I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll be watching this closely.

Is there any mention of safety?
People who move into property in close proximity to an airport and flight paths should expect the foreseeable/fore"hear"able sound that comes with engine power.
There was study several years ago for LAX that produced fried eggs and footprints for a visual depiction of aircraft noise near landing spots.
This is simply activity for the bureaucrats and will produce nothing but wasted air.
How much attention is paid to the noise produced by trains all day and all night long? Instead of noise suppression walls, wire fences appeared recently along the local tracks.

“ Is there any mention of safety?”
Why comment on an article you clearly have not read? Of course it is mentioned and under the proposed legislation would remain the top priority.

“ People who move into property in close proximity to an airport and flight paths should expect the foreseeable/fore"hear"able sound that comes with engine power.”

What is “close proximity”? I moved five miles away from Moffet Airfield, but I was OK with the flight paths at the time. With “NextGen”, they changed the flight paths so that if there is any sort of weather, most traffic into SJC is routed over my house! They also lowered the altitude of the jets, so not only are they coming every 2-3 minutes, they are much, much louder.

They say so but the bulk of the article deals with other topics.
Safety controls the routes you mention, ie. "any sort of weather", and lower altitudes may have to do with aircraft separation, which is a safety issue.
The fact that people view Palo Alto as a trash heap has more to do with the increased population than aircraft traffic.
It will be interesting to hear the noise complaints from the residents in the new tall buildings along the approach pattern to San Jose.

“People who move into property in close proximity to... flight paths“

People did not move into property in proximity to flight paths. The fight paths moved into proximity of the property.

NextGen had nothing to do with enhancing the safety of flight paths. It was done to improve the fuel efficiency of flight paths, and done without any regard to the impact to communities around the new flight paths. Cities have successfully sued the FAA and gotten them to revert to the pre-nextgen paths.

“Safety controls the routes you mention, ie. "any sort of weather", and lower altitudes may have to do with aircraft separation..”
Nope. Safety does not. Fuel economy does. There is no need to speculate or try to justify the current routes, as it’s well documented why the FAA did what it did (and what it failed to take into account). The pre-nextgen routes were perfectly safe without generating the noise issues we currently have.