Saturday afternoon the public testimony concerning the development agreements for the two YarrowBay master planned developments in Black Diamond came to a close.

Phil Olbrechts, the city’s hearing examiner, heard testimony from about 60 members of the public with opening and closing statements from the Community Development Director Steve Pilcher and YarrowBay attorney Nancy Rogers from the Seattle law firm Cairncross & Hempelmann.

The hearing, which began July 11 at Sawyer Woods Elementary, lasted five days.

One more day of expert testimony was scheduled for Thursday after the Reporter’s print edition deadline.

The majority of testimony from the public voiced opposition to various aspects of the developments and the development agreements, but there were residents who testified in support of the projects.

Olbrechts took care to inform the public that his authority as the hearing examiner was to consider if the development agreements complied with the conditions set down in the MPD ordinances, which were approved by the council in September 2010.

The hearing examiner noted the development agreements were very broad documents taking in land use, mitigation, approved conditions from the MPD ordinances and vesting. Because of the scope of the agreements, Olbrechts stated early on in the hearing he would allow a wide range of topics to be discussed by the public.

Olbrechts noted in his pre-hearing order when the City Council considers the agreements it will be conducted in a closed record review, meaning only those who testified at the hearing can speak before the council and the discussion is limited to the recommendation from the hearing examiner on the development agreements.

Olbrechts wrote in the pre-trial order, “The net result is that the only opportunity for the public to provide new evidence that can be considered by the Council is in the hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner. Consequently, the Examiner must admit any evidence that would be relevant to Council review, even if that evidence may not be relevant to the Examiner’s review.

The hearing examiner noted later in the order, “At this stage of permit review it appears that the only requirement that can be imposed in the development agreements is implementation of MPD conditions.”

Public testimony in opposition included concerns about regional traffic congestion, the school mitigation agreement, known as the tri-party agreement, a financial agreement where the developer pays for staff to process the projects’ documents and the affect on the waterways including Lake Sawyer.

Testimony in support noted the positive affect on businesses and the care YarrowBay has taken in preparing the projects and communicating with residents.

Peter Rimbos, a Maple Valley resident and member of the Greater Maple Valley Area Council stated, “I and many others believe transportation is probably the most critical issue before us here.”

Rimbos said he thought the development agreements were, “sorely lacking in the detail department.”

He stated the new transportation plan is needed that addresses, “what traffic mitigation is needed, what it will cost, who will pay for it, when it will be put into place and how will it be maintained and operated.”

Gomer Evans, a Black Diamond resident and former mayor, spoke in favor of the developments pointing to the tri-party agreement for schools and planning for the projects.

“I have waited 50 years to see the development of Black Diamond happen,” Evans said. “Contractors have come and gone, with a lot of promises but no results…. With help from YarrowBay, professionals and consultants have been hired by the city to plan our development with the vision that we want and need to maintain our rural feel but provide the services that our community needs.”

Black Diamond resident Joe May, who is a candidate for City Council, stated in his testimony, “The developer has wanted certainty…. The city has done everything it can do to provide certainty…. The developer is not the only one seeking certainty. Most people I talk to want certainty, too. Certainty that the rural character, the historic character of our town won’t be erased. Certainty when we leave our driveways we’ll have the ability to travel around without gridlock. Certainty our lakes, streams and wetlands will not be degraded.”

In Pilcher’s closing testimony he stated the “Development agreement in itself doesn’t authorize any development of property. It simply authorizes the city to have the ability to approve implementing projects.”

Pilcher also said, “A lot of  the comments I heard were about things that are indeed addressed in the development agreement. So, I think if you dig in a little deeper, your concerns are being addressed. (It) may not be addressed the way you wish they were being addressed, but most of these concerns are being addressed.”

The funding agreement sparked considerable debate and criticism. Much of the critical comments centered on YarrowBay’s proposal to fund city staff needed to process the project permits and documents.

Bob Edelman, a Black Diamond resident and member of Towards Responsible Development, a group that filed a Land Use Protection Act or LUPA appeal against the MPD ordinance in superior court, stated in his testimony, “Probably the most egregious problem with the funding agreement is it would establish a virtual take over of a significant part of city government.”

Both Pilcher and Rogers stated the funding agreement between the city and YarrowBay is a case of growth paying for growth.

Pilcher addressed the criticism that the city was too friendly toward YarrowBay stating, “If we were too friendly it wouldn’t have taken nine months to get to the development agreement hearings. We would have just taken what they walked through the door with last December.”

Rogers said these development agreement documents were, “not just YarrowBay proposals. There was a lot of time and effort, a lot of give and take, that went into creating these documents.”

Rogers stated, “Much of what we have heard from the community stated as requests for supplemental conditions were really request to alter conditions and impose new conditions on the development agreements.”

The hearing examiner is expected to send his recommendation on the development agreements in late August or early September following a two week period for written comments and two business days for replies to the written documents.