Commissioners                                                                  Tay Yoshitani 
Chief Executive Officer 
Tom Albro 
Commission President 
Stephanie Bowman                            P.O. Box 1209 
Bill Bryant                                 Seattle, Washington 98111 
John Creighton                               www.portseattle.org 
Courtney Gregoire                               206.787.3000 
APPROVED MINUTES 
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
The Port of Seattle Commission met in a regular meeting Tuesday, September 24, 2013, in the
International   Auditorium   at   Seattle-Tacoma   International   Airport,   Seattle,   Washington.
Commissioners Albro, Bowman, Bryant, Creighton, and Gregoire were present. 
1.    CALL TO ORDER 
The regular meeting was called to order at 12:04 p.m. by Tom Albro, Commission President. 
2.    EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 
The regular meeting was immediately recessed to an executive session estimated to last
approximately 60  minutes to discuss matters  relating to legal risk, potential litigation, and
performance on a publicly bid contract. 
Following the executive session, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, the regular meeting
reconvened in open public session at 1:05 p.m. 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
3.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Minutes available for approval are included in the Unanimous Consent Calendar. 
4.    SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS 
None. 
5.    UNANIMOUS CONSENT CALENDAR 
[Clerk's Note: Items on the Unanimous Consent Calendar are considered routine and are not
individually discussed.  Port Commissioners receive the request documents prior to the meeting
and may remove items from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and vote in accordance
with Commission bylaws.] 
5a.  Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of August 20, 2013. 
5b.  Approval of the claims and obligations for the period of August 1, 2013, through
August 31, 2013, including accounts payable checks nos. 815553 through 816608 in the

Digital recordings of the meeting proceedings and meeting materials are available online  www.portseattle.org.













PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 2 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
amount of $27,050,846.88 and payroll checks nos. P-174913 through 175132 in the
amount of $11,914,395.31 for a fund total of $38,965,242.19. 
5c.  Request  for  (1)  Commission  ratification  of  the  Great  Northern  Corridor  Coalition
Memorandum of Understanding between the Montana Department of Transportation
and the Port of Seattle and (2) authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to provide
$5,000 for a portion of the local match of a $299,910 federal grant awarded to the Port
of Northern Montana to complete the Great Northern Corridor Multistate Planning and
Development Study. 
Request document(s) provided by Dan Burke, Program Lead Planner, Public Affairs: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 13, 2013. 
Great Northern Corridor Coalition Memorandum of Understanding. 
Port of Seattle letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation dated April 3, 2013. 
Port of Seattle letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation dated December 19, 2011. 
5d.  Authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute a Seventh Amendment to
Ground Lease with AMB/AFCO Cargo SEA LLC, substantially in the form attached, to
reflect a reduction of leased premises in lieu of the lease termination that was
authorized by the Commission on September 25, 2012. 
Request document(s) provided by James R. Schone, Director, Aviation Business Development,
and James Jennings, Manager, Aviation Properties: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 16, 2013. 
Lease. 
Exhibit to the lease. 
Lease boundary attachment. 
5e.   Authorization  for  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  to  execute  two  ten-year  license
agreements, substantially as drafted in Attachments 1 and 2, according to the terms
laid out in this memorandum, with Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC,
to provide back-up fiber data service to the Alaska Airline's air cargo building and the
Alaska hangar facility at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.  There is no funding
requested or net proceeds to the Port associated with this request. 
Request document(s) provided by James R. Schone, Director, Aviation Business Development;
James Jennings, Manager, Aviation Properties; and Jolene Culler, Senior Property Manager,
Aviation Properties: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 18, 2013. 
License agreement attachment 1. 
License agreement attachment 2. 
Aerial map exhibit. 
5f.   Authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to: (1) execute the Model Toxics Control
Act Consent  Decree  for the  design  and  implementation  of  the environmental
remediation  for  the  Lora  Lake  Apartments  Site;  and  (2)  design  and  prepare
construction documents for the environmental remediation at the Lora Lake Parcel.








PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 3 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Request document(s) provided by Elizabeth Leavitt, Director, Planning and Environmental, and
Bob Duffner, Manager Environmental Programs: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 16, 2013. 
Presentation slides. 
Consent decree. 
