State board rules against Point Wells development

The state Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that while the proposed Point Wells condominium development presents a "unique opportunity," it doesn't meet the criteria for "urban center" density. (STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES)
The opponents of the proposed Point Wells condominium development on Puget Sound say they feel vindicated after the state Growth Management Hearings Board decided earlier this week that the 61-acre site was not properly designated as an urban center, our online news partner The Seattle Times reported Thursday.
In March, to the chagrin of residents of Shoreline’s Richmond Beach neighborhood, Blue Square Real Estate applied for and was granted a permit by Snohomish County for the project, which includes about 3,100 condominium units, as well as retail space, The Times said.

Although Point Wells is in Snohomish County, the only access to it is by a narrow, two-lane road, Richmond Beach Drive, which is in King County. Project opponents contend that traffic from the multiuse village would ruin Shoreline residents’ quality of life by clogging the streets. Read the entire story here.

12 Replies to “State board rules against Point Wells development”

  1. This looks like Snohomish County’s revenge for Brightwater. If you don’t know that story, King County was in charge of placing the Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant and initially chose to put it at Point Wells in Snohomish County. A lot of folks were angry that Snohomish County was going to get stuck with the disruption and a potentially smelly plant, but would get no voice in the decision.

    A protracted legal (and public relations) battle ensured and King County eventually relented. Now Snohomish County gets to make the permitting decision for a mega-development that sticks King County with the disruption. By approving this project, Snohomish County avoids a legal battle against a billion dollar development and sticks it to King County and the State.

    My wallet says I should be in favor of this project because it will bring tax revenue to Snohomish County without burdening our infrastructure. But I side with Shoreline that the road access is a huge unsolved problem that should stop this project cold.

    A bit of trivia: One of the two Growth Management Hearings board members is former Edmonds City Councilmember Dave Earling.


  2. Joe:

    A small correction; Brightwater was headed for Point Edwards before it was stopped by the Washington Tea Party – a group of primarily Edmonds citizens.


  3. I have scanned the full 81-page decision and noticed that Dave Earling was one of the 3 board members who signed it, so presumably he was one of the majority.


  4. Since he is one of only two board members, I presume they must have both voted as the article states or there would have been a stalemate. Other than that, I don’t have any information.


  5. Joe, the board has 3 members not 2 and Dave Earling is one of them. Each member is appointed by the Governor for staggered 6 year terms. As Ron said, Dave Earling was one of the 3 members signing the order. See page 75 of 81.


  6. On the history of Point Wells and Brightwater sewage treatment plant siting. Point Wells was on the first list of potential sites. The argument against it was that the asphalt plant on Point Wells was needed . Then King County had several other sites and Edmonds was one of the sites. It finally boiled down to two and Edmonds was in the final two. The Washington Tea Party of Edmonds fought against it and it ended up being sited where it is now. The treated sewage outfall pipe however is in the area of Point Wells.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *