Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNewcastle Community Plan (1982) KING COUNTY COUNCIL NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN PANEL MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING August 24 , 1982 Council Conference Room 1 : 30 P .M. Continuation of discussion and tentative recommendations on the following sub-areas and subsections of the New- castle Community Plan. 1 . Northwest 2 . East Renton Plateau 3 . Historic Sites I R AUG 1982 v, cp CLFRics ENtoN -ti� `9917 E Z 1,\"s Renton City Council June 14, 1982 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) Claim for Claim for Damages in the amount of $2,817. 16+ from Allstate Insurance Damages - Company and Laverne Taylor for injury and property damage due to an Corner NE Sunset automobile accident allegedly caused by traffic light malfunction. and Duvall Refer to City Attorney and insurance carrier. Claim for Claim for Damages in the amount of $150,000 from Betty J. Stauch for Damages - 27th physical injury due to automobile accident allegedly caused by raised Place & Talbot manhole cover. Refer to City Attorney and insurance carrier. Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA Approved AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Devil ' s Elbow Letter from Pete and Diana Caple, 9628 - 123rd Avenue SE, Renton, Clean-up - thanked Ed Hayduk for his efforts in cleaning out Devil ' s Elbow, Signing Proposed wooded area east of Kennydale. Ed' s crew and approximately 15 community volunteers spent many hours in beautifying this area used by many for hiking , fishing and nature walks. "Run for the Letter from Dennis Robertson, Chairman, Southcenter Kiwanis Race Roses" Committee, Tukwila, thanked Council for its assistance in making the annual 10 kilometer "Run for the Roses" foot race a success. The race, old June 13, had more than 700 registered entrants. Profits from *-le race will be used for local charity work by the Kiwanis Club. Eastside Water- Letter from David R. Clemens , Policy Development Director, requested a Shed Project public meeting be held June 21 , 1982, to obtain public comment on recommendations to the Basin Executive Committee for the Eastside Watershed Project as concerns possible City withdrawal from the SCS/P-1 project and development of City' s potential flood storage regulations. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY REED, SUBJECT MATTER OF P-1 CHANNEL OR EASTSIDE WATERSHED PROJECT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR MONDAY, JUNE 21 , AS RECOMMENDED. CARRIED. Councilman Rockhill recommended inviting representatives of the Drainage District to attend this meeting. Newcastle Policy Development Director Clemens submitted a letter to King County Community Plan Executive Revelle and Members of the King County Council for Renton City Council President Clymer' s signature making the following recom- mendations regarding the Newcastle Community Plan: The King County Council reject the recommendation of the designation of one-half acre single family residential as a reserve on the East Renton Plateau and the use of on-site sanitary sewage disposal as a permanent solution in the East Renton Plateau; the May Creek Basin Plan specifically require the extension of sanitary sewers; the King County Council provide for additional convenience retail uses on the East Renton Plateau; and the King County Council not only designate but provide methods of funding active recreational space in the Newcastle Community Plan. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN THE LETTER. CARRIED. Silent Witness Letter from Reg Bruce, Executive Director, Citizens Council Against Program Crime, 1101 Dexter Horton Building, Seattle, announced the operation of an expanded Silent Witness Program in King County. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY HUGHES , REFER MATTER TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Silent Witness information available through Police Dept. Marine Patrol Letter from Roy A. Ferguson, Mayor, City of Bellevue, requested City' s Services cooperation in securing an agreement for marine patrol services for 1982. Although no facts or figures were given, Mayor Ferguson stated a solution had been obtained that, he believed, would place a minimal financial burden on each agency involved. Mayor Shinpoch noted she would have more information next week regarding other cities' actions on the marine patrol proposal . , V Renton City Council June l4, 1982 Page 4 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented committee Committee report recommending second and final readings of the following ordinances: Ordinance #3636 An ordinance was read amending Ordinance 1628 relating to water meter charges. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY HUGHES, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3637 An ordinance was read relating to land use and zoning for adult entertainment theaters, amending Ordinances 3526 and 3629 by deleting emergency clause and re-enacting the remainder. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Voucher Payment Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke recommended approval of Vouchers 40062 through 40374 in the amount of $1 ,499,422.62. Approval included the following Revenue Warrants: LID 321 , #R-7, $5,532.31 ; LID 322, #R-16, $123,405. 11 ; LID 323, #R-3, $178.93. Machine voids: 40057-40061 . Councilman Stredicke reported speci - fically on certain larger expenditures. Vouchers received depart- mental certification that merchandise and/or services have been received and/or rendered. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY CLYMER, TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS 1979 Fire Code Councilman Clymer inquired regarding fire inspection findings in Enforcement the enforcement of the 1979 fire code. Discussion ensued. MOVED BY STREDICKE , SECOND BY CLYMER, SUBJECT MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE 1979 CODE WITH REGARD TO FIRE AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS BE REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK. Pending Street Councilman Stredicke requested a report on the time element involved Vacations in street vacations and regarding the status of pending vacation requests. ADMINISTRATIVE Mayor Shinpoch, with sadness, announced the death of Darrell Zepper, REPORT Animal Control Officer, for the City for almost ten years. Lt. Persson stated that funeral arrangements are still pending. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY CLYMER, MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 10:48 P.M. De ores A. rad, ty C erk INTER—OFFICE MEMO TO: Bf]lie DATE 6/14/82 FROM: Willis RE: NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN Attached for distribution for tonight's meeting, as I believe you have already discussed with Dave Clemens. Dave requests that you obtain, if __.possible, Earl Clymer's signature on the original of the letter to Randy Ravelle and K.C. Council and then hold for distribution after the Council meeting, when we will know if it received approval. Note: Have only enough copies of the Newcastle Community Plan Alternative* statement for the Council and Mayor. Let me know if more are needed. / Thank you. I i 11. OF R4-4 %0 Q 0 THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055• 235-2586 ,9A CO_ 09�TF� SEPS ��(P King County Executive Randy Revelle Members of the King County Council King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 RE: NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN Dear Mr. Revelle and Council Members: On June 14, 1982, the Renton City Council considered the Newcastle Community Plan and now makes the following recommendations: 1. The King County Council should reject the recommendation of the designation of one-half acre single family residential as a reserve on the East Renton Plateau. The Renton City Council believes that such a designation would have significant adverse environmental consequences as a result of future development by scattered short plats throughout this geographical area. Further, providing public, public utility and private services to development in this scattered fashion would be both costly and inefficient. Such a development pattern would be extremely energy inefficient by requiring longer commutes, greater distances to retail and personal services, and discouraging cluster land development which would reduce overall energy costs. Finally, the Renton City Council believes that such a land use pattern would preclude future redevelopment of this geographical area to accommodate future demands for housing in this general area. The Renton City Council does not believe that a one-half acre designation for single family uses adequately constitutes a reserve for future population needs. If the County Council concludes that the East Renton Plateau should serve as a reserve for future development, the Renton City Council would strongly recommend that residential densities of one unit per five to twenty acres would be more appropriate. Requiring very large lots will ensure that future decision-makers will not be faced with a fragmented development pattern, as discussed above, when considering future development options. 2. The King County Council should reject the use of on-site sanitary sewage disposal as a permanent solution in the East Renton Plateau Such a policy if implemented in conjunction with the land development which we believe would occur as a result of a half acre designation (see item one above) would discourage, if not preclude, adequately sized sewer utilities to serve future housing needs in this general geographical area. Secondly, the Renton .i -.�. .. , King County Executive R Revelle Members of the King County Council June 15, 1982 Page Two City Council believes that the use of septic tank systems within the May Creek drainage basin does not adequately address the continued pollution of May Creek by ground water intrusion of septic system effluent. 3. The May Creek Basin Plan should specifically require the extension of sanitary sewers. The May Creek Basin Plan should be expanded to require the installation of sanitary sewers to any new development with the exception of very large lot single family uses. Secondly, the May Creek plan should affirmatively specify that existing development within the May Creek basin should be sewered within a reasonable time period. Without these provisions, the Renton City Council believes that the May Creek Drainage Basin Plan cannot be effective in reducing effluent intrusion into the Creek or Lake Washington. 4. The King County Council should provide for additional convenience retail uses on the East Renton Plateau. The draft Newcastle Community Plan only provides for a marginal amount of retail shopping for this geographical area. The Renton City Council strongly recommends that the Newcastle Community Plan contain sufficient retail shopping space allocation to insure proper service to future as well as present residences of the plateau region. Without providing these retail spaces, the proposed plan would be artificially inefficient in the use of energy and time by both present and future residents of this area. 5. The King County Council should not only designate but provide methods of funding active recreational space in the Newcastle Community Plan. The Renton City Council believes that if the Newcastle Community Plan as currently proposed is adopted, the City of Renton will continue to be the de facto provider of active recreational space for the majority of King County residents within the plan area. The Renton City Council believes that this intrusion of County residents into the City of Renton park and recreation system is not warranted in this time of sparce financial resources for municipal services. The Renton City Council believes that the plan as proposed fails to meet the requirement for providing a methodology for identifying and financing recreational space expansion consistent with the types of active recreational needs found in this geographical area. Should you have any questions with regards to any of the points illustrated in items 1 through 5 above, please contact David R. Clemens, Policy Development Director for the City of Renton at 235-2552. Very truly yours, Earl H. Clymer President City Council 4 For. Use By City Clerk's Office Only • A. I . # 7 AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING xx= =x== SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Policy Development For Agenda Of June 7, 1982 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact Davi R. Clemens (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Newcastle Community Plan Consent Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Letter to City Council Other B. Draft Letter to King County Approval : C. Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan Legal Dept. Yes No_ N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Other Clearance Authorize Mayor or Council President to sign the response to King County. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- Expenditure Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary. ) King County has scheduled hearings on the Newcastle Community Plan commencing at 9:30 a.m. on June 8th. The City has recently adopted the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan, which represents the City's planning objectives for this geographical area. The Policy Development Department has drafted a response to King County for Council review and consideration. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. ('/Pr/G Fos e By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . / • AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING aaaaasaa saaasss�swmass®�s�mss:�:=asazas sass=astir-sssssasas�sasata=sa=amass:aa SUBMITTING Dept./Diva/Bd./Comm. Policy Development For Agenda Of June 7, 1982 (Meet. ig Date) Staff Contact— �vi R. Clemens (i1ame) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Newcastle Community Plan Consent Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Letter to City Council Other B. Draft Letter to King County C. North-ast Renton Comprehensive Plan Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Authorize Mayor or Council President to Other Clearance sign the response to King County. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount Appropriation- Budgeted $ Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background Information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary. ) King County has scheduled hearings on the Newcastle Community Plan commencing at 9:30 a.m. on June 8th. The City has recently adopted the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan, which represents the City' s planning objectives for this geographical area. The Policy Development Department has drafted a response to King County for Council review and consideration. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. • • OF I A. ;D 0 0 THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 00ammo MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9,0 co• 0 9-h10 sePI°° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH June 1, 1982 MAYOR Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Members of the City Council 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 RE: NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN Dear Mayor and Council Members: On June 8, 1982, the King County Council will commence the public hearing review process for the Newcastle Community Plan. In addition to the public hearing to be held in the County Council Chambers on June 8th, additional public hearing review will occur on June 15th, in Issaquah, June 16th, in Bellevue, and on June 17th, at Liberty High School (commencing at 7:30 p.m.). The Policy Development Department recommends that the City Council authorize either the Mayor or Council President to sign the attached letter representing the City of • enton's position regarding the Newcastle Community Plan. Veryf yours, 4! 44// •vid ' lemens Policy Development Director DRC:cl Attachments • A OF R4,� 44 THE CITY OF RENTON © _ POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 IL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,0 Co' 04/ 7 D sEPlell° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH June 1, 1982 MAYOR King County Executive Randy Revelle 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 RE: NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN Dear Mr. Revelle: • On December 14, 1981, the Renton City Council, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 3589, approved the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan (copy attached). This land use plan and its implementing policies represent the objectives of the City of Renton for the development of the Northeast Renton Planning Area which incorporates substantial areas of the Northeast Renton Plateau, and southern portions of Hazelwood. The Renton City Council strongly urges the King County Council to consider the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan in its evaluation of the Newcastle Community Plan. Further, the Renton City Council feels that the issues raised in their City's response to the Newcastle Community Plan Draft EIS, dated November 3, 1982, (copy attached) should be fully and adequately addressed prior to adoption of the Newcastle Community Plan. The Renton City Council believes that if the questions raised regarding the Newcastle Community Plan are adequately answered, and if the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment is given due consideration, that the resulting Newcastle Community Plan will represent the type of cooperative planning effort necessary to deal with the forthcoming issues of growth and development in this area. Very truly yours, Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor or Earl H. Clymer, Renton City Council President Attachment y.. v 01, .Q ° THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILOING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH.88055 Z ha k BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 0 �,�' 235- 2550 TAD SEP- - November 3, 1981 Harold Robertson, Manager Division of Planning Room W217 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: RESPONSE TO NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN DRAFT EIS Dear Mr. Robertson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Draft EIS. First, the City of Renton is somewhat concerned that the Draft EIS may not reflect the latest revisions to the draft Plan contained in the community plan committee's recommendation. It is our understanding that the final action by the committee occurred during the week of October 19th, and therefore, the Draft EIS may have been incomplete. Secondly, without appending the draft plan, a number of assertions made in the discussion of the document must be taken at face value, since there is no source material available to assure the accuracy of the comments. This is of ; particular concern in the area of transportation where several of the committees recommendations were still under discussion at the time of their final action. The Final EIS should address in detail any revisions to the draft plan which occurred after F. the Draft EIS was submitted for distribution. Although the City of Renton generally endorses many of the concepts contained in the Newcastle Plan, it should be noted that the Newcastle Plan is not consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as asserted in the Draft EIS. Further, it would appear that the Newcastle Plan is not consistant with the second draft of the Urban Development Guide particularly as it relates to the land uses within the area designated as growth reserve. Neither the proposed village concept on Cougar Mountain nor the low density residential designation of the East Renton Plateau appears to be consistant with the regulations espoused in the growth reserve area of either the Soos or East Samamish Plateau Community Plans. The City of Renton is quite concerned about the adequacy of the analysis of alternatives of the plan particularly a discussion of why Cougar Mountain is proposed to be developed and not the already partially developed East Renton Plateau. What types of housing capacity analysis were prepared for each of these areas? What comparative analysis was done on service, maintenance and operation of capital costs related to development of these areas? What analysis of the environmental consequences of preserving/not preserving Cougar Mountain were accomplished in the plan process? f i • • HAROLD ROBERTSON frk , r . NOVEMBER 3, 1981 *. : •.f a . $ ii PAGE TWO �� -r � � :::Asp#ps; a r• .,,.r ... • Can the one to two units per acre proposal function as an adequate growth reserve on the East Renton Plateau given the critical energy, capital, and service costs or is tF low density a permarent restriction? if the intent of the Newcastle Plan is to sharply limit residential development on the plateau, why was it not more appropriate to designate 5 - 20 acre minimum lot sizes to insure the future availablility of these lands as the need for development in the Renton area continues? Can the low density proposal on the plateau support the types of planning efforts for preservation of May Creek with such a small tax base spread over such a large geographical area? What are the positive and negative economic and environmental aspects of spread low density development versus compact suburban density development related to these issues? Given the :emphasis on the village concept, what analysis has been accomplished to determine its viability? What population will it accommodate? And, is this