Notes

Third Pre-Hearing Order issued by the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) in case 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. Issued following a March 6, 2002 pre-hearing conference presided over by Kaleen Cottingham with Board member Bill Lynch and AAJ Eric Z. Lucas. Order covers allocation of 45 hours of hearing time using a chess clock (22.5 hours per side), seating arrangements in the hearing room (counsel tables, attorney rows, client/paralegal rows, witness seats along west wall), timekeeping rules for direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct, objections, and Board questions. Parties represented by Peter Eglick, Kevin Stock, Rachel Paschal Osborn (ACC), Rick Poulin (CASE), Gil Reavis, Roger Pearce (Port Of Seattle), and Tom Young (Ecology).

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