September 1, 2002August 2, 2026

PCHB Doc 01-160: Order Granting Certificate of Appealability — ACC & CASE v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) Order Granting Certificate of Appealability in PCHB 01-160, Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) v. State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Board members Kaleen Cottingham, Robert V. Jensen, and William H. Lynch granted direct appellate review requests filed by both ACC/CASE (Thurston County Superior Court, Cause No. 02-2-01549-0) and Port Of Seattle (King County Superior Court, Cause No. 02-2-25658-9SEA). Criteria applied under RCW 34.05.518(3)(b) and WAC 371-08-560: delay detrimental to parties and public interest, fundamental and urgent statewide/regional issues raised, and significant precedential value. Judge Hicks of Thurston County Superior Court had issued a venue transfer to King County on September 27, 2002.

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