Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto Airplane Noise

Original post made by Catherine, Downtown North, on Apr 27, 2014

The deadline for submittal of public comment for the Environmental Assessment report for FAA actions has been extended to May 4, 2014. Here is the link

Web Link

Comments (71)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 11:39 am

Palo Alto City Council to discuss aircraft noise tonight (4/29/14)

From the PACC agenda:

"Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding City of Palo Alto
Response to the FAA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Regarding the
Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the
Metroplex (NorCal OAPM)"

The City Council meeting will start at 7:00, but the agenda item above will probably not be discussed until sometime after 8:00. City Council will allow comments of up to three minutes from the public before the agenda item is discussed.

PACC Agenda info: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 12:10 pm

The aircraft noise issue is item 14 on the PACC agenda. Items 12. 13, and 14 are officially listed on the agenda to be heard between 9:45 and 10:15 this evening.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 29, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Hi Jetman - thank you for the notification.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Resident 1,

Please pass the info on to anyone concerned about the aircraft noise issue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shut down SFO
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2014 at 2:07 pm

[Post removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm

Make no mistake about it. Other communities nearby work actively at lessening airplane noise over their territories (eg Atherton with Surf Air, Woodside with SFO). They have been partly successful at getting flight paths modified which has resulted in an increase in noise over PA and could result in further such increases if we don't do anything about it.

Please, consider attending the meeting of PACC tonight to register your concerns with our city council.

We are a group of PA citizens concerned about airplane noise over our city and nearby towns such as EPA. Please, consider joining our group as well as attending tonight's PACC meeting. Contact us at:

veroforyou@gmail.com


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thanks for the notice
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm

Jetman,

Thank you for the notice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Dan
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm

The headline is about noise. Noise is measurable.

What are the measurements compared to other communities that deal with SFO, SJC, etc... ?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 5:02 pm

Big Dan,

SFO maintains a network of 29 automated noise monitoring station from as far north as San Francisco, and as far south as Redwood City, but SFO does not measure noise south of Redwood City.

SFO's noise monitoring system (scroll down for map): Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Tonight is everybody's chance to go address the Palo Alto City Council about airplane noise in PA as it will be discussing the recent FAA report. See the details given above by Jetman. Thanks Jetman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 29, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

There are only two sources of COMPARATIVE data regarding aircraft noise over Palo Alto vs other cities closer to SFO.

1 – Noise complaints - in March 2014 Palo Alto residents made only 2 SFO noise complaints out of 929 total complaints that month.

2 – The NorCal OAPM EA report:

Web Link

This report include a ground level noise map based on actual airplanes flights over 350 days.The data use was from 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports for the 2011 calendar year for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.

Web Link

These ground level noise patterns are based on
""A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website"

The data in 2011 was based on 690,384 flights and the 2014 forecast was for 826,187 flights which is a 20% increase over 2011 flight levels. And for 2019 it forecasted 900,324 flights which is a 30% increase over 2011 flight levels. 

In neither case would the Proposed Action, when compared with the No Action Alternative, result in changes in aircraft noise exposure in 2014 or 2019 that would exceed FAA's significance threshold.


There is NO data to suggest that Palo Alto residents are impacted more than any other city between Palo Alto and SFO. This is not to say that a very small number of PA residents are truly bothered by airplane noise, but that is not what is being claimed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thanks for the notice
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Peter,

As you have asserted before, noise complaints do not correlate with actual noise. Makes sense.

That means that people who are sensitive to noise are not a measure of noise either.

We agree that there is no noise data for Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2014 at 6:01 pm

History of the Observer Corp during the Battle of Britain...

The Observers on the ground used whatever devices they could find, to estimate the height at which Luftwaffe formations flew and their bearing. Numbers and types of aircraft were also relayed back to a Group Headquarters. In these headquarters a 'picture' of what was developing was created and that information was sent to RAF sector, Group and Command Operations rooms.

"Arguably the most valuable of the voluntary services during the Battle of Britain was the Observer Corps." (Jon Lake)

Full story: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Catherine
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2014 at 11:04 pm

I sure wish I knew about this meeting. Will there be another?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Catherine
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2014 at 11:25 pm

Can anyone tell me what happened at the meeting?

I have been researching and visiting the SJ WebTrak daily and can clearly see the disproportionate amount of planes flying over Palo Alto compared to other nearby cities. Not only do they loop over Palo Alto and head back north to SFO, they also come over Palo Alto from Southern California one right after the other. On 4/28, 21 planes passed over my home between 6pm and 7pm. You can see for yourself on the tracker.

Peter - Not many planes fly over your Lindenwood neighborhood, and if they do they are usually at a higher altitude while they pass over Atherton and then loop at a lower altitude over Palo Alto. As for complaints from Palo Alto residents, they are on the rise!