Motion for approval of consent items 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f  Bryant 
Second  Bowman 
Motion carried by the following vote: 
In Favor: Albro, Bowman, Bryant, Creighton, Gregoire (5) 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
As noted on the agenda, public comment was received from the following individual(s): 
John Lockwood, Senior Advisor, Vigor Shipyards, Seattle. Mr. Lockwood commented on
agenda item 7a and the economic impact of maritime industry in the Duwamish
Manufacturing Industrial Center and noted that workers in the area's boatyards earn
wages approximately 45 percent higher than the national private-sector average.  He
noted the workforce development efforts of Vigor's welder training center on Harbor
Island.  Mr. Lockwood submitted his comments in written form.  A copy of the document
is, by reference, made a part of these minutes, is marked Exhibit A, and is available for
inspection in Port offices. 
Mike Elliott, spokesman for the Washington State Legislative Board of the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and representing the United Transportation
Union/SMART Trade Crafts (Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers). He
commented on agenda item 7a, noting his organization's opposition to gentrification in
the SoDo area of the Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center and the siting there
of a third sports arena. He noted safety concerns and inadequacy of study on the arena
proposal. 
As noted on the agenda, the Commission advanced to consideration of 
7.    STAFF BRIEFINGS 
7a.  Update on the Proposed SoDo Sports Arena Environmental Impact Statement. 
Presentation  document(s)  provided  by  Mike  Merritt,  Manager,  Puget  Sound/Washington
Government Relations, and Geri Poor, Regional Transportation Manager: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 18, 2013. 
Presentation slides. 
Letter from the Port of Seattle to the City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development dated November 30, 2012.



PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 4 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Additional, independent presentation slides were provided during the meeting by Randy Cerf, JRC
Consulting.  A copy of the document is, by reference, made a part of these minutes, is marked
Exhibit B, and is available for inspection in Port offices. 
A copy of the Seattle Arena Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued August 15, 2013, as
provided online by the City of Seattle at www.seattle.gov, is, by reference, made a part of these
minutes and is marked Exhibit C. 
Presenter(s):   Mr. Merritt; Ms. Poor; Traci Goodwin, Port Senior Counsel; Marnie Heffron,
President and Principal Engineer for Heffron Transportation; and Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting. 
The Commission received a presentation that included the following relevant information: 
Arena Proposal 
The proposal to develop a new sports arena in SoDo was announced February 16, 2012. 
Preliminary agreements to proceed with the project were executed by King County and
the City of Seattle in October 2012. 
The proposal is for a 20,000 seat arena and sports facility of about 750,000 square feet
located on First Avenue South at Holgate Street.  The proposed site is within the
Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) and the city's Stadium Transition 
Overlay District.
The location is close to rail yards and cargo terminals and is in the middle of a regional
transportation hub where manufactured and export goods from throughout the United
States' Northern Tier of States converge. This transportation hub with infrastructure
investment by railroads, the State of Washington, local transportation agencies, and
private warehousing and transloading operations cannot be duplicated anywhere else in
the state of Washington.  As much as 70 percent of goods imported through the hub
move by rail to the Midwest, and the remainder is distributed locally and out of state by
truck  through  logistics and warehousing centers  in  the  Kent/Auburn  Valley.   The
employment base in the logistics hub is 50,000 jobs that contribute significantly to the
regional economy and tax base. 
Holgate Street is one of only three east-west connecting streets in this part of the
Duwamish MIC.  It is also an important transportation connection for the Beacon Hill
neighborhood.  There are 17 rail crossings on Holgate Street, including maintenance
yard tracks and the main line. 
The BNSF rail yard is immediately adjacent to the project site. 
The proposal includes the city's vacation of and developer acquisition of a portion of
Occidental Avenue South between South Holgate Street and South Massachusetts
Street.  Traffic currently using this section of Occidental Avenue would be diverted to
First Avenue South. 
Proposal elements intended to mitigate the use of the public right-of-way on Occidental
Avenue include public amenities such as plazas and open space. 
It is not clear how the city would justify the public benefit derived from vacating this
section of Occidental Avenue, which currently helps to relieve congestion on First
Avenue and provides an alternate route when rail crossings are blocked. 
Parking would be provided off site at existing commercial parking lots.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 5 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
There is a private access road proposed along the east side of the project site intended
to provide access from the Safeco Field parking garage to South Holgate Street.  It
would be open only when there is an event at the arena. 
