October 24, 2011

Planning Commission
City of Black Diamond
24301 Roberts Drive
Black Diamond, WA 98010

Subj ect: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes CPT-11-02, CPT-11-03

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the City of Black Diamond
Comprehensive Plan. Both changes noted above (CPT-11-02 and CPT-11-03) address the question: what
levels of residential density are appropriate for our community? A review of the history starting at the
BDUGAA serves as an excellent starting point.

The first documents that I have been able to find that outline specific population/density goals for the city
are the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) prepared in 1999 and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in the year 2000 related to the proposed Preliminary
Annexation Agreement (PAA) that was required as part of BDUGAA implementation. In the preferred
FEIS alternative, total Black Diamond households 'at build out were projected to be 7,105. This number
included existing households, further infill development/growth within the city plus full Master Planned
Development build-out. This was a long term 30 year view of the city. At the time, these projections also
included the annexation of Lake 12. Given that current planning assumptions no longer include Lake 12,
a downward adjustment of perhaps 200 to 250 households would be required to be comparable to current
planning.

So, to the point made my several people testifying before the Planning Commission last week
significant development and population growth was indeed planned dating back to the early days.

Fast forward now to the Comprehensive Plan approved by the Black Diamond City Council in June 2009.
This Comprehensive Plan established a total household target after MPD build-out of 6,302 units,
consisting of 1,578 existing households plus 4,724 new households to be built over 15 years, including
further city infill and full MPD development. In total, this is quite consistent with the 2000 PAA FEIS
density targets.

Then, approximately two months after approval of the 2009 Comp Plan, Yarrow Bay submitted MPD
proposals for both the Villages and Lawson Hills. These proposals totaled 6,050 new households to be
developed over 15 years excluding any other development within the city. By itself, this is substantially
above growth targets provided for in the freshly adopted Comp Plan. One would have thought that both
those recommending and those approving the 2009 Comp Plan would have understood such a big
variance was imminent, but apparently not.

In addition, Yarrow Bay has identified over 400 acres of additional expansion areas, that if developed in
accordance with existing density requirements oI 4 dwelling units (DU`s) per gross acre, would add over
1,700 more households to the city, still excluding any other residential development that can occur
consistent with existing city zoning. Yes, such expansion development would require a major
amendment to the existing MPD approvals. But, our current city code would clearly allow such
additional high density development and based on recent history, it would have to be approved by
Council.

A summary of all of these numbers follows:

City Residential Densities


2000 2009 2009
MPD +
Expansion

PAA FEIS Comp Plan MPD Submittals Total Build-Out


Existing Households 1,578 1,578 1,578
New Households 4,724 6,050 6,050
Total Households at Build-Out 7,105 6,302 7,628 7,628

Adjustments
Exclude Lake 12 -250
MPD Expansion Areas
Villages 384 acres @ 4 DU/gross acre 1,536
Lawson 60.5 acres @ 4 DU/gross acre 242
Other City Growth
Assume 50 acres @ 4 DU/acre 200

City Of Black Diamond Total Households
At Build-Out 6,855 6,302 7,628 9,606

City Population At Build-Out
At 2.68 Residences/Household 18,371 16,889 20,443 25,744

City Population At Build-Out
As Percent Of 2009 Comp Plan 100% 121% 152%

As shown above, our community is now faced with the potential for residential development densities
(unit count) over 50% higher than targets established anywhere in our history from the BDUGAA
forward. Why are these densities so much higher than targets previously provided in the 2000 PAA FEIS
and the 2009 Comp Plan? I believe that the biggest contributor to this gross expansion is the current
Comp Plan and BDMC requirement that minimum residential densities be 4 DU`s per gross acre.

In the history oI Growth Management in our state, 4 DU`s per acre is generally considered to constitute
'urban density. However, 4 DU`s per acre reIers not to gross acres, but instead reIers to 'net residential
acres. II you read the 2000 FEIS, you will Iind that all reIerences to residential densities reIer to the
areas of residential development and not the entire area that would include wetlands, schools,
commercial/office development etc. In addition, the guidelines established in 2007 by CTED,
Washington State`s Commerce, Trade and Economic Development agency at the time, explicitly
references 4 DU`s per net acre as the appropriate urban density standard, though even this level of density
in UGA`s is no longer considered to be a minimum. Urban density below the Iormer 'bright line oI 4
DU per net acre is now widely accepted, particularly outside of the Seattle and Bellevue urban centers.

Attached Ior your reIerence is a copy oI CTED`s 2007 publication that provides a clear example oI how
these densities are to be calculated based on net acres, not gross. Why net acres and not gross acres?
Following is a spread sheet that illustrates the dysfunction caused by the use of gross acres.

To simplify the calculations, I have used 100 acres as the size of a development.