I invite all residents of Palo Alto to watch this tracker and see for themselves how many planes pass over our city daily. My area of Downtown North gets a heavy dose, but all of Palo Alto gets more than its fair share.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 9:49 am

I attended the meeting which did not get to THE TOPIC until midnight - at which point I was fading. However had a side bar with E. R. Ganoung, SFO Manger of Noise Abatement and Andrew Swanson, PA Airport Manager before they got to the topic, and a follow-up email this morning that Santa Clara County will get a place at the SFO Roundtable. It will be a Palo Alto resident.
I also forwarded to them my input to the FAA as a result of attendance at the meeting in San Mateo. I will do a follow-up on that submission as a result of discussions. It was pointed out that the FAA Study had no technical conclusions as to what their plan is so that is open-ended until more technical data is available from the FAA.
I think this resulted in the on-going way forward that we are looking for.
By the time the PACC got to the topic the room was fairly cleared of attendees. The previous topics went through circuitous discussion. The winner last night was the foxes at the Baylands - a very clever U-Tube of the goings on in fox world.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 10:00 am

Catherine and Peter - the SFO Noise Abatement Office is very clear on the flight paths of the planes. They have superior equipment to what is available on your home computer. I think we have proceeded to the next steps - you probably do not need to spend huge amounts of time tracking planes or debating noise level. I think the people that have the authority to handle this issue are now handling it. This is a Palo Alto issue - or Santa Clara County issue, so arguing with residents of San Mateo county are probably not productive at this level of technical capability.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 10:15 am

The topic on the table here is that the FAA and SFO are realigning the arrival and departing flight paths of aircraft which previously was over San Mateo County and is now pushing downward over Santa Clara County.
The goal is to have planes control flight via GPS versus direct coordination with the Control Tower. The goal is also to lower the altitude the planes are flying at which is to reduce fuel costs.

You will note that planes are getting bigger, holding more passengers, so there is a re-shifting of air traffic which affects specific areas of the total flight path forward to SFO, as well as the departing flight paths.

Big Dan - Noise is an end result of the amount, duration, and level of flight traffic. PA will get more equipment for measuring noise but the first concern is the flight path. If it is not over your house than good for you. However that does not represent the experience of other residents based on where they live relative to the flight paths. If you looked at the participants at the 4 meetings the FAA put on then you can appreciate that this is a major concern fro all of the residents on the peninsula which are under the flight paths.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 30, 2014 at 10:39 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter - Not many planes fly over your Lindenwood neighborhood, and if they do they are usually at a higher altitude while they pass over Atherton and then loop at a lower altitude over Palo AltoPeter - Not many planes fly over your Lindenwood neighborhood, and if they do they are usually at a higher altitude while they pass over Atherton and then loop at a lower altitude over Palo Alto"

No, the planes that fly over my house are usually coming from Palo Alto - where they were at a higher altitude.

"They have superior equipment to what is available on your home computer. "
Wow, there is this thing called the Internet which allows people with 'home computers' to see exactly what the SFO and SJC radars see - try it, you'll clearly be amazed.

"Santa Clara County will get a place at the SFO Roundtable. It will be a Palo Alto resident."
Great - now you will see first hand what Palo Alto's COMPARATIVE noise problem really is/isn't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 11:17 am

Peter - I look at flight tracker when I need to - but also recognize that the SFO program is a commercial product that has limitations. I can see when those limitations come into play. SFO is not using this commercial tracker in the management of their control towers. Likewise I have noted that the San Jose tracker has limitations.
If you look at the listings of Arrivals you will see a very lengthy list with projected arrival times. You can click on the plane you are interested in and follow it, but the total list is not viewable on Flight tracker via airplane icons. Not does the total list show up on the San Jose tracker.
The San Jose flight tracker does not reflect the total airplane traffic at PAO.
At some point here this whole topic is like the PACC Meeting last night - people talking in circles but no real conclusion. Sorry that is not my world.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 11:21 am

The topic of this stream should be Flight Paths of SFO Air Traffic. That puts the sequence of events in the correct order.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by De'Bert
a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 30, 2014 at 12:38 pm

"The topic of this stream should be Flight Paths of SFO Air Traffic."

-- because no one has asked PAPD to do some basic sound readings with the gear already in their cars?

Argue flight paths with SFO all you want - and you'll get no where. It's noise that matters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 30, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

resident 1 - you need to study up on code sharing where ONE plane has numerous flight numbers representing a number of code sharing partners.

I challenge you to show me one plane going in SFO from the south that did NOT show up on the SJC WebTrak.

"It's noise that matters."
Yep, and Palo Alto gets less than do its more northern neighbors.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm

We were happy to see the PA City Council take up the issue of airplane noise in Palo Alto last night. Members of our group spoke and made presentations. PACC members listened carefully and asked pointed questions. It is encouraging news.

