Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-14 Work Session Minutes Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Kristin Maze, Nick Lelack, Kevin Harrison, Peter Gutowsky and Anthony Raguine, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; two other members of the Sheriff’s Office; and ten other citizens, including media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin.. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Work Session regarding Transfer Development Credit Program & Pollution Reduction Credit Program (Applicant: Sagebrush Development). Kristen Maze said that Sagebrush Development (AKA Vic Russell and others) wish to develop property in the neighborhood planning area, known as the former Baldwin Herndon property. They propose to change the timing for payment of the PRC’s until the time of final plat approval. This would allow the developer to record a final plat, put in infrastructure and possibly sell individual lots to builders. Commissioner Luke stated that this would allow the developer to make money off the land, and he feels the PRC’s should be paid at the time of the sale by the developer; unless the developer is actually the builder. Ms. Craghead stated that there has to be a way of notifying the buyers that they are on the hook for the PRC’s, per the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Tom Anderson stated that Mr. Russell proposed this because he perhaps does not intend to build any homes. There will also be a sewer SDC and other obligations that may be imposed by the City of La Pine. He said the Planning Commission suggested a lien on the property to show that the PRC is due, as it would be hard to track otherwise. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 1 of 16 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 16 Pages Commissioner Unger asked why this can’t be paid at the time building permits and other fees are paid. It is much more simple and predictable. Ms. Craghead stated that there could be cases where property is never developed and the County won’t be able to collect PRC’s. Commissioner Luke said that he feels the cost could be prohibitive for someone to go in and build. Mr. Anderson said that each time someone does this, it is prorated for the whole piece. The recorded plat is notice that the obligation exists. This is the simplest way for CDD to track activity. However, notice to the public is an issue. A note could be put on DIAL that an obligation exists. The Planning Commissioner recommended approval of the text. The Board advised to go forward with scheduling the appropriate hearing. 2. Work Session regarding an Appeal regarding Expanding Mining Operations at the Johnson Road Mining Site (Applicant: Latham). Paul Blikstad said the Board already agreed to hear this appeal. He referred to an oversized map and gave a brief overview of the history of the property. The owner would like to do on-site crushing, and a scale would be built. The entrance already exists and there are acceleration and deceleration lanes on the road. Cascade Pumice owned the land in 1995 and got approval for mining operations, indicating they would only mine for perhaps eight or nine years. Therefore, there is an assumption among residents in the area that mining would end. Commissioner Luke stated that if there are materials there, under State law, the owners must be allowed to mine. Ms. Craghead said this doesn’t put a cap on what can be mined. The appellants feel the scope of what was to be mined was limited. The inventory shows it as a mining site with materials. ESEE indicated how many yards and the type of material; it is listed as pumice material. It is also listed under DOGAMI. Commissioner Luke asked what State laws say must be done in regard to mining sites. Ms. Craghead said she would have to research this, but they have to deal with Goal 5 inventory and it is a protected industry. Mr. Blikstad said that Robert Houston of DOGAMI feels DOGAMI has exclusive authority in regard to reclamation, but Ms. Craghead stated that it depends on when the permits were approved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 3 of 16 Pages Mr. Blikstad added that the reclamation needs to be “ongoing”, and the headwall is to be reclaimed as well. It is perhaps 40 feet from normal ground level. The Hearings Officer felt, based on the ESEE analysis, that the headwall should not be seen from Tumalo State Park. However, it is only visible from certain hiking spots in the park and not from the camping area. The 1990 ESEE may allow crushing at the site; the applicant has proposed incidental drop crushing and roll crushing. The Hearings Officer said that processing is allowed on the site, and staff feels that this includes crushing. The appellants have indicated 18 assignments of errors. One is that crushing is not considered processing. Another question is what constitutes a noise and dust sensitive use. (See attached copy of Code.) The Hearings Officer addressed this; it could include structures, grounds and the entire property. Mr. Blikstad feels this is a different interpretation; that a noise sensitive use is a house, hospital, church, public school but not the grounds of those buildings. The Hearings Officer also found that the noise sensitive claim was met, based on information from dwellings. This conflicts with some of the decision, since the grounds were not part of the study. (He referred to an oversized map of the area.) All homes were determined to be beyond ¼ mile. There were appeals from both the applicant and opponents. The opponents brought up 18 assignments of error, most of which have to do with Goal 5 inventory, dust and noise. Commissioner Luke asked if the gravel was suitable for road use, and whether there is ample material available if this is not approved. He also asked where the material is being processed at this time. Ms. Craghead said they can continue to mine but the question is whether they can expand operations and do processing on site. Mr. Blikstad stated that the applicant’s appeal relates to the use of specific sites for crushing and washing. The Hearings Officer felt that certain sites on the property were better for sound buffering. The second issue is the 100-foot buffer area that has to be landscaped. The applicant said that it has already been done with existing vegetation and that the standard really doesn’t apply to them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Pages The third issue is mining being visible from Tumalo State Park; the Hearings Officer wants the applicant to work with the Park Manager to change the site plan to buffer mining activities from the Park, as some activities can be seen from a few points on the trails. Mr. Blikstad stated that this almost puts the site plan revision authority on the shoulders of Tumalo State Park representatives. Ms. Craghead said that there will be a one by one argument from each of the parties at the hearing. There is a time constraint to consider. Commissioner Unger said he is comfortable with information being presented at the time of the hearing. The appeal documents will be provided along with a staff report prior to the hearing. On page 34 of the Hearings Officer’s decision, item #16, regarding water logs and testing, a concern was how the applicant can test wells that aren’t on the applicant’s property. The concern seems to be chemical spills such as fuel. Commissioner Luke said that he feels that the water level is probably at least 400 feet down. Mr. Blikstad stated that Kyle Gorman of the Water Resources Department indicated he is not concerned about this possibility. Commissioner Unger asked when reclamation is required, and Mr. Blikstad said that DOGAMI requires it when mining ceases. Ms. Craghead added that a reclamation plan has to be submitted at the time of application and must comply with the Goal 5 process. The underlying zone is EFU. A public hearing on this issue is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21 at 4:00 p.m. _____________________________ At this time, it was decided that equipment should be set up to record the Board’s discussion. 3. Economic Development Grant Requests. ƒ Cascade Women Lawyers – Seminar – the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. ƒ Disabled American Veterans – Transportation Van – the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 5 of 16 Pages 4. Discussion of Planning Commission Request regarding Event Venue Code Enforcement. Ms. Craghead said that this is not a noticed public hearing but there is no restriction on taking public comment. The Planning Commission, per Nick Lelack, did take formal action to draft a resolution to delay any Code enforcement throughout calendar year 2009. Commissioner Baney asked if the Planning Commission has ever taken such action before. Mr. Anderson stated that they have never passed a formal resolution such as this in regard to a Code enforcement issue. Dave Kanner stated that the first issue is the idea of rather than waiting for the applicant to come up with an acceptable text amendment, to instead have staff write something that might work. This is unprecedented and it is not up to staff to write it. The concern is that there does not appear to be a way in State law to get this done. There are differences of opinion in this, but if they keep waiting for the applicant to come up with something, this could go on for a long time. The Planning Commissioner would simply like to see something that they can either approve or deny without rewriting it. Commissioner Luke said that he attended a meeting to discuss this in general, and how the Planning Commission should deal with the public. It is not the County’s role to do the writing for the public. The County cannot write and then review the language; this eliminates checks and balances. An exchange of ideas is fine, but there needs to be balance. Commissioner Baney stated that this could have been a text amendment requested by the Board instead of the applicant. Other amendments have been written by the County rather than having them be applicant driven. Commissioner Luke stated that the County has assisted in the past, but did not write the entire document. Ms. Craghead said that there have been times when it took a lot of staff resources. This was an applicant driven amendment because it wasn’t on the CDD work plan; so it was suggested that they draft their own. Because of that, and the fact that they don’t have an attorney, it resulted in a constant back and forth writing. Staff is more accustomed to writing the text, and the applicant did pay an application fee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 6 of 16 Pages Mr. Lelack was asked by the Planning Commission how long it would take to resolve, as six months from now puts it into the wedding season. This is why it ended up taking so long in the first place. Commissioner Luke said that this assumes it does not violate State law. Mr. Lelack stated that DLCD may feel it is possible that this can be resolved. Mr. Anderson stated that others at DLCD feels it can be handled but nothing is available from them in this regard. Most of the violators have not been cited at this point. The two cases that have been open for some time have now been put in abeyance. No new ones have been opened in about 6 or 7 cases. The Planning Commission recommended that no additional enforcement be done until the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Luke stated that the text amendment only gives them permission to apply. This would likely be appealed to the State. Ms. Craghead said they may have to put up a bond and get permission from LUBA to proceed, but it would be at their own risk. Mr. Anderson stated that Code enforcement does not just want to hand out citations; they want compliance with Code. He remains neutral. The up side to delaying Code enforcement allows time to have the amendment addressed without shutting down businesses. It also fits in with something akin to an unpermitted building; time is allowed to make it right before more aggressive measures are taken. On the other side are a whole lot of angry neighbors who attend all the meetings, and feel that Code enforcement should have been pursued last year. They feel Code is being ignored and the County is letting illegal businesses operate freely. There are very strong emotional feelings on both sides. The Board is being asked for its perspective on this issue. If the County writes the Code amendment to get the technical issues out of the way, the Board and Planning Commission can make a policy decision at that point. It would be faster than doing the back and forth writing of the amendment, and perhaps will eliminate some of the controversy. Mr. Kanner said that if staff writes the amendment, and the applicant does not like it, then what – does it move forward without their blessing. Commissioner Luke feels people will get married regardless. There are more things at issue than weddings. This is commercial activity. Buildings have to have adequate facilities for the number of guests, and parking has to be suitable for ADA. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 7 of 16 Pages There is a lot more at stake than just weddings. By not doing Code enforcement on these activities, building code is also not being addressed. Commissioner Unger disclosed that he has attended an event held by David and Lisa MacDonald on their property, and they are distant relatives through marriage. Ms. Craghead stated that he can still participate in a legislative matter. Commissioner Unger said that the County was somewhat responsible for creating this problem by letting it slide and by having enforcement be complaint driven. The operators got to the point that believed these activities were permissible. By not doing anything, the County is partially to blame. The Planning Commission wants a firm process to follow. These businesses will be compromised and this is not to be taken lightly. He would like to see Code enforcement not being enforced immediately. Ms. Craghead stated that they hear the argument many times about things being allowed in the past, so therefore it is acceptable. She asked what parameters would be permitted if they were put in abeyance; in essence, the level of violation to be allowed while they work through this issue. Sheriff Blanton said they don’t object to weddings or anyone trying to make a living. He does object to having to deal with the residual problems. In regard to not enforcing violations, Officers could show up in response to a violation of State law, with nothing to do with the County. He said that the Planning Commission meeting went on for about five hours. He got a letter from the Katrinas family who said they were highly offended by the Dec. 11 meeting and felt they were rudely criticized. What ends up happening is that the Sheriff’s Office has to respond when there is a call. His job has nothing to do with zoning or what needs to be enforced under policy, but they get the call. The complainant will be told who to call about this issue. There was a request about how many complaints they receive, but there are many neighbors in this situation who don’t complain because they are worried about the fallout. There is a list of complaints in the system, though. He wants to support economic vitality but his Department takes the brunt of the calls. When they respond to a call and go to a venue of some kind, the people want something done immediately. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 8 of 16 Pages He won’t send people out with a decimal meter, as it is not realistic to do this. One loud remark could cause the meter to register a violation. His Department ends up dealing with the neighborhood situation. Mr. Blikstad sent an e-mail saying the Sheriff’s Office position has changed. It was not a big deal when this first started. Because of publicity and mailings, this has snowballed. His position is that he is not in opposition of someone making a living. However, his department does not deal with land use or zoning. Their work is not complaint driven; and they hope to be proactive. They get complaints often who don’t know where the noise is coming from or they don’t want to be identified. The Officers are the bad guys if they have to show up at these calls, to both to the complainer and the violator. However, they are not able to remedy it. They also don’t want to have the complainer have to sign a complaint. If the Board allows wedding events and list certain conditions, someone will have to be hired to deal with them. His Department does not want to do it. If there are no teeth in what is decided, violations will continue. It could become just a cost