population the same as projected for locating in this vicinity? Will the housing needs of the projected population be accommodated in this setting? Will this rural site support multiple family populations, or will it be influenced by low density single family development? And, what are the consequences of the village concept not being accomplished during the life of the plan? With the potential dificulties in obtaining environmental and permit clearances in a sensitive environmental area such as this, is the 6-year time frame of this plan appropriate for the village concept? Based upon the discussion provided in the Draft EIS, the concept of on-site sewage disposal appears to be incompletely evaluated. The consequences of long-term on-site disposal appear to be directly in conflict with the general development guides desire to provide for infill, followed by logical extensions of urban growth. Can large acreages developed on on-site sewage disposal systems be redeveloped at a future time? Or will residential development be required to commence again beyond the fringe of the growth reserve once the time frame of this plan has expired? What population can be supported on on-site systems? How much less geographical area would be required to support the same population given a suburban residential density of 4 - 10 units per acre at key locations? Given the failures of the current on-site disposal systems documented in the EIS, what assumptions have been made as to the technical feasibility of long-term or.-site disposal? Given references in the Draft EIS to the sensitivity of most areas of the East Renton Plateau to on-site disposal, what consideration of alternatives for failure of long-term on-site disposal have been considered? Since cities surrounding the Newcastle Community Plan area have been defacto providers of most urban services, what consideration has been given to the economic feasibility of some of the recommendations regarding transportation systems, parks, energy, and other services, can the County's shrinking tax base support the proposed urban uses? Why is it not reasonable to assume that continued urban development of this unincorporated area will continue to overtax the county's ability to provide services, thus leaving the cities without the cost with comensurate revenues? In addition to the general remarks identified above, the following specific concerns related to the Draft EIS should be evaluated. 1 HAROLD ROBERTS NOVEMBER 3, 1931 PAGE THREE The Newcastle Community Plan recommends that future growth be located in areas with existing urban services and utilities. The Draft EIS does not address the unavoidable adverse impacts of this policy as implemented through the proposed land use plan, zoning and local sewer service area of the Newcastle Plan. While the City of Renton, through its adopted policies and comprehensive land use plan, does share the desire to limit urban sprawl and encourage infilling, the Renton Policies Element and Comprehensive Plan are not consistent with the Newcastle Plan in regards to the East Renton Plateau sub-area. The policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan call for a timely and logical progression of existing urban services to accomodate growth in an orderly manner. This is not to be confused with designating large portions of the planning area as appropriate for 1-2 units per acre single family development in perpetuity. The proposed Plan shows only a narrow fringe area adjacent to the Renton city limits for higher density single family growth, much of this area has been annexed to Renton and this is not available to support the housing anticipated in the unincorporated area. There is ro recognition of the housing, service and shopping needs of the south half of the Newcastle study area over the next 10-20 years. The current SR zoning in this area allows for smaller lot sizes as public streets and urban services are provided. Under the proposed zoning, a land use pattern will be set or expanded that will have significant long range environmental impacts. Rather than setting standards for expansion of the urban fringe and for monitoring the progress of urban services and the availability of vacant, unconstrained land, the Newcastle Plan proposes large lot development with on-site sewage disposal systems as a permanent land use pattern. The Draft EIS should examine the impacts of allowing development on 1/2 to 1 acre lots over the next 10-15 years on the East Renton Plateau. If development of this type occurs what are the comparable capital and O&M costs for; water, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, telephone, electricity and natural gas for the proposed spread development as compared to suburban density (4 - 10 units/acre) for the same population. Likewise what are the comparable service and energy costs for; road maintenance, police and fire patrol services, school facilities and busing, and parks and recreation. Moreover, once this development pattern is set throughout the area, the opportunity for redevelopment in a more efficient manner is lost. Housing demand 10, 20 or 30 years in the future, if substantial, cannot be satisfied in this area of large lot development. In effect, the Newcastle proposal for the East Renton Plateau will encourage long-term urban sprawl. This will occur in order to accommodate future development while land will only be available beyond the low density area. No discussion is provided on the effect of this development on more remote areas or areas with development limitations such as the growth reserve areas of Squak and Cougar mountains. The City of Renton's position is that growth along the urban fringe should be orderly and measured, but that there should be a mechanism for evaluating and approving utility and urban service extensions. Until such time as new areas for housing and commercial growth are needed, inefficient, large lot development should not be allowed, unless it is designed for future redevelopment to urban standards. We believe that the current Newcastle Plan proposal, while professing to protect semi-rural/semi-urban lifestyle, poses potential.long range environmental impacts which should be identified and evaluated. • Y4. • HAROLD ROBERTSON NOVEMBER 3, 1981 PAGE FOUR The Draft EIS inadequately addresses the concept of a new "village" and the potential impacts of implementing this concept. Much of the effort that was invested in developing the Newcastle Plan was apparently aimed at resolving the issue of the "new town(s)" in the Cougar Mountain sub-area. While the proposed concept of one village with up to 3000 housing units and a mix of uses has some attractive features, there are a number of questions raised by this proposal. The idea of a "new town" is untested here. Can a development proposal of this scope be put together successfully? If so, will it function as a village, i.e. will some of the needs of its residents be satisfied within the village, or will it function like a giant subdivision? Will it be energy-efficient? The Energy discussion in the Draft EIS implies that the village development will not be efficient, but this is unclear. What are the trade-offs involved in creating a village instead of designating areas near existing services and utilities to receive incremental growth? It appears that the Newcastle proposal depends heavily on the "village" concept.Yet, the Draft EIS does not examine the possibility that a village might not be approved or if approved not developed during the life of the Plan. The proposal is complex, requiring large amounts of investment--public and private. The Draft EIS should address what becomes of housing needs if the village is not realized. Further, because of the uniqueness of the village concept, what is the possibility that it will create its own housing demand and not satisfy a significant portion of the 2500-7000 housing units anticipated in the Newcastle area through 1990? In summary, there are a number of unique aspects to the village proposal. Therefore, the impacts of this proposal are difficult to predict, but could be significant, and the Draft EIS should examine the possible alternate scenarios resulting from King County adoption of this aspect of the Newcastle Plan. In short, what market research has been developed? What are the results? Does the village serve the anticipated housing need? Would failure of the village to be developed negate the utility of the remainder of the plan? The Draft EIS is virtually silent on the impacts of the proposed Newcastle Plan to the surrounding cities of Bellevue, Issaquah and Renton. If the proposed Newcastle Plan allows for fewer potential single family and multi-family units than the existing King County policies, will additional housing c+nmand--particularly multiple family housing demand—be shifted into the cities? What effect will failure of the village concept have on surrounding cities? What effect will the cost of spread development on the East Renton Plateau have on Renton. To a certain extent, such an impact may be desirable in terms of orderly, logical development, but the impacts should be recognized and discussed. Although the Draft EIS claims that existing parks and joint-use of school facilities will meet the recreational needs of the Newcastle community through 1990 with the addition of 21 acres of neighborhood parks, the actual situation is that recreational demand in the unincorporated Newcastle area severely impacts the park and recreation resources of the City of Renton. Nearly all King County parks in the area are undeveloped; and until such time as adequate recreation facilities are provided, new growth in the Newcastle study area will continue to impact the City of Renton, and Issaquah and Bellevue. These impacts should be recognized in the Draft EIS, especially in a time when Renton and other cities are making efforts to improve services and maintain facilities for the benefit of its own citizens. I 1 '"R " HAROLD ROBERTSC. . ` • . NOVEMBER 3, 1981 PAGE FIVE In relation to utility services, the City of Renton currently has a construction moratorium in the Honey Creek sub-basin because of limited capacity in the Sunset sanitary sewer lift station. In the area of N.E. 4th Street (S.E. 128th) and Union Avenue N.E., the City is fast approaching a similar situation because of limitations to sanitary sewer and storm sewer capacities. It is apparent that the City of Renton can accomodate only a certain amount of growth in the Renton Highlands/East Renton Plateau area without expanding utilities and services into areas that would open up additional growth potential. This is in direct conflict to the proposed Newcastle Plan policies which seeks to restrict urban density growth to areas already served by utilities. Therefore, under existing conditions and the Newcastle proposal, the possibility exists that commercial and housing demand cannot be satisfied in Renton and will be discouraged in unincorporated areas. What are the long term impacts of the Newcastle policies to land use and urban services in the Renton area? The proposed Newcastle Plan will have significant impacts to the City of Renton because so little commercial land use is designated in the East Renton Plateau sub-area. The N.E. 3rd/4th Street/S.E. 128th corridor e d the Sunset Blvd. corridor experience severe traffic congestion, especially during peak hours. If additional population growth in the unincorporated area is required to travel west into Renton for shopping and commercial services, the traffic impacts to local streets could be significant. The City's position is that neighborhood shopping needs should be satisfied close to the user population. What are the impacts to traffic and energy use that may occur from designating fewer areas for commercial use and from encouraging small-scale mixed residential-business uses along S.E. 128th Street? The long-term impacts to water quality and human health may be significant from the policies establishing on-site sewage disposal systems as permanent waste water solutions. The Draft EIS discusses the economic consequences of permanent on-site versus off-site sewage disposal. However, how do the economics compare when other service and capital costs (noted earlier) are also considered? The City of Renton intends to work diligently with the County in finalizing a Plan which meets our mutual needs. We await your review and comment on the concerns listed above. Very ruly yours, 1 / d7 id"K. Clemens Acting Planning Director DRC:cl cc: Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor City Council Planning Commission THE PROPOSED NEWCASTLE COMMUN'T`( PLAN The land use pattern in the Proposed Newcastle Community Plan is based on two major concepts: first, future growth should locate in areas which already have an urban or suburban character as well as existing or planned water and sewer service;and second,a single,planned com- _tiunity should be encouraged within the northern,western, or northeastern portion of the Cougar Mountain sub-area. The paragraph below describes in more detail land use patterns recommended throughout Newcastle. In the Northwestern sub-area, the plan calls for continued suburban residential development, mainly at 4-6 homes per acre with lower densi- ties in steep slope areas. New commercial and multi-family development would be allowed adjacent to Eastgate and at the intersection of Coal Creek Parkway and SE 72nd St. The East Renton Plateau would see a continuation of 1-2 homes per acre residential development,consistent with existing patterns and levels of service. Commercial and multi-family uses are recommended adjacent to the City of Renton. Squak Moun- tain and May Valley are recognized as sensitive natural areas and both are designated one home per acre or one home per 5 acres. The Fac- toria area is identified as the main center for commercial, office,and multi-family residential development in the Newcastle area.The Cougar Mountain sub-area would be considered a residential reserve. A density limit of one dwelling unit per 5 acres would apply except for the location of a village with up to 3,000 housing units and supporting commercial uses somewhere in the sub-area. The village would be located and designed based on a master plan process outlined in the Proposed Plan. Those portions of Cougar Mountain currently developed would be designated for a residential density of one home per acre. The most controversial land use issue during preparation of the Proposed Plan was development on Cougar Mountain. The proposed land use concept shown on the map below is called the "Chosen Plan Concept". It encourages development in one village,the acquisition of pro- perty for a regional park, and the designation of a large portion of the sub-area as residential reserve. Another concept,the"Alternative Plan Concept", is also described in the Plan. This concept would allow the development of 4 villages and a service center over a 15-20 year period. THE MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN The May Creek Basin Plan addresses both existing and future surface water problems within this drainage basin. It shares with the draft New- castle Community Plan a set of land-use and development policies, especially as they relate to drainage,wetlands, lakes,stream corridors,and flood plains. The major difference between these two documents is that the May Creek Basin Plan includes proposed capital projects involving land acquisition and facilities construction. r ; �,t,,sslj ;ice\ �(4:, _�1. 