The Port of Seattle owns a 55-acre parcel (approximately 2.4 million sq. ft.) located north of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's airfield, between S 136th St and S 142nd St in SeaTac, WA. Currently leased to the City of SeaTac as a park and community center, the land is zoned Aviation Commercial (AVC) and can be reclaimed for airport-related development with just 30 days' notice to the city. The parcel is subject to bond and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding restrictions that must be reviewed before any change in use.

Notes

This document provides property details for a 55-acre parcel located north of the airfield in SeaTac, Washington, currently used as a City Park Ground Lease. The parcel totals 2,426,292 square feet across multiple King County parcel numbers and is zoned Aviation Commercial (AVC). It is available for development with a 30-day notice to the City of SeaTac, with the Valley Kangaroo Rugby Field excluded from the southwest corner.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message