Loading...
1992-40357-Minutes for Meeting November 10,1992 Recorded 11/25/199292-40357 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS {•v.. Tuesday, November 10, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; George Read, Planning Director; and Karen Green, Community Development Director. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 92-110 CONCERNING ANNEXATION OF EAGLE CREST PHASE II TO RFPD #1 Before the Board was a public hearing concerning Order 92-110 which would annex territory known as Eagle Crest Phase II to Rural Fire Protection District No. 1. Bruce White said that no comments had been received on this matter. Chairman Maudlin opened the hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. MAUDLIN: I request a motion for signature of Order 92-110. THROOP: I'll so move. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. ORDERS 92-126 AND 92-127 ESTABLISHING ENTERPRISE DRIVE AND VENTURE LANE AS COUNTY ROADS Before the Board was signature of Order 92-127 establishing all of Enterprise Drive as a County Road, and Order 92-126 establishing all of Venture Lane as County Road. These roads were in the Sunriver Business Park and had been constructed to County standards. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order 92-127. Also move signature of Order 92-126.'1E n THROOP: Second the motion. Df VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 1 MINUTES: 11/10/92 0*119-1563 3. WARRANTY DEEDS Before the Board was signature of two Warranty Deeds acquiring right of way on Brookswood Boulevard and Powers Road. THROOP: I'll move approval. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN SCHWECHTEN Before the Board was signature of a Personal Services Contract with John Schwechten to provide therapist services for the sex offender treatment program. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Personal Services Contract. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR DESCHUTES RIVER TROUT HOUSE Before the Board was Chair signature of Liquor License Renewal Application for Deschutes River Trout House. SCHLANGEN: Move chair signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly bill in the amount of $182,261.42. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 11/10/92 7. M 9. VOTE: THROOP: YES 0^1 + 7w1 SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ORDER 92-129 AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF CDD REVENUE FUND Before the Board was signature of Order 92-129 authorizing and directing the Deschutes County Treasurer to invest excess revenue balances in the CDD Revenue fund in a legal investment with interest income credited to the fund. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Order. SCHLANGEN: I will second that. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES STF DEMONSTRATION ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH ODOT Before the Board was signature of an Special Transportation Fund Demonstration Assistance Grant Agreement with the Department of Transportation. This grant would provide financial assistant to the County to complete a special transportation demonstration project. THROOP: Move chair signature. SCHLANGEN: I'll second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES HOLDING ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR BROKEN TOP Before the Board was signature of a Holding Escrow Agreement for Broken Top Limited Partnership. Rick Isham said this agreement would guarantee funds for the curbs and bicycle paths on which the Brokentop Subdivision would be required to build in the future on Mt. Washington Boulevard. The agreement required that a small sum from the sale of each lot be placed in a holding escrow fund, and when they reached a certain level of "buildout," the requirement to complete those facilities would be activated. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Holding Escrow Agreement. SCHLANGEN: Second. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 11/10/92 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. ORDER 92-128 CONCERNING EAGLES ROAD Before the Board was signature of Order 92-128 changing the name of Eagles Road to Eagle Road. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. HIDDEN GLEN SUBDIVISION PHASE II PLAT Before the Board was signature of City of Bend plat for Hidden Glen Subdivision Phase II located off Ross Road for Hidden Glen Partners. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. APPEAL OF DECISION ON DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING Before the Board was discussion on whether to petition the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision on Destination Resort Mapping to the Supreme Court. Bruce White said the Court of Appeal's rendered a decision on October 21, 1992, upholding the LUBA remand of County Ordinances 92-002 and 92-003 concerning mapping in the Destination Resort Package. The petition would be due on November 25, 1992, and had to include a brief, therefore the decision had to be made soon. The Court of Appeal's decision had relied on the "express language of the three-mile requirement from the goal and the destination resort statute." The County's arguments had focused on the context of the land use planning system, and the court found these arguments not to be persuasive. He advised the Board that it was difficult to overturn a decision based upon expressed language of a statute or a goal, however he felt the County had made arguments which were worthy of consideration. Filing a petition for review did not guarantee that the Supreme Court would hear the issue. If the County PAGE 4 MINUTES: 11/10/92 01 19-15ou filed the petition, it might take up to 1-1/2 years to get a decision. During that time, the County would have to deal with the issue of whether the County could proceed to complete the mapping until a decision on the petition was made. He did not know whether Mr. Gardner would be appealing the decision. Commissioner Throop said he didn't think the County should appeal to the Supreme Court since it would just delay all of the proceedings which needed to more forward, i.e. Eagle Crest. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that if Mr. Gardner appealed, the County would be delayed anyway. Bruce White said that was correct, since if Mr. Gardner appealed, the County would "not have a remand back to us." Then the County would be proceeding on an ordinance which was still subject to challenge. "The mess would still be there." Commissioners Throop and Maudlin did not think that Mr. Gardner would appeal this decision. Commissioner Schlangen was disappointed in the decision, but also felt the County needed to move forward with its process. The Board decided not to proceed with an appeal of the Court of Appeals' decision. 13. AWBREY GLEN PHASE ONE SUBDIVISION PLAT Before the Board was signature of City of Bend Subdivision Plat for Awbrey Glen, Phase One for Brooks Resources. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. PROPOSED PGT/BECHTEL PIPELINE STAGING AREA AT KNOTT PIT Chairman Maudlin said PGT/Bechtel had worked with the County Public Works Department for several months since they needed to submit a proposal to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to site some portable office buildings and a fueling station on property owned by Deschutes County on 27th Street near Knott Pit. He understood that PGT/Bechtel had not been notified that they needed to get a land use permit from the Planning Department. They made an agreement with the Public Works Department, however when they came in to get a lease, they were told they had to get permits for the land use process first. Then they found out they couldn't get a permit since the property was zoned for surface mining, and their PAGE 5 MINUTES: 11/10/92 01-19-15C7 7 project didn't meet the requirements for that zone. He said the Board had asked George Read, Planning Director, to find a way to allow PGT/Bechtel to use this site. Larry Rice, Public Works Director, said that many months ago, the representatives from the construction company approached his office for possible sites for their project. Al Driver, Director of Transportation and Solid Waste, asked him if the County site next to the landfill would be available, and he said yes since there was no internal departmental problem with using that site. He had asked Mr. Driver that morning if he had given any type of lease or agreement or assurance to PGT/Bechtel indicating they could use that particular site, and Mr. Driver said "unequivocally no." Mr. Driver specifically stated that he had referred them to the County Property Manager early in the discussions since the Public Works Department did not manage County property. He felt that was where there had been a breakdown, since PGT/Bechtel did not contact the County Property Manager. George Read submitted the attached memorandum to the Board. He said the proposed use was not permitted in this zone, and he couldn't "figure out a way to stretch anything in the surface mining zone" to work for the proposed use. He said the County made a commitment to the public when the surface mining zones were established that the County wouldn't allow industrial uses in surface mining zones, and therefore the uses in surface mining zones were limited. He said Chairman Maudlin had suggested that the proposed uses be considered "similar uses" to those allowed in the surface mining zone. He felt it was possible that the County could make a determination of a similar use when the use wasn't listed somewhere else, and the construction site wasn't clearly a listed use. However, the only uses allowed were surface mining related uses. He felt the closest similar use was under excavation of minerals where it said, "building structures, apparatus, equipment and appurtenances necessary for the above uses to be carried on." He pointed out the timing problems outlined in his memo. He said the City was already getting calls from people who were concerned about truck traffic. The normal process would take approximately 40 days. The minimum possible time would be 13 days. He said there was a potential for a temporary use permit, however there had to be findings that there was a severe need and there were significant problems which required the permit to be expedited. He felt that decision would also be appealable and would require notice. The Planning Department had worked with PGT on the site in the LaPine Industrial Park, and they were told from the beginning that this use would require an industrial zoned site. A industrial zoned site was approved in LaPine, and they had a current, valid permit to operate in LaPine. Since this was a FERC project, there was a PAGE 6 MINUTES: 11/10/92 o*1.9- 1k. JV3 possibility that if the County was federally preempted from regulating the siting of the pipeline, that the County was also federally preempted from regulating uses in conjunction with that type of use. The site plan that had been submitted was inadequate, therefore he did not have adequate information in order to make a judgement. For even a temporary use, the county