Gross Versus Net Densities


Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4


Commercial & Office 60 0 25 85
Sensitive Areas & Buffers 10 30 40 10
Schools 0 50 25 0
Residential 30 20 10 5
Total MPD Acres 100 100 100 100

Minimum Required DU's
Based on Gross Acres 400 400 400 400
Based on Net Acres 120 80 40 20

Residential Density
(DU/Acre)
Based on Gross Acres 13.3 20.0 40.0 80.0
Based on Net Acres 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Although it`s pretty absurd, our current code would require residential density oI 80 dwelling units per
residential acre for a proposed office or commercial development within an MPD as illustrated in
Example 4. This equates to a requirement for placing 400 homes on just 5 acres. In Example 3, a density
of 40 DU`s per acre, or 400 DU`s built on just 10 acres, would be required due to the sizeable sensitive
areas and buffer component in this example. In TDR receiving areas, developers are given a very big
incentive to acquire cheap, but undevelopable wetlands, because it would allow much higher density
within the developable areas. It is worth noting, that average residential density with the Villages MPD is
nearly 9 DU`s per net residential acre as a direct result of this gross versus net acre phenomenon.

It`s also worth noting that current code requires any development exceeding 80 acres to be developed as
an MPD, including this residential component. Assuming that Intel or Microsoft or some other very
attractive employer wished to develop an office and research complex within a properly zoned part of the
city, they would be unable to do so because oI the requirement that all MPD`s have 4 residential DU`s per
gross acre.

For Yarrow Bay`s current Council approved MPD`s and 6,050 DU`s, the horse is already out of the barn
concerning this gross versus net issue. Turning back the clock and making retroactive changes would
likely not be legally sustainable. However, looking ahead, we can and should make changes in the Comp
Plan and BDMC that would limit future residential densities to more appropriate levels and remove the
requirement that all MPD`s have a residential component.

Mr. Kombol of Palmer Coking Coal, city staff and others raised concern during public hearings before the
Commission about the potential adverse impact of these changes on the TDR (Transfer Development
Rights) program. To better understand these concerns let`s Iirst look at current TDR data:

Total TDR`s issued to Black Diamond TDR Sending Area property owners:
Per Palmer Coking Coal Records 2,878
Per City Records 2,984

Total TDR`s required Ior purchase by Yarrow Bay to develop currently approved 6,050 DU`s:
At 50% 3,025

Clearly, the difference between city records and historical records needs to be reconciled. However, in
any event, it would appear that the balance between TDR`s issued to sending area property owners and
TDR`s required to be purchased by Yarrow Bay Ior their currently approved MPD`s are reasonably in
balance. And this is good and appropriate. As noted in the testimony of Mr. Kombol and others, the
TDR program has a long history grounded in the respect of long time property owners within the City of
Black Diamond that they be compensated for the loss of their development rights even though these
properties would not be developable today given current Sensitive Areas Ordinances etc. They have paid
property taxes on these lands for all these many years and deserve to be compensated for their property.
This is how TDR sending areas were defined. Living to these historical understandings and agreements
must be respected and clearly would not adversely impact TDR sending area property owners. So,
what`s the problem?

The problem is that a previous City Council decided several years ago to issue the city 1,000 additional
artiIicial TDR`s as if the City owned a TDR printing press. If we count the 1,000 additional arti ficial
TDR`s, now the program does become significantly out of balance. Yarrow Bay needs just 3,025 to
implement their currently approved 6,050 DU`s, but the TDR`s available Ior sale now total, according to
city records, 3,984. Mr. Kombol, in his testimony, calls this a 30% tax on current TDR sending area
property owners. I call this a gross corruption of the TDR program. These 1,000 artiIicial or 'Iake
TDR`s as some have called them, do nothing but serve to penalize current sending area property owners
and totally distorts the purpose of the TDR program as originally envisioned. If the City can arbitrarily
decide to run the printing press Ior 1,000 artiIicial TDR`s, why not 2,000 or 3,000? It makes no sense.

I believe that the answer is obvious. The TDR program was initially established for a purpose. That
historical purpose must be respected and not be corrupted. And clearly, the printing of artificial TDR`s
cannot/should not be used as a basis to push residential densities in our City far in excess of anything
previously envisioned, nor suitable for our community today.

Therefore, I urge the Planning Commission to fully respect this history. Making the changes to the Comp
Plan as I have recommended (CPT-11-02 and CPT-11-03) will go a long way toward insuring that our
community is able to rein in and maintain at least some control over the future growth of our community.
To protect historical TDR sending area property owners from the compromised position they now find
themselves in as a result of past Council action, I fully support either of the two following additional
conditions:

1. As recommended by Mr. Kombol, have the current City Council, as part of current changes to the
Comp Plan and BDMC, eliminate/vacate the current 1,000 artiIicial TDR`s granted by past Council
action; or

2. Require that 98 oI all sending area property owner TDR`s be purchased by Yarrow Bay to IulIill
their TDR purchase requirements prior to the City`s sale oI any oI the 1,000 artificial TDR`s created by
past Council action.

I thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,



Craig Goodwin
29044 222
nd
Pl. SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010