SAMP NTP DEIS Listening Session
The Commission convened a special meeting in response to community concerns regarding the SAMP NTP DEIS. The idea seems to have originated as demand for a public hearing to review the draft under state law. The Port responded positively but without specifying a format.
STNI wrote the Commission to request a special meeting in order to allow for the Commissioners to attend under Open Public Meetings Act rules–which turned out to be the format of the event.
Regardless, Port staff claimed there was no ‘arm twisting’ the Commissioners to do the event. They insisted that Commissioners wanted to hear from residents. However, concerns had been expressed as to how to conduct the event. Under state law, once a SEPA process begins, electeds cannot appear to influence or interfere with a development project’s environmental review process in any way.
Yes, this is confusing (and arguably a bit convenient.) After all, the Port of Seattle is both the project applicant, project reviewer, and ultimately the project approver. Nevertheless, this is the official explanation of the ‘listening without commenting’ format.
As Commission President Calkins said, this was a meeting of the Commission allocating ninety minutes for one agenda item: public comment on one topic: the SAMP NTP DEIS.
By the numbers
The meeting ran slightly over time, accommodating every person who had signed up and also asking for latecomers both virtually and in the room. Everyone who wanted to speak was given the same two minutes. Over two hours and eight minutes, we counted 44 speakers which we can summarize as follows:
Con (32):
Former Senator Karen Keiser, Burien Mayor Sarah Moore, Former Burien City Councilmember Debi Wagner, State Senator Tina Orwall, Des Moines Mayor Yoshiko Grace Matsui, Caffrey, 350 Seattle Laura Gibbons, Mendes, Achziger, DeVito, Harbaugh, Parfitt, Deming, Jenner, Casey, Wong, Harris, Kroeker, Omar, Cook, Shields (SeaTac city planner), Judy Davies, Paulson, Lebeg, Booth, Hunt, David Davies, Fedor, Veloria, Kresley, DeLacy, Dusenbury
Pro-expansion (12):
Mayor Mullet (Issaquah), Scott Kennedy (Alaska Air), Leo (Bellevue Chamber), Ericson (Seattle Metro Chamber), Sills (DSA), Coughlin-Games (Snoqualmie Chamber), Randazzo (MSC Cruises), Heatherington (LiUNA), Balden (Building Trades), Brown, Pitts, Gargalo (all carpenters)
Roughly 73% con to 27% pro — The pro side split cleanly into two blocs: regional chambers/business (Leo, Ericson, Sills, Coughlin-Games, Mullet) making a “region needs capacity or loses competitiveness” argument, and building trades/labor (Heatherington, Balden, Brown, Pitts, Gargalo) making a straight jobs argument. Airlines and cruise lines (Kennedy, Randazzo) rounded it out with an operational-necessity pitch. None of the pro speakers addressed mitigation, health data, or fence-line impact directly — they argued past it, not against it.
In recent months there has also been a steady stream of other pro voices–including the mayors of Kent, Redmond and Bellevue.
The con side’s tenor was overwhelmingly not anti-growth. Almost every fence-line speaker said some version of “We know this is happening, we’re not asking you to stop it” — Harbaugh, Paulson, David Davies, Veloria all said it almost verbatim — before pivoting to the actual ask: recurring mitigation, not one-time grants (Matsui, Caffrey, Mendes, Achziger, DeLacy), a per-city cumulative impact table (Wong, Booth — nearly identical language, likely coordinated), and challenges to the “no significant impact” finding itself (Wagner, Jenner, Dusenbury, Shields). Health/science framing came from Orwall, Keiser, DeVito, Lebeg, and Fedor.
Two comments mentioned the North of NERA Rezone — aka ‘Cedarhurst’. The increase in negative impacts in the area are very real, but the rezone decision is up to the Burien City Council–not the Port of Seattle.
One commenter mentioned remaining gaps in school and library sound insulation. True. However, Highline School has repeatedly received Port (and federal elected) priority in funding sound insulation–even obtaining those funds outside the Part 150 process.
On the extension question
After the meeting more than one Commissioner expressed surprise that there had not been more of a call for an extension to the comment period–even though that had been an official ask from the three cities.
Out of 32 con-side speakers, exactly one — Rebecca Deming, Des Moines’ SEPA responsible official — explicitly asked for a comment-period extension. She was specific and to the point: repeated city requests denied or left “under consideration,” 60 days covering multiple holidays, thousands of pages, years of Port prep time versus 60 days of public review.
Stuart Jenner gestured at the same problem (“60 days goes very fast when the data is from different years”) without using the word extension or making a direct ask. Sandy Hunt cited the July 21st deadline as a fact, not a grievance.