►
From YouTube: 12-16-20 Airport Roundtable
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hi
everyone-
this
is
chanting
just
to
let
you
know
andy
did
not
receive
an
invite,
so
I
sent
her
mine.
That's
why
there's
two
chanting
couples
on
here,
so
170.!
Okay,
thank
you.
No
problem.
B
Okay,
it
looks
like
we've
got
the
attendees
here,
so
I
will
officially
call
the
meeting
to
order
at
1
31,
and
this
is
the
meeting
of
the
legislative
committee
of
the
santa
clara
santa
cruz
county's
airport
community
roundtable,
and
this
meeting
is
being
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
state
of
california
executive
order.
B
Any
emails
received
by
10
am
today
were
forwarded
to
the
committee
and
I
guess
I'll
check
with
mr
alverson,
where
any
additional
emails
received
today,
I
didn't
receive
any.
B
D
B
B
B
C
Steve
alvarson
facilitator
chris
sakura
backup,
facilitator.
B
Thank
you
and
then
we
also
have
the
attorney
shantin.
Did
you
want
to
introduce
yourself.
G
B
So
we
have
all
members
of
the
legislative
committee
here
and
we
will
start
with
item
three,
which
is
oral
communications,
and
this
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
committee
on
any
matters
that
are
not
on
the
agenda
and
speakers
are
limited
to
three
minutes
and
you
can
speak
on
any
topic
you
want.
B
That
is
not
on
the
agenda,
but
state
law
prohibits
the
committee
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items,
and
so,
if
you
would
like
to
speak,
if
you
could
raise
your
blue
hand,
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
phone,
but
I
see
one
person
with
their
hand
and
that
is
jennifer
landisman.
C
Madam
chair,
yes,
just
a
quick
confirmation
from
christina
or
evan
that
we
are
recording
the
meeting.
H
B
So
jennifer.
I
Hi,
thank
you
very
much.
I
wish
that
somehow
the
technical
committee
and
the
legislative
could
connect,
because
yesterday
there
was
a
very
important
presentation
on
the
environmental
review
process
and
the
email
that
I
sent
a
few
minutes
ago
was
to
request
that
you
make
some
time
possibly
for
addressing
the
gls
procedures
that
are
on
the
ifp
gateway,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
issues
related
to
that
regarding
metrics
and
all
of
the
work
that
you
do.
I
My
concern
is
that
the
legislative
committee
is
a
very
nice
way
to
deposit
things
to
do
for
the
future
future
legislation,
great
ideas
for
the
future
and
in
the
meantime,
we,
the
citizens,
who
are
affected
and
have
been
affected
by
this
for
six
years
now,
could
use
your
help
in
addressing
situations
that
are
happening
now.
The
gbass
project
and
a
lot
of
other
current
procedures.
I
So
my
request-
and
I
guess
you
can't
respond
but
would
be
for
you
to
somehow
address
this-
disconnect
between
the
needs
that
we
have
right
now
and
what's
for
the
future
and
and
and
that's
one
thing,
the
other
is
that
you
have
excellent
resources
with
esa
who
can
really
help
us
ask
the
right
questions
regarding
the
current
problems
right
now,
and
I
just
think
it's
it's
it's
a
very
sad
loss
to
not
have
those
resources
put
to
work
on
things
that
we
could
use
some
help
on
help
with
now.
I
I
I
If
you
have
an
attorney
here,
I
don't
know
if
the
attorney
is
for
what
purpose
the
attorney
is
you
know
what
a
what
kind
of
a
research
it
is
if
it's
a
governance
issue
of
the
roundtable
or
if
it's
actually
to
help
on
the
issues
that
we
deal
with,
but
in
the
past,
when
we've
not
had
information
from
the
fa,
we've
had
to
do
a
freedom
of
information
request.
I
So
far,
the
only
entities
that
have
any
information
about
that
are
sfo,
who
kind
of
just
nonchalantly
kind
of
dropped
that
little
factoid
at
their
gbass
updates.
Thank
you.
I
B
And
at
the
last
meeting
of
this
committee
we
reviewed
the
first
draft
of
a
noise
metrics
white
paper
and
we
had
a
lot
of
questions
and
comments
and
I
think
a
good
discussion
about
it.
And
then
we
asked
mr
alverson
if
he
could
do
the
next
draft
of
the
white
paper
for
us
and
that's
what
we
have
before
us
today.
B
And
so
I
will,
if
you're.
Okay
with
this,
mr
alberson
turn
it
over
to
you
to
take
us
through
this
and
I'd
like
to
make
sure
we
get
questions
from
the
ledge
committee
and
then
open
it
up
for
public
comment
and
then
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
committee
for
further
discussion.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
appreciate
that
just
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
the
history
and
background
because
it's
been
several
months
since
we
met
and
talked
about
this
member
hendrix
brought
to
the
committee
at
its
last
meeting
a
draft
of
this
concept
of
addressing
the
issues
surrounding
metrics
and
focused
on
the
fact
that
they
don't
appear
to
be
effective,
or
at
least
the
way
that
they're
being
used
used
doesn't
appear
to
be
effective
because
faa
goes
through.
The
environmental
process
concludes.
C
There
are
no
impacts,
yet
tens
of
thousands
of
people
then
complain
about
the
aircraft.
C
Noise
and
round
tables
like
ours
are
formed,
and
we
continue
to
discuss
the
issue
so
something's
missing
in
this
process
and
based
on
the
discussion
that
we
had
the
committee
the
last
time
the
idea
was
to
take
mr
hendrick's
letter
receive
input
from
the
public,
and
we
got
several
letters
and
emails
regarding
this
particular
topic,
digest
them
and
then
recast
this
position
paper,
if
you
will,
based
on
that
input
and
based
on
some
of
the
concepts
that
were
discussed
at
the
time.
C
Mr
hendrix,
I
don't
mean
to
speak
for
him,
but
at
that
meeting,
wanted
to
try
to
keep
this
simple
and
straightforward
and
have
a
document
that
the
legislative
committee
could
approve
and
then
be
essentially
a
position
paper
for
use
at
any
point
in
time
when
the
round
table
needs
to
respond
to
particular
issues
or
questions
or
items.
C
So
that's
the
way
in
which
this
was
prepared.
As
you
can
see
from
the
the
document
in
the
agenda,
there's
a
problem
statement.
You
know.
Why
are
we
looking
at
this
issue
a
discussion?
The
fact
that
the
noise
analyses
don't
appear
to
be
working
in
terms
of
identifying
where
the
issues
might
be?
It
proposes
a
solution
that,
in
addition
to
noise,
metrics
other
than
dnl
and,
of
course,
cnel
in
california,
use
other
tools,
use
other
metrics
and
then
a
portion
of
mr
hendrick's
paper.
C
One
thing
I
do
want
to
mention,
too,
is
that
the
information
input
we
received
from
our
members
of
the
public,
as
always,
was
phenomenal,
very
detailed
and
very
thoughtful
and
really
dove
down
deep
and
had
suggestions
about
metrics
and
way
of
looking
at
things,
and
I
think
this
committee's
intention
was
to
sort
of
keep
it
up
at
the
36
000
foot
level,
rather
than
being
prescriptive
to
the
faa
about
what
they
should
do
indicate
to
them.
You
have
other
tools
available
to
you.
C
E
Yeah,
hello,
hey
thanks!
So
first
off
steve
you
can
always
speak
for
me.
I
I'm
pretty
comfortable,
although
I
thought
we
were
trying
to
stay
at
35
000,
not
36,
000
feet.
You
are
in
your
just
introduction
right
there,
the
first
60
seconds
of
what
you
said
where
you
kind
of
you
know
gave
the
the
layman's
description
of
the
problem.
You
know
I'm
almost
thinking
that
that
could
be
added
as
a
preamble,
because
that
just
made
it
very
simple
and
straightforward
of
what
it
was.
E
I
just
thought
you
you,
you
nailed
it
on
what
that
was.
I
had
something
as
I've
read
this
now
a
couple
times
and
thank
you,
for
you
know,
rewording
my
words.
One
thing
I
thought
that
was
missing
and
you
tell
me
is
where
you
know
we're
talking
about.
We
want
to.
You
know,
be
careful
of.
You
know
noise
to
people
on
the
ground
and
stuff
like
that.
E
But
do
you
think
we
need
to
identify
that
we
mean
more
than
just
near
the
airport.
The
faa
already
has
kind
of
a
you
know
around
the
airport
that
they
think
they
need
to
be
concerned
about.
But
if
we
think
of
you
know,
there's
you
know
stuff
coming
over
the
san
mateo
hills,
the
santa
cruz
mountains.
You
know,
sunnyvale
is
it's.
You
know
several
miles
away
from
san
jose.
E
C
I
do
glenn
and
thank
you
yeah,
the
the
I'm
looking
at
page
four
of
the
agenda
item
in
the
very
last
paragraph
under
the
me,
the
paragraph,
that's
titled,
failure
of
epa's
existing
aircraft
noise
analysis
process.
C
It
says
that
you
know
the
fa
has
used
the
65
dnl
to
rely
on
that
as
the
exclusive
impact
threshold,
and
then
it
has
a
brief
statement
that
says
the
65
dba
dnl
typically
occurs
within
a
few
miles
of
the
airport's
runway.
As
a
result,
flight
procedure
changes
that
occur
miles
from
an
airport
will
never
trigger
an
exceedance
of
the
65
dnl
threshold.
C
So
I
thought
that
was
sort
of
where
we
were
distinguishing.
What
the
issue
is?
It's
not
necessarily
closed
in,
at
least
for
our
constituents
it's
further
away
from
the
airport
and
where
flight
procedure
changes
are
being
made.
We
could
be
more
prescriptive
than
that.
If
the
committee
feels
as
though
we
we
need
to
do
that,
but
I'm
open
to
suggestions.
E
Yeah,
I
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
what
my
colleagues
have
to
say,
but
I
think
you
know
you
say
here.
