircraft noise wakes her family every night, the noise reverberates off the mountains and because of the increase of noise she is about to lose a horse that is boarded on her property which means loss of income. Christy Jackman further commented that she has pair $1700 in vet bills for agitated pets associated with the increase of noise. She has sent letters to Phoenix Sky Harbor, Scottsdale Airport, City Council Members, the FAA and has made phone calls regarding this issue. She is concerned that Metroplex would look at farm land and open space to divert air traffic over as this is her home and the mountain preserve is ruined from the aircraft noise. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that there are only two routes the FAA is currently evaluating for modification at this time, both departures, one being the “Grant Avenue Corridor” and the other the “Laveen Corridor” where the aircraft are at their lowest point in departing. AVN Rep. Makovsky added that during the Metroplex process it will provide opportunity to address the other issues

and flight paths. Christy Jackman inquired what the benefit was of the new flight paths. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered that the FAA and airlines have not shared the cost savings associated with the new flight paths and the City of Phoenix has formally requested for this information. Glenn Hammond asked if the noise monitoring also capture the DNL during the February 2015 monitoring. Consultant Rep. Adams answered that DNL was not captured as the intent of the monitoring was to obtain data that is reflective of people’s experience. AVN Rep. Makovsky added that DNL was not evaluated as it would not have been helpful data, however due to the flight path changes the Noise Exposure Map Update does have to redo the 2018 map at which time DNL will be captured for the new flight paths. Glenn Hammond asked when the new map will be completed. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the updated map will not proceed until the FAA makes a decision on how they will proceed in regards to the existing flight paths and the issues the community is having. Glenn Hammond further inquired how the information will reconcile in court if the City of Phoenix pursues litigation with the Noise Exposure Map and the FAA using DNL and the post recent monitoring having been done in decibels. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained this will be done through litigation as the FAA did not use DNL measurements prior to changing the flight paths however made assertions upon the implementation of the paths. John Middaugh thanked the City of Phoenix staff and City Council for their efforts on this issue and provided comment that a strategy for litigation is the FAA ignored South Mountain which is a noise preserve. John Middaugh added that he had a hard time finding information on what the flight paths were changed to however now understands its not just were they are going but that the flights are climbing higher faster which will also increase the noise. AVN Rep. Makovsky clarified that NextGen includes a lot of different components to advance technology with an important component being the change from ground base navigational aids to a more automated satellite navigation. The FAA must ensure all flight procedures work together as Sky Habor and therefore the changes means different things for different procedures and not all flights are climbing higher faster. Connie Gardarilla who resides in the Grant Park area provided comment that for many years the Grant Park area was told by the City of Phoenix that the FAA had full control over the flight paths and the City has no input. Connie Gardarilla asked why should the FAA have to listen to the City of Phoenix now. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that in the past the FAA has engaged the City of Phoenix at a high level with items, this doesn’t mean the city has authority. However had the FAA notified the City of Phoenix of these flight path changes in advance the City would have had an opportunity to engage the public and provide input. Connie Gardarilla further commented that she does not want the flight paths to go back. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the Grant Park area has noticed the aircraft noise with the flight paths as they are now and prior to the September 2014 change. The direction the City of Phoenix has given the FAA is to

return to the original flight paths. An audience member commented that the former flight paths are not acceptable and their community does not want the paths to go back. The audience member provided comment that the flights have always gone over their community of 13 neighborhoods with 12,000 residents that is not an industrial area and would like the City of Phoenix to listen to their community. Connie Gardarilla commented that the City of Phoenix wants to bring the noise back over the Grant Park Area. AVN Rep. Makovsky explained that the issue with the flight path changes was that the FAA made the changes but did not so it in accordance to their own policies and procedures and the City of Phoenix has requested the flight paths return in order for the FAA to redo the process of any flight path change implementation. Tom Rosella provided comment that he resides in the Desert Ridge area where the aircraft begin to slow down and put on their “air breaks”. He feels this area should have monitors as there is an impact due to noise in the area, the resort is significantly impacted which will result in economic impacts to the city. AVN Rep. Makovsky read comments submitted by attendees who wanted to provide a comment but did not wish to speak. These comments included:

Lisa and Rance Marquez – Sundays seem worse for air traffic. How was the day and times chosen for the temporary measurement? Site 4 was on a Wednesday. Consultant Rep. Adams explained the monitoring was done in various locations on both weekday and weekends. No specific site was chosen for a specific day or time however they did try to track if flight traffic was on a west flow or east flow and position the monitors accordingly.

