— by Margie Doyle —
The regular Port Commission meeting of Aug. 9 was attended by three Port Commissioners: Dwight Guss, Greg Sawyer and Steve Hopkins. Missing were Commissioners Brian Ehrmantraut and Shawn Simpson.
The Commissioners approved a number of expense vouchers, including the $10, 723 July payroll..
Previous to the meeting, Port Manager Simpson announced that there would be no new business considered to address the Port Master Plan and that the Public Comment period would be limited to 10 minutes total. As Port Commissioners and Simpson responded to several comments, the Commissioners expanded the time allotted to 40 minutes.
Marta Nielson circulated a letter to the commissioners and said that since several of the commissioners weren’t able to make all the public meetings and hear public input, the commissioners should “thoroughly vet” all the alternatives to the Port Master Plan proposed by DOWL consultants and that the commissioners should be able to explain those alternatives.
“The public is looking for some direct answers from you all with facts to back them up with …. reflection and deep thinking.”
Commissioner Dwight Guss corrected Nielson’s assertion that some of the commissioners were “new” to the county taxing district board.
Katie Wilkins questioned the process “for what happens to our comments when we submit them; for recording and for answering them.” Simpson said that the comments to DOWL and the Port were a matter of public record, and expressed some concern for people’s privacy.
Bob Costagna, whose family has been involved in the purchase of the Brandt’s Landing Marina for over 45 years, said he was “disappointed in Port Commission communication about the Port Master Plan. We are disappointed that we were not made a part of the process…please keep us informed moving forward; [it’s] important that we be involved.
Cheryl Costagna saad she was concerned about the impacts of development on Smugglers Villa, adjacent to Brandt’s Landing. “The lines of communication HAVE to be open…. any of you guys should have reached out to us about anything that encroaches on our land. We’re trying to be good stewards of the island too; it has to be something that is worked out.”
Guss said that the maps and presentations under discussion in the Port Master Plan were made by the DOWL consultants. “I don’t agree with them and I won’t let that happen,” Guss said several times.
Pierrette Guimond advised the commissioners, “You need to have a big open house to get the public in to talk about this.” She spoke of her firm opposition to closing Mount Baker Road, to which Simpson replied that the road may be re-routed, but it would not be closed. Guimond observed that the Eastsound Fire Station is also adjacent to the Runway Protection Zone extending over Mt. Baker Road.
Simpson said that plans for rerouting Mt. Baker Road were preliminary and added “I think we can do a better job than the county did in crossing Mt. Baker Road, installing culverts.”
Guimond also spoke of her research into the number of rural B-II airports in Washington state that have a runway of less than 3,000 feet. (The Orcas airport runway extends 3,388 feet). “We need to live within our means without the FAA,” she said and suggested that the Port of Orcas might come to the community for money instead of relying on FAA funds, “considering the port has $750,000 in reserve funds.”
Commissioners urged Guimond to “Voice your concerns to DOWL at our next meeting.” That meeting is now scheduled for Sept. 19.
Sadie Bailey questioned the FAA’s press releases which announced that $3.18 billion would be allocated to the Airport Improvement Plan (AIP), with “$1 billion specifically to expand small airports in discretionary funds. We’re on that list, as is Friday Harbor,” she said.
Simpson said that the $1 billion was only for fiscal year 2019 for “shovel-ready” projects: “The only shovel-ready project we have is for wetland mitigation on the [Eastsound] swale.”
Charles Toxey thanked the commissioners for encouraging the public to come, and said that he was “still concerned about acquisition of land,” and about the port’s position that it “would not codify a refusal to pursue eminent domain, because they don’t want to tie the hands of future commissioners.
“I’d encourage the port, if you see this as a valuable way of communicating with the community, that you come up with some operating plan that states what your values are, not something legally defensible, but [ a statement] that would go a long way toward communicating to our community; that you’re intending to convey to future generations; that you won’t pursue eminent domain.”
Simpson referred to an “aspirational statement” in which the port commissioners could express that “in 2018 we felt it was inappropriate to use eminent domain and we’d like to record that for people to use in the future.”
Fred Klein raised a question to clarify the issue about the distance between the centerline of runway and taxiway. The port has been operating Caravans [flights] for 15-20 years and have 150-ft separation and the proposal to increase [the separation] to 156 feet makes “a marginal difference in the situation.”
Simpson said “We would support 156 [feet of separation], but the risk is what happened to Friday Harbor [which did increase separation to 156 feet]; that in five years the FAA will come back and say it’s time to meet the full standard.”
Following public comments, Commissioner Greg Sawyer offered a “what-if” story, saying “This process is about a master plan update so that the airport can stay in the AIP program. Right now we have a long history of participating in the AIP program, so now we have access to funds.