This
is
a
systemic
flaw,
but
I
think
we
need
to
somehow
be
able
to
identify.
You
know,
help
zero
them
in
a
little
bit.
I
mean
we've
said
the
problem,
but
we
didn't
quite
quite
say
anything
about
that.
E
So
and
then,
through
the
document
you
refer
to
people
versus
I
didn't,
and
maybe
it
was
just
me,
but
I
wasn't
able
to
see
people
on
the
ground
anywhere,
just
as
that
kind
of
declaration
we've
made
and
then
the
only
other
comment
I
just
have
is
you
know
said
you
said
this
could
be
used
to.
You
know
respond
to
different
things
that
might
come
with
congress
and
stuff.
I
would
almost
think
once
we've
got
this.
E
We
want
to
send
it
out
to
everybody
in
congress,
particularly
you
know
with
our
to
our
elected
officials,
but
send
it
out
to
everybody
and
then
I'd
be
comfortable,
sending
it
out
to
them
all
again,
every
six
months,
just
to
remind
them
that
you
know
this
stuff
has
to
happen.
It
has
to
be
included
in
future
legislation,
but
oh
no,
I
thought
you
did
a
really
good.
C
Job
thanks
dude,
thank
you
and
if
I
might
just
respond
to
one
comment
that
you
made
regarding
people
on
the
ground,
I
know
that's
a
phrase
that
that
we've
certainly
used
probably
before
our
arrival
at
the
round
table
or
creation
of
the
round
table.
That's
continued
on.
I
think
it's
fine.
However,
I
don't
know
where
people
are
other
than
on
the
ground.
C
E
Everything
we
do
is,
if
you
think
they're
going
to
you
know
not
twist
that
into
something
else,
then
that's
fine,
but
I'm
just
I'm,
I'm
it
kind
of
goes
back
to
the.
Where
question
a
little
bit.
I
want
to
make
sure
you
know
this
is
really
one.
You
know
we
need
them
to
think
better
about
noise
and
how
it
impacts
people
and
also
the
distance
from
the
airport.
So
it's
just
I
I'm
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned.
E
There's
wiggle
room
where
somebody
with
you
know
could
go
ahead
and
try
and
drive
a
wedge
in
there
to
say:
oh
well,
they
meant
something
else,
but
you
got
it.
You
know
you
you
talk
to
them
more
than
I
do
directly.
So,
okay,
whatever
you
think
I
it's
just
that's
what
a
little
bit
of
my
concern
is
and
making
sure
that
you
know
it's
really.
This
is
going
to
our
congressional
people
as
well.
Get
them
to
understand,
get
them
to
start
seeing
people
on
the
ground,
and
you
know
that
kind
of
stuff,
but.
C
B
Thanks
glenn
kathy
did
you
have
any
questions
or
comments.
F
Yes,
thank
you
lisa,
and
let
me
I'm
flipping
back
and
forth
here
on
my
my
ipad,
so
I
can
pull
it
up
so
well.
First
of
all,
people
to
judge
president-elect
appointed
buddha
transportation
secretary
was
it
yesterday
or
the
day
before.
Is
that
going
to
be
his
new
title.
F
Secretary
transportation,
yep
exactly
so
yeah
I
was
excited
about
that
and
you
know
a
young
guy
and
you
know
fresh
ideas,
and
you
know
based
on
what's
happening
in
the
trump
administration.
F
You
know,
I'm
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
happens
with
him,
and
hopefully
a
lot
of
people
will
come
back.
You
know
that
left
like
the
faa,
and
you
know
important
places
like
that
that
you
know
we
rely
on
to
get
information
from
and
direction
so,
but
regarding
the
people
on
the
ground
that
you
were
just
talking
about,
do
you
include
like,
like
residents,
you
know
buildings,
people
that
work.
F
You
know
like
campuses,
business,
campuses
places
where
people
work
and
and
how
they're
impacted
as
well.
You
know,
as
as
part
of
this
noise
measurement
process,
instead
of
just
people
on
the
ground
that
people
within
you
know
buildings,
homes
etc.
F
You
know:
do
you
include
that
in
this
assessment,
as
well.
C
So
the
fa's
guidance
for
aircraft
noise
analyses
all
basically
flows
back
to
14
cfr
code
of
federal
regulations,
part
150
and
part
150
has
a
table
1a,
which
defines
the
different
types
of
land
uses
where
noise
impacts
occur
and
so,
depending
on
the
type
of
land
use.
C
C
C
As
you
move
up
the
scale
and
get
higher,
then
you
begin
to
pull
into
other
types
of
uses
so
office,
buildings,
hotels,
those
types
of
things,
but
because
they're
of
commercial
construction
they
can
withstand
much
higher
noise
levels
than
folks
that
are
living
just
at
home.
So
it's
accounted
for
in
the
fas
regulations
that
they
use
for
the
national
environmental
policy
act
and
it's
tiered
to
account
for
the
way
in
which
their
performance
of
their
building
envelopes
work.
F
Exactly
and
funnily
enough,
I
ended
up
in
a
an
airport
committee
commission
meeting
that
lisa
and
glenn
serve
on
and
heard
a
lot
of
this
discussion
for
the
first
time
there
a
couple
of
months
ago
and
found
it
really
interesting.
So
let
me
ask
you
steve
in
relation
to
that.
You
know
like
when
san
jose,
for
instance,
was
expanding
and
they
they
came
up
with
a
plan
to
reach
out
to
the
homes
like
in
the
area.
F
You
know
to
install
like
white
things:
white
noise,
you
know
in
the
homes
they
homes
that
didn't
have
like
air
conditioning
double
pane
windows,
insulated
doors,
things
like
that.
That
would
be
impacted
by
the
increase
in
airport,
noise
and
takeoffs.
F
Do
you
think
like
something
like
this
would
be
instrumental
or
effective
in
you
know,
putting
something
in
place
like
that
again,
a
grand
program
for
airports
and
residents
to
use
to
be
able
to
say
you
know
this
is
this
is
the
decibel
level,
and
this
is
the
impact
that
it's
having
on
on
my
community,
and
you
know
to
use
a
paper
like
this
to
be
able
to
say
this
is
why
we
need
a
program
to
protect
the
residents
and
and
on
the
ground.
C
Yeah
and
kathy
it
could
potentially
be
used
for
that
kind
of
going
back
to
glenn's
earlier
guidance
of
a
few
months
ago
is
to
not
muddy
the
waters
too
much.
We
could
put
a
lot
of
things
in
here.
I
I'm
not
sure
how
much
the
committee
would
want
to
have
in
here.
The
the
current
issue
with
sound
insulation
is
the
65
db,
dnl
or
california.
Cnl
metric
is
a
standard,
so
if
your
home
is
outside
of
that
those
contours,
then
in
general
you're
not
eligible
for
send
insulation
treatment.
C
If
it
is
within
there,
then
there
is
the
potential
for
the
home
to
be
eligible
and
there's
other
criteria.
I
believe,
as
this
committee
knows
right
now,
the
faa
is
going
through
a
process
of
deciding
whether
or
not
it
needs
to
change
that
65
standard
to
a
different
level.
Based
on
national
surveys.
That's
been
conducted.
We've
been
waiting
a
couple
years
now
to
hear
what
those
results
are.
C
The
answer
might
be
yes,
it
may
be
no
and
the
reason
why
it
might
be
no
is
because
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
necessarily
get
the
type
of
noise
level.
Your
reduction.
You
need
to
qualify
for
a
sound
installation
program
at
that
quieter
level.
So
there's
a
direct
relationship
right
now
between
the
65
dnl
in
stand
insulation.
C
There
may
be
a
new
metric
at
some
point
in
time
and
then
the
question
will
be:
what
will
the
faa's
policy
be
about
that?
I'm
not
sure
that
sand
installation
really
fits
into
this
position
paper,
but
I'm
open
to
hear
what
the
committee
thinks
then.
B
So
I
had
a
couple
questions
and
we'll
go
over
to
glenn
yeah
steve.
I
thought
you
did
a
terrific
job
and
glenn
thanks
for
doing
the
first
round
of
this.
I
do
think
it
hit
the
right
level
of
detail.
B
I
agree
with
your
comments,
steve
about
all
the
great
input
we
got
from
the
public,
a
lot
of
detail
which
I
think
can
be
leveraged,
but
it
as
a
first
piece.
I
kind
of
feel
like
this
level
of
detail
is
good,
so
I
appreciate
the
balance
you
struck
there.
I
had
a
question
about
on
page
five
of
this
item.
B
It
says
there
that
the
aedt
has
a
suite
of
supplemental
metrics
and
to
help
identify
where
problems
may
occur,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
had
a
perspective
on
those
other
supplemental
metrics
are
any
of
them
ones.
We
want
to
particularly
highlight
to
say
we're
interested
in
learning
more
about
them
and
want
to
know
if
they,
you
know,
will
help
address
this
issue.
J
C
Some
of
them
are
the
ability
to
generate
maximum
level
sound
levels
from
a
single
operation,
sound
exposure
levels
from
a
single
operation,
time
above
based
on
cumulative
noise
or
multiple
operations,
number
of
events
above
a
certain
level,
and
the
answer
really
becomes
sort
of
like
any
job.
You
might
do
around
the
house.
C
What
tool
is
right
for
that
job
and
what
metric
is
right
for
that
so,
depending
on
what
you're
trying
to
figure
out,
for
example,
an
issue
like
speech,
interference
when
we're
doing
analysis
for
is
aircraft
noise
affecting
classrooms,
we'll
look
at
the
maximum
level
or
the
sound
exposure
level
to
see
if
it's
exceeding
the
levels
at
which
teachers
speak
within
a
classroom,
so
it
it
really
has
to
be
pinpointed
to
what
the
issue
is
at
hand.
We
did
receive
really
good
input
from
the
members
of
the
public
about
possible
metrics.
