PORT COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING P. 7
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011
Feb 01 RM Min
Aviation Administration or the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Port complies with both NEPA and
SEPA.
Commissioner Creighton noted recent efforts to remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority
over GHG emissions. Mr. Lufkin said that the Port would also follow state law if federal law is changed.
Mr. Meyer said the City of Seattle requires the Port to quantify GHG emissions from the Seaport, for
example, when applying for a city permit although the Port is not required to proscribe the impact of
climate change. Commissioner Bryant asked how the Port would quantify such an impact. Mr. Lufkin said
the Port would only be required to look at climate change on a narrow range of projects in an area known
to be susceptible to the impact of climate change, such as the impact of a rising sea level on infrastructure.
Commissioner Holland asked if these policies would make the Port less competitive. Mr. Meyer responded
that the Port staff would use their best judgment and Best Management Practices in evaluating the
impacts. The resolution contains evolving criteria. Mr. Yoshitani noted that in California ports can make a
statement of overriding consideration and the Commission could make a decision from a broader
perspective than the environment alone. Mr. Lufkin said the Port would look at how the impact would fit
into the Port’s overall emissions reduction efforts. Ms. Leavitt said reducing GHG emissions could
heighten the Port’s competitive advantage. Taking action is often better than not taking action.
Commissioner Tarleton said she was delighted to discuss this issue at this time because it would help to
shape the Century Agenda. She wondered if the Airport’s GHG inventory helped to formulate this
resolution. Mr. Lufkin responded in the affirmative. She also noted that the Port had made the effort to
migrate the idea of mitigation into our contractual obligations and partner with our tenants and customers
to make operational and environmental goals compatible, such as the Pre-Conditioned Air project at the
Airport.
Commissioner Albro said it was not necessary to agree that global warming was caused by human activity
in order to decide that this was a good policy for the Port. It should be an ethos of the Port, as an urban
port, to have as small an environmental footprint as possible and to value a working port and industrial
maritime centers in an urban environment.
Commissioner Albro also asked about Section 6.7 (on p. 8) of the first proposed resolution, which allows
the Commission to adopt a bond resolution prior to environmental review of a project, provided that any
environmental review required by SEPA must be completed prior to final project approval by the
Commission and/or other state or local agencies. Traci Goodwin, Senior Port Counsel, said this provision
was in the previous resolution. Mr. Yoshitani noted that the Port sells bonds for more than one project at a
time but that the Commission would be fully on board before any bonds were sold.
Commissioner Creighton asked for more clarification in the Commission’s role in the SEPA review. Ms.
Goodwin said the Commission can approve an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or the EIS could be
approved administratively by Port staff. Both of these options are still available in the new resolution.
Commissioner Tarleton said this issue should be reviewed as part of the current review of Resolution No.
3605, as amended (the delegation of authority from the Commission to the Chief Executive Officer).
Mr. Lufkin concluded by summarizing that the Port will open a 30-day public comment period for the
proposed resolutions on the Port's website, notice the public comment period in the newspaper and