all right, welcome, everyone. good afternoon to our joint land use and transportation committee, as well as our airport commission of monday, december 3, 2018. i'm katy tang, chair of the committee, to my left is supervisor safai. we're also joined here today and i want to welcome our airport commissioners, linda crayton, eleanor johns, and richard guggenhime. thank you for being here today for this hearing item, our clerk is erica major, and our airport director. as well, madam clerk, do you have announcements today? >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic

devices. any files should be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. item one? >> clerk: hearing on airport noise, which is disproportionately impacting the southern neighborhoods in the city and county of san francisco, requesting the san francisco airport commission, director of the san francisco international airport, and chairperson and program coordinator of the s.f.o. round table to report. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and sorry, if we can please excuse supervisor kim from our land use committee. okay, we'll do that without objection. item 1 has been called. supervisor safai, did you want to start off since you called for this hearing? >> supervisor safai: yes, thank you, chair tang, i appreciate it. i want to make a couple opening statements, but before i do that, i want to also thank all the people participating today. again, i know chair tang recognized our airport commissioners. i don't think this has ever

happened before, so i want to thank commissioner crayton, eleanor johns, and guggenhime for participating today in this. i would say that this has been probably years in the making. there was a significant adjustment that was made to the way in which flights are governed, monitored, directed, and essentially implemented in terms of takeoff and landing, but essentially a lot of the conversation today is going to be about takeoff as it impacts san francisco. a few years ago, the next gen system, a computerized system, as i'm sure many of you are aware, was implemented through the f.a.a., and in that implementation, the manual or the human control during takeoff and decision making was changed dramatically to a computer-generated model. that computer-generated model created, for lack of a better term, a river effect in the

flight patterns. so homes, individuals, lives, human beings that were impacted on a much more infrequent basis had been impacted on a dramatically increased basis. we'll get into that for a minute -- in a minute, i'll come back to that. i also want to thank the director of the airport. he's going to be making a presentation today. i want to thank cathy widener for participating and working with our office. we're also joined by elizabeth louis, who's the chair of the s.f. airport community round table, which i am a member of. she's led that group diligently for some time. she represents the town of atherton, so this issue is an issue that's not just unique to san francisco, but impacts all of the communities along the peninsula and outside of the peninsula on the coast. i also want to thank james castaneda, a.i.c. program

coordinator for the s.f. airport. ed mccaffrey, and cathy wentworth is also here from district -- congresswoman pelosi's office, and david latt from congresswoman and soon to be speaker of the house pelosi's office and john murray from senator feinstein's office. i'm going to call them up individually, but that shows you in one small piece the impact that this has. and i can tell you, i volunteered. this is not an outside commission that is necessarily required, but we do have a seat from san francisco. that seat sat vacant for eight years on the round table, and when i ran for office, and i knocked on thousands of doors in one of the older parts of san francisco. and when i say older, majority of the homes are built prior to 1930, and many of the residents have lived in their homes for 30, 40, 50 years.

and to come back to the next gen implementation, when that happened, you had people whose lives had been disrupted in a dramatic fashion. dramatic. and it's different in some ways from some of the other areas along the peninsula, but when you're going from a manual system, where it's much more of a fanned out crossover of flights over the southern parts of san francisco, bayview hunter's point, lake view, going into the sunset, west of twin peaks. these are the areas and to certain extents southern parts of the mission, and these are the areas that i have received thousands and thousands of e-mails from individuals chose lives, and they will say prior to 2014 or 2015, if i have the date wrong, but prior to the implementation, and it coincided with next gen, when flights were

crossing over southern parts of san francisco, it was much more infrequent and somewhat more random. but once a computerized model dictates a consistent flow, just to give you one example when we implemented a noise monitoring system back in september, 1 dublin street daily has 272 flights over that one address. 272 over one address. and that is not unique. so, yes, block by block, supervisor tang and i were talking about this prior, block by block you might may or may not have an impact, but if you happen to be in the pattern in which -- and we'll get into the presentation from the director of the airport, you'll see a significant increase in area. so i just wanted to highlight the amount of working people, the amount of people that are there, the higher concentration of children and families. we have the second highest

