This October 1974 memo from Ed Parks, Technical Coordinator, notifies the Policy Advisory Committee of a meeting scheduled for November 6, 1974, at the Sea-Tac Passenger Terminal, Port of Seattle Offices. The agenda covers topics including study progress, community involvement, a review of the Airport Master Plan, and the establishment of a follow-on Community Plan effort. The memo is part of the Sea-Tac/Communities Plan, a joint planning initiative between the Port of Seattle and King County.

Notes

Agenda memo from Ed Parks, Technical Coordinator, to the Policy Advisory Committee for the Sea-Tac/Communities Plan joint effort of the Port of Seattle and King County. The meeting was scheduled for November 6, 1974 at the Sea-Tac Passenger Terminal, Port of Seattle Offices. Agenda items included study progress, community involvement, review of the Airport Master Plan, composite sub-area vicinity plans, and establishment of a follow-on Community Plan effort.

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