1 rl �I y r-�'"r. fie..,r ',, �7•;* -.t_� Il, -' t_\— + , ; be \\ 1 Iel . Newcastle ". ) k --r-- I �'.t-; Community Plan y I fl ,� - /aRc • 4 I T � I ;, �``. y I ii 1. A.AY a Ol1N Ion ....3 af (II �i { IIIii iII1IJ , ��I'IIIIpIII1IlI t Proposed Land (i.e '•' N�e-''1,^ ..! r 1-'(fin.. • t 1/ • I'/ �' t •5 l(p,• t ,. _ Sinyb Fanny Residential ....• `\ �e1..a•'.4,1IiIII •n1.11 1�•e3 Y�1r,t!�{�tht1 • ,~�) I/1 -`1 I 1 Unit/5Acne • t, ryry .i." �' 1 I ,i/ i •;::•:JG� :i::':: �.�U/i Siye F.niN Resetw r i ., .�N►�4•I I t� :� it (�1 • t (;;: ,I __ ` , 1 Umt/5 Acre,Chime Ai r..teen i '` I �• ..� I I :{t.., �J >r',y.. i hvl 7°�. _ 1 Unit/2.5 Aer.,Custer �1I 'I'll I it,'i ,fib / I ,, `e/,• n I'�C V / PNIIU7 \ ) 'nob Family Residential •.iw� l: .i,..f4 i:i$ ;:::i:1: i �° / N. tuorti .atwn. yy� .u.•I n�,j/.-I �+ 1r:dti•v.::: •:'... ..::'S.:1 \!' •4 •1111 `ft, .w.....j \\ 23 Units/Acre. ::iii: 1 f' [*a 4,e* '.'t '4.24. . to Ringdall Jr. High t n y :;; :,., :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:::•:::::•::::',$..:,:. --.,../ i \ f:, \ � �� II ': � y , 1 .,h lc 1 Ill I I l ilil 4, ..` -.. • •:; : 1/5,C `_.. ! t if 1 i IIII I�II�i��� • \, ' fie 11�1IRII1III :1111 .• . •a: C'` )._,.' - _,` a —'.s Issaquah Jr. High i y~�•> ee tillllllllll l • -...7 , I 1 . .' s� ./, . .. 1 ,; �tx ,r VStC '' ti, y ti ;t 2Aw,a s., * .s ` 'r1 liYP'Ip�ll1114111 % ` ~ Nt•' _ 1ddIIIIWWIIII �_- �� '' ..'al.-+-!•�� 11 • K+...AI1T ,,.,�•� \ ve.e•c 1\,1 f�'.11 ,` Single FeniN Reidentlal t • tI1 > Y ,;•.,. . 1 Ill�lill�ll 3♦Uniu/Acre — t-+•-I / uti "'•L '_ K ... ;:.:.•.:•� �'.� t \�•; . I..•'�, t18 Uniu/Acre -.`�hr •L. ': }•.v.• } t�•:•; 7a Unite/Acre .l.`�+_ Il ° ref::.:.x. 'i.,gN Vt./..C�{ ...1 Muhi-FatniN 8 TowtMtr •4 4 . 8.12 Units/Acre :::::: _ r fit. I m �•�i'• 2 B Units/Acre • �g' �W I T.._ a 2t Unit/Acn J III �11 f,:' n r r � � Aca r;. 2 32U u/ 1• MayCreek Drainage Basin :�:. C ee a tea a b 9 /. ICann.reiel I• p . 1 „ �i �- Office r V I :I / Neig hborhood Business I Community Burnes Mixed Um blenufecturing Perk i: • •: :i: •. 4 : : r i NPe.'e rkt o eire cl C RSnt heW rnunreiryv i f M dP 1 Mr 8 IT Renton IUD . . el K6mr. ekt/ - Rec netinAreMUn.R AM� J� • 11: • I fl� • School !Utility ryFecitnta L« • •• • o .II IlL Gravel Quarries.Clay Mime.•6� i�ra x.wn� �. �� LibertHihSchol: • ' I 1 � t� lll illlllll 1l .:y:::i 1 Tints Production. .lIi lit.i.-,,,,::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4- ..... ._ , ._ ___ . _,..., ,. , . .......„., . ".:..,„,..,..:..„..:.:.:.:.:.:.: ,,_, . .., ... _ . _ _ • _. 9v.,. mot- l, . •. '!�. 4 / t t � ` e F . _7 1,.......... - ; .„, ....,„ t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The King County Council will hold a public hearing to take citizen comments on the PROPOSED NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN AND AREA ZONING,DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,AND MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN: DATE: June 8, 1982 TIME: 9:30 ++w Fir PLACE: Council Chambers, Room 402 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue A panel consisting of Councilmen Bruce Laing, Bill Reams, and Gary Grant has been assigned to review these documents. In addition to the public hearing the review panel will take additional comments at the following three public meetings: Tuesday, June 15, 1982 Wednesday,June 16, 1982 Thursday,June 17, 1982 Issaquah Jr. High -Cafeteria Ringdall Jr. High - Cafeteria Liberty High School - Auditorium 400 First Ave. SE 11650 SE 60th 16655 SE 136th Issaquah,WA Bellevue,WA Renton,WA 7:30-9:30 p.m. 7:30-9:30 p.m. 7:30-9:30 p.m. The zoning for more than half of all property in the Newcastle area would be changed to implement the Proposed Plan. ATTEND AND EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS. If you are unable to attend any of these meetings, send your written statements to the King County Council, Room 402, King County Courthouse,Seattle,Washington,98104. Written comments must be received no later than June 21, 1982. The Planning Division will also be analyzing three additional alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Plan. Under the first alternative--recommended by the City of Issaquah--moderate infill would be encouraged but no village development would be allowed on Cougar Mountain. Under the second--recommended by the City of Renton-sewers and higher density residential development would be allowed on the East Renton Plateau and no village development would be allowed on Cougar Mountain. The third alternative rep- resents the revised proposal of the Central Newcastle Property Owners Association. It calls for the development of three villages and an employment center on Cougar Mountain over a 15 to 20 year period. A more complete description and preliminary analysis of these alternatives is available from the Planning Division. Comments on these alter- natives will be taken at the hearing and public meetings;written statements should be sent to the Planning Division,Room W-217,King County Courthouse,516 3rd Ave,Seattle,WA 98104. Written comments must be received by June 21, 1982. What is the Newcastle Community Plan? The Newcastle Community Plan, when adopted by the King County Council, will guide decisions on land use, densities,transportation networks, open space and recreation facilities,sewer and water service and capital improvements in the Newcastle area for the next several years. Adoption of the Proposed Plan would involve an expansion of the area approved for sewer service by King County. The map and text on the other side of this notice briefly summarize the Proposed Plan. How was the Proposed Plan Developed? The development of this plan began in 1978 when the County Council appointed a 21-member planning committee and gave it the responsibility of preparing this document. From October, 1978 to October, 1981,the committee worked with King County Planning Division staff, residents, and property owners to develop the Plan. Their work included reviewing available facts about the community, evaluating alternative land-use patterns, selecting a plan concept, and preparing the Proposed Plan. What is the Proposed Area Zoning? The Proposed Area Zoning is a document prepared