https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9csut4Tzndw


0:03
[Music]
0:30
that's what the instructions say three times
0:36
well good afternoon everyone this is commission president peter steinbrueck reconvening the regular meeting of
0:42
february 25th 2020 the time is now 1206 we are meeting at
0:47
the conference center at ctac international airport
0:53
present with me today our commissioners calkins cho and felloman we expect commissioner bowman momentarily
1:00
we begin today's meeting by acknowledging the indigenous peoples of the duwamish and coastal salish who
1:07
have stewarded these beautiful lands and water since time immemorial we must commit to doing the same for the
1:14
planet and for generations to come this meeting is being digitally recorded
1:20
and may be viewed or heard at any time on the port's website and may be broadcast by king
1:26
county television please stand for the pledge of allegiance
1:33
i pledge allegiance to the plague of the united states of america
1:51
okay the item number three approval of the agenda
2:01
and that would be let's see yeah
2:20
okay are there any motions to add or to rearrange the orders of the day or request to remove items from the consent
2:26
agenda calendar is there a motion to amend
2:33
okay i guess we'll have to have a conversation um
2:38
well actually we're going to have the conversation it's on the agenda so yes no
2:45
i'm sorry hearing no motion to revise the agenda please show the preliminary agenda approve without objection
2:53
actually i'm sorry i'm going to okay i'm going to i'm going to motion i'm sorry i'm going to motion to uh
2:59
pull item
3:07
there's been a motion is there a second to table item eight eight second okay it's been moved and seconded all those
3:13
in favor please say aye aye aye opposed say nay motion carries
3:19
item table a and uh clerk uh typically i think under the rules you've
3:25
tabled to a specific future meeting there you go you know this table indefinitely
3:30
um you under the rules of robert's order yeah um thank you for
3:36
that uh commissioner so because uh laying on the table
3:42
uh because of the structure of the the port commission um postponing indefinitely
3:49
and postponing to a time certain have the same effect which is to say that the item will not
3:55
be taken up during today's session so um okay so so it it's it's
4:02
not absolutely necessary to explain when it's going to come back on all right agenda but it certainly is acceptable to
4:08
do that's all i wanted to clarify may i add though that i for the record i would like to take this up as soon as possible
4:13
because i think it's important we specify the next to the uh
4:18
meeting which could be what's the date so we don't delay this so the next regular meeting will be on
4:24
march 10th so if that could be a friendly amendment to the motion makers
4:30
and amenders and uh march 11th i don't think we even need an
4:35
amendment but just a intention to bring it up on all right march 10. fine let's just that
4:41
that addresses that issue so okay and i think
4:46
so we've approved the amended agenda executive directors report item four
4:56
good afternoon i'd like to begin my remarks by sharing five announcements recently the port held its third annual
5:02
innovation awards recognition event culminating cultivating innovation throughout the
5:07
port is critical to our success as an organization for this award we received 13
5:13
nominations that represented innovative and collaborative projects by over 100 port employees all of the 11 port
5:19
employee resource group and hundreds of college and high school interns the winner was the media washing machine
5:26
which was also voted by employees as the people's choice award winner no this is not a fake news cleansing algorithm
5:33
but it's a machine to remove gunk from oyster shells that are used as filters for the storm water runoff these
5:39
machines were constructed by teams in marine maintenance from old spare parts and actually were very inventive in its
5:45
way to uh to make sure that these oyster shells were used effectively in the system the event also included the
5:52
fourth quarter winner the pier 66 shore power submarine cable project which identified an innovative approach to
5:58
bringing shore power to our cruise terminal at 66. this approach is less expensive
6:04
and has less impacts on the waterfront businesses pedestrians and vehicles and utilities
6:09
the honors honorable mention for stakeholder impacts went to the social bay marina interactive real-time map
6:15
project which will increase customer satisfaction improve operational efficiency and increase revenue
6:21
since we last met our airport had its annual faa federal air regulation
6:26
inspection also known as the part 139 this is a mandatory extremely comprehensive four day one night
6:33
inspection that touches almost everything we do on the airfield the faa looks at everything there's a
6:38
long list here of of items but i won't go through all of those it's just everything that the airport does both
6:44
from a material and a operational standpoint impressively the airport passed this comprehensive audit with no findings for
6:51
a second year in a row this is a very rare occurrence at for any airport and it speaks to the
6:56
extremely high caliber team head by lance little that we have at the airport and in multiple disciplines please join
7:02
me in recognizing our staff work diligently behind the scenes to keep ctac operating safely daily
7:12
could i just ask could i just ask the airport uh please stand up those employees from the airport
7:22
i know this i know there's more than that they're a modest group to boot so
7:30
on another issue our staff at the airport and at the at the seaport have all been working hard at monitoring the
7:36
impacts of the coronavirus covid 19 on our operations as you know the port follows the guidance provided
7:42
by public health experts at the federal centers for disease control prevention customs and border
7:48
protection the united states coast guard on the maritime side washington state public department of
7:54
health and public health seattle king county during any public health incident
7:59
we rely on these public health officials to provide the latest risk analysis and recommend scientifically proven steps to
8:05
keep employees in our community safe since we've seen since the implementation of restrictions the cbp
8:12
and cdc have screened hundreds of incoming passengers for signs of the corona virus infection
8:18
uh so far there haven't been any uh any additional infections found um and we're continuing those efforts to
8:24
coordinate both with the with the federal and the state and local representatives
8:30
in response to the virus the airport has increased as i reported before we continue our use of disinfectants and
8:36
cleaning high touch areas and making more hand sanitizers available in the arriving passengers in our international
8:42
rivals federal inspection service area at this point we're continuing our sensitivity analysis for economic
8:49
impacts of the covet 19. at this point it appears revenue impact as a result of lower
8:54
spend will result in lower spending in the airport for parking taxis tncs meals
9:00
gifts and other items at the present point our our financial operating reserve can cover these
9:05
amounts the lower spending levels result from our limited number of affected flights
9:10
into china those flights account for a reduction of 0.3 to 0.4 percent of travelers which limit the this year's
9:17
overall growth slightly so far here to date switching to the cruise industry royal
9:22
caribbean has announced an added itinerary for for uh from seattle for 2020 with their vessel named the
9:29
millennium the origin cruise line reported they cancelled cruises in other parts of the world but the cancellation rates have
9:35
leveled off a survey indicates that over 60 percent of cruise travel booking agents report
9:41
that they're seeing a slowdown in advanced bookings in other regions of the world based on the news reporting
9:47
the cruise industry survey indicated that many travelers are waiting to see if the virus concerns continue so we're
9:52
continuing to monitor this how it will impact our incoming upcoming cruises season respondents also indicated that they
9:59
believe north american cruises were safest as a financial backstop we have both in place both lease minimum we have
10:06
we have in place least minimum annual guarantees on our leases at this point we continue to monitor
10:12
these developments and report on these as the impacts are felt as we go forward
10:20
so i i think it's important to note the mags that exist so that um the impact on
10:25
us is mitigated somewhat by that but i wasn't understanding that a cruise line is
10:31
going to show up early while our factory trawlers are still in place and therefore wasn't the slip for them and
10:37
would sit at hook on a hook in the elliot bay is that i'm going to talk about i know that
10:42
operational question i'm going to look here i don't know if that one i know we have a a cruise ship coming in uh starting on
10:48
on april 1st but uh i'll have to report back to you on that because i i mean i'm concerned by such a suggestion we have
10:56
done this before we have done cruise ships at on anchor yes okay
11:01
anyway i'll look into that commission i assume if 66 is open that they would use a berth i will i'll
11:07
look into that right yeah i had a similar question about
11:12
flights that have been canceled to asia there's probably no way to be on speculation to
11:20
identify when flights might be restored or what what would be required for flights to be restored
11:28
i think it's a combination of demand and then uh the the travel limitations put in place by the uh by
11:34
the federal government yeah okay so a lot of uncertainty there still a lot of uncertainty will continue to report on
11:40
that yeah i would just ask that we be kept updated on additional flights that might be
11:46
cancelled right now it's really limited to china but areas like south korea and other places
11:51
around the world are also considering doing the same and so if we could just be updated on what the airlines are thinking if
11:57
they're going to be proactive in cancel flights or if the faa or cdc suggests cancellation of flights i'd like to be
12:04
updated on that so it becomes a combination of which flights you know the the china flights were canceled but
12:10
also then you they're decreased based on the demand for those flights as well so we will report on those developments as
12:16
we go forward uh commissioners i'd also like to point out recent activities around the proposed new cruise facility at terminal
12:23
46 just to update you as you may recall we launched our cipa eis scoping period
12:29
last fall earlier this month we released the scoping report which summarizes comments received on the topics for the
12:35
environmental review in addition last month we released the revised request for
12:40
proposals to the short list of proposers being evaluated as potential investment and operating partners for the new
12:47
proposed new cruise facility the proposer's responses were due on february 20th and the evaluation team is
12:53
reviewing what was received at this time included in the revised rfp was new language requiring homeport cruise
13:00
vessels at the new birth to be equipped with shore power capability and to use shore power when at birth
13:06
in addition to the shore power the port also required cargo handling equipment to have zero tailpipe emissions
13:12
uh further participating in regional air quality planning and prohibiting as well as prohibiting discharges at birth the
13:18
staff looks forward to providing uh an update on this project at the march 24th commission meeting
13:24
over at social bay marina progress is being made on the remodel of the south and central customer service facilities
13:30
buildings each building will provide 2 700 square feet of space with restrooms showers and
13:36
laundry rooms as well as family units that are all ada accessible the laundry area is nearly
13:42
double what is currently is currently on site solar panels will generate
13:47
70 percent of the heat needed for each building and radiate heat pumps will keep the spaces dry and warm the
13:53
northwest restroom will be a 800 foot structure with gender neutral restrooms and separate shower rooms the new
13:59
facilities are expected to open by may and is on the butt is on budget at this time moving to today's meeting i want to
14:05
highlight four items on our agenda item eight a well
14:11
it's just action taken on that i'm going to pass that item eight b is an authorization for additional funding
14:17
uh to the existing sustainable airport master plan which will enable continued work on the environmental review
14:22
including additional stakeholder out outreach efforts and finally nitem 9a is an update from the biometrics working
14:29
group commissioners this concludes my remarks okay thank you director metric
14:35
at this time we're going to begin an additional
14:40
item in our commission agenda which is a committee reports if there are any and so our
14:47
commission policy manager aaron pritchard has some updates for us on this topic of committee activities
14:55
erin good afternoon commissioners and executive director i'll just go through
15:01
each of the committees and touch really lightly on each of the issues that they covered the subject matters and just a little bit about what the
15:07
recommendations all the recommendations and the committee matter eventually comes before the commission this just allows commissioners to sort of dig in
15:13
on a couple topics before they come to public section so the aviation committee met on tuesday
15:19
february 18th and really reviewed two topics particularly ground transportation at the airport and the uh
15:25
airline five-year cip around the the wide-ranging conversation around ground transportation uh focused
15:32
in on some of the uh the ground transportation policy directive that was passed last year there's lots of discussion about the implementation of a
15:38
transportation management association which will bring together all the employers around the airport to figure
15:43
out what we can do to reduce single occupancy uh travel to the airport among other things and we'll see some talking
15:49
points coming out of that uh that conversation that'll focus on how we can help employers approve commute chip
15:54
reduction as well um and then the airline five-year cip focused on some of the changes that are
16:00
uh the aviation team is making on how they bring major projects forward in packages
16:06
and programs versus smaller projects so that you can get a better view of what the airport's doing you'll hear more about the biometric
16:12
special committee meeting that happened and they reviewed the biometric ericsson policy recommendations
16:19
the audit committee met on 211 and closed out an important meeting on a single topic which was around the
16:25
architect and engineers contracting levels and i believe that issue has been closed now for the audit committee
16:32
uh aviation the energy sustainability committee had a meeting on 212 which was on really a very interesting
16:39
presentation from wsu on a long term study they've been doing for us on potential northwest regional feedstock
16:45
production for sustainable aviation fuels wolcott uh dr wolcott came up from wsu
16:51
and we i think we discussed it for almost two hours it was a very good presentation the committee has
16:57
recommended this come to the full commission uh as soon as possible in a study session uh because of the importance of this issue we'll get a
17:03
look at in that study session some of the environmental subjects that the airport's already done
17:09
some of the short-term improvements that they're proposing that's coming out of the mou group and a full briefing from dr wolcott and the
17:15
team on the on this uh study aaron on that topic uh it would be i
17:21
think beneficial at some point to hear from delta airlines which is also announced a study
17:28
of potential feedstock sources that are local sustainable and meet the basic
17:33
criteria i think that we're seeking and i i think that they committed up to 2 million for that that work here in
17:40
washington state so i'd certainly at some point like to hear an update on that work as well and we can perhaps
17:46
share best practices and the research that's been done here that's great
17:53
um the study the wsu study was funded by the port i mean this is specifically we
17:58
test them to do that and uh just as far as the biofuel the uh the
18:04
cellulosic forestry products that southwest washington seems to be the richest area and i think that
18:12
i think there might actually be dovetailing with delta's analysis too which is it's always good if folks
18:17
cannot concur but the industry voice is particularly important here i think as well so it's
18:23
definitely spurred some interest around municipal solid waste as well that was a big outcome of the study
18:28
um the equity and equity and workforce development committee uh reviewed a proposed workforce development policy
18:35
getting some of the concepts down so we have a way to bring forward a briefing to the full commission which has now been pushed out uh until march 24th for
18:42
a briefing but we also have some community meetings that are going to take place in the april time frame uh
18:47
that policy is under development and we hope to have a review back to the committee to see some of the changes
18:53
they proposed in short order here so we can share it with the rest of the commissioners as well well will that work be informed at all
19:00
by the um the memorandum of agreement of understanding with the city and the
19:05
county under priority hire and the likelihood of an eventual
19:12
interlocal agreement is that is that uh in some way uh tie in with the work program for the
19:20
workforce and development committee so they are related and some of the analysis we're getting from legal will
19:26
help us look at those contracts uh but it is not going to direct that work those contracts are already
19:32
in fact functioning um so i think they have a relation yeah okay all right any
19:37
other questions is that i'm sorry are you have more i'll just finish up report white arts and culture board met and
19:42
discuss with the 2020 work plan and received updates on several ongoing art installations always so very important
19:48
great i look forward to future reports that help expand transparency and the
19:53
deliberative process here at the port commission so thank you aaron thank you commissioner i can give you a real-time
20:00
update on the uh on the cruise vessel it will not be at anchor it will be at terminal 91 and it
20:06
will be plugging into shore power so good thanks
20:13
okay with that i think we're moving on to item five which is public comment
20:18
the commission will now accept public comment any written materials can be given to the clerk for distribution to
20:24
commissioners if you wish to speak please sign in and i have several who have already and
20:30
identify the specific item you are addressing uh we'll limit the comment time to two minutes per person
20:37
and we'll begin with jordan van voost
20:42
and if i might before you get started sir no i just wanted to i'd let um uh president steinbrook know i have been
20:48
subpoenaed to testify at a hearing so i might have to walk out uh abruptly so if i walk out of anybody's testimony i
20:53
apologize it's nothing personal thanks okay jordan good afternoon commissioners
20:59
and staff my name is jordan van vost and i'm a licensed acupuncturist and the co-president of dharma friendship
21:06
foundation and so i'm here today to comment about the t46 project
21:13
i sent you an email with with a long list of concerns and i'll just limit it to the issue of
21:20
of the fuel for cruise ships um you know to the extent that uh the
21:26
cruise ships participate in the fossil fuel economy then all of these risks apply to
21:34
being part of the consequences of fossil fuels so i did a little research on where the oil
21:41
from that this the seattle's cruise ships originates and um the best i can figure
21:48
out is it comes from the north slope of alaska and then it's pumped to valdez via the
21:53
pipeline and then shipped via tanker along the same route that the exxon valdez took in 1989 when it dumped 11
22:00
million gallons into prince william sound and that area is still recovering now you can still find oil oozing out of
22:06
the sand many species of orca pigeon gilamont and
22:12
one other uh i can't remember one other animal um
22:18
herring haven't recovered yet according to science
22:23
um so and and some of the oil may come from the canadian tar sands um
22:29
an environmental disaster of epic proportions so at each stage of this uh process there are multiple risks for oil
22:37
spills um and of course uh with the trans mountain pipeline coming up um they
22:42
predict a 700 increase in tanker traffic through the same channels um up through
22:48
the san juans uh where which are quite treacherous in any kind of weather so it's really only a
22:54
matter of time before there's some kind of collision whether a cruise ship i mean you know of
22:59
course we pray that these things don't happen but you know accidents do happen um whether a cruise ship involved or not
23:06
you know again it's when we're dealing with fossil fuels we're kind of putting our um
23:12
into that whole system so um thank you very much okay thank you jordan
23:18
and our next speaker is cynthia spies followed by jennifer
23:23
lee thanks
23:33
hi i'm cynthia spees an independent security researcher and seattle resident my comments are regarding biometric air
23:39
exit the use of biometric technology at the port of seattle so it's a disturbing precedent backed by a publicly elected
23:45
commission make no no mistake about it this technology will not be contained this lays the foundation for a future
23:51
dystopian world where everyone's movements are tracked and logged the port is being two-faced since rfp
23:56
19-86 was open for bids before the any approval or policy requirements on the use of biometric technology have been
24:03
finalized by the commission and the port's biometric report itself uses wording throughout that assumes not only
24:08
that the commission will grant approval but that such approval would support existing cbp implementations unaltered
24:14
together this implies the port staff are close-minded and biased against the concerns raised by the public and that this whole process especially that of
24:20
the biometrics external advisory group is nothing but a pointless charade with port staff and commissioners ready to rubber stamp anything the airlines or
24:27
cbp requests in addition to the unheated concerns raised by the external advisory group i'd like to point out that congress did
24:33
not mandate that anyone including foreign nationals be required to give their biometric data to airline or cruise ship companies if cpp needs the
24:41
data then cbp should be the one gathering that data additionally the port is under no requirement to operate
24:46
this technology on behalf of cbp regarding the principle of voluntary the report states that there are two
24:51
problems opt-in opt-out procedure and on unintended image capture however none of the port's own recommendations address
24:58
that opt-in opt-out problem and none of the port's recommendations under the principle of transparency address the
25:03
insufficient or non-existent op-out signage or other communication from cbp cbp's own materials show their plan for
25:10
biometric tracking of all travelers citizen and not a citizen international and domestic so it's in cvp's own
25:16
interest and goals to have poor signage and poor communication they have no reason to help travelers or the port
25:21
thwart them cbp is not your friend they're not your partner they're paying you lip service don't rubber stamp the
25:27
use of mugshots at the port thank you okay thank you jennifer lee followed by stan at she
25:35
puma
25:42
good morning commissioners my name is jennifer lee and i'm the tech and liberty manager at the aclu of washington i'd like to thank the port of
25:50
seattle commission for being the first port in the country to push for a conversation on whether face
25:55
surveillance technology is compatible with our democracy and civil liberties however as a member of the biometrics
26:01
external advisory group that was formed to provide feedback on policies regarding the port's use of biometrics i
26:07
would like to raise concerns on both the policy making process and the recommendations for air exit that have
26:12
been shared first we are concerned that as we are in the very process of determining if and
26:18
how the port should allow the use of facial recognition the port has already posted an rfp for shared use port-owned
26:24
facial recognition systems for airline use at departure gates at seatac international airport
26:30
though we have been told that the sole purpose of the rfp is for market research the text of the rfp itself
26:36
states that the port is already committed to helping cbp install a biometric air exit system and that it
26:42
quote supports the industry trend of using facial recognition end quote commissioners who voted for the
26:48
resolution on biometrics adopted at the commission meeting on december 10 2019 stated that the resolution was intended
26:54
to leave open all possibilities including that the port might not permit deployment of any public-facing
27:00
biometrics there is a contradiction here the port cannot legally state that it is committed to deploying a permanent
27:07
biometric system to prospective bidders while stating to the advisory group and the public that no commitments have been
27:14
made second the port staff draft the recommendations on air exit shared with the advisory group recommends that the
27:20
port work collaboratively with cvp and airlines to roll out facial recognition we strongly disagree with this
27:26
recommendation the port should not be facilitating the infrastructural expansion of phase surveillance
27:32
technology that is rife with race and gender biases even if this technology were perfectly
27:37
accurate its use poses great threats to our constitutionally protected rights and civil liberties the department of
27:43
homeland security and the aviation industry as a whole have explicitly stated their common vision of widespread
27:49
deployment of phase surveillance in our non-transparent system where data is increasingly shared between public
27:55
and private entities it is difficult if not impossible for travelers to meaningfully consent to provide
28:00
biometric information to some entities but not to others the port should not provide cover for
28:07
cbp to roll out its mass collection of biometric data we ask the port to reject
28:13
participation in facilitating the expansion of faith surveillance at chill civil liberties thank you thank you stan
28:19
followed by elena perez
28:25
good afternoon commissioners i'm stan shakuma president of the seattle chapter of the japanese american citizens league
28:32
it's one of the oldest and largest civil rights organizations among asian pacific islanders
28:38
i'm i was quite happy at the beginning of this session that we all pledged
28:44
to one nation with liberty and justice for all i hope that was not a pro forma
28:49
pledge and that we all take that to heart i'm here to offer a cautionary tale about biometrics face to face uh
28:57
surveillance in particular and unintended consequences
29:03
in 1942 78 years and six days ago the president
29:10
signed an executive order 9066 which authorized the military to declare certain zones
29:17
uh that they could clear people out of certain zones whether citizens or not
29:22
there is nothing in that order that specifies japanese and japanese americans would be the ones
29:29
affected however that is exactly how it was implemented
29:37
general dewitt and his assistant carl bendetson who incidentally hailed from aberdeen
29:44
washington wrote and promulgated the orders that cleared
29:51
people out from the west coast including all of western washington actually all
29:56
the way over to the columbia river for the duration of the war
30:03
this is the largest violation of constitutional civil rights in the history of this country
30:09
today we face arguments again of national
30:15
security and on the economic side of efficiency in promulgating new
30:20
technologies i would just caution the commission
30:25
that for marginalized communities communities of color muslims the poor
30:31
that these are not incidental consequence type things
30:38
that for most of us in this room if we think of something bad happening with facial recognition we think we're
30:45
going to miss a flight we're going to ruin a vacation but for marginalized communities they're thinking we're going
30:51
