Letter to editor: Black Diamond development will meet newest standards
Let's clear up confusion about YarrowBay plans in the city.
By Brian Ross
January 20, 2011.
In response to Robert McClure’s recent series of articles on development here in Washington, I’d like to clear up some confusion about YarrowBay’s Master Planned Communities (MPDs) in Black Diamond.
Mr. McClure used our developments as examples in stories about how the current vesting provisions allow developers to get around land use and environmental provisions by “vesting” under outdated and less stringent regulations.
That simply is not the case in Black Diamond. These MPD projects were reviewed under the most recently adopted, state-of-the-art City of Black Diamond Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations that formed the framework for review of these MPDs are the result of almost twenty years of legislative decisions. The City of Black Diamond culminated these years of planning and legislative decisions by updating and amending its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in 2009. YarrowBay’s MPDs are based on Growth Management Act-compliant Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations and the developments are not vested to rules that are “decades old.” For these reasons, reference to the Black Diamond MPDs within the context of these articles is misplaced.
Additionally, Mr. McClure states that the City of Black Diamond passed an ordinance that freezes in time restrictions on polluted runoff. This is simply not true. The Black Diamond MPDs will be built in phases over the course of many years and the Black Diamond MPD Code clearly states: “Vesting as to stormwater regulations shall be on a phase by phase basis.” This means that the entirety of the MPDs is not vested to the City’s stormwater regulations as they exist today. In addition to the City’s code, the City Council imposed many conditions controlling stormwater from the developed MPD sites. At YarrowBay’s request, those conditions included the commitment to incorporating specific new treatment technologies even if the MPDs would otherwise be vested to a lower standard. Some might call that an “anti-freeze.”
There is no “freeze” and YarrowBay is not using the state’s vesting laws to get an unfair break. We are committed to creating responsible developments that respect the natural environment.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 20, 6:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Hey Brian, we you give us all a little history of your dealings with Maple Valley Donut hole/Summit Pit Project? You remember that don't you? I really want ot hear about the campaign fundraiser for Ron Sims at corporate and the No-Bid deal you folks put together. Don't forget pushing through the zoning change and how you were going going to use the TDR program to increase density beyond what the City would have allowed had you been dealing with them rather than the County.
Posted Thu, Jan 20, 6:29 a.m. Inappropriate
Here is a link that covers the story from the SEATTLE TIMES.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20080102&slug;=donuthole02m
Posted Thu, Jan 20, 8:48 a.m. Inappropriate
Cameron's excellent point aside, it should be pointed out that McClure in his long career at the P-I never let actual facts get in the way of his biased "advocacy journalism."
Posted Thu, Jan 20, 10:26 a.m. Inappropriate
Cameron,
Bad link, please repost.
Posted Thu, Jan 20, 12:26 p.m. Inappropriate
This is from the January 2, 2008 Seattle Times under Community New if the link doesn't work this time.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20080102&slug;=donuthole02m
Posted Fri, Jan 21, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate
Brian is right, McClure is wrong. The Black Diamond deal conforms to current environmental laws and regulations and permanently protects thousands of acres for future generations. BTW-Camerons statement on the Doughnut Hole conveniently ignores the public bidding process that was required by King County.
Posted Fri, Jan 21, 3:06 p.m. Inappropriate
I take it you didn't read the story where they by-passed the public bid process Hansville. But don't let that stop you from having an opinion. Have you noticed the author has yet to respond...makes you wonder how proud he is of his actions and those of his company in the Maple Valley case.
Posted Sun, Jan 23, 2:03 p.m. Inappropriate
"The Black Diamond deal conforms to current environmental laws and regulations and permanently protects thousands of acres for future generations."
This is a mis-representation, smart-growth requires that an MPD be self-containd; work, housing, roads, facilities all within the MPD footprint. The Black Diamond MPDs are as far from smart-growth as it can be and located on rural roads, (3) schools, fire facilities, stormwater detention, sewer facilities are ALL outside the MPD footprint as well as the fact the Hearing Examiner determined that the MPDs will FAIL to meet the job creation requirements...that means two things, sprawl and long-communtes! Preserving acres at one sight but taking twice as much on the other side of town isn't good for the evnironment. The ONLY statement that is correct is that Stormwater is to vest with each Phase under the MPD code, let's hope this is one of the codes that the City of BD enforces.
Sidebar, a REAL procurement process on the Summit/Donut Hole should not have allowed the winning bid to have never been required to put a dollar in cash down or allowed for a non-monetary extensions. They needed to tie the County up with a promise of $51M so the County wouldn't interfere with the BD MPDs. Thank you Ron for messing up SE King County, HUD is a good place for you.
Posted Sun, Jan 23, 4:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Ross, you claim that we are afforded protection because stormwater regulations vest with each phase. OK. Now is the time to reveal when each phase will start. The normal definition of phasing is that activity is started on a preplanned schedule and that the phases are in sequence. Your representatives have said that you want to begin any phase at any time and not necessarily sequentially. That has the appearance of a loophole. You can demonstrate your sincerity by closing it.
Your promise to incorporate new treatment technologies raises questions. Why make such a promise unless you believe that existing technologies are incapable of preventing environmental damage from your development? Is your promise as simple as you stated or is it wrapped in legal language that makes it totally discretionary?
Posted Mon, Jan 24, 12:15 a.m. Inappropriate
OK, the above letter comes from the person who stands to become wealthier to the tune of millions if the MPD in Black Diamond is built. In fact, if Yarrow Bay gets all it has asked for, the profits will be simply enormous for the developer, who i suspect could easily make a huge profit by building only half of what they've asked for.
So, it's no surprise Brian Ross's PR people have had him submit this letter. And it's no surprise he has good things to say about his project.
But the rest of us have the freedom of being able to think long-term and about the true benefit of the community and the county and the state. And we know that this project will be more McMansions where people drive SUV's to the large paved parking lots with chain stores. We know most new residents will ignore Black Diamond's history and avoid the older "quaint" homes. We know conservation in the form of open space inside BD is being over-hyped and is really just leaving wetlands and required buffers alone.
Posted Mon, Jan 24, 12:23 a.m. Inappropriate
Forgot to mention:
The "state-of-the-art City of Black Diamond Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations" mentioned in the above article were written or revised with Yarrow Bay paying salaries of city employees as well as Yarrow Bay applicants working side-by-side giving input to the regulations over a number of years.
Posted Fri, Jan 28, 4:57 p.m. Inappropriate
Heard that YB missed their extension payment on the Dounut Hole, again! County isn't happy since this deal is already questionable. Let's see if the County takes it back out for a public bidding process (as should be required under public procurement laws)or if YB will get another non-monetary sweetheart deal by jamming the price down to the current value versus original PSA. The County is in a tough spot as it will leave $51M hole in someones budget and once again the developer will sweep in the force a deal.