concentration, bayview hunter's point is a first, so the highest concentration of children under the age of 18. you'll see a reference, and i think the staff will talk about a study that was done by m.i.t. on the negative impacts of sound and noise on people's -- on their quality of life and how it impacts their overall composition and their mental capacity and the negative effects of that. so i don't think there's any debate, commissioners and general public and staff, whether there has been a dramatic change in the impact of air flights and noise and airport noise since the next gen system. gotten our senator and our congress leaders to go on record to say now that we are coming into, for one of the first times in a long time f.a.a. reauthorization of their budget, now that we will have the

speaker of the house representing san francisco, one of the most senior members in the senate and a tenacious congresswoman who has told me she is going to the mat on this issue, congresswoman speier, we have the ability to change the impact of this and how it affect's people's daily lives. so i wanted to set the context for that. i'd like to call up the director through the chair, if that's okay. >> supervisor tang: actually, i wanted to turn it over to commissioner crayton. >> supervisor safai: yes, please, say a few words. i'm feeling pressured on the time, because i know some commissioners have to leave and are giving an opportunity for the public, but please, commissioner, thank you. >> commissioner crayton: thank you so very much, and thank you for having us. on behalf of the commission president larry mazzola and commissioners with me today, rich guggenhime and my good friend eleanor johns. not that you're not my good friend. i want to say to the san

francisco airport commission is strongly committed to working within its authority to address community noise issues. the airport commission funds these efforts through the noise abatement office, noise monitors in the community, and staff support of the s.f.o. community round table. s.f.o. does not have control, nor influence, over the flight path flown by the airlines or the flight schedules, and that's an important issue. however, this lack of authority hasn't deterred us from looking for other solutions that you will be hearing about today from the director. while we lack authority in key areas such as flight paths and schedules, we don't lack a voice. and that is why today's hearing is so important.

i attended supervisor safai's town hall in october and thanked him for his attention to this issue. what the community heard in that meeting from director satero is our collective voices to put pressure on the f.a.a. to implement flight path changes. and i meant f.a.a. to partner with our airlines so that they are also a party of the advocacy, and to engage with our elected representatives in washington to compel the f.a.a. to engage in a noise mitigation process. i know this is important to congresswoman jackie speier and i want to thank her for her efforts for the town hall, where director satero was given the opportunity to address the community. and while i know this is frustrating, there has been

progress, and i believe there are areas we can work together to achieve a benefit to impact san francisco neighborhoods. so thank you so much to supervisors safai and ronan and katy for sponsoring this hearing, to chairperson tang, of course, and members of the public that came out today. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and so with that said we'll turn it over to director satero for presentation. >> can i get -- there we go. thank you. madam chair, thank you. it's good to be here with you all. it is a different day for noise and community relationships created by the f.a.a.'s new metroplex, and as it was

described, what this has created is basically a freeway in the sky, a very narrow trace that aircraft now travel when they are departing or arriving into s.f.o. that causes a focusing of aircraft activity over very narrow bands of the community. and that has created a tremendous impact to the folks on the ground, instead of what was an impact shared by a much larger segment of the community, and, therefore, that burden wasn't felt and wasn't so impactful to the community. and from an airport's perspective, our role has changed to an extent. i think to a large extent, you know, we see our role as pursuing initiatives that surround noise that we do control. and we have a history of doing that, and that's noise on the ground, essentially. we also see our role as advocating to the f.a.a. for flight procedures that would have community benefit, and we've been doing that over the years and have had success

there. and then also holding the airlines accountable to our fly-quiet program, and those are noise abatement procedures that the airlines fly in order to lessen the impact to the communities as they conduct night operations. as i said, the s.f.o. community round table has existed for over 30 years and has been that connection to the community and to the electeds where they could meet with the s.f.o. leadership and talk about impacts to the community, and it's really taken on a renewed importance, and we certainly feel that, as airport director and as the leadership team at the airport. we are very much feeling that need to be more connected to the community. so these kinds of opportunities we do appreciate. and the role has become, i think, more of a community advocate to a large extent, to really push the boundaries what