to get arrested we're going to get deported we're going to be separated from our families i hope you will take
30:56
this into serious consideration whenever you decide on facial technology
31:02
thank you thank you elena perez followed by andrew riddle
31:14
um elena perez with puget sound sage i want to start off by saying that i was very
31:19
encouraged in december to hear port commissioners calling for greater transparency and accountability in
31:24
response to decisions being made about the use of facial recognition technology at the airport and very excited to have
31:31
you here commissioner cho to continue this conversation um on december 10th we urged you to
31:36
defer action on the motion we felt that you had not fully heard from civil liberties and data surveillance experts
31:43
as well as communities most impacted by use of this technology and that request was denied instead a biometrics external
31:51
advisory group was established to respond to our concerns of lack of transparency and accountability but that
31:57
group that was intended to be a space for community stakeholders has instead
32:03
been overwhelmingly stacked with industry and agency representatives that have already expressed their interest in
32:09
having facial recognition technology at the port in fact two corporations that stand to profit directly from this
32:16
decision microsoft and amazon have seats at that table
32:21
these two corporations are not obviously stakeholders at the port and they have a track record of lobbying in opposition
32:28
to strong privacy regulations around surveillance technology to date the impact of biometrics on
32:35
communities of color immigrants and refugees has not been fully explored and you still have not received substantive
32:41
feedback on this issue as such we urge you to not allow any further action by
32:46
port officials to lay the ground groundwork for facial recognition like the rfp until you hold a robust public
32:53
hearing dedicated to this issue we know that you as individuals are deeply concerned about this issue and feel
33:00
obligated to protect the public we are asking you today to take back control of this process and to help the public
33:08
achieve clarity about what you the commissioners are moving forward and what you are not
33:14
thank you very much thank you thank you
33:19
um andrew is a kittle or riddle sorry
33:24
followed by um neither read it's andrew kitta kenda thank you
33:30
okay thank you andrew i'm sorry for that no worries uh my name is andrew ketta
33:36
i'm a resident of south seattle and a member of 350 seattle's leadership team
33:42
i'm here to ask you to put real sustainability back in the sustainable airport master plan process
33:49
real sustainability means clean air for the kids in south king county who must now
33:55
breathe the ultra fine particles and other pollution that rains down from the flight path
34:01
real sustainability means a stable climate for kids all over the world who are looking at a life
34:07
lived in an escalating climate emergency make no mistake we already live in a
34:14
climate emergency it's not like other emergencies the communities that are hit rarely think
34:20
disaster is around the corner people in australia were enjoying spring last october unaware that in a few month
34:28
few months they would be driven to the edge of their continent by raging fires people in paradise california thought
34:35
that they were living in paradise until the campfire destroyed their town
34:41
people in houston thought things were just fine before hurricane harvey caused 125 billion dollars worth of damage
34:49
i could go on the climate emergency is like a russian roulette gun
34:55
and the more climate pollution we emit into the atmosphere the more ammunition we put in that gun and the resulting
35:03
climate disasters will be increasingly frequent and devastating
35:08
we must stop pretending that we can meet anticipated aviation demand
35:13
over the next 30 years unconstrained aviation demand is projected to skyrocket
35:19
and along with it the associated climate pollution which by recent estimate could grow to
35:24
27 percent of climate pollution by 2050 we have a choice
35:30
we could add more ammunition to the climate russian roulette gun or we can say enough is enough
35:37
it's time to make the future safe for our kids it's time it's time to say no
35:42
to airport expansion okay thank you bernadine lund followed by monty
35:49
anderson
35:59
hello my name is bernadine lund i live in federal way and i'm a member of quiet skies of puget sound and also associated
36:05
with 350 seattle for the last several months i wanted to talk about
36:11
the samp i wanted to thank you for extending the time on the sam so that all the appropriate elements can
36:17
be included including a revised demand forecast the stamp demand forecast shows an
36:23
increase in both 2027 and 2032 but does not show the increases since 2012 with
36:30
the addition of the third runway showing all of these increases in comparisons to what was originally
36:37
projected would show that you are serious about getting a fair evaluation from the nippon sifa reviews
36:44
the faa only considers the emissions for a few miles taken a few miles during an airplane takeoff
36:51
which is very misleading instead you can calculate the greenhouse gases based on the amount of fuel pumped
36:58
which would give a more accurate picture of the airport's impact on local and global communities
37:04
once in the upper atmosphere the gases and pollution circle the world i don't know how many people here
37:11
remember mount st helens blowing up but i was in seattle and lived in olympia
37:16
and the smoke did circle i mean it did end up going across the country
37:24
rather than always projecting increases in flights i suggest you have a samp that just
37:30
shows that you're maintaining steady course why does it have to show increases it
37:35
could just say we're holding steady or we're even decreasing
37:41
that would also increase i mean reduce pollution
37:48
you could hold the flight steady and or even reduce them until there's less polluting modes of transportation that
37:54
can be developed and implemented some example where people are saying no to increases in cities include mexico city
38:02
which just said no to increase it that uh
38:07
mexico on september 11th so i just challenge you to look at other
38:12
forms of transportation and think of other ways that you can use the airport okay thank you
38:20
monty you're up next monty anderson excuse me followed by david goebbel
38:30
hello my name is monty anderson i thank you i keep wanting to call your ceo but
38:36
what's your title against steve it's uh executive director executive thank you commissioners thank you for uh
38:44
uh thank you for uh for letting me speak i just wanna uh we came down here today to touch on a couple things you know i
38:50
wanna once again thank you for your partnership we have uh
38:56
thousands of people out here working making a fair wage with family health care uh paid time off
39:03
a vacation pay grievance um and it's and it's very important to the community i think that people realize that the port
39:09
is a huge generator and one of the best employers we have in this area
39:14
we like i said we have great numbers out here for apprenticeship and i appreciate you guys workforce development i wanted
39:21
to comment briefly talking with commissioner bowman about maybe an uh an idea coming up where we could have some
39:28
in-house glazers maybe work on some of the local houses here that are getting insulated from sound
39:33
i just want to let everybody here know that i would be very interested in meeting with the port and finding out if we could get more people from the
39:40
community into these good paying apprenticeships and work here at the port and if there's an opportunity
39:46
we're open to work with you thank you very much okay thank you
40:02
uh hi my name is david goebel i'm the president of the 513c vashon fair skies
40:08
i come today to speak on agenda item 7a which is an update from the porch noise office as all of you and probably a lot of
40:14
people watching from home know by now we have been engaged in a long struggle hit noise monitors on bastion island due to
40:19
the implementation of nextgen to this end thank you again for motion 29-14 passed last november
40:26
however since then the process concerning the noise monitor has been completely opaque so i can only presume
40:31
it's making uh forward progress this in spite of the most relevant elected government body on fashion the
40:37
fashion park district we don't have a city we're unincorporated attempting uh to provide input by passing an official
40:43
resolution i would ask uh that the port of seattle try to find some way within its bylaws
40:49
to deputize me personally to work more directly with the noise office on the
40:54
bastion noise monitor i'm not looking for a badge or anything like that just for your blessing to volunteer my time
41:01
experience and motivation to help bring about our shared goal of the most effective monitor sighting and operation
41:08
my educational background is in physics and my professional backgrounds in software engineering i have a lot to offer
41:14
and so please let me help finally i need to take off i have a two o'clock meeting at microsoft and redmond
41:20
so if i leave before other people have made public comment or during the uh presentation 7a please take no
41:26
disrespect i just like commissioner bowman i have that's something else i have to run to all right thank you thank you david
41:33
next speaker is ernest thompson david you're not part of the parks board are you
41:39
my neighbor
41:46
followed by jc harris nice to see you sam i'm glad you got
41:52
elected uh i just better go at hyper port levels
41:57
being here to get through two minutes first of all i'd like to say that uh mr kiddo and the 350 organization like to
42:03
double down on that it's time to start thinking about not expanding ctac but downsizing or changing it at least from
42:10
seatac airport to cpat hyperport the state of ohio the northeast ohio
42:18
area-wide coordinating agency just committed 1.2 million to a study for feasibility between for a hyperloop
42:24
between chicago and cleveland at 300 miles at doing it in 700 miles an hour
42:30
that would be 28 minutes they're already at the eis stage of development of this
42:36
project and now apparently pennsylvania and new york want to join in on that for the area up there
42:43
also in june of last year the department of transportation approved five million
42:48
dollars to do a budget study for hyperloop in general
42:53
it is time for us to get on board it amazes me that with the budget that the
43:00
port of seattle has that we are still in our ever so progressive state doing
43:06
nothing and we can be using our airport people to be preparing for that we also have
43:12
boeing instead of making jets they should be making hyperport because at the end of the day in terms of
43:17
domestic travel it's clear to rational thinking and scientists and others that jets are actually zombies they're dead
43:25
they just don't know it so the other thing i want to bring up real quickly is
43:31
about the coronavirus there is a website i would recommend you take a look at it's for medical professionals but i'm
43:38
sure you're all highly educated and can follow with it it's uh medcram.com they have daily updates on the big picture
43:45
and the medical issues surrounding coronavis and where it is in real time
43:51
the n95 mask my question is for the executive director i guess the n95 master do you have quantities of those
43:57
that you can give to your employees here because you cannot get them on the open market now and i bring that up simply
44:05
because as i was walking up the stairs i noticed that one of the asian air crews was completely wearing masks and nobody
44:11
is that creates an atmosphere of panic thank you thank you jc harris followed
44:18
by lisa rankin
44:27
good afternoon commissioners um i have three asks in two minutes um first of
44:33
all thank you for your support of ahp 2315 the port package update
44:39
bill and thank you for getting off the dime on
44:44
the port package program in general in today's presentation the first ask is
44:52
i would appreciate it if you guys would read the report that i sent to uh
44:58
commissioner former president bowman about six months ago
45:03
where she asked me you know about the history of the port packages
45:10
why the system had so many problems in the beginning right now in 25 words or less i'll just
45:17
tell you it's the old engineering aphorism you can have it fast cheap or good pick
45:23
two the port was under tremendous pressure to provide systems for up to ten thousand
45:30
homes as a predicate to doing the third runway and
45:36
that's why we are where we are today now
45:41
the second thing is uh i basically got this whole port package thing rolling
45:46
three years ago by canvassing about 3 000 homes in the area and
45:53
all the aip grant contractor invoices and we vetted the worst of the worst
46:00
we've done all of the triage so when the bill gets passed
46:06
you know god willing we will have a list for you of priorities
46:13
which you're going to need to decide who to do you know first and so on um
46:18
and i will the third asks so anyway what i want is um for you guys to
46:25
look at our list and take that into consideration in prioritizing which
46:31
systems to work on first these people deserve it we've already done 99
46:37
of the vetting finally i would like my group since we have identified all of
46:44
the homes to have a seat at the table with your noise program
46:51
when they are rolling out this program you have not done anything to this scale in over a
46:58
decade and the community deserves to be able to
47:03
watch and have a voice in how you scale up this program
47:09
it will give them the confidence that things are going to go better next time i am preparing a memo for
47:15
director metric and i look forward to this positive reply thank you thank you
47:21
liz rankin followed by bernard kuntz and i just might say council member harris thank you for uh your upcoming
47:28
participation on the advocacy trip to dc
47:35
um hi my name is liza rankin and i am on the school board in seattle public
47:41
schools and i'm also a born and raised lifelong seattleite um
47:47
i came today prepared to i thought listen to a conversation about maritime and marine science high school
47:54
but apparently that item's been moved so instead i'm going to take the opportunity just to speak
47:59
a little bit about my support of it as um as a citizen of the area and as a school
48:06
board director and just to clarify i'm here as a school board director but i'm not speaking on behalf of the full board
48:11
we were just told about this meeting yesterday and so
48:17
mobilized to come down and just during my um while i was campaigning uh
48:25
i was able to participate in commissioner calkins summit about the maritime academy or at maritime high
48:31
school and it's it's really really exciting to me both as a
48:37
a seattle citizen and as a someone who writes policy now for education
48:43
the that in our region which is really defined by its waterways
48:48
that we have the potential for this opportunity to better gauge the young people of our of our communities in the
48:53
stewardship in the knowledge um and in active participation of taking
48:59
care of and learning about our oceans and our waterways as a school board director the potential
49:06
for the partnerships between the different entities is extremely exciting i know highline school district has
49:12
expressed great interest in leading [Music] this this project which is super
49:18
exciting and uh which we are highly supportive of it the the potential for the opportunities
49:24
for our students especially those furthest from educational justice to have the opportunity to access this kind of
49:31
education and to empower them to be great stewards and
49:37
have pathways to really great careers is extremely exciting and i think
49:42
something that i would actually like to see come down even into k5 just
49:48
engaging students in knowing about your work and knowing about the ocean that um
49:53
supports all of us so thank you very much thanks bernard koontz
50:06
good afternoon port canoe port commissioners my name is bernard koontz and i lead the
50:11
design of secondary instruction in highland public schools and i'm here today to express highland's continued enthusiasm and support and gratitude for
50:18
the port's leadership in maritime education highland public schools appreciates the
50:23
port's leadership to convene stakeholders to collaborate for the common interest of our students in the economic vitality of the region
50:30
specifically i appreciate the alignment of the port of the port and highlands shared common values around racial
50:36
equity highlights of which were shared at your last public meeting and the work of your office of equity diversity and
50:43
inclusion this is also evident in highline's recently adopted equity policy and shared across the other partners that
50:50
are that are being brought together the other school districts and many of the other entities is the school system highlighting as
50:55
bold and innovative raise back aviation is an example of this innovation focusing on
51:01
partnerships and career oriented learning additionally highline's bold goals to have all students graduate bilingual and bilitera is an example of
51:08
our commitment to equity specifically valuing who our students are and who they can be
51:13
with our experience and innovative approach we are very excited to embark on on launching this new school
51:19
as we enter the next phase of planning and working together we will begin tackling 1001 details and logistics and
51:26
through that work i know our common focus on equity will be our guide i look forward to the
51:32
ongoing work and the many benefits it will yield thank you
51:38
and unless there are others signed up i don't see that there are that concludes our public comment session
51:45
yes please i also just want to acknowledge uh we've got former board member jill geary here as well who has
51:52
been instrumental in the crafting of the model that was selected by the advisory group so thank you for coming too
51:58
thank you so we'll now advance the unanimous consent agenda a consent calendar rather
52:06
and i don't believe there are any items that have been requested to be removed and so
52:12
with that the chair will entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar covering
52:18
items six a through six e is there a motion a motion to move and seconded all those in favor say aye
52:26
aye jose the motion carries uh the consent calendar is approved
52:34
that brings us to agenda item 7a noise programs briefing okay
52:40
commissioners this item was a briefing regarding the long-standing noise mitigation program that traditionally
52:45
insulated homes and highline schools and highline college buildings the program has made positive progress
52:51
over the years as will be noted in today's briefing however there is still large amounts of noise abatement work
52:57
yet to do in addition to more homes and schools the upcoming work will include apartments condominiums and gathering
53:03
places like churches this briefing will explain what work is completed and what work is to come this
53:08
will be followed by a motion for commission consideration to accelerate the remaining insulation work to benefit
53:14
the community surrounding the airport at this point i'll turn it over to our presenters lance little
53:19
arlen purcell and stan shepard thank you commissioners and executive director metric
53:25
today we want to share information about the airport ongoing noise programs and on the possibility of accelerating
53:32
the sound insulation program this acceleration is for the programs already approved in the
53:38
port's earlier noise remedy study called the part 150 update accelerating these
53:43
programs mean that the work we have already planned to do continues in addition we're able to do more
53:49
insulation sound insulation in the cities around the airport these programs include insulating
53:55
several apartments and condominiums complexes places of worship and even voluntary
54:00
acquisition of some homes and apartment complexes by accelerating this work
54:06
we reduce noise impact sooner on residents around the airport we know this is very important to the
54:12
community and has been raised at our noise advisory roundtable we will also discuss the risk associated
54:19
with accelerating these programs and i want to thank the staff involved for their hard work and assembling this
54:25
information for you now i'd like to ask arlene purcell and stan shepard to begin the briefing today thank you lance
54:33
good afternoon commissioners and mr metric i'm arlen purcell director of environment and sustainability for the
54:38
airport and i'm here with stan shepard senior manager of our noise programs
54:44
we're here today to talk about noise programs in general but also as lance mentioned a concept that we're very
54:51
excited to pursue which is acceleration acceleration of our sound insulation
54:56
program does have risks associated with it and we are going to discuss those today but also demonstrates our commitment to
55:04
reduce noise impacts in our near airport communities our briefing will be followed directly
55:09
by a motion to provide direction and we look forward to commissions guidance on that question
55:14
so now i'll turn the presentation over to stanship good afternoon commissioners and
55:20
executive director so today i'm going to go over four main points of this presentation
55:27
the noise programs overview to give you an overview of what all the noise programs are comprised of and then move into our sound insulation programs that
55:34
are ongoing and then we're going to move into what we're really here to talk about is the acceleration of those sound
55:40
insulation programs and provide you a recommendation on that
55:46
so the noise airport noise programs are really comprised of four different areas we have noise abatement focusing on
55:53
where the aircraft are flying within the sky and how the noise that is emitted from those aircraft and how it's
55:59
impacting the community we also work with the faa on a regular basis just to
56:04
make sure they're aware of everything that's going on with our noise abatement programs we also work with community
56:10
outreach so anytime we can get out into the community we're happy to do that and provide them with the information on our
56:16
programs we have a noise hotline that we answer in our office and have also a
56:22
recording that you can leave comments on we get about a thousand complaints a day or even more during the summer time on
56:28
that we have the noise monitoring program so we have
56:33
24 permanent noise monitors and at commission direction we have also purchased two additional portable noise
56:40
monitor and are in the process of purchasing uh three additional for that program we are currently uh working on
56:47
training for staff we're setting up procedures legal agreements with our legal department and we are working on
56:54
some outreach details right now and we'll get back to you with a little more on that information as we progress on
56:59
that we are also testing the two portable noise monitors in-house right now that we have and making sure that they're
57:06
operating correctly before we get those into the field sound insulation is our last
57:13
one on the list here so it's noise mitigation actually consists of acquisition programs and sound insulation i just want to mention that
57:20
sound insulation really is comprised of putting sound rated windows doors and
57:26
ventilation systems in homes to reduce the noise within those homes we're going to talk a lot about more that as we
57:32
progress along in this presentation
57:39
for um where we've come from in the past we've had this program going since 1985 with our sound installation programs
57:45
we've insulated a lot of buildings out there so you can see the list here 9400 homes and been working with the highline
57:52
school district and i'll have more information on the highland school district as we go along also
57:57
we have completed five condominium complexes in the past and a bunch of buildings at the highland
58:03
college campus a lot of acquisition programs we've been underway with mobile homes since mobile
58:08
homes can't be adequately sound insulated the preference is to go ahead and purchase those homes and relocate
58:14
them so we have five we had five parks that were very close into the airport that that was accomplished with
58:22
so total cost on that is around 300 million to 100 million dollars on
58:27
acquisition 300 million on sound insulation programs
58:33
the other aspect that we have in our in our programs is the seatac stakeholder
58:38
advisory roundtable which was established in 2018 we also have a sub
58:43
noise working group with that that is consists of community partners and our airlines and airport staff working on
58:50
ideas on where we could actually find noise reduction within the
58:56
the programs that we have so to start at the top here we have what we call a late night noise limitations
59:01
program this one began in 2019 as a way to actually try and find ways to reduce
59:07
noise from the loudest aircraft operating during the nighttime hours so we established some noise thresholds
59:13
around the airport and aircraft that fly over those noise monitors and break that threshold or then identified and we
59:20
contact those airlines and try and actually either remove those aircraft from the nighttime hours or change them
59:27
over to quieter aircraft once that's a volunteer program is it not yes it is i
59:32
just wanted us to be clear about that yep so very very good point so uh one success we've had is eva
59:38
airlines recently gave us some exciting news where they will be switching out the triple seven aircraft during the
59:44
nighttime hours to a 787 which is a dramatic noise reduction for that aircraft switch out so that's a big
59:50
success that we've had with that program already what airline is that either airlines
59:57
the other one we have is the ground or the runway use agreement that's where we're trying to reduce the use of the
1:00:03
runway or the third runway during the nighttime hours and we've worked with the faa to accomplish that we went from
1:00:10
approximately 20 aircraft flying into that third runway on approaches during the nighttime hours to approximately
1:00:15
just one or two during the night so another success on that program we're undertaking a ground noise study now
1:00:21
also to try and figure out what kind of noises are being emitted from the airport and if there are ways we can
1:00:27
actually try to find to mitigate that noise from getting out into the community a little better whether it's
1:00:32
from operational procedures that we can change or if it's from actual physical structures that could be
1:00:39
helped to accomplish that we also have on our 3 4 right glide
1:00:44
slope that one is a slightly lower glide slope than the rest of them based on some very old technology so we're
1:00:50
looking at ways to increase that glide slope
1:00:56
missed one there just to give you an idea of what we we also do in the office is we track every aircraft that comes into and out of the
1:01:02
office this isn't just we i call it noise art but what it really is is just showing every
1:01:07
aircraft that came into and out of the airport on the approach this is an example of a south flow operation so the
1:01:13
red lines are approaching the airport and the green lines are departures out of the airport we know what every aircraft is edgeline
1:01:21
represents an aircraft and we know the statistics on that also
1:01:28
we also have what we call a part 150 where it's the section of the faa regulation that guides our airport noise
1:01:33
programs as long as we are accepting grant money for noise programs we have to follow the
1:01:38
faa regulation which is the part 150. it's an opportunity for us to go through
1:01:44
and really evaluate all of our noise programs and and see if there's something we could change or do better with that
1:01:50
when we undertake apart 150 we evaluate the noise impacts within the community and try to find ways to mitigate the
1:01:57
noise in that community so eligible mitigation includes residential housing and some public buildings that could be
1:02:04
eligible for sound insulation program once the faa approves our mitigation
1:02:09
plan then what it is is it provides us the ability to apply for faa funding
1:02:14
grants on that at approximately 80 percent of the project values
1:02:20
stan just a quick question so um according to the memo um before 2014 the
1:02:25
last the previous um part 150 was 1985 is that correct um
1:02:30
no the previous part 150 that 2014 was completed in 2002.
