Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors fault mediation and notice process; city staff say statutory requirements met
Summary
Opponents at the Aug. 6 hearing said council approved a mediation agreement without proper public notice or opportunity for comment; city staff replied that mediation and notice timelines complied with state statute and that the revised PUD returned for public hearing.
Several opponents told the council the approval process was procedurally flawed because council approved mediation and then the revised PUD without the public having the chance to comment on a mediation agreement. Speakers argued the council's preapproval of mediation undermined the public hearing requirement and cited local code sections they said required additional notice and review.
Director Sander and City Attorney Jones responded that mediation is permitted under state statute, that the city followed the required noticing timeline for the subsequent revised PUD and that the revised PUD came back to council for a public hearing after mediation. Jones framed the council's role as quasi‑judicial for this matter: "When somebody applies and says, I would like a PUD, then council puts on its other hat, which is a quasi judicial," he said, explaining decision criteria are limited to ordinance standards and that denying an application without a code‑based reason risks legal challenge.
