From:            Brett Menzies Folkins
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Cancel the widen arrivals roadway project
Date:              Sunday, November 7, 2021 6:32:03 PM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
To port commissioners,
I urge you to vote no on agenda item 9b on the Nov 9th 2021 meeting.
Widening the arrivals access roadway will induce demand for more low efficiency private
vehicles and increase the total carbon emissions of the activity at the port.
I ask that you instead invest in improving the experience and efficiency of mass transit access
options.
Regards,
Brett Menzies Folkins
229 queen Anne Ave N, apt 209
Seattle, WA 98109




From:            laura gibbons
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Cc:                Felleman, Fred
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Written testimony for Tuesday"s Port meeting
Date:              Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:41:14 PM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.

I am unable to testify in person on Tuesday, but I hope you have time to read this whole letter. If
not, please mention that I explain the math by which using 10% "sustainable" aviation fuel results
in at most an 8% reduction in carbon emissions.


Commissioners,

Hello again. At the last meeting, when I said that alternative aviation fuels (AAF) only cause a minor
decrease in emissions, Commissioner Felleman said his understanding was that they can give an 80%
reduction.

Yes, there are industry claims that if you count the full life cycle of the fuel, there can be an 80%
reduction in carbon emissions from AAF. Others put the estimate as much lower, and as you know it
depends on how the particular fuel was grown, processed, and transported.

The Port of Seattle's goal is to fuel outgoing flights with a blend that includes 10% AAF by 2028. So
that means that 90% of the fuel is still conventional jet fuel. So even if the 80% reduction turns out
to be obtainable, that's an 80% reduction in only 10% of the fuel. In this best-case scenario, aviation
would still be causing 92% of the global warming it is today (100% of 90% plus 20% of 10% = 92%).

An 8% decrease in emissions doesn't get us anywhere close to the emission targets you have set,
unless there is a drastic decrease in flying.

I agree with Commissioner Felleman that the climate crisis is Code Red for humanity, and I urge the
Commissioners to do more.

Sincerely,
Laura Gibbons
Seattle



From:            Al Hughes
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Restaurant lease amendment at SBM
Date:              Monday, November 8, 2021 9:23:57 AM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
This is from the upcoming Port Commission meeting (on Nov 9) agenda memo regarding 
an amendment to Duke's restaurant lease at Shilshole Bay Marina
To the Port's benefit, allowing for an expanded capacity for guests and a more full-range 
menu will only advance Shilshole Bay Marina's operational goal of providing a first-class 
facility to its water-dependent customers. The expansion will not only further enrich the liveaboard
lifestyle at the marina, it will also foster a more vibrant and diverse draw of visitors 
from the surrounding neighborhoods, the region, and much farther locations, including 
tourists wanting memorable experiences of the Puget Sound, showcasing the recreational 
boating industry, our other tenant services, and the diversity of roles that the Port plays in 
the larger community.
I don't believe the above comments, provided by the Real Estate division presumably, are 
true as far as enriching the liveaboard lifestyle. There is no mention of the loss of 
greenspace, loss of parking and construction impacts. Please explain how a ground lease 
for a restaurant showcases the recreational boating industry. There is a large restaurant 
facility that has been vacant for years just down Seaview Ave NW from the marina. These 
days with near instant delivery services like Uber Eats, GrubHub, DoorDash and more 
there is far less of a need to have an onsite restaurant. There are at least 15 other 
liveaboards who in the last couple of days have commented that this project is a net loss to 
the community.
Thanks for your consideration of an alternative view,
Al Hughes 206-940-9667










From:            Chad Newton
To:                Commission-Public-Records; Steinbrueck, Peter; Calkins, Ryan; Felleman, Fred; Bowman, Stephanie; Cho, Sam;
toshiko@hasegawaforport.com; electhamdi@gmail.com
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Please Cancel the Widen Arrivals Roadway project
Date:              Sunday, November 7, 2021 2:57:50 PM
Attachments:      520 traffic.jfif

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
For public comment at theNovember 9, 2021 board meeting.
To Port Commissioners:

I implore you to vote no on Agenda Item 9b at the November 6, 2021 board meeting, and cancel the
Widen Arrivals Roadway project. Widening the airport access roadway will induce demand for
private vehicles to travel to the airport (negating any potential congestion relief) and increase
carbon emissions. The effect will directly cut against the Port's sustainability ethic and the specific
mode share goals for 2030 in Resolution 3759.

Instead of investing another $80,000,000 or so of public resources to increase carbon emissions, the
Port should be bold, stand true to its stated environmental goals, and:

Cancel further design and construction on the Widen Arrivals Roadway project.

Accelerate implementation of an access fee on the Arrivals Roadway, which instead of
cutting against the Port's mode share goals, will directly support them and also reduce
congestion (see figure below for the long-term effect of tolling on SR 520). To speed
implementation and improve the user experience, contract directly with WSDOT to use the
Good To Go system.






Support the transit mode share goal by investing to improve the walkway experience from
the terminal to the Link rail station. At a minimum, provide a climate-controlled walkway with
finishes equivalent to the new IAF bridge. Preferably, add moving sidewalks, either by dedicating
the floor of the garage underneath the current walkway to the associated mechanical
equipment, or by constructing a new enclosed walkway cantilevered along the side of the

existing garage.

These three steps will save the Port and taxpayers money, allow the Port to meet the 2030 mode
share goals, and most importantly, lead to reduced carbon emissions instead of expanding emissions
as the Widen Arrivals Roadway project would do.
Sincerely,
Chadwick Newton



From:            Ginger (Leigh) Niemann
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT for November 9, 2021 - item #8l
Date:              Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:57:59 PM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a Seattle native and remember playing on the docks at Shilshole in 1971 while my father
worked on his small sailboat. Today as I maintain my sailboat at Shilshole, I acknowledge the
Ports efforts and improvements from those early days. I have been a longtime Port of Seattle
customer both at Fisherman's Terminal and at Shilshole Marina.
I feel compelled to comment on the 4th amendment to the Duke's lease action item as the
document inaccurately reflects the wishes of myself and many of my fellow tenants at
Shilshole.
The document repeatedly states that having a restaurant at the marina will benefit tenants.
They fail to acknowledge that any restaurant at the marina will remove the only grassy
gathering place for all tenants in the entire marina. Further, a restaurant will exacerbate
parking problems that are already considerable in summer months. Ballard is full of
restaurants with many delivery options. There are already 4 restaurants and one private dining
club within short walking distance of the marina.
A glance at their parking lots will tell you that the restaurants draw people from outside the
marina who can become a hazard to the local population as they veer away in their cars after a
few drinks at the bar.
When considering this lease and all implications please take the glowing report of "benefits
for tenants" with a grain of salt. Many tenants, myself included, consider another restaurant
and bar a net negative for the community.
Sincerely,
Leigh Niemann