we can do under our own control, but also work with the f.a.a. and the airlines to implement improvements that would help the community. so i thought what would be helpful is to set a shared context for this of what the particularly the residence of the southern area districts 10 and 11, what they are experiencing with this new metroplex. and so we have a short presentation that i'd like to walk through. if you all have that available. let's set the framework around s.f.o., and the first image that you'll see on your slides is our airport and the noise contours. and this is -- these different colors represent the noise that is emanated from airport operations, as well as flight activity. and what you see is as you get further and further away from the airport, that impact lessens to the community. and so these are called cnel

lines, and it is a federal f.a.a. measure of how the community is impacted in terms of noise. and we will be referring to that later on, as well. our fly quiet program, what i discussed, this was implemented particularly for nighttime operations to have a benefit for the community, and so there are departures that must follow a certain procedure that lessen the impact to the community, the surrounding neighbors. it is voluntary, because we cannot mandate this, but they are charted procedures and we do measure the airlines, their compliance with those procedures, and when the airlines are shown to not comply and veer off course, we then get with the airlines and express to them the importance of flying the charted procedures that have

the community benefit. and then around next gen, just to set that framework. this was an initiative by the f.a.a. and implemented around the 2015 time frame for the modernization of their system, their national airspace system. it is to increase the efficiency, safety, capacity, predictability of american aviation as they describe it. we were implemented in 2014, the northern california area, and what it did, essentially, was transition ground-based navigation to g.p.s.-based navigation, so what it gives you is much more discreet location of the aircraft, which allows them to provide for tighter spacings and more defined pathways on their travels.

so let's talk about pre and post gen this next gen implementation, and i'll just point everyone to the runways at s.f.o. we have our 1028 runways and we have our 119 runways. and if you'll turn to the next page, this is the activity from our main departure runway, and this runway is the runway that has departures that impact the southern part of the city. and so i wanted to show some kind of framework over the last two decades around aircraft activity, as well, so you can understand what the history has been around this. and we have august 1999, the flight tracks from departures and those are from the 1 left, 1 right runways, that's what those

departures are called. and what you'll see, the deeper red colors is the concentration of flight activities, and you'll see a large percentage of those taking that left turn over the southern part of the city, districts 10 and 11. and then if you turn to the next slide, you'll see that in august 2014, that same kind of broad framework, but not quite as much direct congested aircraft activity over the southern part of san francisco, and this is an important part as i turn to the next frame, because this is pre next gen, and what you have here is broad dispersion of aircraft. and that's why you see a lot of green and a lot of blue out of the southern part of the city. and then if you turn to post next gen, you see that very much focusing of aircraft in that

tight corridor impacting districts 10 and 11 in the city. so this is what it looks like today, is this kind of flight activity. very much focused over the southern part of the city, because it takes a direct turn after passing a new f.a.a. way point, it's called. so the pilots are directed to turn south at the stick way point, it's called. and so it creates a very narrow band of aircraft activity over the southern part of the city. next page talks about all hours of the day. so this is a graph of flight activity for all of those three milestone years, and 24 hours a day through the month of august from '99, 2014, and 2018. and we've also shown the oakland flights in there, as well as

s.f.o., because they are also impactful to the city. and that will be point as we talk about a potential one of the solutions we're looking at. but if you go to -- you can see the august of '99 flight activity, we were busy back in '99, and you didn't have the kind of impact to the community. august 2014, is very similar to '99 in terms of departures and flight activity, but a few more flights over san francisco. and then as far as the altitudes, the altitudes have remained fairly constant during that time period, and august 2018 the flights have increased both at oakland and s.f.o. with the increased traffic. you see the number of flights over san francisco, too, from s.f.o. increasing. and you see the altitudes going up a little bit, but that's not really the important point. it's not about a couple hundred feet of altitude increase. it's about the narrowing of

traffic that has created the impact to the communities. so this is just a set for you, like the total framework of flight departures from s.f.o. and what a large percentage of those do fly over san francisco. i did throw in at the bottom of that chart the 28 left, 28 right departures, as well. these are departures from our other runways that may also fly over the city, depending on what route they are taking, but these are the large international aircraft that are really headed trans-pacific. and then, you know, for the nighttime, which has been particularly impactful for the residents of san francisco, we've culled out that same activity, and, you know, clearly there are a large number of flights when you think about this year, august of 2018, we

had 3,400 departures at the nighttime defined at 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., with 432 of those flights over san francisco at an average altitude of 5,200 feet, if you look at the august 2018 information. and then you can see the oakland information below it, as well. and for noise monitoring, in order to track all of the tracks, the noise tracks that we do collect, you can see there are a number of noise monitoring sites throughout the city, and we do -- we have installed portable noise monitoring in areas that have been really impacted in the southern areas, as well. so we make that investment to always be able to collect data around the flight information, because we also see ourselves as that credible source of information for the community, and we do get a lot of community requests for flight information and noise levels.

>> supervisor tang: sorry, don't mean to interrupt, but on the map it has a number corresponding with the circles. what do the numbers mean? >> the numbers are the identifiers were use for the noise monitoring site. and we have noise monitors also on the southern part of the peninsula, as well. so some of solutions that we've been advocating for are particularly focused on nighttime activities. again, those are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and when you see the amount of activity that happens at nighttime and does fly over the south part of san francisco, we see an opportunity to create a

departure which moves those aircraft to a track that flies up the bay and out the gate. really remaining over water is key to helping improve the impact to the community. and so you see that the graphic, august 2018, the kind of activity we still have currently, but there are up the bay and that red line you see going up the bay are for eastbound traffic. and then you see the left turn and all the traffic that does fly over the south part of the bay. south part of the city, excuse me. and as i described earlier, oakland is also significant in terms of impact to the community, and so this is their runway 30 nighttime departures. also flying over the mid and the southern part of san francisco. so the opportunity that we were looking for is to combine these traffics and have them take a more community-sensitive

approach and utilize over the bay -- over the bay flight alignment. so the next slide is what we call the night hush departure. and this is where you'll see the line from san francisco international going out to the middle of the bay. this is where the departures would fly out to the middle of the bay and then fly up the bay and then fly out the gate, and you can see on the right side of that line, oakland airport, and they would also join this same departure up and out the bay. and we call this, again, the night hush transition. so those flights that make that southerly turn over san francisco would follow this track. >> supervisor safai: just a quick question. just wanted to double check. when you say nighttime, what's the time? >> 10:00 p.m. to -- it was 6:00

a.m. 6:00 a.m. >> supervisor safai: just wanted to make sure you said that for the record again. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: thanks. >> okay. along with this night hush departure, we are aware there are capacity issues in that track and accommodating that kind of traffic, so what we're asking is the next page talks about what's called the 050-degree heading, so with the combination of nite huush departure and this heading, we are confident it can handle the capacity of these evening flights. and what that does is turn flights to the south right after departing and staying over water and gaining altitude. so in our estimation there's significant capacity to make that happen. i'll say that this has been,

with the f.a.a. as a potential solution but stalled in their recent behavior, we've recent sent a letter urging the f.a.a. to proceed with this study of this particular procedure to make sure there are no fatal flaws in it. we've asked for them to really prioritize this as one of their highest priorities. and jackie speier has also recently sent a letter to the same effect. i'll also say there appears to be opportunities under the new five-year f.a.a. reauthorization, and this is -- f.a.a., this is a long-term reauthorization. they've typically been extensions, so we're very pleased to see a five-year reauthorization, and there are a number of mandated items within this reauthorization within community noise, and i'll just describe it. in particular, there is a noise

