In the absence of such guidance, what may be termed a "let them sue" approach was essentially followed by the Port during the period from 1957 to 1972.

Second Runway Aerial Line Drawing - Planning for the airport and its environs: The Sea-Tac success story page 9

Notes

A draft report prepared by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. for the FAA’s Office of Environmental Quality examining the Sea-Tac Communities Plan as a model for airport and community planning. The document addresses key questions about the planning process, including community involvement, noise exposure, environmental concerns, and techniques used to develop a plan acceptable to all parties. It concludes with lessons learned and an assessment of whether the Sea-Tac approach is applicable elsewhere.

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