Funding is proposed to be a combination of private investment and King County and City
of Seattle tax revenue up to $200 million. Prior to use of public funds, permits, a street
vacation, and a National Basketball Association (NBA) team with a non-relocation
agreement must be secured by the developer. 
Environmental Review Process 
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is the State of Washington's fundamental
environmental policy statement. Its intent is to  lead agencies to make informed
decisions  about  environmental  impacts  of  development.   Under  SEPA,  agencies
consider environmental impacts and may propose mitigation for impacts or deny
development requests. 
The City of Seattle is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the SoDo sports arena. 
A draft EIS was issued August 15, 2013. A 45-day comment period expires September
30, 2013. The city has denied the Port's request for a 15-day extension of the comment
period. Port staff is preparing comments on the EIS. 
The City of Seattle will accept comments, prepare responses, and issue a final EIS in
early 2014.   The master use permit subsequently issued by the city may include
conditions arising out of environmental review.  The final EIS will address all comments
received during the 45-day comment period on the draft EIS. After issuance of the final
EIS, there is a 14-day period under the city's municipal code during which appeals may
be filed. Both the final EIS and the master use permit are appealable to the city's
Hearings Examiner. 
Despite the Port's request in 2012 that the city prepare a higher-level programmatic EIS,
a project-level statement has been prepared.  Programmatic environmental impact
statements were prepared for construction of Safeco Field and CenturyLink Field when
those facilities underwent environmental review. 
The arena project is being reviewed under standards applicable to a private project,
despite the use of public funds and the eventual public ownership of the land.  Public
projects are required to consider "reasonable alternatives," which might have included
project locations outside the city that were not considered. 
Alternatives considered in the EIS include no action, an 18,000 seat facility at the same
location, construction of a new Key Arena at the Seattle Center, and new construction at
the Seattle School District's Memorial Stadium at the Seattle Center. 
Ms. Goodwin reported that when a project has intertwined public and private components,
SEPA rules provide that the lead agency must treat the project as a public project. 
SEPA requirements for public projects are more demanding in their insistence on
consideration of more alternatives than have to be considered for private projects. 
During the scoping phase, the Port noted that the arena project is a public project. The
draft EIS indicates that the proponent is a private entity; therefore, the project is
considered private by the city. There is no other justification provided in the draft EIS for
considering the proposal a private project.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 6 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
SEPA  rules  do  not  require  review  of  economic  or  socio-economic  impacts  of
development; however, these impacts were addressed in the EIS by the City of Seattle. 
Port Analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement 
As reviewed by Port staff, the draft EIS for the arena proposal was characterized as follows: 
The proposal for siting the arena in SoDo encourages incursion of incompatible land
uses into the industrial area. The development is contrary to prior city policy aimed at
protecting Port and industrial facilities. 
Direct and indirect impacts of the proposal that were not considered affect traffic
congestion, rail operations, safety, and irreversible incompatible land use. 
Alternative sites were not fully evaluated. 
The directives of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to protect industrial uses and preserve
industrial land and water-dependent uses are at odds with the arena proposal. 
The transportation analysis provides only a p.m. peak-hour modeling analysis. There is
no analysis of post-game traffic or the impact of adding more event days of traffic.  The
impact of increased street volume on rail traffic is not addressed, nor is the impact of the
loss of the vacated portion of Occidental Avenue South on all-day operations. 
The draft EIS does show inadequate street capacity for safe pedestrian operations. 
There is no proposal in the draft EIS to mitigate traffic impacts. 
The economic impact analysis appendix to the draft EIS addresses gentrification, rising
industrial land values and rents, conflicts with incompatible uses, and operational traffic
impacts.  The only quantifiable traffic impact presented is a per-truck delay of four
minutes during the p.m. peak, which is correlated to an hourly trip value of $48 per truck.
This four-minute-per-truck impact is cited by the draft EIS as the upper limit of the
potential impact on the Port.  The economic impact analysis recommends consideration
of adverse impacts to customer and carrier perceptions of Seattle as an unreliable and
congested port, but claims this risk to port competitiveness cannot be reliably quantified. 
The order of magnitude of traffic upgrades proposed in the economic impact analysis is
insufficient, and there is no commitment within the draft EIS to performing mitigation. 