of doing business to the violator. If someone is unhappy that they are not complying, who gets cited? They will not break up a wedding. Most of those guests will not know anything about a Code violation. What will happen at an event cannot be foreseen nor controlled. It is human nature. His office is not in opposition to people conducting business, but they can’t be in the position of trying to make everyone happy. Ms. Craghead stated that she said there are times when she could not complete a thought because there were so many interruptions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Luke said he has had problems with neighbors during his life, and cannot imagine living next to these kinds of events on a continual basis all summer long. It is a commercial activity. If it is approved on EFU ground, it is a non-farm use. Then what comes next. It is impossible to know. If you allow one kind, how do you deny the next one. There was a two-year process with home occupation Code. Let the Planning Commission figure out how to handle it as a whole, including the amount of traffic, how many people, and so on. It can’t be decided on a case-by-case basis because that could drag on forever. He cannot support not enforcing Code. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 9 of 16 Pages They have had a lot of time to deal with this but don’t want to hire an attorney. The County should not be doing this. You can’t just keep looking at those who want to make money at the expense of their neighbors. The County should not be spending all this time trying to figure out how to help the violators – look at the neighbors’ rights, too. There was no right to do this kind of business from the time they bought their property, and it does not belong in a residential area. He cannot support writing it nor extending it. Commissioner Unger feels this should be addressed in the comprehensive plan. This is coming before then, however. He went to the Planning Commission hearing and heard the testimony. It seemed to him that the people doing the events are trying to do so in good faith, and feel that staff did not deny it, that they were not exactly allowed but the County would not do anything about it. Kind of an implied consent. The PC is trying to come up with a solution. Staff should not write the language but perhaps there could be more work together on drafts. The County’s expertise could help to come up with something the Planning Commission can address. Commissioner Luke stated that he has heard this more than once, that because it was not enforced it is okay. He asked if a letter from DLCD would help, giving that agency’s opinion as to whether there is a way to accommodate this. However, this does not speak for the Board of Commissioners. Five-minute break was then taken. Commissioner Luke said they have to be complaint driven. There has to be permission to enter a property or a good cause to investigate. Anyone who takes a complaint as consent to proceed is wrong. Commissioner Baney stated that there is no process to apply in this situation. It seemed to be if the neighbor complained, then you could deal with it. Some neighbors don’t care. Commissioner Unger would like the County to assist with writing the documents and extend the timeframe. Commissioner Luke said this is having the County overlook Code violations and ignore the neighbors’ complaints. Commissioner Unger said that he wants to follow the Planning Commission’s lead to allow them to operate while they work through the issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 10 of 16 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that staff will need to know what should be enforced. He does not think it is right for the Sheriff to have to respond when nothing can be done. Sheriff Blanton said they don’t get calls regarding zoning, just for noise and traffic. Ms. Craghead stated that the Planning Commission was not very exact about what they want to do. Sheriff Blanton said his Department cannot enforce the noise situation; it is impossible to regulate. Mr. Anderson said that staff has not requested the Sheriff to ignore the noise situation; the expectation was that the violators would comply. There were two letters; one in May 2007, a courtesy letter to inform operators that a complaint was received but it would not be enforced immediately; that there was a process underway to evaluate this kind of use and invite them to participate. It basically said, through the wedding season, that there is no exact date. In September 2007 no Code proposal had been received for EFU land, another letter was sent out to the same operators, asking for a letter in the next thirty days so a decision could be reached prior to the next wedding season, and that there was no guarantee of non-enforcement beyond that. Commissioner Baney said she does not feel this should be extended. It was clear that they needed to stop what they were doing. The offenders were to present something to address it and they have not done so. They relied on nothing was going to happen. A glaring point is that this process is incredibly complicated and they should have had the guidance of a land use attorney. This is no fault of the neighbors. They should have until the end of the year. They have dragged their feet but if it is that important to them, they would have done something. Policy can’t be based on this. There are some situations where this could make sense. She would like to see staff work with them to come up with on something that is presentable. She has considered the neighbors’ and