by the King County Planning Division which recommends zoning changes in the Newcastle area. These recommended changes would put the land use portion of the Proposed Plan into effect. If this document is adopted by the County Council, the zoning of over half the property in the Newcastle would be changed. YOUR PROPERTY MAY BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED. You may also be affected by additional zoning changes requested by property owners at the public hearing and community meetings. What is the May Creek Basin Plan? The May Creek Basin Plan is a document which was developed at the same time as the New- castle Community Plan. It analyzed the surface water drainage system within the May Creek basin and, using the chosen land-use pattern in the draft Newcastle Community Plan, made recommendations for capital improvements involving land acquisition and facili- ties construction. What will happen after the public hearing and the public meetings? Following the public hearing and the community meetings the review panel will convene to discuss the Proposed Plan and Area Zoning. The Panel will"evaluate the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the oral and written comments received during the public review. They may then propose changes to the Proposed Plan and Area Zoning and recommend the documents to the full Council for consideration and adoption. Where can these documents be obtained? Copies of the Proposed Newcastle Community Plan and Area Zoning can be pur- chased or reviewed at the Planning Division office, Room W-217,King County Courthouse. They can also be reviewed at the following area libraries: Newport Way (14250 SE Newport Way), Lake Hills (15228 Lake Hills Blvd.),Issaquah (50 Rainier Blvd.N.),and Renton Main(100 Mill S.). If you have any further questions, call Brad Beck, Planning Division staff, 344-7600; and Sarah Stitler, County Council staff, 344-7464. Hearing Notice U.S.Bulk Poste King County PAID Division of Planning O W-217 King County Courthouse Seattle,WA. 516 3rd Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 Permit No. 1619 . `f .�, t 4 tiiq�< a� +n.. rY. 1 i•,A, „• • • I Hi . 4 ra •:3 L9' 4!IvN,i,.+ 162305-9033-02 2 SB-052316 1/; l it,* 'A :, "V CITY OF RENTON AC12813 �; �.._ .-4, 200 MILL AVE S � 98055 tif < RENTON WA •. Renton City Council 6/7/82 Page 2 Audience Comment - Continued Zoning - Colt requested the Eradco property be eliminated from the proposed Continued ordinance due to litigation in manner similar to Evans litigation matter. Colt requested the record indicate his request that Council avail itself to examining the last official action (Eradco matter) which is Ordinance #3113. Upon request Policy Development Director explained difference between the Evans and Eradco matters. CONSENT AGENDA The following business matters are adopted by the City Council in one motion which follows the items included: Subdivision and Letter from Policy Development Director Clemens reported conflict Uniform Fire between the Uniform Fire Code and the Subdivision Ordinance regard- Code Conflicts ing cul-de-sacs. Refer matter to the Public Safety Committee. Forward Thrust Letter from the Acting Finance Director requested resolution for Loan temporary transfer loans from Street Forward Thrust Fund at 8% per annum in amount of 5700,000 to the Current, Park and Street Funds pending receipt of tax monies. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Six-Year Letter from the Public Works Director Houghton and Traffic Engineer Transportation Gary Norris presented the City' s Six-Year Transportation Improve- Improvement Plan ment Program Up-date 1983-1988. Refer to the Transportation Com- mittee and set Public Hearing 6/28/82. Final Letter from Public Works Director Houghton presented final assess- Assessment Roll ment roll for LID #317 in amount of $40,692.20, waterline installa- LID #317 tion in South 132nd Street between 80th Ave. S and 84th Ave. S. Set Public Hearing on the Final Roll 7/12/82. Council concurred. One Valley Place Land Use Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman recommends approval with PPUD 022-82 conditions for Preliminary Planned Unit Development PPUD 022-82 Ventura Partnership, One Valley Place. Development for 325 multiple- family dwelling units located on the west side of Talbot Road S approximately 1200 feet south of SW 43rd Street. Council concurred. Utility Area Letter from Public Works Department noted recent State legislation Charges which prohibited Systems Development Charges and authorized Area Charges to be implemented by Cities for Capital Utility Projects . Refer to Utilities Committee to consider. Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA Approved AS PRESENTED AND INCLUDE ADDED ITEM. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Renton Merchants Association, Toni Nelson, President, Western Days announced annual Renton Western Days, Sidewalk Sale and Street Sidewalk Sale Fair 7/30-31/82 and requested permission to close off South 3rd Street Dance Street for parade and bed race 7/31/82 at 1 :30 p.m. The letter 7/30-31/82 also requested blocking off Wells Ave. S. between South 2nd and South 3rd Streets on Saturday 7/31 from 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. for street market and entertainment, as well as street dance. The Association suggested Williams Ave. South if Wells Ave. not avail - able. The letter noted insurance through Dan B. Hauff & Associates under SAFECO Policy and stated intent to work closely with the Police Department. City officials were invited to attend. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND ROCKHILL, CONCUR IN WESTERN DAYS EVENT AND FIRST CHOICE STREET CLOSURE AS MAY BE POSSIBLE, WITH REFERRAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR IMPLEMENTATING PROCEDURES AS NECESSARY. Mayor Shinpoch requested Police information. Newcastle Letter from Policy Development Director Clemens reported King LCommunity Plan County has scheduled hearings on the Newcastle Community Plan commencing 9:30 a.m. 6/8, and that as the City has recently adopted the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan which includes objectives for the area, a draft response to King County was included for Council review. The letter requested authorization for the Mayor or Council President to sign the response to King County. Clemens explained potential impact on the City , MOVED ROCKHILL, SECOND TRIMM, APPROVE LETTER RE NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY PLAN AND AUTHORIZE EITHER THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SIGN. CARRIED. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 7 , 1982 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P.M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President; ROBERT J. HUGHES, RANDALL ROCKHILL, COUNCIL MEMBERS RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED, NANCY L. MATHEWS AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. CITY STAFF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; IN ATTENDANCE MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk, RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Director; DAVID CLEMENS , Policy Development Director; LT. DONALD PERSSON, Police Department. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, Street Vacation published and mailed according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the Portion NW 4th public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of NW Fourth VAC 04-82 Street as petitioned by H. C. Grohs, Florence Yeager, Edward H. C. Grohs, Donohue and Timothy Schlitzer, abutting property owners. Letter et al from Public Works Director Richard Houghton recommended street vacation be granted at no fee, that a utility easement be required over the entire 60 feet. The letter noted street was platted in 1890, has never been opened to travel nor have any funds been expended for maintenance. Public Works Director Houghton explained petition had been filed previously with one signature and has been recirculated, signatures obtained 100% abutting property owners. Houghton further explained the street right-of-way subject to 1890 Street Vacation Laws. City Attorney Warren explained the law which was repealed in 1909, holding that if street was dedicated and was not opened within five years, the property reverted to abutting owners. Warren further noted the public hearing is proceeding in order to remove any ambiguity and keep records in order. Warren also explained adverse possession and also as concerns utility easements. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECOND REED, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, VACATE THE PORTION OF NW 4th STREET AT NO COST, CITY RETAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES , REFER MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR PROPER ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Bill Grimm, 1725 SE 16th St. , requested reading of his letter Street Vacation listed as Agenda Correspondence item. MOVED BY REED, SECOND HUGHES, Portion SE 18th SUSPEND ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO ITEM 7.c. CARRIED. VAC 05-81 Letter from Rolling Hills Homeowners' Assoc, President Wm. Grimm, Rolling Hills submitted an MAI appraisal for portion of SE 18th Street for proposed vacation in amount of $3,047.85 (6,773 SF X 5,0.45/SF) . Council had concurred in Committee of the Whole recommendation 2/22/82 recom- mending MAI appraisal be obtained by the Rolling Hills Homeowner Association. Association President Grimm recalled City appraisal of $4.20 per square foot or over $26,000, noting easements and that lot is not buildable. Inquiry by Kent Johnson re 513,000 fee, led to explanation that Council could charge up to 1/2 appraised value. Grimm requested Council accept the appraisal and complete the street vacation. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND MATHEWS, REFER MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL NEXT MONDAY NIGHT. CARRIED. Zoning James Colt, P.O. Box 547, Renton, inquired regarding an ordinance adopting the zoning map and changing zoning classification of certain property which had been on first reading 5/24/82. MOVED EY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, ADVANCE ORDER OF AGENDA TO DISCUSS ORDINANCE. CARRIED. Colt inquired re Ordinance #3113 regarding Eradco property zoning. City Attorney Warren cautioned Council that Colt has instituted suit against the City. Colt noted suit filed in King County Superior Court. Parks oa Views split over Newcastle projects Issaquah Alps members as well as other resi- make a recommendation within the next two weeks dents of the Newcastle area turned out Wednesday and the County Council is expected to decide on one night to give their views on a proposal to build more of the two plans by September. than$3.4 million in park projects for the area. The meeting was the third in a series to solicit The Alps members, proponents of the park public comment on the PRO/Parks Committee's project, already are volunteering their time ex- proposed $176.6 million bond issue with the King panding the trail system in the area. "We have County Council is expected to place on the ballot in people blazing trails on all the surrounding moun- November. tains,"Mr.nning said,adding that he disagrees with Proposals for the eastern portion of the county the argument that parks are too costly. include the Newcastle, East Sammamish and Some property owners argue against the park Snoqualmie Valley planning areas. Projects in- system that may include as many as 1,600 acres in dude $400,000 to buy an East Renton park site, an area slated for development. A development $1.55 million to expand and aevelop Coal Creek plan called the Newcastle "Villages in the Park" Park,$500,000 to expand May Creek Park,$350,000 would include three housing complexes accom- to buy a neighborhood park site at Factoria, modating some 30,000 people.Developers say the $600,000 for additional recreation facilities at plan would have as much as 1,000 acres of open Hazelwood Park and$400,0(,0 to improve a sports space,but regional park enthusiasts say the village field at Eastgate. plan would eliminate the regional park. If voters approve the bond issue,the committee An alternative, supported by pro-parks people, expects to come back to voters several years from would allow for one village with up to 9,000 now with a second bond issue for additional residents along with a 6,000-acre growth reserve. improvements at Factoria,Hazelwood,Coal Creek, County Executive Randy Revelle is expected to May Creek and other county parks. ewcasti dish ur • Waitresses Hopes for the preservation of the last vestige of a once bustling,rough• and-tumble coal-mining town north. By WINI CARTER "If they realized how many pie and He said the , east of Renton are resting now on z Staff Reporter coffee customers — and how many audits of e-t don't leave us anything at all . . . " over the yearmeeting at the King County Cour Smiles on the faces of those usual- she sighed, "One couple comes in differen forn�i thouse Thursday. It is at that 11 a.m.meeting that the ly cheery waitresses at the Red Lion every week and spends about$15 for sentative level • Inn are a little strained these days, dinner, but never leaves a tip." shifts. WTI- 1 Page A2 Wednesday, April 28, 1982 Record C Revelle mum on Newcastle Valley Newspapers' County Bureau Members of the Newcastle Community Plan Committee emerged from a meeting Tuesday with King County Executive Randy Revelle saying they were "sworn to secrecy"about what Revelle told them. The county executive had called the committee to his office to announce the recommendation he will make to the County Council Friday about the community plan. Revelle will make his position public at a press conference on Cougar Mountain Friday. "It was not a decision meeting, it was not a discussion, it was not a debate,"he said after the meeting. "It was a courtesy to the people who worked three years on the plan to inform them of my recommendations." Perhaps indicative of what Revelle told the committee was the broad smile on the face of Jean Baker, who supported the community plan which would limit development on Cougar Mountain. Before his election last November, Democrat Revelle declared his support for the community plan and its proposal for a 1,600-acre regional park on Cougar Mountain. The plan would allow one "village"with some 3,000 homes to be built on the mountain.