Burien Airport Committee March 17, 2026

Burien Airport Committee — regular meeting, March 17, 2026

Call to order and roll call

Vice-Chair Brian Davis: It’s just after six o’clock, so let’s get started. This is the Burien Airport Committee regular meeting from March 17th, 2026. Nate, would you please call the roll?

Nate Hawthorne: Mayor and board? President?

Brian Davis: Here.

Nate Hawthorne: Karen?

Karen Veloria: Here.

Nate Hawthorne: I’m not seeing Lewis or Alejandro.

Brian Davis: Alejandro has a family conflict. I would move that we excuse her absence.

Karen Veloria: I agree.

Brian Davis: Any objections? Okay. We’ll put her down as excused. I did hear from Lewis earlier today — I have a sense he’ll be with us at some point. Nate, go ahead.

Nate Hawthorne: We have a quorum. We also have City Manager Adolfo Bailon with us tonight.

Approval of minutes — February 17, 2026

Brian Davis: Let’s get the minutes of February 17th out of the way. I’ll entertain a motion for approval.

[Member]: I move to approve the minutes for February 17th.

Brian Davis: We have a motion. Do we have a second?

[Member]: Second.

Brian Davis: Any discussion? All in favor? That’s a four-nothing vote. Those are approved.

We’re going to change our order tonight and take public comment at the beginning of the meeting.

Public comment

Brian Davis: Do we have anybody online who would like to contribute to public comment? Karen has her hand up. Karen, go ahead. The only rule is that you have two minutes once you begin.

Karen Sincula (public commenter, 20-year Burien resident): Thank you. I saw that you’re hearing a presentation on the North of NERA project tonight, so my comment is regarding that project. I understand one of the purposes of the airport committee is to protect Burien residents from negative impacts of the airport. I believe the North of NERA rezoning proposal would have a negative impact on our neighborhood, and the proposal seems to be related to the proximity of our neighborhood to the airport.

My first house in Burien was adjacent to the original NERA boundaries and I’ve seen the development that has happened since then — basically a bunch of warehouses and a lot of commercial traffic. I’ve never seen anything in the NERA boundaries that benefits residents. I don’t believe the North of NERA proposal will be any different, except that the neighborhood we’re talking about has a very strong residential character. Our families walk to SeaTac Park, to the bus lines, students walk to their elementary school. Everyone walks their dogs everywhere and we would really like to keep our neighborhood resident and family friendly. Rather than the city giving us industrial zoning and warehouses, we would prefer safer crosswalks and pedestrian streets. Thank you.

Brian Davis: Thank you very much. Anybody else for public comment? Seeing no hands raised, I’ll also note that we received two written comments in opposition to the North of NERA rezoning, and another from a resident of Chelsea Park objecting to noise levels from Sea-Tac International and asking that that neighborhood be added as a high noise zone so that residents might apply for noise assistance.

Presentation: North of NERA rezone project

Brian Davis: On to the business agenda. We’re going to start with the presentation on North of NERA from City of Burien Senior Planner Cheney Scantz. Cheney, welcome.

Cheney Scantz (Senior Planner, City of Burien): Thank you. Good evening and happy St. Patrick’s Day. This is really part of implementing the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2024 — the Burien 2044 Comprehensive Plan, which is the blueprint for how the city envisions growth over the next 20 years. We had growth targets of 4,770 net new jobs and 7,500 new housing units. The city is not responsible for building those units or creating those jobs. We just need to demonstrate that we have the zoned capacity in our development regulations, our land use map, and our zoning map to accommodate them — so that we’re pulling our fair share in the region.

Those targets were assigned to every city in the county and every county in the Puget Sound region. PSRC is the body that certifies our comprehensive plan. That matters for transportation funding — if we want to benefit from investment in public transportation and other public improvements, we need our comprehensive plan certified and to show that we are planning for these numbers.