1:02:36
okay yeah that was in the memo so then when would be the next one so so i'll address that a little bit
1:02:43
because there's overlap with the environmental review so as part of the environmental review for the near term
1:02:49
projects we'll be preparing noise contours and those noise noise contours sorry will show
1:02:56
whether there's been a change from the ones that stan is about to show you and where those changes are based on
1:03:03
that information then we will coordinate with faa on the decision to um formally
1:03:08
update the maps for part 150 and then do a part 150 program so don't know the exact timing on that i know that was
1:03:14
your question but thank you so just hypothetically um
1:03:22
so let's say the contours became narrower because planes got quieter
1:03:28
but we had obligations previously that we had not completed for
1:03:34
when the planes were louder but those were never done so i'm just wondering how so does uh is this retro retroactive so
1:03:43
that's a really good question and it does get sensitive and tricky because technically if the contours are
1:03:51
narrower and a resonance is no longer within the contours then they are no longer
1:03:56
eligible for the faa reimbursement as part of a part 150
1:04:01
program if that situation were to occur we would need to think about how to
1:04:07
treat those but the only reason that's the case is because we didn't get to it yet well again and so the reason i'm not
1:04:14
i'm saying i don't know how this would turn out is for that that factor so if i again this is
1:04:20
hypothetical um we don't know what the differences might be so i think it's i just wanted to raise that question
1:04:27
serious consideration when when and if that happens and this is a two-factor qualification
1:04:33
correct there is the the noise contour and then once you are deemed within the noise contour
1:04:39
then a test is done in the resonance is that correct that's correct and i'm going to be going over that just being
1:04:45
within the noise contour does not ensure that you are you qualify you then have to go through the test there's some
1:04:51
other qualifications with it in fact including when it was built and then it also has to go through that noise audit
1:04:57
to determine the noise levels in the house okay so one more follow-up so were were audits
1:05:03
done on these all the houses and just only some were
1:05:09
updated or didn't we do we not know what those uh eligible houses were
1:05:15
back in the day back in the day we we don't know that all the homes that have applied right now for the program
1:05:23
the ones that we've had the applications for we're moving forward with we've completed some already in the past last
1:05:30
year 17 we've completed two this year we have another five or six or actually
1:05:36
it's like 25 that we're working on getting noise audits this year so as homes trickle into the program as we can
1:05:42
convince these homeowners to come into the program we're getting them qualified and just for did anybody just
1:05:48
cross-check to see how they compared with jc's list i have not seen jc's list so mr bowman
1:05:56
no i'm going to let you accept your i think we can answer the question two slides in so okay okay okay
1:06:06
so we're going to start talking about that noise contour and how that noise contour is really depicted is in what we
1:06:12
call a dnl which is the day night noise level it's a noise metric that is pretty
1:06:17
common and used in the aviation industry and it is also a required noise metric that the faa requires us to use in
1:06:25
evaluating our noise programs and determining kind of a boundary and eligibility
1:06:30
so um dnl is really an annual cumulative metric and it has a 10 db penalty for
1:06:37
aircraft operating during the nighttime hours that's when people are home for the most part and it's quieter during
1:06:43
that time frame so the faa plot applies that db penalty for every one aircraft
1:06:49
that flies over they apply that 10 db fa requires it to be calculated through the airport environmental design tool
1:06:56
which contains an extensive database of aircraft noise levels for each aircraft
1:07:01
type within that database and it's the 65 number that is significant it's because that's the area
1:07:07
that the faa really allows for mitigation to happen within i'm going to switch to the next slide here
1:07:14
this just shows you the the contours and i put up two different contours here to show you the difference between the 1998
1:07:21
time frame and the 2018 time frame so you can see in 1998 we had a lot of
1:07:27
noisier louder aircraft out there that were um like the 727
1:07:32
and some of the older seven three sevens and older seven four seven so that's a very large contour
1:07:38
and then the the one that's closest in the red one is the 2018 projected from our last part
1:07:44
150 you can see a lot of those aircraft were taken out of that service and it's become
1:07:50
smaller thus quieter within the area may have a question this is back to commissioner feldman's earlier question
1:07:56
so in the memo it says that so you have the 1985 contour and there were the memo
1:08:02
says that approximately 10 000 homes were considered potentially eligible in 1985
1:08:08
but not only 9 400 were completed so that 600 home delta
1:08:14
what happened to those when the new noise contour in 2014 came into being um
1:08:19
we're down to about a thousand i have the numbers in here as we go along somewhere it's around a thousand that
1:08:25
are left within that red contour that are eligible at this point no i'm but i'm asking the larger the 1985 i don't
1:08:32
know how many didn't chose to participate between that other area well your memo says 600 weren't
1:08:38
done it could be about 600 yen but my question is so what happened are they still eligible no they are not so eating
1:08:45
outside of that that red area between the green area and the red area are no longer eligible according to whom faa
1:08:51
yes yes but i think but can i just be i want to make sure we're on the same page so you mean that
1:08:56
they wouldn't be eligible for faa reimbursement of grant funds correct we
1:09:02
could not use faa grant dollars on that program if any homes outside are there
1:09:07
got it okay thank you okay further clarification so the 600 homes that she's trying to identify obviously not
1:09:13
everybody who's in the zone asks to be insulated and that's that's and so do you know do you so do you have a sense
1:09:20
of those 600 how much were eligible and desired well i'll put it this way we've been the
1:09:26
sound insulating out there we've on that i have another slide that i'll show you here in just a second been sound
1:09:32
insulating since 1985 that's going out that that's sending applications to people that's identifying everybody
1:09:38
that's eligible they've they've done door knocking out there on numerous occasions in the last it's trying to get
1:09:43
those people to participate in the program and they have not participated in the program the ones that are left
1:09:49
and what we're finding now is you know there's a lot of reasons people don't want to participate i mean personal
1:09:54
reasons whatever it is um so we're finding now that a lot of those homes are now turning over with
1:10:00
new homeowners and they're willing to participate so we're getting those homes in a little bit at a time more than we
1:10:06
have and we're still doing that that outreach so every year probably twice a year what we're
1:10:12
doing is outreach to those homeowners that have not participated yet in trying to get them into the system so do we
1:10:18
have documentation that we actually touched all the homes that were eligible
1:10:24
during that interval of time and that we what the amount of folks that
1:10:29
actually responded and desired we do have some documentation in the audience it just would be good to know
1:10:35
with it because it's obviously going to be a smaller number than the 600 but it's
1:10:40
if they raise their hand and we didn't get to it how big is that number would be great to
1:10:45
know okay and this if you looked at the contour
1:10:52
before you can notice that this is almost identical to the contour this is what we call the noise remedy boundary
1:10:58
and it's it's got some jagged lines in there because what we do is we take the noise contour and take into account for
1:11:05
natural boundaries such as streets cul-de-sacs communities parks that sort of thing and try to be more inclusive so
1:11:11
this is an area that is more inclusive to that than the boundary or the noise contour actually was
1:11:17
and this is the area that the faa allows us now to go in and do that mitigation
1:11:22
so you'll see the big boundary is based on that 1985 and when we went through our last part 150 study the faa required
1:11:29
us to go through and reduce that to match the contour so you'll see the smaller one on the inside there which is
1:11:35
the red one stan i just may i just ask that if we can just be really accurate when
1:11:41
referring to what the faa allows us they allow us to get grant reimbursement yes we can go in and do whatever we want
1:11:49
with our own money but the faa if we want grant reimbursement we need to follow their rules yeah as long as it's not as long as it's not airport revenues
1:11:56
also because that is also regulated so thank you yep
1:12:06
so here's the we had this question earlier the sound insulation requirements um
1:12:11
for one thing it has to be inclusive to that boundary is is what we look for in our programs and then the homes built in
1:12:19
1986 in des moines or 1987 after that time frame are not eligible because
1:12:25
that's when the communities actually enacted building codes that either met or exceeded those those building
1:12:30
requirements that the faa had in place for noise reduction so that's the the time frame that we
1:12:36
have in our program it also requires that homes homeowners sign a navigation easement on
1:12:42
that property so a navigation easement gives the port air rights over the property is required by state law and
1:12:50
encouraged by the faa also and what it is is it also gives the port the asset
1:12:56
on that property so we can't just give something away we have to get something in exchange for it and in exchange is
1:13:02
that that navigation easement as the asset so it's one thing to have the air rights
1:13:08
but let's say all of a sudden we wanted the planes to fly or fa one of the planes fly a couple thousand feet lower
1:13:15
um the air rights are the same um the the air rights are the same but there is a
1:13:21
dnl number that's located in that avigation easement and if there's i believe a 1.5
1:13:28
to get the right 1.5 dnl uh change on that number there could be some questioning on it
1:13:34
okay so but there is uh there is a determinant a threshold there is that it's not just unlimited correct yes
1:13:46
um in 2019 as most of you are aware the port went through a a noise audit or an audit to the noise
1:13:53
programs through the internal and they reviewed the sound insulation programs under the first job order
1:13:59
contract and it identified some areas of concern and improvement regarding the contracting so after that additional
1:14:06
controls were put into place by the central procurement office including additional reviews of contracting an
1:14:12
oversight committee consisting of cross-divisional staff and controls of allowable line item pricing with it so
1:14:18
there's a lot more controls that were put into place for job order contracting with these programs the cpo is still the lead
1:14:25
department on managing the joc
1:14:32
so now i'll just transition into more of our ongoing sound insulation
1:14:38
programs and tell you where we're at with those
1:14:44
this chart here at the top gives you an overview of the single family sound insulation program
1:14:49
we've completed 17 homes in 2019 two of them completed to date this year 140
1:14:57
remain potentially eligible and that's still based on all the criteria that we need to
1:15:03
to place on that and we're working through 40 additional applications right now to determine the eligibility with
1:15:09
those we have a goal to complete at least 10 or more this year and we'll be
1:15:14
coming back to commission next month for an approval of an a e contract to continue on with that program
1:15:20
are the addresses of those places publicly knowable
1:15:26
they're in our office so it's public documents all right so if we're not cross-checking for jc he could do so yes
1:15:34
may i just that's a quick question so i'm just curious so 17 in 2019 how does
1:15:39
the staff determine which homes they're going to be retrofitting um we take the applications
1:15:46
that come into the office and it's typically just as the applications come in we start to turn them over to the consultants and the consultants go out
1:15:53
to the home and do the noise testing on those and determine eligibility with that so it's kind of a first come first
1:15:59
serve basis right now and how long does that process take from when the application comes in to
1:16:04
i it can take six to nine months sometimes because what we have to do is make sure they're in the contracting phase they um are
1:16:12
eligible for the program we um require them here's one of the harder issues that
1:16:19
takes place is require them to get it what we call a subordination agreement on the property
1:16:24
what happens is we have a navigation or if we're going to put a navigation easement on a property that has a
1:16:30
mortgage on it if we don't get a subordination agreement from the lender then we risk losing that
1:16:39
navigation easement if the property goes into bankruptcy or fault so they're required to sign an advocate
1:16:45
or the subordination agreement with the lender that takes an enormous amount of time to get that through the system
1:16:51
and probably most homes have mortgages most homes have more agents we're finding that the big that's one of the
1:16:57
biggest challenges we have right now can we just put a pin in that issue i'd love to just understand if there's any way to help homeowners get through that process
1:17:04
a little more quickly yeah we're definitely okay yeah that sounds like a big stumbling block
1:17:09
yeah did sam have a question okay okay continue the other thing we
1:17:16
want to touch on today is the failed windows so there are two potential
1:17:21
issues kind of here failed windows we know that there was a
1:17:26
manufacturer that happened that we were using in the 1990s called alpine windows
1:17:32
they had a higher than normal failure rate on those windows alpine went into bankruptcy in about the year 2000 and
1:17:40
stopped honoring the warranties and there's about 5 000 homes out there that have those windows so we know that
1:17:46
that's an issue we also know that the homes in 1985 through the 1990s are now
1:17:53
getting old those may be hitting their lifespan on those buildings too so those may start to fail
1:17:59
um what what typically is identifying a failure is we're seeing some of the the
1:18:05
interior um seals warping within the between the frames we're seeing some of the rails
1:18:10
maybe not working and the obvious sign usually is if there's some fogging of the windows in that
1:18:16
so that's something that's coming up as you've noted there's some state legislation is currently being proposed
1:18:23
to allow the port to undertake replacement of those products giving the ability to do so and it's my
1:18:28
understanding that that is now in the senate rules committee right now and so why since if faa is funding much of this
1:18:36
why does do we need state approval for replacement uh the state approval actually gives us the ability to go into
1:18:43
a parcel one time and it specifically states that within the the state
1:18:49
codes so we're trying to work with that to get that changed also
1:18:55
um you have anything else in it that's it well it just it would seem to me that i don't understand why they have
1:19:00
jurisdiction over this they're not paid for it the state's not paying for it it's the state charters deport and gives
1:19:07
us our ability to do the work that we do and it also outlines all of the noise programs
1:19:13
but the the idea is that it's not the fda that would fund the replacement it would be us and so the
1:19:18
state is telling us yeah it's your obligation to fix this even if you don't get faa right this the
1:19:25
proposed legislation would just give us the authority to conduct it and then we would need to do it with our own funding
1:19:31
and how many of these homes do we do you know that are part of the 1985
1:19:37
contour versus the 2014 contour yeah i don't know that actually yeah that would be great
1:19:44
information to have looking okay so it seems to me that something very distinct about failure
1:19:49
one is life span the other is this you know defect
1:19:55
right and so um it wasn't sort of like a failure of ours
1:20:01
that this company had some bad seals so uh the faa doesn't have any um
1:20:08
acknowledgement of that you know it's one thing that something you know single pane glass will last longer right
1:20:14
but uh so so we know this has got a finite lifetime but if one is clearly shown to be defective faa can't come back and
1:20:22
help sponsor the reimbursement yeah the faa has not been able to do that in fact there is there's a lot of discussion on
1:20:28
the national level with this same issue this i mean not not just a bad manufacturer but products around the
1:20:34
united states that were put into the 1980s and 90s you know they're getting past their lifespan too so there's a lot
1:20:39
of discussion on the national level with other airports and the faa to see if there's a solution to this at some point
1:20:45
is there any way to tell whether some of the problem was actually the installation itself with a um
1:20:51
adequate window um i have drainage seals i haven't seen a
1:20:56
bad installation that caused the window to fail i haven't seen that i have seen a
1:21:02
bad installation that we found at one point and we were able to go in and re fix that
1:21:07
so that's we've audited it for installation as well as for quality of product yeah i think the
1:21:14
installation has from what i've seen has been fairly decent in the past i mean we have some great contractors now i know
1:21:21
that but you know from this installations that i've seen back that were happening in the you know 90s when
1:21:26
i went back and looked at some of those windows i haven't seen a lot of failures on the inside there was a lot of product failure in the early 80s because of the
1:21:34
relative newness of the application of insulated glass than when the energy code went into place
1:21:40
and so it's pretty widespread and it's fairly easy to detect but the installation doesn't really affect the
1:21:47
unit glazing right seals yeah back in the early
1:21:53
back in the early 1980s there was a concept of putting like a storm window on the on the interior of the house and
1:22:01
that was that was bad i mean we had to go back in and re find all those homes and take those out because it became an
1:22:06
egress issue that's how they really started to find how to do these products and get through them until these
1:22:13
newer sts rated windows came out
1:22:20
so um upcoming what we have going on right now also is we have condominium complexes
1:22:28
being uh in the program so we have one it's which is called villa indian it's south of the
1:22:33
airport this is a picture of villansian in fact it's a picture of us trying to sound odd at this building so we had to
1:22:38
haul a big speaker up on top of the building in order to put it on top to see where the intrusion the noise is
1:22:44
coming from the from the upper portion of it just an example of that but um three complexes in that so we're
1:22:50
doing the first one and a couple more coming up soon so we'll be coming back to
1:22:55
uh commission for another procurement for major works in q3 also for this
1:23:02
valencian project so i i i didn't so does this include uh
1:23:08
attic insulation as one of the because i didn't see that listed yeah it doesn't so that isn't typically a an area that
1:23:16
provides a significant noise reduction the areas they get noise reduction from are the windows the doors the chimneys
1:23:23
the areas that really are the thinner portions of the house so what's the speaker doing um on this one actually
1:23:29
there's skylights and there's some upper windows up there so that's the
1:23:47
doesn't play pay for energy efficiency no i'm just saying though we don't get faa funding to replace
1:23:53
the best source of improving insulation right
1:24:00
apartment sound insulation is another outcome of the part 150 that we had and it there are 18
1:24:06
potentially eligible complexes out there in all the jurisdictions basically surrounding the airport we know there's
1:24:12
about 903 units our estimated time to start this project is 2022 under the current cip plan
1:24:20
we also have places of worship um that is expected to begin in 2024 with
1:24:27
seven structures and that just presents some very unique challenges for us not to say it hasn't been done they're
1:24:34
architectural um and acoustic consultants around the united states that have done this for other airports i
1:24:39
just put the the window on there for an example how do you cover that kind of window with acoustic graded windows to
1:24:45
get the noise reduction so i'm finding some unique challenges that we can
1:24:50
figure out with this one another one is uh the what we call an
1:24:57
approach transition zone it's about 2 500 feet past that runway protection
1:25:02
zone we had the same thing at the north end of the airport where we went through and and had completed the purchase of
1:25:09
those homes in about 2009 this is proposed to be a voluntary acquisition
1:25:16
area south of the third runway in this approach transition zone approximately 16 single-family homes and six apartment
1:25:23
buildings in that area and again it is planned to begin in around 2023 under
1:25:30
the current plan can you just um what is no relocations can you just
1:25:37
yeah if it's a voluntary acquisition plan this would be trying to help the people um
1:25:43
get out of the area if they wanted to the the community in that area
1:25:48
so it wouldn't be proposed as a re or a paid relocation program so we're just
1:25:54
purchasing their home yeah that's it yeah okay
1:25:59
but this policy has always been in place i mean since the third one we went up that people could have asked to get
1:26:05
bought out in that zone not in the south approach transition zone we hadn't moved forward with this project there was a
1:26:10
lot of questions with it with the um 509 right away which is the washdot area that goes right through that center
1:26:17
portion there on where they were going to purchase land they have purchased a lot of the homes
1:26:22
through there and just understanding what the area would be like when they were
1:26:27
finished so
1:26:35
the highline school insulation we have a memorandum of agreement which was signed in 2002 to help fund the reconstruction
1:26:43
of schools impacted by noise this was a hundred million dollar agreement between the port of seattle the faa
1:26:49
to provide funding for those reconstructions and it is a combination of faa grant
1:26:56
port of seattle airport revenues and it is the one source of tax levy funding
1:27:02
that the airport uses nine schools have been completed six more schools remain and it's
1:27:10
really dependent completely dependent on the district's construction schedule and the need for a voter approved bond to
1:27:16
move forward with each one of those schools so we're just kind of holding on until they come forward with their
1:27:22
construction plans in order to help participate in that program the picture the right is the des moines
1:27:28
elementary school which was just completed last year and we are now working with them on the highline high
1:27:34
school which is under construction so very nice schools
1:27:39
and this is just a list of the schools that we've completed and have more to complete the last time below the
1:27:46
green line are the ones that are still left to complete at about 32 million dollars remaining
1:27:55
and just a quick picture of where they're at in in relation to our boundary and this is the current
1:28:01
boundary that we had showed earlier so they're kind of all around the area is there a prioritization of the those
1:28:09
remaining schools that are completely dependent on the faa's construction schedule so what they
1:28:15
prioritize through their school board and bring forward
1:28:24
and now what we're going to jump into is going to transition into talking about what is this concept of acceleration and
1:28:30
how we can accomplish this
1:28:36
so i'm going to talk about two approaches there's the current practice which really gets us all of our programs
1:28:42
done under the current cip plan in the mid 2030s and then we're going to talk about going into a proposed plan of
1:28:49
acceleration which kind of condenses that down to be completed in the in the 2027
1:28:56
range and i'll talk more about each one of these bullet points as we move along here
1:29:03
so the goal with acceleration is really trying to deliver on our part 150 commitments as quickly as possible it
1:29:10
increases the rate of installation to get everything completed sooner and one of our goals will be to not compromise
1:29:16
cost or quality with the projects as we move along
1:29:25
um on this slide what i'm trying to show here is the the projects listed are everything
1:29:31
that we have approved in our last part 150 and potentially eligible so it's our current practice it's going to take us
1:29:37
right now 15 years with the schedule the staffing the money that we have to get through this so you can see the whole
1:29:43
list of their things that that are eligible and the yellow really represents the
1:29:51
what we're undertaking in the next four years the blue column shows the remainder of the work through 2035
1:29:58
all of the projects that we have with that so it's about 150 million to 259 million
1:30:03
in in that range what these projects could consist of but stan just a quick i just want to
1:30:08
make sure that we're cognizant of the fact that this does not include the potentially 5 000 homes that have the
1:30:14
failed windows yeah the failed windows is not in this place right so i just as we get further into the presentation
1:30:20
about how we might address that i just want to make sure that we are considering how we might do that okay as
1:30:25
well okay and and this cost here is our cost or is that 20 of that is our
1:30:31
cost uh this actually that's a good point because what this does is it takes into account that we know that the faa
1:30:37
will most likely fund this plan because it takes into what we know is our
1:30:42
rcip plan we've presented this to the faa and it's slow enough to actually get the aip faa funding into it so it's
1:30:50
about eighty percent of that cost is going to be faa grant funded twenty
1:30:55
percent our cost okay so it would be good to show that this number is only twenty percent of that is what's
1:31:14
just think that that that number should be shown as a 20 right so it's 52 million
1:31:20
would be essentially our obligation if we were to continue with the current funding right about 30 million to about
1:31:26
52 million i use the high number sure yes yeah yeah that total estimated cost
1:31:32
number range is before faa reimbursement yep
1:31:38
just want to show you the uncertainty we're at the two because we're really at what we call the class five on the very
1:31:44
left so we haven't got into any of these buildings and we don't know the exact cost estimates so it's a huge range that's why you're
1:31:50
seeing a very big range of differences on the figures
1:31:55
the current practice scenario the plan plays within the current five-year funding plan it really doesn't take away
1:32:02
from funding from other capital projects at this point the grant funding is more likely with these scenarios and the
1:32:09
downside of this it's going to take us a long time to get it done that's the big downside with it
1:32:15
can we just stick on this for one moment i wanted to just um i was going to talk about an earlier slide and steve this
1:32:20
for me is really important that we're really clear about what we're trying to accomplish and for me it's getting
1:32:27
the most amount of homes done in the quickest amount of time and the most cost effective and so i just i hope that
1:32:35
we can come to some resolution about what exactly we're trying to achieve here because that does influence what the
1:32:40
pros and cons are for me the idea that a pro is it gives us a
1:32:46
lower five-year cip is not a pro i mean if that's not if what we're trying to accomplish is more homes more quickly
1:32:53
at a more cost effective way then that's not a pro so steve i really hope that you and the team in lance can come to or
1:33:00
with commission direction a really clear outcome that we're trying to achieve okay
1:33:06
well grant funding is an issue there on the pro side so it is i'm not calling that out but i'm
1:33:12
just saying again it's those for me are the outcomes that we're trying to achieve but we we need to
1:33:17
compare it against something so it sounds like this is like about a million and a half bucks a year out of our pocket and in the
1:33:24
2035 time frame yeah with the 20 so it's about a million and a half dollars
1:33:29
a year so whatever we're going to do has to be relative to what this scenario would cost us right yep
1:33:38
commissioner going back to your commissioner bowman going back to your goals on slide 25 it does talk about the
1:33:44
principles but i think your principles are included in there just to you know that's but i i
1:33:49
understand what you're saying about calling those out to say as we're going forward we're making our decisions we need to keep those front and center
1:33:56
about we just need to be i mean yeah back to that slide you know it's sort of we've buried the lead it's provide
1:34:02
relief from noise burning sooner that needs to be at the top that's what we're trying to accomplish and then these are
1:34:07
the ways by which we do that so that's what i'm just i want to be really clear about what the outcomes are here
1:34:14
one more thing i i guess to underscore the point is that we're behind schedule right so this
1:34:20
desire to get her done is to catch up right so i think that's just an
1:34:27
important you know time framing so that's the current scenario he's showing the
1:34:32
accelerated one we'll show the advantages that you're talking about commissioner you'll see that in an upcoming slide yeah maybe the next two
1:34:38
slides all right so let's let's move on to that
1:34:45
one then it's the the accelerated schedule now takes into all of those programs that we had on the other slide
1:34:51
we condensed that into a seven year scenario so we we've met with a lot of our staff and program management and
1:34:58
everything and what's reasonable and how feasible that we can move forward with and we believe that that this meets that
1:35:05
criteria the big thing that you'll see that's a change here is you'll see all 18 of those apartment complexes 903 of
1:35:13
them put into that time frame also so we've got a lot of work to do that we can condense into it it does lower the
1:35:19
cost just a little bit um down to 132 million to 220 something 27
1:35:25
million based on the the reduced escalation on there for the years
1:35:31
getting everything completed within that 2026 time frame and
1:35:38
right i would just add to that in response commissioner bowman to your earlier question this also does not
1:35:43
include the failed packages in terms of timing cost or any of that so we'd really have to figure out how to work
1:35:49
that in what clarification we're talking about the
1:35:56
same projects being done just done being done a little early because i didn't
1:36:01
understand you just mentioned something that this would allow us to get to something
1:36:06
that we wouldn't have done otherwise no no if you look at the previous um
1:36:11
let's see if i can go back here see if you look at the 2020 to 2024 time
1:36:17
frame it only has a one apartment complex and one um place of worship in there what we're doing is taking all of