Based on the information contained in the draft EIS, the proposal to build the arena in
SoDo appears to be based on insufficient information and differing assumptions that
result in the SoDo location appearing to be better suited to the proposal. 
No quantification or protection of the effect of the proposal to spur incompatible
redevelopment in the Duwamish MIC is provided by the draft EIS. 
The draft EIS acknowledges the following: 
Economic impacts of the arena proposal are a topic of controversy; 
Siting an arena in SoDo represents an irreversible change in land use; and 
Economic benefits of construction and the cumulative effects of increased event
venues of an arena are the same regardless of the arena's location. 
Despite not having secured an NBA team and not having determined the arena site by
the city, street vacation is planned as early as 2014.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 7 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Independent Analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement 
As reviewed by independent transportation and financial services consultants, the draft EIS
for the arena proposal was characterized as follows: 
The draft EIS concludes there will be significant pedestrian safety impacts on Holgate
Street South.  After an event, closure of one rail crossing for rail traffic could create a
queue of pedestrians that would cross the remaining 16 rail crossings on Holgate Street
South. Mitigation proposed includes surface improvements only and does not commit to
a pedestrian overpass. 
The current existing condition of Holgate Street is not addressed in the draft EIS. 
There is no meaningful data included in the EIS to compare alternative arena sites. 
Arena economic costs are underestimated or disregarded while economic benefits are
stressed based on tenuous analysis. 
Tax revenue from the arena is presented as an economic benefit to the city although the
arena memorandum of understanding diverts the $275 million in project tax revenue to
debt service. These include ticket and sales taxes. 
Increased property value from the arena development will enlarge the county's property
tax pool, but because the arena land will become public property, the tax burden of the
increased property values will be shifted to other Seattle property owners. 
Economic costs unaddressed in the draft EIS include loss of port or industrial jobs, the
necessary  mitigation  investment  to  offset  traffic  impacts,  cost  of  accelerating
development on city projects that would be displaced, assessment of amplified marginal
effects, revenue loss to Key Arena and nearby businesses, assessment of the number
and type of jobs lost versus those gained by building the arena, and whether arena traffic
would discourage patronage of Pioneer Square or Downtown Seattle. 
The economic impact analysis does not address that about 60 percent of an NBA team's
revenue is funneled to key players, coaches, and owners and leaves the city's economy,
whereas the industrial jobs that would be displaced by an arena have a multiplier effect
in the community. 
Commuter costs and time spent in traffic is unaddressed in the draft EIS. 
The consensus of economic research is that there is no statistically significant positive
correlation between sports facility construction and economic development. 
The draft EIS concludes $230 million to $260 million of incremental annual economic
activity earning $103 million for Seattle alone from a new arena, which according to Mr.
Cerf would make it the most profitable collection of businesses in U.S. history. 
Commissioner Creighton noted that the BNSF rail yard is the only one of its size and importance in
the United States that is bisected by a major arterial street (South Holgate Street). BNSF
anticipates with normal growth in rail traffic that Holgate Street would be closed 25 minutes out of
every hour. In response to Commissioner Creighton, Ms. Poor reported that a grade separation for
rail and street traffic on Holgate Street has already been deemed unfeasible by the City of Seattle. 
Commissioner Creighton opined that the Port should quantify and propose a mitigation cost for the
impacts.  Ms. Poor noted that the Port is currently working with other groups to quantify current
baseline needs for freight in the Duwamish MIC and that mitigation for effects of the arena
development would need to be addressed along with these baseline requirements.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 8 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
In response to Commissioner Gregoire, Ms. Poor noted the inadequacy of the transportation analysis
during the scoping period, which contributes to the lack of adequate data upon which to base
mitigation measures and costs in the draft EIS. Because of this, elected officials are unable to make
an informed decision about the proposal, which is the fundamental purpose of the SEPA process. 
In response to Commissioner Bryant, Ms. Goodwin reported that although the city is required to
respond to all comments made on the draft EIS, the responses may not address the Port's
concerns as thoroughly or adequately as the Port might want, but that the city has wide discretion
in its application of its substantive SEPA authority.  She was not aware of a case in which the city
has provided funds to mitigate a private project but noted that the lead agency typically requires the
proponent pay for the EIS, staff time for review, and mitigation costs associated with probable
adverse environmental impacts.   Mr. Merritt noted that funds directed toward the Seattle
Transportation Benefit District in the form of a Transportation Benefit Fund would be expected to
be used not for arena mitigation, but for transportation projects in the SoDo area that would benefit
the Port and other users. 
