COQUILLE — It was billed as a pivotal juncture in the debate about siting a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Coos Bay North Spit. But a meeting of the Coos County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday was noteworthy for its brevity, not its substance.

The commissioners took 10 minutes to finalize the 15 conditions that will be included with a land use application for a marine terminal on the North Spit. County staff had already produced the list, so the commissioners didn’t discuss the conditions, having agreed on them at a meeting Dec. 4. But this left many of the 77 audience members, most of whom had not been at that meeting, shaking their heads and muttering about the process.

“I was expecting them to make a decision, but instead, we got the runaround,” said Richard Knablin of North Bend, wearing an anti-LNG sticker on his forehead. “It happens too often in Coos County.”

A number of audience members requested copies of the conditions after the meeting, but were turned down by staff, who said the conditions were a working document and could not be released to the public.

The large turnout delayed proceedings 25 minutes as county staff scrambled to find a space to fit the audience. The Commissioners’ Courtroom began to fill with opponents of the LNG terminal while the commissioners held a public hearing on county fees. Five minutes before the marine terminal discussion was scheduled to begin, the room was packed and more people were standing outside. Chairman John Griffith stopped proceedings and directed staff to prepare the conference room in the Coos County Courthouse Annex, two blocks away.

At about 2:25 p.m., Griffith called the meeting to order and explained there would be no opportunity for public comment.

“This is just board deliberations on the conditions,” he said.

They weren’t really even that.

The commissioners received a recommendation from their hearings officer shortly before a hearing on Dec. 4. Instead of reviewing the record, Commissioner Kevin Stufflebean had to battle storm damage in his capacity as interim county roadmaster. At the earlier meeting, the commissioners tentatively approved the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay’s application, despite the officer’s recommendation to turn it down. Anne Corcoran Briggs suggested the project would unreasonably impact fisherman and recreational users, while providing insufficient benefit for the public. Her arguments were refuted by Planning Director Patty Evernden, who said Corcoran Briggs misinterpreted the county’s estuary management plan.

The commissioners asked to extend the meeting to Wednesday not to revisit these issues, but rather so Stufflebean could review the record regarding the project’s effluent pipe, sand dune stabilization procedures and stormwater drainage. On Wednesday, Stufflebean said he had no further conditions to recommend.

“I got those issues clarified and I’m satisfied with them,” he said.

In her opinion, Corcoran Briggs recommended 10 conditions, which included requiring permits from federal and state agencies, prohibiting placing of excavated materials in Henderson Marsh and implementing a plan to work with local Indian Tribes about archaeological discoveries on the site. One condition also limits the hours during which construction of the terminal may take place; from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. during summer months and 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. the rest of the year.

There also were additional conditions that were added by commissioners at the Dec. 4 meeting regarding access issues.

None of these was discussed by the board, however, as the commissioners requested staff to prepare documents, including the 15 conditions, for a final vote at their regular meeting next Wednesday, Dec. 19.

Jacki Haggerty, the county’s counsel, said the board members are not required to read the conditions for a land use application, even when they make a final decision.

After the meeting Stufflebean said he was surprised staff would not provide audience members copies of the conditions.

“There’s no reason they can’t be released,” he said. “It’s absolutely a public document. It’s not excluded by any public document law. I didn’t realize that happened.”

Griffith said he had no qualms giving the public copies of the draft.

“I wouldn’t have any problem handing them out,” he said.

Commissioner Nikki Whitty agreed, noting she handed someone her copy of the conditions. She said that if people had wanted to understand the conditions that were being discussed, they should have come to the meeting on Dec. 4, a meeting attended by about six people.

“We finalized the conditions last Tuesday,” she said. “If they want to understand the process, they need to follow the whole thing and not blame the commissioners because they missed something.”