1:36:24
that time frame into the seven year scenario and condensing it down into
1:36:29
2026 so it's just taking all of that and making that quicker is what it is but it saves money it's which is the
1:36:35
amazing thing well it's escalation
1:36:43
so for the accelerated schedule getting it done quicker this produce provides noise reduction to the
1:36:49
community in a quicker time frame provides lower cap possible costs based on escalation
1:36:54
it will require more staffing and resources for this and some dependency
1:37:00
on the ability to hire contractors and obtain products so it may put a strain on the industry if
1:37:06
the manufacturing is very um we don't have a lot of manufacturers for these sds
1:37:12
rated windows so if other airports ordering and we're ordering it could have put a strain on the industry for that also
1:37:21
so how we're working things today how are our programs work is port staffing
1:37:26
for each project and oversight so we have internal for the noise programs we do a lot of the the homeowner outreach
1:37:33
and working with them in the documents and we have project management working with us the noise and specialty and a e
1:37:39
firms these are all consulted out acoustical testing is consulted out and
1:37:45
our contractors are concerned contracted to complete the work
1:37:51
so we've standard you don't have to do this now but could somebody send me later a complete list i think i've seen
1:37:57
it before about all of the different positions and who's doing what i don't need exact firm numbers but i know that
1:38:03
there we have a small team is where we end up internally and almost all of this is done by outside vendors correct yeah
1:38:12
so we've also been asked to take a look at in-house staffing options
1:38:19
so it's really just reviewing options of bringing all of the trades in-house for
1:38:24
working preliminary work is on this analysis has been done and more will need it to be needed to be done this
1:38:30
could apply to all elements of the program or maybe just some elements of the program others could be contracted
1:38:37
out too and i just wanted to be clear on this one because this isn't exactly stated properly because i've
1:38:44
been the one asking for more information about what it would look like if we brought some of this in-house it's not
1:38:49
all in-house i recognize that are certain uh contractors that have a specific skill set that we don't need
1:38:55
full-time at the port so i just want to make sure as we're moving forward we're delineating between the two and you're
1:39:01
right i mean we could we're looking at some options of specialty things that could and then the other thing if i and
1:39:06
then i'll stop but i just wanted to make sure that as i know that as you looked at this option and you're going to continue to evaluate it according to mr
1:39:12
metric that we are you will be looking steve at the 5 000 packages that failed
1:39:18
because i know that the initial look at it was just these homes within this 15-year plan or the residents places of
1:39:24
worship etc and not considering the possibility that we might go back and do the 5000 that changes the denominator
1:39:32
considerably if we were to if that legislation passes and we would undertake that
1:39:38
well and i i would also request that if this option in-house so-called in-house
1:39:43
option is is further uh studied that it be studied uh as well in comparison with the
1:39:52
acceleration plan because if it doesn't accelerate yeah why are we doing it why are we looking
1:39:58
at it yeah we're just looking at yeah we're looking at the overall going back to the principles yeah not in and that
1:40:04
we're looking at it has to be compared side by side which is the acceleration plan if it's going to be taken seriously
1:40:10
so um yep in the time frame for these and you know it's it could be
1:40:15
uh anyway so we're we're continuing that work and that's why i'll get back to you 5 000
1:40:20
referenced uh houses are they all houses are they apparently condos
1:40:25
uh are they all within the current uh dnl boundaries or are some of those
1:40:31
outside of the in the old boundaries most likely some are outside in the old and is that a legal issue in that regard
1:40:37
and how does that get uh funded we we definitely need to to look into that we don't have a program set up
1:40:43
for that yeah it would not likely be funded through any grant support i'm guessing or state support correct
1:40:53
you know one of the one of the appealing things of just the program however it's done is the potential for apprenticeships and
1:41:00
it's kind of work that when there's so much work in home remodeling you don't just have to be a
1:41:05
skyscraper builder to get good jobs here and that this is like with so many of these exercises that the um i just think
1:41:13
the potential for apprenticeship programs are um can be potentially accomplished both
1:41:18
ways that i mean i could imagine that we could have contracts that specify a certain number
1:41:23
of apprenticeships that for your qualification to do the job is that you know to attach such obligations okay as
1:41:31
we would otherwise as well as the potential relative advantage of us doing it in-house but i i certainly would not
1:41:37
want to miss this opportunity for the kind of labor while they're up there they should put up solar cells you know
1:41:43
whatever you know what i mean okay
1:41:49
and i'm not sure this time this slide is titled correctly further program improvements it's really how are we going to move forward and how are we
1:41:55
going to take a look at what we're doing if we're going to accelerate so it's what we'd like to do is hire a
1:42:01
consultant who will evaluate and structure and implement or talk about
1:42:06
how we're going to implement this program it's just to ensure we are using the
1:42:12
efficient contracting methods and staffing and everything is set up correctly to move forward with it
1:42:19
we also are hoping to help create more synergies with the king county weatherization program to work together
1:42:25
on projects that are eligible for both programs in the area and we've had some great initial discussions on that
1:42:31
process also with them you know i see one of the other
1:42:37
potential synergies i saw was in your in your depiction of those uh schools
1:42:43
that were um completed versus i guess it's the pink ones that haven't been
1:42:48
that's two four six schools six goals yeah and um and you said part of the faa uh
1:42:55
reimbursement program includes the uh hvac uh on schools it is it's a part of the
1:43:02
this hvac systems anything associated with keeping it quieter inside yeah
1:43:07
i'm just wondering uh evaluation of hvac and while they're there to know what those what those systems are and
1:43:15
what their capabilities for actually doing hvac work the school actually hires all of the
1:43:21
contractors and maintains all of that work so we're really overseeing the work to make sure it fits with the federal
1:43:27
procurement guidelines and then providing them the funding for that but we could certainly understand i think i
1:43:33
know where your question is headed and we could certainly try to understand the capability just to have a characterization of what those systems
1:43:39
are yes and capabilities
1:43:47
so for the acceleration staffing needs we need to add at least additional a few
1:43:52
more additional employees or at least one to the noise office and one for the project management team to start off and
1:43:59
we propose to begin that just to understand the program and then work on future structuring after that
1:44:05
and we'll also we need to understand that there's going to be some additional support needed through external
1:44:10
relations and cross-divisional staff center procurement office legal department and everything else is going
1:44:16
to have to have a role in this stan can i ask i'm sorry back to the the
1:44:22
previous slide um the hire the consultant to value the structure and implementation of the program would that also identify some of
1:44:28
the challenges that the program faces for example you said with the homeowners that have to get the sign off from the
1:44:35
mortgage company it would just be really great to understand every single one of the obstacles that we face in accelerating
1:44:42
this program that's exactly what i want to do and i kind of let that last bullet point just unforeseen risks out there
1:44:47
and what can we do to okay that would be wonderful that was the first time i heard of that i could just see that
1:44:53
being an incredible impediment it is and and and so what percentage of the time lag is that aspect of it would be huge
1:45:00
to know that one yeah our staff and our consultants have spent an enormous amount of time way beyond what i had
1:45:06
ever been thinking on that so and i think identifying the impediments are ones that we could control directly or they
1:45:13
could be state state or it could be federal and i think identifying those so at least we have action plans related to
1:45:19
removing those those uh roadblocks yeah sounds like an addition to our legislative agenda for the state of its
1:45:25
state or federal yep
1:45:32
so a couple of bullets i'd like to highlight on this slide is the first is grant funding is not guaranteed that's
1:45:38
one thing we've talked about so where's the funding going to come from if we don't have grant funding for that
1:45:44
we will pursue these projects as if they were in compliance with the federal procurement rules because at some point
1:45:50
down the road the faa could reimburse us for the money that we up front on these projects
1:45:55
so they are reimbursable if we don't get grants this could take away from other capital projects that need to be funded
1:46:03
and if the projects exceed 10 million dollars they would be subject to an airline majority of interest vote also
1:46:10
so just really quickly on this so um you haven't listened here but i'll just confirm with with our general counsel is
1:46:16
there anything prohibiting us from using our general property tax levy to do this project to do noise
1:46:23
insulation i know we already do it for some schools stan as you mentioned no we would be able to use our levy
1:46:30
funding for these kind of projects there are a lot of considerations that take into account deciding which homes to do
1:46:36
and whether they'd be covered by the faa or not right but we do but that just wasn't listed as a potential funding source and
1:46:42
i just want us to again if we're trying to accelerate the program think outside the box a different way to do it i would
1:46:48
my personal view is that these homeowners are bearing the brunt of being living near the airport which
1:46:55
everybody in king county uses so i would be i'd like us to consider as
1:47:00
we're going through the budget process have a conversation about using tax levy dollars if we're looking for additional funding and then the second
1:47:06
thing i'd add is lance i hope that we can talk about in our next sloa
1:47:11
um which is our signatory lease agreement with our airlines i'm sure nobody knows what that means except for lance um that we would consider uh again
1:47:19
looking for the airlines to pick up a little bit more of this cost and let's be clear if it's a if in if we
1:47:27
don't get a positive mii vote we still can go back six months later and do it anyway
1:47:32
so i again i want to make sure we're being really clear about what the obstacles are the airlines could say no but we can still do it anyway correct
1:47:39
lance yes based on the current law agreement yeah the question i just want to
1:47:46
suggest that the probability of the faa reimbursing is probably higher the sooner you do it
1:47:53
because we don't know what the program is going to evolve into um not necessarily so if if we took all of
1:47:59
those programs and and put them in today's time frame the faa said there's very unlikely they can provide that much
1:48:06
funding to us so you know when we look at farther out it's it's maybe more probable that years
1:48:13
down the road we can get reimbursed for those projects that assumes the program still exists but ultimately it's a
1:48:18
congressional appropriation it's not faa yeah right said hey you don't it's faa
1:48:25
discretion yeah the discretionary if they had the money to what extent have we notified or
1:48:30
worked with faa to let them know that we're doing this ahead of time um yeah we've worked with the faa we we
1:48:36
typically submit to a five to ten year grant um schedule with what our projects
1:48:41
look like we've included all of this accelerated program just to say hey this is coming your way heads up if you can
1:48:48
do it they um we ask them what do you think can you do it or not they're not going to commit to it they'll commit to
1:48:54
saying well next year we'll give you a certain amount of grounds but anything past that they won't tell you
1:48:59
um but they said put it in there i mean it doesn't hurt to put it in there so we can actually try and program it out for
1:49:05
you and if we have the money available on a national basis we can get the allocation to our region it might happen
1:49:14
i i if there is documentation of that i would like the community to know that we're actually pursuing this
1:49:21
in real life you know and that this is good intention but the fact is if we if
1:49:26
it is a kind of a document that is publicly releasable i i think it's in in good faith look i'm not sure what
1:49:32
document that's in but sure we've had meetings with them to where we sat down
1:49:40
okay i i've been through all of the the risks basically so i'll just point you to the last um let's see i think we
1:49:48
there we go we're on this slide here the acceleration risk summary so i've been through all of these risks i'll just point you to the last three basically on
1:49:55
this side on this slide not all homeowners may choose to participate that's just this is a voluntary program
1:50:01
as i said for single family sound insulation we've been trying to get them in for many years and they're not coming in
1:50:07
so we don't know how many are going to participate the fact of it is not all properties may
1:50:14
qualify by that noise audit we've had some that did not qualify because the home is already quite enough on the
1:50:20
inside and there's nothing more we could do to it and then future state and federal legislation uh may expand the
1:50:26
program authority so it's the the boundary areas the failed windows and there is the still talk with the faa on
1:50:33
the national level about the 65 dnl be in the appropriate metric so
1:50:42
and then um the last thing i'll transition into is staff recommendations
1:50:47
so we will recommend hiring that one additional program
1:50:52
manager in the noise programs and one in pmg hire that consultant i talked about earlier to really analyze the program
1:50:59
and put it kind of into place on what we need to move forward with we think the cost estimate is somewhere in the range
1:51:05
of 200 000 for that and then we can begin structuring the accelerator program and hopefully begin working around 2021
1:51:13
on that and just to say in the meantime our work that we have planned for 2020 would
1:51:19
continue to move forward so we're not stopping yeah i'm not going to stop anything so commissioners if i can just add a few
1:51:25
things to the recommendation um you know to answer that question about how best to move and effectively forward
1:51:32
i plan on asking john okamoto from the uh executive review panel and then dave
1:51:38
soykey because this is related to the to aviation and you know dave is the ceo but this is how important it is to me
1:51:45
and the staff to accelerate this so having him involved to assist the the noise team and refining the objectives
1:51:51
the metrics and the best ways to move forward you know that's i'm committing to doing that um and right now actually
1:51:57
you know it was uh and dave handed me this morning uh forwarded from the staff which is the ftes you know that i'm
1:52:03
prepared to sign that tomorrow if we get the if it's approved the acceleration so i can move forward on that immediately
1:52:09
to start the ball moving so that we're not delaying on moving forward on this project we need to move quickly from the
1:52:14
acceleration program [Laughter] are there further questions on the
1:52:20
briefing we've just heard ryan oh ryan yeah commissioner calkins uh this is an area that
1:52:27
outside of this program we don't often work in the area of housing and i think it's important to note that right now
1:52:33
for our communities throughout king county housing is an extraordinary
1:52:40
lack of supply and so to the extent that this program shores up the ability to
1:52:47
live in these homes longer i think it's a good thing i also um having raised the question around how much interagency
1:52:53
work we were doing back in in december i'm really pleased with the staff results on that conversation and to know
1:53:00
that you know we're working with the king county housing authority and others to identify ways in which we can stretch our dollar and improve
1:53:07
not only the noise issue but also just quality of life in general for the folks living in these homes and i do want us
1:53:13
to continue to to think outside the what we would normally think of as our lane
1:53:18
on these projects to think about how we might actually expand housing opportunities this is a massive budget
1:53:23
and if we can use it to help catalyze other development projects adjacent to
1:53:29
or as some sort of replacement i do think we want to examine that we
1:53:34
we are so short on housing and particularly affording affordable housing and many of these units fall
1:53:40
into the category known as noaa the naturally occurring affordable housing and we want to make sure that these are
1:53:46
not taken out of the market okay commissioner fellain
1:53:53
you know i'm a big fan of the start noise program and i i really appreciate the summarization of the accomplishments
1:53:59
that have been going on and i i salute lance for continuing not only starting it but
1:54:06
continuing it and hopefully everybody sees eventually that this is something
1:54:12
that that is worth continuing to participate in the the one place where i know there's concern and while this is
1:54:18
noise is like an overwhelmingly important thing to our community is not everybody can watch samps or
1:54:25
starts deliberations over noise and we've heard today
1:54:30
david global talking about wanting to have more transparency and what's going on with the monitors although i'm
1:54:35
delighted to hear that you're testing them in-house and stuff like that but you wouldn't have known that right and uh
1:54:42
you know jc is talking about cross-checking you know which what are you prioritizing
1:54:47
and it just it just seems to me that um that these these are huge undertakings
1:54:53
and we really appreciate the recommendation to move forward on it i'm just wondering whether uh this could
1:54:58
include some more of a community engagement process as part of the additional staffing that we're doing is
1:55:05
this not an opportunity for some sort of a stakeholder group i bear sorry you know to bring up such a
1:55:12
term but i just think that there's you know there's so much good going on that i would like to the people to see it you
1:55:17
know and um and like i feel about start it doesn't
1:55:22
if people knew as much was going on they'd feel better about it and so why hide a good story and why not
1:55:29
be open to the idea that our communities have something to tell us every once in a while right sure
1:55:35
and if i can i would i had a similar point and if i might um i think it's not just telling the story but it's getting
1:55:40
community input about what the priorities are for me that's really critical and while
1:55:45
i appreciate the work that the staff has done over the years but hearing from the people that live in these communities
1:55:51
what they want to see done first i think is absolutely critical so i would ask that the staff consider that get input
1:55:58
is it the schools is it the houses of worship is it the apartment buildings but get their input as part of this
1:56:04
process um so yeah commissioner feldman aligned with you 100 the other thing i i would ask is that um
1:56:10
i know that we have emotion in front of us and i wanted to ask my colleagues if we could table this for just only this
1:56:17
meeting because i think it needs a little bit more work in terms of specificity and steve i would ask that
1:56:22
you and lance and the team work on you know essentially the motion says she'll take necessary actions to accelerate the
1:56:28
airport sound insulation program you know me well enough by now i talk about specific measurable outcomes and so
1:56:36
acceleration could mean many things i'd like us to be very clear with the community when it's going to get done
1:56:42
how much is going to get done and so they we have clear expectations from them and from our staff
1:56:48
moving forward um third i'd really like to and as i mentioned earlier
1:56:54
you know clearly identify the outcomes for me more homes more quickly at hopefully a lower cost and then fourth
1:57:01
really consider more funding options as i mentioned before such as things like the use of the
1:57:06
property tax levy and i would just add in stan you've heard me say this before i don't consider this an acceleration i
1:57:12
want to see it on light speed absolute light speed i know and i know you guys have and i
1:57:18
wanted to compliment you because you really in your memo which most people wouldn't have read it's on page three
1:57:24
you called out in prior years in quote in prior years the ports approach had been to proceed with the noise
1:57:29
program projects to the extent that airport improvement project grants are available we're making a complete shift
1:57:36
we are prioritizing this whether or not the grants and we'll make that consideration as it comes before us but
1:57:42
it's a shift so thank you for calling out the way it used to be done but we're going to do it differently moving forward for me we cannot this airport is
1:57:49
continuing to meet the demands of the community but it's having more and more pressure on those that live around the
1:57:55
airport and we have to put those people first and this is a community health and social justice issue and i really
1:58:01
appreciate all the work that you guys are doing to push it forward but again let's do it on light speed and let's be
1:58:06
really clear about what we're going to accomplish with this
1:58:12
elucidation on this we do have the goal here right we have an accelerated scenario
1:58:18
with a price tag so in terms of this is the current recommendation i'm just
1:58:23
wondering in respect to what you're suggesting i'm just wondering whether we could um pass this as uh a minimum like you know
1:58:31
sort of like as a starting point and that we could to be built on because i mean obviously there was a lot
1:58:37
of work that went into saying well this is doable it seems to be you know expectation to have it grant fundable
1:58:44
it's certainly innumerable we have numbers of buildings and numbers of dollars um
1:58:50
and and so i'm my inclination is i don't want to get in the way of it but at the same time i do very much appreciate
1:58:57
this and and i don't know whether if the language that needs clarity is um
1:59:04
in in the means of acceleration that you know the point that you're raising is is it do we get benefits from doing it
1:59:10
in-house versus i mean would that be would that be no i want to be able to say to the community we're giving
1:59:15
direction to the staff and emotion that you will complete these projects by this timeline that's what we have right here
1:59:20
well accelerated yeah i think it's pretty clear too what is not clear is the implementation the means of
1:59:26
implementing the program and there are a number of options and trade-offs and risks and so forth and challenges
1:59:32
but i think this is a more of an important turning point here about a determination
1:59:40
to significantly advance this program in much less time
1:59:45
and the ways to do it aren't going to be suddenly apparent next week or the week after as to exactly how and i think
1:59:52
that's part of the call for the consultant to come in and make some recommendat assess and recommend how we
1:59:58
can balance all of these uh challenges with the the goal that this motion states so
2:00:04
so i i don't have any discomfort with moving forward with the motion to signal that this is where the commission wants
2:00:10
to go with this insulation program at this time commissioner if i can
2:00:16
just kind of wait what i i regardless of what action you take today i i need to develop a plan that addresses all the
2:00:22
issues that commissioner bowman said there that all the questions for all the commissioners about the different options actually in the different
2:00:29
courses but what we need to do is to do our work now our due diligence on this on putting the plan together that reads
2:00:34
those principles that are in here but clearly stating those goals as the outcome and this is the pathway that we
2:00:40
have to do that and i think that i think that some of the work is looking at um is it
2:00:46
right with existing structure or taking more risk or some that's what i'm hearing from the commissioners too looking at some of those
2:00:52
options to to to look at that within that so i i have that as a takeaway and that is not as you pointed out
2:00:58
commissioner steinbrook that is not a two-week job that is uh i was planning to come back with that plan especially
2:01:04
with the additional resources as we move into the budget process as well so i will get back to you i can't give you a direct time on that just to help you
2:01:10
inform your discussions here i owe you a plan back with the staff would you expect that that you would
2:01:16
bring back to us an implementation plan with more specific cost figures and funding options and but that's
2:01:22
specifically what the consultant is hired to do in part contracting methods and potential efficiencies so it's not
2:01:27
like this is left as a as a not to do yeah this is expressly one of the one of
2:01:32
the take homes so i i i see this as addressing and uh commissioner bowman's concerns with us at least a starting
2:01:40
point i agree if we can get efficiencies to do more all the power to us but i see
2:01:46
this as enumerated enough for my support i think we we should move on with the item b 7b read into the record here so
2:01:54
that we can discuss the motion and take a vote up or down on more tables
2:02:00
let's let's get on to the motion of this if we can so agenda item 7b motion 2020-04
2:02:08
a motion of the port of seattle commission directing the acceleration of the sound insulation program at
2:02:14
seattle's coma international airport commissioner calkins did you have something to oh i'm sorry i thought you
2:02:20
indicated uh commissioner cho okay commissioner bowman i think you're
2:02:25
uh i'm writing an amendment you need a minute or i i think i've got it done we could take a stretch break a stretch
2:02:32
break would be good is that it okay are you ready for my amendment
2:02:39
okay i'd like to introduce the following amendment um on line 29 so i'll read the first part
2:02:46
of the sentence starting line 20. the port of seattle executive director shall take the necessary actions to accelerate
2:02:52
the airport sound insulation program um in and then i would add in in order to
2:02:58
complete the program by 2026. i i would is there a second
2:03:04
a second thank you it's been moved in second and now we're talking about the amendment here commissioner if i could
2:03:09
i would say no later than 2026 right even better all right accept that as a friendly that's a
2:03:16
friendly amendment director okay okay so read it does read it one more time so i have a question for stan
2:03:23
uh knowing that it's a voluntary program what is completion
2:03:30
i would say that we have all of the homes sound insulated and finished and acquired
2:03:35
that so if a homeowner refuses to participate want to be acquired yeah
2:03:48
line 20 the port of seattle executive director shall take the necessary actions to accelerate the airport sound
2:03:54
insulation program no later than 2026.
2:03:59
any questions comments all those in favor of the amendment amended language and then we'll vote on
2:04:06
the main motion so moved itself's been moved in second second all those in favor say aye aye opposed
2:04:12
nay is there any discussion on the amended motion thank you
2:04:17
is there a motion to approve the amended motion so moved second
2:04:22
second and all those in favor say aye aye oppose say nay the motion carries
2:04:28
thank you now get to work thank you
2:04:35
good thank you
2:04:44
the next item on the agenda is item 8 b authorization for the executive director
2:04:50
to execute an amendment to the existing sustainable airport master plan environmental review
2:04:55
personal services agreement with landrune brown for an increase of 3.4 million dollars
2:05:01
for new contract amount of 6.4 million commissioners you were briefed on this item on january 28th
2:05:07
additional funding is required to complete environmental review and support continued stakeholder engagement
2:05:12
and outreach regarding the sustainable aviation master plan presenters are arlen purcell welcome
2:05:20
back arlen thank you and steve ribel i'm sorry can i take a moment of privilege here i um no i was under the i thank you
2:05:28
i'm throwing this no i was i was actually um under the impression that uh
2:05:34
that we were going to initially pull the discussion of the um
2:05:40
of of the legislative agenda um to to and and i was going to recommend a uh an initiative to
2:05:47
basically lend support to the um to the state's budget for um giving highline school additional
2:05:55
funding for the pursuit of a high school there and um and so because i thought
2:06:02
i thought this was um going to be somewhat to continue the progress while we tabled
2:06:08
the uh current motion um until the to the next commission meeting which i will not be able to attend
2:06:14
um but i want to make it clear at least from my perspective that um while the state legislature deliberates
2:06:21
their budget that um you know we are at least i am very much in support of that budget proviso
2:06:27
getting into the supplemental budget to give highline school i think it's a quarter of a million dollars to for them
2:06:32
to continue on the good work might i suggest a
2:06:38
procedural mechanism that would help paul i would be happy to draft a letter that
2:06:45
i could circulate amongst the five of us and and commissioners could choose to sign on and then i'll make sure that
2:06:51
gets sent to the appropriate folks who are making that decision in olympia does that work
2:06:57
let's see the writing yeah in support of highline school to pursue
2:07:02
i will you and i have emailed there's more more more complexity to this than simply
2:07:08
redirecting those funds but i i think this is an off-topic discussion now but i mean we've tabled it
2:07:13
it was going to be a conversation i was going to put it in the legislative agenda i did not want to have it just completely off the discussion i offered
2:07:20
an amendment you know what it is now so all right so we're moving on to sam
2:07:27
all right good afternoon and uh lance little is actually going to say a few words of introduction um
2:07:32
good afternoon again commissioners and steve uh today we're coming to you for authorization of additional funds for
2:07:39
the environmental review of the sustainable airport master plan near term project also known as samp ntp
2:07:45
as you know from the briefing to you last month we have extended the schedule for this
2:07:51
work and had have some other changes as well these include the decision to develop
2:07:56
two separate documents for the federal process as well as for the state process
2:08:01
in addition we also developed an updated forecast these changes
2:08:07
as well as adjusting the work to respond to scoping comments and extensive outreach have increased the scope and
2:08:14
budget beyond what was contemplated and authorized by a commission back in 2015.