Part of this effort is implementing the future land use map adopted in October 2024. The neighborhood we’re talking about is now designated industrial on that map — shown in gray — and we need to come up with zoning for it. There is also policy direction in both the land use chapter and the economic development chapter. For example, to promote light industrial maker spaces and supporting services in industrial areas along Des Moines Memorial Drive facing North SeaTac Park, and to monitor work-from-home and home-based business trends to allow and encourage jobs in neighborhoods when compatible with residential uses.

The product deliverables — by October of this year — will be an updated zoning map, updated development regulations, and minor amendments to the comprehensive plan to incorporate the new zones.

This is a vicinity map. The hatched orange area is the North of NERA area that needs a new zone. For the industrial land use designation, there are three existing zones: Industrial, Airport Industrial 1, and Airport Industrial 2. We could comply with our comprehensive plan by adopting any of those, but because this is existing residential — and for other reasons I’ll get into — we don’t believe those existing zones and their allowed uses are compatible here. We want to create new zoning with a new name.

[Member]: You just said we need to rezone this area. Why is that?

Cheney Scantz: Because right now our comprehensive plan has designated this area as industrial on the land use map — setting the vision for the next 20 years as this area accommodating jobs. That policy was adopted when the comprehensive plan was adopted.

[Member]: And you’re doing this because you need to demonstrate sufficient zoned capacity to get transportation funding?

Cheney Scantz: In part, yes. We needed to demonstrate enough zoned capacity to meet our job targets. A lot of our mixed-use designations accommodate both housing and jobs, but we don’t have enough land area for all the jobs. Suburban cities also lack the typology of really dense employment options — we’re not Bellevue or Seattle with high-rise office space. So another goal of North of NERA is to be innovative and provide zoning you can’t do in other areas of the city — something unique that addresses diverse job options.

Sarah Moore: Cheney, can you speak to how legislation passed in Olympia guides this work? This isn’t Burien staff making changes in isolation — a lot of this comes from state bill requirements.

Cheney Scantz: Yes, especially around housing. There have been a lot of bills passed to ensure expanded neighborhoods of choice — increasing housing typologies and density. Those provisions influenced the comprehensive plan land use map. There are also bills that restrict certain uses near the flight path regardless of zone. For example, state law limits daycare centers and senior housing in high-noise areas. Those are already in our code. So whatever zone we create, certain uses involving concentrations of sensitive populations — children or elderly — can’t be located there.

[Member]: Is there currently childcare and adult daycare in this zone?

Cheney Scantz: Those are currently allowed uses in RS-7200, so yes, that’s something that would need to be addressed. Sometimes that appears in the use table and sometimes in an overlay section. We look at what parcels fall under the overlay and what’s additionally limited. That will be important here because most of this neighborhood is within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, which further prohibits certain industrial uses that might emit contaminants — gas stations, laundromats, car painting facilities, anything over a certain threshold of toxic chemicals.

[Lewis Troisi joins the meeting.]

Lewis Troisi: Sorry I’m late. All the uses you’ve listed as potentially not permitted — laundromats, dry cleaners, adult daycares, childcare — all of these exist in this exact zone right now. So I’m surprised to hear they’re not permitted in a zone that already has all of them.

Cheney Scantz: That’s likely because many of them are legally non-conforming — they were allowed uses before a restriction was imposed. It’s very rare for the city to require a business to relocate or end its use because the rules have changed. When we change the zoning, it affects future new uses. Existing uses can generally remain. For example, single-family housing may not be an allowed use under the new zone, but that doesn’t mean existing single-family homes have to go anywhere.

Lewis Troisi: So current businesses can be grandfathered in?

Cheney Scantz: That’s likely the explanation, yes. I’d love to follow up with you after this meeting and talk through some specific examples.

[Member]: Is there a new height limitation?