C
C
You
know
for
this
project
we're
really
interested
in
seeing
these
four
or
five
metrics
be
used
or
be
studied,
but
I
felt
as
though
for
this
particular
position
paper,
it's
too
general
to
try
to
list
out
a
set
of
metrics
and
and
because
the
faa
knows
what
they
are,
they
it's
their
their
model
and
and
so
it's
really
up
to
them
to
to
choose
them.
C
C
B
So
I'll
just
add,
I
agree
with
glenn's
earlier
comment
about.
I
think
the
sort
of
like
the
preamble
that
you
said
would
be
a
good
addition
to
this,
and
I
am
okay
adding
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
where
I
feel
like.
B
If
you
add
a
little
bit
more
detail,
it
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
real
for
people
and
they
can
relate
to
it
more
if
you
like
name
cities
or
regions,
or
you
know
how,
how
far
from
the
airport
just
so
that
they
really
appreciate
the
the
issue
here
and
how
large
it
is,
I
guess
I'd
say,
did
have
another
question
and
that
is
on
page
six,
where
on
bullet
point
three,
I
agree
that
you
need
to
look
at
pre-change
conditions
and
actual
post-change
conditions.
B
I
want
it
to
be
an
improvement
because,
right
now,
I
I
don't
think
the
current
situation
is
one
that
is
satisfactory
to
folks,
and
so
any
changes
have
to
absolutely
be
an
improvement.
C
Yeah
yeah,
if
I
might
respond
to
that
kathy
the
it
could
use
another
word
or
two
there.
The
concept
was,
the
condition
is
the
same
as
predicted
by
their
modeling,
so
that
we're
you
know
the
and
the
issue
we've
run
into
and
we've
heard
from
our
community
members
is
that
the
fa
goes
through.
This
process
makes
the
finding
of
no
significance
or
when
it's
a
cat
x
determines
there's,
nothing
is
going
to
change
and
it
does
and
there's
no
going
back.
Glenn
mentioned
this
at
the
last
thing.
C
There's
no
sort
of
checking
is:
did
things
turn
out
the
way
that
you
predicted
that
they
would
or
you
thought
they
would
so
when
I've
written
here
the
condition
is
the
same.
It
means
the
same
as
the
modeling
that
they
did
or
the
prediction
that
they
did
as
a
as
opposed
to
you
know,
sort
of
what
you're
stuck
with
after
that
occurs.
So
I
think
there
could
be
some
additional
clarity
there.
B
Okay
thanks,
I
appreciate
that
and
then
I
do
have
a
couple
other
comments,
but
I
think
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
public
before
I
do
the
rest
of
mine
glenn
did
you
have
yeah.
E
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
what
kathy
was
saying
about.
You
know
this
sound
mitigation
and
stuff
like
that,
and
I
don't
think
that's
really
what
we
want
to
try
and
get
into
right
here.
First
off
is
the
way
sound
mitigation
has
been
done
is
is
the
whole
industry
is
focused
around
that's
a
very
narrow
set
of
areas
around
the
airport
and
the
second
thing
is,
it
doesn't
do
anything
to
address
the
outside
noise,
which
is
what
we
hear
in
our
backyards,
and
schools
and
stuff
like
that.
E
So
I
think
you
know,
maybe
mitigation
tools
are
something
that
you
know
could
be
pulled
out
later,
but
where
we're
trying
to
set
our
position
and
and
what
we
want
it
to
be,
I
think
I'd
prefer
to
stay
away
from
the
sound
mitigation
just
because
it's
it's
a
predefined
kind
of
program
and
what
people
have
already
thought
about
and
again
it
just
doesn't
take
care
of
outside.
B
Thanks,
actually,
I
think
I
do
have
one
more
comment
before
we
go
to
the
public,
and
that
is
on
page
five.
B
B
So
I
think
you
know,
we've
said
that
a
lot
and
it's
kind
of
touched
on
in
other
areas,
but
I
want
that
one
to
really
stand
out,
because
I
think
it's
really
important
that
they
hear
that
we
we
want
involvement
before
any
flight
paths
are
changed
and
that
one
you
know,
I
think
there
could
be
a
lot
to
it.
And
I
don't
want
to
go
into
tons
of
detail.
B
But
you
know
things
like
making
the
information
readily
available
and
not
make
it
difficult
and
have
people
have
to
ask
for
it
and
really
define
the
public,
the
process
that
will
be
used
to
make
flight
path
changes
and
where
the
public
plays
a
role.
In
that.
B
I
don't
know
how
others
feel
about
that,
but
maybe
when
we
will
circle
back
to
everybody
after
we
hear
from
the
public,
any
other
comments
before
that
you
open
it
up
for
public
comment:
okay,
so
I'll
open
it
up
for
public
comment
and
if
you'd
like
to
address
the
committee,
please
raise
your
blue
hand.
I
don't
see
anybody
on
the
phone,
but
we
will
provide
three
minutes
a
piece
and
we'll
start
with
jennifer
landisman.
I
Hi,
thank
you.
I'm
gonna
go
to
the
35
000
foot
level
as
well,
and
I
don't
know
if
you've
heard,
but
the
administrator
has
said
that
all
of
this
process
is
a
shared
responsibility
and
you
know
about
issues
of
protecting
residents,
but
I
think
there's
also
about
residents
protecting
themselves,
and
I
would
say
that
a
shared
responsibility
would
have
to
include
shared
information
and
informed
decisions,
which
is
what
the
environmental
process
is
supposed
to
be
about.
I
And
just
like
you
share
responsibility
in
making
sure
that
you
know
people
are
are
informed.
I
I
think
you
should
share
responsibility
for
people
not
being
informed,
and
I
would
disagree
very
much
with
the
fact
that
the
faa
is
the
one
that
needs
to
come
to
us
to
ask
for
supplemental
metrics
and
projects,
because
I
have
heard
this
repeatedly
from
the
faa
and
the
chief
scientists
stating
that
it's
in
the
law
in
their
1051
f,
that
they
provide
for
projects
to
use
supplemental
metrics,
but
they're
not
going
to
come
running
to
us
to
to
say
this
because
in
their
most
recent
report
they
very
clearly
say:
look,
it's
not
a
one.
I
I
I
would
say
people
who
are
very
involved
on
the
metrics
issue
that
came
together
and
put
a
recommendation
forward
on
which
supplemental
metrics
to
use
supplemental,
because
it
is
fundamental
for
the
faa
and
they
are
required
to
provide
noise
maps
all
the
way
to
45
dnl.
That
is
what
you
read
in
a
fonzie.
They
say
you
know
nothing
happened
all
the
way
over
here,
but
all
the
way
to
45
there
was
a
benefit
or
whatever.
I
So
I
think
you
really
have
to
be
more
informed
about
what
the
fa
already
publishes
and
is
required
to
do
they're
just
not
showing
those
maps.
Then
you
have
to
really
really
drill
on
how
we
get
supplemental
metrics
on
the
gbas
project,
and
I
will
send
our
the
recommendation
that
was
motivated
by
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
people
are
just
saying.
Oh,
you
know
who's
going
to
give
us
the
metrics
and
you
know
and
so
forth,
and
so
we
made
recommendations
based
on
using
the
fa's
own
information.
I
I
So
I
think
you
really
again
have
to
distinguish
between
what
you
can
do
for
people
now
and
what
you're
planning
to
do
for
the
future,
which,
by
the
way,
all
those
projects
are
underway
to
be
changing
anyway.
Thank
you.
D
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
okay,
great
I'd
like
to
address
the
where
question
that
mr
hendricks
focused
on
and
also
the
question
of
sound
insulation
that
ms
watanabe
and
mr
alverson
discussed.
D
D
I
didn't
really
identify
the
critical
issue
until
a
few
months
ago.
We
all
know
that
standards
of
significance
used
to
make
policy
decisions,
don't
correlate
with
the
complaints
from
next
gen.
Well,
what
we
haven't
explicitly
acknowledged
is
that
the
faa
makes
a
broad
range
of
policy
decisions
involving
airplane
noise
and
emissions
and
and
here's
the
catch.
D
The
standard
of
significance
used
to
determine
whether
a
homeowner
near
an
airport
qualifies
for
replacement
windows
and
insulation
cannot
be
effective
if
that
same
standard
is
used
to
determine
whether
it's
okay
to
shift
300
airplanes
a
day
from
a
neighborhood
30
miles
from
the
airport
to
another
neighborhood
nearby,
to
say
nothing
of
regulations.
We
might
like
to
see
regarding
noise
shocks
like
sonic
booms
and
the
deployment
of
speed
brakes.
D
For
today,
I'd
suggest
one
or
two
approaches
either
finish
this
deliverable
more
or
less
as
it
is,
but
resolve
to
follow
up
with
another
deliverable
calling
for
separate
standards
of
significance
for
distinct
operational
policies
or
roll.
That
advice
into
this
deliverable
either
approach
would
work,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
one
of
these
things.
K
Lisa
and
the
committee,
thank
you
for
hosting
the
meeting
before
the
end
of
the
year
and
steve.
Thank
you
for
your
excellent
synthesis.
My
first
comment
is
building
on
robert's
comment.
I
would
like
to
see
in
the
recommendations,
a
sharper
or
more
explicit
recommendation
to
change
the
definition
and
standard
for
significant
impact.
I
think
that
there's
words
like
collect
and
analyze
and
use,
but
I
don't
think
we've
explicitly
said
change.
The
definition
of
the
65
dnl
and
I
think,
robert's
comment
about
different
classes
is
good.
K
If
the
fa
did
next
gen
today
and
presented
it
to
us,
we
could
not
do
anything
because
they
would
have
a
finding
of
no
significant
impact,
because
what
we're
experiencing
does
not
hit
the
65
dnl.
That's
why
it's
critical
for
us
to
make
that
recommendation.
The
second
thing
is
glenn.
I
think
your
comment
about
on
the
ground
is
spot
on,
because
the
faa
measures
things,
but
it
doesn't
actually
measure
what
we're
experiencing.
K
My
several
comments
also
is.
First,
we
should
include
and
address
the
current
definition
of
cumulative
impact,
so
it
captures
vectored
and
non-vectored
traffic
from
all
procedures
at
all
airports.