2:08:19
that was a very different schedule and approach at that time we anticipated completing the planning work in 2016.
2:08:27
the staff team and the consultants have done a very good job to accomplish all the additional work on the environmental
2:08:33
review since the 2015 authorization however we do need to add a significant
2:08:39
level of funding now we are here today requesting this increase so that we can
2:08:46
continue the work on the environmental review analysis and documentation that a study of this complexity requires
2:08:54
i appreciate your consideration of this request and now would like to ask arlen purcell and steve revolt to speak to the
2:09:00
details thank you lance so good afternoon again commissioners and mr metric arlen purcell and i'm here with
2:09:06
steve reibolt senior environmental program manager as lance just said we're asking for a
2:09:13
budget increase today so that we can continue to be responsive to public concerns regarding the environmental
2:09:18
review the requested funding will support expanded outreach additional technical
2:09:24
analysis and the preparation of separate nepa and siba documents all of which we think are really
2:09:30
important to complete a thorough and responsive environmental review so i will turn the presentation over to steve
2:09:37
reibolt to talk you through the details good afternoon commissioners and executive director metric
2:09:43
in late january we provided you with an update of the sustainable airport master plan near term projects environmental
2:09:50
review forecast and schedule at the end of that presentation i noted that we would be coming back to you
2:09:56
asking for additional funding to complete the samp near term projects environmental review
2:10:02
this presentation is requesting an increase to the contract budget by 3.4 million
2:10:07
dollars for a total contract value of 6.4 million dollars there are total of six slides the first
2:10:14
three will briefly review our progress and the accomplishments and the last three will provide an overview of the
2:10:20
justification for the budget
2:10:26
increase as we discussed in january the project schedule has been updated and has not changed since we presented it to
2:10:33
you the gray dots represent items that have been completed the green dots represent key milestones and the blue
2:10:40
dots represent milestones where agency and community engagement occurs key milestones include agency and public
2:10:47
review of the nepa environmental assessment or ea in the fall of this year a decision from the fa on the nepa ea in
2:10:55
the spring of 2021 a release of the cipa environmental impact statement or eis for agency in
2:11:02
public review in late spring of 2021 and a decision from the port on the cepa
2:11:08
eis in the fall of 2021 concluding the environmental review process of the sam
2:11:14
near term projects as noted previously if there are any additional impacts to the schedule we'll
2:11:19
continue to keep you updated
2:11:25
since the completion of the stamp planning process we have completed a variety of major milestones these
2:11:30
include a robust agency and public scoping process where the port received thousands of public comments
2:11:37
an outcome of the agency in public scoping produced a scoping report outlining topics and
2:11:43
themes that will be reflected within the environmental review an update of the aviation demand
2:11:48
forecast that included a constrained operating growth scenarios and we've submitted the draft purpose
2:11:55
need document to documentation to faa
2:12:04
there are four primary reasons for the requested budget increase first delay in the samp planning process
2:12:11
and coordination with planning staff to better understand and validate assumptions made during the sustainable
2:12:16
airport master plan and identify where additional planning is needed to support the environmental
2:12:21
review this includes the update to the aviation demand forecast and the development of
2:12:27
the constrained operating growth scenarios two continue our extensive stakeholder
2:12:32
engagement and community outreach with the release of the draft documents for agency in public review
2:12:39
third in response to public comment additional technical environmental analysis
2:12:45
this includes air quality human health environmental justice noise
2:12:50
greenhouse gas emissions and transportation and lastly the budget increase is also a
2:12:56
result of separating the nepa and sipa processes and documents this will include agency and public
2:13:03
comment periods at the release of the nepa ea and the cipa eis
2:13:13
i wanted to provide an example justifying our budget request as part of scoping the port initiated a robust
2:13:20
outreach and engagement process this outreach engagement went beyond what is what was originally scoped
2:13:26
this included one agency meeting four public meetings an online open house
2:13:32
outreach through a multitude of online resources over one hundred thousand mailings and provided materials in five
2:13:39
languages the port anticipates this enhanced outreach engagement with the release of
2:13:44
the draft ea and draft cipa eis
2:13:52
at this time i'm requesting commissions authorization to increase the sustainable airport master plan
2:13:57
environmental contract environmental review contract by 3.4 million dollars for a total contract value of 6.4
2:14:03
million dollars and this concludes my presentation questions comments i have one
2:14:10
or two um on the page four of the briefing memo
2:14:16
here it lists the scope of work here in primary tasks um some of that outreach
2:14:23
i'm guessing that what you laid out here is it are you indicating that it would be done entirely by a
2:14:30
consultant including the outreach uh because that was listed as part of the justification this 180 percent
2:14:37
increase in the original um funding for for this work and so i i i'm
2:14:45
trying to see where specifically a comparison of the current the current
2:14:51
scope of work under current contract versus uh amended contract with a change in scope
2:14:59
of work and in those specific areas as a as the justification that you outlined
2:15:06
so i see one scope of work here it's not clear to me if this is the original scope of work
2:15:11
or the the new uh expanded scope of work so the scope of work that you see in the
2:15:18
commission memo is is originally what was scoped out in 2015 um the continuous
2:15:24
under the three million under the three million dollars yes yeah so that's all existing scope so where is the
2:15:31
expanded scope in a level of detail to compare to the expanded
2:15:38
the expanded scope can fit within a lot of the original scope that was
2:15:44
authorized in 2015 what we're doing is really going into more detail so for example we're
2:15:50
spending more we're putting more effort into our outreach and engagement we're doing additional technical
2:15:56
analysis and air quality transportation in other areas and so that still falls within the same scope we're just having
2:16:02
to do additional work so the the tasks remain the same that we're just doing
2:16:07
more of it and the commission memo provides the tasks at a summary level
2:16:12
happy to um share more details i guess that's a bit baffling to me that it
2:16:18
would be increased by that much uh and that the additional level of work
2:16:25
i don't know when the and is this all under contract or is this some of this provide some of this work undertaken by
2:16:32
port staff uh the outreach work um has been and
2:16:38
would continue to be done by a combination of port staff and consultants so for example at the public
2:16:44
open houses we've probably had what 15 or 20 port staff at each public open house but it takes a lot of consultant
2:16:51
help to help put those on as well are we at the amount that you're asking
2:16:57
for authorization does that represent a amendment to an existing contract or is
2:17:03
that a combination of costs associated with the expanded uh
2:17:10
environmental review i'm just trying to get at you know what
2:17:15
the what some accountability here it would be an amendment to an existing contract
2:17:20
um that would allow us to complete the existing scope of work
2:17:28
yeah please aren't you could you maybe so there are certain things that we anticipated that's when we're doing this
2:17:33
that we anticipated that would be included in the global world lance to that point to the point i i was surprised by the separation of nipa and
2:17:40
sipa i always thought we knew that from the heads up because i was asking to have a combined review and we said well
2:17:46
the faa does what they do at least from the time that i have been
2:17:52
at the port the intent was to do a combined knee bencipa document and as we thought it would be
2:17:59
the most efficient way to proceed um after scoping it became clear that that
2:18:04
was not going to work for the faa or for us so we decided to split the two
2:18:10
documents and that does add quite a bit to the cause because we're talking about a second process a second set of public
2:18:16
hearings a second set of responses to comments so i know that the number here
2:18:22
seems substantial but we're talking about a lot more process than we originally anticipated and i think
2:18:29
looking back to when the original contract was authorized i think there was a much different idea about
2:18:37
the amount of work to be done than we have now that we uh understand public concerns uh
2:18:44
as well as the faa's position on well i mean i i think you have like these whatever five four bullets i mean the
2:18:50
categories of what's sort of unanticipated are there you don't break it out you know you don't
2:18:56
enumerate how much the delta for each one of those tasks are to do that additional work yes but i'm
2:19:03
i'm just trying to get back to uh okay this question of um
2:19:08
the the the sipanipa process so when we went out and had public hearings
2:19:14
that was as a combined effort yes it was combined faa so we have to do all that
2:19:19
again for just having it be a cpa review so so everything that's been done to date still counts if that makes sense
2:19:26
right so um but after scoping was done we agreed to go our separate ways so for
2:19:32
the draft document okay so there's no redundancy of that correct that's correct so so in a sense we're just doing a
2:19:39
a smaller document we're not doing a com it seems we take more work to try to coordinate with the faa than it would
2:19:46
just for us to do a sepa analysis if we had to do both no i don't understand how that becomes
2:19:52
more expensive if it doesn't provide any additional public process it does provide so i just to maybe i wasn't
2:19:58
clear enough in my prior answer the scoping work was done for both agencies
2:20:04
going forward we are going to do sequential documents so the nepa document is going to be released first
2:20:10
there will be a public set of public hearings and public comment and responses for the nepa process the faa
2:20:17
will make its findings and then the cipa draft document will be released there will be public hearings and processing
2:20:23
comments and responses so we're taking on the responsibility for faa to do the outreach for both
2:20:29
yes all right that's and quite frankly i think that's better left to the faa they would do
2:20:35
what's legally required and i think what you've done here is far more robust and so
2:20:40
but that helps explain it's that redundancy because we're not letting the faa just do the bare minimum
2:20:45
right right and the outreach although steve included the outreach as an example of the changes in the cost that
2:20:53
is just one part of the so on that so you you are given some examples initially of things that we probably
2:20:59
didn't contemplate when we did the original before we did the scope and when we did the scoping work with the community
2:21:05
there were other things that were added if you could probably just give a few examples right so we presented at commission recently on the update to the
2:21:12
forecast that ended up being quite an involved process because as we discussed at the prior meeting we ended up having
2:21:18
to prepare what's called a constrained operating growth scenario reflect the fact that we are nearing the limits of
2:21:24
what we can accommodate that's not something that typically happens at an airport or in an environmental review
2:21:30
this is like new stuff and so there was no way we could have anticipated that being part of the original scope or
2:21:36
budget so that is one example in response to
2:21:42
the comments we received during scoping we've added a number of components of
2:21:47
technical analysis to the cepa part of the review and steve steve um went through a
2:21:54
list but those again were also not contemplated as part of the original
2:22:00
scope so i understand that it it does seem like a lot of money but
2:22:05
it's also to me a positive story because we are trying as best we can to be responsive to
2:22:11
public comments and concerns and we're trying to be as thorough as possible and the the desire to split the document
2:22:18
into two is also to try to be as responsive as possible to public um
2:22:24
concerns um if we had kept to a combined zipa nepa document i
2:22:29
think it would not have been nearly as responsive as as this revised approach will be okay and now
2:22:37
we're happy to follow up with details if that if you would like to have i just don't know why you didn't break out the
2:22:42
budget for that yeah that that to me was you know there if you know and of course additional modeling that could be like
2:22:48
the lion's share of the expense we hired nate subsequent to this starting so we have like a an additional south king
2:22:54
county staff person that is supplementing i'm sure will be very important and part
2:22:59
of supplementing so i'm that it would anyway more comprehensible
2:23:04
had you provided us with a more specificity in terms of changing scope
2:23:10
and costs associated with that uh rather than some general areas of where
2:23:16
increase have occurred the other question i would like to ask is has is any of this increased cost
2:23:23
associated with additional analysis that is is called for uh since uh this work was begun
2:23:31
for uh proposals or a proposal has been submitted to the port
2:23:36
uh for uh changes to the master plan so and if so how much um i don't know
2:23:44
the answer to your second question the answer to the first question is
2:23:50
yes our planning department is doing a review of the material that was
2:23:56
submitted we have included a contingency in the budget anticipating well
2:24:04
we have included an anticip we have included a contingency not knowing what the results of the review might be
2:24:11
if if the results turn out one way then we would end up not spending that money if they turn out another way then
2:24:18
there's another possibility there so there is a placeholder there for there is spanish scope to do additional
2:24:26
environmental review let's say for uh consideration of um
2:24:33
of new information that's been received and i would expect that through the draft environmental review we will have
2:24:39
more uh analysis that will be required for
2:24:44
any additional proposals or comments that come in that suggests
2:24:50
alternatives right so maybe a better way to put this would be that
2:24:55
we have really tried to take our charge seriously to consider and screen
2:25:01
potential alternatives we're trying to be as deliberate and thoughtful about as we can be and not knowing what the
2:25:07
results of that work might be we have tried to build in a fair amount of money into the budget um to anticipate the
2:25:13
possibility that there would be some kind of extra review involved whatever those costs sure and mitigation
2:25:20
options need to be evaluated yes cost it out as well but but it's all within the
2:25:26
context of of the the same original terms of purpose and need yes we're not altering
2:25:34
that uh i i would hope at this point or expect i should say
2:25:40
but i i think we need to be clear about additional costs that have been uh
2:25:45
uh the result of of materials submitted subsequent to the
2:25:51
closure of scoping okay we'll have to there okay understood
2:25:57
and we'll have to follow up with with you on that happy day yeah thank you so i think one one way to kind of look at
2:26:03
this too is that when you look at this this is the money that was budgeted and then you have the tasks associated with
2:26:09
it and then there's rates for the doing the work that you have correct and so these are all accounted for and it's
2:26:14
more like a you you've used this funding and now we're forecasting additional tasks that are to be done according to
2:26:21
that so these aren't open-ended these are specific tasks that are accomplished that we use the initial three million or
2:26:27
that were targeted to expand towards that and now so it's not like an open commissioner steinberg it's not an
2:26:32
open-ended contract this is work and only we only would be expended against the work that's done correctly in accordance yeah
2:26:39
it's not like i anticipate what may come through the draft environmental review that could
2:26:44
entail additional costs well we have tried again we have tried to be generous about the amount that we are assuming
2:26:51
would be needed to respond to comments but i i think the most important point is
2:26:57
this the um the purpose and need doesn't change
2:27:02
correct right i mean if we change purpose and need we break this open again right right but so so whatever the
2:27:09
analysis whatever variables mitigations whatever purpose and need is the same
2:27:14
correct we we shared purpose and need statements with the
2:27:20
public during scoping that is what we're using in the environmental review with some
2:27:25
backup documentation okay other questions or comments all right
2:27:32
commissioners all right is there a motion to approve this authorization
2:27:38
so it's been moved and seconded all those in favor please say aye oppose
2:27:45
motion carries agenda item 8c
2:27:52
introduction of resolution number 3771 a resolution of the port of seattle commission relating to the flight
2:27:58
corridor safety program 2019 at seattle tacoma international airport providing
2:28:04
for the acquisition of certain real property interests located in king county washington for the program
2:28:09
authorizing negotiation or condemnation and directing other actions consistent with the program and aviation safety
2:28:18
commissioners you last received a briefing on this item during our january 28th meeting this action establishes and
2:28:23
preserves the last resort option to remove the necessary trees for our flight corridor safety program presenter
2:28:30
on this is marco melanies commissioners and executive director
2:28:35
metric we are before you today to provide the commission with an update on the flight quarter safety program and to
2:28:41
seek authorization through a resolution to exercise eminent domain authority
2:28:47
also known as condemnation if needed for the program after introduction of the condemnation
2:28:53
resolution today staff will return to commission on march 24th for final
2:28:58
action my name again is marco milanese and i'm the community engagement manager here at ctac airport and part of the external
2:29:05
relations department just behind me are two other representatives who can help with answering questions today marie
2:29:12
quashes senior report counsel provides legal support to the ports flight corridor safety program team and adrian
2:29:19
winder a principal at foster garvey pc who works with marie and the team and has
2:29:25
specific experience with condemnation processes the flight quarter safety program is an
2:29:30
ongoing port effort to remove and replant trees around seatac airport that
2:29:36
have grown or will soon grow into faa designated flight surfaces removal of
2:29:42
obstructions will ensure the airport's compliance with faa regulations state
2:29:47
law and the airport's operational requirements whenever trees have been removed the
2:29:53
port has instituted environmental best management practices that include replanting lower height trees and native
2:29:59
shrub on site and if not possible on nearby sites that do not have height restrictions the port has replanted more
2:30:05
than four times as many trees and shrubs on port property as it removed and it is
2:30:11
on the second year of monitoring the success of these new plantings and that's part of a five-year
2:30:18
commitment to date 783 trees have been removed on port
2:30:23
property and 3684 trees have been planted in their place
2:30:29
on january 28th of this year as just mentioned the commission authorized the program's next cycle of work
2:30:35
the 174 trees in this cycle of work which represents a significant decrease from the initial number of trees
2:30:41
identified for removal by the port earlier on are almost exclusively on non-port public property and private
2:30:48
property to break it down 104 trees are on watchdog property and primarily on the
2:30:54
future right-of-way for sr-509 the extension of sr509 26 trees are on
2:31:01
highline school district property and those are primarily on or near the former maywood school site which is
2:31:07
south of the airport 20 trees are on city of seatac property 18 trees are on eight private property
2:31:14
parcels and six trees are on port property the port will coordinate directly with
2:31:19
all property owners before any work commences on their property the port will also negotiate with each property
2:31:25
owner on securing a permanent easement over the property should any trees require removal in the future and to
2:31:33
help protect the flight corridor from future obstructions the goal will always be to secure agreements and easements
2:31:39
voluntarily and willingly port staff has had multiple contacts about the program with all the property
2:31:46
owners either by phone or in person or some combination of the two and all conversations have gone very well
2:31:53
it's important to emphasize that condemnation will always be a tool of last resort
2:31:59
nevertheless there are potential scenarios when the port might need to begin a condemnation action to effectively
2:32:05
implement this program people may think different things when they hear the word condemnation so it's
2:32:11
important to emphasize that in this situation the port is not seeking to take anyone's home or the entirety of
2:32:18
someone's property rather condemnation means in general terms that a court proceeding is being used to acquire an
2:32:25
interest in property scenarios uh when the port might need to begin a combination action include the part the
2:32:32
port might not be able to establish contact with a property owner or an interested party like a lender the
2:32:38
property owner might refuse to engage with the port the property might be abandoned
2:32:43
voluntary negotiations between the port and the property owner may fail for a variety of reasons
2:32:49
title to the property may be unclear and require clarification or timely action by the property owner
2:32:55
or lender or other interested party does not transpire in any of those situations
2:33:00
condemnation might need to be pursued by the port to remove the obstructions and secure the appropriate property rights
2:33:06
for the flight corridor safety program authorizing the use of combination
2:33:11
ensures the port can meet statutory and regulatory obligations ensures primary
2:33:17
flight surfaces are not impacted by obstructions and ensures the work will be completed in a timely manner
2:33:25
whether the property interest is acquired voluntarily or through a combination action the port will obtain
2:33:30
an appraisal from a qualified appraiser to determine the fair market value of the property interest acquired and there
2:33:37
are also certain tax benefits for property owners who convey a property interest under potential condemnation
2:33:44
whether or not a condemnation action actually needs to be filed again port staff has had multiple conversations
2:33:50
with all the property owners to keep them informed about the program and to let them know that the program would
2:33:55
include a request to authorize potential use of combination if needed for a particular property
2:34:01
all property owners understand condemn condemnation is a tool available if needed but that the port intends to work
2:34:07
directly with them in a cooperative fashion on all aspects of the work to occur on their property
2:34:14
in fact some of the work connected to this program have already begun and are in motion uh early survey and appraisal
2:34:21
work on some of the private property parcels has occurred an access agreement with uh the highland
2:34:27
the hill grove cemetery association is almost final the report continues to work very
2:34:32
closely with washdot and on highline school district property tree removal work has already concluded
2:34:39
along with the removal of some of several high priority trees on washout and city of seatac property
2:34:46
all tree removal work that needed to occur prior to march first the beginning of the four and a half month bird
2:34:52
nesting period is now complete staff will use the next four and a half month bird nesting period for
2:34:58
negotiations with the property owners and specifically working toward agreement on permanent easements on each
2:35:04
of the properties on july 15 tree removal work can commence again with the goal of removing
2:35:10
all obstructions by the end of 2020 barring any adverse weather conditions
2:35:15
tree and shrubbery planting work would begin happening on all sites once the trees are removed and the site prep work
2:35:21
is complete as said before no signs up to this point have suggested a condemnation action
2:35:26
will be needed with any of the properties where obstructions now currently exist however it's a tool the
2:35:32
port should have ready to efficiently and effect and effectively implement the flight
2:35:37
quarter safety program report staff will return to commission on march 24th for final action on the
2:35:44
resolution thank you and we're now able to take any questions the commission might have commissioner questions comments
2:35:50
commissioner feldman i i'd like to start by you know thanking you for having to undertake
2:35:57
this less than pleasant undertaking none of us are thrilled by cutting trees but
2:36:02
i must say my uh confidence in the way this is uh moving forward has a lot to do with the fact that you're at the helm
2:36:08
of it and the due diligence that you've shown throughout the staffing me at a high line uh program
2:36:15
makes me feel and you're asserting to us that you've met all you've spoken with all these people that makes me
2:36:21
feel much better about something that we wish we didn't have to do so thank you for all your due diligence and of course uh the special
2:36:28
qualities about the cemetery you're making special accommodations there that of course you know i'm interested in
2:36:33
knowing how how that goes but uh i i i wish you good luck and hopefully
2:36:39
those folks are really going to follow through with what they said and uh keep us posted otherwise okay thank you
2:36:45
commission comments commissioners i i would like to add my praise i think this is a
2:36:50
remarkable turnaround from where it was a year or two ago and with the prospect of over 3 000
2:36:58
trees identified and having brought that number down to ten percent of that
2:37:04
amount i think something in that range through some careful uh analysis and scrutiny
2:37:10
and field work i suspect that went into that and so i think the beneficiary here is the community in
2:37:17
that regard because this was mandated by faa we had
2:37:22
we we approached it i think with exceptional due diligence and care and consideration so i want to
2:37:30
offer my strongest praise for the the staff who've worked in this program and uh for for a job well done
2:37:37
not yet finished and it looks to me like there's about 11 or 12 properties that would receive this notice is that right uh to
2:37:45
carry out this pro forma action they've already received the notice they have received but we made sure we called them all in advance so they knew this letter
2:37:51
was coming so this is an introduction of this resolution and i think unless there are no more questions
2:37:58
we can have a motion to approve the introduction of this resolution is there a motion that's been moved is there a
2:38:04
second all those in favor please say aye aye aye jose the motion carries thanks very
2:38:09
much thank you please so i would like to make sure that the community is kept appraised of the legislation that's
2:38:16
moving forward to reduce the match requirement for the ace fund which is something that commissioner creighton
2:38:22
and i were very committed to in addition to all the mitigation that you've done this unfortunately this million dollar
2:38:28
additional asset has not been able to be spent down due to a pretty onerous three to one match and i
2:38:33
understand where we have a bill moving that will bring it down to a two to one match and hopefully that's uh getting closer it's
2:38:40
not at this point is it
2:38:45
i i thought it was well it might be something we can bring up and through through proviso but i'm of the belief
2:38:52
that it was still moving but we will check on that and if not as well we'll ask the community to get back on the
2:38:57
next session and we won't give up if it died this session i think it's a it'll stay on our ledge agenda and and uh
2:39:03
because it applies to this and a whole host of other programs that we do and it's a i think it's an important part of
2:39:09
being able to serve the communities okay thank you for that and i think we can
2:39:16
now ask the clerk to read in item 8d adoption of resolution 3770
2:39:23
a resolution of the port of seattle commission adopting the charters of the following standing committees
2:39:28
the aviation committee equity committee waterfront and industrial lands committee and energy and sustainability
2:39:34
committee and amending the charter of the audit committee as adopted in resolution number 3613 and subsequently amended on
2:39:41
june 28 2016 and july 11 2017.
