Good questions. But the same questions.
Some excellent questions from councilmembers after the presentation (27:54). Followed by a pointed comment from Burien Airport Committee vice-chair Brian Davis (52:20).
Our take
The Burien City Council is currently facing the same challenges as everyone else in knowing how to respond to the SAMP. To a certain extent, this is understandable. Only one member of that council remains from 2018 when the SAMP was put on hold. There are none from 2012 when it was introduced by the Port. Burien also has a new City Manager and staff. All the airport communities are like that. The Port, on the other hand, has the only continuity.
But at least the councilmembers were asking the right questions.
EA vs. EIS
One thing they were getting a feel for is the difference between an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement. An EA is not simply ‘EIS-lite’. It’s far less specific. When people find it hard to understand what the projects are about or how to comment, that is in large part because there are no specifics as to each project. That’s an EA. The EA assumes that the project is a known quantity and thus does not require deeper examination.
Micro-Management
Another issue they raised is the lack of regard for area-wide projects that are obviously inter-connected, eg. the Part 150 program (sound insulation) and how important SR-509 will be in adding cargo capacity. Those are not part of the SAMP. For example, the freeway had its own separate environmental review in 2003 (and 2018).
Loopholes
Are these ‘fair’ to airport communities? No. But the SAMP is a legal process. It’s like a tax return, with thousands of possible ‘deductions’. Some are very hard and fast rules. Many, many others are subject to the interpretation of the FAA official who will review the Draft EA. The Port is following what it considers to be a valid interpretation of FAA rules.
It’s just business
However, the one point we keep trying to drive home: there is nothing preventing the Port of Seattle from addressing these concerns using its own money. The FAA’s authority largely comes from giving and withholding money in order to make sure that airports provide proper levels of service to passengers and cargo shippers.
The Port of Seattle is a business that happens to look like a government. All businesses work hard to keep their costs to a minimum–including looking for every possible loophole in the SAMP. One might wish they would be otherwise. However one can at least understand why they might choose to create the impression that ‘FAA rules’ are making it impossible for them to do more for communities.
But the Port is a business. A business experiencing record profits. It can afford to do more. The question is: Will we graduate from ‘good questions’ and start asking for it? Or will we continue to ask the same good questions every few years and allow the distractions to continue.