Let's keep the momentum going. Our group of concerned citizens uniting to fight airplane noise in PA, and other impacted nearby communities such as EPA, is growing. Please, join us by contacting:

veroforyou@gmail.com


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Catherine
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2014 at 3:19 pm

Great news to hear that there is a rumble (no pun intended) from the PA residents and the city council is at least becoming aware of the issue! Let's keep plugging away at this. The data is clear to me and it is so apparent that PA is taking the brunt of the flights to SFO so I do believe we have a valid concern to present. If the number of flights that cross over PA was close in number to other cities then we would not have a case. But the disproportionate number stands out like a sore thumb. Actually, my call to the SFO noise abatement office validated that. There really is no denying it because it is so obvious. I will send a copy of my EA letter to each of the council members and city manager.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 30, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Actually, my call to the SFO noise abatement office validated that."

Please share that data.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by finally an answer!
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 8:01 pm

"The data is clear to me"

You have noise data for PA and other communities? Awesome! Please share!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bette Kiernan
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Since the FAA is requesting comments on the link between aircraft noise and health, studies follow. There are more:


My Citations




























Articles


Case law


My library



Any time
Since 2014
Since 2013
Since 2010
Custom range...






Sort by relevance
Sort by date


include patents
include citations



Create alert




A review of health effects of aircraft noise*

S Morrell, R Taylor, D Lyle - … Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997 - Wiley Online Library

Abstract: Social surveys have established dose–response relationships between aircraft
noise and annoyance, with a number of psychological symptoms being positively related to
annoyance. Evidence that exposure to aircraft noise is associated with higher psychiatric ...

Cited by 97 Related articles All 5 versions Cite Save



[PDF] from cmu.edu


Physiological, motivational, and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: moving from the laboratory to the field.

S Cohen, GW Evans, DS Krantz… - American psychologist, 1980 - psycnet.apa.org

... this study is twofold, First, it is presented as evidence for relationships (or lack of relationships)
between aircraft noise exposure and ... This effect must be interpreted carefully, however, since
both the univariate and multivariate Fs were only marginally significant. Effects of Noise ...

Cited by 331 Related articles All 13 versions Cite Save



The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of the noise

RFS Job - Environment International, 1996 - Elsevier

... Fields, 1986; JM Fields; The relative effect of noise at different times of the day. ... Fields, 1992; JM
Fields; Effects of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance with special implications
for en route noise. ... Aircraft noise and psychiatric morbidity. Psychol. Med., 3 (1973), pp ...

Cited by 122 Related articles All 6 versions Cite Save



Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children

MM Haines, SA Stansfeld, RFS Job… - Psychological …, 2001 - Cambridge Univ Press

... noise exposure at school had no significant effect on child self-reported general health, headaches,
tiredness and sleeping troubles. Noise effects on cognition and performance Reading
comprehension Chronic exposure to aircraft noise had no significant effect on reading ...

Cited by 204 Related articles All 10 versions Cite Save



[PDF] from teamsofangels.org


Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross-national study

SA Stansfeld, B Berglund, C Clark, I Lopez-Barrio… - The Lancet, 2005 - Elsevier

... have been studied, but there has been less emphasis on the effects of noise. ... We identified linear
exposure-effect associations between exposure to chronic aircraft noise and impairment of ... Schools
exposed to high levels of aircraft noise are not healthy educational environments ...

Cited by 307 Related articles All 29 versions Cite Save



[HTML] from oxfordjournals.org


Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health

SA Stansfeld, MP Matheson - British Medical Bulletin, 2003 - British Council

... old airport had improvements in long-term memory, suggesting that this effect of noise ... providing
strong evidence for a causal link between noise exposure and cognitive effects. ... of studies have
identified an association between chronic exposure to aircraft noise and decreased ...

Cited by 317 Related articles All 19 versions Cite Save



[PDF] from nih.gov


Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use

EAM Franssen, C Van Wiechen… - Occupational and …, 2004 - oem.bmj.com

... To estimate how much of the prevalence of a health effect was attributable to aircraft noise,
population attributive risks (PARs) were estimated for the area with aircraft noise levels of ... The
attributable fraction was defined as the prevalence of health effects caused by aircraft noise ...

Cited by 141 Related articles All 11 versions Cite Save



The West London Schools Study: the effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health

MM Haines, SA Stansfeld, S Brentnall… - Psychological …, 2001 - Cambridge Univ Press

ABSTRACT Background. Previous field studies have indicated that children's cognitive
performance is impaired by chronic aircraft noise exposure. However, these studies have
not been of sufficient size to account adequately for the role of confounding factors. The ...

Cited by 103 Related articles All 9 versions Cite Save



V. Medical effects of aircraft noise: community cardiovascular survey

P Knipschild - … Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1977 - Springer

Summary Data of a community cardiovascular survey in the area around Schiphol airport
(Amsterdam) were related to existing aircraft noise levels. About 6,000 people (men and
women, aged 35–64 years) were screened. Afterwards the participants were divided into ...

Cited by 155 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save



[PDF] from bad-air.org


A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren

S Hygge, GW Evans, M Bullinger - Psychological Science, 2002 - pss.sagepub.com

... These longitudinal data complement nearly 20 cross-sectional stud- ies showing adverse impacts
of aircraft noise on reading in ... Moreover, these effects occur prospectively and may be reversible. ...
More work is needed to determine the sensi- tivity of this effect to the duration of ...

