TagPSCOG(11)

In April 1989, the Port of Seattle Commission passed Resolution No. 3042 authorizing the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) to develop a long-term regional air carrier system plan for the Puget Sound area. The resolution was prompted by a recognized need for additional air carrier capacity beyond the year 2000, following a 1988 Airspace Study Update of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The agreement allowed the Port to seek federal FAA funding and hire consultants to study long-term aviation capacity options for the region.

A flyer from the Seahurst Community Club urging residents to oppose a proposed expansion of Sea-Tac Airport, including the addition of a third runway, which was one of four alternatives being considered by the Puget Sound Council of Governments in 1988. The document warns of serious community impacts such as increased noise and air pollution, displacement of hundreds of families, falling home values, zoning changes, and the loss of 13 Highline School District facilities. Residents were directed to contact the Puget Sound Council of Governments, Port of Seattle Commissioners, and King County Councilmembers before the Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued on March 17, 1988.

A public hearing was held on February 24, 1988, at John F. Kennedy Memorial High School in Seattle to gather community input on a proposed Airport System Amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan. The evening agenda included introductions by King County Councilmember Greg Nickels, a slide presentation on the proposed Regional Airport System Plan by PSCOG staff member Don Secrist, and an open public comment period. The event reflects early regional planning discussions around airport development and transportation policy in the greater Seattle area.

This 1987 Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the Puget Sound Council of Governments evaluates alternatives for expanding the regional airport system in the Puget Sound area through the year 2020. The study found that all alternatives would generate significant impacts to both natural and human environments, including noise and land-use concerns, with the key distinction being whether those impacts would be concentrated at existing airport sites or spread across new locations. No single alternative was found to be clearly superior, and the report called for extensive mitigation measures and further site-specific analysis to guide final decision-making.