Today,
cumulative
impact
is
defined
as
one
procedure
at
one
airport
and
unfortunately,
cities
like
palo,
alto
and
mountain
view,
get
vectored
in
non-vectored
traffic
from
multiple
procedures
in
multiple
airports,
surfer,
pirate,
rodega,
west
san
jose
cell
flow.
We
need
aggregate
impact
number
two.
We
need
to
require
impact
assessment,
all
the
way
to
final
approach.
This
is
what
we
experience
on
the
ground
today.
K
K
My
third
point
is:
please
require
the
faa
to
document
the
specific
safety
or
efficiency
issues
behind
a
proposal
and
state
the
expected
benefits.
We
keep
seeing
that
safety
and
efficiency
is
the
reason
for
making
the
changes
with
no
specifics.
The
fa
does
not
quantify
the
improvements
and
what
efficiency
improvements
were
made
at
the
expense
of
high
negative
impacts
to
communities.
K
My
last
point
and
I'm
going
to
push
back
given
my
experience,
is
the
fa
issued
a
metrics
report?
Yes,
they
know
all
the
metrics.
The
problem
that
we
have
is
they
don't
use
any
metrics,
except
the
65
dnl
and
their
standards.
So
we
need
to
put
some
meat
into
our
recommendations,
which
is
what,
if
the
faa
does
not
use
these
other
measurements
that
truly
show
our
experience
of
impacts.
Thank
you
thank.
J
Maurizio,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you,
steve
for
a
very
good
document.
I
have
three
comments.
Number
one,
the
term
supplemental
metrics
in
the
document,
or
even
mentioned
in
some
comments-
needs
to
be
reviewed
carefully.
It
is
an
fa
term.
They
distinguish
between
supplemental
and
alternative
metrics.
J
Supplemental
metrics
for
the
faa
are
used
to
help
the
public
understand
community
noise
impact,
but
not
for
decision
making
in
environmental
reviews.
In
contrast,
alternative
metrics
are
metrics
that
can
improve
the
prediction
of
impact
I'll
email,
you
the
fa
references,
so
we
want
both.
We
want
supplemental
to
understand
noise
effects
and
we
want
alternative
to
reflect
impacts
more
accurately
and
to
determine
what
is
significant
number
two
in
the
solution
section.
It
mentioned
non-noise
metrics.
J
I
think
it
would
be
simpler
to
refer
to
non-dna,
metrics
or
just
multiple
metrics,
because
other
metrics,
like
and
above,
for
instance,
they're
related
to
noise.
They
count
the
number
of
planes
above
the
noise
level
and,
for
instance,
adt
just
has
a
list
of
metrics
and
they
don't
categorize
them:
noise,
no
noise
etc,
and
one
clarification
that
I
would
like
to
ask
in
the
document.
I
could
not
understand
what
you
meant
by
data
on
a
per
person
basis.
J
The
term
is
sensitive,
because
the
fa
argument
is
that
fewer
people
are
now
impacted
because
of
next
gen.
Maybe
you
met
over
a
community
instead
of
a
per
person
basis.
I
don't
know-
and
my
third
and
very
important
comment
is
that
we
must,
as
other
speakers
just
said,
we
must
have
one
recommendation
on
changing
the
current
definition
and
standard
of
significant
impact.
J
J
So
this
recommendation
is
critical
and
it
must
have
three
things
number
one
other
alternative
metrics,
not
just
dnl,
should
be
allowed
in
defining
significant
impact
number
two:
the
thresholds
for
significant
impact
must
be
established
for
these
metrics
that
define
significant
impact
and
you
can
maybe
lower
the
dna.
But
that's
not
really
the
point
and
number
three
aggregate
impact
aggregate
means
the
cumulative
cumulative
impact
that
darlene
talked
about,
but
it
also
the
combined
impact
of
changes
over
time,
and
let
me
give
you
an
example:
today:
the
fa
reset
the
noise
baseline
after
every
change
with
surfer.
J
First,
then,
is
you
see
south
florida
and
parrot,
and
the
combined
impact
of
the
three
changes
would
have
triggered
a
5
db
increase
over
palo
alto.
That
would
have
been
significant
on
current
rules.
However,
each
incremental
change
may
not
we're
like
frogs
in
the
boiling
water
and
final
come.
The
fa
should
not
be
the
one
to
decide
how
to
define
significant
impact.
They
have
a
conflict
of
interest
and
their
track
record
is
not
good.
We
need
independent,
objective
experts.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
mary,
jo
next
is
jennifer
from
sunnyvale.
H
Hi,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes?
Okay,
as
many
of
the
speakers
have
already
mentioned,
the
current
noise
metrics
used
by
the
faa
are
ineffective.
They
don't
deal
with
communities
away
from
the
airport
and
we
know
the
noise
metrics
must
be
redefined
to
represent
what's
happening
on
the
ground.
Here's
the
problem,
the
faa,
does
not
care
about
noise.
H
Faa's
mission
is
to
provide
the
safest,
most
efficient
airspace
system
in
the
world
notice
that,
in
that
mission,
the
word
poise
is
not
mentioned.
Yet
we
are
asking
the
faa
in
this
document
now.
The
document
is
pretty
good,
but
we
are
asking
the
faa
to
determine
those
metrics
and
then
to
marshal
those
those
metrics
and
follow
those
metrics.
H
H
H
H
I
don't
know
how
that
would
be
formed,
but
independent
of
the
faa
to
define
new
metrics,
as
many
of
the
speakers
have
mentioned
here-
that
are
significant
and
effective
and
represent
what's
happening
on
the
ground,
independent
and
independent
of
the
government
to
a
certain
extent
as
well,
because
you
have
the
aviation
lobby-
that's
very
powerful
as
well.
There
has
to
be
a
common
goal
regarding
noise
and
metrics
and
they
need
to
be
done
independently.
H
B
You
jennifer
is
there
any
other
member
of
the
public
who
wishes
to
provide
comments
at
this
point,
I
don't
see
any
more
blue
hands
so
we'll
close
public
input
and
bring
it
back
to
the
committee
and
glenn
hendricks.
C
B
C
May
I
just
one
thing
that
one
of
the
members
of
the
public
mentioned
just
and
I
think
it's
a
mis
interpretation,
what
I
said,
or
maybe
it
wasn't
clear
and
that
is
jennifer
lannister
mentioned
about
needing
to
have
the
faa-
ask,
for
example,
the
round
table
about
what
metrics
you'd
want
to
use
for
analysis,
and
let
me
be
clear:
the
environmental
protection
specialist
is
the
one
person
at
the
fa
for
a
a
particular
environmental
document
who
gets
to
determine
what
metrics
are
used
under
normal
circumstances.
C
They
will
not
come
to
the
community
and
ask
what
do
you
want
it's
really
up
to
the
community
to
go
to
that
environmental
protection
specialist
and
tell
them
what
you
want
to
be
included
in
the
document.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
process
is
clear
and
that
and
I
think
that's
why.
In
most
cases
you
don't
have
supplemental
metrics
and
documents,
because
the
ask
has
never
been
made.
C
The
community's
never
gone
forward
to
the
aps
and
asked
for
those
documents
or
in
most
cases
the
airport
sponsor
hasn't
done
that
when
it's
an
airport
project.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
point
is
clear.
Thanks.
B
Steve
glenn.
E
Yeah
so
first
off,
based
on
you,
know
some
of
our
public's
comments
and
stuff.
I
think
we
should
write
a
separate
letter
to
president-elect
biden
and
nominate
me
to
be
the
new
air
noise
czar
with
complete
and
total
authority.
I
think
that
would
take
care
of
it
a
little
more
serious,
so
lisa
you
were
talking
about.
You
know,
maybe
adding
something
about
process,
and
you
know
of
how
community
input
and
stuff
is
and
as
much
as
I
think,
that's
a
great
idea.
E
E
If
we
wanted
to
add
one
segment,
you
know
about
that,
but
just
with
the
realization
that
there's
a
whole
other,
I
mean
process
set
of
issues
and
stuff,
and
so
I
said
I
wouldn't
mind
if
you
want
to
put
something
in,
but
we
should
add
it
on
to
our
potential
list,
but
maybe
we
need
to
go
through
and
have
a
similar
thing
as
it
relates
to
the
overall
process,
because
I
think
we
can
all
talk
about
lots
of
different
issues
and
ways
to
expand
this
input.
Piece
that
you
were
talking
about.
E
Second
thing
is
one
of
the
members
of
the
public
said
you
know
here.
We
can
either
complete
this
this
deliverable
of
what
it's
trying
to
do,
or
we
can
expand
it
into
a
bunch
of
other
stuff,
and
my
recommendation
would
be
to
address
and
get
this
deliverable
done
with
the
set
of
objectives
and
things
that
we
had.
E
E
All
you
know
answer
to
everything
we
need
to
do
is
if
we
say
we've
got
this
done,
let's
get
it
to
congress,
let's
get
it
to
the
faa,
let's
hear
what
some
feedback
is
and
why
you
know
they're
having
a
problem
with
it,
go
back
and
talk
to
congress
and
say:
don't
worry
about
those
things
and
do
it
anyway.
You
know
that's
where
I
just
think
you
know
narrow
and
focused.
E
I
mean
it's
been
a
conversa,
a
topic
that
comes
up
a
lot
and
my
recommendation
would
be
let's
deal
with
this
as
we've
kind
of
got
it,
and
if
we
want
to
have
something
else,
then
we
can
go
ahead
and
produce
something
else
that
you
know
has
we
understand
how
all
those
different
vectors
would
fit
into
the
objective
we're
trying
to
write.
Thank
you.
F
Nope
nope
I've
enjoyed
listening
to
all
the
public
input.
That's
for
sure.
B
Okay,
so
I
do
want
to
add
a
few
things.