Cited by 218 Related articles All 25 versions Cite Save


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 8:42 pm

Bette - thank you for the input we can incorporate that into an addendum to send to the FAA. This data is also relative to the Surf Air problem since Surf Air goes down Middlefield Road to San Carlos Airport. Middlefield Road from Palo Alto to San Carlos is the vicinity of most grammar, middle, and high schools in those cities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by finally an answer!
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 30, 2014 at 8:45 pm

tl;dr

Was there anything in there about PA noise being worse than other communities?

Or do you just want to shuttle noise from your backyard to other backyards?

Got it. Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2014 at 9:44 pm

I am glad you are bringing up the issue of communities shuttling noise from their backyard to another backyard. You see, we know that Atherton has worked to alleviate its Surf Air problem by rerouting it to other communities, including Palo Alto. We also know that Woodside has worked to obtain airplane noise relief at a cost to others communities, such as Palo Alto as well. It would be so nice if South San Mateo County communities had not been working, with success, on shuttling their airplane noise to others, including Palo Alto. However, they have.

All residents concerned about airplane noise over our Palo Alto and its vicinity (such ss EPA) are invited to join our group. We are organizing and have started researching the issue of aircraft noise and flight paths over our town, we have attended FAA workshop, and we have presented to the Palo Alto City Council. There is much to do still. You are welcome to join the effort.

Please, contact us at veroforyou@gmail.com


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 1, 2014 at 7:15 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"ou see, we know that Atherton has worked to alleviate its Surf Air problem by rerouting it to other communities, including Palo Alto. "

[Portion removed.] The Atherton/SurfAir effort has been described in detail on other threads and will actually improve the noise impact in Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 1, 2014 at 8:20 am

Peter - that is the joy of the San Jose Tracking System - it tracks the Surf Air Plane. If you look at what is being said here it is that the plane uses Middlefield Road as its guide post. Middlefield Road is the general location of the grammar schools, middle schools, high schools from Palo upward through Redwood City to San Carlos. Menlo-Atherton High School is on Middlefield Road. Why that low flying plane is allowed over all of the school systems is a mystery. It belongs east of 101 over the industrial areas and Baylands. PAO has an air controller as does the San Carlos Airport so everyone who is flying in the area in small, private planes should be aware of its presence and act accordingly. It is below the commercial airline thresholds for altitude so there should be no conflict.
[Portion removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 1, 2014 at 9:18 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 1, 2014 at 9:23 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Portion removed.] Atherton and SurfAir are working with the FAA to alternate the exact path of each flight so that all the SurfAir flights do NOT follow the same track and , hopefully, to permit a steeper glide path thereby reducing ground noise - especially over PALO ALTO.
These alternate flight path are easily observable on the SJC tracker.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2014 at 9:50 am

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,

"Atherton and SurfAir are working with the FAA to alternate the exact path of each flight "

How do Atherton and Surf Air work with the FAA on flight paths?

Do they have a direct line to somebody in the flight path department?

Who calls who on these type of dealings? Are these meetings public information?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 1, 2014 at 10:03 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"How do Atherton and Surf Air work with the FAA on flight paths?"

They do something really strange - they sit down and talk with them. I realize that this is a revolutionary concept.

From the Town's web site:
Aircraft Noise
Pilatus PlaneVice Mayor DeGolia and Council Member Dobbie have been assigned as the City Council Subcommittee facilitating and assisting with neighborhood meetings in reaction to an increase in aircraft noise caused by the flight path of aircraft by Surf Air.

The neighbors have noticed an increase in noise over areas of Atherton, Redwood City, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The increased noise is mostly the result of new flights from a startup company called Surf Air that has initiated operations into and out of San Carlos Airport this past summer (2013). Surf Air has been working with the community via a Working Group to address the issue. Surf Air plans to expand its services and it is likely that there will be additional flights added to the San Carlos airport.

Residents have initiated a petition through change.org to assist with the gathering of signatures in opposition to the issue. The Working Group, including members of the community and the Council Subcommittee have met with representatives from Surf Air, San Carlos Airport, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA encouraged a formal request for a "new plane approach" to address the noise issue. The representative advised that it would be helpful to include participants from the neighboring affected jurisdictions.

On October 9 the Town assisted with a decibel reading @ 20 Holbrook Lane in Atherton. The ambient noise registered 48.5-51.5 decibels. The plane passed over at approximately 1,500 feet at 7:32 am with a decibel measure of 68-72 decibels. The Town's noise ordinance has a maximum sound level limit of 60 decibels at that time. However, recognizing that aircraft and any associated issues thereto are federally regulated, the noise ordinance provides that for aircraft, "…it shall be the policy of the town to work with nearby communities and other interested agencies to bring about a reduction of noise levels by private, military, public and commercial airplanes and helicopters."