In response to Commissioner Albro, Ms. Poor noted that the Stadium Transition Overlay District
was created to buffer industrial uses in SoDo from the effects of a stadium. Commissioner Albro
commented on the overall economic impact of a SoDo arena and the role of a strong industrial
sector in fostering middle class jobs. 
Following consideration of agenda item 7a, without objection, the Commission advanced to
consideration of 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
Additional public comment was received from the following individual(s): 
Justin Hirsch, member of the International Longshore Workers Union, Local 19. Mr. Hirsch
commented on the daily transactions of trucks at Port terminals and the disadvantages to
freight movement and exports posed by unmitigated traffic impacts in SoDo. 
Scott Martinez, member of the International Longshore Workers Union, Local 19.  Mr.
Martinez commented on the traffic impacts of a new arena in SoDo on commute hours
and the Port's ability to remain competitive with Canadian and other ports. 
Peter  Goldman,  environmental  attorney  representing  the  International  Longshore 
Workers Union.  Mr. Goldman commented on the limitations imposed by the city's
memorandum of understanding with the arena developer and the document's
requirements, which he described as premature. He stated the project should have been
reviewed as a public project. 
Warren Aakervik, Jr., retired from Ballard Oil. Mr. Aakervik commented on the effect of
another SoDo sports arena on the Ballard-Interbay-Northend MIC, the need to transport
petroleum products through SoDo, the length of delays for trucks due to traffic congestion,
and the practice of businesses avoiding deliveries through SoDo during sporting events.
Jordan Royer, Pacific Maritime Shipping Association. Mr. Royer commented  on the
arena proposal's inconsistency with Seattle land-use policy and on the fact that an arena
has more location options than a deep-water seaport.



PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                            Page 9 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
John Odland, MacMillan-Piper Inc. Mr. Odland commented on reinstatement of the night
shift  at  his  company's transloading facility for agricultural products from Eastern
Washington for export. He questioned the accuracy of the draft EIS's assertion that
trucks would be delayed only four minutes due to traffic associated with the arena
development. 
Eddie Reed, Principal, School of Engineering and Design at Seattle's Cleveland High
School Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Program located in
SoDo. Dr. Reed commented on the workforce development activities of his school and
the negative effects of the proposed arena on the community. 
Following consideration of public testimony, without objection, the Commission returned to
consideration of 
6.    DIVISION, CORPORATE, AND COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS 
6a.  Authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to:  (1) advertise, award, and execute a
major public works contract for the construction of the North Satellite Refurbish
Baggage System Project; and (2) authorize the use of Port crews.  This request of
$11,987,000 is in addition to the $3,760,000 that was previously authorized for a total
project authorization of $15,747,000. 
Request document(s) provided by David Soike, Director, Aviation Facilities and Capital Program,
and Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 17, 2013. 
Diagram of baggage handling systems. 
Presenter(s): George England, Capital Program Leader, Aviation Project Management Group. 
The Commission received a presentation that included the following relevant information: 
Alaska Air Group is supportive of the request. 
The project is part of the NorthSTAR program and would increase speed and reliability of
the existing C-88 and C-92 baggage systems at the North Satellite. 
Alaska expects baggage volumes five times greater than United Airlines, formerly served
by this baggage system. 
C-88 is 25 years old; C-92 is 23 years old.  A typical useful life for this type of baggage
system is 15 years. 
The project scope has been reduced from a complete replacement to replacement of
aging components and is expected to cost about $6 million less than its former iteration. 
Failure analysis for C-88 resulted in the addition of a redundant recirculation conveyor at
the North Satellite.  Failure analysis of C-92 is currently underway.  In the interest of
project timing, the requested project scope includes features for C-92 that may not be
necessary. Alaska agrees with the approach and staff will brief the Commission on what
scope elements are found not to be needed. 
The roughly $12 million project will be competitively bid after completing 100-percent
design and obtaining Alaska's concurrence.




PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                           Page 10 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Construction will continue through March 2015, not October 2014 as stated in the action
memorandum attached to these minutes, due to recent phasing considerations. 