annoyance study that its goal is to determine whether the impact of noise to the health and well being of the community is different from how it's currently described, which is around that dbcnel number, and the f.a.a. describes that as the 65 decibel cnel which communities are affected. so this noise annoyance study takes a fresh look at that. they have delayed the release of that for months and months, and i think that is one of the first major steps that has to happen. so in terms of advocating for potential solutions, long-term solutions, to me, that's one of the most important things, is getting that noise annoyance study. so they are obligated under this reauthorization to move forward on a time line to release that and deal with what the potential consequences are there. and so you can see there's a

number of other studies that look at the health effects related to aircraft operations, because it is much broader. it's becoming a much broader issue, from noise to quality of life, and we're seeing that firsthand in our communities. so these, to us, are where really meaningful change could happen is the reauthorization. and i would be glad to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you, director, for that presentation. i know early on in your presentation you mentioned that you have the fly quiet program and it promotes a voluntary approach to comply with noise abatement, and i do like that you have, you know, making the scores available to the public, you grade the airline performance and make that all known. to what extent do the airlines actually voluntarily participate, again, given that it's voluntary, but you do have

some sort of public transparency measures that you've put in place. >> they do fly that. i think all the airlines -- all the airlines fly that procedure at night. some are better at complying with it than others. what we do is, we report every two months to the community round table on the success of those airlines. the ones that fly it well all the time, and the ones that are the bad actors in that, and so it has the effect of public scrutiny on those airlines that don't want to be mentioned as not being good neighbors to the community. and so we use it -- the first way we use it is to go to the airline and say you need to instruct your pilots to do a better job. the second is, we let the community know which airlines are not flying it well. >> supervisor tang: okay. so for the most part it has been working, despite it being

voluntary in nature? >> in terms of that procedure, the fly quiet procedure, it does work, yes. >> supervisor tang: all right. commissioner guggenhime. >> commissioner guggenhime: from 10:00 to 6:00 or 10:00 to 7:00, is it possible to use, with the number of flights, entirely 1-l, 1-r 19? which are the least noisy of the choices? 28, 28 right? or 1 left, 1 right? >> what happens is, it's a shifting of noise, so we don't get into the middle of saying which flights should go off which runway, because if they don't fly off the 1s, they are impacting daly city, south city. we think the solution is around that nite huush solution and a potential new offshore way point solution we're also studying. >> commissioner guggenhime: thank you.

>> supervisor tang: commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: yes, i would like to ask supervisor safai whether the complaints that you're getting from your constituents that you're getting earlier, are these complaints during the time from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., or are they generally complaints during the day also? >> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioner johns. that's a great question. actually, you see a surge in the calls that we get for noise complaints earlier in the morning. it starts around 5:30 a.m. and goes all the way -- starts to peak all the way up to 9:00. people then go to work. i think the vast majority of people going to work. so this is about disruption early in the morning. as flights begin, as you know, they are pretty much 24 hours a day, but the vast majority, you have a 6:00 a.m. flight, 5:30 a.m. flight, so it's early morning. we will take anything we can

get. were you done with your presentation? >> yes, yes, i am. >> supervisor safai: so, did that answer your question? >> commissioner johns: yes, thank you. >> supervisor safai: if i could through the chair, i want to say a few words. i really and truly appreciate s.f.o. round table. it's been around for a long time. i appreciate the commissioners and i appreciate what vice chair crayton said. it is the truth. it's very similar to how we feel as members of the board of supervisors when we get calls and complaints about the sfmta. we often have to say, unfortunately, the voters of san francisco put in the city charter that we have absolutely no authority over the s.f. m.t.a. other than to vote up or down their budget. and that's the truth. we get a significant amount of complaints about the system, on-time performance, all the things you can imagine that you already know, the construction delays and the infrastructure and the impacts on businesses. all those things.