I
agree
with
glenn
his
comments
about,
let's
focus
on
what
we
have
and
get
it
done
and
start
using
it,
because
I
would
like
to
accomplish
something
here
and
I
think
it's
a
great
start,
and
while
there
are
other
things
we
want
to
address,
let's
not
wait
till
we
have
them
all
done
before
we
start
addressing
some
of
them.
So
I
would
like
to
finish
what
we
have
here.
B
I
you
know.
I
appreciate
the
public
comment.
B
About
you
know
saying
we
really
wanted
to
find
a
new
metric.
You
know
some
things
that
I
feel
like
they
emphasized.
As
I
was
reading
this,
and
I
read
this
several
times,
I
wanted
some
things
to
just
jump
out
at
me.
The
first
time
I
read
it,
and
so
you
know
changing
that
metric
is,
I
think,
should
really
jump
out.
B
B
So
I
don't
think
I
would
necessarily
like
change
a
lot
of
what's
in
here.
I
just
want
it
to
stand
out
a
little
bit
more
and
I
think
that
can
be
done
either
by
you
know,
tweaking
the
words
a
little
bit
or
you
know,
bolding
underlying
italics,
something
bullet
points
just
so
that
you
really
get
it
without
having
to
read
it
more
than
once
and
let's
see.
B
B
E
Agree
with
what
you're
saying
and
also
if
we
could
also
do
you
know
that
for
if,
if
steve
could
go
back
to
that
first
45
seconds
of
where
we
added
as
a
preamble,
because
it
really
puts
it
into
you,
know
straightforward
layman's
terms
that
I
think
you
know
as
congress
and
stuff,
hopefully
they're
going
to
read
the
first
paragraph
or
two.
I
think
that
would
help
put
it
into
context
for
them
to
be
able
to
go
here.
Legislative,
oh,
wait!
These
are
what
my
constituents
are.
You
know
trying
to
address
yep.
I.
B
Agree
so
I
don't
have
any
other
input
on
this.
Is
this
something
steve?
Let's
see,
I
know
your
role
is
changing
a
little
bit,
but
is
this
something
you
or
chris
there
he
is,
could
take
and
do
another
round
of.
C
Yes,
madam
chair,
we
definitely
could
do
that.
What
I
would
suggest
in
sort
of
the
form
of
a
motion
that
the
committee
recommend
that
esa
take
another
cut
at
making
the
changes
that
were
described
by
the
committee
members,
that
we
work
with
you
as
chair
to
review
those
changes.
And
then
you
know
ultimately
have
your
approvals
to.
It
reflects
what
the
committee
has
described
and,
obviously
with
some
of
the
points
that
you've
made
in
terms
of
highlighting
particular
issues
folding
or
using
bullet
points.
B
And
then
would
a
motion
also
include
the
next
step?
Being
we
wouldn't
bring
it
back
to
the
ledge
committee.
We
would
take
it
to
the
round
table
for
review
and
input
if
they
have
any
and
then
should.
We
include
in
here
like
next
steps
with
this.
E
E
Can
you
know
friendly
lend
if
you
want
that
we
go
ahead
and
esa
take
the
input
they
received
from
our
discussion
today
make
the
appropriate
updates,
with
any
final
review,
to
be
done
with
the
chair,
chair
matacek,
with
the
intent
of
producing
a
document
that
can
be
brought
to
the
next
round
table
with
then
the
round
table
you
know,
authorized
the
authority
approved
the
document
and
the
authority
to
start
getting
it
sent
out
and
used
with
all
the
appropriate
agencies.
B
Thanks
so
we
have
a
motion
by
committee
member
hendricks,
a
second
by
committee,
member
watanabe
and,
let's
see
we'll,
do
a
roll
call
vote
unless
anybody
has
any
further
comments
on
that.
B
I'm
good
with
the
motion
so
committee
member
hendricks.
E
F
B
And
I
also
vote
I
awesome
so
that
passes
unanimously
and
yeah.
I'd
also
like
to
do
my
thanks.
I
thought
we
worked
really
well
together
on
this.
I
appreciate
everyone's
input.
I
appreciate
the
public
input.
I
especially
appreciate,
as
I
said
before,
a
lot
of
the
detail
that
came
with
the
public
input
that
if
we
have
conversations
with
our
congressional
representatives
that
we
have
more
detail
that
we
can
provide,
but
this
is
a
good
high,
higher
level
piece
to
get
the
conversation
going.
C
And
madam
chair
remember:
hendrix
mentioned
sort
of
defining
what
the
next
steps
would
be
for
at
the
full
round
table,
and
I
think
in
your
presentation
of
this
document,
the
full
round
table
you
could
lay
that
out
either
verbally
or
have
maybe
a
short
cover
than
what
that
talks
about
the
way
in
which
you'd
want
this
document
to
be
used.
B
B
Okay,
then,
we
will
close
this
item
and
we
will
move
on
to
item
five,
which
is
public
health
and
environmental
impact
of
noise
and
emissions,
and
we'll
ask
committee
member
watanabe
to
take
the
lead
on
this
discussion
since
she
prepared
the
next
rev.
F
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
chair
matacek
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
re
to
do
a
second
draft
of
of
this
paper.
I
apprecia.
I
appreciate
the
input
that
was
received
from
members
of
the
public
and
I
have
to
chime
in
as
well
and
just
talk
and
reiterate
what
a
phenomenal
and
detailed
memorandums
and
emails
that
were
submitted.
F
F
F
While
she
was
talking
earlier
reminded
me
about
this
particular
a
community
group
or
that
could
possibly
be
used
to
work
with
the
faa
and
that's
something
it
was
actually
brought
up
by
robert
holbrook
in
the
memorandum
that
he
submitted
and
the
s
it's
called
the
center
for
excellence
for
public
health
and
welfare
and
when
jennifer
from
sunnyvale
talked
about
having
another
group
that
could
be
separate
from
the
faa
that
could
work
on
community
engagement
and
and
collect
information
to
establish.
F
Well.
In
this
case,
she
was
talking
about
effective
metrics,
but
at
the
same
time,
the
way
that
mr
holbrook
submitted.
The
recommendation
was
that
the
center
for
excellence
would
collaborate
on
an
annual
basis
on
the
progress
of
the
faa
toward
relieving
and
protecting
public
health
and
welfare
from
airport
noise
and
sonic
boom
to
help
ensure
that
the
faa
understands
the
continuing
interest
of
congress
in
the
faa's
execution
of
this
duty.
So
when
so,
I
thought
that
you
know
an
organization
like
that.
F
Maybe
would
be
what
what
jennifer
from
sunnyvale
was
talking
about.
So
anyway,
I'm
just
going
to
sub.
You
know
I'm
happy
to
take
your
comments.
I
just
want
to
say
that
thank
you
to
darlene
gapley
for
the
memorandum
that
she
prepared
and
includes
a
lot
of
the
bills
that
have
been
introduced
into
con
by
congress
regarding
airport
noise
and,
of
course,
robert
holbrook
and
finally
jennifer
landisman
again.
The
the
memorandums
and
information
that
you
prepare
are
really.
F
They
are
phenomenal
and
very
detailed
and
very,
very
helpful.
So
that's
all
I'm
going
to
say
and
I'm
happy
to
take
your
comments
or
thoughts.
B
Great,
thank
you
so
we'll
have
the
committee
ask
questions
or
provide
some
comments,
initial
comments
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
public
input.
Mr
hendrix.
E
Yeah,
I'm
just
going
to
go
right
to
the
recommendations,
piece
and
just
a
couple
thoughts
on
some
of
the
bullets,
so
the
first
bullet
says
here.
Looking
at
legislation
for
local
state
and
federal,
I
thought
we
were
really
just
looking
at
federal
legislation.
E
I
don't
really
know
what
our
local
or
state
regulations
are
impacting
the
big
faa
issues
that
we
have
on
bullet
number.
Two,
that's
great!
If
somebody's
going
to
go
ahead
and
pay
for
airport
noise
monitors,
I
do
not
think
the
roundtable
should
be
involved
in
getting
them.
That
seems
to
me
a
better
job
for
our
city
managers
to
go
ahead
and
deal
with.
You
know,
there's
a
separate
issue.
E
E
And
then
maybe
the
last
bullet
here
it
says
this
could
be
further
driven
home.
Should
a
subcommittee,
I
think,
if
that's
what
we
say,
we
should
recommend
that
the
quiet
skies
caucus
have
the
center
of
excellence
subcommittee.
I'm
you
know
it's
it's
either.
Let's
tell
them
to
do
it
or
we
shouldn't
address
it.
I
mean
saying
that
if
they
should
decide,
that's
just
I
don't
think
that's
really
making
anything
so
I'd
rather
just
change
that
to
a
definitive
statement
that
says
and
make
it
as
a
record
a
specific
recommendation
for
them
to
go.
F
No
good
thoughts,
I
appreciate
yeah.
I
let
me
see
regarding
the
first
bullet
point,
I
can
understand
why
you
would
want
to
just
recommend
that
it
proposed
legislation
would
be
done
at
the
federal
level
because
it
is
more
so
at
the
federal
level
that
issues
like
that
are
addressed,
so
I'm
happy
to
remove
local
and
state
and
regarding
the
airport,
monitors
the
reason
I
put
that
in
there-
and
I
I
agree-
it's
usually
the
city
managers
that
work
on
those
issues.
F
I
know
deanna
has
done
it
for
us
and
probably
for
you
when
in
sunnyvale,
but
at
the
same
time
I
the
reason
I
left
as
the
round
table
is
because
we,
as
representatives
or
of
the
round
table,
have
that
knowledge
and
to
be
able
to
work
with
the
city
manager.
So
I
don't.
Maybe
it
could
be
written
another
way
that
individual
members
of
the
scsc
could
be
instrumental
in
securing
or
are
assisting
to
secure
permanent
monitors
for
our
communities.
F
It
could
be
rewarded,
but
I
I
think
that
we,
as
representatives
do
have.
They
have
knowledge
that
would
be
helpful
in
the
city
to
city
managers
in
uploading.
