Residents and business owners press Mount Rainier council for mediation as county investigates noise complaint

A months‑long dispute between neighbors and a downtown Mount Rainier business dominated public comment at the Jan. 6 mayor and council meeting, where residents urged mediation and business supporters warned that aggressive enforcement would risk local commerce.

Council member Danielle Carter, representing Ward 1, said she and colleagues had received dozens of emails from residents and asked whether the city had offered mediation, verified petition signers as adults and confirmed any thresholds in city code before referring the matter to the county. "Did you or a designated member of your staff investigate the petition to make sure all signers were 18 years or older and that 60% threshold was met?" she asked.

City Manager Karesh Kamali replied that the matter is now the subject of a county investigation with a court date next Thursday and that much of the information is not public. "We cannot release those information because it's not public," he said. Kamali said the city had responded to a public‑information (PI) request from the business owner and that staff and counsel would be available to present further details at a separate meeting. He offered to convene the city attorney and his director of code enforcement with council and residents to answer outstanding questions.

Several residents spoke during public comment in defense of the business owner, describing the business as invested in the community and urging that the city facilitate a dialogue rather than fast‑track county enforcement. Business owner Heather said she had received notices and that city staff had not attempted mediation: "We had no mediation, no conversation, the city with the city council, with the city staff, the neighbors, and us were not brought together." Multiple speakers stressed the business's role in the neighborhood and urged equitable handling.

Mayor Benitez told residents the council must be cautious because of the active county investigation and said staff would review submitted materials and follow up with a convening that can include all parties and the city attorney. "What limits the things that we can say is right now it's an active investigation," she said.

Kamali said staff had already provided information to the county and to the business owner under the PI request; he said the city would arrange a meeting to present evidence and answer questions once permitted by the legal constraints of the investigation.

No council action was taken at the meeting; members said they would review the emails and documents received and plan follow‑up with staff and counsel.