would have to make findings that it appeared the site plan would be approved in the form submitted and there wouldn't be impacts. He thought a DEQ permit was required for a fueling operation, and the County was required to sign a certificate of land use compatibility stating it was in compliance with all local land use regulations. The same was required before an electrical permit could be issued. Commissioner Throop said the November 10th memo included considerably more information than what had been available at the informal discussions when the Board tried to find a way allow this project. He had not realized that CDD had been communicating with Bechtel for months and had told Bechtel that this kind of use would have to take place in an industrial zone. He also didn't realize that this was the same use that had been discussed for the LaPine Industrial Park. George Read said he was only made aware of the situation at the 27th Street site last week. Commissioner Throop asked if the use being proposed at the site on 27th was the same use which had been proposed for the LaPine Industrial Park. Brad Chalfant said to his knowledge it was not an identical use, but would defer to Bechtel on that issue. He had not seen a description of what facilities they were proposing to place on the Knott site. His first contact with Bechtel or a Bechtel representative, concerning the proposed project on 27th, was October 23, and it was on his initiative after having a number of conversations with Al Driver. Mr. Driver had told him that Bechtel was looking at the possibility of leasing this site. He received a schematic of the land Bechtel was interested in but had not heard anything from Bechtel even though they had been told by Public Works to contact him. He contacted Willbros Energy, which was a subcontractor to Bechtel on this project. He told Willbros Energy that the County was very interested in leasing the property if the Public Works Department didn't have a problem with it, however they would have to talk with Planning before they could proceed any further. Apparently they had not discussed this site with Planning at that time. He directed them to meet with Planning to determine precisely what the uses would be and whether the site was appropriate. He had not seen a site plan nor any listing of what activities would take place at this site, so he could not comment as to whether the activities were identical with those proposed for the LaPine site. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 11/10/92 Rick Isham said that the draft lease which was prepared for LaPine was for a pipeline staging area where they would be off-loading inventory and delivering pipe to different portions of the project. He thought they proposed incidental offices there, however it was primarily a pipeline staging area. Warren Herzog, Bechtel, said the LaPine site was for a pipeline "lay down area." He had just read the memorandum from George Read. Concerning traffic, he said there could be a problem although the pipeline would be constructed close to the end of June or first of July. Commissioner Throop asked whether he had been aware that there was zoning in the County, and he therefore needed to determine where his use would fit into the County zoning which would require making a use application? Mr. Herzog said he had not been involved in this process until last Thursday. The contractor, Willbros Energy, had the responsibility of furnishing the lands for the trailers and furnishing the trailer. Then Bechtel would move into their facilities on their site. When they determined they didn't have telephones or heat for the trailers, they figured something was wrong. When they asked, they were told that a lease had not been signed, therefore his boss told him to get involved and find out why. He felt the "ball was dropped," and he was "here just to get it done." He asked whether the County wanted them on this site and how the matter could be expedited. Commissioner Throop asked what process was used in selecting this site. Mr. Herzog said he wasn't involved in that discussion. Chairman Maudlin said the subcontractor took care of finding the site, and the subcontractor worked with Al Driver from Public Works. He understood that they had all agreed on the property. Commissioner Throop said he felt what Mr. Rice had said was that Mr. Driver was focused on the Public Works Department ownership of the property, not on whether it was an acceptable use for the property. Mr. Rice said they only got involved in the operational end of the process, i.e. would the site work for them. Mr. Driver had worked with Willbros Energy on the location of this site, but didn't enter into any lease or contract. In the beginning, they were referred to Brad Chalfant, Property Manager, to work out a lease. Commissioner Throop said this request from PGT -Bechtel placed the County in a very difficult position since nobody had done any zoning or permitting work. He asked how many sites like this that they would have in Deschutes County, and Mr. Herzog said one. Commissioner Throop asked if this site would serve the same function as the LaPine site. Mr. Herzog said no, the LaPine site was a pipe storage yard, while this site would be PAGE 8 MINUTES: 11/10/92 0111-9-1570 the "lay down area for the offices, the contractor, and for Bechtel." Commissioner Throop said he was trying to understand how a contractor with a project of this incredible importance and sophistication would think they could get that kind of a staging area without going through some kind of a process. Mr. Herzog said "they shouldn't in any way feel like that." Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that they did apply to FERC which took them two months. Mr. Herzog said that was their biggest problem now, since if they had to go to another site, they would have to go through FERC approval again. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that this pipeline was going to go right through the proposed site so there was going to be increased traffic in the area in any case. He understood they only wanted to place four or f ive portable of fice buildings on the site with a DEQ -approved portable refueling tanks for pick ups and light trucks. Commissioner Throop expressed concern about how the increased truck traffic would affect the new middle school. Commissioner Schlangen said the truck traffic should be completed by the time the school was opened. Bobby Giddeon, Office Manager for Willbros Energy Services Company, said they had contacted Al Driver around the last of July. Mr. Driver showed them the site and they felt it was perfect. He may have misunderstood Mr. Driver about having to go through the Planning Department, however they thought he had the authority to lease the land. They couldn't go any further until Bechtel got approval of the site through FERC. Tom Blust, County Engineer, sent them a map which was used for the FERC approval. Chairman Maudlin asked when they would be finished and out of the site in 1993. Mr. Giddeon said they were supposed to be completed by August 31, 1993. He said he didn't know anything about the need to go through the Planning Department. Commissioner Throop asked while the pipeline was going from British Columbia to the southwest, wasn't there zoning considerations and permits which had to be considered? Mr. Giddeon said that was Bechtel's responsibility, and as a contractor he was not required to take care of that. The pipe lay down yards were the responsibility of Bechtel, however the temporary office sites were the responsibility of Willbros. Commissioner Throop asked what kind of traffic the site would see. Mr. Giddeon said pickup trucks and buses which would haul the employees. Commissioner Throop asked if this would be an employee staging area. Mr. Giddeon said yes. They were PAGE 9 MINUTES: 11/10/92 01j'1�l union, therefore they could not be out of the city limits more than three miles. He asked that the Board allow them to proceed with using this site. Commissioner Throop said the Board did not have the ability to just say, "Oh, here's an important project, so let's set aside the whole planning/permitting process," since that would be knowingly breaking the law. However they could try to figure out a way to process an application which would conform to the law. Chairman Maudlin suggested that the County issue a temporary use permit to allow Bechtel to proceed, then mail the notices out, and the Board would hear any appeals which were made. Commissioner Throop said Mr. Read's memo had indicated a couple of things would have to be determined before that could be done, i.e. what they were going to apply for a permanent use under, and an application and site plan which could "pass muster" needed to be completed. George Read reminded the Board that the temporary use process only allowed the County to proceed when there was a pending land use application, so the site plan would have to be filed before a temporary use permit could be issued. As to what it could be filed under, he said Chairman Maudlin had suggested that the County look at it as a "similar use" to the excavation of minerals. He felt that would be a reasonable enough interpretation to proceed with an application. Commissioner Throop suggested going forward with Chairman Maudlin's suggestion and asked the applicant to submit an application for a "similar use" under extraction of materials, to complete a site plan application, and to make application for a temporary use. Commissioner Schlangen asked if there was anything that could be done under the utility facility language. George Read said a utility facility was not permitted in a surface mining zone. Chairman Maudlin lamented that a bulldozer could operate in the zone from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., however an office building wasn't allowed. Commission Throop said that one of the contracts the County made with people who went through the surface mining process was that the County would limit the activity in surface mining zones to surface mining activities not commercial or industrial activities. However he agreed that the extraction of material might be a very good similar use to apply under. Commissioner Schlangen agreed they should move forward on that basis. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 11/10/92 George Read said there were two ways to proceed if the Board wanted to go forward with the similar use premise: (1) put everything aside and process the application using the decision as notice with a 10 -day appeal period, or (2) to do prior notice which he recommended. He said they could send out notice on the temporary use first if it was determined that there was a complete application. Then the County could sent out notice of the pending land use application, which required posting a sign for 30 -days with a 10 -day appeal period. The expedited process would take 13 days at the absolute minimum while the second process would take about 40 days. Commissioner Throop asked about the costs. Mr. Read said that the site plan fee in a surface mining zone was $1,000 which he felt was an adequate amount for the work being done, and the temporary permit fee was $185. He said if the decision were left up to him, he'd proceed with the prior - notice option. Commissioner Throop asked how a 40 -day schedule would work for the applicant. Mr. Giddeon said they couldn't live with that, and they would have to look for another site which would require another FERC approval. So either way they were "lost" since they had already looked for other possible sites and there weren't any. Commissioner Throop said he would be willing to "bite the bullet" and use the expedited process. George Read brought up the possibility of a problem with an appeal or an injunction on a decision if people were not given prior notice. He suggested another alternative which would be to proceed with a temporary permit, and then go through the entire normal process while they were operating under the temporary permit. He pointed out that the applicant and site plan would still have to be reviewed, and the County would have to find that it appeared to conform which would be difficult. Rick Isham asked how big the refueling set up would be. George Read said he did not have that information, nor did he know how many cars would be parking there. So it was very difficult for him to predict what the outcome of the review would be. Rick Isham pointed out that one of the issues which interfered with reaching an agreement on the LaPine site was the environmental clause which the County required on all of its leases. If the refueling was minor and could be handled commercially through i.e. Traughber Oil, and not handled directly on site, he felt it would remove a impediment from entering into a lease on this site. Brad Chalfant said that when the Board made its decision concerning the Planning issues, then he would need them to focus on the lease. He had a number of questions which needed to be addressed before he could move forward on a lease. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 11/10/92 There had been several "sticky" issues involved when the lease for the LaPine site was discussed. MAUDLIN: I think we should issue a temporary permit and go through the process from there, but allow them to go ahead, and we'll take the appeals as they come. George Read said he still had a problem in that he would have to sign a decision for a temporary use permit which would state that it appeared that the application would be approved in essentially the form submitted, and he hadn't received enough information to be able to make that determination. He said the potential for 200-300 cars on dirt roads, trucks and equipment, no turn pockets, etc. would make it hard for him to sign that decision. He felt like he was "shooting in the dark." Commissioner Throop asked if the temporary use decision could be delegated to the Board. George Read said he thought the language which would have allowed the Board to make the decision had been removed from the procedures ordinance. Commissioner Throop asked George Read to outline what he understood Chairman Maudlin's motion to be. George Read said "the applicant should file a site plan and a temporary use permit, meet all of the standards, that we should process a temporary use permit through our normal process looking at whether or not it meets the standards and sending out the notice for the temporary use permit. At the same time, we've accepted the application, and we will proceed to do public notice, post a sign, go through the normal land use procedure, which takes about 40 days, on the site plan for the actual use." Chairman Maudlin said that would be after the temporary use permit would be issued. George Read said yes. Chairman Maudlin said that as part of his motion, he felt the lease on this site should not be any different than any other time. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Brad Chalfant said he needed to determine how much the County wanted to charge to lease the site. The Board had previously directed that the lease on the LaPine site should be $200 an acre and 27th Street site was 20 acres. The Board agreed to that charge. Brad Chalfant said in the previous lease discussion on the LaPine site, the Board had decided that Bechtel should act as guarantor of the lease. Then if there was a violation of the lease, the County would not have to go against the "shadow corporation" involved in the LaPine PAGE 12 MINUTES: 11/10/92 Q'q 1'9-1 tr-T; 4 situation, but could proceed against Bechtel. Chairman Maudlin said in the current situation there was no "shadow corporation" and, therefore, the lease would be with Willbros Energy Services Company. Brad Chalfant asked whether the lease should be issued prior to permits having been issued by Planning or possibly DEQ. Chairman Maudlin said they couldn't use the lease until they received those permits, so it could all be done at the same time. DATED this day of 14M Commissioners of Deschutes County, ATrT Recording Secretary PAGE 13 MINUTES: 11/10/92 'V 1992, by the Board of ;g n . )op, Commis Toner P t"S / " W�"� hlangen, Commi ioner s idlin, Ch4an jC , tu Community Development Department Administration Bldg. • 1130 N.W. Harriman • Bend, Oregon • 97701 (503) 388-6575 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division MEMORAMDUM DATE: November 10, 1992 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners G FROM: George J. Read, Planning Director_ RE: Pipeline Project Staging Area at Knott Pit On Monday, November 9, 1992, the Board directed David Leslie and myself to resolve