Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-914-Minutes for Meeting October 11,2005 Recorded 10/21/2008COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS Q 2008-911 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/21/2008 0336;07 PM II IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII I I III Z 08-Bi Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page E S ~ ~ ❑ 4u Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2005 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Cathy White, Community Development Department; Liz Fancher, Attorney for the applicants; media representatives Barney Lerten of News Channel 21; and approximately fifty other citizens. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing regarding an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision denying a proposal to establish a 2, 000-seat outdoor amphitheater on a parcel zoned exclusive farm use. (Location: 21720 Highway 20, Bend -Applicant: Christian Life Center). Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 3: 00 p.m. Chair DeWolf read the opening statement (a copy is attached as Exhibit A). Regarding bias, conflicts of interest, personal interest or prejudgment on this issue, Commissioner Daly referred to the volume of the letters the Board has been receiving. He said he also did a site visit today before noon, drove into the parking lot, walked around, and looked at the proposed site and for the nearest neighbors. He saw one structure to the south a great distance away, and a church located to the west. Commissioners Luke and DeWolf had no disclosures to make. There were no challenges as to Commissioner bias, personal interest, conflicts of interest or prejudgment from the public. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 1 of 49 Pages Chair DeWolf asked that everyone attending on both sides of the issue conduct themselves professionally and with respect, and to keep in mind that if testimony is given that is similar to what you want to say, there is no need to repeat it. The record may be left open for a period of time if significant information is presented that needs to be addressed. He explained that the record would be kept open for a period of time as there are many documents to be reviewed. Laurie Craghead said that many letters seem to support the church and the amphitheater, and many that support the church but not the amphitheater. It would help if testimony was limited to the criteria to be addressed. Cathy White summarized the issue for the Board and the audience. She said the applicant is the Christian Life Center, appeal file #A-05-5; they are represented by attorney Liz Fancher. The opponents also filed an appeal, file #A-05-6, Jill and Verson Pandian and Neighbors of Hamby Road, and they represented by attorney Paul Dewey. To hear both appeals de novo, Board is able to take additional testimony. She then summarized the proposal and the issues raised on appeal, referring to an oversized map of the property. WHITE: The property is located at 21720 Highway 20 in Bend, and is identified on the County Assessor's tax map as 17-12-36 801. The property is zoned exclusive farm use, and there is an overlay of a landscape management combining zone generated by Highway 20. There is also a portion of the property that is in the airport safety combining zone, but the improvements are not going to be in that zone. The site is developed with an existing church that was approved in 1978 under conditional use permit #CU-78-44. The applicable criteria to review the application is posted on the wall to the right, behind some of the exhibits, as well as in the Hearings Officer's decision on pages 1 and 2. I included several copies of the Hearings Officer's decision as well as my staff report to the Board, and copies are located on the table to the right. The applicant is requesting an expansion of the existing church to construct a 2,000 seat outdoor amphitheater. They are also requesting approval for a 3,000 square foot storage and maintenance building, which was approved by the Hearings Officer subject to conditions of approval. However, since this is a de novo hearing, the Board apparently either needs to affirm or deny that decision as part of their final decision on the proposal. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 2 of 49 Pages The amphitheater will be located in a natural depression. It will be smoothed, and then grass. There will be seating and terracing to accommodate 2,000 people, and there will be an open stage located on the south side of the amphitheatre. The applicant has already begun construction on the site, but has stopped due to a code enforcement complaint that is now pending on the property, awaiting the outcome of the Board's decision. The outdoor amphitheater would be used to conduct current church activities, which includes worship services, weddings, funerals, plays and concerts in an outdoor setting, and about four to six event concerts per year. The bigger event concerts would be held from June to October on Tuesdays and Friday nights from 7-10 p.m. DENNIS LUKE: Is there anything that says they can't have one in December? This is what is proposed only. WHITE: This is a site plan application, not a conditional use application. The applicant has indicated that these are the parameters under which they want to operate the outdoor amphitheater. The Commissioners could put some parameters on it, such as what they are requesting. The weather may prohibit them from being outside in the middle of December, but it is unknown. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: There is also a question as to whether the outdoor mass gathering requirements would be applicable to concert events and that sort of thing. But that is not before the Board because that is not a land use decision at this time. WHITE: So, the outdoor amphitheater is going to generate about 14,000 concert goers, about 670 vehicle trips in each direction, and the applicant proposes to close off Highway 20 ingress and egress, so most of the ingress and egress would occur off Hamby Road. They are also proposing 759 parking spaces, which includes existing parking spaces. They will add several more and have them graveled. Water will be supplied by Avion, and the sewage disposal is going to be by portable toilets for the larger events. The church does have an existing septic tank that services the church property. DEWOLF: But it wouldn't be sufficient at something with 2,000 people. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 3 of 49 Pages WHITE: I don't know about the adequacy of the existing septic tank, but the applicant is proposing instead of using their existing restroom system, they will add the portable toilets. The Hearings Officer denied the site plan because she found that the applicant did not meet the site plan approval criteria that requires the creation of a safe environment, considering traffic and other public safety impacts, or the criteria requiring an adequate transition between public and private spaces, i.e. the west side of the amphitheater has a property line. The Hearings Officer found that there isn't adequate separation from the adjacent property. The Hearings Officer also found that the applicable state and local laws actually limit the County's review of the applicant's proposal to only those physical elements, such as access, vehicle and bicycle parking, building designs, pedestrian circulation, and lighting. She was not able to consider the operational characteristics or other factors, such as noise, which was a big issue for some of the opponents, property devaluation for some of the surrounding properties, and compatibility with the surrounding rural land uses. DEWOLF: Could you explain to me about the noise. I read through this and I don't understand why noise becomes an issue in so many others of these cases but not this one. Is it because of the zone? WHITE: This is really a legal question, but it is relevant to the fact that the Hearings Officer found that she couldn't consider the operational characteristics, and she included the noise to be an operational characteristic. She can only consider the physical characteristics, meaning how it is going to be laid out. DEWOLF: So, we consider those kinds of criteria when we are looking at surface mining operations, but we can't look at it for concert operations? CRAGHEAD: The argument submitted by the applicant was that those are conditional uses or other land use applications. This is a site plan application, which is the physical part. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 4 of 49 Pages WHITE: So, that was part of her review, that the County is very limited into what can be reviewed in terms of this application. DALY: One more question. The Hearings Officer didn't find that they needed a conditional use permit. WHITE: Correct. The Hearings Officer found that they do not need a conditional use permit. This is zoned EFU - exclusive farm use zone - and in our rules we've tried adopt the state statute, which only requires site plan review for a church and/or a church expansion. That is what they submitted, a site plan review. CRAGHEAD: And this is one of the central issues, that this is an expansion of the church. LUKE: I need to clarify with Legal Counsel. Let's say that this site plan is approved, with some modifications. What would be the next step? Apply for a building permit for the amphitheater? Or are we suggesting that the amphitheater doesn't need a permit. CRAGHEAD: That was another issue in the Hearings Officer's decision, whether a building permit is needed for the retaining walls and the stage. LUKE: If the site plan is approved, and the 3,000 square foot building is reaffirmed, then they could get a building permit for the building. But there is a question as to whether the amphitheater would need a building permit for the stage and retaining walls. CRAGHEAD: The Hearings Officer found that they did. WHITE: So, both the opponents and the applicants appealed the decision, and they are citing policy issues, interpretive questions, and factual errors that they believe the Hearings Officer made in the decision. Notice of today's public hearing was published in the Bulletin on September 25, and also was mailed to those parties who were entitled to notice. It was also posted. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 5 of 49 Pages Numerous letters, mostly in support of the application, have come to the County Commissioners' office and then forwarded to staff for the record. And we have also received additional copies through our office that were provided to the Board today, mostly in opposition of the proposal. And, as I mentioned, staff and Legal Counsel have coordinated a memo to the Board - copies are located on the table - that summarizes some of the appeal issues. Since the issuance of the staff memo, we have received transcriptions as required by our appeal procedures, and those were also forwarded to the Board. We also received a new site plan submitted by the applicant that incorporates the Hearings Officer's recommendations as included in her decision. In addition, both attorneys have submitted their own letters to the Board that summarize what they believe are issues to be considered today. (Copies of the documents referred to above are attached as Exhibits.) With that, I will take a minute to go up to the maps and orient the Board to what the maps are. (Referring to oversized maps.) This first map is a large site plan map, but it doesn't actually consist of the whole property configuration. It is this kind of upside-down L-shaped property. Down here is Highway 20, which runs along in this direction. This is actually an adjacent piece of property to the west. Hamby Road is in this direction. The existing church is located at about the center of the property, so the existing driveway access is in two spots - off Highway 20 onto existing paved parking, and another paved driveway connects to Hamby Road. The proposed 3,000 square foot storage maintenance building would be located in this area. The amphitheater would be located in the natural depression, here. They will add additional gravel parking spaces in this area. DEWOLF: Is gravel considered an acceptable surface? Or would this be considered at a later time? CRAGHEAD: It's a matter of whether it would be acceptable for dust control. I believe that is the issue. DEWOLF: So we can deal with dust but not noise, because dust is part of the physical part of this? Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 6 of 49 Pages WHITE: The way the site plan criteria reads is that all road access and vehicular areas have to be paved, unless they qualify for an exemption. The Hearings Officer found that they did not qualify for an exemption, and that's an issue that is being raised today. DEWOLF: I am looking forward to understanding the definition of dustless gravel that I read about. CRAGHEAD: And noise is an issue in the site plan, per the opponents. You will have to decide whether it is. WHITE: Underneath this is a more detailed site plan. Each of you has a copy of the new site plan that incorporates the Hearings Officer's - DEWOLF: This was the one that was before us. WHITE: This is the one that was before the Hearings Officer, Exhibit 1 from the April 12 public hearing. There is a more detailed map under here, or you can refer to the other one. LUKE: There was a question as to whether we should accept this second map. CRAGHEAD: It was an issue of whether - the Board will have to decide - the new site plan is a modification such that it would require a new application for a modification of the application. The Board would have to make a decision whether the new site plan fits this definition. LUKE: Or choose not to accept it. DEWOLF: And make the decision based on the old one. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 7 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: Because you would be finding that this is a modification that would require a new application. You could do that. WHITE: The applicant will probably explain what the new map is all about. I will now go over to this map over here, the color map. It is helpful because it shows the zoning and also the surrounding area. The easy color to see, of course, is the yellow, which is the Christian Life Center property. DEWOLF: It goes across Hamby Road? WHITE: Apparently this is part of their tax lot. There is another church right here, I believe Grace Community Church. Highway 20 runs in this horizontal direction. Hamby Road runs along here. They would shut down access off Highway 20 and gain new access through their other driveway. This gives you a little sense of what the surrounding area is, and the zoning. LUKE: I've been in this building for meetings several times over the years. It seems to me there was a school there at one time. WHITE: That's correct. They actually got a conditional use permit for a school back in maybe 1979. That has now been abandoned, and they moved that school - Morningstar Christian School - to Deschutes River Woods. So there is no longer a school on the site. That conditional use would be considered abandoned at this point. LUKE: I don't want to get too far into this, but there was a suggestion that there could be a Measure 37 claim. Has it been in continuous ownership since that time? The applicant can address this. WHITE: I'd have to check the original 1978 conditional use approval, but I believe it was issues to Christian Life Center. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 8 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: At that time there still was zoning in place and a church required a conditional use permit. Now in the EFU zone, this is not a requirement. Just to let the Board know, the entire record is here for Board review. There are a couple of issues that would help me to review any decision at the end for legal sufficiency for the parties to address. The proposal was to limit the regular church activities to those that are inside the church, and only have the four to six concerts outside. The question is how the church would limit those events, given the traffic issues and the fact that Highway 20 access would be closed down during the events. And, how do they limit it to 2,000 people as the church grows over the years. Also, there is an issue of the portable toilets, which are generally not acceptable sewage disposal by the County. Another issue is regarding other facilities where this type of event could be held. There is a school with an auditorium down the street, and a park that could hold some outside concerts. There is still an issue with the new site map; it still appears to be a less than ten-foot setback. The narrative talks about thirty feet, but the map itself looks like less than ten feet. These are just some issues that need to be addressed during the hearing. It would be helpful for me if these were clarified. LIZ FANCHER: (She presented a document to Legal Counsel.) We filed for a modification today so there would not be any more questions on this. I have a copy of the application and the filing receipts. DEWOLF: So are you starting over? CRAGHEAD: You could still go on with the hearing on that current one. You could also make a decision after you hear the testimony that this is not a modification of the application such that it is required. It can be withdrawn if you find that this is not sufficient enough change to qualify the modification. FANCHER: We felt it was really a close question. The only thing that might involve a change are the pedestrian facilities that are shown on the map. We believe that essentially we are just illustrating how you can accomplish things with conditions of approval in the case. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 9 of 49 Pages LUKE: Do we have the ability to not accept this at all? And not use it at all for this hearing? CRAGHEAD: This was submitted to address the Hearings Officer's concerns in this case, and putting in some of the Hearings Officer's conditions. If you agree with the Hearings Officer's conditions, they would be resubmitting this anyway to fulfill your conditions of approval. DEWOLF: So, if I can offer a gross example to help myself understand, if instead of this they brought in a covered stadium as a proposal in order to meet the Hearings Officer's conditions, that goes far beyond what would be acceptable in just a simple modification to meet conditions. And what Liz just said is that they think this is a close call whether this is or isn't acceptable. Is that what we are talking about here? If it really changes the character of what they are proposing, not just answering the concerns but changing the intent, then we would have to start the whole process over again. CRAGHEAD: That is what the Board is to decide. DEWOLF: And if we were to do that, they would be heading back to the Hearings Officer? CRAGHEAD: Correct. DEWOLF: Yikes. Okay. FANCHER: And I'd like to respectfully disagree with that interpretation of the Code. What the Code says is that the applicant can modify the application anytime prior to the close of the record in the case. And generally what happens is you don't start back at the Hearings Officer level. You just continue at the current level you're at. The remedy is that the hearings body, in this case the Board, may require that the application be renoticed and that additional hearings be held. So if you feel that it is necessary to have an additional hearing, you can set one and send out new notices if you think this is substantial. Certainly that is your call, but this is the remedy. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 10 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: And I will modify my opinion and agree with the applicant's attorney in this case. LUKE: I believe both sides are to have an opportunity to speak before we make a decision on this. CRAGHEAD: If the Board wants to. DEWOLF: Paul, would you like to comment on this? PAUL DEWEY: I represent the Pandians and the Neighbors of Hamby Road. I didn't know this was going to come up today, but I was looking at provisions for modification of applications for another case recently. I think that even if Liz hadn't filed the modification, one would still be required here. Under 22.04, where the definition of modification of application is found, is quite broad. It refers to any amendments of setbacks, site plans, and a laundry list of the kinds of things that might be changed. You have to determine the significance of that, and one of the factors is whether it would require different findings of fact. I think here, where the Hearings Officer has already made findings of fact and we are now presented with a new site plan, it would require new findings of fact. I think it is an automatic modification of application and it is up to you to decide that. My understanding is this restarts the 150-day clock, and there is also a provision for renotice and rehearing. I think the opportunity for renotice and rehearing is for people to then look at this new material. But you are right, Commissioner, I read this as you can just reject it. LUKE: We could reject it and say that we are not going to accept this site plan, but deal with the one the Hearings Officer had. That would take care of it? DEWEY: I think so. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember reading that one option is that you all would not consider the new material being presented. I don't have that much experience with this, but it looks like it organized in a way to almost force the applicant to file a modification to avoid their evidence or new site plan being considered. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 11 of 49 Pages DEWOLF: Here's the complication for me. This is a de novo hearing, which means new evidence can be submitted. Well, the new evidence is that we have a new map that is modified to some degree from what was before the Hearings Officer. My key question is, do we need to renotice, redo the hearing and all that, or can this suffice if we choose to accept it. CRAGHEAD: Code says that the hearings body may require the application be renoticed and additional hearings be held. It doesn't say that you have to. DEWOLF: Okay. Since everybody knows this is happening anyway, we could leave the record open and deal with it in that way. I don't think we are in such a time crunch on the 150 days. CRAGHEAD: The filing application starts the 150 days over again. DEWOLF: Well, that means we are not in much of a time crunch on the 150 days. So we can leave sufficient time and will ask both of you before we are done today what that sufficient time would be in order to properly respond to the new information, assuming that we want to proceed in that direction. LUKE: I share some of the same concerns that Commissioner DeWolf does. One of the reasons we hear these things de novo is that people want to submit things they didn't submit to the Hearings Officer. We accepted one from Hooker Creek or Matt Day the other day, because they wanted to submit something the Hearings Officer wouldn't take. CRAGHEAD: That's new evidence that fit the criteria generally. It's different than a new plan. LUKE: Whatever we do, I don't want this to be a subject of an appeal. I would just as soon reject it and take it out, and then we are done with it. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 12 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: I think you would follow the Code appropriately either way. If you reject it or accept it, you have the ability to accept it because the application has been filed and you can consider it if you want to. DEWOLF: Because we may renotice. CRAGHEAD: But you don't have to. DEWOLF: By protecting everyone's right to respond to this, as it does or doesn't meet the restrictions place by the Hearings Officer, by giving enough time for people on both sides to deal with this, that protects our actions. LUKE: If this is approved by the Board, we could modify that anyway. CRAGHEAD: Exactly. DEWOLF: And putting conditions on it is another way of modifying it. In other words, we could take that, potentially, and condition it to end up just like this. CRAGHEAD: Yes. LUKE: So it would be easier to get rid of this one and deal with the other. CRAGHEAD: Not necessarily. You could be talking about both of them. You could say this is the one that meets the criteria, if you are inclined to approve it. And these are the things that - DEWOLF: If we get to the point of an approval, you could use this one and condition it to turn it right back around into that. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 13 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: You could choose either one. DEWOLF: My inclination is to go ahead and talk about it all, and then give enough time for people to respond to whether to accept or reject it in total, but also whether it meets the conditions that were set forth by the Hearings Officer. CRAGHEAD: If you want those same conditions, yes. DEWOLF: Correct, we can modify those as well. DALY: Are we going to make a decision on this one way or the other? CRAGHEAD: No, not until the end. LUKE: You can reject this at the end and still be okay? CRAGHEAD: Yes. DALY: You can refer to this during the hearing and be okay? CRAGHEAD: Yes. FANCHER: I'd like to say one more thing about the plan. I don't see anything in your Code that says that if someone does what they are supposed to do to modify the application, the evidence can be rejected. It can be rejected if you don't file the modification. CRAGHEAD: What I meant by rejected is that if they don't like those conditions, they can put on new conditions that take it back to that. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 14 of 49 Pages FANCHER: If you don't like the way the conditions were implemented by that plan, certainly you can require something else. The plan also, the physical piece of evidence, if you decide that you do have the authority to completely refuse to accept a modification, then we want to submit the plan to show an illustration of how it is feasible to comply with the conditions of approval being imposed by the Hearings Officer. At this point, I'd like to ask the rest of the folks on our team to come forward, if that is acceptable to the Board. PASTOR JOHN BLUEBAUGH: I'm one of the staff pastors at Christian Life Center. FANCHER: We are here this afternoon because we are appealing the Hearings Officer's decision. We agreed with the Hearings Officer's legal analysis that this use is permitted in the EFU zoning district, and that what the church is proposing is an expansion of its existing church facilities. We agree with her basically on all of those issues. We did file the appeal because we needed an opportunity to respond to her site plan issues, her view of the scope of site plan review, and the things that would need to be shown on a site plan was much more extensive than we expected or anticipated prior to her decision in the case. We needed to appeal in order to provide you with information related to those more detailed requirements that aren't specifically set out in the County's site plan ordinance. This should be a really simple case. It is a site plan application with landscape management review on it, for a use that is allowed outright in the zoning district. It's for a church that capacity of 832 persons at the present time in an existing building that was built n 1978. DEWOLF: How long has this property been in the ownership of the church? FANCHER: I believe since 1978. We haven't researched it. But it has been in continuous ownership. Obviously, the only reason we mention Measure 37 is just that would enable the church to go in and ask for a waiver of the requirement that this be limited to an expansion of a church only. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 15 of 49 Pages We believe it is an expansion of the church facilities and that we fit under the existing law, and that we don't need to file a Measure 37 claim. I know there was discussion at the beginning about Measure 37. This use was a conditional use in 1978; however, at the time State law did not allow the County to impose the use as a conditional use approval. Under the Brent-Mary decision that was subsequently decided, they decided that it was not legal for the County to do, on uses that are listed in certain parts of State statute, ORS 215.283(1). Since churches are one of those uses in subsection (1), it is not legal for counties to tack on conditions to the use. Those are uses that the legislature intended would be allowed outright. What the Brent-Mary decision said is that anything on that list, including churches, is something that is really intended to be in the EFU zoning district. And counties can't make up additional conditions or impose conditional use processes on those kinds of uses. After the Brent-Mary case was decided, there was a subsequent case decided by the Oregon Supreme Court that said that DLCD or LCDC could develop limitations on uses that are allowed on that subsection (1) list. And that's where the requirement comes from that the church be allowed to expand, not to create a new church on the property. They couldn't build a new church. DLCD's regulations say that existing church facilities can be expanded to serve additional church uses. So, if you have an existing church you can expand it. I think in this case what we are proposing would be absolutely clear that the church could come in and build a chapel or a new church in the area of the amphitheater. They could cover it and build a church and attach it on to the existing building or have it as a separate, stand-alone church, and that would be an expansion of existing church facilities. The issue that was raised in the case is whether - DEWOLF: I hate to interrupt, but, Paul, I want to hear your side of that specific issue, because that is a big question in my mind. I just want to make sure that everybody is aware. I want to understand what both sides' perception of expansion is. FANCHER: You could take the existing building and tack on a breezeway and create a chapel or a bigger church, or the existing church could become a chapel. State law does say that you are expanding the existing facilities. Our view is that the facilities are the whole property; that facilities are parking lots, lawn area, and the existing depression in the ground that is proposed for the amphitheater use and for church concerts. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 16 of 49 Pages So, we feel that when you look at the language of the law, that the intent of the law is just to limit churches to locations where they are already constructed on existing properties in EFU zoning districts, if you are within a certain distance of the urban growth boundary. LUKE: So your argument is that even if the facility has a capacity of 700 and some people, if they chose, without the amphitheater, they could choose to have their services in the parking lot. FANCHER: Correct. I guess. LUKE: Since you are looking at the whole piece of property. FANCHER: I believe it is the facilities. You can expand the existing facilities on the church's property to provide for more church services. In this case, there is also a question as to what is a church. What the church is proposing here is that existing services and church events are going to be offered in the amphitheater area of their property. That they are going to have an outdoor church setting so they can use that in addition to the indoor church. That in the summer months they can have regular church services, weddings and funerals or other events as an option, located outside. In any of those cases they would need to be able to move back into the existing church building in the event of inclement weather. They would have to go into the church, and couldn't have more people attend than the maximum capacity of the church. DEWOLF: Explain that to me. You have an amphitheater with 2,000 seats, and it starts to rain, how do you get them into an 800-person church. PASTOR BLUEBAUGH: Multiple services. That's what we do now. DEWOLF: So half of the people have to go home and come back. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 17 of 49 Pages FANCHER: The idea is that the limit of people who can come to the amphitheater would be 832 persons. No more people than that would be allowed into the amphitheater for church services. For anything other than a concert event. That's the only time you would have the possibility of having more persons on the property than are already coming to the church. DEWOLF: Because you are not doing a going back into the church deal; it's a rain or shine, just like a regular concert. Got it. FANCHER: All of the other events are just intended to have an alternate location for parishioners to attend. To give you a sense of the size - DEWOLF: If my daughter wanted to get married at this amphitheater, it's not a concert, could she invite 2,000 friends? FANCHER: No. She could only invite 832 including herself. That would be the limit on the use. The church is wiling to agree to reasonable conditions of approval that say that they must comply with the limits on attendance and use of the facility, as promised in the application. That is their intention, to use the property in that manner. Just to give you a sense of perspective, the church services typically hold 250 to 350 persons. A lot of the events that happen at the church are a much smaller range than the maximum capacity of the church. It is unusual that they would have the church filled for a special event. It would have to be a very large funeral. The numbers they usually see at these events would be like a hundred to maybe three hundred persons for funerals or weddings, things of that nature. DEWOLF: However, let's be clear, the thing we are looking at is not what the current use is, but what the allowable use is, even if it is under 300 now. We have seen explosive growth in this area and in church attendance as a result. You could anticipate that if this church is successful, it will continue to grow as well. So we may be talking about what is at 100 to 300 now, but in ten years from now you might have an average of 600 or 700 people at services. Correct? Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 18 of 49 Pages BLUEBAUGH: In the years that I've been in the ministry, the largest wedding that I've ever been a part of, whether officiating or singing or whatever, and I've been involved in literally hundreds of weddings, the largest I've ever been involved in was 300 people. I've been in weddings in Montana, California, Washington, Oregon and all over the place in large communities. DEWOLF: I guess I'm thinking more of church services. CRAGHEAD: Mine had 400, 21 years ago. BLUEBAUGH: That's a rather large wedding. I want to address that. I have never seen a funeral over 200-300 people. Now, obviously we just had one in Sisters where a prominent family was killed in a plane crash and there was a large funeral. There are exceptions to every rule. But I have never - and I don't think the church has ever in the years that it has been there - had a wedding or a funeral of that capacity. Now, as far as Sunday services, I think we need to realize that right now, although our building seats 832 people, we do two services on a Sunday morning. So I guess if you do the math, we have capacity to do 1,664 people. You can multiply that all you want, but it is still -just like Westside Church, they are very limited in size because of the size of their building, but they run a few thousand people through on a weekend. They do it in multiple services. So it is not unreasonable to say that we could have services that limit the capacity to 800 people or whatever in our amphitheater, and do two. But limit the scope and the size of it. That's not unreasonable to say that. DEWOLF: But we are having to take into account, recognizing that, is if there are two or three services during a day, dealing with the traffic impacts, obviously. Thank you for the clarification. FANCHER: In addition, there is a state law that is designed to apply in all zoning districts that specifically says that they should include uses like weddings, funerals and things of that nature. The law was adopted in part because a church in Jacksonville had a very difficult time getting land use approval to site a church in a residential neighborhood. There were restrictions placed on activities. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 19 of 49 Pages The other case that the legislature considered when they adopted this law was from the City of Portland. The church, as a part of their mission, had a soup kitchen and was serving the homeless. The neighbors didn't like that. The language of 215.441 was written to protect churches and allow them to offer activities that may not be considered strictly religious, worship only. The type of uses proposed in this amphitheater are all uses that are already occurring in the existing church, and they are a part of the church worship program. The one use that was questioned the most was the concert use, and the intent to have concerts and performances, plays and ballets and things of that nature, a maximum of six times a year. They would be sponsored by the church and the church would run the event. DEWOLF: So they are not proposing to do any rentals of the facility to raise funds or anything. FANCHER: Correct. Just church use only, run by this church only. The concert activities were the main question. As I indicated, our view is that singing and church music is a part of church worship. For instances, the Dutch Reform Church, many years ago in the 1800's, split over the issue of singing in the church. People were so concerned about being able to sing in church and whether the congregation could sing or not that they split off and created a new church and immigrated to the U.S. So churches have a long history of singing being a really important factor in religious worship. This is a very important part of the religious message, especially for evangelical Christian churches like the Christian Life Center, where they are trying to reach people in the community and convert them to Christianity, and to joining and being a part of the church. They want to be sure that they retain young members as well as older members. And to reach people through music as well as through sermons and other messages is really important. I obtained examples of others, and have a fair amount of information put into the record that are mostly background pieces of information. (She provided a list of churches to the Board at this time; a copy is attached as an Exhibit.) My legal assistant did some brief research on the internet for outdoor amphitheaters in Oregon that are used by churches. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 20 of 49 Pages We wanted to show that they are in use and are a normal part of church worship, that it is a typical venue and is a church activity. There is Applegate Christian Fellowship, the Beaverton Christian Church, Community Chapel at Ames Creek in Sweet Home, Countryside Christian Fellowship in Eugene - I think it lists about seven locations, and this certainly isn't an exhaustive list. Also, there is a list of other churches in other states that have outdoor amphitheaters. Additionally, in Salem there is an amphitheater in a public park that is used for church services. I'll just give you all of the exhibits now to make it easier. Some of these relate to other issues that will come up later. So I'll jump around a little bit. One issue that was raised in the staff report was access, and whether it was safe to have one access. There are at least two other large event arenas on Hamby Road. One is Big Sky Park, which is a very large and busy park that has numerous soccer fields - I believe at least eight, according to my secretary, whose children play on the fields there. And they also have an off-leash dog park, and areas to play baseball as well. They also have concession stands and a lot of parking, and a very similar use. They just have one entrance. I also submitted their previous land use approvals and they show that the County found that this particular site plan, with one entrance, met the safety requirements and the other impact requirements of the Code. Also, those decisions show that when the County looked at its site plan criteria, it didn't look to issues like noise; it looked to issues that related to the physical characteristics of the use, which is the same approach taken by the Hearings Officer in this case. That's not to say that you shouldn't at all ever consider noise. We have submitted information that relates to noise, and if noise is a concern it is something that can be regulated with conditions of approval about operating the use in compliance with noise levels. DEWOLF: Acoustic guitars instead of electric guitars. FANCHER: Well, it's all what the Board thinks is necessary, yes. We've submitted evidence in the record that shows that even amplified sound is not going to create a noise problem in the area, and will barely affect the noise level compared to the ambient noise in the area around the amphitheater. That when you get to the edge of the property, it is basically going to be the same noise that you would hear of vehicles driving down the street. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 21 of 49 Pages LUKE: How does that compare with the Les Schwab Amphitheater, because when I lived on Reed Market Road, ease of Third Street, we could hear the concerts. FANCHER: The difference in the setting for this particular amphitheater is that it is in a depression in the ground, which will have landscaped berms around it. It is also going to have a wall behind the stage as well. And it was tested in its existing condition, and even with the existing condition it was shown by the noise study that has been placed in the record that there will be minimal impact by noise. LUKE: I thought I read in the record that the stage is going to be visible from the road, which means it would be higher than the berm. FANCHER: The stage is going to be in the ground, but a part of the top, the roof of the stage will be visible. DEWOLF: Wouldn't speakers hang from the roof, the girders? LUKE: I think he wants to hand you a picture. Is this already in the record? FANCHER: Yes. This essentially shows that the structure would go up like that DEWOLF: Typically at amplified concerts, you have speakers that go all of the way, hanging from the very top along with lights and what have you. FANCHER: Correct. The church will address that particular question. The idea is that the sound would be facing away, it would be directed from the highway into the ground. LUKE: So are those the retaining walls that the Hearings Officer referred to? Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 22 of 49 Pages FANCHER: Yes, they'd be behind the stage. LUKE: I couldn't tell by the testimony, will you carve the steps out or will you have just a gentle slope? FANCHER: It will be terraced, in grass. There was a question about distance. The distance is 32 feet, and it is, as shown on the more detailed drawing, shows 32 feet as the distance between the adjoining property line and the walkway that goes around the amphitheater. DEWOLF: So, what you are doing then is saying that the landscaped berm is not part of the construction in terms of setback. FANCHER: There is no building that is being constructed, so there isn't any setback that applies to a landscape berm, or to any - DEWOLF: The construction that you are talking about is the walking trail from the outside of the walking trail, which is 32 feet to the property line to the west. FANCHER: Right, that's what that measures. The things that require building permits that are construction are the stage and the retaining wall, per the Hearings Officer. LUKE: Is that property line to a house, or is that to the other church? BLUEBAUGH: It is to an open field of about I I acres. DEWOLF: This is the Homlquist property? BLUEBAUGH: Correct. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 23 of 49 Pages DALY: Is this stage going to be down in the hole? BLUEBAUGH: That's what I thought. It is really a big hole. FANCHER: The other difference between the Les Schwab amphitheater and this one is that the Les Schwab amphitheater sits in a canyon near a river and it transmits sound, and the people are up above it as well. The sound carries fairly easily because there isn't anything to block it going up to the houses up the hill. So the acoustics are really different in this particular setting. We feel it is an ideal setting for this particular use. Additionally, I have copies of documents that relate to J Bar J, the other big event center on Hamby Road. They hold two very large horse shows on the property every year. Their property is a little less than forty acres, and they use a large part of the property for special events or horse shows, and they have a dinner dance with amplified sound and stage music outdoors. I have a photograph that shows people playing outdoors at the even from 2004. Each year they have this dance and event and have the amplified sound. They have people park and camp overnight at the property. It is a very intensive use of the property. There is a great deal of traffic; there are approximately 750 participants in the event itself, and spectators in addition to that, and people who come to the concerts or come to watch the events. They have children's events and a number of other related activities. I have a packet of information on that. (A copy is attached as an Exhibit.) The information in the record for J Bar J shows that these special events are served by one access, also. It is a very intensive, large event, and was also approved as a land use. There is a question in the staff report about whether it is possible to have outdoor events, because they are regulated by the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. Certainly the County in the past has approved land use permits for outdoor events and activities, and they are allowed by the land use ordinance. Farming itself, in the EFU zone, is an outdoor activity. It is not conducted indoors. We submitted a response to that particular claim. DALY: The outdoor mass gathering ordinance doesn't apply in this case. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 1 1, 2005 Page 24 of 49 Pages FANCHER: That's my position. The outdoor mass gathering ordinance is mentioned because it relates to the fact that the County allows large events to happen on EFU properties, anyway, like the church property, without a special land use approval like this one. The church could offer a large event on its property right now, could have a concert, and just follow the mass gathering ordinance. I wanted to give everyone a perspective of what is already allowed in the EFU zone, because the argument was that this isn't appropriate for the EFU zoning district. CRAGHEAD: There are two different kinds of outdoor mass gatherings. One is under the statute, which is less than 3,000 people, less than 120 hours and only one event every three months. Then there is the ordinance that covers a different type of outdoor mass gathering. DALY: We increased the hours. CRAGHEAD: And the County's has a lower number, between 500 and 3,000, and up to 240 hours. FANCHER: So the County's ordinance could be a way that the church could offer these events without approval of an application. But, obviously we are here because we are asking you to approve their application. At this point, I have spoken long enough and will pass the microphone over Pastor Bluebaugh. LUKE: Could I ask you a question? Another church that kind of fits into this type of neighborhood is the church on 15th and Knott Road, the Mormon Church. But I don't know if they have outdoor activities there. FANCHER: I think generally the LDS Church holds all their activities inside; they build big recreational spaces indoors. I believe it is in the MUA zoning district. But there are a number of churches in the EFU zone in the County. LUKE: There is a new one on Highway 20 past Mountain View Mall. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 25 of 49 Pages FANCHER: Deschutes Christian Fellowship. I will ask Pastor John to explain the site plan issues and respond to that, and maybe to also submit a copy of the sound report. BLUEBAUGH: I want to run through a few things about my job. There have been some questions raised as to the number of events, and I will address those in a minute. I think by what I am going to say now, you'll kind of get an idea of how many events we are going to do. As stated earlier, I'm a staff pastor at Christian Life Center, and with my job I wear multiple hats. I am the worship pastor, the college pastor, and am in charge of visitor assimilation and follow-up, as well as planning events such as concerts. We do a 4th of July event every year that draws about 500 people, with a bar-b-q and everything. As far as promoting concerts, that is just one aspect of my job. We started doing concerts in 1995 when I first came on staff. We have had a pattern of doing four concerts a year. It is a lot of work to promote a concert, there is a lot of logistics involved. If I were just a concert promoter, I would love to do a lot more than what we are proposing to do in the amphitheater. But I am a pastor first and foremost, so that limits really how much we can actually do in regard to concerts. I have other aspects of my job that take priority over that. DEWOLF: The thing we have to look at, though, is not you as an individual. We have to consider what is possible out there. You could tomorrow hire a concert promoter. BLUEBAUGH: We are stating as an organization that this is not what we want to do. We do concerts as an outreach event. The Bible clearly instructs Christians to go into all the world to teach and baptize the way that Jesus did, and the concerts are a tool for us to get the gospel message out. We live in a different generation now, ad you can look around you and know that culturally our world is changing. And what used to work many years ago does not work now. I think it is rather important for the church to change, not the message but perhaps the way we get the message across. This is a tool, using concerts to get the message out. People will come to a concert who would never come to a church service. That's why we started doing the concerts, and they have been a good event. Each time we've done it we have had great success. I will say that in the ten years of doing the concerts we have not had a single traffic or safety event of any kind, no problems at all. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 26 of 49 Pages Prior to doing the concerts we also, as a church, had a history of doing an event called family fun circus, which we are doing again this October 31. It is a Halloween alternative for kids. We've done that every year for at least 15 years. It draws hundreds of kids in with their families as an alternative. Again, we have not had a single issue as far as health, safety or traffic. For years the church did a country fair, a big boutique and antique auction in October. Again, it drew hundreds of people with never an incident. And our concerts that we do and the 4th of July event, we have not had a single traffic incident related to any of them. The amphitheater came about as part of the original vision of the church when it was founded. Obviously this depression out there, for the record, is a caved-in, collapsed lava tube. At one point some of the men wanted to make a big bass pond out of it, and the ladies of the church said no. But in 1995 when I came on staff, I was at the church early one morning praying and having some quiet time with some other people, and literally, for the only time in my life, got a vision for that. I pictured thousands of people out there. From 1998 to 2003,1 moved away to Montana with my family to restart a dying church. We moved back again in 2003 and at that time, that vision was rekindled. That's why we are here and why we are proposing this. I want to clarify a couple of things as far as the events go. I read back through the transcript from the hearing before the Hearings Officer, and in my mind it was very clear what we intended to do. But apparently it was not clear enough. So I want to try to clarify this as much as I possibly can. Obviously we do concerts; I stated that we do four a year right now, inside the building. By having a capacity of only 800 people we are limited as to the artists we can bring in. Some need a larger seating capacity in order to pay for the concert. So we proposed the amphitheater. Number one, because to use the Deschutes County Expo Center would be financially not feasible for us. I did check into that. It is $2,000 per day to rent it, and then to set up the stage for the performance it's another $4,000. By the time it is all said and done, by the time we pay the fees, it would be close to $10,000 per event. The other thing is, I checked into the Les Schwab amphitheater about doing Christian events down there. Can't do it. It is under contract with a company out of Portland, which has sole use and production rights, and will not allow a ticketed event of any kind in there. Even this last summer with the Louis Palou festival held there, it ended up costing the Louis Palou Association close to $50,000 just to use the amphitheater for that day. They had to pay the producers their $25,000 fee to promote the event. That was a free event and it cost them that much. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 27 of 49 Pages So those two areas are definitely out of the question for us because of the cost. So we would like to build our own amphitheater so we don't have that overhead. During the summer months, there is not a whole lot of time you can use something like this. We know we are limited by the weather, and we would not be doing something out there in December or January. We were saying we wanted to limit this to four to six events a year, mostly during the summer months. That is a lot of events for a pastor to plan. Our opponents have kind of muddied the waters in boldly stating in their writings that we are going to do rock concerts. And I want to clarify a few things. We, on occasion with our concerts, have done what you would probably call a rock concert. Not to the magnitude of what you would hear out of the Les Schwab amphitheater. We also do gospel concerts, which are at a much lower scale, something along the lines of Bill Gather - gospel, older music. We try to do concerts that reach all age groups, not just young kids. We are also planning, as part of these events in this four to six event window, a traveling Christian ballet group, and possibly a passion play or something like that, along those lines. It is not going to be just rock concerts. I want to clarify that those at the capacity of the 2,000 are the events that we plan to regulate. We don't want to do something every weekend like at Les Schwab or the Brit Festival in Jacksonville. They literally do a concert there every other day. We aren't looking at that. This is a tool for us to do outreach for the church and community. In addition to the concerts, obviously we want to do some outdoor worship services on Sunday mornings. We already meet on our property in our building. One thing that needs to be clear is that the sound levels are much different when you compare a Sunday service to a concert. If you have been to concerts and been to church, you understand what I am saying. There is a big difference. We acknowledge that Sunday mornings will be much softer. I do want to submit to you a study that we had conducted. (A copy is attached as an Exhibit) We brought in some sound engineers, Delta Audio out of Portland, and he brought in a gentleman out of Seattle with him. They conducted sound tests on our property last May, and what we did is set up a sound system down in the depression and they brought in some sophisticated instruments to do this. On page 2 of the report you will see the instruments used. They spell out very clearly what they did. The reason we brought them in is that they are not biased, they are neutral and not involved with us at all. If you'll look at page 4, they did ambient readings throughout the property. The first reading was on the north end of the property on our back paved road, just right by the power lines. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 28 of 49 Pages The ambient reading on that particular day was 53 decibels. They also took an ambient noise reading out by the front side, right at Highway 20 where our entrance is, and the ambient reading was 63.7 decibels. Ambient means the normal, everyday noise levels that we hear. DALY: Is that before or while a truck is driving by? BLUEBAUGH: It was during. We had all of it. They weren't just quick readings. DALY: It's a combination of all the different things? BLUEBAUGH: Yes, an average. You can see it on the graph. It kind of shows peaks and valleys. They did an ambient noise level at the top of the amphitheater rim, which was 58 decibels, and then on page 5 at the bottom it shows the three ambient readings that they took. If you turn to page 6, they started cranking up some noise. The top graph shows that they generated sound down in the depression up to 100.5 decibels of what they call "pink noise", and it is the most obnoxious sound I think I've ever heard. The mix station was 90 feet from where the stage would be, as it would typically be set up during the concert, with the same exact mixing place and the same speakers. With it at 100.5 decibels, they went out to the church sign at the highway, and it read at 67 decibels, which was a +33 decibels in the reading. Also, on the back road at the north end of the property, it went up to 65.2 decibels, an increase of 12 decibels. The very back page, page 9, shows a graph of where they did the readings and how it was all projected. Just so you know, typical office space where there are many workers in cubicles, ambient noise is 65 decibels. Conversation in a small room unamphlified normally runs between 65 and 70 decibels. That is normal ambient sound. You asked how it compared to Les Schwab. They are not in a depression, not below grade. The stage sits above grade, and the amphitheater is basically a grassy knoll with a stage and it projects to the south, right up the river canyon. I live one mile from there and I can hear the concerts. I can't make out what they are saying but can usually hear the low end. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 29 of 49 Pages LUKE: I wanted to ask a follow-up question to something Commissioner DeWolf referred to. We are dealing with today. Let's say ten years from now your church is extremely successful and you have a large number of people there on a Sunday service. You are in effect restricting themselves to Sunday services. Are you going to have to come back and ask for a modification of the application? Is that the process? DEWOLF: Or add more services. CRAGHEAD: Ms. Fancher is nodding her head on this. LUKE: We would place restrictions in here that the church services could not be larger than what they are inside the building? DEWOLF: Other than the four to six events they are proposing. CRAGHEAD: They are proposing this. LUKE: Now, the 3,000 square foot building that the Hearings Officer approved, what is it for? BLUEBAUGH: Maintenance and storage, which we desperately need right now. LUKE: The reason I ask that question is because if you add another 3,000 square feet and don't use it for storage, but instead use it for an assembly or actually increase size. BLUEBAUGH: We won't. It is a maintenance and storage building as proposed. We have a tour bus for the youth group, a fifteen-passenger van, we have trailers, we have maintenance equipment and other items sitting in the open right now. They get vandalized quite often, so we need a place where we can store them. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 30 of 49 Pages That building will have drive-through bays for the bus to be parked inside, a bay for the van, and storage facilities. This will give us a maintenance center for our existing building and property. It would also serve as the maintenance center for all of the landscaping equipment and the amphitheater equipment as well. It wouldn't be used for an assembly of any kind. LUKE: Laurie, is it against our rules as part of the landscaping - let's say they build the amphitheater. Do they need a permit to do that if they didn't hold any events there? CRAGHEAD: Given the fact they are putting up a wall - LUKE: Let's say they don't put up the wall. Let's say they want to landscape that depression in the ground. Would they require approval? CRAGHEAD: Possibly they could, depending on what the rules say. BLUEBAUGH: Some of the things addressed by the Hearings Officer were safety issues. And something we want to address right now is that the changes made on our drawing obviously were to conform to her recommendations. Things that were left off that we originally intended to include - and if you read the transcripts, most of this was mentioned, it just wasn't included in the drawings. These are the terraced areas right here that are shown in the drawing. There's a legend over here showing the detail of how we are going to do the terracing. It is all natural grass. We've added to this drawing the landscaping that we intended to install, but didn't think it would be critical to have it on the drawing at this point. We are going to put a landscape buffer behind the stage and behind the wall to block off the view of the stage roof that would be above grade, I think about 14 feet from the normal grade. The floor of the area is 14 feet below grade. DALY: That picture is really deceiving. If you go to the site, it doesn't look anything like that. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 31 of 49 Pages BLUEBAUGH: It will, because the wall will be built. Our original intent was just to leave it a natural rock ledge, but it is too unstable and is unsafe. Our thought was that over time rocks can fall from there and people could get hurt, so we decided to build the retaining wall. LUKE: Your testimony is that from the top of the slab to the roof is 28 feet? BLUEBAUGH: Yes. The Hearings Officer wanted to see that we are going to put a three-tier drinking fountain out here - she wanted to know how water was going to be supplied to the people. It will be just like the one at Les Schwab. We are going to have a safety tent that will be staffed by Bend Memorial Clinic. We submitted a letter from them stating that they will be at all of our events. We did this at the Louis Palou festival; I was in charge of getting a safety and health tent there, and Bend Memorial Clinic staffed that for the entire festival. There was a question about the port-a-potties, whether those are acceptable. These aren't something that will be there all summer long. They will be there just for the events, hauled in and out, just like they do at Les Schwab. I believe on the drawing it states how many are needed for 2,000 people. There will be a temporary fence built for each concert for security issues. The Hearings Officer asked about that. Someone like Mike's Fence Center will be brought in to install a temporary fence around this so we can have gated access right next to our building on the northwest side of the building, and on the south side of the building, where the fence comes into the building. There will be two gated entrances. Also, there will be a gated area back here for the gravel parking and staging area for the performers. Now, this is just during the four to six events. During normal services there won't be a fence or any of the other stuff there. LUKE: I would assume you'd leave the fence there all summer and not put it up and down. BLUEBAUGH: Yes, we will. It won't be left out all summer. I want to make a correction. The top of the stage roof is 28 feet above the grass. It is 26 feet from the floor. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 32 of 49 Pages The reason we made the modifications is to show what she asked for. There is a legend here with numbers stating what we changed, according to what she asked for in her review. The other thing I want to submit and talk about is, Liz (Fancher) already talked about other churches using amphitheaters and doing events. What I am submitting to you is a binder with pictures inside from both Applegate Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville and from Community Chapel in Sweet Home. (A copy is attached as an Exhibit.) These pictures are obviously of the amphitheatres both empty and full of parishioners on a Sunday morning. They also show their landscaping details. I think four or five pages back you will see a couple pictures of lights. The lights were put in there because that was an issue brought up for the walking path around the rim of the amphitheater. There will be a walking path going all the way around the rim. Those lights are just for the walking path. They are only four feet high on a 45-degree angle reflecting down on the path. There will not be any light projected off the property. There is also a picture showing the outhouses and those are shielded with vines and arbors. And then Community Chapel as well, showing their amphitheater both empty and full on a Sunday morning. Community Chapel has had its amphitheater for five years. They use it every Sunday morning, weather permitting. CRAGHEAD: May I ask what the zoning is on each of these? FANCHER: The Applegate one was EFU when it started. And it has had a couple of different zoning districts since then. I don't know what the other one is. BLUEBAUGH: I think it is EFU as well. I went over there last week and met with them. In five years of using it, they have not had a single complaint. Their nearest neighbor is about 1/4 mile away. I am done unless you have questions. DALY: We keep talking about 2,000 people, and then in your letter you indicate church capacity is 832. Where does the 2,000 people come in? Did I miss something here? Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 33 of 49 Pages FANCHER: The 2,000 people is just the four to six events a year for a performance event or a concert, that kind of thing. Any of those events would have a religious message or theme, and be basically a worship event. The idea is to have an outdoor church and to continue the same uses that are conducted now, not to exceed the capacity of the church except for four to six times a year. LUKE: But if there is a wedding, it could be bigger than that. DEWOLF: How much longer will the proponents need to take today? CHARLIE ROLLS: I'm Charlie Rolls, the engineer of record for the project. I'll need about 15 minutes. I am the presenter of the plans, and the owner and operator of C.A. Rolls Engineering. We're in the process of trying to work through the site planning issues for the church. I am also a member of the church. I have about five quick items I'd like to run through; I think Pastor John has done a great presentation here already. The first one, in regard to traffic issues, in the earlier hearings we did contact and coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation and secured a traffic handling plan, and that was submitted as part of the record in the earlier files. It is there. And it was actually prepared with and under the direction of Bill Hilton, who is the permit technician for the local ODOT office, and he and I physically sat and prepared it. It was approved by them. I sat with all of the proper authorities for the ODOT offices and it is an approved document. DEWOLF: Other than that, there hasn't been a traffic study done by Kittleston or their equivalent? ROLLS: No, no others were done. The primary reason there haven't been any additional studies done is because we are not dealing with a conventional peak hour impact. There was an ODOT-conducted traffic count performed at the intersection of Hamby and Highway 20, a 24-hour count. We didn't have the exact outcome of that when we left for the meeting; they were in the ODOT office. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 34 of 49 Pages FANCHER: The point I'd like Mr. Rolls to make is that there was a traffic study submitted in the original application. It was used by ODOT and the County to review the traffic safety issues and they determined it was appropriate, and the plans for how the event traffic would be handled was appropriate. ROLLS: That is correct. I have traffic engineering experience and I personally conducted a traffic study to evaluate the impacts of the concert attendees. One of the elements of that traffic analysis with ODOT was that they preferred, after examining the number of proposed vehicles coming in and out of the site, to close off for these four to six events per year the access to Highway 20. They felt that this is not a good place to have people ingress and egress for that kind of volume, just because it could create some congestion on a 55-mile per hour highway. We said fine, no problem there, and asked it they would be okay with going left at Hamby and come through the back, and they said fine. They told us to put together a traffic handling plan for that event and they'd be good to go. We did so, and everything was fine with them. That was submitted. If you want additional copies, they are available. One of the other things that does go on during all of these events is that we do use parking lot attendants. It is not just a helter-skelter parking event; we actually have people out there in vests with cones, lights and flags to direct people. In the years I've been going to church there, since 1994, we've never had a problem with any kind of vehicle struggle on site. Number 2: there was an issue, and I think maybe it has already been dealt with, about the 32-foot setback. The only setback that the County addresses by ordinances that is a required, specific distance, is to a building. DEWOLF: I think we got that part. ROLLS: I wanted to clarify that on that first page, dimensions weren't shown because it was not intended to be other than a schematic. Okay. CRAGHEAD: There was a scale on the page, so maybe the best thing would be to remove the scale. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 35 of 49 Pages ROLLS: Certainly. Or we'll make sure the record understands that the presentation is intended to be accurately shown on sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 of the subsequent documents that were submitted into the record as of today. One of the other areas is in regard to the dustless gravel that the attorney referred to in her documents. We are talking basically about 3/4 inch washed. That's all it is. You put down three to four inches of 3/4 inch washed. We've all got it on our driveways, the long, country driveways, that's dust-free. You go out and buy truckloads of it, and that's what we are going to put down. DEWOLF: Kind of like fat-free cake. You call it that, but - LUKE: Do you water it down? ROLLS: You don't need to water down 3/4 inch washed; it is already cleaned. About three to four acres would be put on compacted soil. We're going to use this gravel four to five times a year. DALY: The dustless part is, you have very low speeds in those areas. If you were going 50 miles a hour, you'd get a little dust. ROLLS: This is parking lot speeds. We don't anticipate dust in the parking areas. That's why we presented it as 3/4 inch washed gravel. This is the same gravel they use at the Fairgrounds. One of the other issues was regarding pedestrian access. That is a building code issue that the Hearings Officer, much to our surprise, chose to address. We have shown that. It wasn't that we didn't want to show it on the original plan, but to me that's a building department issue. I'm a site planner and building designer, and dealing with the safe ingress and egress of pedestrians from their cars to the building is a site plan issue to be dealt with when you apply for your building permit. That's where we thought it would be dealt with. Well, the Hearings Officer decided that she wanted to see it. So we just showed it on the plan. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 36 of 49 Pages LUKE: Are there exterior lights in the amphitheater or just on the paths? ROLLS: Just on the paths. There will be site lighting just for exits on the stage itself that will shine down just enough to light the amphitheater itself; they won't project off- site. They will actually be under the overhang of the roof of the stage structure itself, and will shine down. Plus there is a series of trail lights all the way around the facility. There's an example of that construction method in the book. CRAGHEAD: One other issue was bicycle parking. ROLLS: This was an issue that, again, we applied for consideration of a variance from the Hearings Officer. We have provided on site bicycle parking for 26. On page 2 of 3 you can see this, and 13 of them will be covered. The requirement is 23 with 12 covered. DEWOLF: I have a question. When I was reading through the Hearings Officer's decision, it seemed like the number was just pulled out of the air. It doesn't seem to connect with anything in our Code. ROLLS: I just wanted to address the traffic impacts of the 830 attendees. There was some concern about us having multiple services of 832 people on a given Sunday. The typical numbers of people per vehicle is three. That's what the industry in the church business stands on. I've been out and counted them. That's about 250 to 300 vehicles showing up for a two-hour church period. DEWOLF: Is there enough space between the services so that you've got one group gone while the other group is showing up? ROLLS: Right. As an usher at the church, I find that about half of the people show up in the 45 minutes before the service and the others show up after the service starts. We've never had a traffic impact on any of our accesses. We felt that by providing additional paved access out to Hamby would provide a very excellent secondary access point. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 37 of 49 Pages DEWOLF: That doesn't exist currently. ROLLS: It does exist currently, and it is paved. It shows on the plan. The final item on my list is an element written on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3, on the lower part where it refers to fencing. I put a note on there that a future fence is to be black wrought iron. That will be a decorative fence six feet tall, intended just to surround the landscaping around the west side of the amphitheater as a final permanent structure in the future, with which the temporary fencing would be connected for the major events. Does that make sense? I wanted to clarify it. FANCHER: Responding to your question about bike parking and the way it was calculated, Code requires 1:5, but the Hearings Officer applied 1:20, so 1/4 of that, based on our argument that bike parking in this particular facility and this location probably that was required by Code exceeded the standards of Dolan. DEWOLF: Because it is a long way out for people to ride their bikes. My question was specifically why she came up with the 1:20? What I'm concerned about is the precedent setting nature of the decisions that we make. If we are going to go with something that says 1:20 is reasonable, what is it based on and where is it in our Code allowing this. ROLLS: We were not able to sort that out. LUKE: Legal Counsel can work on that part. DEWOLF: This may be something we need to address in our Code, regardless of this. FANCHER: If the Board determined that 1:5 was required, that could be provided on the site in the same basic location, it's just that there would be four times as much bicycle parking on the property, which we think is a real waste of space. A ten-minute break was taken at this point. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 38 of 49 Pages CRAGHEAD: Just for the record, in case someone is worried about Pastor John talking with the Board, he only asked if the photographer should continue to take pictures - it wasn't about the issue at hand. DEWOLF: I only have four people listed here. Are there others who want to speak to this issue today, or is everyone really interested in dinner instead? If you have not signed up, let me know. Okay, maybe one or two. What I'd like to do is to take anyone else who is in support of this proposal, to get your testimony on the record. Again, we have received a tremendous amount of testimony in writing already and it is in the record. So if you have something other than what has already been submitted, that would be great. Please keep in mind everyone's interest in not being here too late this evening. At this time Chair De Wolf opened the public hearing. LUKE: Also, not only have we received written testimony, we have the Hearings Officer's transcript and have read that. A lot of people testified in person at that one also. Commissioner DeWolf asked Rudy Molzan if he is a supporter. The response was "no". He asked Al Morris the same question; he also answered "no". Someone from the audience asked if letters and other written testimony would be read into the record. Commissioner Luke replied that they would. DEWOLF: Everything that was said last time is in the record, all the letters are in the record. Are there any other supporters who would like to testify now? (None offered.) Now for the opponents. PAUL DE WEY: I am Paul Dewey, representing Jill and Verson Pandian and the Neighbors of Hamby Road. I'd like to give you a few documents of mine own. They don't really match up to the stack you have from Liz, but I'm trying. (He presented documents at this time, a copy of which is attached as an Exhibit..) Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 39 of 49 Pages In the beginning we thought the application was fairly straightforward; that is, it was for an amphitheater. Over time it evolved to not only an outdoor church, with church uses. I'd like to bring us back to the amphitheater, because we are talking about a 38,000 square foot amphitheater for 2,000 people, a 1,600 square foot stage, and nearly 700 cars. The emphasis of this is obviously on the big concerts. Frankly, it looks as if the outdoor use of the existing church facility is almost an afterthought. The focus here really is on the concert events. He went on to say that in his memoranda he points out that this is essentially an urban use and a violation of Goal 13. To his knowledge there is one other in the area, at Tumalo State Park, that seats 300. They had to go through a Goal 3 process. This would be an urban use in a rural area. It would not be substantially for religious uses. Quite a bit is being made of this being an exception, expanding an existing facility. The exception is within three miles of an urban area. They are not just expanding the facility with something that is not allowed in the first place, but a decision must be made whether it is a church use. If there is an office, dormitory, and so on, LUBA decided in the Bechtel case that it wasn't really a church. State law narrowly defines this. In the same way, an amphitheater is not a church. LUBA has pointed out that unlike school buildings, the legislature chose to limit what could be built in conjunction with churches. Two questions are facing the Board. One is whether this should be allowed in an EFU zone. Then there is the site plan criteria to consider. This should not be allowed in the first place. He said he also does not believe that federal statute or state statute really come into play. A recent case before the Oregon Supreme Court found that they are not burdened by a denial because they have another church elsewhere. This would not interfere with church activities, and is neither restrictive nor discriminatory. They should have to go through the Goal 3 process. Under the site plan criteria, what is critical is traffic and noise. The Hearings Officer found that you have to look at the environment of the area. It does not apply just to the site. That makes it meaningless when addressing traffic issues. A traffic engineer's report emphasizing Hamby Road at Highway 20 concluded that this would constitute a significant traffic problem and it will fail. Under expert analysis it has been found to be fundamentally unsafe for special events and the four to six concert events. This will only get worse as the area develops. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 40 of 49 Pages Also, it was anticipated that cars would arrive over a period of time, but this could be as little as over a half-hour arriving and leaving, with a significant impact. Highway 20, and a rural cross road, with speeds of 55 miles per hour or more from the east, does not meet the criteria of a safe environment. It is still not clear what kind of events are being considered and how many attendees there will be. It will be hard to estimate and enforce limits on the number of people. ODOT is concerned about the amount of traffic. The church was forthcoming in its statements about wanting to grow. LUBA says you can't just think this is static. It is illogical and impractical to assume there will be a limited number of people. That's why the Hearings Officer ruled as she did. In regard to noise, the sound engineer did the analysis mid-day. The background noise would be higher then. In the evenings, the area gets quieter and sound will travel an increased distance. This also falls under a subsection relating to working harmoniously with the environment. Mr. Dewey stated that the Board has said it can't turn this down on the basis of not meeting criteria, but Code indicates it can be rejected solely on the site plan criteria. Some people have mentioned J Bar J and Big Sky special events. He is not objecting to special events, just the amphitheater. Those other locations have not built an urban use amphitheater, so are quite different. It is possible they would have an event involving up to 3,000 people every three months. Ms. Craghead said that there are two different kinds of outdoor mass gatherings. Mr. Dewey stated that he believes the amphitheater could have four to six a year, and a future Board may allow different events. Commissioner Luke noted that by then this property could be within the city limits. Mr. Dewey said that it is not appropriate for the area and obviously will need to be addressed further. Commissioner Luke pointed out that when both sides submitted information as to whether the Board should hear this appeal, constitutional issues were raised. Mr. Dewey stated that he wanted to make sure they are in the record so they can be addressed in appeal. Commissioner Luke replied that the Board is not the group to make those kinds of decisions. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 41 of 49 Pages Rudy Molzan said he lives south of the location. He has testified before but has new issues to talk about. He was in law enforcement for 31 years in the traffic division. Another neighbor who is retired from the Oregon State Police also brought up some key issues previously. He referred to an oversized aerial photograph. He pointed out Highway 20 and the problems associated with people driving into town at high speeds. There is an inherent problem with the Hamby intersection in particular. He said he is still not clear on what the Hearings Officer wrote. There is a Jewish faith church located just south of this property off Ward Road, and they are prohibited from having any type of music outside. This is on page 5 of the Hearings Officer's decision. They say that they are not allowed to even play a radio outside. Ms. Craghead noted that the zoning is different with differing criteria. Mr. Molzan added that he has nothing against the church and they do good work. For him and others it is a bad faith issue, as they started this without talking with the neighbors or getting a permit. So how can they be trusted regarding the number of events and people. Commissioner Daly asked if there is Code enforcement action on the property now. Ms. White indicated that it has to do with construction that was started without permits. Ultimately a Code enforcement complaint was filed. If it was just landscaping being done, it would not necessarily be regulated. But if it is tied to a land use approval, that's different. Commissioner Daly said that he did a site visit and found that the hole itself is natural and is already there. The only other thing he saw was some bricks placed for perhaps proposed seating. He would not consider this construction. Ms. White stated they initiated a use that hasn't be authorized. Al Morris of 62265 Hamby Road stated that for two years the church has known they wanted to build this. They hired engineers and attorneys, found loopholes in the law, and sent letters to the owners of property adjacent to them, most of whom don't live in the area. He found out about this accidentally and told the rest of the community. It appears they are trying to slip this through and have spent thousands of dollars on landscaping to be able to call it that. This was not in good faith. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 42 of 49 Pages He said that noise is not a physical entity, but it is measurable. This can be manipulated. It is regulated by the County and there is an ordinance. Noise travels, and he lives there and the speakers are pointed directly at his property. He talked with others in the area and 95% of them would sign a petition regarding the noise. There are undeveloped properties there but the noise carries farther than that. He stated that House Bill 3474 would have expanded the rights of churches. He talked with Representative Whisnant and he was unaware of this situation, but the Bill died in the House. The State knows there should be a limited interpretation of what a church can do. He talked with the City folks about the Les Schwab amphitheater, and found that there was no criteria followed to build it. It was part of the total package for the Old Mill District development. In this case, there seems to be no criteria to follow other than limited state law. This means nothing that is harmful or unnecessary. He said that people are killed in traffic accidents every year in that area. It will become even worse if traffic is funneled onto Hamby Road. He spoke with the County engineer who was sympathetic to the concerns but said he has to follow the law. He added that people who say they want to do what Jesus would do should take this into consideration. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the Board also has to follow the law. Commissioner DeWolf asked that emotional arguments and comments be avoided. Sandy McJunkin of 21680 Old Red Road lives about 2,000 feet from the proposed amphitheater. Her home faces Ward Road. She continues to see increased traffic on Ward Road, included more recently large commercial trucks. She thinks they are trying to avoid 27th Street and signal lights. There is more traffic between Redmond and Highway 20, and some use Hamby Road as a bypass. There has been a big increase in traffic accidents in the area. Also, 300 new homes on property between Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road have been proposed. Another concern is the impact on the fire station, which is not too far away. Fire trucks could take alternate routes but could be delayed, making it a life and death situation. Also, it sounds like this is going to be a business. Admission is charged for these concerts and normally churches are free to attend. Commissioner DeWolf asked why this matters. Ms. McJunkin replied that it would then be a business on EFU land, and asked if they can do that. Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 43 of 49 Pages Commissioner DeWolf replied that they can, as that's what farmers do. The church could charge or not charge. Commissioner Luke pointed out that they could have a concert there without the amphitheater if they wanted to, up to once every three months and up to 3,000 attendees. Commissioner Daly added that the La Pine Rodeo does this each year. The facilities are temporary, though. Ms. Craghead clarified that under the outdoor mass gathering law, there would be no permanent structures for the event, but a stage could be brought in on a temporary basis. Ms. McJunkin said she moved to the area because of the quiet. That kind of noise is a big problem. Oregon Administrative Rules talk about a statewide program of noise control in interest of the public health. Maybe the noise tests should be done at different times. Ms. Craghead stated that this question was raised by the opponents, regarding these activities being harmonious with the environment and whether the Board can consider offsite impacts. Commissioner Luke said that quite a few people have concerns about traffic issues. He sits on various transportation committees and knows that ODOT isn't looking at Highway 20 after it leaves the city. He is not sure how much information they even have on it. Sandra Veeck said she lives off Old Red Road and has an additional rental property. Regarding noise, she can hear highway noise from her house. She asked if the amphitheater is allowed, what protections would there be that at some time a big-time promoter wouldn't come in and do acid rock concerts. Ms. Craghead replied that it depends on what the laws are at the time. Under today's law, the restrictions would be the same as the church would have. Ms. Veeck asked what law gives the government, the city to the federal, the ability to support any specific church or religious group to the exclusion of others in allowing them to have this amphitheater. Commissioner DeWolf replied that there isn't. The Board makes decisions based on land use laws, and are careful about its implications in the same zoning. They don't want to set precedence. Ms. Craghead noted that ORS and LUBA statute do in some ways cause local governments to give preference to churches, but not one church over another. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 44 of 49 Pages Ms. Veeck said that Liz Fancher brought up that the country was founded by people looking for freedom of religion. If this amphitheater is going to be broadcasting its religion, she has no choice but to listen to it. It takes away her rights. Commissioner DeWolf said that it goes back to the noise issue. If she couldn't hear it, it wouldn't matter. Ms. Veeck stated that she doesn't know why they need a 28-foot tall building. She can hear the highway noise, so she would be able to hear this. Kendra Vogt of Bronco Lane said she lives directly opposite of the church building. She submitted her feelings in a previous letter. Regarding the noise issue, where she lives she can hear the noise of shotguns off Brosterhous Road, and that is five miles away. She can hear the cheering from Mt. View High School football games. Reference has been made to 600 or more cars coming and going, not including the staging people. Parents bring teenagers who can't drive, so mom and dad come and go. This is not a fair estimate of the number of cars. She said that the church has been having indoor concerts, at $16 per ticket. In May they almost sold out, over 800 spots. That's nearly $13,000. For 2,000 people it would be a lot more. This makes it a business. Their making money inconveniences the taxpayers, and they are not taxpayers. They are making money hand over foot. She asked if they built the amphitheater where the pastor used to live. Commissioner Luke stated that this is not relevant. Ms. Vogt said that they would lock the church doors on the nights of the concerts to keep people from going in and out. Then it would no longer be a part of the church. Commissioner DeWolf stated that the sanctuary could be open but the classrooms closed. This depends on the use. If a wedding was being held, other rooms might be locked. There are a lot of uses of the County buildings that the public can't access. Ms. Vogt stated that on May 3 she and a neighbor sat on a driveway off Hamby Road to watch the traffic. Five cars went in the back driveway but most went in off Highway 20. If you are coming from the east you have to make a left-hand turn, which is dangerous. Trucks coming from the east won't know there is an event going on. When she tries to get onto Highway 20 from Ward Road, she often has to sit and wait. It is getting to be a bad intersection. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 45 of 49 Pages Commissioner DeWolf indicated that there could be a condition requiring traffic control to allow people to move in and out. He lives near Westside Church and knows how the traffic can be when services are over. Glen Haupt of 61925 Dobbin Road conveyed firm opposition to the amphitheater and does not feel this should be considered a church expansion. The land is zoned EFU and should not be used for non-agricultural uses. This is not a critical element of a church. There are impacts of traffic, highway safety, and environmental. Lives and families will be disturbed by this. He is mostly disturbed by the precedence, for non-agricultural purposes. At this time a five-minute break was taken. Liz Fancher gave rebuttal testimony at this time. In regard to Mr. Dewey's comments, she said she would respond in writing. Regarding the Bechtel case, the law interpreted in ORS has a different view. The first church was developed in an EFU zone as a church and no permit was required. The zoning has changed. In Jackson County, it was felt that the amphitheater was a part of church use. The Bechtel case said that you do not have to narrowly interpret. LUBA said that they should look at what is meant by a church. State law does not define this. Residences and schools are regulated differently. This is intended to protect church-related activities in land use issues. All that LUBA said in Bechtel was that schools and residences are not allowed, but a church is a gathering of people to worship, and County code clearly fits this if the entity has been determined to be a church by the IRS and by nonprofit status. She believes that denial places an undue burden on the church, which would then have to lease other locations. Most of them are not big enough to be suitable. They have a right to expand church uses on their property. Nothing in the law prohibits outdoor worship, if it is consistent with what you can conduct indoors. Essentially, a church is a gathering of people and relates to activities offered by the church. In regard to the statement by Mr. Morris regarding the horse show, they use amplifiers and have dinners and dances. The County approved this with a land use permit. Concerts there are conducted on a stage without any sound buffering. Pastor Bluebaugh, in regard to the noise issue and a sound study, said he had talked with Mr. Morris the day that the testing was done and Mr. Morris said he was out in his field that day and didn't hear anything. As far as the traffic is concerned, they have a traffic control plan with professionals and flaggers on Hamby Road with signs. Signs would also be posted on nearby streets. The Highway 20 entrance could be closed off during events. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 46 of 49 Pages Charlie Rolls said that they recognize traffic congestion can be an issue, so they prepared a plan with direction from ODOT. In regard to Mr. Dewey's comments on stopping sight distance at Hamby, the distance from the first point where you can see the driveway is 620 feet. Rules indicate that a safe stopping distance for 45 miles per hour is 360 feet, and at 55 miles per hour it is 450 feet. So this is not an issue. This is in the record as part of the study. Commissioner DeWolf asked staff and Ms. Fancher how much time is needed to deal with this information. Mr. Blikstad asked for a month. Oral testimony was closed. After discussion, it was determined that written testimony could be submitted on anything new from anyone, through November 10. Rebuttal to any new testimony and any testimony in response to what has been submitted through November 10 would be due on December 2. Additional rebuttal without new evidence, from both sides, is due December 16. After that date Ms. Fancher can do the final rebuttal, which would be due on December 30. All of this information should be funneled through the Community Development and is due by 5:00 p.m. on those dates. Ms. Craghead suggested that the first thirty days be the rebuttal period. This would include four rebuttal periods when normally there are three. Commissioner DeWolf replied that one has been added due to the complexity of the issue. Being no further testimony given, Chair De Wolf adjourned the hearing at. 7:05 p. m. Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 47 of 49 Pages DATED this 11th Day of October 2005 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. - M-~ o-" - - Tom DeWolf, Chair issioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Public Hearing - Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 48 of 49 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Opening statement Land Use Application, dated October 11, 2005 (2 pages) Exhibit B: Site and property maps (4 pages) Exhibit C: Staff report, dated October 5, 2005 (8 pages) Exhibit D: Notice of public hearing, dated September 21, 2005 (1 page) Exhibit E: Decision of Hearings Officer, dated July 19, 2005 (34 pages) Exhibit F: Sign-in sheet (1 page) Exhibit G: Written testimony submitted at October 11, 2005 hearing: Letter and attachments from Paul Dewey, dated October 11, 2005 (34 pages) Letter from Millie Zarasinski, dated October 8, 2005 (1 page) Letter and attachments from Roger & Sandy McJunkin, dated October 11, 2005 (6 pages) Letter and attachments from Kendra Vogt, dated October 7, 2005 (12 pages) Letter from Jude Hanson, dated October 10, 2005 (1 page) Letter from Sandra Veeck, dated October 10, 2005 (2 pages) Letter from Keith E. Rutledge, dated October 6, 2005 (1 page) Exhibit H: Letter from Bend Memorial Clinic regarding first aid services (1 page) Exhibit I: Preliminary statement (3 pages) Exhibit J: Copies of written testimony submitted to the Planning Division (21 pages) Exhibit K: Letter from Liz Fancher, attorney for the applicant, dated October 10, 2005 (7 pages) Exhibit L: Letter from Paul Dewey, dated October 7, 2005 (4 pages) Exhibit M: Letter from Liz Fancher, attorney for the applicant, dated October 5, 2005, and a copy of the transcript of the land use hearing held on April 12, 2005 (97 pages) Exhibit N: Audio decibel measurements report, dated May 2, 2005 (9 pages) Exhibit O: Information on J Bar J Boys Ranch events (15 pages) Exhibit P: History of Findings and Decisions on J Bar J Boys Ranch (44 pages) Exhibit Q: Information on churches with outdoor amphitheaters Exhibit R: Information on comparative outdoor worship centers Public Hearing -Christian Life Center Appeal Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Page 49 of 49 Pages DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION * * LAND USE APPLICATION * * MA054 Taxmap 17-12-3600 801 SERIAL 111678 14:19:47 11 OCT 2005 Request MODIFICATION OF SP-05-13-LM-05-22 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER Location 21720 HWY 20,BE Zone LM AS EFUTRB Other affected property NONE Submitted date 10/11/05 Accepted date Assigned Planner NONE Expiration date 120th day Counter Person DLH Applicant CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER Owner CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER Address 21720 E. HIGHWAY 20 Phone (541) 389-8241 City BEND, OR 97701 Receipts 380019 Amount Paid 109.70 Status Status date Other Permit's 17 Permits TN Due to staff Due in mail Mailed Notice Due to staff Due in mail Mailed Admn decision due Due Plan Dir Admn dec Admn decision mailed Admin decision appealed HO Hearing date Staff rpt due Staff rpt mailed HO decision HO Decision mailed Appealed BOC hearing BOC decision BOC decision mailed BOC decision appealed OTHER L AND USE APPLICATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY LIMITED TO FIRST 10 OF 12 LUA ID ACCPT DATE REQUEST A056 08/08/05 APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION ON AMPITHEATER FOR CH A055 08/08/05 APPEAL OF SP0513/LM0522 LM0522 03/07/05 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT SITE PLAN (ROAD). APPLICATION IS BEING SP0513 03/07/05 SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR STORAGE BLDG AND AMPHITHEATER. TA961 01/17/96 TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN CONDITIONAL US CU7844 CU7922 MP7849 MC9013 05/21/90 MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS TO ADD A SECOND MODULAR CLASSROO SP9032 04/02/90 SITE PLAN TO ADD MODULE FOR CLASSROOMS Exhibit A Page of 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW LAFAYETTE BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 * * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT RECEIPT# 380019 BATCH 4687• 14:19:44 11 OCT 2005 Page 1 TRANSIT# MA054 Taxmap# 17-12-3600 801 Serial# 111678 Situs 21720 HWY 20,BE DESCRIPTION FEE PLANNING FEE 109.70 CHECK NUMBER 10142 AMOUNT APPLIED 109.70 LIZ FANCHER TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED 109.70 This is a receipt and does NOT constitute a permit or license Exhibit-, Page Q- of 9- dQ 0 fl wow m. ®a fl ' U FUME spm Nol. ; - W a Ir,.. o. ©0 f. 00 3 C. I'. I 1 flfl D Q Q I p Sam - XAd I. a ~o .b o 04 p m ~ j ~ ~ 1YUIIR111 e~ zap i I ~ I Oo M osnme!- 1 I i CONCESSION I . FW£ SrATM i I TL 17-12-25-203 rJ CARETAKE;NI III >z 17-12-25-200 EX FT]IN I~ OC , I j I I I f .NSRCfA1MlZ 'gym tWf.3?'~AtRN1Y - I1 v M It _kv K:,`: f MOXIIEA f SggC%ffA SMALL BAIL?.'i:;:;.. FlWd Q • e s o m m m ~ ~ Idd #2 A~ tl~R VERLA \ \ / l - mew wm~ r ~(Illl. 1 BIG - P m X f ! LOW VAINW sl GM wu =rmm e e serr:w,w s .e~sem.rmndger yen~n mnsw.m.- mme.on. "m ' Csmlmn s iescm Exh Page of N N ~ - ti i:.. z n=om' 2 ~pp S V a a o an 09 ti Y'f Exhibit Page 2-- of BIG SKY COLURM iY PARK OFFIEASH AREA - SITE PLAN Exhibit Y5 Page of L 'NN it ~ / E ~ y / I E E E E j ; Hill ~ I J E F E'. E I 1 3iS~~ t I I~ E F E _ I ,fig g 111 • ps t ~ / E E E ~ $ • ~ R \ / F F E 4 cm i„ a) ~ ~ /~1-` F E t Q y f E F E~ 1 I / E E ! E Q ` a I ~ E E E F E ~ I f-y~ L__ t E E E E r \ / ~ t E t E E F t \ -t ` t ! E F E F F F E ( F E E E E E E V I I Q E E E E E E E ~ ; I ~ E E E E E E I P \ ~ E F E E E ~ \ E E f f ~ I ~ I i Q I 1 I 1 199i Hi Ill lip if 16, 1 10$ 9111E g I A I if! ut I ul 11 it All 0 dill $ a 1 I Qsggggs ay 1 1 BIG SKIP COPAMU 7Y PARK I OFRI"M AREA - SM PLAN _Exli>_bit___~__ - Page of Deschutes County Community Development Department Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners From: Catharine White, Associate Planner (ext. 6719; email: cathyw c@deschutes.org) C CC: Catherine Morrow, Planning Director and Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Date: 10/5/05 Re: Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a Proposal to Establish a 2,000-seat Outdoor Amphitheater on a Parcel Zoned EFU-TRB, LM and AS File Nos. A-05-5 and A-05-6 (SP-05-13 & LM-05-22) On August 29, 2005, the Board issued an order accepting to hear both the applicant's and opponents appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision denying the applicant's proposed 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, which is located on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board ordered both appeals to be heard de novo. The purpose of this memorandum to provide the Board with background information and to summarize the issues on appeal for the Board's consideration. Staff has also attached the record that was before the Hearings Officer. I. Background On July 19, 2005, the Hearings Officer issued her decision approving a 3,000 square-foot storage building and denying a proposed 2,000-seat amphitheater at the Christian Life Center church located on Highway 20, east of Bend (see attached Hearings Officer's decision Officer denied the amphitheater because she found the "applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed amphitheater will comply with the site plan approval criteria requiring the creation of a safe environment, considering traffic and other public safety impacts, or with the criteria requiring adequate transition between public and private spaces" (reference page 5 of the decision). Two appeals were filed, one by the applicant, Christian Life Center represented by their attorney, Ms. Liz Fancher, and the other filed by the opponents, Jill and Verson Pandian and Neighbor, of Hamby Road represented by their attorney, Mr. Paul Dewey. Both appeals specify the issues on appeal and cite policy issues, interpretations, and factual errors made by the Hearings Officer that should be reviewed by the Board. The notice of public hearing for the October 11, 2005 hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on September 25, 2005 and mailed to parties entitled to notice, as well as posted in two places in town. As of the date of this memorandum, numerous letters have been received by the Board and forwarded to staff in support of the proposed amphitheater. Staff, in coordination with legal counsel, has prepared the following memorandum, which summarizes several key issues raised on appeal that can be used to guide the appeal hearing process. Some of the issues raised in this summary are addressed at the Hearings Officer's interpretation of the code and staff and legal counsel are simply asking the Board to affirm, reject, or revise the Hearings Officer's findings. Per section 22.32.024(8), the appellants are required to submit to the Planning Division the transcript from the April 12, 2005 public hearing before the Hearings Officer. As of the date of this memorandum, staff has not received a copy of the transcript. '-Exhibit C Page \ of If. Key Issues Raised On Appeal a. RLUIPA-Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000-abbreviated as RLUIPA-is a federal act that as stated by the Hearings Officer on page 9, "prohibits the county from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the regulation furthers a completing government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest." The opponents and applicant weighed in on the applicability of the law and whether the law was constitutional in this case, in which the Hearings Officer replied on page 10: Opponents argue the Hearings Officer should not consider the application of RLUIPA to the applicant's proposal because the federal law is unconstitutional. The applicant responds that none of the Oregon cases applying RLUIPA have held it unconstitutional, and that in any case the law does not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution which prohibits the government from providing sponsorship, financial support or active involvement in religious activities. I find 1 need not address opponents' constitutional claims because, as discussed In detail In the findings below, I have found I cannot approve the proposed amphitheater. Staff believes this to be a legal question to be addressed by legal counsel. Legal counsel advises the Board that only the Courts can determine if RLUIPA is constitutional or not. As for compliance with RLUIPA, the cases across the nation are varied as to whether a particular local decision imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. One of the issues to be decided under RLUIPA is whether the use is a core religious activity associated with the religion. Even if the use is part of the core activities associated with the exercise of religion, cases have held that a local government can regulate that use so long as it is the least restrictive means and the regulation is consistent with the regulation of other similar uses. For example, the Hearings Officers decision discussed the West Linn case in which the Oregon Supreme Court found no violation of RLUIPA when the City denied the site plan of the proposed church because it did not meet the site plan criteria. Thus, while the applicant in the case before the Board has argued that the holding of weddings and church services are core activities of the church, an argument can be made that the church will not be substantially burdened if the amphitheater is denied because they can be held in the church building. This latter argument is valid so long as other similar uses are regulated in the same manner. Given that the County does regulate other entities that provide outdoor wedding service locations, such as bed and breakfast establishments, this argument is plausible. This latter argument is also where the discussion of the State and the County's outdoor mass gathering regulations apply. The Hearings Officer found that the outdoor mass gathering ordinance was not before her and she was correct, which means it is also not before the Board either. b. Whether the proposed amphitheater qualifies as an expansion of an existing church or is a new church in the EFU zone. The Hearings Officer on page 8 found the "appropriate inquiry is whether the activities proposed to occur in the amphitheater and storage/maintenance buildings constitute "church" uses allowed in the EFU zone." The Hearings Officer found the described proposed uses of the church, which evolved over the hearings process, to include: Page 2 Exhibit ____0 Page of - Musical worship services and Christian music concerts 4 to 6 times per year during the summer months. - An outdoor church facility. To provide worship for about 2,000 people, outdoor traditional church services on a Sunday and holding outdoor worship events in a fair whether venue for up to 2,000 people. To be used for the same type of religious activities currently conducted on church property. To be used for outdoor church service, wedding, plays, concerts and other church functions in an outdoor amphitheater seating with its peak use being proposed Christian music concerts for up to 2,000 people. The Hearings officer concluded on page 11: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's arguments persuasive. I find evidence submitted by the applicant shows the proposed uses for the amphitheater are "activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" of the applicant's denomination and other contemporary evangelical Christian churches. For this reason, I also rind the applicant's proposal is a "reasonable use" of the subject property upon which the county may only impose "reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses authorized. " For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer flnds the applicant's proposal to expand the existing church by constructing a storagesmaintenance building, outdoor amphitheater and approximately 750 new parking spaces constitutes the Tejxpansion of an existing churcch on the same tract as the existing use" under Section 1816.025M, and a "church" under ORS 215.283(1)(b), and therefore is an allowed use on the EFULzoned subject property subject to site plan and LM approval criteria, discussed In detail In the findings below. [Emphasis added.] The applicant's appeal notice on pages 1-3, however, clarifies that "all outdoor church uses are uses that are occurring in the existing church building. Only 4 to 6 existing events (religious concerts and performances) will be expanded in size to 2000 persons pergathering. " The appeal application identifies other uses other than concerts that may occur in the amphitheater to include weddings, funerals, and church services. The opponents appeal notice on page 1 states the Hearings officer "improperly interpreted the DCC and Oregon Administrative Rules" as to what constitutes an "appropriate "expansion," which they believe is limited to existing facilities. The appeal notice states that churches are not allowed on EFU land within three miles of a UGB and amphitheaters are not allowed on EFU land unless the applicant first seeks a goal exception to place the amphitheater and related facilities on EFU land. In addition, the opponents believe the proposed facilities are not considered a church and the Hearings Officer "applied an improper definition of "church" and inappropriately used the definition of "church" in the DCC rather than looking to state law and ORS 215.283." The interpretation for the Board, then, is whether these activities (e.g. religious concerts and performances, weddings and funerals, and church services) are part of the church's core Page 3 Exhibit Page 3 of activities and, even if they are, whether expansion of a church means allowing a church to expand to an outdoor facility versus expanding the existing building or constructing accessory buildings. The Board could find some or all of the activities are core activities of the church. An argument could be made, however, that the large concert activities are not core activities any more than the selling of tapes, videos and espresso drinks are core activities of the large church in the City of Bend used as an example in the Hearings Officer's decision. While those latter activities may be regular activities of that one church, they are not core activities in that they are not essential or traditional to the exercise of religion. Additionally, the Board could find that allowing the core activities, such as church services and weddings, outdoors does not meet the definition of expansion of a church because those activities can be held indoors without a substantial burden on the church's exercise of religion. Additionally, the Board could find that allowing an outdoor amphitheater to be considered an expansion of the church runs contrary to the County's establishment of an Outdoor Mass Gathering ordinance because that would be allowing a church to have an outdoor use not allowed for other entities. C. Whether the proposed amphitheater is a "building" or "structure" subject to the heiaht and building setbacks in the EFU zone. The Hearings Officer found on pages 11 and 12 that two elements of the amphitheater meet the definitions of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) for "building" and "structure"-the proposed stage and the 12-foot high retaining wall behind the stage. Both structures according to the record require a building permit. The Hearings Officer found that the stage and retaining wall are less than the 30-foot height restriction in the EFU zone and both structures meet the yard setbacks in the EFU zone. Staff requests, if the Board finds that the amphitheater is an expansion of the church and, therefore, an allowed use in the zone, that the Board review the Hearings Officer's interpretation and agree, reject, or modify the Hearings Officer's findings and interpretations on whether the amphitheater is a building or structure subject to the height and setback requirements. d. Site Plan approval criteria: Whether the Board can consider "operating characteristics" such as the type and volume of music played in the amphitheater, the type of reliaious message, or the time and duration of events in the amphitheater. The Hearings Officer found on page 15 that the statute (ORS 215.441) and site plan review criteria (18.124.060), do not allow the review of operational characteristics except to the extent they are expressly included in the site plan criteria. The Hearings Officer found that the County's review is "quite limited" as stated below: It may consider only those physical aspects of the use typically addressed through site plan review, and may prohibit or restrict the amphitheater use only if necessary infrastructure is not adequate. In other words, 'The physical characteristics of the use" are those site plan elements listed in Section 18.124.040, which include access, vehicle and bicycle parking, building design, signs, outdoor recreation spaces, pedestrian circulation, outside storage, landscaping, exterior lighting, existing topography, septic drainfields, and public improvements. They do not include operating characteristics of the use such • Page 4 Exhibit 0- Page L_ of as the type and volume of music played in the proposed amphitheater, the type of religious message, or the time and duration of events in the amphitheater (except to the extent time and duration affects tragic impacts). The Hearings Officer understands that my conclusion concerning the limiting effect of ORS 215.441 on my review of the applicant's proposal will cause considerable frustration for opponents who have focused much of their opposition to the applicant's proposal on the issue of noise. Nevertheless, I And my conclusion is compelled by the language of the statute. Therefore, my review of the applicant's proposal under the "relate harmoniously" standard will be limited to considering the physical characteristics of the applicant's proposal - J. e. those site plan elements set forth in Section 18.124.040 and 18.124.060 - and their impacts on 'The natural environment and existing development." The opponent's appeal notice on page 1 questions the Hearings Officer's interpretation regarding the approval criteria - stating that "under her analysis the county would do a very limited review of an application so that the County would not consider such basic impact criteria as noise, impacts on property values, and other compatibility issues for the amphitheater." The issue before the Board then is whether the Board agrees with the Hearings Officer's interpretation that only the physical characteristics are to be considered when determining whether the amphitheater use impacts surrounding properties. e. Is the proposed amphitheater use deslaned to Provide a "safe environment"? Site Plan review criteria require the proposed site plan to be designed to provide a safe environment. The Hearings Officer found on page 17 that the primary safety considerations under this approval criterion include: natural hazards, traffic and pedestrian safety, security, emergency services, and public health. Regarding traffic, while the Hearings Officer found on page 19 the applicant's traffic studies are adequate to analyze traffic impacts generated by the four to six peak attendance summer concerts proposed to be conducted in the amphitheater, the Hearings Officer was not able to find the proposed amphitheater is "designed to create a safe environment." The Hearings Officer found the applicant failed to address traffic impacts from other activities proposed to occur in the amphitheater as well as specific information identifying the type, number, frequency, timing, and attendance at these other amphitheater activities that could occur at any time of the day on any day of the week, including: "outdoor traditional church services on a Sunday and for the holding of outdoor