September 19, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR000332: Port Of Seattle Notice of Appearance and Certificate of Service — Case No. 02-2-01595-3

Notes

Port Of Seattle Notice of Appearance filed September 19, 2002 in Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County, Case No. 02-2-01595-3, State of Washington Department of Ecology v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, Airport Communities Coalition, and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion. Signed by Linda J. Strout (WSBA #9422) and Traci M. Goodwin (WSBA #14974). Accompanied by Certificate of Service (RCW 9A.72.085) documenting U.S. Mail service on parties including Pollution Control Hearings Board, Jean M. Wilkinson (Assistant Attorney General), ACC, Peter J. Eglick/Kevin L. Stock/Michael P. Witck (Helsell Fetterman), Rachael Paschal Osborn, Richard A. Poulin (Smith & Lowney), Roger A. Pearce & Patrick J. Mullaney (Foster Pepper & Shefelman), Jay J. Manning & Gillis E. Reavis (Brown Reavis & Manning). AR 000332–000334.

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