the land use problems for siting the subject use on land formerly used by the Bend Aero Modelers Club north of Knott Pit. At the present time, I understand that the subject use would consist of six (6) office trailers, three (3) parts trailers, parking for an undetermined number of staff, a fueling facility of unknown size, equipment parking of unknown amounts, porta-johns and electrical hookups. We have no other information or a site plan on the subject use at this time. The subject property is zoned SM Surface Mining. As you know, the Board limited the uses allowed in the Surface Mining Zone based upon the testimony on neighbors to surface mine and the fear that surface mines attracted industrial uses. As you know, the uses allowed in Surface Mining Zones are very limited at this time. The subject use is not listed as a permitted or conditional use. The use is not a public use, since Public Uses as defined in Title 18 of the County Code exclude utility facilities. The subject pipeline is clearly a utility facility as defined in Title 18. Commissioner Maudlin suggested that we should consider this a "similar use" to uses permitted outright in the Surface Mining Zone. I would note that Section 18.52.040(E) of the County Code allows: "Building structures, apparatus, equipment and appurtenances necessary for the above uses to Board of County Commissioners November 10, 1992 Page 1 be carried on." I have attached this section of the ordinance and would note that the only uses allowed. are surface mining types of uses. I have included the definition of surface mining minerals and would note that extraction of minerals is a permitted use. It may be possible to go through a land use process to establish whether or not the proposed use is a similar use to the permitted uses in the ordinance. This requires an application for a similar use ruling and a site plan review. The normal processing of an application of this type requires an application with the County Planning Division, review of the application for completeness, public notice prior to a land use decision, including transmittals to DEQ, the Fire Department, City of Bend and all surrounding property owners within one-half mile of the subject use. A sign would also be posted on the property. These notice requirements are specified in the County Procedures Ordinance and are mandatory. After the public comment period, a Findings and Decision would be prepared to approve, deny or send the subject application to a public hearing. This decision process is normally a 30 -day process. After the decision is made, a ten-day appeal period is required. The fastest the Planning Division could expedite a permit of this type is to use the decision as notice. If the Board directs the Planning Division to proceed in this manner, the following procedure would be followed. Upon receipt of a completed application, a Findings and Decision would be prepared. Due to the extensive notice requirements of this application and the complicated findings that would be necessary we could not possibly complete the required work in less than three days. Please note, that this would require rescheduling other work which has been waiting much longer. After the decision is mailed as notice, there is a ten-day appeal period before the decision is final. I would strongly advise the Board against this type of notice since it is irregular for this type of use. It is my opinion that the subject proposal will generate public comment. A question has been raised whether or not a temporary use can be granted. A temporary use permit is a discretionary decision and could be mailed along with the Findings and Decision for the subject use. Temporary Use Permits are subject to appeal. Please be advised that for the last two years the County Planning Division has told PGT and subject applicants that the subject use is only allowed in industrial zones. Staff spent a considerable amount of time with PGT representatives locating industrial property which could be used for the subject proposal. The LaPine industrial site was selected and approved. A valid permit currently exists for the Board of County Commissioners November 10, 1992 Page 2 LaPine industrial site. 0 _119 - 1577 Another way to review this application is to consider whether or not the County is pre-empted by FERC from regulating uses in conjunction with construction of the pipeline. This raises an issue of federal pre-emption and may not be a good precedent for the County to follow. However, if the subject uses are necessary for construction of the pipeline, it may be possible to make a case that the County is pre-empted from reviewing any application of this type. As final note, I would caution the Board to consider the site plan review standards required for such a use. These include: impacts of truck traffic, paved access, safety of access, paved parking, consideration of the number of parking spaces, hours of operation, security lighting, types and numbers of equipment. Additionally, the fuel storage needs to receive DEQ approval which must be accompanied by a Notice of Compatibility with Land Use Regulations signed by the Planning Division insuring these are in conformance with all zoning standards. Since the use will be in place for at least one year, I would also note that the use will be operating during the same time that the school is operating across the street. Again, traffic, noise and dust could create problems in the future. Thank you for your consideration. GJR:mic Board of County Commissioners November 10, 1992 Page 3