but our consistent response is, we actually have no authority other than some review that we actually put in there. and when it comes to airport noise, for the record, let's be clear, it is the federal aviation authority that has the jurisdiction over flight patterns. however, i don't know if we have any representatives from the airline industry here today, the airline industry has significant influence over the f.a.a. it is a relationship -- there is a symbiotic relationship there, and the f.a.a. was also very -- excuse me, the airline industry was very much in favor of next gen. it increases efficiency, it saves them cost, it's about the bottom line, and the impact to communities was not necessarily taken into consideration. and i will say, so that is to say that our commissioners, the airport commissioners, greatly appreciate everything you've done, and you all have been 100%

responsive prior to me even bringing this. every one of you has known about this issue, you've been on the commission for a significant amount of time, you've embraced it, and you understand that in many ways a lot of times your hands are tied, but even then, that's not the response. the response is, we're going to take this head on. so i've seen a partner in every single one of you. i will say the dynamic has shifted for us, and that's what i said in my opening remarks. having the speaker of the house be a san francisco resident, having congresswoman speier be a tenacious fighter on this issue, having senator feinstein be the most senior member of congress, the f.a.a. is going, for the first time, a budget reauthorization. for many times it was just some supplemental, you know, glue and some paste, they kept on reauthorizing, but this is an actual reauthorization that congress will have a significant say over. the nighttime huush is a great

step. the redirecting of flights is a great step, but we want, and i'm channelling the frustration and the voice of the thousands of people that i've heard, we want there to be a significant engagement from the airline industry. we want there to be a significant engagement around noncrossover, and you saw it, it's very clear. the data is clear. prior to 2014 and post 2014, it's a significant change in flight patterns. there is the ability to go up and around. there is the ability to go at a higher altitude. there's ability to make adjustments similar to nighttime. it is a matter of will, and it is a matter of cost. and we do have a convergence, i'd say -- what's the term, commissioner guggenhime, an abundance of riches when it comes to our political convergence with having congresswoman pelosi, speier, and senator feinstein all be and have influence over and directly

represent the citizens of san francisco and two of which having been voted into office directly by the citizens of san francisco. you commissioners are there to serve at the pleasure of the mayor and the citizens of san francisco. we are elected by the citizens of san francisco. this is a number one priority for quality of life. it is a big deal. and, yes, if i went block by block, i would get a different response, even within my own district, but the volume is high enough, and you're going to hear from people that have come today, many of whom have consistently come to the round table and talk about how their lives have been turned upsidedown. so i just wanted to get that on the record. >> supervisor tang: all right, thank you, supervisor safai. any further questions or comments from any members of the commission? no? commissioner crayton? >> commissioner crayton: i'm not sure whether my mike is on. is it on?

okay, great. i just want to say, first of all, thank you, again, supervisors for calling this. it's important. i was at balboa high school at that hearing that you reigned over, and i wanted to say that i felt the frustration of -- i don't want to say your people, because they are our people, but the residents that are within your district that were just absolutely flustered about this particular situation. and also, as you know, the airport was there, and the airport director has done a lot, and a lot of research and answering back and forth. but i think what you just said about the fact that we've got a powerhouse in washington, d.c., and i want to include senator kamala with that also, because we've got people that are there. and i think at some point in time, hopefully they will come

together and we will have a huge hearing around this matter to draw the attention of the f.a.a., because the frustration is there. and i think that it comes a time when we just have to step out of our comfort zones and decide that this is an issue that is important enough to the communities in san francisco so we can move it forward. i know that the airport has done all they can do. so i again commend you and commend our airport director for all of the work that has gone into this particular project in terms of partnering with you to find the answers. >> supervisor tang: thank you. all right. so at this time did you want to open up for public comment? item 1 is now open for public comment. if you'd like to speak, please, just come on up and line up by the drapes over there.