Port Construction Services will perform enhancements to the baggage tunnel system. 
The programmatic NorthSTAR project labor agreement (PLA) applies to this project.
The PLA is nearing completion of negotiations. 
Motion for approval of item 6a  Bryant 
Second  Bowman 
Motion carried by the following vote: 
In Favor: Albro, Bowman, Bryant, Creighton, Gregoire (5) 
7.    STAFF BRIEFINGS 
Agenda item 7a having been disposed of previously, the Commission advanced to consideration of  
7b.  Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study Update and Recommendations. 
Presentation document(s) provided by Stan Shepherd, Manager, Airport Noise Programs: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 13, 2013. 
Presentation slides. 
Draft of Resolution No. 3683. 
Presenter(s): Mr. Shepherd. 
The Commission received a presentation that included the following relevant information: 
The Part 150 study is an opportunity to evaluate the Airport's noise programs as part of
the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. 
Noise programs included in the Part 150 resolution and approved by the FAA become
eligible for up to 80 percent grant funding, depending on availability of funds for any
specific program. 
Part 150 actions are not intended to restrict air traffic or move air traffic and noise from
one community to another. 
Opportunities for public engagement have been extensive.  About 500 people overall
attended workshops and meetings to provide comment for the Part 150 process. 
A technical review committee was formed to provide comment for the Part 150 process.
It was composed of local land-use planners, participants from the FAA and Washington
State Department of Transportation, and airline representatives. 
The schedule for finalizing the Part 150 Study includes First Reading of a resolution on
October 8 and Second Reading and Final Passage on October 22. These dates reflect
updates to the tentative dates included in the presentation slides.  The FAA will conduct
a final review that typically takes about eight months. 
Updated noise contours at the 65 day-night level (DNL) define the noise remedy
boundary for FAA purposes. This area will shrink under the revised Part 150 Study due
primarily to use of newer, quieter aircraft.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                           Page 11 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Residences within the former noise boundary that had not yet taken advantage of the
Airport's noise insulation program werecontacted to enable them to participate in the 
program before they become ineligible due to the shrinking noise remedy boundary.
About 90 responses were received and are being processed now for noise insulation. 
Enhancements to Existing Noise Mitigation Measures 
Existing noise mitigation measures proposed to be enhanced in the new Part 150 Study
include the following: 
Sound insulation of single family residences would be expanded to include multi-family,
owner-occupied residences (condominiums). Since 1985, the Airport has insulated over
9,300 single family homes in the surrounding communities at a cost of approximately
$400 million.
Modifications to the Airport's Fly Quiet Program are proposed and have already been
implemented. 
Upgrades to the Noise Monitoring and Flight Tracking System are proposed. 
In  the  south  approach  transition  zone,  it  is  recommended  to  acquire  residential
structures on a voluntary basis. 
Engine testing regulations would be modified to complement possible construction of a
ground run-up enclosure ("hush house"). 
Existing Noise Mitigation Measures to be Continued in Current Form 
Existing noise mitigation measures proposed to be continued in their current form include the
following: 
Property advisory services. 
Local government noise remedy support. 
Funding for land-use and noise compatibility planning. 
Preparation of cooperative local development agreements. 
Working with airlines to limit nighttime flights. 
Use of navigational equipment to keep planes on track. 
Preferential runway use. 
Continued use of flight management system procedures. 
Use of ground equipment to provide preconditioned air for landed aircraft so they do not
have to use auxiliary power units. 
Sound insulation of schools. 
New Mitigation Measures 
The following new programs are recommended in the new Part 150 proposal: 
A pilot project to install sound insulation in multi-family tenant-occupied residences
(apartments).
A pilot project to purchase avigation easements on parcels with mobile or manufactured
homes, which cannot be effectively sound insulated.  There are approximately 70
properties on which avigation easements might apply. 
Insulation of places of worship. A feasibility study would be performed for each case.



PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                           Page 12 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
Establish feasible locations for a ground run-up enclosure ("hush house"), which could
reduce noise exposure by 20 decibels. There are three sites at the Airport that could be
used for a ground run-up enclosure. One of these locations is currently being converted
to an aircraft hardstand, but could be used in the future for a ground run-up enclosure. 
Program Management Measures 
The following measures are proposed to assist implementation of noise programs: 
Replace and upgrade the noise monitoring and flight tracking system, which is currently
underway. 
