Residents press La Center council over notice, process and meeting timing during public hearing

At the June 25 meeting dozens of residents voiced objections to the timing of the council meeting and to how notice was provided for the downtown and Timon Landing subarea planning process. Multiple speakers said they had not received clear, individualized notice of zoning changes that could affect their property and urged council to delay action or provide additional outreach.

Several residents said they felt the meeting was rushed and that council members— attendance at an out-of-town conference (the Association of Washington Cities conference at 3 Rivers in Kennewick, where several council members were meeting) gave the appearance of reduced local representation. Council and staff responded that the meeting was public, that three council members were attending the conference but available, and that two years of outreach had been conducted.

Attorney Janine (city legal staff) explained that the council—s public-comment rules prohibit back-and-forth during the general public-comment period and that the public hearing on the Timon Landing/downtown subarea plans was the appropriate time for comments on that item. She said staff would collect contact information and follow up with individuals whose questions required staff responses.

Noted public concerns: Dennis Hill, a planning commissioner, said the planning commission had requested certified letters to all owners of parcels impacted by the plan and asked the council to confirm how many letters were mailed and how many were acknowledged. He said the planning commission believed additional direct notice was appropriate. Other commenters, including Carolyn and Bobby Defoe, asked for clearer parcel maps and objected to specific overlay zoning (urban public/open space) proposed for their properties.

Staff response and outreach history: Tracy Coleman told the council the subarea plan had been in process for two years and that the city had used multiple outreach channels including community advisory committees, focus groups, tabling events at city festivals, two open houses, online surveys (about 115 responses), notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet, the project website, and presentations to the planning commission. Coleman and other council members invited residents to schedule one-on-one meetings with staff to review parcel maps and concerns.

Why it matters: Property owners whose parcels are reclassified or overlaid told the council that confusion about notice and map clarity raises stakes for small owners who fear lost development rights or costs tied to new constraints. Several speakers asked for more time to review materials or for additional targeted mailings.

Ending: Council members said they would meet individually with concerned property owners and reminded residents that comprehensive-plan and code updates can be revised in the future; planning commission and staff also reiterated that the planning process had involved multiple opportunities for input over two years.