Lisa Corey – Was there baseline data prior to the temporary monitoring and what was the decision to place so far away from the flight pattern? Consultant Rep. Adams explained the specific monitoring sites were provided by the community.

Christy Pueta – What decibel level is considered to be okay by the FAA for flights over neighborhoods? Consultant Rep. Adams explained the FAA does not use decibels but measure off the DNL and 65 DNL is measurement the FAA deems as the line of significant impacts.

Russell Allen – why are the noise monitors so sparse in the East and Southeast Valley? AVN Rep. Makovsky explained the monitoring locations were based off community feedback received during the January 2015 community outreach meetings.

An audience member provided comment that all the data collected to be submitted does not personalize the impacts and asked how can the community be represented in this conversation. AVN Rep Makovsky explained that there are other stakeholders in this issue being the FAA and airlines. In early April, Acting Aviation Director and the City of Phoenix Public Relations Director will travel to Dallas to meeting with American Airlines and Southwest Airlines asking they take part in this conversation. The City of Phoenix has shared the communities’ comments and letters with the other stakeholders.

Alan Bromka – Did you consider time of day and airport orientation, east or west operation for your noise monitors, KPHX is usually east operations in the AM and west operations in the PM. We need a noise monitor at Desert Ridge in the PM. Consultant Rep. Adams confirmed airport orientation was continuously considered throughout the monitoring process.

Calvin C. Goode – Generally are airplane noise (engines) quieter and are noise levels in Downtown Phoenix quieter? Consultant Rep. Adams confirmed generally as aircraft technology advances the aircraft are becoming quieter.

Chrisy Jackman asked if the changes were implemented in September 2014 why is her community just noticing the aircraft more and more beginning in January and appears to be increasing on a daily bases. AVN Rep. Makovsky answered they are not aware of any changes in January. The Aviation Department can pull maps and data on this. AVN Rep. Makovsky encourage community members to invite City of Phoenix Aviation Department staff to their community meetings to further discuss this issues and staff can provide more specific data pertaining to each area. Eva Olivas asked if the flight paths are returned will and Environmental Assessment take place for this change. AVN Rep. Makovsky confirmed public outreach will take place either way.

Appendix D – Comment Cards & Emails

Commenter1.0 NOISE1.1 Aircraft noise disturbs conversations and other activities. Sue Kime, Sara Allen, Jacque Radke, Jerald and Diane

Waldner, Mel Paul1.2 Change in flight path has directed planes directly over our home. It has increased dramatically since the change

and is a daily occurrence.Mike Fox, Les Greenfield, Jerald and Diane Waldner

1.3 No aircraft interference prior to September 2014 Jorge Mejia, Jim Luff, Sara Allen, Mel Paul1.4 Aircraft noise wakes me or my guests up when trying to sleep or there is difficulty in going to sleep. Jorge Mejia, Scott Winter, Susan A Maxwell, Anita

Richardson Frijia, Stephane Frijia, Yvonne Thurston, Christy Puetz, Jacque Radke

1.5 We can't sit outside and enjoy the yard, it is too loud Phillip A Benson, Susan A Maxwell, Anita Richardson Frijia, Stephane Frijia, Gary Greenfield, Yvonne Thurston, Jacque Radke

1.6 Constant noise of low flying planes all day long is intolerable Phillip A Benson, Chris and Karin Frank1.7 Noise is very disruptive when the doors are open or when I am outside but they can also be heard when the

doors and windows are closed. Jim Luff

1.8 There has been a substantial increase in the number of flights and thus the overall amount of noise to the areafrom Squaw Peak to Central Avenue.

Rance Marquez

1.9 As summer temps hit the valley, the heat affects aircraft performance and the climb rate will be even lower than what it is now, which equals more noise.

Ayesha Brauer

1.10 I have hyper-sensitive hearing so I am not happy about the changes. Constant air traffic over my property southeast of Dobson/Warner in chandler.

Sara Allen

1.11 Noise concerns over South Mountain Park and Preserve Diana Petitti and John Middaugh1.12 Commenter notes that PHX aviation department has received over 1,700 noise complaints since September

18th, a large increase from all of 2013.Yvonne Thurston

Commenter2.0 FAA2.1 Where is FAA, why cant we talk to them? Mike Fox2.2 FAA made decision to change flight paths without notification to the public Phillip A Benson, Jerald and Diane Waldner2.3 In the case of the new loop 202 extension, properties that are being affected are being purchased so that those

people can move to a location not affected. Maybe the FAA should offer to purchase all the homes that are being affected by the new flight path. That would increase safety since no none would be under the aircraft.

Larry Erp

2.4 I know there is ongoing communication with the FAA and the arriving plane issue was also mentioned at the meeting on Saturday by another attendee. The response was that the current focus is on mitigating the issue on departing flights and getting changes made that are affecting those in the most affected areas, but I wanted to express my concern on the arriving flight path changes so that it could be addressed when possible.

Jim Luff

2.5 Concern for increase in arrivals Jim Luff, Rance Marquez2.6 The only real way to alleviate these concerns is to revert to the pre-September flight paths. I have

read where they cannot be reverted and that is not that simple. I don't understand why it is not that simple Itseems simple enough to change them. Why is it not simple to revert back to September patterns?http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/01/23/faa-phoenix-sky-harbor-flight-pathsreverted/22248905/

COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGSComment

Comment

CommenterCOMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS

Comment2.7 We have attended two of the dog and pony shows presented by staff from Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport and

have reached an opinion on what is considered by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to be the primary reasonsfor the change in the arrival/departure routes over the valley. The first claim is for safety. One can only guess who's safety. It is well known that when a passenger jet takes off it is loaded with as many passengers and fuel as possible and is the most difficult for the aircraft. Nowhere has anyone talked about the number of flights that have to go to the fuel dump area before returning to an airport for "Safety" reason. How can taking off and heading immediately over a heavily populated area be considered a safe procedure? Following a safe flight, the flight crew must put the aircraft on the runway regardless of conditions such as number of hours at the controls or weather conditions. Why is a landing pattern over a heavily populated area considered safe?

Roger and Pat Moore

2.8 We do not like that the FAA did not confer with high ranking government officials in City of Phoenix government. FAA's dealing with a low level official should make these flight changes null and void. We fully expect our elected officials to fight the FAA on this issue and return to the previous flight paths.

Paul Nome

2.9 The process by which the FAA implemented its recent changes was deeply flawed, as evidenced by the massive rise in noise complaints after changes were implemented.

Diana Petitti and John Middaugh

Commenter3.0 QUALITY OF LIFE3.1 What is the difference between putting in a new highway and creating a new flight path? Both adversely affect

communities. Larry Erp

3.2 Noise has greatly reduced the quality of life. Gary Greenfield, Hellene McGriff, Jim Luff, Paul Nome Christy Puetz, Sara Allen, Jerald and Diane WaldnerCommenter

4.0 SAFETY4.1 Didn't sky harbor have one of the safest records prior to change of flight paths? What does FAA mean when

they state it is for safety reasons?Lee Sirkis

4.2 The first claim is for safety. One can only guess who's safety. It is well known that when a passenger jet takes off it is loaded with as many passengers and fuel as possible and is the most difficult for the aircraft. Nowhere has anyone talked about the number of flights that have to go to the fuel dump area before returning to an airport for "Safety" reason. How can taking off and heading immediately over a heavily populated area be considered a safe procedure? Following a safe flight, the flight crew must put the aircraft on the runway regardless of conditions such as number of hours at the controls or weather conditions. Why is a landing pattern over a heavily populated area considered safe? It is our opinion that the so called safety of takeoff/landing patterns isnothing but a big red herring.

Roger and Pat Moore

4.3 Commercial aircraft has no place threading through two regional airports at low altitude - dangerous on many levels. No north-south runway brings aircraft through central Phoenix-dangerous. Sky Harbor not taking control of aircraft form Albuquerque until 116th is very unsafe. What was wrong with old Salt River flight path - not as populated, not as dangerous to life and property.

No Name

Commenter5.0 PROPERTY VALUES/REAL ESTATE5.1 Negative impacts to property values Scott Winter, Phillip A Benson, Chris and Karin Frank, Paul

Nome, Yvonne Thurston, Jerald and Diane Waldner5.2 We are in our 70's and do not have the vim and vigor to move at present. Susan A Maxwell, Mel Paul5.3 Multiple residences I own or rent are impacted by noise Anita Richardson Frijia, Stephane Frijia

Comment

Comment

Comment


Comment5.4 We've only lived in the house for 2 years and we're already contemplating moving. I can imagine, that we

possibly could lose money because of the plane noise. But, I think I would rather lose money than my sanity.But where do we go, only to move to another neighborhood in the Phoenix area with flights flying over now orpotentially in the future. Wherever the FAA wants to fly, they can? We might have to leave the city that we livedand loved for over 24 years.

Chris and Karin Frank

5.5 Before purchasing the house, I spent hours at all times of the day sitting on the grounds of the house. I heard an occasional plane going into Scottsdale airport, but nothing like what goes on now. Had I heard the CONSTANT buzzing and roar of planes that I hear now I would not have made the investment. Our proximity to Scottsdale airport is enough, but to compound it with planes into Sky Harbor is too much.

Gary Greenfield

5.6 The cause and effect is noticeable cracks in ceiling. I have invested in a variety of earplugs since the NFL and PGA Golf experience but this does not eliminate roof vibrations or bed from vibrating.

Hellene McGriff

5.7 We planned to live in our house/neighborhood into our senior years. We put in a lot of DIY work. Sara Allen5.8 It is evident that few people in my neighborhood are enjoying their front porches in what has long been

recognized as a community created in part because of front porches. Jacque Radke

5.9 We purchased home where we did because it wasn’t under Sky Harbor flight paths. Jerald and Diane WaldnerCommenter

6.0 HISTORIC PROPERTIES6.1 The new flight path in Phoenix is ruining the historic neighborhood where I live. We get the first, loudest, and

lowest aircraft flying over the Woodland Historic Neighborhood.Christy Puetz

6.2 South Mountain Park and Preserve is the largest urban park preserve in the United States located in amajor city. A unique tourist attraction and historic site, the park and preserve offers a haven ofpeacefulness and desert quiet. Much of the Grand Canyon National Park has been protected inrecognition of its majesty and value. Similar status should accrue to South Mountain Park and Preserve


Commenter7.0 MONITORING7.1 Is there historical noise data measurements to compare & show information/compare to current data? Jane Craig7.2 The City's closest monitoring location only evaluated departures, which measured at 70 dbl. I hear the departures

inside my house in the afternoon, but the arrivals, which were not measured, are even louder with a high pitch in the morning.

Anita Richardson Frijia, Stephane Frijia

7.3 Noise Monitors #26, #27 and #33 kind of tell my story but not exactly from my roof top@1512 West Sherman Street.

Hellene McGriff

7.4 The lack of noise monitors Central Phoenix has failed to capture the increased aircraft traffic and thus theincreased noise. The lack of noise monitoring stations is inadequate to be able to discern the amount of noise created. No monitors have been placed north of Camelback. This lack of monitors leaves data gap since the pre and post arrival from the west maps show an obvious increase in aircraft between Bethany Homes andCactus

Rance Marquez

7.5 I suggest placing a noise monitor in Sumida Park (Dreamy Draw Road just north of Glendale Ave). Thiswould help to fill in the data gap that currently exists.

Rance Marquez

7.6 My concern is our area was short-shrifted. Requested monitors were not placed in our area even though we absolutely are being affected. Our area is in Mesa Baseline Extension. According to the presenter at the meetings, it is imperative our area and other outlying areas have equal import in this issue.

Les Greenfield

7.7 We would like to be "volunteer" monitors or qualify for noise abatement programs. Sara AllenCommenter

8.0 PROCESS8.1 Presentation would have been better if you had used a wireless microphone. When presenter turned to look at

the screen your voice would taper off - hard to followJane Craig

8.2 Do you compare noise complaints data with other cities and use this data with your argument? Jane Craig

Comment

Comment

Comment


Comment8.3 From what I understand from the public meeting held 4/1, a categorical exclusion was the level of NEPA

documentation for the flight path changes. I am a senior NEPA planner, and from my professional and personalopinion it appears that the FAA was trying to 'slip these change under the radar' from the general public.These changes clearly created the potential for significant impacts, making a categorical exclusion, and even aenvironmental assessment inappropriate. With the potential to disproportionately impact Environmental Justicecommunities (Lavern), and multiple 4(f) and NRHP properties an Environmental Impact Statement should havebeen performed. Investments were made in properties both residential and commercial based on conditionsprior to the changes. It is unethical and illegal to change the rules without saying anything, thus opening thepath for litigation and class action lawsuits. When the FAA put out the Notice last week that an EA was being performed for the Metropolis Phoenix Project,it seemed unlikely that a FONSI was possible in light of the City's preliminary noise monitoring results and thepublic outrage. However, at the 4/1 meeting the City said that the baseline conditions and the No ActionAlternative to be evaluated in the EA would the new flight plans as they are today. This is ridiculous! Of courseyou are going get a Finding of No Significant Impacts because the damage has already been done. This logic tohave an EA AFTER evaluating the entire system change as a CatEx continues to smell of manipulation. The way this has process has been executed is equivalent to an illegal federal take (eminent domain).

Anita Richardson Frijia, Stephane Frijia

8.4 The June 14 final Noise Exposure Map update failed to look out beyond the footprint of the immediate airportarea. It is silent on areas of the city north of Thomas Street. The decision to change flight paths based on this report appear to based on a narrow study of the Metro Area (Thomas to Baseline) since areas north of Thomas were excluded from any type of discussion or study in the update.

Rance Marquez

8.5 The decision to make this change was based on poor or non-existent information and therefore is both arbitraryand capricious as it failed to consider the larger portions of the Metro-Valley.

Rance Marquez

8.6 A 595 page report is available that outlines some of the impacts associated with the recent changes"Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Noise Exposure Map Update". This report has seriousomissions and short-comings.• Although the report has one of four chapters titled "Chapter Two-Affected Environment", thereport does not even mention or consider the noise impact to South Mountain Park andPreserve.• Not found in the report is a description of what changes have been implemented in the flightpaths.• Maps and noise considerations have been limited to the area immediately surrounding theairport itself.• Although Parks/Recreation are listed as legitimate components of Generalized Land UseClassification, parks/recreation areas were not considered in this report.


Commenter9.0 FLIGHT TRACKS9.1 Planes are on landing hold. They come out of northeast one after another and turn over Central and Bethany

home and go west. Not only are they loud but noise increased when they make turn to go west.Mike Fox

9.2 Alter the route Phillip A Benson9.3 I am directly under the flight path in Laveen. The engines point right into my backyard as the jets accelerate to

go over Carver Mountain.Phillip A Benson

Comment


Comment9.4 The last red herring has to do with the use of GPS technology to help the aircraft get from point A to B in the

least amount of time and via shortest distance. Why is it assumed that takeoff/landing patterns over heavilypopulated areas is necessary to achieve the value of GPS guidance? Doesn't GPS capability extend beyond patterns over heavily populated areas?

Roger and Pat Moore

9.5 We used to go west for 9 miles prior to turning north and that was over industrial areas, not as noise sensitive and a much better choice. Please consider going back to that procedure.

Ayesha Brauer

9.6 Planes are turning arriving and departing at least 1 mile west of there they used to. Les Greenfield9.7 Observations of the impact of flight path changes include:

• Jet airplanes now are routinely flying over South Mountain Park and Preserve at relatively lowaltitude• Airplanes taking off to the west from Sky Harbor are ascending at a much higher rate thanbefore the flight path changes.• Airplanes taking off to the west are flying much faster than before the flight path changes, andthe noise caused by the higher rate of ascent and speed is much greater than before• The increased air traffic over South Mountain Park and Preserve is unpredictable, and it occursat all hours of the day and night. New flights may occur every 7-10 minutes beginning at 5:00amand as late as 10:00 -11:00 pm.


9.8 Scottsdale airport flight paths I knew - Sky Harbor paths were thrust upon me. No Name9.9 Is flight path really less important than bird preserve on east side of airport? Relocate wildlife and better utilize

east side.No Name

9.10 Westbound departures are now flying at low altitude over Grand Avenue, directly over residential land use Yvonne ThurstonCommenter

10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONCERNS10.1 These aircraft are damaging to my Quality of Life currently I have frequent migraine headaches and tinnitus in

my right ear.Hellene McGriff

10.2 Noise is a health problem for the children and adults of our community. Yvonne Thurston, Annette Smith, Jacque Radke10.3 This message does not even address the additional air pollution in the affected areas of the valley. Roger and Pat Moore10.4 I support neighbors who desire a less polluted community in refuse, air quality, and noise. Diane Barker, Jerald and Diane Waldner10.5 Residents cannot escape the smell of jet fuel now Yvonne Thurston

Commenter11.0 OVERFLIGHT FREQUENCY11.1 Sometimes 20 or more planes per hour Mike Fox11.2 Between 7AM and 5PM on any given weekday (especially on a cloudy day) It sounds like one continuous, loud

lawn mower with one plane after another flying over my home.Lee Sirkis

11.3 I have flights over my house regularly. Their frequency is constant. Today between 12:30pm and 1:00 at least 5 planes flew over the house with various levels noise. Its compounded by the flights going into Scottsdale Airport.

Gary Greenfield

11.4 Overflights occur at various times throughout the day and there are usually 5 to 10 planes arriving within a few minutes of each other. The planes are different models and sizes and are at various altitudes so the noise level varies with each.

Jim Luff

11.5 The change has had a negative impact on my health and my job performance (teacher). Jacque Radke

Comment

Comment


Comment

12.0 GENERAL COMMENTS12.1 Cities are built with zoning and planning in mind and to have the FAA snub their nose at all that was planned

and all the taxpaying citizens very right to quiet enjoyment.Chris and Karin Frank

12.2 One question, which I know the city is exploring a lawsuit. But, would it be a class action lawsuit with othercities, both local and national? I would imagine, a lawsuit against a big arm of the government could take years, with potential little results. One suggestion if possible and legal, would be to threaten to close the airport for a period of time. As Mr. Makovsky stated at the meeting, "Sky Harbor is our airport, the peoples airport", owned by the city of Phoenix and it's citizens. It would really put pressure on the airline industry and obviously the FAA.

Chris and Karin Frank

12.3 Do you think the airlines will be willing to share some of their obscene profits to help us sound insulate our house like they did when the north runway was extended 600 feet to accommodate one airline's only 747 flight?

Roger and Pat Moore

12.4 How ears hear. A-weighting applies only at low sound levels (a conversation in a quiet room), where humans hear poorly at low frequencies (rumbles and roars). At moderate levels and louder, the ears hear equally well over a wide frequency range, from about 20Hx to over 10,000 Hz.

Dick Gayer

12.5 Please do not forget about us just because we are not a wealthy neighborhood. Christy Puetz12.6 Letter to Ruben Gallego, US House of Representatives - commenter requests the commitment of elected

officials to direct the FAA to revert to prior west flow departure path which did not impact residential neighborhoods. Commenter states the Representatives have the power to direct FAA to revert to prior flight paths

Yvonne Thurston

Commenter13.0 SUGGESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION13.1 Who do I write to? Create a link on Sky Harbor Web page where you type in address or zip code and this will

direct a list to councilmen, congress, state senators, McCain, Flake, government, FAA. Also postings of personal stories and effects of jet noise and/or copies of letters sent to representatives.

Jan Basich

13.2 Besides measuring decibel level for noise level, a study should be performed for frequency. The study should run during a weekday and not just on a Sunday (where there is very little flight traffic as compared to a weekday. Sound should be measured on cloudy as well as clear days.

Lee Sirkis

13.3 I don’t know what technical decisions might determine flight patterns, but it seems to me there must be a less populated route for the planes coming in and out of Sky Harbor, and if not (I don’t believe that), the entire region should share the burden by having multiple patterns that allow the entire region to share the burden.

Gary Greenfield

13.4 Please advise as to what can be done, and who I need to speak with. Gary Greenfield13.5 One of the questions in the power point presentation on page/slide 5 item 5

https://skyharbor.com/pdf/PHXCommunityMeetingPresentation.pdf asks "Suggestions for improving thesituation?" The lack of pre-flight noise data or base line data makes this impossible to answer since there is not a meaningful way to improve a current situation without knowing the past situation in case the past noise levels. I suggest placing a noise monitor in Sumida Park (Dreamy Draw Road just north of Glendale Ave). Thiswould help to fill in the data gap that currently exists.

Rance Marquez

13.6 Return to previous flight paths Paul Nome, Jerald and Diane Waldner13.7 Measures such as reduced rates of ascent, throttling back on engine power until flights are 20 miles

beyond the city, and diverting flights away from parks and sensitive areas are all possible strategies thatshould be used in Phoenix.


Comment

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

clang

Rectangle

Documents

RNAV Community Outreach March 23, 26, 28, and April 1, 2015