Minutes Exhibit 8
Port Commission Regular Meeting of November 22. 2016


Port of Seattle

November 21, 2016

Dear Friends,

I am Kent Palosaari, a marriage and family therapist, husband, father, and 10
year resident ofthe city of Seatac.  I
want to thank you for having the public meeting on November 1, 2016 in Seatac. It gave many people, 50 for the
record, to say what they needed to say. It confirmed what I have been discovering as I have looked into the
situation over the last couple of months, however, that the issues at hand
go well beyond the cutting of trees
around the airport. These include the following:

*the original 1997 E.|.S.that included recommendations for 6 schools to be moved at
a cost of $2 billion, as well as
further studies to determine the impact on the physical health of community residents and airport employees.

'feeling lied to by the past Port around the intent of the 3rd runway.

*NextGen navigation and its negative impact.

*The amount of traffic in general.

*the negative impact that the airport has
on the local economy, especially in terms of house value, small
businesses, and tax base for local education.

*the fact that AvGas is not regulated by the Clean Air Act.

*the airpath alterations.

*the increasing and almost constant noise, due to take offs and landings.

*the actual physical shaking that accompanies landings for
many residents.

*the "flight pattern Kids" whose horrific stories of diseases related to the airport
go back as many as 4 generations.

As you could tell from people's testimonies that,
as much as the Port wants to make this about the trees, this is a
much greater problem. To put into a context that
y0u all can relate to, in the same way that topping the trees will
not satisfy the FAA in terms of using NextGen, dealing only with the trees will not be enough to satisfy the
surrounding residents. That is why people will not be satisfied with the 1 million dollars that you now are offering.
As I mentioned above, 2 billion dollars
was suggested as a beginning point back in 1997, so 1 million will be seen as
almost an insult to our intelligence. Now,
you made it very clear in your mission statement that your goal is to
make money, and I noticed that there was nothing mentioned in your mission statement about the health and
welfare of surrounding communities. It seems that you are making billions ofdollars annually for Seattle. but the
average citizen down here sees very little ofthat money, otherwise you would think that we would have much
better things like schools. Furthermore, it feels like you are proting at the expense of the poor and under-
privaledged who are economically forced to live around the airport, with little regard for their health. Now, I can
tell you don't wish ill upon us, but I still don't think you see this as a life and death issue.  I, and many others, see
this as a Flint, Michigan water issue, because of the level of toxic fine emissions particles that
are in the air due to
AvGas. (The problem with most testing is that it is for large particles, not fine, which allows you to reduce your
overall emissions, while at the same time increasing the level of
very damaging fine particles.

i'd like to give you some professional advice
as a marriage and family therapist, you really need to take a different
approach than what you have been to this point. Right now you are taking more of top down, authoritarian
approach, which is common in the legal/lawyer approach to governing. The problem with that is that it results in a
zero sum game, in which one party feels upset. The goal needs to be
more ofa Win/Win, but you need to further
engage the citizens here to nd out what a win would be for them. As I have mentioned in earlier letters, I would

like a more round table discussion with an'attitude of equality and cooperation which includes the
Port, citizens,
.
the FAA, the EPA, the airlines, business people, unions, health
experts, conservationists, elected officials,  5 a c, 21/ SC; 9/; 7125,23"
educators, and as few lawyers as possible.  I believe that this is the right thing to do given the magnitude of the /
situation. I would be willing to help you in creating this summit gathering,
as I plan on creating this with or without
your help I really do want to care about you, and I can tell you want to care about me, my family, and all the
residents that live in this area. I look forward to further engagements with you in the future.

All the best. and the best for all,


Kent Palosaari, LMHC