E
F
E
In
it,
and
as
a
matter
of
fact,
you
don't
want,
they
didn't
want
to
hear
what
I
had
to
say
about
where
they
should
go,
and
you
know
all
that
kind
of
stuff
like
that.
Let
the
experts
actually
figure
out
the
right
thing
to
go
ahead
and
do.
But
the
thing
I'm
mostly
worried
about
is
that
we
would
try
and
use
any
amount
of
our
limited
budget
for
the
santa
clara
santa
cruz
round
table
on
anything
about
this.
That
this
is
not
not
the
right.
E
There's
gonna
be
a
whole
other
discussion
that
we're
you
know
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
our
overall
governance
and
everything
else
and
us
spending
any
of
our
time
to
go
ahead
and
do
that.
I
think,
is
the
wrong
direction
for
the
roundtable
to
go.
F
Okay,
I
understand,
I
understand
your
concern
with
the
budget
because
yeah
there
we
do
have
a
an
issue
to
be
concerned
about
there,
but
I
will
say
that
when
we
recently
installed
new
monitors
in
santa
clara,
for
instance,
it
was
because
of
my
working
in
the
community
and
finding
out
where
the
issues
were
and
addressing
it
with
the
staff
that
they
took
my
recommendation
actually
and
where
I
asked
them
to
put
it
and
but
I'm
sure
they
brought
out
the
experts
as
well
before
they
did
it.
F
But
at
the
same
time
they
listened
to
me.
So
that's
why
I
felt
that
we,
as
the
roundtable
representatives,
could
have
an
impact,
not
not
it's
not
taking
to
take
away
from
the
round
table.
But
we
as
individuals
based
on
our
rep
representation
on
the
round
table,
then
take
that
communication,
then
to
our
city
manager
and
and
recommendations
and
and
knowledge.
F
So
I
mean,
if
there's
a
way
to
reword
it
that
would
make
it
better.
Then
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
but
I
really,
I
feel
like
we
as
individuals,
do
offer
a
benefit
to
our
our
city
managers,
based
on
the
the
work
that
we're
doing
on
this
round
table.
E
Are
gonna
you
know,
so
it's
what
you're
really
talking
about
is
a
a
engaged
active
council
member
in
a
particular
city
that
wants
to
go
ahead
and
do
something
right.
But
if
you
reword
it
somehow
that
and
and
right
now
we
don't
even
have
council
members
from
all
the
cities
in
the
county.
F
You're
you're
absolutely
right.
I
I
understand
that
and
but
at
this
yeah,
but
at
the
same
time
I
feel
like,
like
lisa
matacek,
for
instance,
I
mean
you
know,
and
you
glenn
you
both
you
know,
bring
so
much
to
the
table,
but
you
still
you
offer
so
much
to
your
community
and
to
your
city
managers
based
on
all
the
work
that
you've
done
and
on
and
the
round
table
and
over
the
years
of
learning,
all
of
them.
So
so
that's
why
I
felt
like
this.
F
Exactly
okay,
thank
you
and
then
for
the
last
bullet
that
you
mentioned
about
the
the
quiet
skies
causes
caucus
and
a
subcommittee.
F
F
And
the
administrator
to
discuss
the
report,
so
I
think
that's
a
very
good.
B
Suggestion
thanks
looks
like
no
more
comments,
plain,
okay,
so
a
couple
of
comments
at
this
point.
I
thought
this
you
know
was
a
great
evolution
of
this.
B
So
thanks
kathy
for
doing
this,
I
I
felt
like
there
was
some
overlap
with
the
other
topic
in
here,
and
so
I
was
looking
for
and
this
to
focus
more
on
the
health
and
environmental
impacts
of
the
of
airplane
noise,
and
so
like
there's
some
things
in
here
that
are
very
similar
to
what's
in
the
other
paper
and
again,
I
guess
my
comment
about
the
other
topic.
B
When
I
said
I
wanted
to
jump
out
at
people
that
there
are
health
issues
associated
with
airplane
noise
and
environmental
issues
associated
with
airplane
noise.
So
yes,
it's
coming
from
the
airplanes
and
the
airplane
noise.
But
the
real
topic
here
is:
there's
an
impact
on
that
on
health
of
people,
people
on
the
ground,
so
I
felt
like
I
wanted
that
to
jump
out
more
throughout
this
and
kind
of
I
wouldn't
say
down
play,
but
just
have
as
the
cause.
Basically
the
airplanes.
B
I
appreciated
all
the
input
that
we
got
and
from
the
public
as
well
as
that.
You
cited
last
time
kathy
about
the
studies
that
are
going
on
and
there's
a
little
of
that
in
here.
But
for
me
I
felt
like
I
wanted
a
little
bit
more
and
I
think
it's
to
I
was
thinking.
B
I
was
wanting
that
to
really
show
sort
of
the
magnitude
of
the
issue
and
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
different
groups
are
looking
at
this.
It's
not
something
that
should
be
taken
lightly
and
indeed
a
lot
of
people
are
looking
at
it,
and
so
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
to
have
a
little
bit
more
of
that
in
there,
so
that
the
issue
really
grabs
you
to
say
wow.
This
is
a
huge
problem
and
then
the
recommendations.
B
I
do
see
this
one
as
being
different
in
a
way
than
the
previous
topic
on
noise,
because
you
know
we
are.
There
are
some
things
that
are
in
the
works
and
and
there's
other
things
that
can
be
done.
I
appreciated
all
of
the
comments
that
we
got
from
the
public
about
specific
bills
that
we
should
follow
up
on,
and
you
know
now
is
might
be
the
time
now
that
we're
past
the
election,
oh,
but
we
still
have
a
lot
of
copic
related
stuff
that
we're
working
on.
B
So
maybe
it
isn't
the
right
time,
but
you
know
to
list
those
out.
I
thought
might
be
helpful.
The
ones
we
really
want
to
focus
on
and
the
studies
that
we
really
want.
The
results
of
that
would
potentially
drive
other
bills
that
might
be
introduced.
F
I
I
respect
your
opinion
lisa
so,
but
I
again,
you
know
based
I
I
know
when
I
initially
put
it
together.
F
I
was
using
you
know,
glenn's
as
a
model,
and
I
mean
I
understand
wanting
to
list
out
the
bills
and
and
studies
that
you
want
to
get
results
from
I
mean
I
I
didn't
know
how
big
we
wanted
this
document
to
be
so
I'm
if
you
want
to,
if
you
know,
as
the
chair
and
and
what
you
foresee
as
this
looking
like
I'm
happy
to
go
back
and
and
pull
out,
I
mean
it
was
invaluable
information
again
that
darlene
and
robert
you
know
included
in
their
memorandums.
F
That
I
think,
would
be
very
appropriate
to
to
add
to
this
along
to
this.
As
long
as
you
know,
that's
what
you
viet
you
would
like
to
see
and
to
be
able
to
expand
on.
You
know,
what's
already
been
done,.
B
So
I
don't
want
to
make
this
incredibly
long.
I
think
the
length
of
the
noise
metrics
paper
is
about
right,
and
so
I
think
this
could
be
a
little
bit
longer,
but
I
wouldn't
add
you
know
five
more
pages.
I
think
you
know
three
three
pages
is
pretty
good.
B
Okay,
any
other
comments
on
this
one
before
I
open
up
to
the
public.
Okay,
so
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
public
now.
So,
if
you
all
would
raise
your
blue
hands
and
we'll
have
three
minutes
of
and
we
will
start
with
whoops,
I
just
lost
my
list
regio.
J
J
So,
after
reading
the
document,
it
seemed
that
there
were
two
major
issues
that
you
listed.
One
was
the
health
impacts
of
noise
and
emissions,
and
that
includes
the
ultrafine
particulates
and
the
second
one
is
the
consideration
and
disclosure
of
community
impacts
in
the
faa
environmental
review
process.
J
J
This
is
not
easy,
so
seeking
help
thinking
through
this
with
esa's
help
and
congressional
staff.
Help
is
also
important,
and
the
other
suggestion
I
have
is
on
the
collect
the
noise
measurements
at
home
using
new
metrics
yeah
that
should
be
covered
under
the
noise
metric
documents
to
go
back
to
you
know
narrowing
your
charter
here.
So
my
overall
suggestion
in
summary,
are
one
to
cover
the
health
impact
separately
from
the
fa.
J
Er
process
the
environmental
review
process
and
then
for
each
of
these
two
topics
then
follow
a
document
structure,
that's
similar
to
the
noise
metrics
and
identify
some
specific
legislation.
That's
really
worth
considering
and
by
the
way
the
twg,
the
technical
working
group
started
to
work
on
the
efa
environmental
review
process.
J
D
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
kathy
for
preparing
this
document
and
for
considering
our
input.
I
was
happy
to
see
the
suggestion
for
the
center
of
excellence
for
public
health
and
welfare
if
congress,
if
this
is
carried
forward
and
congress,
does
show
interest
in
going
down
this
path,
I
think
we'd
have
some
more
specific
guidance
for
them,
about
which
organizations
we'd
like
to
see
the
coe
work
with.
Maybe
I
should
say,
suggestions
rather
than
guidance
like
the
national
academies
of
science
engineering,
medicine,
but
that's
for
the
future.
D
The
one
statement
that
I
take
issue
with
that
is
in
the
document
is
the
sentence.
The
scsc
roundtable
agrees
that
safety
of
air
travel
is
paramount.
I
I
respectfully
suggest
that
this
is
too
strong.
It
means
that
residents
would
have
to
shoulder
the
most
burdensome
of
increases
in
noise
for
even
the
most
trivial
improvements
to
safety.
D
D
Unfortunately,
for
pbn
current
law
makes
the
test
absolute
and
unwinding.
This
is
going
to
require
rolling
back
an
amendment
that
was
successfully
attached
to
the
2018
faa
reauthorization
bill
by
that
was
originally
introduced
by
the
white
hou.
