It must be high noon in Black  Diamond because the lawsuits appear to be in the holsters and ready to be drawn.

The Black Diamond City Council approved a resolution April 5, authorizing Mayor Rebecca Olness to file a lawsuit against YarrowBay.

The text stated the resolution “authorizes the mayor to file a lawsuit for a preparatory judgement and other appropriate relief seeking an initial determination that MPD (master planned development) application PLD-11-0020 and PLD-11-0021 are invalid or should otherwise be rejected.”

The resolution passed unanimously.

The proposed lawsuit involves second master planned development applications for The Villages and Lawson Hills filed by YarrowBay at the end of 2011 that was accepted as complete by the city staff.

The first MPD permits for The Villages and Lawson Hills were approved unanimously by the City Council in September 2010. The MPD ordinances were challenged by the group Toward Responsible Development in October 2010 both in King County Superior Court with a Land Use Petition Act appeal and before the Growth Management Hearings Board.

The board ruled the MPDs should have gone through a legislative rather than quasi-judicial process for approval and remanded them back to the city.

The state appeals court unanimously overturned the board’s decision.

Toward Responsible Development filed a petition for review with the state Supreme Court and a decision whether the court will accept the petition is expected April 24, according the YarrowBay letter. The Supreme Court is not required to render a decision on the date.

According to earlier statements, YarrowBay filed the second application in case the court decisions went against them.

At the Thursday meeting — following an executive session and prior to passing the resolution — Councilman Craig Goodwin read a letter from Brian Ross, YarrowBay’s chief executive officer. That letter, dated April 4, had been sent to the council and mayor and dealt with the potential of the city filing the lawsuit.

The letter questioned why the city would decide to file a suit and noted the MPDs are approved and, “YarrowBay will be moving forward.”

The letter stated, “YarrowBay is ready to aggressively use the Court system to enforce its property rights. Instead, litigation will only prevent the City from having meaningful input on behalf of its constituents on elements of the development.”

Ross wrote in the letter that YarrowBay will “not only defend this case, but will pursue all available counterclaims. We have not yet brought our claims for a variety of violations of the Open Public Meetings Act, but a lawsuit from the City will force our hand.”

The letter also stated YarrowBay could pursue damages for the city “intentionally delaying processing of the implementing permits for the MPD build-out.”

After Goodwin read the letter, Councilman Ron Taylor said, “We as a council have been wondering how we handle the duplicate MPD applications. It is certainly not the intention on my part to sue YarrowBay for damages or monetary relief or anything like that. We’d like to get an idea who is right. Are these second MPD applications right?”

Taylor said he thought the letter was “pretty bold. I guess I call it blackmail. Unless we play ball we get both barrels.”

Goodwin said the issue had nothing to do with the approved applications.

“This is about the second MPD application and trying to find a common ground with YarrrowBay,” Goodwin said. “We have not been able to do that. Now we are faced with the threat of bankrupting the city. Unless you agree with us we will sue. We are at a critical point in the development of this. When do we as a city stand up for ourselves in the face of overwhelming financial pressure from the other side?”

Following the vote on the resolution, Ross spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, stating Goodwin and Taylor had “completely mischaracterized the content of that letter. Nowhere in that letter did we ever threaten to bankrupt the city. Those are your words, not mine.”

Ross also said, “The city accepted the second application and deemed it complete.”

He stated YarrowBay paid $200,000 for the second applications.

“We are working hard to protect our property rights,” Ross said. “Exactly where in the city code do you have a problem? It saddens me we find ourselves in this position tonight.”

A second letter was sent to the city April 6, by Megan Nelson, director of legal affairs for YarrowBay.

Nelson wrote YarrowBay is “both concerned and frustrated regarding the City’s lack of progress on several important issues, which are impeding development permit review related to The Villages and Lawson Hills MPDs.”

Nelson requested in the letter the review of “The Villages Phase 1A preliminary plat to begin immediately”

She wrote YarrowBay plans to start building this year.

“To cause substantial delay is extremely harmful and costly to YarrowBay’s projects, not to mention contrary to the express intent of the State Legislature supporting the 120-day permit clock,” Nelson wrote, citing state law.

Legal resources consulted by this publication stated that Olness is not obligated to file the suit authorized by council due to the Constitutional separation of powers.

The sources also noted if the city does not have a code prohibiting duplicate application, one can legally be filed. Once the application is deemed complete the application is vested under state law. According to sources, once a project is vested, it is very difficult to undo the action.