Exhibit B

Port Commission Regular
Meeting of February 28, 2012


Notes by Ed Plute

Good afternoon commissioners.

My name is Ed Plute, my address is 310 NW 84'h Street, Seattle 98107.

I wish to state that the main reason to reject the MOA with WSDOT lies in
a
simple policy element.

While I am not an attorney I did take the time to review one chapter in
a
book entitled Lawfor Engineers.

In Section 2, CONTRACT ILLEGAL AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY it
states,

Any contract for a performance by either party which is against public
policy, or which defrauds or injures the rights of third parties, is
illegal and unenforceable.

It goes on to say that:

As against public policy, may be mentioned ...(2) those harmful to
the public interest

When considering the deep-bored tunnel and its lack of any emergency
access to the handicapped traveler, clearly the above policy is to be
considered.

Additionally, the undisputed facts from the draft EIS showing large volumes
of trafc being diverted to city streets since the SR 99 corridor no longer
serves lower Queen Anne, the Inter-bay neighborhood and Magnolia, along
with the abandonment of adopted design standards such as those concerning
road grades, road shoulder widths, vertical clearances and left hand ramps
(which are prohibited) you must conclude the county tax payer gains no
benet at all from this project.

In the absence of a benet, I ask that the Port advise WSDOT that the Port
will no longer participate nancially in this dubious project.

Thank yo

Terms applicable to the Port's
Actions

Malfeasance

The performance by
a public ofcial of an act that
is legally
unjustied, harmful, contrary to law,
a wrongdoing, Violation of
the
public trust.

Misfeasance

The wrongful performance of
a normally lawful
act, the wrongful;
exercise of a lawful authority
M761; 330 L257 (