all right, first speaker, come on up. >> hello, my name is louis from san francisco. departing flights from s.f.o. and oakland are too low, too loud, and too often. it's all day and night, by the way, it's not just at night. people that spend a lot of time in their homes, they are affected all day long. there's a mismatch between some of the data presented by the airport and the noise groups, and what is actually experienced. so there's two main culprits, which are the sstik departure and candle departure from oakland. these are very visible by the charts you've seen, they are worsened by local topography. sometimes if you're backed up to a hill, it's louder. two main takeaways of what i'm going to say are, the flights aren't permitted to climb, but

they are artificially kept lower by design. designwise i think the situation can do better. we believe it's not business as usual, but an actual bad design that needs to be corrected. so a redesign is necessary for the long-term health, safety, and quality of life for san francisco residents. what will we end up with? we'll end up with a different adjusted redesign of the flight class over our area. a reminder from the f.a.a. website, we are accountable to the american public and its stakeholders. so in conclusion, we need your help at the local level to put pressure at the right influencers like congress and so on, but until we hear otherwise, we as a group here in san francisco, the southern neighborhoods, will be supporting an initiative called "no flights under 10,000 feet in our area," which may not be entirely realistic, but explains

what a great deal of our problem is. right now they are too low, too loud, and too often, and that one issue, flights under 10,000 feet, will solve a great deal of our troubles. thank you. >> good afternoon. matthew stevens from district 11 in san francisco. my wife and i moved to district 11 because it was quiet, it was peaceful, it was a nice place to live. a few months after we moved, directly over our house we are bombarded with aircraft 24 hours a day, all due to the next gen redesign, and this f.a.a. redesign has created an enormous and unacceptable environmental disaster for this city. the purpose of the redesign was cost savings for the industry, the airline industry, and also revenue generation by increasing the number of flights passing through the airport. i understand that, i'm a business person, i get it. however, it is ignored that this change -- this change has

ignored the responsibility of the community impacted by it. we're taxpayers. we're paying taxes to pass that to the industry. where is our tax abatement? when will we get one? i have a 2-year-old son. his first four words, dada, mama, bird, plane. well, the dada first is fine for me. district 11, however, has the second largest park in san francisco. the stick departure goes right through the senator of john mclaren park at under 3,000 feet every day, 24 hours a day. walking your dog, planes every 90 seconds. what's the purpose of having a park? the city, the round table, this community, must hold the f.a.a. accountable for this negligent and abusive behavior to the citizens of this city. the airspace design is bad, we

demand the airspace be redesigned to have no flights under 10,000 feet over san francisco. thank you very much for the hearing. >> hi, my name's elizabeth lopez, and i'm representing visitation valley district of san francisco. this is where we have hundreds of flights every day, six layers of traffic over our homes. the headaches that i get are endless. every day i have a headache and i can't go to bed until 2:30 in the morning. this is every single day. the fly quiet program does not benefit the southern portions of san francisco. we have loud international flights, all the domestic southbound flights come through our area. we are the night procedure, essentially, so 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m., 11:30, 12:00, 1:30, 2:00 a.m., we are the night procedure. the world health organization

strongly recommends that jet noise be reduced to 45 decibels during the day and 40 decibels at night. jet noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects, yet the f.a.a. and s.f.o. are operating within a 65-decibel weighted average. so the cmeo lines they are talking about is not an accurate measure of noise disturbance. they are not. the s.f.o. and f.a.a. are causing physical and psychological harm to people of the city. they are flying well below what was demonstrated as the average altitude. you can ask pilots and air traffic control, and they don't hit land until about 3,000 or 3,500 feet in san francisco, and this is the average. our communities are subsidizing cheap airfares, and we are not expendable for the industry's financial savings. the f.a.a. said it would add 32 flying miles to fly over the golden gate bridge, which is one

of the reasons they say yes, and i say so what, as well. and so we aren't responsible, essentially, for financing the airline industry with our lives. it would cost less than $1 per passenger, about $160 total for the extra fuel to do this maneuver. if the s.f.o. can allocate a million dollars to art this year, we can certainly request they consider allocating resources to mitigate human rights abuses caused by their industry. thank you so much. >> my name is judith keenan. i'm a resident of the bayview. it is stunning to me that we even have to have this fight. our cities north of s.f.o. and neighborhoods here in the southeast corner of san francisco have become sacrificial lambs to profit. here are a few questions that have been asked before and never answered. why was there no environmental

