Introduction of SAMP-NTP
2026 05 26 Regular Meeting Packet
At almost four hours, the May 26 Port Commission meeting had several lengthy presentations. The longest was not the one of interest to airport communities: the first public briefing on the Sustainable Airport Master Plan Near-Term Projects SEPA Draft EIS.
The practical outcomes: no required mitigations in any of the reviewed categories beyond some traffic signals. Identical to last December’s NEPA EA.
The comment period debate
Public comment was limited to one minute. At least ten people commented on the SAMP. Several in favor, most against. Those concerned included council members from Burien and SeaTac. These all focused on the same two requests: extend the public comment period from 60 to 90 days. Provide more translations.
Port staff responded by saying they had already doubled the comment period from 30 to 60. They also made a point of saying how hard they had worked to make the document readable and less technical. We agree. And we find that problematic.
They also told the Commission that they would provide special outreach to Port South King County grant recipients, which we find an interesting choice to say the least.
Too short
Although public understanding is important, we do not believe that the primary purpose of an EIS should be to educate the public. A core function should be to provide enough technical detail that qualified reviewers can identify flaws and suggest improvements. If it lacks that detail, it cannot perform its essential purpose—no matter how many languages the summaries are is translated into, and no matter how long the comment window.
The premise of the SAMP is to speed permitting. As with the NEPA EA, for almost all construction projects, the document makes the assumption that, because they are well-established project types, they do not require more detailed reporting.
The EIS documents were released at noon the previous Friday. STNI immediately noticed flaws we reported to staff. Port staff did not correct the problem until Tuesday morning, but since there were no other complaints, we were willing to chalk that up as an oversight. However, at the end of the presentation, staff gave the wrong URL for the SAMP web site. Our concern is a lack of care on both sides: the public who will not engage meaningfully, and staff who sense this.
The correct web site for public comment is: sea-samp.com
Self-permitting, 31 projects
Today’s presenters the Port’s technical lead. He prepared the document (along with long-time consultants Landrum &Brown). He will process public comments. He will then create a finished document, including those comments and the Port’s official responses, to the SEPA Official in charge of signing off on the project. That official is his boss, Sarah Cox, Director of Aviation Environmental Planning.
Under its 2016 agreement with the City of SeaTac, the Port approves its own construction permits–including the SAMP-NTP. The structural problem is obvious.
Assuming Ms. Cox approves that final version, a 21 day appeal period opens.
Several Commissioners said that even after that SAMP EIS is approved, nothing actually moves forward until they vote, likely in early 2027. However, they also commented that there was nothing preventing them from breaking the package apart to approve individual projects. That is unlikely.
First, the projects are holistic. To understand why, the origin of the SAMP began in 2010 as two planning tracks: a Terminal Realignment Program and a Airline Realignment Program. After the Third Runway, airport planners began discussing how to make more room for their primary tenant–Alaska Air. They quickly realized that they could use that process to dramatically increase capacity on existing property — but only by moving almost every piece around to more efficient spaces. That is the SAMP. A slow-motion redesign of almost every structural piece of the airport. While it keeps running.
If the Commission had wished to make changes, it likely would have spoken up by now–as it did with North SeaTac Park.
Second, under state law, once a developer complies with all applicable requirements, the permitting authority cannot arbitrarily withhold approval. Doing so is discriminatory and exposes the agency to legal action.
The developer, the permitting authority, and the electeds acting on behalf of the public interest are all the same entity. Ironically, Port counsel may be telling the Commission not to engage to avoid any appearance of conflict.
Where the Commissioners’ hearts are
Two other presentations were at least as long as the SAMP briefing, and they say a lot about where the Commission’s energy actually goes.
The first was a feasibility study for an on-airport childcare center for airport employees. Other airports have funded similar centers in part with FAA dollars. They noted that other airports are using FAA grants for funding. As we’ve said many times, FAA grant use is not a fixed set of rules, it is a negotiation. Airports propose, the FAA reviews, and approval at one airport sets precedent for others. Expanding what grants can fund requires elected officials willing to push. The Port is willing to push on childcare—because that is where their hearts are.
The second was the 2025 Diversity in Contracting Annual Report. WMBE contracting has been a Commission priority. It has been expensive, not always successful, but this year appears to be heading in the right direction. Commissioners acknowledged that disparities are not resolving themselves organically and that sustained effort is required.
The pattern
Projects like these are often proposed and championed by one particular Commissioners and we salute them. But the core institutional interest is keeping flights going, because flights pay for everything else, including childcare and contracting equity.
Several Commissioners observed that meaningful airport community work can always happen outside the SAMP process. That is true. But that statement was undercut by other comments expressing ongoing satisfaction with current efforts on surrounding-community impacts.
During their re-election campaigns, three commissioners said they had heard from the public that much more needed to be done. This document was supposed to send a clear signal that SEPA would be different from NEPA.
Which is it? If the Commission now states that it is already doing a great job, and the SEPA document requires nothing more legally, we wonder what more they could have in mind.
Still, we know what the Commission can do when it finds projects its members believe in. Unfortunately, even with the SAMP, so far airport communities have not been among them. Perhaps if we could learn to ask for things more meaningful than more readable documents — and more time to read them.