What's
now
the
white
house
chief
of
staff
mark
meadows,
I
believe
that
our
roundtable
should
give
itself
the
flexibility
to
question
this
policy
and
perhaps
advocate
for
a
softer
version
of
it.
So
I'd
ask
that
the
sentence
that
I
quoted
be
softened
so
that
the
test
is
not
absolute.
Thank
you.
I
I'm
so
sorry
I
was
freaking
and
I
didn't
know
I
had
not
had
muted.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
kathy
for
this.
This
is
the
first
time
that
I
have
seen
such
a
detailed
document
come
from
a
round
table
with
with
ideas
and
discussion
on
this
whole.
I
This
whole
big,
big
topic,
I'm
going
to
put
a
plug
here
for
february
23rd
to
the
26th,
which
is
the
uc
davis,
aviation
noise
and
emissions
symposium,
where
we're
going
to
have
a
session
on
health
and
we're
going
to
have
a
session
on
metrics
and
as
the
chair
mentioned,
there's
there's
just
a
lot
of
overlap
with
that.
I
I
So
you
know
that's
why
metrics
matters
right
and
we're
gonna
have
a
speaker,
I'm
hoping
and
I'm
kind
of
probably
divulging
more
information
now
than
I
should,
because
everything
is
still
being
planned
at
the
symposium,
but
but
to
you
know,
see
how
other
countries
approach
this
topic
of
metrics
and
health
and-
and
there
were
so
many
good
ideas
you
know
in
in
the
other
section
about
metrics.
I
How
do
others
do
this,
and
so
people
have
have
a
lot
of
different
models,
so
I
just
thought
that
maybe
I
don't
know
when
this
is
supposed
to
be
published,
but
if
you
might
want
to
use
some
of
that
information
going
forward,
you
know
if
I
don't
know
when
this
is
going
to
be
published,
but
you're
going
to
have
a
lot
more
information
at
that
time.
I
But
I
want
to
urge
again
that
for
current
projects,
thank
you
steve
for
pointing
out
how
one
should
go
about
asking
for
supplemental
metrics,
because
you
know:
wouldn't
people
want
to
know
if
your
statistics
can
change
radically
with
a
project
and
have
some
metrics
and
supplemental
metrics,
for
example,
to
understand
what
your
risks
are.
Let's
say
if
you're
going
to
have
many
more
events
at
night
from
a
new
procedure
and
so
forth.
I
I
just
feel
that,
while
the
slower
wheels
are
churning
to
do
a
very
big
change
in
in
national
policy
that
for
the
current
projects,
we
would
you
know
it's
really
literally.
Just
ask
please
ask:
who
is
the
environmental
protection
specialist
for
the
g
best
project
and
propose
some
metrics,
and
that's
why
we
have
put
forward
that
document
and
I
would
encourage
you
know
to
have
a
meeting
to
see
what
you
could
ask
for.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
very
much
kathy
for
reading
our
documents.
I
just
want
to
say
that
marie
jo
was
my
collaborator
in
the
document
that
was
submitted.
I
wanted
to
build
on
a
few
comments
that
marie
jo
said,
which
is
what
really
stood
out
for
me,
were
the
two
topics,
the
health
impacts
and
the
faa
environmental
review
and
again
moving
some
of
those
noise
items
to
the
other
document,
I
think,
would
simplify
the
focus
and
I
think
glenn
and
lisa
both
mentioned
the
community
engagement
is
a
topic
that
would
go
under
the
fa
environmental
review.
K
So
I
think
that
that
that
fits
nicely.
I
think
the
two
topics
have
their
own
unique
problems:
failure
in
the
current
process,
solutions
and
recommendations.
So
again
it's
helpful
to
look
at
them
separately
for
the
center
of
excellence,
recommendation,
there's
several
items
and
I
I
was
stepping
back
to
think
about
what
are
the
challenges
we
are
really
having
with
the
faa
and
right
now.
I'm
not
sure
the
issue
is
having
a
center
not
having
a
center
there's
a
center
that
exists
under
jim
heilman.
K
That
has
noise
and
emissions
under
it
and
he
might
be
someone
that
we
have
as
a
speaker.
So
we
can
understand
his
his
remit
better,
but
getting
reports
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
problem
either
because
they
were
producing
an
annual
report
as
well
as
we've
seen
several
reports
already
in
as
a
result
of
the
2018
fa
authorization
bill.
I
think
the
the
issue
that
we've
got
to
address
is
that
the
reports
are
insufficient
and
don't
have
positive
impacts
for
the
community.
K
The
alternative
metrics
report
that
the
center
did
did
not
evaluate
alternative
metrics,
and
that
was
the
letter
in
the
last
packet
that
was
sent
out
by
esa
that
29
house
members
su
khanna,
panetta
and
spear
wrote
a
letter
about
their
disappointment
in
the
report
that
was
part
of
the
bill
and
asked
the
fa
to
revisit
it.
They
also
did
a
report
on
community
involvement
and
there
was
no
result
in
communities
being
involved
earlier
or
having
information
that
reflects
the
impacts.
K
So
again,
what
they
concluded
was
more
training
and
maybe
allowing
local
government
people
to
determine
the
number
of
meetings
for
the
community.
But
again
it
doesn't
affect
the
key
problems,
so
the
problem
we
seem
to
have
stepping
aside
from
centers
is
that
when
the
fa
is
given
a
remit
to
do
something
they
are
focused
on,
the
industry
needs
not
the
community
needs,
and
I
think
we
need
to
address.
K
H
Sorry,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
got
it
kathy.
This
was
a
great
first
draft,
but
I
had
a
little
bit
of
trouble
figuring
out
the
gold
paper.
So
if
I
was
described
all
in
20
seconds,
I
don't
think
I
could
do
that.
H
H
I
would
like
to
see
what
sort
of
goal
there
is
for
this
particular
paper,
so
we
can
kind
of
stay
on
track
on
this
and
stay
focused.
But
again
it
is
a
good
first
draft,
as
lisa
had
mentioned.
I
would
keep
it
isolated
to
help
environmental
impacts
and
not
overlap
the
two
reports
so
much,
and
I
know
that
it's
difficult.
This
is
a
difficult
paper
to
write
and
I
would
also
include
some
of
the
history
as
jennifer
landis
had
mentioned.
H
Landis
mentioned
regarding
the,
for
example,
the
study
on
today's
night
noise
and
the
impact
to
health
and
mortality,
things
that
are
good
to
put
in
this
paper.
As
kind
of
the
problem
statement,
marie
jo
mentioned,
you
know
you
want
to
have
the
problem,
two
recommendations
and
again
this
is
difficult
because
I
don't
know
where
this
paper
is
going.
It
was
very
confusing
because
I
didn't
know
where
this
paper
would
begin
and
the
other
one
would
end
regarding
the
noise
paper.
H
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention,
and
and
again
I
don't
know
where
this
paper
is
going,
but
we
might
want
to
link
somehow
with
the
epa
or
make
a
recommendation
on
how
we
might
be
able
to
link
or
make
recommendations
on
some
independent
study
that
links
to
the
epa.
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
effective
or
not,
but
I
thought
I'd
throw
that
out
there
for
you
and
the
other
thing
is
again.
H
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
initiate
a
study
through
this
or
push
forward
on
certain
legislation
and
get
into
some
of
the
specifics
on
legislation
that
may
be
already
sitting
out
there
that
we
want
to
push
forward.
But
again
this
needs
to
remain
focused
with
a
goal.
So
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
comment
on
that
again.
This
is
a
difficult
paper
to
write.
I
understand.
Thank
you.
H
B
Okay,
here's
your
comments,
glenn.
E
Yeah
so
cool,
so
so
you
know,
I
never
want
to
disagree
with.
You
know
speakers
of
the
public,
but
I'm
sorry,
robert
I'm
going
to
slightly
disagree
with
you
on
this
one,
where
you
know
your
comment
about
the
statement
that
eric
safety
of
air
travel
is
paramount,
and
I
actually
agree
with
that.
E
I
think
you
you
didn't
read
the
whole
rest
of
the
thing
that
talked
about
process
should
be
amended
to
ensure
that
the
impact
of
aircraft
noise
on
people
and
noise
sensitive
resources
is
given
the
same
decision
making
weight
as
the
efficient
use
of
the
airspace
for
aircraft
operators.
That's
right,
I
think
that's
the
the
sentiment
of
what
we're
trying
to
get
to
is.
We
need
there
needs
to
be
a
change
in
what
they
do,
but
I
don't
know
about
you,
but
me
personally,
I
want
air
travel
safe.
E
You
know
they
just
put
you
know:
737
maxes
back
in
the
sky
and
that
took
two
years
so
you
know,
I
think
they
did
focus
on
safety
and
I'm
okay
with
that.
E
Some
of
the
other
comments
that
people
had
a
little
bit
of
it
is
I'm
hoping
that
congress
is
going
to
be
able
to
act
differently
in
the
next
four
years
than
it
has
the
last
four
years
and
that
you
know
some
of
the
the
things
that
were
mentioned
is
congress,
needs
to
get
on
board
and
be
doing
a
little
bit
more
follow-up
to
the
direction
they're
giving
to
the
faa
or
whatever
federal
agency,
that
it
is
that
they're
giving
direction
to,
and
I'm
kind
of
hoping
some
of
these
things
that
maybe
the
congressional
offices
are
going
to
be
able
to
do
a
little
bit
more
if
they
give
clear
direction
to
the
faa,
for
example,
and
then,
if
the
faa
is
not
doing
it,
then
the
the
congress
has
the
ability
to
follow
up
and
go
time
out
guys
here.
E
This
is
really
not
the
direction
of
what
we
wanted.
So
some
of
the
comments
that
people
were
making
about
what
we
could
or
couldn't
do
or
suggest
or
not.
I
think
we
need
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
about,
what's
going
to
happen
with
congress
and
how
it's
going
to
be
able
to
go
back
to.
I
hesitate
to
use
the
word,
but
a
little
bit
more
of
their
normal
type
operation
for
how
they
normally
do
things,
and
those
are
all
my
thoughts.