worship events" in a "fair weather venue for up to 2,000" people; and "outdoor church services, weddings, plays, concerts and other church functions" in an "outdoor amphitheater setting" with its "peak use" being the proposed Christian music concerts for up to 2,000 people. The Hearings Officer, therefore, concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate the affected transportation facilities can handle activities proposed for the amphitheater and was not able to approve the applicant's proposed amphitheater and associated parking areas. • Page 5 ~Xllltilt t~- Page_ of As previously mentioned, the applicant's appeal notice, however, clarified that church uses will continue to be conducted outdoors at the same level as the existing church building and only four to six existing events will be expanded in size to 2000 persons per gathering. Regarding public health and safety: The Hearing Officer found the applicant failed to address the "nuts and bolts" of how amphitheater activities will be managed "to assure the safety and health of both participants in amphitheater activities and other persons in the neighborhood." The Hearings Officer concluded that "in the absence of information about how these issues will be managed for both the 4 to 6 summer concert events and other activities in the amphitheater, I cannot find that the applicant's proposed amphitheater satisfies this site plan approval criterion, and therefore I cannot approve the amphitheater and associated parking areas." Regarding Privacy and PubliGprivate transition: The Hearings Officer found the proposed amphitheater would be set back approximately 10 feet from the western property line and the submitted site plan did not show any measures to screen or otherwise buffer the amphitheater from the adjacent property. The Hearings Officer found that this minimal setback will not afford adequate opportunities for privacy and transition from the public amphitheater to the adjacent private property and was unable to find the proposed amphitheater satisfies this site plan approval criterion. The applicant's appeal notice on page 3 states the setback to the western property line from the amphitheater is at least 30 feet and not 10 feet and believes this error should be corrected. Staff notes that the applicant's "Overall Site Plan" dated February 23, 2005, submitted with the application shows a scale of 1" = 100', which when measured shows the boundaries of the amphitheater at less than 10 feet from the southwest property line. As a result, staff is not sure what "plan" the applicant is referring to in their appeal notice that shows the distance to the southwestern property line to be 30 feet. Regarding parking and points of access: The Hearings Officer found the site plan did not show "an adequate circulation plan that demonstrates safe separation between vehicles and pedestrians walking to and from the proposed amphitheater" and recommended a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing designated pedestrian pathways and means for safely directing pedestrians to and from the amphitheater. As discussed with legal counsel, the Event Traffic Control Plan required by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the County Road Department discussed on pages 18 and 19 of the Hearings Officer's decision requires that "direct access from the property to US 20 [to] be blocked and all ingress and egress to the site would be from the Hamby Rd. access." Since access to Highway 20 would be blocked, two access points are no longer available during events, which raises a question as to whether access, including emergency access, is adequate and safe. The applicant believes the Hearings Officer could have imposed "reasonable" conditions of approval and on page 4, including several conditions to address the Hearings Officer's findings regarding limiting the number of events, water, sewage disposal, food, trash, security and emergency services, privacy, exterior lighting, etc. In addition, the applicant believes that, by the Hearings Officer requiring how security and emergency services, for example, will be provided, converts the site plan criteria to conditional use criteria as it looks at the conduct of the church use versus the site design to be safe and violates the court holdings of Brentmar and 1000 Friends of Oregon, as discussed in their appeal on page 3. Staff believes this issue is a legal question to be addressed by legal counsel. • Page 6 Exhibit C Page _ of The question for the Board's consideration is: Does the proposed amphitheater provide a safe environment? In considering this question, the Board can agree, reject, or modify the Hearings Officer's findings and interpretations. f. Does the proposed amphitheater have a "floor area"? The off street parking and loading requirements (18.116.030) require, in part, for certain uses, such as entertainment facilities, to designate a loading/unloading area if the floor area exceeds 30,000 square feet. The Hearings Officer on page 24 found the proposed amphitheater "could be considered an "entertainment facility"" subject to the loading berth requirements. The Hearings Officer found the term "floor area" is not defined in the Deschutes County Code and found it "reasonable to conclude the "door area" for the amphitheater would be the 1, 800-square-foot stage, well below 30, 000 square feet and therefore also not subject to the off-street loading requirements of this section." The Hearings Officer's interpretation should be reviewed by the Board and the Board can agree, reject, or modify the Hearings officer's findings and interpretations. 9. Does the proposed amphitheater use have adequate off-street parkin s Daces and related bic cle arkin s aces and does the arkin area have to be Paved? Parking spaces: Determining the number of parking spaces as required by the zoning code is associated with the type of use. The proposed amphitheater, however, as found by the Hearings Officer on page 24 of the Hearings Officer's decision, does not fit into any of the parking categories listed in the off-street parking code. The Hearings Officer, therefore, applied section 18.116.030(D)(8), which states: 8. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. The Hearings Officer found the applicant's proposed 759 "new" parking spaces were excessive. The Hearings Officer found there are approximately 200 existing Parking spaces on the property and the peak concert attendance would attract 667 round trips as determined in the traffic studies, additional 92 parking spaces needed for as well and an persons not possessing concert tickets concert staff. Therefore, the Hearings Officer recommended a condition of ppro alr requi church the n applicant to submit a revised site plan reducing the number of new on-site parking spaces from 759 to 467 spaces (759 minus the 92 parking spaces for non-ticket holders and the 200 existing parking spaces). The applicant's appeal notice on page 5 believes the code does not establish a maximum parking requirement and states the decision cites "no legal basis for the required reduction" in parking. The applicant also clarified that the total number of parking spaces is 759, which includes the 254 existing parking spaces (and not 759 in addition to the existing 200 parking spaces). The questions for the Board are: Does the proposed amphitheater use have adequate parking, does the County code provide a basis for limiting the number of parking spaces for an particular use, and if so, how does this limitation relate to the requirement to provide a safe environment? The Board can agree, reject, or modify the Hearings Officer's findings and interpretations. • Page 7 Exhibit 0 Page of Pavin : Off-street parking requirements require all areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles to be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use unless an exception is granted. The applicant is proposing that the new parking areas be surfaced with gravel. The Hearings Officer, on page 26, found the following exception criteria to be applicable to the applicant's proposal: The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; The Hearings Officer found the proposed amphitheater to be located outside of an unincorporated community. However, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant did not explain why the gravel would not create dust, or what, if any, measures the applicant would use to control dust and, therefore, found the applicant failed to demonstrate it is entitled to an exception to the parking lot paving requirement. The applicant's notice of appeal on page 5 states that the applicant believes the Hearings Officer erred in finding that paving is required for the parking lot in order to provide a dust-free environment and to comply with this section of the code and lists other options that would provide a dust-free environment, such as grass or "dustless gravel." The question for the Board is: Per the exception criteria listed above, Is the applicant entitled to an exception to paving the parking areas? Bicycle Parkin-g: The number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces. The Hearings Officer on pages 28 and 29 found that 467 vehicle parking spaces would require 93 bicycle parking spaces and 47 covered spaces. However, the Hearings Officer found in applying the applicant's Dolan argument that the bicycle parking formula (requiring one bicycle parking space for every five vehicle parking spaces) is "not roughly proportional to the impacts from the proposed amphitheater." Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer found it was reasonable to require at least some bicycle parking and found a requirement of one bicycle parking space for every 20 required vehicle parking spaces is "more reasonable." Therefore, the Hearings Officer recommended a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide a total of 23 bicycle spaces, of which 12 must be covered. The questions for the Board are: Was the Hearings Officer correct in finding that the County Code requirements for bicycle parking are not roughly proportional to the impacts of the amphitheater and does the proposed amphitheater use have adequate bicycle parking? The Board can agree, reject, or modify the Hearings Officer's findings and interpretations. h. Landscape Management review: Does the Landscape Management criteria Highway 20, the applicable Landscape Management corridor? The Hearings Officer found on page 30 that the amphitheater stage and retaining wall constitute structures requiring building permits and therefore, subject to Landscape Management review. The Hearings Officer also found on page 30 that since the upper 16 feet of the stage situated in the amphitheater would be above grade, the stage would be visible from the Highway and, therefore, subject to the Design Review standards in the LM zone. The question for the Board is: Will the upper portion of the stage be visible from Highway 20 and, therefore, subject to the design review criteria in the LM zone? Exhibit C' 0 Page 8 Page of lip Community Development Department ~Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on October 11, 2005, at 3:00 P.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes Services Building Hearing Room at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend, to take testimony on the following item: FILE NUMBERS: A-05-5 and A-05-6 (SP-05-13, LM-05-22) SUBJECT: Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision denying a proposal to establish a 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater on a parcel-zoned - Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB), Landscape Management Combining (LM) zone, and Airport Safety (AS) Combining zone located east of Bend on Highway 20. APPELLANTS: Christian Life Center Represented by attorney Liz Fancher (A-05-5) Jill and Verson Pandion and the Neighbors of Hamby Road Represented by attorney Paul Dewey (A-05-6) LOCATION: The subject property is located at 21720 Highway 20, Bend, and is identified on the County Assessor's map as tax lot 17-12-36-801. STAFF CONTACT: Catharine White, Associate Planner, (541) 383-6719 ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SUBMIT WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR BE SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed documents and attachments --will be available for inspection at no cost at-the Deschutes County Community Development Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be purchased at the office for (25) cents a page. The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an interpreter or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours notice. Materials in alternate formats may be made available with 48 hours notice by dialing 541-388-6621. For other assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service. Please contact Catharine White with the County Planning Division at (541) 383-6719 if you have any questions. Dated this 21 st day of September, 2005 Mailed this 21 st day of September, 2005. Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit Page of DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: SP-05-13, LM-05-22 Christian Life Center 21720 East Highway 20 Bend, Oregon 97701 APPLICANT'S AGENT: Charlie Rowles C. A. Rowles Engineering 720 S.E. Business Way, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97702 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: OPPONENTS' ATTORNEY: Liz Fancher 644 N.W. Broadway Street Bend, Oregon 97701 r ~y~61~"g1yzv2j\ nn M1115 N M0% I o~ ~g ~~9s~sz V'~ow Paul D. Dewey 1539 N.W. Vicksburg Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Attorney for Opponents Jill and Verson Pandion and the Neighbors of Hamby Road REQUEST: The applicant is requesting site plan approval to expand an existing church by constructing a 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater and a 3,000-square-foot storage building on a parcel zoned EFU-TRB, LM, and AS and located on Highway 20 east of Bend. STAFF REVIEWER: Catharine White, Associate Planner HEARING DATE: April 12, 2005 RECORD CLOSED: June 1, 2005 L APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions 2. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone * Section 18.16.025, Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions under DCC Section 18.16.038 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 for Items C through M * Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.16.070, Yards Christian Life Center SP-05-12, LM-05-22 I Exhibit [ Page _J_ of 3y 3. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining (AS) Zone * Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations * Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility * Section 18.80.054, Conditional Uses 4. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining (LM) Zone * Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions * Section 18.84.030, Uses Permitted Outright * Section 18.84.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally " Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards * Section 18.84.090, Setbacks H. A. B. C. D. 5. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions " Section 18.116.030, Off-street Parking and Loading R Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking 6. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review * Section 18.124.030, Approval Required * Section 18.124.040, Contents and Procedure * Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria " Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards FINDINGS OF FACT: Location: The subject property is located at 21720 Highway 20 East, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 801 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-12-36. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use- Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB), Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM), and Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS), and is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 35 acres in size and irregular in shape. A portion of the property abuts Highway 20 on the south, and a portion of the property abuts Hamby Road on the west. The property is relatively level with a natural depression in the south-central portion near Highway 20 in which the proposed amphitheater would be constructed. The property is developed with an existing two-story, 10,000-square-foot church building and associated parking areas. The property has driveway access from Highway 20 on the south and Hamby Road on the west. Vegetation consists of landscaped areas and a few deciduous trees around the existing building, and native brush and grasses on the undeveloped portion of the property. The record indicates the subject property has 4 acres of irrigation water rights. As of the date of the public hearing, the applicant had begun grading and contouring the existing depression and creating seating terraces for the proposed amphitheater. Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) data in the record indicate the soils on the subject property consist predominantly of Soil Unit 58C, Gosney-Rock Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 2 Exhibit_ E Page 2 0 f ,34 Outcrop-Descamp Soil Complex. This soil complex is comprised of 50 percent Gosney soils, 25 percent Rock Outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soils, and 5 percent other inclusions. The Gosney soils have an agricultural capability rating of Class VIIe without irrigation, the Rock Outcrop has a capability rating of Class VIIIs without irrigation, and the Deskamp soils have a capability rating of Class VIE without irrigation.' This soil complex is not defined as high value farmland in Section 18.04.030 of the zoning ordinance. E. Surrounding zoning and Land Uses: Surrounding properties are privately owned and have a mixture of zones and land uses. To the north is a vacant, unirrigated 83-acre parcel zoned EFU-TRB and covered with native vegetation. To the east is a Pacific Power electrical substation. To the south are Highway 20 and two irrigated parcels zoned EFU- TRB and receiving farm tax deferral. To the west is Hamby Road. To the west and southwest are four parcels each approximately 10 acres in size and one 21-acre parcel zoned EFU-TRB that are not irrigated and are not receiving farm tax deferral. Two of the 10-acre parcels are developed with dwellings. A church approved in 1992 (CU-92-195) is located on Hamby Road west of the subject property. The eastern boundary of the Bend Urban Area Reserve is located approximately 2,300 feet west of the subject property and the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and city limits are located approximately 2,600 feet west of the property. F. Procedural History: The subject property has received several land use approvals. The county granted a conditional use permit for the existing church in 1978 (CU-78-44). At that time the subject property was zoned A-1. In 1979 the county granted conditional use approval for a church school (CU-79-22). In 1990 the county granted approval for two classroom modules (SP-90-32, MC-90-13). The applicant's burden of proof states these classrooms were removed when Morning Star Christian School, the prior occupant of the classrooms, moved to another site. The applicant submitted the subject site plan and LM applications on `February 28, 2005 and the county accepted the applications as complete on March 30, 2005. Therefore, the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427 would have expired on August 29, 2005. A public hearing on the applications was held on April 12, 2005. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through May 25, 2005, and allowed the applicant through June 1, 2005 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The record closed on that date. Because the applicant agreed to extend the evidentiary record from the April 12 public hearing through May 25, 2005, under Section 22.24.140 of the county's land use procedures ordinance the 150-day period was tolled for a period of 43 days and now expires on October 11, 2005. As of the date of this decision there remain 85 days in the 150-day period. G. Proposal: The applicant is requesting site plan approval to expand the existing church on The record indicates a very small part of the subject property may consist of Soil Unit 36A, Deskamp Loamy Sand, classified as high value farmland when irrigated. This soil type is located near the property's eastern boundary. The Hearings Officer is aware the NRCS soil maps for Deschutes County generally are not drawn to a scale that allows definitive boundary determinations in the absence of on-site soil surveys, and therefore the actual location of this soil type is not clear. In any case, the record indicates the 4 acres of irrigation water rights on the subject property are not located on the Soil Unit 36A soils. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 3 Exhibit E Page 3 of 31 t. the subject property by constructing a 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, a 3,000-square- foot storage/maintenance building, and 759 new gravel parking spaces. The amphitheater would be located in a natural depression south and west of the existing church building near Highway 20. The applicant proposes to grade and contour the existing surface of the depression, create four-foot-wide seating terraces, and plant the amphitheater surfaces with grass. An open-sided 1,800-square-foot stage with a steel roof would be constructed on the south side of the amphitheater and a 12-foot-tall retaining would be constructed behind the stage. The applicant proposes to use the 3,000-square-foot storagetmaintenance building to store and maintain vehicles and other church equipment. The amphitheater would be used to conduct current church activities such as worship services, weddings, funerals, plays and concerts in an outdoor setting. Peak attendance at these outdoor activities would occur at special Christian music concerts four to six times per year from June through October, on Tuesday, Thursday or Friday nights from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m. The burden of proof predicts the 2,000 participants in the outdoor concerts would generate approximately 670 vehicle trips in each direction. The applicant proposes that during these large concert events the church driveway off Highway 20 would be closed and event-generated traffic would use Hamby Road for ingress and egress. The applicant proposes to create approximately 750 additional gravel parking spaces located north, east and west of the amphitheater. Water for the proposed amphitheater would be supplied by the Avion Water Company. The applicant proposes to provide sewage disposal for large concert events through portable toilets. H. Public/Private Agency Notice and Comments: The Planning Division sent written notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division, Property Address Coordinator, Building Safety Division, Assessor, and Road Department (road department); the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID); the Bend Fire Department; the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11; and Pacific Power. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 4-7 of the Staff Report and/or are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); the Oregon Health Division; Central Electric Cooperative; and PG&E Gas Transmission. L Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received 34 letters and two petitions signed by 104 members of the public in response to these notices. In addition, 26 members of the public testified at the public hearing. Public comments are addressed in the findings below. J. Lot of Record: The Staff Report states the subject property is a legal lot of record having been created by a partition in 1978 (MP-78-49) III. SUMMARY: The applicant has requested site plan approval to construct a 3,000-square foot storage/maintenance building, a 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater with an 1,800-square-foot Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 4 Exhibit F Page ___q- of 54- stage, and new gravel parking spaces for 759 vehicles. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal constitutes an expansion of an existing church on the same tract, a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone subject only to site plan review. I have found the applicable statutory and ordinance provisions limit the county's review of the applicant's proposal to those physical characteristics of the proposal listed in the site plan approval criteria, and do not include consideration of factors such as noise from activities in the amphitheater, property devaluation, and compatibility with surrounding rural land uses. I have found the applicant's proposal complies, or with imposition of conditions of approval can, comply, with most of the applicable site plan approval criteria. However, I have found the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed amphitheater will comply with the site plan approval criteria requiring the creation of a safe environment considering traffic and other public safety impacts, or with the criteria requiring adequate transitions between public and private spaces. Because I have found the evidence in the record concerning traffic impacts, public health and safety, and public/private space transitions is not sufficient for me to find the applicant's proposed amphitheater can satisfy this approval criterion, I cannot approve it or the associated parking areas with conditions. Therefore I must deny this portion of the applicant's proposal. I have found my denial of the applicant's proposal does not violate state law or impose a "substantial burden" on the applicant's religious exercise in violation of federal law. Finally, I find I can give site plan approval for the applicant's proposed storagelmaintenance building. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Preliminary Issues: FINDINGS: Opponents raised several issues not related to any site plan or LM approval criterion that are addressed in the findings below. 1. Adequacy of Notice The record indicates written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing was mailed to the owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property pursuant to Section 22.24.030 of the county's land use procedures ordinance. Opponents argue that notice area was inadequate because sound from amplified concerts in the proposed amphitheater as well as traffic impacts may affect residents of property located further than 750 feet away. The Hearings Officer understands opponents' concerns. However, the county's mailed notice met the requirements of the ordinance. In addition, the county provided notice calculated to reach a much larger group of interested persons by publishing notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, and requiring the applicant to post a notice of proposed land use action sign on the subject property where it could be seen by persons passing by. For these reasons, I find the notice provided by the county was adequate. 2. Code Violation. Opponents argue the applicant's proposal should be denied, and/or the Hearings Officer should take enforcement action against the applicant, because they believe the applicant commenced construction of the proposed amphitheater prior to obtaining site plan approval. The Hearings Officer finds I need not address the question of whether the applicant's activity on the subject property to date constitutes a code violation because this question is not relevant to whether the applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable site plan approval criteria. 3. Church Property Tax Exempt Opponents argue the applicant's proposal should be denied because the subject property is exempt from real property tax. The Hearings Officer finds this issue is not relevant to the applicable site plan and LM approval criteria. 4. Conflict With Prior Decisions Opponents argue approval of the applicant's proposed amphitheater would be inconsistent with a prior county decision prohibiting a nearby synagogue from conducting any activities outside the approved building (Jewish Community of Central Oregon, CU-01-31, SP-01-11). The Hearings Officer disagrees. In the first place, each land use Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 5 Exhibit E Page S of 3 _ application must be evaluated on its own merits under the applicable approval criteria. Second, that case is distinguishable from the applicant's proposal in several significant respects. The property at issue was zoned Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Churches are a conditional use in that zone subject to conditional use approval criteria not applicable to the applicant's proposal, including a requirement that the site be suitable for the proposed church considering its operating characteristics. The applicant in that case did not propose any outdoor activities. And that application was not reviewed under the provisions of ORS 215.441 which, as discussed in detail in the findings below, limits the county's ability to regulate religious activities through land use approval. 5. Outdoor Mass Gatherings in EFU Zone. Opponents argue "outdoor mass gatherings" such as concert events in the proposed amphitheater are not allowed in the EFU Zone. The Hearings Officer finds the extent to which the county's outdoor mass gatherings ordinance - Chapter 8.16 of the Deschutes County Code - applies to church worship services in the proposed amphitheater on EFU-zoned land is not before me in this application. That is because Section 18.16.110(D) states mass gatherings subject to the ordinance are exempt from land use regulations in Title 18. 