2:39:46
okay very good commissioners you were briefed on these that are
2:39:51
these at our last meeting adoption of this resolution will approve the charters and scopes of the work for the commission committees
2:39:58
and i don't know okay i think we're going to hear from aaron aaron richard is in the room here
2:40:04
stepped out at an inopportune time this is the second reading yes it is but
2:40:10
i have an amendment so within a minor one and i don't know if he wants to add anything more to it so
2:40:16
but we should dispense with this fairly quickly i think we have actually two amendments yes yes
2:40:23
okay good afternoon commissioners sorry about that um before we have the the before i bring
2:40:29
before before you today the five committees uh for a second reading um you know as you've seen earlier today
2:40:35
we'll report on public session some of what the what the committees are reviewing and the recommendations offered by the commissioners
2:40:41
and we discuss the roles and responsibilities for the committees at introduction on february 11th we have two minor amendments that will
2:40:48
uh that could that will be included uh in these that have been proposed uh one by commissioner steinbrook which would
2:40:53
add the uh office of equity and diversion and inclusion strategic plan implementation to the equity and workforce development
2:41:00
committee for review and the second part of that amendment clarifies that we would gather and evaluate information
2:41:06
rather than just gather information for the police it's always good to do some evaluation right
2:41:12
and commissioner bowman's amendment uh change the name from the equity committee to the equity and workforce
2:41:18
development committee uh to highlight the continuing importance of workforce development to the port and the region okay
2:41:24
is there discussion questions on the proposed amendments no hearing none let's have a motion
2:41:31
it's been this is inclusive of the two sets of amendments that we're voting on now so
2:41:37
it's been moved and seconded comments yes no okay is it red line someplace
2:41:45
there's a handout on this so if they were submitted in a timely manner
2:41:50
so they should be in your paperwork there so i guess i was
2:41:57
just have to turn the paper never mind these are mostly qualitative and uh
2:42:03
refinements so i think they're good ones okay very good so
2:42:08
all those in favor of the proposed amendment how you say i i opposed nay
2:42:14
motion carries the amendment have been approved main motion as amended to
2:42:19
approve now is there any further comment on the main motion to approve which has already
2:42:24
been introduced so resolution three seven seven two
2:42:30
three seven seven zero i'm sorry three seven seven zero thank you clerk uh
2:42:36
no comments all those in favor please say aye opposed say nay motion carries
2:42:41
the and i i should just add here that this is an important step toward some
2:42:47
what i consider process improvements with regard to institutionalizing some of our primary policy areas
2:42:54
and allowing for a deliberative process to occur at the
2:42:59
uh at the committee level and as opposed to reinventing some of
2:43:05
this every year which has been somewhat of the pattern with the exception of the audit committee is that that correct
2:43:12
okay we have reapproved the charters of these committees and it has become clear that there are
2:43:19
key policy areas which these committees represent that are have become more or less
2:43:24
institutional if you will doesn't mean they can't change their scopes will change but the um the organization of how we
2:43:32
deliberate this work through committees i think is the important thing to note here and so i
2:43:38
appreciate uh staff's efforts and and commissioners support for
2:43:44
moving forward with these process improvements and combined with a higher level of reporting also to full
2:43:51
commission in the commission meetings as you heard earlier today so we expect that these committees will meet on a
2:43:58
more or less a quarterly basis and they will be committees of two uh commissioners more may join but it needs
2:44:05
to be noticed and then uh and then uh published as a study sessions is that correct clerk
2:44:12
that if additional committee members or they would have to be they would have to be noticed as public yes yes and so that
2:44:20
that is something not to be discouraged uh where commission other commissioners
2:44:25
want to be part of that deliberative process that does not take a vote other than to recommend to
2:44:32
full commission at the appropriate time so that's just a quick summary of what we're doing here the bylaws proposal
2:44:39
says to discourage well then maybe that needs to be changed
2:44:45
words like that shouldn't appear in the bylaws okay
2:44:50
well with that i think we the motion carries and we're done with that business so i'm on to the next i didn't
2:44:56
know that agenda item 8e is introduction of resolution 3772
2:45:03
a resolution of the port of seattle commission amending resolution numbers 3761
2:45:08
3742 3744 and 3754 regarding bylaws governing
2:45:13
the organization and transaction of business of the port of seattle commission
2:45:22
commissioners this triangle exercise to review commission bylaws has resulted in several several technical and
2:45:27
substantive revisions and the presenter is mr paul what
2:45:33
commissioners mr metric thank you for the record i am paul white commission clerk and i'm here to present a series of
2:45:39
commission bylaws revisions and request introduction of resolution 3772
2:45:45
i am going to um stick pretty close to my script but i did want to
2:45:51
meant to note a couple of things um because we heard some things today about um roles and responsibilities and that
2:45:59
being said during public comment earlier today uh i just want to point out uh refresh
2:46:05
our memories that the bylaws are not um they are not the rules for the
2:46:10
commission about everything they are your rules of procedure we mustn't forget that you also have a
2:46:16
delegation of authority which defines your relationship to the executive director and to port staff in terms of what
2:46:23
activities staff can take on their own in which they have to come to you to get authorization for so i just want to
2:46:30
keep in mind that that this is one piece of a puzzle and it's it's largely a procedural piece but it's about how we
2:46:38
conduct our business as a public uh group when the five of you are sitting here together
2:46:44
doing it so the bylaws require that they be reviewed
2:46:50
every three years this triennial review has just completed and has provided an opportunity to propose some improvements
2:46:57
the vast majority of these are textual changes for better clarity and while i won't spend time on those today you have
2:47:03
all received in advance the red line showing every text change
2:47:10
transparency is one of the most important values embraced by the port of seattle commission and its priorities
2:47:16
for governing the port district we take seriously our commitment to conduct our affairs openly and
2:47:22
accountably in the public eye and with a significant amount of public engagement
2:47:28
innovation and flexibility are also important values of the port commission we take pride in finding new ways to
2:47:33
accomplish our goals and challenge past assumptions biases and status quo
2:47:40
so it is natural that flexibility without compromising transparency
2:47:45
is a theme of many of the rule changes before you today for example
2:47:51
special or temporary committees of the commission such as the current aviation or energy
2:47:56
and sustainability committees have always enjoyed the flexibility to gather with subject matter experts in
2:48:02
locations and at times convenient to the busy and dynamic schedules of all involved
2:48:08
without activating the considerable administrative machinery that comes with advanced meeting notice
2:48:14
early publication of materials fixed schedules set up for electronic recordings and
2:48:20
scheduling of public meeting rooms we are proposing that this flexibility
2:48:25
be extended to standing committees why we believe
2:48:31
that this does not reduce transparency but instead helps to ensure that committee work will be more public not
2:48:38
less first no committee composed of port commissioners
2:48:43
has the delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the port commission they are all limited to less than a
2:48:50
quorum by bylaws and their charters explicitly prevent them from exercising governmental
2:48:56
functions they are strictly advisory bodies a good way to think of them is that they
2:49:02
are like staff meetings at which two commissioners attend to help guide staff's policy related work
2:49:08
and keep it aligned with commission priorities none of these groups can make a decision
2:49:14
for the commission nor can they prevent the full commission from considering any subject
2:49:20
the fact that they are limited to two commissioners is actually a significant control
2:49:27
that keeps them from operating that way no quorum no action
2:49:34
second bylaws and committee charters require committees excuse me yes
2:49:41
in the charter of a committee yes i understand when you have three commissioners you have a quorum but in
2:49:47
the charter of a committee if there are still only two members of the committee
2:49:53
but a third commissioner attends would that not still be an advisory group
2:50:00
and not being able to take a final action if indeed for that public in fact and i don't
2:50:06
understand whether that needs to be quote unquote a public hearing or it could be not just a study session as was
2:50:12
suggested so the discretion of taking public comment and all that um certainly we'd need
2:50:17
notice in all those encumbrances but um a a uh
2:50:23
a committee meeting that is open to the public with three commissioners present but
2:50:29
only two actually as being members of the committee does that that doesn't afford and if the
2:50:36
charter expressly says that doesn't automatically afford them decision-making authority does it
2:50:42
keep in mind and i think that general counsel has a few thoughts on this
2:50:47
that the charter of the committee is a control on the committee's activity it is not a control on the commission's
2:50:53
activity fundamentally and what happens when you have three members present is that you are actually
2:51:00
present as a board not just as one of your committees that's a function of the fact that you
2:51:06
are quite a small board i i really i i find it
2:51:13
implausible to interpret it that way if indeed the commission charters a
2:51:18
committee to do a certain thing the commission is delegating that authority to two
2:51:24
individuals to make advice adding a third commissioner doesn't change that commissioner fellman guide
2:51:31
try well certainly i'm the lawyer but i just find it just to be a public so you're you are you are right uh in the
2:51:37
first instance adding a third member does not give the committee any additional authority the committee is still limited and it doesn't have the
2:51:44
power to act on behalf of the commission that doesn't change what does change when you add the third commissioner that
2:51:49
just becomes a public meeting right there's a quorum of the whole commission then and so you have to follow all the
2:51:54
procedures for a public meeting and and could it be a study session rather than a meeting where the formality of public
2:52:00
comment could be just at the discretion of the committee rather than an obligation to have a half an hour or
2:52:06
so set aside there i mean there are provisions that paul has drafted for study sessions and
2:52:13
the study session you could call it a study session it'd still be required to be open to the public and treated like it's open to the public but the the
2:52:19
difference i see is just that you know it's the discretion of the of the committee whether or not to have a
2:52:24
public uh comment period is that the primary distinction between a study session and
2:52:30
a meeting well so a study session is a public meeting
2:52:35
and currently there are no explicit restrictions on what you would
2:52:41
or would not do during those we do have some proposals around that what i would like to do on this question
2:52:48
of whether or not the commission being present as a quorum the the
2:52:54
difference that that may or may not make to a committee meeting
2:52:59
not uh not to take anything away from what general counsel has said
2:53:05
is i think perhaps a largely untested area
2:53:10
for us there is not i don't know that the answer is very cut and dry
2:53:16
that a quorum of the commission meeting together is limited in the way that we want to
2:53:23
suggest that it is and and i just want to say i i don't think that that's well established but if we limit ourselves we
2:53:30
in chartering the committee we as a quorum say we are limiting our quorum ability
2:53:36
for the purposes of a committee that seems to be the will of the commission
2:53:41
so i might take a cut at this too my concern is not for the current
2:53:46
iteration of the commission i think we're all quite collegial and like-minded on most issues and
2:53:52
uh my concern about um creating a
2:53:58
norm essentially that says when the three get when three get together as part of a committee
2:54:05
there they abrogate their right to make any decision functionally
2:54:10
we may all agree to that but by statute those three can now make a
2:54:16
decision they could overrule the earlier will of the commission because now they have the authority as a quorum to make a
2:54:22
decision as a commission and and the reason i think it's important to make this distinction is because we may not
2:54:27
always have be a commission that is so closely changed
2:54:32
right there at the meeting not the charter the no but the charter yeah so i think this question if i may um
2:54:39
it's one that we can think about and having maybe more language built in to make clear that that sort of activity
2:54:45
would not be able to occur under the bylaws it wouldn't be an allowed action under our bylaws if if i could
2:54:51
comment here most other governmental bodies have committees with more than a quorum
2:54:58
attending they don't take a final action they make a recommendation that is routine
2:55:03
that the only requirement is that it be in public and perhaps be recorded i don't know but there is nothing
2:55:09
preventing more than two commissioners from meeting as long as it's in public and you can call it a committee you can
2:55:15
call it a standing study session or whatever but that is pretty much irrelevant i think
2:55:20
from a legal standpoint if i'm not you know that's right and the charges for city council and and county
2:55:26
council government set up subcommittees that the rules describe they have their meetings in public and they refer to the
2:55:32
full and then the value of that in my view is from experience is that it helps
2:55:38
support a deliberative process with more people participating toward the ultimate goal of a final action through the full
2:55:45
commission as authorized by law so but that is not to obviate the the fact of the matter is it is bureaucratically
2:55:51
more challenging it requires more preparation that's why i was asking
2:55:56
if the study session uh did not require recording did not require public comment
2:56:02
if but it still has to be noticed i mean we still are inviting the public to come and view
2:56:08
and at discretion depending on the number of people or the subject at hand participate but to have that discretion
2:56:15
as a study session seems to be uh more in the spirit of what we're thinking of having a public deliberation
2:56:23
but no action commissioner bowman i just um i know that this is that we have to introduce
2:56:28
this for the first reading and this is important work and i think we have a lot of questions i will say i'm a little
2:56:33
concerned that we have folks that testified on biometrics and are eager to get to that topic and so i'm wondering
2:56:39
if perhaps we could um provide some of our comments to the clerk and talk a little bit longer offline i have
2:56:45
questions as well i just want to be sensitive to the public i want to put this on hold
2:56:50
and go to the next perhaps be helpful if i pointed out that there are no limits
2:56:57
there's nothing in the bylaws provisions that would prevent a third commissioner from attending a
2:57:02
committee meeting in fact there have been since 2017 provisions to allow that very thing to happen
2:57:08
so that is not being taken away in any of these provisions but they can take actions
2:57:14
so commissioner bowman are you suggesting we should uh since this is the introduction we can
2:57:21
introduce it we could introduce it in two weeks and then have a certain session and discuss it
2:57:27
at the end of the meeting or we could just but that's the order right now yeah no we well look let's just enter get it
2:57:32
introduced so working a working yeah and amendments can be filed now
2:57:39
right of course yeah all right and i'd be happy to do it two two one with other commissioners together that would be
2:57:44
helpful but there's a lot of but a lot of work went into it we shouldn't do this again it's been out there for a while so let's not get too bogged down
2:57:51
in endless yeah but this was one of the more substantive issues so i would like to move that we have this uh first
2:57:59
introduction all right it's been moved is there a second second oh it's been moved in second all those in favor
2:58:04
please say aye aye opposed nay motion carries thank you
2:58:09
follow up thanks well done commissioner okay
2:58:15
thank you oh yeah all right that brings us to um presentation item number nine a
2:58:20
biometrics working group progress update commissioners this is an update on the progress of the internal biometrics
2:58:27
working group an external advisory group established by a commission at the december 10
2:58:32
2019 meeting as a as of today the working group will have met four times an external advisory group will have met
2:58:38
two times this is the midpoint update with the first set of policy recommendations as both work groups
2:58:44
progress towards their march 31st deadline for policy recommendations presenters are
2:58:49
veronica valdez and eric shinville
2:59:00
good afternoon commissioners and executive director metric i'm veronica vadas commission specialist at the port
2:59:06
of seattle i am joined by eric shinfeld senior manager federal government relations and
2:59:12
interim commission chief of staff we are here today as executive director metric mentioned to provide an update on
2:59:19
the working group and external advisory group efforts on developing policy for public-facing biometrics at port
2:59:25
facilities last december the commission passed a motion that approved seven biometrics
2:59:32
principles justified voluntary private equitable transparent lawful and ethical
2:59:40
you also established a working group tasked to translate those principles into enforceable policy recommendations
2:59:46
governing the use of public-facing biometrics technology at the port by the end of q1 2020 and a policy by q2
2:59:54
2020. an external advisory group was also stood up to provide feedback on the
3:00:00
working group's policy recommendations lastly the motion was also clear on putting a hold on implementation of any
3:00:06
new or expanded use of biometrics at the port that is within our jurisdiction until after the commission approves
3:00:13
policy recommendations and adopts policies
3:00:21
hello commissioners again eric shinfeld senior manager of federal government relations here at the port of seattle
3:00:26
we wanted to spend some time on the process because on topics as important and substantive as these the process is
3:00:32
just as important as the product we have two groups that are working very very hard on this first is what we call
3:00:38
the biometrics working group this is a group of internal staff here at the port of seattle as you can see it is a cross
3:00:45
section of all potentially impacted or engaged port staff airport seaport legal
3:00:53
and law enforcement everyone in between and we've been working really hard as executive director metric said we've had
3:01:00
four meetings our fifth will be this coming friday you can go to the next slide and next we have a external advisory
3:01:06
group this was directed to us in the motion that was passed on december 10th and i will call out that the motion from
3:01:12
december 10th explicitly identifies the kinds of stakeholders that need to be part of the external working group
3:01:17
external advisor group so both industry representatives as well as community stakeholders as well as technology
3:01:24
experts and everyone in between and i just want to say how grateful we are for this large group of folks to be able to
3:01:30
spend their time to take time out of their busy schedules to join us this is a very challenging conversation
3:01:36
stakeholders on all sides and people have attended these meetings and they have given their feedback and we really
3:01:41
appreciate that i also want to be really clear that we designed this process to make sure that regardless of who is on
3:01:48
the external advisory group every single person has the opportunity to have their opinion expressed and respected and
3:01:54
captured and that is why we hired a facilitation firm bds who not only
3:01:59
designs the agenda for each meeting but also facilitates to make sure that not one group or set of stakeholders
3:02:06
dominates the conversation and to their credit bds has not only managed the meetings themselves but reached out to
3:02:12
individual stakeholders between meetings to make sure that all perspectives are all perspectives are captured next slide
3:02:20
so as i mentioned the working group has met four times it will be five as of this friday the external advisor group
3:02:25
has met two times it will be three as of next friday one of the most important decisions that
3:02:31
we made was we started out to say how do we develop quote unquote biometric policies for public facing biometrics
3:02:38
port wide and what we quickly realized is that that would be incredibly incredibly challenging with a numerous
3:02:44
set of caveats for each recommendation because each use case is so different
3:02:49
biometric air exit and air entry which is mostly under cbp federal jurisdiction
3:02:55
is very different than things like ticketing and bag check which is different from how law enforcement might
3:03:01
use biometrics and so rather than try and cram that all into one use case we are actually going to develop five
3:03:07
different use cases and we'll just uh jump really ahead couple slides here the first one you'll hear about today
3:03:13
which is not listed right here is the one you have in front of you biometric air exit which is cbp's program for
3:03:20
using facial recognition for departing international air passengers we will also have recommendations for
3:03:26
biometric air and cruise entry which is cbp's use of facial recognition for
3:03:32
arrivals of both international passengers as well as uh individuals departing a cruise ship who are
3:03:38
technically considered international passengers although with some distinction we've drafted that we have
3:03:43
not yet vetted it with the external advisory group we have also drafted but not yet vetted the non-federal biometric passenger
3:03:50
processing which is use of facial recognition for things like bag check ticketing
3:03:56
clear would fall under this category as well biometrics for customer functions which would be biometric uses for
3:04:04
access to corporate lounges access to parking garages access to rental cars
3:04:09
things of that nature and then finally biometrics for law enforcement and security function which is obvious so
3:04:14
again we will come to you eventually with those five sets of recommendations there will be many similarities between
3:04:20
those recommendations but we are doing them separately because of the very very different issues related to federal
3:04:26
jurisdiction non-federal jurisdiction etc so at last thing i just want to say here
3:04:33
before i turn things over to veronica to talk about biometric air exits uh first
3:04:38
of all we have uh we have really tried to have as much
3:04:44
transparency transparency and accountability in this process as possible in addition to have meetings
3:04:49
having meetings of the working group and the external advisory group we have a project web page on the port website
3:04:56
that has the minutes and all materials of the external advisory group the drafts of all the policy use cases and
3:05:03
we have communicated by email and in person with not only external advisors that are on the external advisor group
3:05:10
but with other external stakeholders that we want to keep in touch with as well so it's really important to us that
3:05:15
we do this process right and we make sure that we're being really really clear with everybody every single thing
3:05:21
that we're doing as part of this process great i wanted to spend some time just
3:05:26
to level set on what biometric exit is it is an airport
3:05:33
at the airport is a cbp function cbp is congressionally mandated to have
3:05:38
a biometric entry and exit system um cbp can exercise their authority to
3:05:44
implement air exit themselves or they could work with airlines or the airport to do this for them
3:05:50
it basically verifies whether the departing individual is truly the same person who entered the us it also allows
3:05:57
cbp to determine if a foreign national overstays their authorized time in the
3:06:02
u.s so biometric air exit occurs at the departure gates of international flights
3:06:09
um and this is a chart a five-set chart of how it actually works i'll quickly run through those
3:06:15
the first step is airline sends a roster or a manifest of all the travelers on that particular international flight to
3:06:22
the department of homeland security dhs and then they prepare a temporary
3:06:28
gallery of images of these travelers and those photos or the gallery are pulled
3:06:34
from images or photographs taken by cvp during the entry inspection u.s passport
3:06:40
photos u.s visas and other travel documentations as well as photos from previous dhs encounters
3:06:49
the next step is at the departure gate where each international traveler's photo is taken
3:06:55
either by a cbp owned camera or equipment provided by the airline or airport authority
3:07:02
the next step is these photographs are encrypted and personal identifying information is stripped and sent to a
3:07:08
cloud-based matching system via a secure secure connection and cbp's biometric
3:07:14
matching service is called the traveler verification service tvs veronica can i
3:07:20
just i just want to make sure that we clarify at step number two that's where passengers have the ability to decline
3:07:26
the biometric right correct can we just make sure that we highlight that that this is the point where you do not have
3:07:32
to do this correct thank you thank you the next step step three is the
3:07:38
photographs are encrypted as i said um step four the tvs compares the new photo that's taken by that international
3:07:45
traveler at the gates with the gallery dhs has prepared using the existing
3:07:50
photos that they've had then tvs responds with the identifi identification identity
3:07:57
verification match results and returns a unique identification number which is just a string of multiple numbers if
3:08:04
there is a match the traveler is able to board that flight and if there is a no match the traveler's documents are
3:08:10
screened manually with a gate agent i just want to be clear that airports
3:08:15
and airlines are not mandated to participate in the cbp biometric air accept program but the two dozen or so
3:08:22
airports nationally who do biometric air exit do it voluntarily because they do believe
3:08:28
in the benefits of the biometric air exit system
3:08:36
that means you know you have the choice to do it yourself but if you don't they will correct and and it's so it's not
3:08:42
like it's not like necessarily that they're opting for that they're just not doing it and cbp is doing it for them i
3:08:50
i just was wondering several of the comments from the public was were um you know why are we complicit why what
3:08:56
what is the benefit of us doing it if cbp is going to do it anyway you know the one place that i've always felt
3:09:02
where our responsibility really lies is to make sure that the opt-out option is explicit and
3:09:08
clear but but like what what is the value added yeah the support to take this on if i
3:09:13
can actually take that veronica so i i think that's really the essential point commissioner because absolutely the the
3:09:20
real fundamental choice here because cbp has the authority to come in and do biometric air exit in our terminal
3:09:26
without our permission as they are currently doing right now the real choice is whether we want them
3:09:32
to do it or we want our staff or airline staff to do it uh
3:09:37
that is ultimately a policy decision that y'all as the commission will make but the difference is to your question
3:09:44
if cbp does it cbp will do whatever cbp does they will follow their guidelines they will follow their rules if airport
3:09:51
and airline staff do it they will be more compelled to follow the policy recommendations that we have included
3:09:57
here that i will walk through in one minute for you and the things that we would have more control over include
3:10:04
signage communication training standards layout to ensure no unintended image
3:10:10
capture and things of that nature so that and i think one of the things in particular what that training is about
3:10:16
and the communications about is as veronica said no one u.s citizen or not is required to use
3:10:24
facial recognition on a departing international flight is a voluntary system and so it is really essential that
3:10:32
whoever is doing it particularly if it is airline staff under our uh our choice
3:10:38
make it really clear to people our communications make it really clear to people the signage makes it really clear to people if you do not want to use
3:10:46
facial recognition to board your departing international flight you do not have to and that's the key to be clear
3:10:52
nothing precludes the airport from doing more than cbp or the airlines
3:10:59
in terms of signage that's exactly what i'm saying that's what that's what the recommendations are that we'll walk through no no but i'm just saying
3:11:05
they could do the program either the airlines or cbp could do their the program but we can put up as many signs
3:11:11