The Subcommittee hosted a Community Meeting on December 9 to gather input on the history, the impacts, the process, and expectations. Representatives from San Carlos Airport, the FAA, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the County, and Redwood City were present. More than 100 area residents were in attendance with more than 20 speaking on their concerns as well as feedback on expectations for change. One of the commitments made by Surf Air is to institute a visual approach, weather and conditions permitting, that will allow more flexibility in approach paths as well as a mantra to "never fly over the same house more than twice in one day."

Strategic outcomes from the meeting include:

a commitment to continue Working Group meetings;
continue working with the FAA to review alternative IFR approach paths;
follow-up on a formal request to the FAA for one or more published VFR approach paths; and
work with local communities and local governments to continue to address concerns.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 1, 2014 at 11:03 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

And a later update - which was also previously posted on this Forum:

"Surf Air Meeting Update 18 Apr
David Fleck from Atherton Fair Oaks
NOTE: We will need your help, please read "Next Steps" below, if you don't want to read all the details!

Attendees
In attendance were the new VP Operations of Surf Air Jim Sullivan, and Cory Cozzens. Both Rick and Elizabeth, from Atherton Town council attended as well as various staff from San Mateo County and KSQL airport.

Meeting Notes
On Tuesday, we met with Surf Air and KSQL airport staff to continue discussions regarding the noise problem. The meeting was cordial and it gave us an opportunity to meet the new CEO of Surf Air.

We discussed past efforts for noise reduction such as varying visual approaches, dropping gear and flaps as late as possible, and implementing a permanent higher glide slope.

Visual Approaches: It was noted that the new visual approaches were helping by not concentrating the noise over the exact same neighborhoods 8 times a day. It was also suggested that the real noise test would come as residents of affected neighborhoods started to enjoy the better weather by leaving windows/patio doors open, and whether complaints would attain levels we saw during August- November last year.

Dropping Gear: We spent a lot of time discussing this and challenged Surf that not all flights were dropping gear as late as possible. It was agreed that for safety margins, gear could be dropped at about 3 miles out (from the airport). Surf will remind pilots to adhere to this when safe to do so.

Higher Glide Slope: The effort to increase the glide slope for GPS approaches continues. This requires a formal submission to the FAA and subsequent review process. The submission process will include letters from the community (see more below) to bolster the case for the higher slope. If approved, it could be implemented in about 6 months. This combined with dropping gear later could create significant positive changes in overhead noise.

Separate from above, we discussed Surf Air's expansion plans. They indicated that there are no current expansion plans other then previously announced service to Lake Tahoe. That service will begin in May and will not increase daily flights, currently at eight. Flights returning from Tahoe will use visual approaches when possible and since they will be coming over the Bay, there should be less noise impact over our neighborhoods (Bay Area traffic control may impact that).

Noise Complaints: The airport indicated that overall noise complaints are down. It appears residents are not calling in at the frequency they previously were complaining.

Next Steps
As part of the FAA submission for higher glide slope, we have been asked to supply letters from concerned residents supporting the higher glide slope. As such, we would like to coordinate efforts to have you create and send a letter, outlining your concerns about the noise, and indicating your support for the higher glide slope. We will provide a suggested template that can be used to author the letters. Details should be available next week at which time I will update everyone on how to participate. "

Note - Atherton did NOT just shove the problem off on another community!! And its solutions will benefit Palo Alto even more than they will benefit Atherton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by True Blue
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 1, 2014 at 10:37 pm

True Blue is a registered user.

>> "[Portion removed.] Atherton and SurfAir are working with the FAA to alternate the exact path of each flight so that all the SurfAir flights do NOT follow the same track and , hopefully, to permit a steeper glide path thereby reducing ground noise - especially over PALO ALTO."

"Note - Atherton did NOT just shove the problem off on another community!! And its solutions will benefit Palo Alto even more than they will benefit Atherton."

There is nothing but vague discussion, and then a summary saying Palo Alto will benefit.

Right, Atherton is working hard to reduce ground noise over (sic) Palo Alto. And I've got this great bridge for sale...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 5:20 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"There is nothing but vague discussion, and then a summary saying Palo Alto will benefit."

There is nothing vague about this statement - unless you do not understand the basic principles of aircraft noise propagation:

"Higher Glide Slope: The effort to increase the glide slope for GPS approaches continues. This requires a formal submission to the FAA and subsequent review process. The submission process will include letters from the community (see more below) to bolster the case for the higher slope. If approved, it could be implemented in about 6 months. This combined with dropping gear later could create significant positive changes in overhead noise."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 5:51 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

resident 1 states "It belongs east of 101 over the industrial areas and Baylands. "

Clearly resident does no think that anyone who counts lives in this area - known as East Palo Alto and east Menlo Park. How typical of the Palo Alto noise protestors - just shove your problem off on someone else.

And of course the editors will delete this painfully honest comment just as they did the first time it was posted above - they don't want anybody to criticize selfish acts by certain Palo Alto residents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 8:25 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Actually, my call to the SFO noise abatement office validated that."

Please share that data.

Catherine - we are still waiting for your new data.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 11:39 am

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,

The best solution would be to avoid EPA altogether and move the crossing of planes further north where you have noise abatement groups, and where people purchased properties knowing that they are close to the airport.