6. Interference with Electrical Substation.. One opponent questioned whether electronic equipment used in the proposed amphitheater would interfere with the operations of the adjacent Pacific Power electrical substation. The Hearings Officer finds this issue is not relevant to the applicable site plan approval criteria. In any case, Pacific Power did not comment on the applicant's proposal, indicating it has no concerns about such interference. B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone a. Section 18.16.025, Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 for Items C through M D. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441, that are within 3 miles of an acknowledged urban growth boundary, subject to the approval of an exception pursuant to ORS 197.732 and OAR chapter 660, division 004, on nonhigh value farmland. E. Expansion of an existing church or cemetery in conjunction with a church on the same tract as the existing use. FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the subject property is located within three miles of the Bend UGB, and the soils on the subject property constitute nonhigh value farmland. Opponents argue that for these reasons the applicant's proposal falls within the use listed in Paragraph D, and therefore because the applicant did not apply for an exception to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 3 the applicant's proposal must be denied. The applicant counters that its proposed use falls within Paragraph E because it constitutes an expansion of an existing church on the same tract. The applicant asserts the use described in Paragraph D is limited to new churches within three miles of a UGB and does not include church expansions addressed in Paragraph E. The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant. Although the use described in Paragraph D is not expressly limited to new churches, I find such interpretation is reasonable considering the context. Specifically, I find the existence of Paragraph E makes clear Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 6 Exhibit F Page _l of 3c the county intended to distinguish expansions of existing churches from the establishment of new churches. I find any other interpretation would render Paragraph E meaningless. Opponents argue in the alternative that the applicant's proposed amphitheater cannot constitute an "expansion" of an existing church because amphitheaters are not churches, and because the applicant's proposed use of the amphitheater for "Christian rock concerts" does not constitute a legitimate church use. The applicant responds that there is nothing in the applicable statutes or ordinance provisions that precludes the expansion of an existing church through construction of an outdoor amphitheater. The applicant also contends that because the amphitheater would be a new outdoor facility for regular church activities now occurring within the existing church building (e.g., weddings, funerals, worship services, plays and concerts), legally it is no different from expansion of the existing church building. The Hearings Officer finds resolution of this question turns on the interpretation and application of several provisions of Title 18, state and federal statutes governing church uses and uses on EFU-zoned land, and cases interpreting and applying those statutes. These authorities are discussed in the findings below. 1. Section 18.04.030. This section of the zoning ordinance defines church as: * * * an institution that has nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service. The applicant's burden of proof states it is a member of the Open Bible Standard Churches of America and has been operating with nonprofit status since it.was opened in 1979. Based on this evidence, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant qualifies as a "church" under Title 18. 2. ORS 215.283(1)(b) This statute establishes the uses the county may permit outright in the EFU Zone. Subsection (1)(b) lists "churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches." 3. Section 18.16.025(E) This section of the zoning ordinance allows outright in the EFU Zones subject to site plan review the "[e]xpansion of an existing church on the same tract as the existing use." The applicant operates an existing church on the subject property that is a single tax lot owned by the applicant, and therefore is a "tract" under Section 18.04.030.2 Title 18 does not define "expansion." The Staff Report notes the ordinary definition of this term is "to increase the volume, size, or scope." Webster's Second New Collegiate Dictionary (1999). The Hearings officer finds the applicant's proposal to construct a storage/maintenance building, outdoor amphitheater and approximately 750 new parking spaces clearly would increase the size and scope of the church's facilities. It also would increase the scope of the applicant's use of the subject property for church activities. Staff and opponents question whether the proposed amphitheater qualifies as an expansion of a church "use," citing the Land Use Board of Appeals' (LUBA's) decision in Bechtold v. Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204 (2002). In that case, LUBA held that residential church facilities proposed by the applicant - i.e., a rectory, convent, and dormitory were not "church" uses, stating in pertinent part: "Counties may not impose locally adopted barriers to churches or the other uses that are allowed outright under ORS 215.283(1). Brentmar v Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 496, 900 P2d 1030 (1995). However, neither may counties adopt zoning ordinances that allow uses that the relevant EFU statutes would not allow. 2 "Tract" is defined in pertinent part as "one or more contiguous lots or parcels in the same ownership." Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 7 Exhibit e Page -7 of 3_ Kenagy v. Benton County, 112 Or App 17, 20 n 2, 826 P2d 1047 (1992). * * * The county may not expand the uses that are allowed in its EFU zone to allow uses that would not also be allowed by the statute. Therefore, if the disputed rectory, convent and office/dormitory are allowed uses in the county's EFU zone, they are allowed uses because they are properly viewed as 'churches' under ORS 215.283(1)(b) and the county's parallel provision at LDO 218.030(12)(D), not because LDO 00.040(4) expands the list of allowable uses in the county's EFU zone to allow church 'accessory building[s], structure[s], or use[s]' * * Turning to relevant context, ORS 215.283(1)(b) itself offers the most immediate context. ORS 215.283(1)(b) separately and expressly authorizes two uses: (1) 'churches' and (2) 'cemeteries in conjunction with churches.' The legislature's The suggestion just noted is strengthened by the somewhat different approach the legislature took in authorizing schools in ORS 215.283(1)(a), which permits '[p]ublic or private schools, including all buildings essential to the operation of a school. ' * * * This somewhat open-ended provision in ORS 215.283 1 a would potentially allow approval of a variety of accessory, school-related buildings. The legislature's choice to include 'a relatively open-ended provision for other buildings 'essential to the operation of a school' while including only a limited provision for 'cemeteries in conjunction with churches,' undercuts petitioner's reading of ORS 215.283(1)(b) to grant open-ended approval for uses that are accessory to churches. "(Emphasis added.) Opponents argue the above-underscored language signifies that uses permitted outright on EFU- zoned land are limited to those expressly authorized in ORS 215.283(1), and because the term "churches" authorized under Subsection 1 of the statute does not include an amphitheater it cannot be considered a "church" or an expansion of an existing "church." The applicant responds that opponents' argument improperly focuses the analysis on the structures rather than their use. The applicant argues the amphitheater and storage/maintenance buildings themselves are not "uses," but rather are facilities in which "church" uses would take place. The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant's reasoning. Therefore, I find the appropriate inquiry is whether the activities proposed to occur in the amphitheater and storage/maintenance buildings constitute "church" uses allowed in the EFU Zone. The applicant's burden of proof and subsequent submissions state the proposed storage/maintenance building would be used to store and maintain church vehicles and equipment. The Hearings Officer finds the employment of vehicles and maintenance equipment and their storage constitute typical "church" uses. The applicant's description of the proposed amphitheater use has evolved during this process as follows: • The applicant's Burden of Proof states the primary purpose of the amphitheater would be "for musical worship services and Christian music concerts 4 to 6 times per year during the summer months." • The "Burden of Proof Addendum" describes the amphitheater as an "outdoor church facility." Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 8 Exhibit F Page 1,~- of _ • The applicant's April 11, 2005 traffic study describes the purpose of the amphitheater as "to provide worship area for about 2,000 people." • The applicant's engineer's May 25, 2005 submission states the amphitheater would be constructed "for the purpose of holding outdoor traditional church services on a Sunday and for the holding of outdoor worship events" in a "fair weather venue for up to 2,000" people. • The applicant's attorney's May 25, 2005 submission states the amphitheater "will be used for the same type of religious activities currently conducted on church property." • The applicant's Final Argument states the amphitheater would be used for "outdoor church services, weddings, plays, concerts and other church functions" in an "outdoor amphitheater setting" with its "peak use" being the proposed Christian music concerts for up to 2,000 people. The Hearings Officer understands from these descriptions that the proposed use of the amphitheater would be the same as the church activities now occurring in the existing church building - i.e., worship services, weddings, funerals, and religious plays and concerts but in an outdoor setting and with a much larger seating capacity.' There is no question that worship services, weddings and funerals are core church activities. In its May 17, 2005 submission, the applicant provided extensive evidence that religious plays and concerts, including amplified music are typical activities of at least one other contemporary evangelical Christian church in Bend. Opponents offered no contradicting evidence. Therefore, I find the evidence submitted by the applicant provides a sufficient basis for me to find the activities the applicant proposes for the amphitheater constitute "church" uses permitted under ORS 215.283(1)(b) as interpreted by LUBA in Bechtold v. Jackson County. Opponents submitted evidence that the applicant has charged an admission fee to concerts conducted within the existing church building, and argue that for this reason the proposed amphitheater use is a "commercial use" not permitted in the EFU Zone. The Hearings Officer finds there is nothing in the description of "church" that precludes the applicant from charging for concert admission as long as the church remains qualified as a nonprofit entity. As discussed above, the uncontradicted evidence in the record shows the church is a nonprofit. 4. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) 42 USC 2000cc - 2000cc-5 (2000) RLUIPA prohibits the county from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the regulation furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. This federal statute has been applied by the Oregon court in two recent cases. In 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 194 Or App 212, 92 P3d 160 (2004), the Court of Appeals considered the question of whether a prohibition against siting churches on EFU-zoned land within 3 miles of a UGB violated RLUIPA. The court did not reach the question, holding it did not present a justiciable controversy because any decision would be purely advisory inasmuch as the church had not submitted an application for the use. In Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. City of West Linn, (LUBA No. 2002-155, CA 3 The applicant's Burden of Proof states the fire marshal has set the maximum seating capacity for the existing church building at 800 people. 4 The applicant submitted evidence that the Westside Church, one of the largest churches in Bend, conducts religious services including musical performances and amplified music. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 9 Exhibit Page -'T- of .34 A122194, SC S51504), the church sought conditional use approval for a new meeting house. The city denied the permit on the basis that the proposed structure did not comply with the conditional use criteria due to its size, visual impacts, and incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood as well as lack of adequate transportation facilities. The Supreme Court upheld the city's application of its conditional use regulations against a challenge that they violated RLUIPA. Specifically, the court held that no "substantial burden" was imposed because the city's denial meant only that the church could not build that particular building and was required to submit a revised application. The court noted there was no evidence in the record to suggest the city's denial was motivated by religious animus, or that the city would not approve a revised application that satisfied its conditional use approval criteria. The Hearings Officer finds neither of these cases addresses the question presented in this application - i.e., whether the proposed amphitheater and its use constitute an "expansion of an existing church" permitted in the EFU Zone subject to site plan approval. Opponents argue the Hearings Officer should not consider the application of RLUIPA to the applicant's proposal because the federal law is unconstitutional. The applicant responds that none of the Oregon cases applying RLUIPA have held it unconstitutional, and that in any case the law does not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution which prohibits the government from providing sponsorship, financial support or active involvement in religious activities. I find I need not address opponents' constitutional claims because, as discussed in detail in the findings below, I have found I cannot approve the proposed amphitheater. 5. ORS 215.441. This statute was adopted to implement the provisions of RLUIPA and provides: (1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresidential place of worship is allowed on real property under state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations, a county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including worship services, religion classes, weddings, funerals, child care and meal programs, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education. (2) A county may: (a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses authorized under subsection (1) of this section; or (b) Prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including transportation, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a county may allow a private or parochial school for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education to be sited under the applicable state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations. The applicant argues this statute prevents the county from denying the applicant's proposal to Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 10 Exhibit_ _E__ Page 10 of 34 construct the proposed amphitheater because "church" is a use permitted outright subject to site plan review on the subject property, and the proposed uses for the amphitheater are "reasonable" and are "activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" of the applicant. The applicant notes that the only regulations ORS 215.441 authorizes the county to impose on such activities are those addressing "the physical characteristics of the use" such as site and design review. Opponents respond that where, as here, the subject property is zoned EFU, state statutes and rules protecting farmland as well as the county's zoning ordinance and caselaw make clear non-farm uses are to be restricted. Therefore, they argue the provisions of ORS 215.441 cannot be interpreted to allow the proposed amphitheater. The applicant notes that other uses permitted outright and conditionally in the EFU Zones - such as horse shows (permitted outright as a "farm use"), public and private schools (permitted outright subject to site plan review), and public and private parks, living history museums, and expansion of the existing county fairgrounds (permitted conditionally) - may and often do include large outdoor gathering areas. The applicant identifies as examples uses on EFU-zoned parcels located north of the subject property along Hamby Road. These include the playgrounds at Buckingham School, the "Big Sky" ball parks operated by the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District, and the seasonal horse show events at the J Bar J Boys' Ranch. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's arguments persuasive. I find evidence submitted by the applicant shows the proposed uses for the amphitheater are "activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" of the applicant's denomination and other contemporary evangelical Christian churches. For this reason, I also find the applicant's proposal is a "reasonable use" of the subject property upon which the county may only impose "reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses authorized." For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal to expand the existing church by constructing a storagelmaintenance building, outdoor amphitheater and approximately 750 new parking spaces constitutes the "[e]xpansion of an existing church . . . on the same tract as the existing use" under Section 18.16.025(E), and a "church" under ORS 215.283(l)(b), and therefore is an allowed use on the EFU-zoned subject property subject to site plan and LM approval criteria, discussed in detail in the findings below. b. Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards E. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDINGS: The applicant's Burden of Proof states the proposed storage and maintenance building would be 23 feet 6 inches tall. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this building satisfies the height restrictions in the EFU Zone. The Staff Report suggests the proposed amphitheater itself is not subject to the building height standards because it is not a "building" or "structure," defined in Section 18.04.030 as follows: "Building" means a structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind. "Structure" means something constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another structure. The Hearings Officer finds two elements of the proposed amphitheater do meet the definitions of Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 11 Exhibit Page ___i of 3Lf "building" and "structure" - i.e., the proposed stage and the 12-foot-high retaining wall behind the stage. The applicant acknowledges that both structures require building permits. The applicant's submitted building elevation plans show the stage height would be 28 feet 8 inches, with approximately 12 feet of the stage structure height below grade. The submitted elevation drawings show the 12-foot-tall retaining wall also will be below grade. For these reasons, I find both the stage and the retaining wall will meet the height limit in the EFU Zone. C. Section 18.16.070, Yards A. The front yard shall be 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for nonfarm dwelling proposed on parcels or lots with side yards adjacent to a property currently employed in farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for nonfarm dwellings proposed on parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to a property currently employed in farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the subject property is irregular in shape. The most easterly portion of the southern property boundary abuts Highway 20 and the remainder of the southern boundary abuts adjacent EFU-zoned parcels. The most northerly portion of the western property boundary abuts Hamby Road and the remainder abuts adjacent EFU-zoned parcels. The proposed storagelmaintenance building would be located in the north- central portion of the property hundreds of feet from both Highway 20 and Hamby Road, and the proposed outdoor amphitheater and stage would be located in the south-central portion of the property near Highway 20. The record indicates Highway 20 is a designated arterial street and Hamby Road is a designated collector street. Section 18.04.030 defines "front yard" as: * * * a yard between side lot lines measured horizontally at right angles to the front lot line from the front lot line to the nearest point of a building. Any yard meeting this definition and adjoining a street other than an alley shall be considered a front yard. Based on this definition and the unusual configuration of the subject property, the Hearings Officer finds it has two front yards consisting of the two property lines abutting roads - i.e., the most northerly western property boundary and the most easterly southern property boundary. Therefore, the applicable setbacks would be 100 feet from Highway 20 for the portion of the retaining wall higher than 4 feet requires a building permit. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 5 In his comments on the applicant's proposal, Mike Roberts of the Building Safety Division stated any Exhibit E Page M of property abutting the highway and 60 feet from Hamby Road for the portion of the property abutting Hamby. Because the property has two front yards I find it also has two rear yards, defined in Section 18.04.030 as: * * * a yard between side lot lines measured horizontally at right angles from the rear lot line to the nearest point of a building. Based on this definition and the property's configuration, the Hearings Officer finds the rear yards would be the northern and eastern property lines. Therefore, the minimum setbacks from each of the rear property lines would be 25 feet unless the abutting parcels currently are employed in farm use. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the abutting property to the north is zoned EFU-TRB but is not engaged in farm use, and the abutting property to the east is developed with an electrical substation. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the 100- foot setback is not applicable to either the northern or eastern property lines. The remaining property boundaries to be considered are the most westerly southern property line and the most easterly western property line. Each of these property lines abuts adjacent EFU- zoned property rather than roads. The Staff Report characterizes these property lines as front yards requiring a minimum 60-foot setback apparently because they are parallel to the two front yards abutting the roads. The Hearings Officer finds the unusual configuration of the subject property makes these lot lines more closely fit the definition of "side lot line" in Section 18.04.030: * * * any lot line other than a front or rear lot line bounding a lot. Therefore I find the yards created by these lot lines also meet the definition of "side yard" in Section 18.04.030: * * * a yard between the front and rear yard measured horizontally at right angles from the side lot lines to the nearest point of a building. Accordingly, I find the minimum setback from these property lines is 25 feet. The applicant's submitted site plan shows the proposed storage/maintenance building will be located over 25 feet from the north and east property boundaries, and well over 100 feet from all other property boundaries. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it satisfies the standards in this section. The site plan shows the proposed amphitheater stage will be located over 100 feet from Highway 20, Hamby Road and the most southerly western property boundary. Therefore, I find it also satisfies the standards in this section. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has concluded the 12-foot-tall retaining wall behind the amphitheater stage meets the definitions of "building" and "structure" in Section 18.04.030 and will require a building permit. The submitted site plan shows the retaining wall meets both the minimum 25-foot setback from the most southerly western property boundary and the minimum 100-foot setback from Highway 20 and Hamby Road. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies the criteria in this section. 2. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 6 One opponent argued that if Highway 20 is widened in the future the proposed amphitheater and stage could be located closer than 100 feet from the highway. The Hearings Officer finds I cannot evaluate the applicant's proposal based on speculation about the future location of Highway 20. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 13 --ExhibFt- Page 3 of -3 _ a. Section 18.124.030, Approval Required A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: * * * 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; * * FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed expansion of the existing church by constructing a storage/maintenance building, an outdoor amphitheater and additional parking spaces is subject to site plan review under this section as well as Section 18.16.025(E) discussed to the findings above. Opponents argue the applicant's proposal also should be subject to the conditional use criteria in Chapter 18.128, but do not identify any authority for this position. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal constitutes an "expansion of an existing church . on the same tract," a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone subject only to site plan review. Therefore, I find the conditional use approval criteria do not apply. b. Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: a. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDINGS: Opponents raise a number of objections to the applicant's proposed amphitheater based on its operating characteristics such as noise from outdoor concerts and potential impacts from noise on the value of their property value and their enjoyment of their rural lifestyle. The applicant argues the Hearings Officer may not consider these issues unless they are relevant to the applicable site plan approval criteria, and do not exceed the county's limited authority under ORS 215.441 to subject proposed church uses to "reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concermng_the physical characteristics of the uses" authorized under the statute. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer has not previously been presented with the question of whether and to what extent the provisions of ORS 215.441 affect application of site plan approval criteria to a church, and in particular how the statute affects application of the "relate harmoniously" standard under Section 18.124.060(x). As discussed above, opponents have urged me to apply the conditional use approval criterion in Chapter 18.128 to the applicant's proposal in order to assure that the operating characteristics of the proposed amphitheater - i.e., the activities that will occur within Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 14 E., Exhibit Page k_ of 34 the facility - are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, not only are the conditional use approval criteria not applicable to the applicant's proposal, it appears from both ORS 215.441 and the site plan approval criteria in Section 18.124.060 that review of the applicant's proposal may not consider its operational characteristics except to the extent they are expressly included in the site plan criteria. As discussed above, ORS 215.441: • requires the county to allow "the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including worship services, religion classes, weddings, funerals, child care and meal programs;" • authorizes the county only to consider "the physical characteristics of the uses" through site and design review; and • allows the county to "prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship . . . if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including transportation, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the place of worship." The Hearings Officer finds the clear import of these provisions is that where, as here, the applicant has demonstrated that the activities proposed for the amphitheater - worship services, weddings, funerals, and religious plays and concerts are "customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" of the applicant and other contemporary evangelical Christian churches, the county's review of the proposal is quite limited. It may consider only those physical aspects of the use typically addressed through site plan review, and may prohibit or restrict the amphitheater use only if necessary infrastructure is not adequate. In other words "the physical characteristics of the use" are those site plan elements listed in Section 18.124.040, which include access, vehicle and bicycle parking, building design, signs, outdoor recreation spaces, pedestrian circulation, outside storage, landscaping, exterior lighting, existing topography, septic drainfelds, and public improvements. They do not include operating characteristics of the use such as the type and volume of music played in the proposed amphitheater, the type of religious message, or the time and duration of events in the amphitheater (except to the extent time and duration affects traffic impacts). The Hearings Officer understands that my conclusion concerning the limiting effect of ORS 215.441 on my review of the applicant's proposal will cause considerable frustration for opponents who have focused much of their opposition to the applicant's proposal on the issue of noise. Nevertheless, I find my conclusions is compelled by the language of the statute. Therefore, my review of the applicant's proposal under the "relate harmoniously" standard will be limited to considering the physical characteristics of the applicant's proposal - i.e., those site plan elements set forth in Section 18.124.040 and 18.124.060 - and their impacts on "the natural environment and existing development." The remaining threshold question is whether the Hearings Officer may consider under the "relate harmoniously" standard the impacts from the physical characteristics of the applicant's proposal on the "natural environment and existing development" on surrounding properties as well as impacts on the subject property itself. 