as we want we we can put up so that doesn't because they do it doesn't preclude us at least from the sign
3:11:16
itself that is correct and as eric mentioned cbp has already begun implementing this
3:11:23
at seatac with lufonza flights and also they have begun conducting screenings on
3:11:29
high non emirates and virgin atlantic flights did you have a question
3:11:37
so this is a matrix that is obviously very small and hard to read uh we did not put this up here for people to read
3:11:43
it we have included in your packet and in the public materials the full 30 page biometric air exit policy
3:11:49
recommendations so that anybody who wants to see them and follow along can what we wanted to do here is to just
3:11:55
show you visually how thorough we have tried to be at the task assigned to us by you in
3:12:02
the december 10th motion which is to translate the biometric principles that you passed into tangible enforceable
3:12:09
policies what we have not done and i want to make this clear because the word recommendations may be confusing we are
3:12:16
not recommending whether or not the port should install a biometric air exit
3:12:21
system what our task is is to put in recommendations that if
3:12:26
the port uh authorizes itself and or its airlines to do a biometric exit system
3:12:32
here is how they would comply with the biometric principles that you put forward again ultimately it is your
3:12:37
decision whether or not you want to approve that or just defer to cbp to operate the program as they see fit
3:12:44
you'll see here in the columns there are seven columns those are the seven principles that you uh put out there and
3:12:50
you will also see in the report starting on page eight that not only have we laid
3:12:55
out the recommendations but we have laid out all of the stakeholder concerns and feedback we want to be as i said before
3:13:02
very transparent to say just because ultimately this is the internal working
3:13:07
group recommendation the staff recommendation there is not full consensus from the external advisor group we don't want
3:13:13
anyone on the external advisor group to feel like they've been railroaded into agreeing to something they don't agree with and so we have listed the concerns
3:13:19
in the document as well again for full transparency and so that ultimately when you make policy decisions you know where
3:13:26
everybody is on all of these issues and all of these recommendations but let me verify isn't there there isn't a column
3:13:32
for cost so if you know if we took it on is it our cost
3:13:38
there there would be cost to us if we the port installed a common use system
3:13:44
if it was the airlines that installed a proprietary system we would not have a cost it just seems to me that that's one
3:13:50
of the variables if cbp did it do they are we obligated to do it for them yes
3:13:55
so i mean could we get a sense of how much it would cost for the port to do there would be additional staffing as well as equipment
3:14:03
we would have some staffing costs but would be mostly equipment uh and again we didn't include cost in
3:14:08
here because really our task specifically is how to map the principles to enforceable policies and
3:14:14
that is the task that we're focused on achieving here uh let me but we could maybe get a ballpark it would be very easy i i we
3:14:20
have that ballpark so uh let me just very briefly talk about the kinds of things that are in
3:14:26
the then each of these categories if you want me to go into further detail i'm more than happy to do so but but really
3:14:32
this is is meant to be exemplary this is not meant to say here is everything in
3:14:37
every single amount of detail we are still in process getting feedback from our external advisor group and others on
3:14:42
that are any of these recommendations
3:14:48
contrary to anything that cdp would require or disallow we
3:14:54
do not have authority to to deal with federally uh regulated
3:14:59
issues right so we are very clear in this document what is cbp regulation and what is within our ability and are the
3:15:06
participants clear of that as well in terms of the recommendations that have come through the
3:15:12
this work group i i it is certainly a topic that we have a lot we have had a lot of discussion on uh cbp is part of
3:15:18
our external advisory group there was very robust discussion last time from all stakeholders really trying to get
3:15:24
from cbp what the program is what it isn't what jurisdiction they have what is outside
3:15:30
of their jurisdiction so we continue to have that conversation are we confident to the extent that cbp
3:15:37
uh is a basic task is is achieved that these
3:15:44
will be complementary that will be honored and adhered to uh in the overall project if cbp
3:15:52
uh implements biometric air exits they we will have no control over that we can still do as
3:15:59
commissioner feldman said some signage and things like that uh if we are more in control of the program we would have
3:16:05
the ability to implement uh many more of these recommendations i see so i think that needs to be well understood yes but
3:16:12
this application goes beyond cbp's jurisdiction as well so right so some of our recommendations are are the ones
3:16:19
that are fully within our jurisdiction was very important for us regardless of whether cbp comes in and exercises its
3:16:26
jurisdiction and we don't have anything to do with it our number one priority is our travelers
3:16:31
making sure our travelers are informed of their rights making sure those rights are respected and doing everything we
3:16:36
can to ensure transparency and accountability even in areas that we don't have control over
3:16:42
could we not have a mou with this cbp adopting the protocols that i think are
3:16:49
appropriate we already you already have their uh letter from them you know endorsing your
3:16:54
principles we've you've already got that right you know so we we certainly are always engaging with our federal uh
3:17:01
agencies to talk about what they can do uh and how they can work with us best uh
3:17:06
but ultimately again it's very important understand cbp has federal jurisdiction on uh customs and border protection and
3:17:14
they uh they will follow their rules and guidelines ultimately so let me just really briefly talk about
3:17:20
the point is even if we wanted to assert ourselves that we can't right so we're asking them to adopt
3:17:26
things that we think are important where we couldn't do it if we ran it ourselves
3:17:31
we are not asking them to do anything we're talking about what we will do whether or not they do it or we do it
3:17:37
though the recommendations are about us we don't have any recommendations here that tell cbp what to do because we
3:17:42
can't tell cbp what to do these are recommendations about what we should do if cbp implements or if the airport or
3:17:49
airlines implements and and this letter in appendix d is their expression of their expression of
3:17:56
support for our principles so uh justified is obviously the
3:18:02
principle is it is there a justification for using biometrics for this purpose
3:18:07
and we talked in in this section about how uh this is a essentially an automation of a
3:18:13
cbp process which is customs and border protection uh and so it has sort of inherent justification to it but
3:18:20
regardless of that it is really important for us to ensure that it is not mass surveillance and our definition
3:18:26
of mass surveillance as included in the december 10th uh motion is that it is a one-to-one use of facial recognition not
3:18:34
multiple people and certainly not without their their acknowledgements and so our recommendations in justified are
3:18:40
things like making sure that uh if it is airport or airline staff requesting this
3:18:45
that it is there is an approval process that it is fully vetted against the principles against anything uh any other
3:18:51
policies that we pass certainly against cbp's regulatory policies to make sure it's in in compliance with federal law
3:18:58
that we work with our vendors to ensure that compliance uh and this is important here uh that if the port decides to
3:19:06
implement a common use system which is us purchasing the cameras that every
3:19:11
single airline would be required to use those cameras that we would not have multiple proprietary systems competing
3:19:17
with our common use system uh for both simplification but also for control and
3:19:22
maximum transparency and accountability uh pri so uh we'll move on to private
3:19:29
private is obviously extremely important to us that people's data is private
3:19:35
most of the privacy rules are controlled by cbp because ultimately
3:19:40
the data goes to their database it is in their system it is their algorithm
3:19:46
however we do believe that the the opportunities we have here as regards to privacy
3:19:52
really have to do with our ability to make it clear to people what cbp's privacy policies are they have published
3:19:58
a very long list of their privacy impact assessments and we have the ability to really share that make sure that people
3:20:04
understand what those privacy policies are and then where we might have control
3:20:09
if the airport or the airlines do that is really make sure that there is absolutely no third party access that
3:20:16
there is no other use beyond cbp use for uh for anything other than boarding an
3:20:23
international flight that this is not oh the airline's gonna do it and they're gonna take that data and sell you a
3:20:28
flight to hawaii so but how do we how do we guarantee that so so cbp has an auditing process and then
3:20:34
we have some recommendations as well about how we can work with cbp to get that audit data as well as look at how
3:20:40
we can do our own additional performance evaluation it's clear if i remember correctly when
3:20:45
cbp testified that they had not even done their first audit yet they have not done their first audit yet they are
3:20:50
starting to now for atlanta and one of the things that cbp said in our last external advisor group meeting is that
3:20:57
they would be willing to i don't know if they used the word mou commissioner fellerman but they said
3:21:03
they would be willing to put into agreement with us access to audit data if that was something that was important
3:21:09
to us if we decided to implement biometric air exits so uh equitable incredibly important to
3:21:16
us this issue around whether or not uh this system is as good or not as good at
3:21:22
recognizing non-white men nist which is a federal agency did a study of every single algorithm and
3:21:30
looked at whether some of these algorithms are good or bad at recom at recognizing different subgroups some of
3:21:37
them are really bad some of them are a hundred times worse at recognizing black women as they are recognizing white men
3:21:44
that is not good the good news if you want to call it good news is that
3:21:49
cbp's algorithm was either the first or second most accurate
3:21:55
in all of those nist tests and the cbp algorithm is required whether it's cbp doing the work or airport or airlines
3:22:02
doing the work ultimately they were feet they're feeding into the cbp tvs system and so that cbs that tvs system uses
3:22:09
cbp's algorithm which was judged by nist to be one of if not the most accurate in terms of not only uh overall accuracy
3:22:16
but specifically within subgroups so that's really really important to us we also have a number of recommendations in
3:22:22
here around our welcoming port policy around engaging with diverse groups uh
3:22:28
immigrants and refugee groups to make sure they understand their rights and have very clear understanding of what
3:22:34
the complaint uh processes are if they feel like those rights have not been respected and doing so in multiple
3:22:41
languages in culturally sensitive ways transparency is really where we get into
3:22:46
what commissioner feldman has come back to several times around signage around a communications plan around an
3:22:52
accountability report that we would publish annually that talks about not only what we're doing but whether it's
3:22:58
working audit data performance evaluation data any complaint data that
3:23:03
comes out of here and i will be really honest with you i have stolen this language a lot of
3:23:08
this language from senator wynn from the state legislature he has a bill that's moving through the state legislature i
3:23:14
don't know if that bill will pass or not uh because i can't make that kind of prediction but it doesn't matter because
3:23:20
we are going to use all of his language around accountability and accountability reports because it's really good language uh and we've incorporated it
3:23:27
into our recommendations uh lawful pretty straightforward we should follow the law but maybe less
3:23:33
straightforward is that we are going to become one of the lead advocates at the state and federal level for stronger
3:23:39
laws as it relates to facial recognition biometrics and biometrics more broadly
3:23:45
i'll give you a really important example of that so right now cbp says by their regulations
3:23:52
they will not require anyone us citizen or not to submit to facial
3:23:58
recognition to board a plane it's entirely voluntary but that's just a cbp regulation it would certainly be better
3:24:04
if that was a congressional law so we were sure of its permanence because they could change their mind and so that's an
3:24:10
example of the kind of thing that we would advocate for making some of cbp's very very good privacy and voluntary
3:24:18
regulations into permanent law ethical we talked a lot about this about some of
3:24:25
the things that we want to do in terms of reaching out to immigrant refugee
3:24:30
communities our welcoming port policy but one of the recommendations here is the creation of a technology ethical
3:24:37
advisory board this is something that we think would be incredibly important it actually goes back to the justified principle
3:24:43
where folks said okay yeah you have a process for approving these but how does the airport managing director know
3:24:51
whether this is a good thing to approve or not and some of it of course is just does it align with the principles is aligned with the policies but we believe
3:24:58
that having a technology ethical advisory board will really help us make sure that we're really thinking through
3:25:03
the pros and cons some of this gets down to okay you could use biometrics but do you have to is it really worth the cost
3:25:10
benefit analysis of convenience versus loss of privacy and or potential loss of privacy and civil liberties so uh that
3:25:17
technology ethical advisory board not only would be helpful for biometrics but there's probably a number of other
3:25:22
technology issues as well that would be helpful to have that advisory board for and finally but
3:25:28
certainly not least voluntary we are obviously very pleased that cbp's
3:25:34
regulations say that whether cbp is doing it or whether the airport in the airlines are doing it that it is not
3:25:39
required that anybody submit to facial recognition to board an international flight that is obviously fully in line
3:25:47
with your principle that be voluntary but that regulation doesn't matter if people
3:25:53
don't know that that's the regulation or they feel pressured to do it regardless of whether it's allowed or not we have
3:26:00
heard stories from other airports people complaining and saying nobody told us that it was voluntary or
3:26:06
we asked to opt out and the the gate agent said ah do we have to like that's
3:26:11
annoying you shouldn't we don't want that we need to have not only it be really clear in our
3:26:17
communications but we also need to have training standards that if it is the airport or
3:26:23
the airlines doing this that everyone must be trained to a certain standard so that uh they are really clear with
3:26:30
customers you don't have to do it and if customers opt out it is done in an incredibly respectful way uh and and
3:26:37
done uh in a way that doesn't disadvantage them or inconvenience them in an unnecessary way uh and then of
3:26:44
course the voluntary piece around unintended image capture we can actually design standards for how the camera
3:26:50
should be pointed the kinds of cameras different filters different backdrops that you can use to make sure
3:26:56
that nobody is just walking by in the background and getting their image captured even if they got their image
3:27:02
captured you know it wouldn't necessarily violate their privacy because that image would sort of be thrown out but it doesn't
3:27:08
matter it shouldn't happen anyway this should be 100 voluntary no mass surveillance and that means to us one to
3:27:15
one and willing participation in the program so those are the kinds of recommendations
3:27:21
that we put in here uh obviously we've gotten feedback from the stakeholders which we've included in the report as
3:27:26
stakeholder concerns we will be able to accommodate and edit our recommendations
3:27:31
to uh to include all of those stakeholder concerns but we didn't do that yet
3:27:36
because we wanted for transparency's sake to show you what those concerns were before we incorporate it into the
3:27:41
final report so i realize that's a lot in a very short amount of time uh but
3:27:46
let me just end before i turn things over to commissioner cho and commissioner calkins who are part of the the biometrics special committee uh who
3:27:53
have spent some time really looking at these by saying again
3:27:59
we don't have a ton of control over a lot of the cbp biometric air exit
3:28:04
program and i'm not just talking about whether they do it or not they will do it whether we do it or not it will happen
3:28:10
at ctac airport we don't have control over their algorithm we don't have control over their privacy standards we
3:28:16
don't have control over some of those things but i hope that you see from this very long list of recommendations in this
3:28:23
30-page document that we do have a ton of things that we can do and should do
3:28:28
whether it or not it's cbp or us doing it to maximize our efforts to protect
3:28:34
the privacy civil liberties and general rights of our travelers and visitors to
3:28:40
our airport so let me stop there i can answer other questions and obviously again want to turn things over to commissioners culkins and cho who spent
3:28:47
a lot of time as a part of the biometric special committee uh really vetting these recommendations
3:28:53
thank you eric just a reminder to uh sam and i met uh with staff to go over the
3:28:59
recommendations on february 18th in our first committee meeting we have another one coming up i think in end of march uh
3:29:06
and um i will say it's it's bracing to be told you don't have the power to do something
3:29:13
um but there's in certain areas there's no two ways about it and so
3:29:18
um i think that was the the first real concrete realization um about certain
3:29:23
areas i am deeply appreciative of the work that staff has done to delineate where we do
3:29:30
and don't and to to make a clear case for why
3:29:37
when we have the ability to select control we can do what we think is
3:29:42
especially important even though there is a budget implication to it and
3:29:48
some react reallocation of of our personnel but
3:29:54
after reviewing this i think carving out the biometric air exit policy in
3:29:59
particular so that the ongoing work of the committee and the working group can be
3:30:05
focused on the areas where we do have control uh is a wise recommendation sam
3:30:12
yeah so first i just want to thank the staff for their stellar work on this i think that it's true when we say that we are really
3:30:18
the first port in the country that has had this extensive of a conversation on this issue so thank you so much and i
3:30:23
want to thank the the folks who came and testified today on this issue we we
3:30:28
really value your uh your perspective and i just want to you know preface my statements by saying that uh i share
3:30:35
your concerns um on the potential biases that these systems may have i you know i tend to
3:30:41
believe that if it's created by humans then it probably has human biases involved as well and so i share those
3:30:47
concerns and as the son of immigrants as a person of color this is at the top of my mind when we think about biometrics
3:30:53
and the use of artificial intelligence at the port and that's the reason why i volunteered to be on this special community to make sure that this is
3:30:59
getting all the attention that it deserves um but i think that you know we're we're faced with a tough decision here um and
3:31:07
let me just be clear about what the decision is or what our options are the choice is not whether or not
3:31:12
the biometric air exit plan is executed or not that is not the choice here the choice
3:31:17
is whether or not we as a port want to take this on or if you want to abdicate that to cbp or the airlines
3:31:25
now it's not an ideal choice but that's those are the options we have and i just want to make it clear where i
3:31:31
stand on this and you know i think that the the external advisor group has come up with seven several seven principles that
3:31:38
i think should be applied to every use of biometrics and artificial intelligence at the port and it would be
3:31:44
a shame if we had decided to let cbp or someone else run with this
3:31:50
and then these seven principles are not adhered to at all in any form way and so
3:31:56
right now i am leaning uh towards making sure that we do as much as we can to
3:32:01
make sure that we are adhering to those principles and that might mean that we take on this system ourselves as a
3:32:08
common use system and i know that that scares people but you know at the
3:32:13
end of the day again the choice is not whether or not we use this system or not the choice is who uses the system who
3:32:18
executes the system and who has the control over whether or not those seven principles are
3:32:25
adhered to or not and so um i just want to make that clear once again for everyone in the audience but also for my
3:32:30
colleagues because i think that's a very very clear distinction that's that needs to be made here we do not have a choice
3:32:36
on the matter as far as whether or not this is being used the choice is whether or not we have a stake in this game or
3:32:42
we don't and generally i don't really like to like the idea of kicking the can down the street so that's not our
3:32:48
problem right i think as a commission we should take responsibility for this that we should push these seven principles
3:32:54
and we should make sure that we're doing everything we can to make sure that there are no mistakes made and that we
3:32:59
don't break these seven principles so so that's all i wanted to say on the matter and i'm happy to answer questions
3:33:05
that for my commissioner there were there were a couple of other issues that i just wanted to raise in the conversation the first is
3:33:12
while we as a commission don't have the ability to to set federal policy
3:33:17
we we do elect representatives who can and so we do have an opportunity and i think as the leading port on this
3:33:23
particular issue our voice will carry significant weight and so i think as we
3:33:28
look both at the both the biometric air exit policy but then uh biometrics policy writ large i would
3:33:36
hope that um by the next federal legislative agenda we have recommendations for how that that
3:33:43
federal legislation can be improved the other is as we've kind of
3:33:49
drank from the fire hose of biometrics information
3:33:54
i am quite stunned at the range of technologies that uh from in terms of um
3:34:02
potential for abuse or breach or harm and uh you know from things that i think
3:34:08
are um applied through you know
3:34:14
met through crowds through large numbers of people and with very few filters and controls
3:34:20
and uh the access to the data is loosely held and so i think you know
3:34:25
very high concern for breach or abuse i would suggest that from what we
3:34:32
in our communications with cbp and because this is not the establishment of a new database as people come through
3:34:39
but verification against an existing database one that dates back decades now
3:34:45
it on that spectrum of potential for abuse or breach or harm it's
3:34:51
fairly low and that's encouraging to me even though again we don't have control over it i at least rest somewhat assured
3:34:59
that the likelihood of abuse is fairly low and it is an area where i think um
3:35:05
as if we take control of the establishment of the system at ctac it gives us the opportunity to put into
3:35:11
place best practices immediately that that wouldn't even lower the threshold for
3:35:16
for abuse commissioner felon so i you know getting back to the
3:35:22
question the relative merits of us doing it versus having others um so
3:35:28
you know the airlines have been doing this longer than anybody else and they've developed their own expertise but the
3:35:36
the point raised was the uniformity of having the airport doing it and uh you know whosever
3:35:42
whiz-bang technology we choose is one thing but um but the fact that it would be consistent across
3:35:48
all all systems so that if there is a problem identified it can be you know corrected across the
3:35:54
board so it just seems to me that um that that's one of the real upsets besides the the protocols and these
3:36:01
other things but uniformity and how much how much weight did you put on on that
3:36:06
consideration so yeah so i think there's really if you think about it
3:36:12
three scenarios right scenario one where uh we do not allow
3:36:17
ourselves or the airlines to implement and it's just cbp right and they sort of they have their system they have their
3:36:23
technology that their process they do it second is we do not take control over but we do
3:36:29
allow airlines to implement their own proprietary systems and then third would be if we put in a common use system
3:36:37
the reason that there is a recommendation in this document that if there is a common use system all airlines use it is
3:36:44
both practical and because of policy the practical is most of our gates for
3:36:50
international departures are used by multiple international carriers and i think the only thing worse to some
3:36:56
people than the idea of a facial recognition camera at the gate would be six facial recognition cameras at the
3:37:02
gates uh that would not work very well that would be uh problematic for all of the obvious
3:37:07
reasons but much more important than practical considerations and and logistical
3:37:13
considerations is that it is our belief that if there are going to be
3:37:20
port or airline uh use of facial recognition biometrics to board international flights that if
3:37:26
we choose the vendor if we choose the camera in the software we have the most
3:37:32
control over how it's pointed where it's used how it's used the
3:37:37
direction that it's used what kinds of filters we can put in to avoid unintentional image capture
3:37:43
ensuring certain privacy standards uh and just having that control because to
3:37:48
be honest if this is happening and we decide to allow it to happen
3:37:54
which would be either us or the airlines we should only allow it to happen if we are exerting the maximum amount of
3:38:00
control to protect our travelers and the common use system would provide some advantages to allow us to be able
3:38:06
to do that i would also suggest that one area that a common use system controlled by us
3:38:14
uh ensures a high level and consistent amount of training for those who administer what
3:38:21
we found in in actually examining complaints about this system in other places is that
3:38:27
where although people are advised that it's
3:38:33
an opt out system if they so choose when then making the decision to opt out if the
3:38:41
person staffing the camera then makes it difficult for them to do it
3:38:46
by even something as minimal as rolling their eyes or sort of
3:38:52
creating a big deal out of pulling them out of the line then effectively it's not an opt-out system and so we need to
3:38:58
make sure that uh it would allow us to to ensure that training is up to the standards where
3:39:03
that passenger for whatever reason has chosen to opt out and and they can do so without any sort of negative
3:39:08
implications for them so if i can add just a couple things but
3:39:14
but of course the system the training would be it would be airline even if we had a common new system would be the airlines using the common new system so
3:39:20
the training issue would be in place regardless of what who's deploying that just add a couple things this is a
3:39:26
technical standard so there's not a lot of variance on which equipment can be deployed or how there's a difference on
3:39:32
equipment but there's a technical standard on a lot of these systems so going back to commissioner feliment on
3:39:38
yours is on the on the standardization through the compliance with the technical standard that's where cbp is
3:39:45
looking for compliance to meet the to meet that with the criteria with you know for the standard within that so
3:39:51
that's part of their approach to that is making sure you don't have a variance on how it's done and how it's uh i think
3:39:57
that the standard was really in at the capture point i mean you can have a certain dpi on your camera but you know
3:40:04
lighting and angles and all this sort of stuff is probably it's where you probably have more control i mean there is a standard but there's probably more
3:40:10
control over over that i would i would imagine that would be one of one of the potential upsides i i
3:40:18
um i had another thought that i'd uh had a senior moment on i'll get back
3:40:24
there mr truth i'm kind of addicted
3:40:29
okay other questions or comments all right this has been very so let's just yeah
3:40:34
some really quick final okay so as as eric mentioned earlier the next
3:40:40
steps is really to continue drafting policy recommendations for the uh several use cases listed there we'll
3:40:48
continue to engage with the special committee the biometric special committee with commissioner culkins and cho as we go through that
3:40:55
process we will continue to engage with additional community members
3:41:00
and with various outreach and communications channels like eric mentioned everything is posted
3:41:06
on the program page so that anyone listening to this
3:41:11
presentation right now can go ahead and look into that and provide any feedback they can have in fact as eric mentioned
3:41:18
earlier he receives it outside of that external advisory group so we encourage folks to
3:41:23
continue to look at that and lastly we are marching towards the
3:41:29
march 31st deadline to provide all uh policy recommendations for the remaining
3:41:34
use cases um it is aggressive and again we thank all the working group and external advisory group as we go through
