“Arbitrary and capricious”: Developer sues Black Diamond over delayed project review

Published 10:49 am Thursday, July 30, 2026

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a quote from Oakpointe CEO Brian Ross.

A developer is suing the city of Black Diamond for allegedly delaying its project to favor housing developer Oakpointe.

Two suits were filed recently by Diamond Square, which applied for a permit with the city six years ago to develop a lot at the northern edge of the city into a “premier” retail complex.

But Diamond Square claims in two lawsuits, one filed with the state on June 1 and another filed with King County on July 22, that the city “unreasonably” delayed the issuance of the permit by demanding irrational changes to its plans to benefit the Oakpointe and its properties and violating both city ordinances and state law.

The lawsuit filed with the state focuses on a the construction of a water main, and the lawsuit with the county focuses on the delayed permit approval. However, the claims in both suits are the same: Black Diamond and its former employee Andy Williamson’s “arbitrary and capricious review” of Diamond Square’s application resulted in the significant escalation in construction costs, various fees, lost tenant opportunities — including a MultiCare medical facility — and more.

The city has filed to move the state lawsuit into the King County Superior Court, but has otherwise not responded to either lawsuit and declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

Oakpointe is not named as a defendant, but CEO Brian Ross said his company was not aware of the lawsuit “and it’s unclear how the review of a separate development permit relates to our ongoing work in the city.”

In a separate but related issue, Oakpointe alleged earlier this year that former city employee Andy Williamson was paid for hundreds of hours of unapproved overtime, and that the city’s review of the Ten Trails development process was “unreasonable and protracted,” denying claims that Williamson favored Oakpointe.

Williamson is currently under investigation by the Kent Police Department for alleged, unspecified financial wrongdoing, but has not been charged with a crime.

Each lawsuit is asking the court to find that the demand of the water main violates city code and state law, that the delay of issuing the development permit was similarly unlawful, and monetary relief.

THE CLAIMS

While both lawsuits focus on different, specific aspects of its development project, the allegations stem back to the same claims of “regularly demanded changes” to its permit application “without any rational basis,” and that “[o]ften, new comments would conflict with prior comments, undoing the changes that were demanded by prior comments.”

The developer said the only purpose of these changes “was to favor and serve Ten Trails.”

One example given was the city’s “demand” that Diamond Square install a 500 foot, 12-inch water main along its property’s frontage to serve a Ten Trails development to the direct north, and not the Diamond Square development.

“Despite Diamond Square’s requests for information from the city demonstrating that the… water main was necessary because of Diamond Square’s project, or that the… water main would benefit the project in any way, the city was never able to provide documentation or justification,” the lawsuit reads.

But before the permit was issued on May 5 of this year, the developer discovered an Oakpointe property to the north proposed its own water main, which if constructed would render Diamond Square’s water main “useless.”

“The city has known that the adjacent property owner intended to construct a… water main for its own benefit for over a year… yet the city never brought these facts to Diamond Square’s attention,” the lawsuit reads.

Diamond Square claims that city employees, and specifically the Planning Division, were aware of the situation, but were unable to do anything.

“During the course of review, city employees expressed to [Diamond Square] that they knew the city’s demands were unreasonable and/or unlawful, but they feared for their jobs if they attempted to intervene” on the developer’s behalf, the lawsuit reads. “… Members of the city’s planning team could not believe they were told to demand… the water main as a condition of the permit.”