operators points’ of view, and feels something can be extracted from all of that. She heard that there are grandfathered ten- acre parcels, but feels that this type of activity is not appropriate on those parcels. Having these occur every weekend is too much; it is a quality of life issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Pages Even twenty acres is not big enough. There are concerns about the size of the parcels. The conditional use application is the way to go – to review outdoor versus indoor use, location on the property, and so on. She looked at the outdoor mass gathering and parade ordinances. However, the parade provision is for public events. Ms. Craghead said that there is a third one, an event permit for special events but on a very limited basis. Commissioner Luke asked if the outdoor mass gathering ordinance can be adjusted to allow a certain number of weddings. Ms. Craghead stated that it only talks about certain hours and numbers of people. If it is under 3,000 people there could be a way to do this, but it is a fine line between an outdoor mass gathering and a land use issue in State law. It is hard to know how far you can tweak the ordinance. No one has called the County for details on this. There may be case law but they have not heard anything from DLCD. There is a significant impact clause in land use, and it is not known when the County would cross that line. Also, the outdoor mass gathering ordinance cases have to be heard by the Board. Commissioner Luke said that transportation and traffic have to be addressed. He said the neighbors have rights, too. If this was not done correctly, it could end up being an outright ban. Commissioner Baney said more than 500 people for more than 240 hours in a three-month period applies in the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. Ms. Craghead said it cannot be more than one event every three months. There has to be a safety plan, a medical team on site and other requirements. It is hard to know how far this can be adjusted. A home occupation requires that the work be done substantially inside a structure and there be no more than five employees. Parking restrictions could limit the number of guests. Commissioner Baney said that there may be properties where this makes sense and others where it doesn’t. She would like to get it to something that the Planning Commission can address. Ms. Craghead stated some have indicated that they want to call these properties a private park, which is questionable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Pages David Weigand, consultant for the applicant, testified that the applicants did not drag their feet. They already had an application before the Planning Commission, but were told that EFU has different requirements from the MUA zone. This was in early July. They were trying to get something before the Planning Commission sooner. There were conversations with the neighbors and two meetings with DLCD. They worked aggressively to get this done after the summer. No feedback was received until just before the first hearing. Many of these people cannot survive without the additional income. It will take a year to get this done. On the heels of a denial on MUA, it makes sense that staff could help. It is difficult for any business in this economy to pull the plug for a year. It is a serious hardship. Hiring attorneys is also costly. He asked that the Board not stop the businesses, but list some restrictions that might be acceptable. This could include noise parameters. They have already done this homework . This would allow the applicants to continue their businesses. Commissioner Luke stated that in the MUA issue was concern that these are commercial activities. The buildings have to have ADA access, their own drainfield and appropriate parking. He asked how many of Mr. Weigand’s clients could bring their facilities up to those standards. State building officials want to see fire sprinklers and there has to be adequate water to do that. Mr. Weigand stated that most of the events take place in temporary structures, such as pole tents. Conditional use permits can allow temporary facilities. He does not know the specific rules regarding restroom facilities. Most of the venues he goes to do not have permanent structures. Parking is in pastureland, and nothing unsightly happens and it is cleaned up afterwards. There is no long-term effect. He requested an extension so businesses don’t have to be shut down. This is a $5 million impact just from wedding venues. There are numerous hotels, restaurants, catering companies, and other visitor businesses that do well because of these venues. This impact should not be overlooked. He would like to see a final version that makes sense for the long term, but time should be given through 2009. Commissioner Luke asked if he is suggesting that these weddings would not happen in Deschutes County if EFU land was not available. Mr. Weigand said that other counties do host them, and some areas have a permitting process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 13 of 16 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if weddings were booked after December. He replied they were taking tentative reservations but they were not booked solid. Most of these businesses are not sure what to do next. Commissioner Baney asked about the timeline. Mr. Anderson said that the Planning Commission would be informed of this discussion and the sooner this can come to the Board for a decision, the happier everyone will be. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation at its next meeting in February. Commissioner Luke asked if Commissioner Baney has some limits or conditions to be considered. Commissioner Baney said she cannot support it on all EFU ground. Ms. Craghead stated that the Planning Commission wants to do it right, and this will take time. Parcel size, noise, structures, parking, traffic, how many times a year, and so on are issues to address. Commissioner Baney said she would extend it if there wasn’t already a Code enforcement issue pending. The County needs to back the Code. She feels that the applicants will need a land use attorney or consultant to do their part. The last thing the County needs is to have to take on a project when there are not enough funds or staffing to do what already needs to be done by the County. Commissioner Luke asked if they are to consider the size or dimension of a parcel, what kind of findings might justify that particular size. For example, twenty acres – how can that be justified. Ms. Craghead said that twenty acres complies with the comprehensive plan and protects Goal 3 and the use of the land. It better meets those goals than ten acres could. Farmland could still be preserved. Commissioner Luke stated that if parking is allowed on fields, it takes a long time for the ground to come back. If it is in farm deferral, then what. Ms. Craghead said it is possible that it would have to go out of farm deferral unless they can show there is still adequate farm use on that ground. A condition could be imposed that they could lose farm deferral where the activities are occurring. Mr. Kanner said this is a long away from the two items that were to be discussed. These issues need to be resolved but it is the Planning Commission’s task at this point. It will then come to the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 14 of 16 Pages Too much speculation is happening at this time. He said that he is hearing that two Commissioners would vote against Code enforcement abeyance today. He is still not clear about the first issue, having staff write the text amendment. Commissioner Baney said she would like to see staff assist at a higher level. This is an issue that has ramifications important to economic development, and also limiting commercial use on agricultural land. It is difficult to navigate. She is sensitive to the fact that it is hard to stop a business for a year. But the owner should have appropriate zoning in place. If staff helps guide it at a higher level, it will be faster and perhaps they don’t miss an entire year. A lot of these issues were addressed under MUA land discussions. Commissioner Luke stated that if it involves all EFU ground, it will likely not pass by the Board. Commissioner Unger would like to see it go to the Planning Commission and ask staff where they fit in. Commissioner Luke asked where the neighbors fit in. Commissioner Baney said about 50/50. Commissioner Luke said the neighbors are not the ones committing the violations. Commissioner Unger stated that the neighbors are important but there are more people in the area than before. Anything that grows creates impacts. The comprehensive plan should address how to balance this. Quality of life is important as well. Commissioner Baney said that the Planning Commission’s role is critical in this process. It oversteps in considering that Code enforcement need not be followed. That is not the recommendation she would hope to get from them. This starts down a road that should be followed to a conclusion. Ms. Craghead stated that adequate time would help them get to their decision. Commissioner Luke asked what staff is not doing because of the time they are spending on this. Mr. Lelack said that the question is whether it will take more time to meet with the applicants and take a shot at drafting the document, or deal with it multiple times. It would be faster for the County to deal with it, as they have the expertise. However, parameters need to be considered. If the applicant will not amend the application to include these restrictions, then it becomes a policy question. Ms. Craghead said it is not necessarily unprecedented of the County to handle this type of thing even if the applicant doesn’t like the direction it is taking. They can withdraw the application but the County can choose to proceed anyway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Pages Sheriff Blanton that the Planning Commission should not criticize other County officials, like the Sheriff’s Office, for doing its job. Commissioner Luke said that the Planning Commission may not like it, but have to respect that the Sheriff has a job to do. Mr. Blikstad said temporary restrooms can be used in some situations. It depends on the site and the conditional use. Commissioner Unger stated they are sometimes permanent but not permanent. They are infrequent and equipment is brought in for the events. Commissioner Baney said a question is whether the facilities should be permanent. The Planning Commission can choose to disagree. 5. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger said he attended the Redmond Economic Development Committee meeting, and they are moving forward on various projects. Commissioner Luke stated she would like to talk more about uses at the Bend Airport and the Redmond Airport. Commissioner Unger added that they need to complement each other and not compete, and both need an updated twenty- year plan. Commissioner Unger begins County College in Corvallis beginning January 15. 6. Other Items. None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.