It's simply closer to SFO.

There is no reason why planes should be using EPA, 20 miles from SFO, as the grand central crossing of airplanes.

Take a drive from SFO and night and you see the string of planes flying low, coming from the South along the East. No planes on the West, no planes crossing near SFO.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"There is no reason why planes should be using EPA, 20 miles from SFO, as the grand central crossing of airplanes."

The reason is that these planes are all on a 3 deg glide path and that cannot be intercepted any closer to SFO except at below 4000 ft.

Steeper glide paths are uncomfortable for passengers and less safe for pilots.

Again the Palo Alto solution is to simply shove it off on someone else.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,

You up North are thee ones with the finesse about things like "3 deg glide path" what the heck is that?

We don't talk like that around here.

Please let me know what "Palo Alto" organization has any such suggestions to shove noise around. If you read these threads, it's all a bunch of questions.

You're the one with all the answers and solutions.

If and when Palo Alto becomes a know it all like you, I can only hope that we use it better than to go around accusing other communities about what they hear, or don't hear.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Please let me know what "Palo Alto" organization has any such suggestions to shove noise around."

Well this is what YOU said:


"The best solution would be to avoid EPA altogether and move the crossing of planes further north "


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,
.
I would have thought the best solution would be for planes to not make EPA the only place to cross.

You answered that the air traffic cannot leave EPA because of some 3D glide something or other.

I guess that sounds better than shoving sound 20 miles south of the airport.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,
.
I would have thought the best solution would be for planes to not make EPA the only place to cross.

You answered that the air traffic cannot leave EPA because of some 3D glide something or other.

I guess that sounds better than shoving sound 20 miles south of the airport.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Heights on the glideslope can be calculated usg "one in sixty rule" (for just approximate answers):

i.e. for a 3° glidepath, estimated height is 300 ft per mile from touchdown.

Enjoy your lack of interest in the facts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 2, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Talk about noise and confusion - I tracked a small plane last night that flew all around West Menlo, Menlo, Fair Oaks, Redwood City, East PA - then over to Portola Valley where it circled around to fly under the larger planes going to SFO. It was flying at 2100 feet. This went on for more than n hour.

It is SQL - SQL, Tail N5H1F, a C206.

I called up San Carlos Airport and talked to their security. She said that the tower closes at 9:00 PM and she was the only one there. The plane landed at 10:36 PM.
I consider that this was a major security issue as the plane was stalking the larger SFO planes and putting itself directly under them.

I will call up and report this tomorrow when they have a staff there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rick
a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm

rick is a registered user.

@Adobe Meadows, you're kidding right? Ok maybe not. I suggest phoning the San Mateo County Sheriff's office first. They own that plane.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

If you all look at the San Jose / Mineta Airport Flight Tracker it shows all of the planes in the area. Being a beautiful Saturday day there is a high number of small planes flying around the San Carlos Airport - including the East PA area. These are planes that are flying below 1,000 ft.

The concern about planes in the East PA area is a strange point since there are so many of them. And these little planes are flying over each other. Then they are dodging the regular SFO incoming planes.

The noise concern here is not necessarily SFO - it is small planes associated with the San Carlos Airport. The PAO planes seem to be over the bay.

Can we please discount any arguments about PA shoving noise into other communities since the communities in question are producing their own noise in volumes. Also a lot of very confusing flight paths that look random - a bunch of people out for a Sunday Stroll wherever it wants to go.

The question of Surf Air changing its flight path on a regular basis I think originated from comments at the Atherton Meeting - someone suggested that the helicopters make a point of not flying over the same set of houses twice. That is okay for helicopters since they are associated with news, traffic reporting, moving famous people from point A to point B - like President Clinton who landed at Moffett and helicoptered over to Stanford to see daughter. Or Stanford Hospital moving patients.

That is not the case for Surf Air - it is a scheduled airline. Going over the school systems from Mountain View through PA, Menlo, Redwood City to San Carlos during the school week when all the children are in school is not a popularity contest winner. The weekend is different - it is mayhem up in that area - East PA up to San Carlos and surrounding area. Those planes are belonging to San Carlos Airport - SQL - they will have to own the noise.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" And these little planes are flying over each other. Then they are dodging the regular SFO incoming planes. "

These planes are vertically and horizontally separated from each other by the SFO Class B airspace in which ALL of the planes that fly must be in radar and radio contact with the Bay Area air traffic controllers. Look at the altitude tags on the small planes vs those on the inbound SFO traffic to see the vertical separation data.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 3:14 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Rick - thank you for the heads up. While they - SMCS - are flying around can they do a visual check of Searsville Lake during the day? SU is very closed mouthed about the status of that lake - which at this point is filled with sludge - I am told. It would be nice to know what is going on there and if there is any water in it. That lake is a topic of a number of threads here. It is also the topic of a law suit with the government.