3:41:40
that process and we plan for a full commission briefing on those policy recommendations on april 14th so stand
3:41:47
by for that um yeah so i would say i'm not sure why there's two question marks uh after complete all policy
3:41:53
recommendations by march 31st uh that is uh that is the direction that you have given us in your motion and we plan to
3:41:59
do that i will however say that even more important to me than meeting your deadline is to fully vet
3:42:06
these recommendations through our external advisory group and with our external stakeholders and so while we will have drafts of all those
3:42:13
policy recommendations delivered to you by march 31st we very well might continue to engage our external
3:42:19
stakeholders to continue to receive feedback on those drafts as we go over the next several months after that and
3:42:25
eric those two question marks there was an emoji that was there with the fingers crossed so okay
3:42:32
commissioner okay so i just heard one dynamic that uh
3:42:37
this is ultimately a great upside for cbp if they don't have to pay for it right i mean this is sort of like
3:42:42
alleviating that budgetary concern right so i guess what i would say to you commissioner not to get too much into
3:42:47
the cost benefit because we're not here to sort of recommend whether cbp should do it or not
3:42:52
we would quote unquote not have to pay for the cameras however the quote unquote cost to us of
3:42:59
cbp doing it is they would take officers from international arrivals which is
3:43:04
already on average about an hour to 90 minute delay and use them for uh
3:43:10
international departures so the cost to us would be increased delays in our international
3:43:15
arrivals uh part of our airport so again we're not here to say one's better than the other but i just want to be
3:43:21
clear that it's not just a free lunch it's not like these are these are critical considerations that are part of
3:43:26
the our job is considerations of the right for the traveling public so i would i
3:43:32
would think the cost is one thing but the these other these other considerations are are real
3:43:38
i i guess the only other thing is like one of the other public comment issues was that the timing of the rfp
3:43:45
with regards to the deliberations and so we were ordering
3:43:50
this equipment as if we already decided to buy it ourselves so so let me be clear and we were really clear with our
3:43:56
external advisory group both by email and in person about what we did there as was referenced in the public comment we
3:44:03
told them uh we are moving forward with this so that we can receive feedback from the vendor community about the
3:44:08
state of the technology to better inform our policy making decisions we cannot
3:44:14
make a procurement on that rfp because you as a commission have not voted to
3:44:19
authorize our procurement and so uh you know whether people uh want to believe us the staff or not it is
3:44:26
literally would be illegal for us to make a procurement and so that rfp while it was released in no way
3:44:33
commits you or the port to doing anything unless and until you uh implement these policies and make a
3:44:39
decision to authorize that but those that those data are to inform
3:44:45
our decision whether we would buy it for ourselves it's really if the airlines did it they have their toys if the cbp
3:44:51
did it they have theirs we need to understand absolutely we need to understand the state of the technology what it would
3:44:57
mean for us uh and that's very important to our policy i think the public should understand that with the considerations
3:45:02
that and as long as it was uh over three hundred thousand dollars we'd have something to say about it what
3:45:08
we did ask is uh to ensure that the vendors were given the principles that
3:45:14
you passed and to ask them show us how you can meet these principles that apply for this rfp
3:45:20
um and and that way we can ensure you know if if they are not meeting the privacy principles that
3:45:27
we laid out that's one vendor that we won't look further into so that really is how we were looking at
3:45:35
it from that lens and again the state of the technology is great but if it's not meeting our
3:45:40
principles will we not go forward with something like that i just wanted to add though that i wanted to i think that the case that um
3:45:48
ms lee from the aclu made was more about the rfp language and that it indicated
3:45:53
that we were moving forward and i think commissioner cho did an excellent job of delineating exactly what the question is
3:45:59
before us it's not if it's how right so and so i just think we need to really be
3:46:05
clear about what the problem statement is moving forward and perhaps we weren't when we formed the working group i mean
3:46:10
i think that there was so much confusion about what it was and there was sort of a everything was on pause are we going
3:46:16
to do this but the fact of the matter is it is already happening and so again going back to the how do we do it so
3:46:23
that it protects the public as much as possible and we have the most control but that is um i will say as a poor as a
3:46:29
commissioner we don't read the rfps so i apologize if the public and and let me
3:46:35
be clear we have uh agreed already uh yesterday to remove any of that language
3:46:41
from the rfp and we will we will release an addendum to all of those vendors making it clear that that language
3:46:47
should not be in the rfp because ultimately the only commitment that we can make is
3:46:52
uh is a commissioned decision whether or not to move forward it doesn't matter what the airport staff agreed to a year
3:46:58
ago or two years ago you are the policy making body and your motion is very clear that we will only move forward if
3:47:04
you'll prove to do so thank you so one final question we have one more item before we wrap up here but uh what is
3:47:11
the expectation with regard to tracking with the opening of the international rivals facility in the fall with the
3:47:19
implementation of whatever system we decide on so so just to be clear commissioner so
3:47:26
we are discussing here today biometric air exit which is departing international flights cbp has full
3:47:33
control over what is called the fis the federal inspection services area which is where arriving international flights
3:47:39
are and the international rivals facility that we're building right now is in fis
3:47:44
cbp will make a decision to install that technology uh facial recognition technology into the iaf into the fis we
3:47:51
have absolutely zero control over that whatsoever so these recommendations are not about arrivals these recommendations
3:47:57
are only about exit and what what they do in the fis we will continue to monitor and track but uh not
3:48:04
in our control can i just add one thing this i just want people to understand this but in particular with the international rivals facility i just
3:48:10
lance i wanted to give you some feedback or not feedback information i arrived in
3:48:16
miami from an overseas flight about three weeks ago i went i went through
3:48:21
their fis through took the train to the second terminal which was about eight minutes
3:48:26
away and got got my bags checked the second time to go domestic all within 70
3:48:31
minutes it was remarkable and it was because they must have had 50 of the kiosks i know you would
3:48:38
probably know the number lance but it was significant and the pictures make a big difference i mean there are not
3:48:44
enough cbp officers to go around there's never going to be and so this is an important technology but again
3:48:51
we need if we're going to spend a billion dollars on our international rivals facility it needs to work it can't we can't have the delays that we
3:48:57
have right now okay on that one well i mean just like
3:49:03
so it sounds like we either have no control or less than no control i mean it it does it's for international
3:49:10
arrivals which is a separate topic that is not a part of yeah so but so we have exit and arrivals
3:49:17
and there's a whole and then as you move along the whole list you get more and more control as you move farther along
3:49:22
that of the different options so that's really is as it builds towards that you know that's why i think you shouldn't
3:49:28
shouldn't anchor yourselves just on this one on this one application because if you look at some of the concerns that we
3:49:33
heard from some of the uh the people that commented uh is that some of those implications you know with
3:49:39
surveillance some of the other ones that are clearly um uh are clearly out there that the the commission has a large some
3:49:46
of those principles can clearly be applied so outside in the airport itself and so i it does seem like if this is happening
3:49:53
having our our control over it is the best we could do to assure public safety
3:49:58
the good news is in our rough analysis my perspective is
3:50:04
the areas where we have more control which is cameras that are located in our lobbies is that information used for purposes
3:50:12
that of mass surveillance that we do have control over and so the you know the the next phase of the work
3:50:19
i think is going to be really essential to making sure that we establish a good policy that ensures that it doesn't go that direction and the good news is we
3:50:25
do have control over that yeah let me just highlight that point uh and i'll get over my skis just a little bit
3:50:32
it is my belief that there will be many potential uses of biometrics that the
3:50:37
port does not endorse uh i do not think we will allow biometrics in every single nook and
3:50:43
cranny of every single port facility uh this use case that we talked about today uh
3:50:49
fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective we don't have that luxury but some of these other that are
3:50:55
bulleted here uh we will be much much uh we'll have a much different set of
3:51:00
recommendations let me say that so the point being that just because we make a decision
3:51:05
one way today doesn't necessarily mean we will continue to make that decision the same way on other uses of biometrics
3:51:12
that's the point here okay but we could make those decisions with greater control if we
3:51:18
harness this at this point okay let's move on to item number
3:51:26
nine b thank you north satellite modernization budget increase briefing
3:51:44
this briefing will go into detail how and why the current north satellite monetization project cost estimate at
3:51:49
completion is forecasted greater than the budget authorized by the commission scope changes additional soft costs
3:51:55
unforeseen conditions and remediation are just a few of those cost drivers this briefing lays out
3:52:00
the intention of the project team to return soon for a commission authorization the presenters are ken warren and rad mila solvick
3:52:18
good afternoon commissioners and executive director metric we're here to provide a briefing of the
3:52:23
north satellite modernization project the budget was authorized for construction in august of 2017
3:52:31
as you recall in our past briefings we've been evaluating our estimated completion
3:52:36
we now know more about the project and what lies ahead and are projecting a need
3:52:43
for additional funds
3:52:50
it's not working
3:53:03
thank you sorry
3:53:08
our forecast today indicates a 5.9 percent increase equating to 40 million dollars
3:53:16
we've broken this request into categories this represents changes in the process of
3:53:23
negotiation changes necessary to complete the project
3:53:28
added scope support costs and differing site conditions
3:53:33
they have all been contributors
3:53:39
labels are cracked in here
3:53:50
so what does that mean to you commissioners it means there's been many small incremental changes impacting our
3:53:57
forecasts with the exception of contaminated and unsuitable soils which is about eight million dollars
3:54:04
we're also planning a five million dollar management reserve controlled by executive director metric
3:54:11
to further break out what the funds represent i would like to highlight just a few
3:54:17
completing the design development allowance uh we have been reporting for some time that that was higher than expected
3:54:25
higher than anticipated market conditions since 2017 when the project was authorized
3:54:32
the phasing complexity and the complications with the passenger circulation path during construction
3:54:39
that's the central core the escalators where we have people going through the project while we're constructing it
3:54:46
cost impacts to the budget are both capital and expense related
3:54:53
again we also discover and continue to exceed our predictions
3:54:59
for the soils moving forward we continue to work on
3:55:04
risks and our team expects phasing resources
3:55:10
art construction gates and availability of gates temporary
3:55:16
system removal at the end of the project all to be mitigated we have included these risks in our
3:55:22
request phase one taught us how to be successful
3:55:28
and how sweet that is reflecting on our experience and striving for continuous improvement is
3:55:34
our team's nature we continue to capture our lessons are achieving better results
3:55:41
and communicate them out to our fellow teams and stakeholders for implementation port wide
3:55:48
i'd like to now allow rad to talk about small business so the next couple of slides deal with
3:55:55
small business participation and apprenticeship participation
3:56:01
first off i'd like to tell you that we have good news that both of those are all of those are
3:56:06
actually meeting the goals and requirements or projected to meet goals and requirements
3:56:12
this is going to look a little different than what you're used to seeing now with the diversity in contracting
3:56:18
this was established in 2017 prior to diversity in contracting so what
3:56:24
happened is the contractor who was on board already planning the project sat down with the construction management
3:56:30
management cpo and also the office of social responsibility
3:56:35
looked at the work at hand and try to come up with work packages that can be
3:56:41
bid to the small businesses without affecting the overall efficiency of the project so right now
3:56:47
we're looking at the fcs participation requirement scs stands for
3:56:53
small contractors and suppliers which is a list of contractors that's certified within ken county
3:56:59
of 12 point sorry that's 25.
3:57:06
oh i can't read the numbers from here very well so we have a goal which which is on the left-hand side uh our record requirement
3:57:14
on the left-hand side in yellow uh and right now we believe that we're going to exceed that which is the middle
3:57:20
bar that is how much commitment we have to date not all of those subcontractors have
3:57:26
been fully contracted yet but we believe that's we're going to get at the end of the job and right now the
3:57:33
blue chart on the right hand side is what we have paid to date the project is probably about 64 65
3:57:41
complete which tells you that some of these are are definitely on well on their way uh to meet or exceed the goals
3:57:49
next slide please so similar to that with the uh apprenticeship participation
3:57:54
uh the the left-hand bars are goals and the right-hand bars
3:58:00
are current utilization and as you can see we meet and exceed all of those as well
3:58:08
so our project schedule continues to track based on our 2017 authorization
3:58:15
our partner alaska airlines is collaborating with us to continue our focus on the schedule
3:58:21
we expect to deliver on time our contractor is to be commended
3:58:27
for their dedication and work i believe our contracting methodology
3:58:33
coupled with hensel phelps hermansen vekka and our other subcontractors exceed our expectations
3:58:43
on to the show and tell portion of the program here's an exterior shot of phase one
3:58:50
this is the expansion to the north of the 1973 terminal that we opened on january 23 2019.
3:58:58
here's a great 1973 photo showing the means of the construction nearly 48 years ago
3:59:07
here we tracked the facility just prior to construction in the upper left where we are today that picture was
3:59:12
taken last week on friday and where we're headed to in the bottom right corner
3:59:20
as you can see the concourse is being constructed and we plan on enclosing the building envelope soon
3:59:28
you can see in the upper left that was the project before we started in addition i'd like to share with you
3:59:35
our magnificent marketplace is really beginning you can see the picture on the bottom right
3:59:40
it's really beginning to take shape showing the great views to the west and really what this project is about
3:59:48
our baggage expansion is complete the upper picture in the upper left corner the grand elevator in the lower left
3:59:54
corner is beginning to take shape and the airfield shot from the west
4:00:00
showing the construction progress in addition concours c train station and
4:00:05
the escalator replacement at concourse c opened in january completing our concours c program work
4:00:13
the art piece is also installed as you can see that's the upper right
4:00:18
picture our preserved plant wall has been determined
4:00:24
the black leaf sculpture on the center has been procured and the john graude boundary has been
4:00:31
constructed you can see in the bottom right corner of the actual construction of the art piece it's now waiting to be
4:00:37
installed in the marketplace in storage at his facility
4:00:46
are you missing one here we also would like to
4:00:51
recognize our partners alaska airlines
4:00:57
you can also see here how the original satellite was prepped for the final jet bridge installation
4:01:02
four months prior to the opening in july 1973.
4:01:08
we'd like to go back to the alaska lounge photographs and talk about the support alaska airlines has verbally and support
4:01:16
in support of our request and they've notified me today of that
4:01:24
here's this great picture of the 1973 facility about three or four months before
4:01:29
the project started almost 48 years ago
4:01:34
again we know it's challenging to report the financial news
4:01:39
but it is important that we be transparent that we improve our delivery
4:01:45
and we continue to improve on completing the program's scope schedule and budget
4:01:51
we invite any questions you may have at this time
4:01:56
where's your beaumont sure i don't it's not necessarily a question but maybe go back to slide
4:02:01
one two three the factor's driving increase and i would just ask um
4:02:07
more for steve or lance i mean because you've done such a you did a really excellent job on
4:02:12
phase one but many of these things are things we've been experiencing for other projects over the years and i
4:02:18
call out the market condition the contractor availability phasing is it facing complexity when i
4:02:25
think about the iaf in particular scope additions and then
4:02:30
especially important the contaminated and unsuitable soils and so i just would ask that the team
4:02:36
really think about how as we're planning these projects it feels like we're sort of surprised
4:02:42
by these things but there are common themes that we seem to be having right with our large capital projects at the
4:02:47
airport so i would just ask that you know i don't know what the plan is but some bring us some recommendations about how we're not
4:02:55
continually saying there's not enough labor the soil is bad we know the soil is bad so as we're moving forward
4:03:01
with samp and other projects that we're anticipating that in advance i mean that's part of the reason we have the
4:03:07
that takes us back to our our estimations of how we do those and bringing forward so
4:03:13
in developing this program we did do a lot of preliminary work we actually potholed in 100 different locations
4:03:20
around the existing project before we started we estimated our contaminated
4:03:26
soils based on those findings everywhere we've dug since then has found contaminated or unsuitable soils so it
4:03:32
was a bit of bad luck in our plan not to say we didn't do our due diligence back in 2015 2016. it's just
4:03:41
perhaps maybe in the future you want to hear a suggestion yeah maybe we double the number that we're planning on
4:03:46
way back when just right that's where i was going because we had the same issue with the iaf that the first soils didn't seem bad and
4:03:52
then right there so perhaps we shouldn't trust all of our own information when we're developing those programs early on
4:03:57
and that might be a good lesson to reflect back on for as we move forward great i think it goes back just to go
4:04:03
back to some of our other lessons learned from other projects which includes two independent
4:04:09
uh estimators and things like that that will build into that as we come back to you to say what process improvements are
4:04:15
we doing overall to our capital delivery system so when you say potholing
4:04:20
is that that's a core sample absolutely i like to divert a rad yeah and so like how deep do we go for a question uh it
4:04:28
depends i mean it depends on the area it's oh sorry it's basically decided by the engineers
4:04:34
at the time that it's being done based on some data that we have on the materials that are out there
4:04:39
so they go anywhere between several feet to maybe 10 feet down it also is controlled
4:04:46
probably with how deep you're gonna go with your excavation so yeah we're not we're not required to chase it um we
4:04:53
just have to deal with the stuff that we find so we're primarily working around the satellite in the top you know six feet
4:05:00
for the most part in excavating and then recompacting to provide that new ramp concrete area and that thick concrete so
4:05:07
that we have that infrastructure there for the satellite of the future so obviously you don't go shallower than
4:05:12
that although it sounds like so we find pcbs what are we finding pfases a lot of fuel and a lot of glycol
4:05:21
yeah not exactly surprising but yeah no not surprising things and and for the most part the glycol
4:05:27
isn't a big deal but when it gets to such a concentration when our contractor tries to compact it and it has to meet the fa requirements it tends to
4:05:35
be more like sand you know and the soil conditions out of the north satellite are very sandy it used to be
4:05:40
a lake bed area over there so when you combine the natural conditions with that glycol it tends to be more like putty
4:05:46
than it is you know a hard compaction soil that we're really desiring in order to maintain that that
4:05:53
good base course for that ramp concrete so do you have to actually go deeper with your foundations or you just it's
4:05:58
just a bigger cleanup there are a number of different remedies that we use i mean is that part of the cost or is that is
4:06:04
that uh yes it's not just a cleanup but uh yeah i'm just thinking that you know
4:06:09
there are actually dogs right now that can detect pcbs you can walk a dog through a through a parking lot and
4:06:14
detect pcbs that's what king county does i mean it seems like some of the stuff we could just almost guarantee yeah this
4:06:20
is primarily fueling and glycol and um which would be even easier to detect
4:06:26
so many times we remove the material and we bring in other material to replace it so that we can get that compression
4:06:33
um you know we are trying to deliver this project and we're trying to move quickly
4:06:38
and a lot of decisions that we have to make have to be quick quick decisions so if we start having a lot of trouble in
4:06:45
the middle of a rainstorm with compaction it might be easier to remove it and get it done and move forward with our with
4:06:51
our concrete which then we have additional costs that incur but on the overall
4:06:56
schedule you know we have 18 months to go and we are working very diligently in delivering this
4:07:03
project so speaking of which this project is still on time for the
4:07:09
expected completion date you said it was 18 months from now about it what is the percent completion
4:07:15
go ahead right dollar dollar advisor at about 65 about how much 65 and so what is the
4:07:22
expectation at this point that this is this is going to get the job done the the additional authorization i
4:07:29
wouldn't be here before you if i wasn't confident yeah that's right
4:07:34
okay so i'm confident that we've objected what we know today as of today we met this afternoon to
4:07:41
discover where our forecast is we have continued to forecast since we set our number in early november
4:07:47
i'm pleased to report our number hasn't changed we do continue to work
4:07:53
in the ground since november so we are discovering things we have forecasted
4:07:58
additional mitigation within that request so so far things are aligned well appreciate the clarity of your
4:08:04
presentation and your uh directness here with with us with regard
4:08:09
to the explanations uh and uh i also would just comment that
4:08:15
it's the the original budget 672 million this is a 5.9 percent increase which is
4:08:23
not a huge amount in that context nevertheless we we need to look at lessons learned and unexpected done for
4:08:30
scenes and what was the delivery method of this is uh gccm or our general
4:08:36
contractor or some people call it cmx right yeah okay so we leverage that methodology every day
4:08:43
that's important to to note as well um that that can have a big impact on the
4:08:50
success that's the biggest number it's changing process yeah so what is it well those are changes that are in process of
4:08:58
changes that are underway not the change in the process underway changes that are in process under
4:09:04
negotiation that are okay you know sometimes it's working place sometimes it's work that we're yet to to install
4:09:09
some of those things because we could talk about our like the nursing suite the restaurant jobs you know so these
4:09:15
are we worked really hard on the restrooms to uh complete the design in late 2018 we actually opened in january
4:09:22
2019 so we were going as fast as we could on those restrooms to incorporate everything that all of our stakeholders
4:09:28
wanted to have the best restaurants we could on january 23rd there's costs to this great well i also wanted to ask you
4:09:35
regarding the uh the goals for small business participation now these were were not
4:09:42
shown as percentage uh goals they were dollar goals correct how does how does the increase
4:09:50
even though relatively small affect these goals do the goals change with the added with the 40 million
4:09:56
additional association the goals shouldn't change because they don't change with the
4:10:02
change errors so the changer amounts are not added to them per contract right now so the goals are established on the
4:10:08
original contract and they keep getting tracked on the original contract and i do want to offer praise for the
4:10:15
accomplishments here there are fairly significant accomplishments with regard to small business participation small
4:10:22
contractor participation um you're showing meeting or significantly exceeding in some areas
4:10:29
those original goals um purple is what we actually paid
4:10:35
well that's that's projecting out the the total commit committed participation
4:10:42
in the green which is meeting or exceeding in all categories and then i think
4:10:48
particularly noteworthy is the achievement of their apprenticeship participation and i i think that
4:10:54
uh points to a an excellent working relationship with the with the prime contractor and their commitment as well
4:11:01
if they're in the room here i think they deserve to praise for for achieving those that level of
4:11:07
results absolutely so i just wanted to call that out thank you commissioner and we'll be sure to pass that on to our contract thank you
4:11:14
change of scope is one of those things that is not a it's not a fault it's right it's a
4:11:20
choice right so how much of that wedge is ours versus the airlines
4:11:25
right how much do we own of that good question
4:11:30
um probably more on port side than it is alaska's side and you know what's the
4:11:37
same bathrooms those bathrooms nursing suite
4:11:42
you know it's tough to to really dig into this because a lot of the things is work in
4:11:47
place but we would like to note that a lot of these items are not high dollar amount in and of themselves
4:11:55
but when you have a multi-year program without your project and you have a lot of requests it's a whole lot of issues
4:12:01
i've highlighted that you know we have eight million dollars in contaminated unsuitable soils we've got a five million dollar reserve and the rest of
4:12:07
it is a whole lot of little things you know it's not one massive thing you know
4:12:14
to highlight another issue that came up is our building is not quite
4:12:19
as we would expect the 48 year old building is not quite as level and plumb as we would have expected we did do some
4:12:25
value engineering efforts back in time in the program and we expected to do a simple overlay of the
4:12:31
terrazzo as we found out when we took the building apart over the last few months
4:12:38
if we were going to do that overlay we would actually be into the sand bed on the south end of the facility you can't
4:12:43
do terrazzo like that so we unfortunately had to pull all of that terrazzo out and then
4:12:49
we're resetting the building so that actually matches with the new expansion piece so the floors will actually work
4:12:55
properly and we're not going to have a building that's leaning so we've discovered some things that's like what
4:13:01
would be considered a differing site condition but it's also a change in the fact that we didn't expect that you know
4:13:07
perhaps in hindsight we should have said well we don't want to uh be on that edge but we really thought
4:13:14
that we were had a good building but that would have been considered a scope change rather than a a condition that might be
4:13:20
considered a differing site condition but also part of it might be scope change as well um
4:13:25
i have a level you can borrow yeah yeah it's like and ryan might know a good title
4:13:30
contract do we have any any more questions all right thank you
4:13:36
this will come back for authorization we plan on returning march 10th march 10th okay all right thank you very much
4:13:43
for a very good presentation we have one remaining item which is any referrals to committees are there any or
4:13:49
any other commission member announcements or reports or lcfs bill
4:13:55
matt pulled out of the committee today so we're well good good work good work
4:14:01
good work all right yes meeting is adjourned thank you all have
4:14:07
a good evening
4:14:25
[Music]
4:14:30
you