“Part of the process in using that is a master plan,[asking] where are your deficiencies, with no regard to hurdles or cost, to show a plan to correct those deficiencies.We may or may not agree with consultants; we’re not finished with that.
“If we don’t want to do anything, the FAA would make the logical conclusion, ‘Hey you don’t want to play? Neither do we’ and remove the airport from [AIP funding].
“All we’d do is adopt a plan. It would take us 20 years to amass enough money to do the plan. The FAA isn’t going to close the airport.
“I believe sincerely, we confused everyone perhaps including ourselves.”
Commissioner Guss said, “I want to keep this airport small and safe; we’re as transparent as can be. You need to come to our meetings and let us know.”
In the Managers Report, Simpson addressed grant funds, parking lot paving quotes, and the split zone at the southeast corner of Port property, near the intersection of Mt. Baker and North Beach Roads. He said that DOWL has been asked “to amend an additional alternative to move everything to the west or retain upper third as a buffer. My expectation is that when that is done, we’ll repost that to the website; it may or may not be selected as draft alternative.”
Simpson also addressed a branding agreement with Phillips 66 related to the port’s management of fueling near the Aeronautical Services building. “It won’t change the price or supplier; while it has no benefits for us, there is no reason not to enter the branding agreement with Phillips 66.”
Following Simpson’s report, the meeting heard of Mike Stolmeier’s request to be added to the Port Master Plan Advisory Committee. Simpson advised that since two of the three committee meetings have already been held, “I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
Commissioner Steve Hopkins said he thought the appointment would be “inappropriate,” and suggested that another committee member not be appointed.
Charles Toxey noted that he had been asked to join the advisory committee, which he did although he had not attended the two previously-held meetings.
“While Kenmore Air and other first-hand users of the airport are on the committee, you don’t have much representation of anyone from outside the airport, and the fact that there was so much contention over including stakeholders, it might be appropriate for you to have another neighbor on the board.”
Dwight Guss proposed a motion to put off the decision until the next commissioners’ meeting on Sept. 14, “when all commissioners can be here,” and the motion carried.
Leith Templin observed, “I find it interesting that the commissioners don’t have the list in front of them, yet if you were truly transparent and inclusive,” the list would be made known. “You need to look at those people and see who they’re representing,” Templin added.
Mr. Simpson is certainly confused about “privacy” issues. All comments made to the Port, including those in the master planning process, are part of the public record. Indeed, the Port to promote transparency should make them available on the Port’s website.
The report of this meeting does little to reassure citizens that the Port knows the applicable rules or cares much about its constituents’ views. If ever there were a time for a massive reboot, it’s now.
In all my conversations with Simpson on these issues, I don’t find him confused at all.In fact he has a very good handle on the issues, is flexible as to the outcomes, and does the best for the community. I think to take a position where the Port were not to accept FAA funding would be simply stupid. While there appears to but some opposition to rerouting Mt. Baker Road, I have yet to hear a rational argument why not? Do we wait for a plane to hit a car and then say whoops, sorry, we were non-compliant and we knew it all along?
Given that we have 10 to 15 years of empirical evidence demonstrating that activity conducted at the airport is safe (and certainly can be made safer without moving Mt Baker Road), combined with the lack of any change-agent on the ground to justify a re-think (except for the $$$-i.e., the usual suspect), the burden is on the Port to show why the enumerated HARMS, which have been repeated here in the OI clearly, poetically, technically and effectively, should be visited upon Eastsound and Orcas Island now and for future generations to come.
In fact, one experienced and insightful contributor to our community suggested shortening the runway to remove Mt Baker Road from the RPZ since its current length is greater than that which is legally required for the largest of the aircraft now utilizing the airport, the Cessna Caravan.
Certainly, there’s no future need for even larger aircraft (or jet propulsion craft) that would necessitate keeping the runway at its current length, or worse, lengthening it, right?
But, again, where’s the change-agent over the last 10-15 years, other than the “green,” that even justifies this discussion of the planned disruption and destruction?
Don’t confuse the lack of follow-up to Peg’s comment as a lack of interest on the part of the Community. Perhaps we feel that our very valid points and arguments, which have been so well articulated, need not be repeated ad nauseum.
Though, I can assure you we’re still here and still on the same page in opposition to the current plans.
Just perhaps— instead of taking the cynical position that we’re in a war of attrition, we prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the Port that it will absorb and thoroughly factor-in the Community’s opposition to the Alternatives as currently formulated.
@Mike Voegtlin: First of all, I disagree that to stop taking FAA monies is stupid, but I think this manager has booked us into Hotel California and the best we can hope for is damage control.