Cheney Scantz: We haven’t developed the zoning yet. When we hear from the public that they’re against this proposal — there hasn’t been a real proposal yet. We’re developing it now and we want to hear from you, because there are ways this can enhance livability and not just feel like a complete change to something industrial. Although “industrial” is the name of the land use designation, the real vision for this area is not to be like NERA. If anything, we need to come up with a better name, because “North of NERA” just recognizes the fact that it’s next to our industrial zoning. It’s just west of the airport, but we are not envisioning this area to accommodate the uses and intensities our current zones allow. We want to do something new here.

Cheney Scantz: This is a screenshot of some allowed uses in Airport Industrial 1 and Airport Industrial 2 that illustrate why those existing zones aren’t compatible here — car dealerships, onsite or offsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, heavy industrial uses. We’re using these as a contrast, not as a model.

Since 1997 the city has had a vision for NERA as an industrial area and has been studying North of NERA ever since. It wasn’t until October 2024 when we adopted the Burien 2044 Comprehensive Plan that we actually changed the land use designation for this neighborhood. But it has been studied for a long time.

I use this slide to draw a contrast between what was done with NERA and what we’re planning with North of NERA. NERA involved a lot of collaboration and investment with the Port — a Planned Action Ordinance to expedite environmental review, a redevelopment plan, public road improvements, and city-port partnerships on land acquisition. The result was large-scale buildings — over 100,000 square feet — mostly storage, very low employment density. An airport overflow parking lot might have one employee for ten acres. That’s not what we’re envisioning here.

North of NERA is made up of 265 lots, 247 residential units, and 31 active business licenses. Only four parcels are more than an acre. That scale makes large warehouse development impractical even if we allowed it, and the community doesn’t want it. There are other options for achieving our employment targets that fit better with the existing development pattern.

Existing businesses in the area include construction-related companies, artisan studios — ceramics, music instruction — residential services like landscaping, gutter cleaning, window washing, car detailing, retail apparel, childcare, and adult family homes. Most currently operate as accessory uses to residential properties under home occupation regulations. The new zoning would lift the requirement that employment uses be accessory to a residential unit.

Another component is airport compatibility. Both PSRC and WSDOT have manuals on how cities should plan land uses near airports. We will analyze every parcel within the compatibility zones — which go well beyond the North of NERA boundary — to identify any existing incompatibilities and to guide what uses we want to attract or discourage in the new zone. Incompatible factors generally include uses that create high concentrations of people, structures that release smoke or steam, visual obstructions, and wildlife attractants. Most of North of NERA appears to fall in the less restrictive green zone, with some in the orange. That analysis is not yet complete.

Lewis Troisi: What is the definition of “high concentrations of people”?

Cheney Scantz: It’s more of a characteristic than a defined term. High-density residential, large-scale office buildings — those are the easy examples. I don’t want to speak incorrectly here. I’ll follow up with more detail when the analysis is complete.

Cheney Scantz: I’ll move quickly through the case studies — Sumner has an overlay for their innovation district, for example — or I can share a link. The key topics we’ll be evaluating: what types of small-scale employment uses are appropriate here; whether live-work spaces should be allowed; how zoning rules can ensure compatibility between existing homes and future businesses; and to what scale existing residential uses should be able to expand. If single-family isn’t an allowed use going forward, existing homes become legally non-conforming. We want to address whether and how those uses can expand — for example, adding an accessory dwelling unit.

Upcoming engagement opportunities:

• Business focus group: March 31st
• Community open house at Boulevard Park Library: April 11th
• Open house at City Hall before Planning Commission deliberates: April 22nd
• Online survey launching later this week, in multiple languages

Brian Davis: There were eleven items on your list of public engagement events, including briefings and hearings — plus a mailer to affected residents, so twelve total. I want to stress that because we will hear from people, when Council takes action, saying they never heard about this. I just want to put on record that a mailer went out and all those public events are occurring.

