October 9, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR006468: Motion to Strike Attorney-Client Privileged Documents — ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Motion to Strike Attorney-Client Privileged Documents filed by State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), PCHB No. 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Ecology seeks to strike privileged communications inadvertently disclosed to ACC via public disclosure request relating to Sea-Tac International Airport (STIA) expansion project, and to require ACC to return the document. Cites RCW 5.60.060(2), RCW 42.17.310(1)(j), Amoss v. University of Washington, Harris v. Pierce County, Sherman v. State, Upjohn Co. v. United States, Dietz v. Doe, United States v. Zolin (9th Cir. 1987), Georgetown Manor v. Ethan Allan. Declaration of Ray Hellwig accompanies motion.

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