June 7, 2002August 2, 2026

PCHB Doc 923: ACC Reply in Support of Motion for Correction, Clarification, and/or Partial Reconsideration of Order Publishing Depositions of Ecology Managers and CR 30(b)(6) Designated Witnesses

Notes

ACC’s reply brief filed with the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160) in support of its motion for correction, clarification, and/or partial reconsideration of the Board’s April 22 Order publishing certain portions of depositions of Ecology managers and CR 30(b)(6) designated witnesses. ACC argues against Port Of Seattle’s opposition, contending the motion is timely, that cases cited by Port (Weems v. North Franklin School District, Perry v. Hamilton, Wagner Development v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland) address only final judgments not interlocutory procedural orders, and that the April 22 Order improperly edits out portions of deposition testimony mid-discussion (including testimony of Tom Luster, Dyanne Sheldon, and political pressure discussions) while leaving adjacent testimony intact, contrary to CR 32(a)(4) fairness requirements. Filed by Helsell Fetterman on behalf of Airport Communities Coalition. Administrative Record AR 000923–AR 000925.

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