Questions and discussion — North of NERA

Lewis Troisi: The Port of Seattle’s Sustainable Airport Master Plan projects a 30% increase in aircraft operations over the next ten years, which would further degrade the quality of life and economic viability of this neighborhood. We’ve seen degradation since the opening of the Third Runway in 2008. Was there any consideration during the planning process of what a further increase in aircraft operations is going to mean for this area?

Cheney Scantz: I think that consideration has been present since 1997, when the city started looking at the long-term vision for the area west of Des Moines Memorial Drive across from SeaTac Park. It was the most recent periodic update to the comprehensive plan where we actually made the change away from promoting future residential development here. We are not signaling future density in this area the way we are in other residential areas. That’s part of the answer. It doesn’t mean people who are there have to leave — you can stay, maintain your home, operate it — but the rules for future development will be different.

Brian Davis (Mayor, addressing the committee): Was NERA originally developed through eminent domain?

Cheney Scantz: I’m not certain. There were some properties involved in larger-scale environmental mitigation — contaminated apartment buildings, a contaminated lake across the highway. It could have been part of an adjacent process. I’ll follow up.

Brian Davis: I ask because this is a neighborhood where people have lived continuously for a long time, and they remember how NERA happened. Understanding that memory will be important for how you communicate that this would not work the same way. I remember the NERA area having residential, and then it all going away fairly simultaneously. If that’s people’s expectation, you’ll need to communicate very clearly that North of NERA would be different.

The other thing I’d raise: this neighborhood has a long, continuous border with North SeaTac Park. Have we thought about viewing that as an amenity — encouraging activities like food, warm beverages in winter, things that appeal to park visitors? When I was on Parks, we found that a lot of Burien residents saw North SeaTac as their primary park. That feels like a missed opportunity if we don’t consider it.

Jeff Harbaugh: I’d also note that this is only tangentially related to airport committee issues — we can’t take any official action here. That said, some of the public comment made it sound urgent and catastrophic, and it doesn’t appear to be quite that way. I’ll be interested to see how it develops.

Karen Veloria: My questions were answered in the presentation.

Lewis Troisi: We spend a lot of energy talking about how 509 expansion will have an impact — it’s part of our SAMP work and our mitigation messaging. But I live in this area, and there’s already significant freight and traffic along Timmone Avenue because of the proximity to 509. How do we manage both messages — being concerned about traffic and noise while also talking about increasing industrial concentration in the same impacted area? That seems like a tension worth naming.

Also, having received that mailer: it does not clearly communicate what the change is or what it means. Speaking as someone who reads meeting agendas and has read the comprehensive plan, it was not clear from a “I’m a resident, what’s happening in my neighborhood” perspective.

Cheney Scantz: Thank you — that’s really useful to hear. We’ve been trying to address misinformation that’s circulating, but I think the challenge is that we don’t have a concrete proposal yet. Once we do, the messaging will be easier to respond to. In the meantime, if your neighbors want to host a conversation in a driveway, city staff is eager to meet people where they are. And I’ll add — if you want to share my contact information with neighbors who want to discuss specific uses, I’m happy to dig into those details.

Brian Davis: Cheney, thank you. And Jeff, you’re right that this committee doesn’t have any official weight here. But because there are layers, and what we do feeds into what others are doing across city government, it’s important for us to understand it. It occurs to me that part of the communication to this community should simply be: it’s going to get louder and dirtier here in ten years because of the planes. Tell them that, because it’s true. Our operating philosophy these last three years has been — we’re past the point of trying to stop airport growth. There’s too much economic and political momentum behind it. The question is: how do we get compensation for our city and for the people who pay such a disproportionate price for that incessant growth? This is all of a piece.

Department of Ecology — HEAL Act budget equity sessions

Brian Davis: Karen and Lewis participated in Department of Ecology budget equity sessions held last week. Karen?

Karen Veloria: I logged into the session on the 12th. It was mostly grant writers discussing how the Department of Ecology counts overburdened communities for grant scoring purposes. It was fairly subtle. I don’t think it had much direct bearing on us. Lewis?