impact report done before the f.a.a. ruled out next gen, and why were there no public hearings held? if profit is the motive and the airlines have said they will save over $3 billion with next gen technology, there will be no end to the destruction of our communities. it will only get worse. it is not the responsibility of communities to save the airlines billions of dollars. it is the responsibility of city, state, and national governments to protect its people, and if congress is the only entity who can fix this, we, cities and states, have given away too much power. conflicting roles. the f.a.a. has been cited as an example of regulatory capture in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators.

>> hello. i have been living in district 11 for the past 29 years, same address. i used to be able to leave my windows open. i can no longer do that. this morning at 6:00 a.m., i woke up by jet noise. it's not just departure. it's also arrivals that come around our neighborhood, and that's not fair. this is not a nice way to wake up in the morning. i thank safai for taking the leadership in this matter. really, this is great, we have some support, and i hope somebody is listening to us and takes some action. thank you. >> hi, my name is charlie wambach. i've been living in my residence, living in san francisco all my life, but my residence over 51 years. i hear more flights in one day

now than i heard in the first 48 years combined, okay? this happened about 25 or 30 years ago, we had a lot of flights come over our house. did it for about two weeks, then it stopped, because i think so many people kicked up a fuss. maybe we had something to do about it. i'm glad they mentioned the $3 billion of savings. most of that savings is passenger savings, passenger time savings, okay? it's not airline fuel and stuff like that. it's passenger time, so they are counting that as savings. all right. flights come over our house, as they do, a lot of them, we have one track over our house, they have a track over visitation valley, brisbane, and i saw a flight the other night, i can watch it on my computer, going to new jersey. came over san francisco, went down the peninsula, down past san jose, and then headed east. there's no reason for that. not at 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 in the morning. and flight typically go to miami, flights that go to

washington, d.c., they come over san francisco. there's no reason for them to come over san francisco. not unlike what supervisor safai said, it's not just san francisco airport, it's oakland airport. they are all coming over. so, you know, i don't think a flight at any height is acceptable. i know a lot of the things are fly higher, you know, fly less frequently and stuff like that. you know, a flight at 13,000 feet is still annoying if they are coming over every few minutes, so, you know, if they didn't come over before for 48 years, i don't know why in the last two years we have to be bombarded like this it. thank you. >> good evening, my name is jennifer landisman and i'm a neighbor from the palo alto area, and i want to thank you for this hearing, and i'm a little bit out of breath, because i'm a little bit late and i ran from the parking over here. my focus is the part 150 study.

i've been working on this issue as a private citizen and part of the regional process with the select committee, which you may have heard of, and i see this problem is a very big communication problem. and you have a very powerful role in all of this, and so does the airport, and i appreciate greatly what everybody has been trying to do. but among the communication tools you have are things like the part 150 study. to give you an idea, we never heard of the part 150 study during the select committee process when it was happening during the 2015-2016 area. time. and so we couldn't provide input. recently there is a new comment period, and when i look added ae study, i would urge you to use the tools, the studies that we have. certainly, you need more studies. we know that we need a different metric. the airports can choose to use supplemental metrics, so i urge you to see where you can

influence and use these tools like the part 150 study, the select committee, all of these areas of engagement at the f.a.a., and i do think that there are potential solutions. but we really have to work harder on that piece. thank you. >> thank you. my name is sabrice and i live in the sunset by the golden gate park, and i had a study done with the s.f.o. office, and we have about 200 planes flying over our heads every day. and when it rains, it can reach as high as 215, because the rivers flow. so i recall all the things that have been said so far, but the arrivals are also very important. we are straight under the bodega flight paths coming from the north, and those are planes coming every two and three

minutes. and even at 10,000 feet, it's very troubling. and we're also right on the part of those big, large transatlantic flights. [ please stand by ]