Periodically review and update, as needed, noise exposure maps and the noise
compatibility program. 
Continue operation of the Airport's Noise Office. 
In response to Commissioner Creighton, Mr. Shepherd reported that there are no retirement
homes within the revised noise mitigation boundaries. 
Comment periods and public engagement were summarized and the range of comments provided
were presented.  All comments were accepted and responded to and the FAA was involved
throughout the comment period. The comments and responses are included in the final Part 150
document. 
In response to Commissioner Creighton, Mr. Adams explained that approval at this stage is an
evaluation of individual elements of the recommendations under Part 150.  Application for grant
funding is a separate step for programs approved by the FAA for Part 150 purposes that also takes
into consideration other factors, such as available funding and other grant requests.  In response to
further questions, Mr. Adams reported there are no measures in the recommendations that staff
believe the FAA would disapprove.  He also stated that measures not approved for Part 150
purposes could still be implemented by the Port, but that they would not be eligible for FAA grant
funding under the Part 150 process. 
7c. 2013 Second Quarter Update on the Airport's NorthSTAR Program. 
Presentation  document(s)  provided  by  George  England,  Program  Leader,  Aviation  Project
Management Group;  Michael Ehl, Director, Aviation Operations;  and David  Soike, Director,
Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 24, 2013. 
Presentation slides. 
Presenter(s): Mr. England.



PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                           Page 13 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
The Commission received a presentation that included the following relevant information: 
Development of metrics in order to assess operational impacts of construction might
include  cash  flow,  program  budget,  schedule  variances,  actual  vs.  forecasted
contingency, and turns per gate.
Gate closures might be tracked and correlated to different phasing options to evaluate
project performance. 
Examples of measurement options were presented for airline operations, concessions,
and baggage handling. 
Alaska prefers a two-phase approach to construction, although gate availability may
complicate this option. 
Recommendations on design concept drawings will be forthcoming soon. 
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) level of service analysis is nearly
complete. 
Design for the North Satellite Concourse C Vertical Circulation Project is nearing 100
percent completion.
Alaska is still considering adding a prospective project to accommodate rear aircraft
passenger loading, which can facilitate deplaning of passengers. 
7d.  Briefing on the Port liability insurance renewal for the policy year beginning on
October 1, 2013. 
Presentation document(s) provided by Jeff Hollingsworth, Risk Manager: 
Commission agenda memorandum dated September 16, 2013. 
Presentation slides. 
Presenter(s): Mr. Hollingsworth. 
The Commission received a presentation that included the following relevant information: 
Descriptions of exposure covered were provided. 
The Port is fully self-insured for Workers Compensation and has opted not to purchase
excess Workers Compensation coverage for the policy year beginning October 1, 2013. 
Premium factors affecting renewal pricing and rates were presented. The strength of the
Port's indemnityagreements with its tenants is an important factor in the pricing of the
Port's liability coverage. 
Condition of insurance markets and external events such as flooding are examples of
external factors affecting renewal pricing and rates. 
Cost factors controlled by the Port include deductible amounts, limits requested, and
procurement of special coverages. 
The liability insurance premium was compared to total revenue for the years 2004
through 2014.  The goal is to keep annual premium increases below five to seven
percent. 
The renewal coverage process was summarized, including comparing benchmarks with
other ports and airports and transactions with brokers.

PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES                           Page 14 of 14 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
The premium for the expiring coverage year was $781,000. The limits, deductibles, and
expiring premiums for various lines of coverage were presented. 
Coverage issues for 2013-2014 include not purchasing terrorism insurance for Aviation,
maintaining Airport limits at $500 million, not pursuing excess Workers Compensation,
and options surrounding purchase of cyber liability coverage. 
Operational issues for 2013-2014 were presented and include current exposure as the
owner of the Eastside Rail Corridor, maintenance of the East Marginal Way Grade
Separation until its transfer to the City of Seattle, and addition of a new fleet of busing
operations for the Rental Car Facility. 
The estimate for renewal for 2013-2014 is $800,000 to $815,000. 
8.    NEW BUSINESS 
None.
9.    POLICY ROUNDTABLE 
None. 
10.  ADJOURNMENT 
There being no further business, the regular meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. 

Bill Bryant 
Assistant Secretary 
Minutes approved: October 22, 2013.