Lewis Troisi: Under the HEAL Act, the Department of Ecology is required to demonstrate that 40% of grants and development go to supporting overburdened communities and vulnerable populations. The methodology they’re refining is for grant scoring — not for assessing harm, and not for assessing the impact that development would have on a community. You could cause harm while giving a grant and still score positively under this framework. For the airport committee, this isn’t a methodology we’d use to assess negative impacts on our communities. It’s informative if we ever pursue grants from the Port of Seattle or similar sources, because understanding the scoring would help us frame applications. But it doesn’t directly apply to anything we’re currently doing.

START committee update

Brian Davis: There was a START committee meeting recently. Jeff and Karen, anything worth passing on?

Jeff Harbaugh: The most important thing that happened was the beginning of a discussion about how airport growth impacts on communities are measured. Staff were walking consultants through the methodology in some detail. The facilitator indicated this will be a continuing discussion. I was left with an extensive list of questions about the specifics of how things are measured and managed that we didn’t get to. That’s a useful conversation to continue. Nothing else from that meeting stands out to me.

Karen Veloria: Nothing to add.

SAMP FONSI appeal and SEPA review

Brian Davis: Liz Stead’s letter to our committee touches on the fact that our appeal of the FAA’s ruling in the NEPA process is still in the motion stage, so there’s nothing substantive to report. I’d suggest we accept Liz’s report and add it to our record. Is that acceptable? [Thumbs up from members.] Done.

Adolfo Bailon (City Manager): Thank you for remaining engaged. Accepting Liz’s report is the right approach. We’re trying to thread a needle — keeping the committee informed while not sharing anything that would break attorney-client confidentiality between the joint council of Burien, SeaTac, and Des Moines. What Liz shared is accurate and complies with that. The one thing I can add: through our consultant, the Port has asked for our thoughts on participating in a Washington D.C. fly-in. My impression is there’s some concern about whether cities might decline to participate — similar to what happened with the Day on the Hill in Olympia. That’s guiding the planning on whether to proceed.

Brian Davis: What drove Burien and Des Moines to sit out the state Day on the Hill was that the Port’s state legislative agenda offered nothing of immediate or direct benefit to the airport cities. I haven’t taken a close look at the federal agenda — I was consumed with Olympia — but the federal agenda could be more relevant to us. Let’s put that on next month’s agenda.

[Member]: When you say discovery is “in process” — is there a timeline?

Adolfo Bailon: There are court-set deadlines driving everything now. Deadlines for when we submit material, then the Port and/or FAA submit counter-material, and so on. It’s less about dramatic new developments and more about just hitting the next procedural deadline. Discovery typically runs a couple of months and closes a month or two before trial.

[Member]: Is there a website where we can see the public documents associated with the case?

Adolfo Bailon: There is a federal courts website — PACER — but you have to pay for it. Pieces sometimes surface if you search the case name or number, but active cases aren’t usually freely accessible.

Brian Davis: One other litigation note — I circulated a copy of the Vashon Quiet Skies lawsuit to the committee. Same attorney as ours, but a different approach. It’s fairly short, and he’s very specific about what harm is being alleged — more consistent with litigation that’s happened in other cities than with our SAMP challenge. I called the number for that organization but haven’t heard back yet.

Port Commission response to Burien City Council letter on port packages

Brian Davis: The Port Commission did respond to the City Council’s letter on the port package repair program. I’d suggest we defer the full discussion to next month. Any objections? Okay. We’ll carry it to April.

I’ll also say — even though we came up empty on substantive results in Olympia, there were some promising developments that lead me to believe there may be ways into a constructive dialogue with the Port of Seattle. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Adjournment

Brian Davis: Any new business? Seeing none — our next meeting will be April 21st, 2026. We stand adjourned. Thank you everyone.

---

This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!