But really? You have heard no rational arguments for why re-routing Mt. Baker Road is a stupid, costly, and destructive idea? Allow me to name several arguments:
1) The now treeless land proposed for part of this project (including a large parking lot that i just found out is being proposed, reading through old Minutes!) is a forested wetland called Eastsound Swale. Or it WAS… Before the County gutted its environmental protections, it was a Category Two Army Corps rated high-functioning and diverse wetland that had, and still has, important ecological functions. The Swale ran from Fishing Bay to President’s Channel. The trees filter stormwater pollutants – or they DID. Just because it’s been trashed for years doesn’t mean we should continue to trash it the rest of the way. No matter what anyone says, such as, “it’s an agricultural ditch”(!), if you see maps from the 1800s it was a forested wetland basin and watershed covering the entire valley between the surrounding hills. That is reason alone, if you understand anything about forested wetlands and their important functions. But there’s more.
2) Traffic! Congestion and traffic issues near high density housing to the west and south, the Christian School, and two busy roads converging, if the road is re-routed all the way to Enchanted Forest Rd. If rerouted partway, the roundabout won’t be engineered to enable large trucks to easily use it at the speeds suggested in our town – 20 to 25mph.
3) There are much cheaper and easier solutions to keep a plane from hitting a car; assuming any driver would keep going if he saw a plane approaching that low. (But I ask you, why “predict” a plane hitting a car to prove your point?) Several options have been suggested to Tony; I hope he takes them seriously and uses them instead. Much cheaper too.
4) Lovers Lane is the truck route around town A roundabout or making the trucks turn onto Enchanted Forest Road is not feasible and is a danger to all who use the trail system; kids walking and biking to the Christian and Public schools along ECR, kids, pets, locals and tourists who use the dead-end Orion Lane to continue into town along the trail system, making Eastsound attractive as a walking/biking town.
5) The Port would need to buy or take (by eminent domain), the treed lands to the east that they do not own, and destroy the last of the wetland forest there. How would residents in the Crayola cottages and the house next to the Fire Hall fare (it would likely be razed if the Port bought it and bulldozed that land. They might not like this idea – plus, the noise buffers (trees) would all be gone
6) Stormwater Pollution. No trees to filter. Dumping it into the aquifer to town’s drinking water! No. No. NO!
7) Density. This is our UGA village. 54% of our population is supposed to live here (if only the county would stop permitting luxury condos for 2nd and 3rd homes and vacation rentals!) We will be more dense as things get built – more forests bulldozed. Yes, the airport owns some of this land but we don’t want this expansion to keep gobbling up what’s left of our residential and “light industrial” (anothe dumb use next to Eastsound Swale Creek) districts. Here, we have a chance to preserve a little open space and we don’t want more auto pollutants dumped into our aquifer.
8) Safety for the people on the ground who must live with this ridiculous proposal to cut a road through a wetland and endure traffic gridlock, traffic lights, ETC. It does not fit the rural and walking character of our village.
9) if you look at a map, the proposal to go all the way to Enchanted Forest Road would come out to Orion Lane at lavender hollow apartments and the Christian School. This would jeopardize us all, because Orion Lane would likely be punched through to A Street (destroying MORE of our last remaining woods); because god forbid, someone might have to drive a quarter of a mile around rather than trash MORE of Eastsound Swale and endanger our kids, pets, residents, and wildlife who have enjoyed relative safety living here since 1992 when it was built IN Eastsound Swale, which it should never have been; same with the Christian School – but now that we’re here and it’s ours is one of the ONLY apartment houses for low income people, and the Christian School kids share the use of our dead -end street in safety, we don’t want a major collector road taking this safety away; Enchanted Forest (where’s the forest?) Road coming through here was bad enough.
10) How will fire trucks navigate all this in an emergency, where seconds count? EMTs?
11) IF the terminal and hangars are built on the Southeast corner of Mt Baker and North Beach road at the busiest intsersection of two major collector roads on all of the island, how will THAT affect not only rural character, but traffic nightmares? This DOES tie into the “re-route”, so it’s not just people to the south and east of the North-south re-route who would be negatively impacted. Now you’re talking impact to everyone who uses that intersection and all of the families and businesses along both roads who will have to look at the ugliness and deal with the traffic nightmares there; for sure a traffic light would have to be installed there.
I probably forgot a few more reasons why everyone I know is opposed to the Mt. Baker Rd. “re-route, but here are 11 of them.
i forgot light and noise pollution, exhaust pollution, cars day and night going north-south; who pays for further “mitigations” if even any can be done – and they can’t; geographic and geologic inappropriateness of the idea, ETC
Excelllent recap!
Mike Voegtlin: are you an Orcas resident? What is your experience and interest in the matter? Curious, because what Sadie and Chris have written above has been well known for quite some time here.