Peter - some planes are commercial - that is very clear. Some private planes file flight plans - that shows up in their ID's. Some are on Beacon. Some are not. The ID's provided are a mixed bag - some are just flying around for the sake of flying around. The better the weather gets the more that will just be flying around.
Do most of the people in Atherton who own plans have them at SQL?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 3, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Do most of the people in Atherton who own plans have them at SQL?"

Actually because many of them are business jets they cannot be operated out of either PAO or San Carlos and are generally based at San Jose or Hayward.

When I owned a Cessna 185 years ago I based at at Palo Alto. I no longer have a plane or fly myself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 4, 2014 at 6:17 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Wow - so business jets cannot be at SQL or PAO? Highlight that requirement!
That is a very important fact.

Surf Air is selling itself as a business jet competing with commercial airlines. The fact that people buy a share in the airline is a legal maneuver to by-pass that requirement.

And we are all suppose to bend over to allow this noisy jet to by-pass the requirements? It is the most irritating plane out there. It wants to act like a private plane and fly lower. But the choice of plane is the most irritating.

Let's work on legal concepts - not technical facts like glide-path. It is not a helicopter which we all recognize as doing "important work'.

So there are ground rules for airports and people work very hard to by-pass those ground rules.

That is a total concept and ground rule that technical facts need to support. If the FAA is working to by-pass its own ground rule then that is a topic for further discussion.

That is a topic I had a discussion on at the San Mateo meeting with the FAA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 4, 2014 at 7:10 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The business jets (pure jets) cannot be operated out of either PAO or San Carlos BECAUSE those runways are not long enough for these types of planes.

The planes used by SurfAir are turboprops and they can safely used the available field lengths at PAO and San Carlos.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2014 at 8:29 am

resident3 is a registered user.



How does a business model that requires low airspace in so many towns get to "fly"?

This hardly seems to count as "important"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 4, 2014 at 9:10 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"How does a business model that requires low airspace in so many towns get to "fly"?"

The airspace rules make no distinction between the use of a plane and its ability to use the national airspace. There are some speed restrictions at lower altitudes but those apply equally to all aircraft.

There are different safety rules regarding commercial flights and most of those have to do with having better qualified/more experienced pilots and a few to having better equipment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2014 at 9:45 am

resident3 is a registered user.




So, Surf Air does it because they can, and drones are up there because there are no rules either.







 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"So, Surf Air does it because they can," = SurfAir is complying with all of the applicable FAA rules and regulations including the higher standards set for commercial operations.

I personally do not perceive SurfAir as a noise or safety problem and they fly quite near my home many times a day.

But, as I have frequently posted, sensitive to noise in general and airplane noise in particular varies greatly between people.

As for the risks to people on the ground, those risks are too low to be even measurable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2014 at 1:21 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,

"SurfAir is complying with all of the applicable FAA rules and regulations including the higher standards set for commercial operations."

Didn't you just say there are no rules for using airspace?

"The airspace rules make no distinction between the use of a plane and its ability to use the national airspace."

It's not exactly a big hurdle to comply with no distinctions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 4, 2014 at 1:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Didn't you just say there are no rules for using airspace? " No, I did not. There are lots of rules for the airspace in question.

"It's not exactly a big hurdle to comply with no distinctions." You obviously did not read my statement "The airspace rules make no distinction between the use of a plane and its ability to use the national airspace." which does not say that there are no rules but that there is no distinction between the rules that apply for different types of airplanes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rick
a resident of Midtown
on May 5, 2014 at 9:40 am

rick is a registered user.

Sort of like saying the rules for driving down Middlefield Road are the same whether you are going to work or to grandmother's house or delivering passengers. Or by motorcycle, gasoline car, electric car, bus or truck. The license may be different but the speed limit, traffic signals, and rights of way are identical.

Sounds way too egalitarian for the 21st century.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 10, 2014 at 9:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the way that a responsible concerned citizen deal with an airplane noise problem:

"Thann McLeod
Manager, NORCAL TRACON Operations Support Group
Federal Aviation Administration
11375 Douglas Road, Room 113
Mather, California 95655


Dear Ms. McLeod,
As you know, the San Carlos Airport Staff has been working with a group of local residents and elected officials that have formed a "Working Group" to study aircraft arrivals into the San Carlos Airport. We appreciate your attendance at the Working Group meeting on January 15, 2014 and the information you provided regarding the GPS approach into the San Carlos Airport.
Residents of Atherton, North Fair Oaks, Redwood City and Menlo Park have noted a significant increase in aircraft noise associated with small aircraft using the GPS approach to San Carlos Airport, which flight path is in very close proximity to our homes. A number of local residents have expressed concern that moving the GPS approach from its current path would impact other nearby neighborhoods, so we understand that the Working Group is not currently pursuing a realignment of the GPS approach. However, the Working Group is interested in creating an additional GPS approach path that is elevated by 500 feet, resulting in a 3.77 degree approach, rather than the current 3 degree approach. Adding a higher GPS approach would result in aircraft flying 25% higher over homes in the Atherton, North Fair Oaks and Menlo Park neighborhoods. We strongly support this increase in altitude because we believe that it would greatly reduce the noise impacts to our homes.
I request your consideration of the 3.77 degree GPS approach path. I support the work of the Working Group to reduce aircraft noise over my neighborhood.
I thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely"

****************
Note the sentence :" A number of local residents have expressed concern that moving the GPS approach from its current path would impact other nearby neighborhoods, so we understand that the Working Group is not currently pursuing a realignment of the GPS approach."