F
Thanks
kathy,
okay,
thank
you!
So
yeah.
I
agree
with
what
you
just
said:
glenn
number
one
about
this:
the
sentence
that
mr
holbrook
had
a
concern
about
that
about
the
sec
agrees
and
about
the
flex
about
the
roundtable
being
flexible.
I
I
actually
took
that
statement
from
one
of
our
roundtable
documents
so,
and
I
can't
put
my
finger
on
it
right
now,
but
I
know
I
took
that
statement
from
a
roundtable
document
so
anyway.
F
The
other
thing
I
agree
about
yeah
congress
and
and
faa,
and
and
that's
why,
like
I'm
happy
about
like
pete
butterjudge
being
appointed
as
transportation
secretary
and
like
I
was
saying,
hopefully
some
members
of
the
faa
that
left
will
come
back
and
and
things
will
start
start
working
again
and
we'll
have
more
input.
Let's
see.
Regarding
some
of
the
other
comments,
jennifer
landisman,
thank
you
for
bringing
about
up
about
the
a
a
symposium,
the
a
e
symposium.
F
I
actually
got
information
about
it
the
other
day
and
I'm
having
our
staff
look
into
it.
So
I'm
planning
to
attend
it
and
and
get
some
more
information
and
I'm
glad
you
brought
up
about
health
because
I
know
at
the
last
symposium
there
was
a
topic
regarding
health
and
I
was
so
excited
and
I
attended
it
and
it
was
turned
out
not
to
be
anything
like
what
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
so
it
frankly
it
wasn't.
F
I
didn't
find
it
beneficial,
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
there's
another
health
topic
in
this
next,
a
e
symposium.
Let
me
see,
I
think
it
was
darlene
darlene
always
has
great
comments.
Thank
you
so
much
darlene
and
I
wanted
to
just
ask
I
know:
darlene-
had
made
a
comment
about
steve,
putting
the
paper
into
a
format
similar
to
the
noise
paper
that
glenn
had
put
together.
My
concern
is
well,
I
think
steve
is
retiring.
F
This
friday
and-
and
I
don't
know
if
he's
gonna
be
around
to
do
something
like
that
so
or
maybe
if
chris
will
be
taking
over
those
duties
or
what,
but
but
anyway
I
I
that
was
my
question
regarding
that,
and
I
mean
I
I
appreciate
all
all
of
the
comments
and
I've
written
everything
down
again
and
who
said
what
and
and
actually
I
if,
if
some
of
you
don't
mind,
I
might
just
give
you
a
call
to
just
make
sure
I
understand
exactly
your
comments
to
make
sure
I
incorporate
because,
like
I
said,
you
all
have
a
lot
of
great
knowledge
and
that
I
really
appreciate-
and
that's
phenomenal
and
I'd
like
to
talk
to
you
some
more
and
so
we
get
this
paper
right
and
for
distribution.
F
So
that's
all.
I
have
thanks.
C
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
mention
to
respond
to
kathy
just
to
clarify
in
terms
of
my
ongoing
role.
So,
yes,
I
am
retiring
from
esa
at
the
on
december
31st.
However,
my
last
day
in
the
office
this
office
here
in
my
home,
will
be
this
friday.
However,
esa
has
offered
the
santa
clara
cities.
C
Association
has
accepted
that
if
my
help
is
needed,
I
would
be
available
on
an
independent
contractor
basis,
so
that
chris
and
evan
could
you
know,
use
me
as
a
resource
as
needed,
so
don't
be
concerned
about
me
not
being
available.
I
I
will
be
around,
and
certainly
esa
can
use
me
as
needed.
The
primary
changes
I'm
going
to
try
to
limit
my
hours
working
hours
to
be
tuesday
through
thursday,
but
we'll
see
how
that
goes.
B
Words
steve,
so
I
guess
I
you
know,
as
we
heard
the
comments
from
the
public,
it
really
hit
home
to
me
how
different
this
topic
is
than
noise
metrics,
and
it
is
much
more
challenging
to
put
together
a
piece
that
we
can
use
on
a
difficult
topic.
So
I
appreciate
your
work
on
this
kathy.
You've
got
a
challenge
here.
B
I
I
do
think
it's
important
to
separate
out
the
health
and
environmental
impacts
from
the
noise
metrics.
So
I
agree
with
the
public
comments
on
that
and
I
kind
of
feel
like
we're
on
this
paper.
It's
a
little
bit
different
that
I
feel
like
we
need
one
more
round
of
this.
If
others
do
to
come
back
to
the
pledge
committee.
Okay,
before
it
goes
to
the
round
table,
we've
got
the
other
one
we
can
take
there,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
kathy.
B
If
you're
going
to
do
another
round
or
if
you're
in
work
or,
if
esa's
going
to
do
the
next
round
or
do
you
want
to
work
together
on
it?
What's
the
best
approach,
I
I
kind
of
leave
it
up
to
you
all
to
figure
that
out.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
the
budget
for
esa
to
work
on
it.
So
I'd
look
to
asa
to
let
us
know.
F
Yeah
yeah,
I
you
know,
I
heard
you
know
glenn's
comment
earlier
about.
F
You
know
concerns
about
the
budget
and
I
know
we've
had
that
discussion
as
a
roundtable,
so
I
I
totally
understand
but
but
I
I
like,
I
said
I
appreciate
you
know
all
the
input
and-
and
I
think
you
know-
by
focusing
on
health
and
environmental
impacts-
and
I
know
there's
been
some
great
information
shared
by
members
of
the
public
that
I'm
happy
to
take
another
stab
at
it,
and
just
so
jennifer
from
sunnyvale
knows
this
is
this:
is
the
second
draft
not
the
first
one
and
and
I'm
happy
to
take
another
stab
at
it
now?
B
I
would
say
we
would
at
the
next
ledge
committee
meeting,
because
we'd
have
to
review
it
before
we
would
suggest
it
going
to
the
full
round
table.
B
We
don't
have
that
scheduled
yet,
but
I
believe
the
plan
is
that,
let's
see
the
round
table
meets
in
january
and
then
the
ledge
committee
and
the
technical
working
group
could
have
meetings
in
february
and
march.
Is
that
right
and
then
the
round
table
in
april?
B
So
we
would
shoot
to
have
another
alleged
committee
meeting
in
february
or
march
to
then
take
it
to
the
round
table
in
april.
C
Man,
I'm
sure
I
would
just
add.
You
know
this
type
of
work
that
we're
doing
on
these
position
papers.
It's
not
a
heavy
lift
for
us.
We,
we
don't
spend
a
huge
amount
of
hours
on
it.
So
I
would
suggest
that
you
know
kathy
should
certainly
take
advantage
of
our
expertise
and
help,
and
maybe
the
appropriate
way
to
proceed
is
have
kathy.
C
Do
this
next
rewrite
draft
and
then
run
it
by
us
to
take
a
look
at
it,
and
certainly
we
could
easily
reformat
it
as
well
to
be
consistent
with
the
noise
metrics
position
paper.
B
That
sounds
good
to
me
and
I
don't
think
we
need
a
motion
on
that
because
it's
just
doing
the
next
round.
Okay,
okay,
any
other
comments
on
this
topic.
B
I
don't
see
any
blue
hands:
okay,
gosh
we're
gonna
end
early.
B
So
thanks.
Everyone
glenn.
G
E
I'm
not
stealing
your
thunder,
but
I
just
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
say.
Thank
you
to
steve.
You
know.
We've
been
working
here
on
this
stuff
for
a
couple
years
now
it's
a
little
bit
different
when
it's
online
like
this
and
stuff,
but
I've
always
appreciated
your
thoughts
and
comments.
The
the
input
from
your
team
and
stuff
of
what's
going
on,
you
know
best
wishes.
E
You
know
you
know
following
wins
or
whatever
the
the
saying
is
and
stuff
like
that,
and
you
know
all
the
best
in
whatever
you're
going
to
go.
Do
next
in
your
life
so
but.
C
I
am
moderating
a
panel
at
the
symposium
on
aircraft
operations
and
similar
to
the
ones
that
we
had
last
year,
where
there
were
several
airline
representatives,
we'll
have
a
couple
airlines
and
we'll
also
have
an
irocargo
representative,
which
of
course,
air
cargo
is
playing
a
tremendous
role
in
getting
the
coveted
vaccine
out
to
the
various
communities.
So
I
will
be
some
discussion
of
that
and
I
did
want
to
put
in
a
plug,
as
jennifer
did,
if
you've
not
seen
the
announcement
for
it.
C
Ask
jennifer
she's
on
the
program
committee
or
ask
me
or
take
a
look
online.
The
beauty
of
this
year
is
that
it's
a
virtual
symposium.
So
you
know
don't
have
to
fly
to
some
location,
it's
a
very
condensed
amount
of
time
and
you
can
pick
and
choose
which
sessions
you
want
to
be
involved
with
and
as
always
the
there's
a
great
program
that's
been
put
together
on
it,
and
also
I
have
the
floor,
see
lisa
thought
we're
going
to
end
on
time.
C
That's
not
going
to
happen
is
that
I
I
do
want
to
make
a
plug.
One
of
our
committee.
Members
alluded
to
it
earlier
that
chris
sequeira
gave
an
excellent
presentation
on
the
fa's
nepa
process
at
yesterday's
technical
working
group.
C
That,
of
course,
was
recorded,
and
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
the
individual
alleged
committee
members
to
take
a
look
at
that
on
their
own
time
and
kind
of
build
up
their
background
on
it,
because
it
is
true
that
at
some
point
in
time
you
might
be
handed
something
from
the
technical
working
group
to
take
a
look
at
improving
the
faa's
neva
process.
So
just
a
suggestion.
B
C
B
Yeah,
so,
okay,
I
think
that's
it
for
today.
So
thanks
everyone.
I
appreciate
it
and
we
will
circle
back
with
a
meeting
date
for
the
next
one
and
yeah
hap.
Let's
hope
for
a
happy
new
year
in
21.