June 9, 1981August 10, 2026

King County Department of Planning and Community Development: Letter to Virginia Dana Acknowledging Complaint Case 81-456

Notes

Letter dated June 9, 1981 from Edward B. Sand, Manager of King County Building & Land Development Division, to Mrs. Virginia Dana, 2648 South 142nd Street, Seattle, WA 98168, acknowledging receipt of her complaint letter and assigning case number 81-456. The letter explains the complaint processing procedure including property ownership research, owner notification by telephone or letter identifying code violations, field inspection for serious hazards, and enforcement of King County Codes. Signed by Inspector Steve Wright on behalf of Edward B. Sand. Contact telephone 344-7967. Form F-190.

Sidebar On/Off

Upcoming Events

StART SEA Stakeholder Advisory Round Table
Add to CalendarMWednesday Aug 26, 5:00pm - 7:00pm
Zoom (Virtual Meeting)

Meeting Objectives Introduce the primary feedback themes identified by StART members regarding StART’s Operating Procedures and determine areas that may warrant future discussion. 5:00 PM – Welcome Meeting Management Welcome Lead: Andrés Mantilla, Facilitator, Uncommon Bridges; Wendy Reiter, Airport Managing Director, POS 5:15 PM – Dinner: All participants eat. 5:30 PM – StART Operating Procedures
[...]
Commercial Aviation Work Group
Add to CalendarMThursday Sep 3, 10:00am - 1:30pm
Virtual Meeting (Zoom)

Meeting Agenda 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. | Welcome – Evan Nordby, Chair a. Introductions and Agenda Reviewb. Status of appointments and non-voting member invitationsc. Other updates as necessary 10:15 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. | Is it practical and legal to operate the western Washington [Puget Sound] airports as a single airport system? – Consultant
[...]

[See all...]

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