Atherton's Working Group has worked with both the carrier and the FAA and has already achieved significant results without simply shoving their problem off on some other community. And the increased altitude of the glide path will mean that these planes will also be higher when they are over Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 10, 2014 at 10:56 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Peter - you have a continual theme of cities pushing noise onto other cities. As pointed out above the people who fly into the San Carlos Airport are for the most part recreational flyers who have their planes parked at SQL and spend all of their time flying around the San Mateo cities, specifically East Palo Alto, Fair Oaks, Menlo Park, Atherton, Half Moon Bay, etc. You all are going to have to own your own noise for the San Carlos flyers.

I suspect that many Atherton residents have recreational planes at SQL so that is why they fly all over San Mateo County.
When you look at the planes on the San Jose Flight Tracker they are all well under 1,000 feet. Most of the small planes have no flight plan and are flying around on beacon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 10, 2014 at 11:00 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Resident 1 - Sorry, I missed your point.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2014 at 11:34 am

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter,

What was your point, posting this letter out of the blue nearly two weeks after the last post on this thread?

You miss us?

You're very defensive. The need to point out some Atherton working group with "concern that moving the GPS approach from its current path would impact other nearby neighborhoods"

Your accusations about Palo Alto wanting to impact other neighborhoods have been so misplaced. Do you have any letters from Palo Alto to Ms. McLeod? Probably not because Palo Alto unlike Atherton has not been active for years and years on this noise issue, and stupid nice Palo Alto, we now have it all on our heads.

Good letter, nice to know that everyone wants to share the burden.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 10, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"You miss us? " Yes, as I feel that dialogue and discussion are always beneficial to better understanding.

""What was your point, posting this letter out of the blue nearly two weeks after the last post on this thread? " Because many posters on this forum have accused Atherton on forcing its air traffic away and placing it over other communities and this letter makes it clear that this is simply not true.

"You're very defensive." Well that because my position has been repeatedly attacked so a defense is quite in order.


Here is my own version of the letter which I posted today:

Peter F. Carpenter


May 10, 2014

Thann McLeod
Manager, NORCAL TRACON Operations Support Group
Federal Aviation Administration
11375 Douglas Road, Room 113
Mather, California 95655


Dear Ms. McLeod,
As you know, the San Carlos Airport Staff has been working with a group of local residents and elected officials that have formed a "Working Group" to study aircraft arrivals into the San Carlos Airport. We appreciate your attendance at the Working Group meeting on January 15, 2014 and the information you provided regarding the GPS approach into the San Carlos Airport.
Residents of Atherton, North Fair Oaks, Redwood City and Menlo Park have noted a significant increase in aircraft noise associated with small aircraft using the GPS approach to San Carlos Airport, which flight path is in very close proximity to our homes. A number of local residents have expressed concern that moving the GPS approach from its current path would impact other nearby neighborhoods, so we understand that the Working Group is not currently pursuing a realignment of the GPS approach. However, the Working Group is interested in creating an additional GPS approach path that is elevated by 500 feet, resulting in a 3.77 degree approach, rather than the current 3 degree approach. Adding a higher GPS approach would result in aircraft flying 25% higher over homes in the Atherton, North Fair Oaks and Menlo Park neighborhoods. I strongly support this increase in altitude because we believe that it would greatly reduce the noise impacts to our homes.
I request your consideration of the 3.77 degree GPS approach path. I support the work of the Working Group to reduce aircraft noise over my neighborhood. And I am particularly pleased that the Working Group did not try to simply push this problem off to our neighbors in East Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. My home is quite near the current GPS approach but I feel confident that the steeper glide slope will be a fairer and quieter outcome for all concerned
I thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,






 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

Peter Carpenter,

No Peter, you have been on the attack on this and other TS aircraft noise threads which have often been shut down by the frequent arguing on your part. It's mostly about your lectures that airplane noise does not exist in Palo Alto. It's our sensitive ears and individual perceptions, and so forth. Yes, us who have no "working groups" with a letter fresh and ready at the FAA to discuss the latest nuance in noise.

You have turned poster's questions into mean characterizations about what Palo Alto is or isn't doing, and now you produce a letter to re-start the arguing about who is good and who is bad. Really? Please start a new thread for that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 10, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

resident 3 - 1 - you asked some questions and I politely answered them.
2 - even Palo Alto residents can learn from others - if they so choose.
3 - no one forces you to read what others post so feel VERY free to ignore anything that I post.

Have a nice day.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,485 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,758 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 13 comments | 1,247 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 993 views

Mothers, daughters, books, and boxes
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 606 views