1 have done so in many previous decisions, based on the fact that the analysis required by Section 18.124.060(a) is not limited to the subject property. I find there is nothing in ORS 215.441 that precludes me from considering both oil site and on- site impacts from the physical characteristics of the proposed church uses. Therefore, I adhere to my previous interpretation and will consider off-site impacts to the extent they are relevant. 1. Subject Property. The record indicates the natural environment on the subject property consists of relatively level terrain with the exception of the natural depression in the south central portion of the property in which the applicant proposes to construct the outdoor amphitheater. The applicant's Burden of Proof states the dimensions of this depression are 15 to 18 feet deep, Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 15 "-Exhibit Page _ is- of ,L+ 150 feet wide and 420 feet long Portions of the subject property are covered with introduced landscaping, portions are covered with native vegetation, and portions have been cleared of vegetation in preparation for construction of the proposed storage/maintenance building and parking areas. The record indicates the applicant has commenced grading and contouring the amphitheater site. Existing development on the subject property consists of the 10,000-square- foot church building and associated driveways, parking areas and exterior light poles. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed amphitheater will relate harmoniously to both the natural environment and existing development on the subject property. The submitted site plan drawings and the applicant's Burden of Proof indicate seating terraces 4 feet wide will be built into the existing north slope of the amphitheater, and most of the amphitheater as well as the stage will be located below the existing grade on the remainder of the property. Because the amphitheater will be constructed within an existing depression on the property, I find it will both preserve existing topography and minimize visual impacts on the property. I find the proposed maintenance/storage building also will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development on the subject property. The Burden of Proof states the building will be roughly the same height as the existing church building but will be considerably smaller and will be painted with muted colors. It will be built on a level site near the existing church building, and will have introduced landscaping to soften its appearance. Finally, I find the proposed parking areas also will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development on the subject property. The submitted site plan drawings show the parking areas will be located west, north and east of the proposed amphitheater on level areas cleared of natural vegetation. The applicant proposes to install landscaping throughout the parking areas to soften their appearance. 2. Surrounding Area. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the natural environment and existing development in the area surrounding the subject property consist of a state highway, a county collector road, an electrical substation, another church, rural dwellings, and EFU-zoned land, some of which is engaged in farm use and some of which is open space. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed storage/maintenance building and parking areas will relate harmoniously to both the natural environment and existing development in the surrounding area for the same reasons they will be harmonious with the subject property. The storage/maintenance building and parking areas will be constructed on level topography and will be similar in appearance to the existing church building and parking areas. As discussed above, the storage/maintenance building will be approximately the same height as the existing church building but will be considerably smaller and will be painted with muted colors. As discussed above, the proposed amphitheater will be built within an existing depression on the subject property, with all but the upper portion of the stage located below the existing grade of the subject property and surrounding land. The amphitheater will be planted with sod and irrigated. The applicant proposes to retain the existing rock outcrop and vegetation located between the amphitheater site and Highway 20 that provide some visual screening of the stage and amphitheater. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed amphitheater will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development on surrounding land, will minimize visual impacts, and will preserve natural features. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this site ' The applicant states it will use its water rights to irrigate the amphitheater. In its written comments, COID stated the applicant would be required to transfer its water rights off the portion of the subject property to be developed with the amphitheater. The Hearings Officer has found I cannot approve the amphitheater. Based on COID's water rights map, I also find the proposed storage/maintenance building would not be located on land subject to irrigation water rights. Therefore, I find I need not condition site plan approval of the storage/maintenance building on transfer of water rights. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 16 Exhibit F Page 1 of 34 plan approval criterion. b. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the applicant proposes to construct the storage/maintenance building and parking areas on relatively level topography, and to construct the amphitheater in an existing depression on the property. The applicant's Burden of Proof states all existing trees greater than six inches in diameter will be preserved and protected. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found I cannot approve the applicant's proposal because the applicant has failed to demonstrate its proposal is designed to provide a safe environment considering traffic impacts. However, I find the applicant will be required as a condition of site plan approval for the storage/maintenance building to preserve all vegetation not required to be removed for construction of the building, and shall protect preserved vegetation during construction. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this site plan approval criterion, like the "relate harmoniously" standard discussed above, does not expressly state whether the "environment" to be evaluated is limited to that on the subject property or includes surrounding properties. As in the case of the "relate harmoniously" standard, in previous decisions I have applied this standard to both on-site and off-site environments. Again, I find nothing in ORS 215.441 that limits my consideration of the "environment" to that on the subject property. Therefore, I adhere to my previous interpretation and consider both the on-site and off-site environment. I find the primary safety considerations under this approval criterion are natural hazards, traffic and pedestrian safety, security, emergency services, and public health. 1. Safe Environment. a. Pedestrian Safety. The Staff Report questions whether the submitted site plan adequately addresses pedestrians walking from parking areas to the proposed amphitheater will be safely separated from vehicles. The site plan drawings show the existing parking areas will be adjacent to the amphitheater, but some of the proposed new parking areas will be located a considerable distance from the amphitheater. The site plan does not show how pedestrians will move from the parking areas to the amphitheater, or identify what measures will be taken on site to protect pedestrians. The Hearings Officer finds that if on appeal from this decision the Board of County Commissioners grants site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater, such approval should include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing designated pedestrian pathways from all parking areas to the amphitheater, and means such as signage directing pedestrians to and from the amphitheater. b. Traffic Safety. The Hearings Officer finds minimal traffic will be generated by the proposed storage/maintenance building since its purpose is to store and maintain church vehicles and equipment. With respect to traffic generated by the proposed amphitheater, the applicant submitted with its Burden of Proof a traffic impact analysis dated February 23, 2005 and prepared by the applicant's engineer. This traffic study includes a "traffic handling plan" for evening concert events. At the public hearing, the applicant submitted a revised traffic study dated April 11, 2005 and a revised "traffic handling plan." Both traffic studies state that typically each vehicle traveling to church worship services carries three people. Based on this assumption, Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 17 Exhibit tl Page _L-I_ of _3~J_ both traffic studies predicted that the peak use of the amphitheater - i.e., an evening concert event attended by 2,000 people would produce 667 vehicle round trips. Both traffic studies assume none of this traffic will use the existing driveway off Highway 20, and that all concert event traffic will use Hamby Road, with the majority of concert event traffic using the Hamby Road/Highway 20 intersection. Both traffic studies conclude the impacts from this traffic will not exceed the capacity of this intersection because the traffic will occur during non-peak traffic hours - i.e., after the p.m. peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.), and because the applicant will utilize a "tragic handling plan" that would be approved by both ODOT and the road department. Both copies of the "traffic handling plan" include diagrams and the following procedures: "Step 1: Fill out a copy of the attached ODOT "Miscellaneous Application "form and convey along with a copy of the Concert Traffic Control Plan to Bill Hilton (or person with equal responsibility from ODOT) at the ODOT offices on north Business Highway 97 in Bend at least three (3) weeks prior to each event. Step 2: Contract for or obtain the services of trained flagging personnel that have the knowledge of handling traffic in a state highway. Step 3. Rent or obtain the proper temporary lighting for traffic control operations after dusk. One light fixture at each f Jagger location as shown on the Control Plan' attached Sten 44. Place signs according to the plan approximately 4 hours prior to traffic impacts. The signs are to be turned away from traffic until flagging operations are ready to begin. Step S• Conduct a pre-event meeting with all safety and traffic handling personnel. Coordinate this meeting the first time each season with David Neyes (or person with equal responsibility from ODO7). Step 6. Obtain and distribute the required safety equipment to the traffic handling personnel in accordance with ODOT regulations or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, latest edition. " The February 23, 2005 traffic study notes the Hamby Road/Highway 20 intersection is controlled by a flashing red light for north/south bound traffic on Hamby and Ward Roads,' and a flashing yellow light for east/west bound traffic on Highway 97. The study describes the impact of the traffic handling plan on conditions at the Hamby Road/Highway 20 intersection as follows: [T]he local left turning volume (east bound turning north) is 64 vehicles per hour, or about one per minute. During the count, no congestion or delays were noted The combined total of 397 trips turning left (see Figure S) will be directed by flaggers and the west bound through traffic will be allowed to flow as much as possible until the left turn lane stacks up in accordance with the traffic handling plan. While there may be some momentary congestion for those making the turn, no serious delay will occur. " In his April 12, 2005 comments on the applicant's proposal, William P. Hilton, ODOT District 8 The county road is named Hamby Road north of Highway 20 and Ward Road south of Highway 20. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 18 Exhibit Page leg of 3t+ 10 Operations Coordinator, stated: "ODOT District 10 staff have met with Rev. Bluebaugh, of the Christian Life Center and Charlie Rowles of CA Rowles Engineering. At our meeting we determined that the planned development and limited events (4-6) did not constitute a change of use to their existing Road Approach Permit. We determined that the events would be handled on a case by case basis and ODOT would review plans for traffic control for these events based on MUTCD [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices] standards for traffic control. It was determined that for these events the direct access from the property to US 20 would be blocked and all ingress and egress to the site would be from the Hamby Rd access We also said that they would need to coordinate these activities with the County for traffic issues on local roads " In his April 11, 2005 comments on the applicant's proposal, Gary Judd, Traffic Engineer with the road department, stated: "The Road Department has reviewed the above Event Traffic Control Plan for this proposed land use. The plan is acceptable to the Deschutes County Road Department. " Opponents argue the applicant's traffic studies are defective because they were not prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, and because their assumption of three persons per vehicle is faulty, particularly for concert crowds. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's traffic studies are adequate to analyze traffic impacts generated by the four to six peak attendance summer concerts the applicant proposes to conduct in the amphitheater. I find the estimate of three persons per vehicle is reasonable to the extent it is based on the applicant's experience with previous programs and events occurring in the existing church building on the subject property. And I find the traffic handling plan has the potential to mitigate traffic hazards during these peak events. However, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has failed to address traffic impacts from other activities proposed to occur in the amphitheater. As discussed in the findings above, the applicant's description of these activities has evolved and expanded during the course of these proceedings to encompass: • "outdoor traditional church services on a Sunday and for the holding of outdoor worship events" in a "fair weather venue for up to 2,000" people; and • "outdoor church services, weddings, plays, concerts and other church functions" in an "outdoor amphitheater setting" with its "peak use" being the proposed Christian music concerts for up to 2,000 people. As a result of the applicant's expanded request beyond a venue for 4 to 6 evening concerts each summer, the proposed amphitheater has the potential to hold a wide variety of church activities, any of which could host up to 2,000 people and could occur at virtually any time of the day on any day of the week. The applicant has not identified the type or number of these activities, and has not addressed traffic impacts from these other amphitheater activities. While the record indicates the current church congregation includes "600 to 800 people," and the capacity of the existing church building is 800 people, the applicant's Burden of Proof and supporting evidence and testimony make clear the applicant desires the ability to accommodate a much larger number of people in an outdoor setting. The applicant's failure to provide specific information identifying the type, number, frequency, timing, and attendance at these other amphitheater activities precludes the Hearings Officer from making a finding that the proposed amphitheater is "designed to create a safe environment." This lack of information also prevents me from Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 19 Exhibit -F Page q of _3L~_ approving the applicant's proposal subject to conditions of approval because I cannot find that the proposal can satisfy this criterion with conditions. As discussed in the findings above, ORS 215.442 authorizes the county to "prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including transportation, is not adequate to serve the place of worship." Because the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has failed to demonstrate affected transportation facilities can handle activities proposed for the amphitheater, I find denial of the applicant's proposal on that basis does not violate this statute. In addition, the federal statute RLUIPA prohibits the county from imposing a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the regulation furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. However, as also discussed above, in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn, cited above, the Oregon Supreme Court held that no "substantial burden" was imposed where the city's denial of a conditional use permit merely required the church to submit a revised application. Therefore, I find denial of the applicant's proposed amphitheater due to its failure to demonstrate compliance with all applicable site plan approval criteria likewise does not impose a "substantial burden" on the applicant. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds I cannot approve the applicant's proposed amphitheater and associated parking areas. However, because the record indicates there will be minimal if any traffic impacts from the proposed storage/maintenance building, I find this building satisfies this site plan approval criterion. c. Public Health and Safety. The record indicates the existing church is served by an on-site sewage disposal system approved through a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permit issued by DEQ. As discussed in the findings above, the capacity of the existing church building is 800 people. The applicant's Burden of Proof states sewage disposal for people attending concerts in the proposed amphitheater will be provided by portable toilets and not by facilities in the existing church building designed to serve the existing congregation. However, at the public hearing, the applicant's engineer testified he did not know where the portable toilets would be placed. In addition, the Burden of Proof does not address: • how drinking water will be provided to concert attendees or others using the amphitheater; • how sewage disposal will be handled for activities in the amphitheater other than large concert events, such as outdoor worship services and weddings; • how food service would be provided to concert attendees and persons using the amphitheater for other activities, and how trash would be handled; and • how security and emergency services will be provided for concert attendees and persons using the amphitheater for other activities. The Hearings Officer finds it is not enough for the applicant to state that its purpose is to be a good neighbor and to provide a blessing for the community. The applicant must adequately address the "nuts and bolts" of how amphitheater activities will be managed to assure the safety and health of both participants in amphitheater activities and other persons in the neighborhood. In the absence of information about how these issues will be managed for both the 4 to 6 summer concert events and other activities in the amphitheater, I cannot find that the applicant's proposed amphitheater satisfies this site plan approval criterion, and therefore I cannot approve the Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 20 Exhibit E Page 2-o of 34 amphitheater and associated parking areas. 9 2. Privacy and Public/Private Transition The Hearings Officer finds the distances between the existing church budding and property lines and the proposed storage/maintenance building will provide adequate opportunities for privacy and for transitions from public spaces to private spaces, and therefore this building satisfies this approval criterion. The submitted site plan drawings show the proposed amphitheater would be set back only approximately 10 feet from the western property line. 10 Although the submitted site plan drawings show the terraced seating areas would be located along the north slope of the amphitheater a much greater distance from the western property boundary, it is clear the amphitheater can only accommodate up to 2,000 people if the rest of the amphitheater also is used for seating, including the area closest to the western property boundary. The submitted site plan does not show any measures to screen or otherwise buffer the amphitheater from the adjacent property. The Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this minimal setback will not afford adequate opportunities for privacy and transition from the public amphitheater to the adjacent private property. In the absence of information about how this transition area will be created, I cannot find that the applicant's proposed amphitheater satisfy this site plan approval criterion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed amphitheater (and associated parking areas) do not satisfy this site plan approval criterion, and there is not sufficient evidence in the record for me to find that the proposal can satisfy this criterion with conditions. Therefore I cannot approve the amphitheater and associated parking areas. d. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of handicapped persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDINGS: The submitted site plan shows a row of handicap seating in the proposed amphitheater as well as 13 handicap parking spaces on the east side of the amphitheater located on the existing paved parking area connecting to an existing concrete walkway. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal's compliance with the applicable provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) will be determined by the county's Building Safety Division at the time of building permit review. e. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. 9 At the public hearing, the applicant's attorney noted that the county's mass gatherings ordinance addresses sanitation and security issues. However, as discussed in the findings above, the mass gatherings ordinance applies only to certain types of events, and I cannot - and need not - determine from the evidence in this record to what extent the ordinance would apply to events in the proposed amphitheater. And in any case, the applicant must demonstrate its proposal satisfies the applicable site plan approval criteria, regardless of whether the mass gatherings ordinance applies. 10 The Hearings Officer previously found the amphitheater stage would be set back more than 100 feet from all property boundaries, including the nearest western property line. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 21 Exhibit E Page of 34 FINDINGS: The submitted site plan drawings show the subject property will continue to have two points of driveway access, one from Highway 20 on the south and one from Hamby Road on the west. Driveways off these streets will connect with both existing and new off-street parking areas serving the existing church and the proposed amphitheater and storagetmaintenance building. The site plan indicates all driveways are at least 20 feet wide, allowing two-way vehicle traffic. The site plan shows interior vehicle circulation patterns by directional arrows. However, as discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the site plan does not show an adequate pedestrian circulation plan that demonstrates safe separation between vehicles and pedestrians walking to and from the proposed amphitheater. For this reason, I have found that if site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater is granted on appeal by the Board of County Commissioners, it should include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing designated pedestrian pathways and means for safely directing pedestrians to and from the amphitheater. f. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDINGS: The Burden of Proof states that since no new paved surfaces are proposed, and that surface drainage will continue to be handled through existing pervious surfaces on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that in light of the topography and size of the subject property, as well as the size of the setbacks from adjacent properties and from Highway 20 and Hamby Road, any surface water will drain away from adjacent property and roads and will remain on site. g. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the proposed storage/maintenance building would be sited north and west of the existing church building and at least 100 feet from all property lines. The Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this building will be significantly screened by the existing church building, vegetation, and distance between neighboring properties. Therefore, I find this proposed building satisfies this criterion. The Staff Report also addresses the proposed parking areas under this criterion. While the parking areas do "store" vehicles while they are on site, I find these areas were not intended to fall under this criterion because the provisions of Chapter 18.116, addressed in detail in the findings below, specifically address off-street parking areas, including screening from adjacent properties. h. All above-ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The applicant's Burden of Proof states any new electrical transformer boxes will be screened by the landscaping. However, the applicant does not state whether any above-ground utility services will be installed to serve the proposed amphitheater or storage/maintenance building. The Hearings Officer finds that if on appeal the Board of County Commissioners grants site plan approval of the proposed amphitheater, it should include a condition of approval requiring that any new electrical installations required for the amphitheater be placed underground. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 22 Exhibit t= Page XP Of 34-- i. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). FINDINGS: The applicable criteria in the EFU, LM and AS Zones are addressed elsewhere in this decision. j. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off -site. FINDINGS: The record indicates there are outdoor parking lot lights on light poles in the existing parking church parking lot. The applicant's Burden of Proof states small trail lights would be installed on pedestrian pathways, and that the amphitheater stage will have "event lighting," but that "at no time during the period of when the amphitheater lights are on will they project onto adjacent properties." Any exterior lighting on the subject property must satisfy the criteria in the county's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance in Chapter 15. 10, and the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of site plan approval for the storagelmaintenance building to install any exterior lighting to meet the requirements of this ordinance. However, in the absence of any detailed information about the type and intensity of either the pathway or amphitheater lights, the Hearings Officer cannot determine whether they will satisfy this site plan criterion. While I have no doubt the small pathway lights can be designed and installed to satisfy the outdoor lighting requirements, "event lighting" for a 2,000-seat amphitheater is an entirely different matter. In addition, the applicant's Burden of Proof does not address what, if any, additional parking lot lighting will be installed. Therefore, if site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater is granted on appeal by the Board of County Commissioners, I find it should include a condition of approval requiring all path, amphitheater stage, and parking lot lighting to comply with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 3. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions a. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 23 Section 18.116.030, Off Street Parking and Loading A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by this title. B. Off-Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, Exhibit Page _2.5_of recreation or entertainment facilities and any similar use which has a gross floor area of 30,000 square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 30,000 0 30,000 -100,000 1 100,000 and over 2 FINDINGS: The proposed storage/maintenance building will be 3,000 square feet in size. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds no loading berth is required for this structure. The Staff Report concludes that the proposed amphitheater has no "floor area" and therefore is not subject to these criteria. I find the proposed amphitheater could be considered an "entertainment facility" under this section. However, since the term "floor area" is not defined, it is not clear what aspect of the amphitheater could be considered the "floor." However, I find it reasonable to conclude the "floor area" for the amphitheater would be the 1,800-square-foot stage, well below 30,000 square feet and therefore also not subject to the off-street loading requirements of this section. C. Off-street parking. Off street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in this section for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building on the effective date of this title is changed. D. Number of spaces required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 4. Places Of Public Assembly. Use Requirements Church 1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of bench length in the main auditorium or 1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of floor area used for assembly Other 1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of bench length. If no fixed seats or benches, 1 space per 60 sq. ft. of floor space FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed storagelmaintenance building does not require any off-street parking. The Staff Report states, and I concur, that the proposed amphitheater does not fit neatly into any of the "places of public assembly" categories in this section. Therefore, I agree with staff and the applicant that it is appropriate to determine the minimum number of required parking spaces under Section 18.116.030(D)(8), which provides: Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 24 Exhibit E Page 04 of 34 Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. The applicant proposes to create 759 new parking spaces. This number is based on the applicant's projection that each vehicle traveling to the peak use concerts seating up to 2,000 people - will carry three people and therefore generate 667 round trips, and that an additional 92 parking spaces will be needed for persons not possessing concert tickets such as church and concert staff. Opponents argue that the proposed number of new parking spaces is both inadequate and excessive. Some opponents believe the number of parking spaces is excessive inasmuch as the applicant's Burden of Proof states the church already has approximately 200 parking spaces. Other opponents argue the applicant's three-persons-per-car assumption is faulty, and therefore additional parking will be required in order to assure that concert attendees do not park on Highway 20 or Hamby Road. The Hearings Officer understands the applicant's desire to provide sufficient parking for peak concert attendance at the amphitheater. In addition, as discussed in the findings above concerning the applicant's traffic study, I have found the estimate of 667 vehicle round trips per concert event is reasonable. However, I concur with opponents that the number of proposed parking spaces is excessive inasmuch as there are approximately 200 existing parking spaces on the subject property, and the applicant has not explained why persons not holding concert tickets cannot be included in the 2,000 amphitheater seats. For these reasons, I find that if site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater is granted on appeal by the Board of County Commissioners, it should include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan reducing the number of new on-site parking spaces from 759 to 467 spaces (759 minus the 92 parking spaces for non-ticket holders and the 200 existing parking spaces). F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off-Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off- street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight-obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. FINDINGS: The record indicates the subject property is not adjacent to any residential uses. i Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable." 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the applicant did not submit detailed information describing the type, intensity and location of exterior lighting for the proposed " The record indicates properties across Hamby Road from the subject property are developed with residences. However, the Hearings Officer finds these parcels cannot be considered "adjacent" to the subject property. Although Title 18 does not define the term "adjacent," Section 18.04.030 defines the term "adjoining" to mean "contiguous, touching or connecting." Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 25 Exhibit E Page 25 of s-' N, - amphitheater, pedestrian pathways, and parking areas. As a result, the Hearings Officer cannot determine whether the applicant's proposal complies with the site plan approval criteria concerning outdoor lighting or the provisions of the county's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance in Chapter 15.10. Therefore, I find that if site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater is approved on appeal by the Board of County Commissioners, it should include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to install any parking lot lighting to meet the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDINGS: The site plan shows that parking spaces in the proposed new parking areas will be configured in groups of more than two. However, the site plan also shows that none of the parking spaces will result in vehicles backing into a street or right-of-way, therefore satisfying this criterion. 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed that the new parking areas be surfaced with gravel. Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate it is entitled to an exception to the paving requirement under Paragraph a, b or c of this subsection. The record indicates the subject property is not located in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community. In addition, there is no evidence in the record that the water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface. The subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community. The applicant proposes to surface the parking areas with three to four inches of 3/4" gravel which the applicant asserts "will eliminate dust issues." However, the applicant does not explain why the gravel will not create dust, or what, if any, measures the applicant would use to control dust. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has failed to demonstrate it is entitled to an exception to the parking lot paving requirement, and should be required as a condition of approval to pave the parking areas if the Board of County Commissioners approves the site plan for the proposed amphitheater on appeal. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 26 Exhibit F Page 9 of -3-4-- 5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the submitted site plan drawings show all driveways and access aisles will be at least 20 feet wide, allowing for two-way vehicle traffic as well as turning and maneuvering. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed new parking areas are set back a sufficient distance from all property lines and street rights-of- way to prevent any vehicle from extending over a parking space onto these areas. G. Off-street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to county standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in Table 1 at the end of chapter 18.116. FINDINGS: The submitted site plan drawings show all proposed new parking areas will have 90-degree stalls that are 10-feet wide and 20 feet deep, meeting the design criteria listed in Table 1 of Chapter 18.116. b. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 27 Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under this title for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of this section. A. B. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required 1. General Minimum Standard. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. Bicycle Parking Design 1. General Description a. Sheltered Parking. Sheltered parking may be provided within a bicycle storage room, bicycle locker, or racks inside a building; in bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure; underneath an awing, eave, or other overhang; or by other facility as determined by Exhibit E Page 2-7 of,39 the Hearings Body or Planning Director that protects the bicycle from direct exposure to the elements. b. Unsheltered parking may be provided by bicycle racks. 2. Location a. Required bicycle parking that is located outdoors shall be located on-site within 50 feet of main entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclist. Such bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right of way and to the main entrance of the principal use. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycle. C. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right(s) of way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicyclists for the public right of way to the bicycle parking facility. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed, or supplied by the employer, as appropriate. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the number of proposed off-street parking spaces is excessive, and therefore any site plan approval should include a condition of approval reducing the number of parking spaces to 467. Therefore, under the formula established in this section, a minimum of 93 bicycle parking spaces would required for the applicant's proposal, including 47 covered spaces. The applicant argues it should not be subject to these bicycle parking requirements because: • the subject property is located in a rural area and no bicyclists currently travel to the church; • there is adequate and accessible open land on the subject property to accommodate bicycle parking; and • imposing a bicycle parking requirement would be unconstitutional under Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 S Ct 2309, 129 LEd2d 304 (1994) and its progeny because there is no rational nexus between the impacts of the proposed use and the requirement of bicycle parking, and the number of required bicycle parking spaces is not roughly proportional to any impacts. The Staff Report notes that in the absence of an approved variance the bicycle parking requirements in this section are applicable to the applicant's proposal. The Hearings Officer Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 28 Exhibit Page _,eg_ of 31J concurs. I am not persuaded by the applicant's argument that persons attending concerts, worship services, or other activities at the proposed amphitheater will never ride bicycles to the site. The subject property is located relatively close to the Bend UGB and is easily accessible by bicycle. I also am not persuaded by the applicant's argument that it should not be required to provide developed bicycle parking areas because bicyclists can simply park their bicycles in "open land" on the subject property. The purpose of the bicycle parking requirements is to assure that bicyclists are not relegated to laying their bicycles down on the ground. With respect to the applicant's Dolan argument, the Hearings Officer agrees that following the bicycle parking formula set out in this section may result in a bicycle parking requirement that is not roughly proportional to the impacts from the proposed amphitheater. Nevertheless, I don't agree with the applicants assertion that no bicycle parking requirement can be justified. Inasmuch as the applicant has stated the proposed amphitheater would provide an outdoor venue for traditional church activities for up to 2,000 people, including worship services, I find it is reasonable to require at least some bicycle parking. However, because the subject property is located outside an urban area, I find fewer persons are likely to travel to the subject property by bicycle than would travel to an urban church by bicycle. Therefore, I find the formula of one bicycle parking space for every five required vehicle parking spaces is excessive under these circumstances. I find a requirement of one bicycle parking space for every 20 required vehicle parking spaces is more reasonable. Accordingly, if site plan approval for the proposed amphitheater is approved by the Board of County Commissioners on appeal, I find it should include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide a total of 23 bicycle parking spaces, of which 12 must be covered. 4. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone a. Section 18.80.020, Application of Provisions The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. FINDINGS: The record indicates a portion of the subject property is zoned AS because the northeast comer of the property is located within Bend Airport's Safety Zone under the Conical Surface and outside of the approach and transition surfaces. However, the applicant's submitted site plan shows none of the proposed development is located in the AS Zone. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this section is not applicable. 5. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) a. Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. FINDINGS: The subject property is zoned LM because of the proximity of Highway 20 which is a landscape management corridor. b. Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations A. Any new structure or substantial alteration of a structure Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 29 Exhibit Page _Z_q_ of 3 requiring a building permit, or an agricultural structure, within an LM Zone shall obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to construction. As used in DCC 18.84 substantial alteration consists of an alteration which exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of the assessed value of the structure. B. Structures which are not visible from the designated roadway, river or stream and which are assured of remaining not visible because of vegetation, topography or existing development are exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.84.080 (Design Review Standards) and DCC 18.84.090 (Setbacks). An applicant for site plan review in the LM Zone shall conform with the provisions of DCC 18.84, or may submit evidence that the proposed structure will not be visible from the designated road, river or stream. Structures not visible from the designated road, river or stream must meet setback standards of the underlying zone. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the storage building and two elements of the amphitheater - the stage and the retaining wall - constitute structures requiring building permits. Therefore, I find LM site plan approval is required for these structures unless they are exempt as non-visible from Highway 20 under Paragraph B of this section. The applicant argues, and based on the photographs of the site in the record I agree, that the retaining wail will not be visible from Highway 20 because of its location below grade and adjacent to an existing rock wall that screens it from the highway. Although the proposed amphitheater stage will be located near the rock wall, the record indicates approximately the upper 16 feet of the stage will be above grade. The Staff Report states, and I concur, that the upper portion of the stage may be visible from the highway. The proposed storage building clearly will be visible from the highway. Therefore, I find the stage and the storage building are subject to LM review. C. Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards A. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, septic drainfields, public utility easements, parking areas, etc., the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the designated road, river or stream shall be retained. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act or agricultural use of the land. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to maintain existing juniper trees located outside the areas that have been cleared for storage building or amphitheater construction. In addition, the applicant proposes to retain the existing rock outcrop located between the amphitheater stage ad Highway 20. The Staff Report recommends, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that if the applicant's proposal is approved it should be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to retain the rock outcrop and all existing trees and shrubs located between Highway 20 and the proposed storage building site and amphitheater stage. B. It is recommended that new structures and additions to Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 30 Exhibit F Page _=~Q_ of .~~4 existing structures be finished in muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site. C. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with white, bright or reflective materials. Metal roofing material is permitted if it is non-reflective and of a color which blends with the surrounding vegetation and landscape. This subsection shall not apply to attached additions to structures lawfully in existence on April 8, 1992, unless substantial improvement to the roof of the existing structure occurs. FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted building elevation drawings for the proposed storage building show a steel roof and siding painted with a "muted" color. The building elevation drawings for the amphitheater stage show a green metal roof. The Staff Report recommends, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that if the applicant's proposal is approved it should be subject to a condition of approval requiring that the applicant use a non-reflective metal material for the siding and roofs, and paint these buildings in a color approved by the county that will blend with the surroundings. The applicant also should be required as a condition of approval and prior to submitting an application for building permits for the storage building and stage to submit to the Planning Division for approval paint and/or material color samples. D. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or rimrock setback exception standards in Section 18.84.090, all structures shall be sited to take advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from the designated road, river or stream. FINDINGS: The record indicates the subject property does not have, and is not located adjacent to, any rimrock. As discussed above, the applicant proposes to place the stage at the south end of the proposed amphitheater and below the grade of the adjacent rock outcrop on the southern portion of the property near Highway 20. The proposed storage building will be located northwest of the existing church. The Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that these two locations will reduce the visual impacts of both the stage and the storage building. In particular, I agree with staff that the approximate 700-foot distance between the proposed storage building and Highway 20 will reduce visual impacts of this structure as seen from the highway. E. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the road, river or stream. Within the LM zone along a state scenic waterway or federal wild and scenic river, the height of a structure shall include chimneys, antennas, flag poles or other projections from the roof of the structure. This section shall not apply to agricultural structures located at least 50 feet from a rimrock. FINDINGS: Section 18.04.030 "grade" as follows: "Grade (ground level)" means the average of the finished ground elevations of all walls of a building. For purposes of height determination in the Landscape Management Combining Zone, grade shall be the average of natural ground elevations prior to construction for the wall closest to and facing the road, river or stream. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 31 ~Exhi6it Page 3% of ~ The natural grade of the subject property is not shown on the applicant's submitted building elevation drawings for the storage building or the amphitheater stage. However, the site plan shows the finished topography. And as discussed in the Findings of Fact above, with the exception of the natural depression in which the applicant proposes to construct the amphitheater, the subject property is relatively level. The building elevation drawings for the storage building show its height would be 23 feet 6 inches, well below the 30-foot height limit in the EFU and LM Zones. The building elevation drawings for the amphitheater stage show its height as 28 feet measured he Hearings Officer finds the stage height will be be ow 30 feet. the natural grade. Therefore, F. landscape ma agementlroads shall be consolidated wherever possible. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section does not apply because the applicant is not proposing residential or commercial driveway access. G. New residential exterior lighting, including security lighting, shall be sited and shielded so that it is directed downward and is not directly visible from the designated road, river or stream. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section does not apply because the applicant is not proposing a residential use. H. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of introduced landscape material to screen the development, assure compatibility with existing vegetation, reduce glare, direct automobile and pedestrian circulation or enhance the overall appearance of the development while not interfering with the views of oncoming traffic at access points of views of mountains, forests and other open and scenic areas as seen from the designated landscape management road, river or stream. Use of native species shall be encouraged. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to plant additional vegetation, including birch trees, on the south side of the amphitheater stage for additional screening. The Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that the combination of this new vegetation, retention of existing vegetation, and the significant distance between the storage building and Highway 20, will provide adequate the screening for the storage building. In addition, I agree the proposed amphitheater stage location below the existing grade will screen this structure from the highway. L No signs or other forms of outdoor advertising that are visible from a designated landscape management river or stream shall be permitted. Property protection signs , (no trespassing, no hunting, eta) are permitted. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section is not applicable because the applicant does not propose any signs as part of this site plan application. J. A conservation easement as defined in section 18.04.280 "Conservation Easement" and specified in section 18.116.220 shall be required as a condition of approval for all landscape management site plans involving property adjacent to the Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 32 Exhibit Ei Page of,34 Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Squaw Creek and Tumalo Creek. Conservation easements required as a condition of landscape management site plans shall not require public access. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section is not applicable because the subject property is not located adjacent to any of the above-listed rivers or streams. d. Section 18.84.090, Setbacks B. Road Setbacks. All new structures or additions to existing structures on lots fronting a designated landscape management road shall be set back at least 100 feet from the edge of the designated road FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed storage building and amphitheater stage would be set back at least 100 feet from Highway 20, thus satisfying this standard. e. Section 18.84.095, Scenic Waterways Approval of all structures in a State Scenic Waterway shall be conditioned upon receipt of approval of the State Parks Department. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section is not applicable because the subject property is not located within a State Scenic Waterway. V. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby: • DENIES the applicant's proposed site plan to expand its existing church by constructing a 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater and 759 new parking spaces; and • APPROVES the applicant's proposed site plan to expand its existing church by constructing a 3,000-square-foot storage/maintenance building, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Approval is based on the submitted site plan, Burden of Proof, and supporting evidence and testimony. Any substantial change to the approved site plan, other than that required by this decision, will require a new site plan application and approval. 2. The applicant/owner shall obtain all required construction permits from the Deschutes County Building Safety Division prior to commencing construction of the storage/maintenance building. 3. Prior to commencing construction of the storage/maintenance building, the applicant/owner shall comply with all requirements of the Bend Fire Department applicable to the storage/maintenance building, and shall submit to the Planning Division written documentation from the Fire Department demonstrating that all required fire hydrants, access, water supply, fire department connections, and post indicator valves have been installed and meet minimum fire flow requirements. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 33 ~Exfiibit ~ Page - 5_ oft_ 4. The applicant/owner shall install any exterior lighting on the storage/maintenance building in compliance with the county's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the storage/maintenance building, the applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division paint color samples for the building. 6. The applicant/owner shall preserve all trees six inches or greater in diameter, shall preserve all vegetation not required to be removed for construction, and shall protect all preserved vegetation during construction. Dated this day of July, 2005. Mailed this _ q "day of July, 2005. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. Christian Life Center SP-05-13, LM-05-22 34 Exhibit____ _ Page -,34_ of 34 O t .N C C cn 9 N L O N .s r E O O 4.0 V O d K i n ( I Q U c tr L m r- I a czar (D N N t ` ► C M CA 1 ' o , d (D a r 1~6 03 _ N r O G C) r c5, QX U :F+ _N o C m Q ~ 7 12 ~ ~ 3 m v- s `f im' Q ci NO a v . .Q v N 3 dW c ~ 9/ - o` o a `°1 F y J N Ex i6it Paa P 1 of ~ Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 pdewey_@bendcable.com October 11, 2005 Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed Amphitheater for Christian Life Center; A-05-5/A-05-6; SP-05-13/LM-05-22 Dear Commissioners: This letter on behalf of Jill and Verson Pandian and the Neighbors of Hamby Road (hereinafter the "Neighbors") is to supplement our earlier letter of October 7 and our prior memoranda to the Hearings Officer of May 18, May 4 and April 12. We are also responding to the Staff Report of October 5 and the Applicant's letter of October 10. NEIGHBORS' RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT 1. RLUIPA - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Legal counsel is correct that only the courts can determine if RLUIPA is constitutional. The parties have briefed this issue, however, in order to be able to continue to raise it on appeal, if necessary. The Staff is also correct in stating that the test of a violation of RLUIPA is whether a local decision imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The Neighbors do not believe that outdoor amplified rock, or music, concerts constitute a core religious activity. Also, weddings, funerals and church services can be held within the church. Accordingly, there would be no substantial burden on religious exercise here if the amphitheater is denied. 2. Whether the Proposed Amphitheater Qualifies as an Expansion of an Existing Church or Is a New Church in the EFU Zone. As recognized by the Staff, and as specifically addressed by the Hearings Officer, the Applicant's proposed uses of the amphitheater "evolved over the hearings process." Now faced with the Hearings Officer's rejection of the application for failure to address impacts from all of these additional activities the Applicant has added during the hearings process, the Applicant on appeal now asserts that none of these other activities (other than the concert events) will attract any more people than currently attend the indoor facility. On the one hand, that argument is not consistent with the Applicant's characterization of the amphitheater as an "expansion," and on the other the church officials at the hearing were very clear that an intended objective of the amphitheater was to "provide a growth opportunity for our church." (Tr. 13) LUBA, in the case Exhibit Page _ of Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 2 of Weaver v. Linn County, cited in our October 7 letter, noted that future growth has to be anticipated. We again agree with the Staff Report that a critical question is whether the outdoor amplified concerts are to be considered as core activities. The Hearings Officer cited to the fact that the West Side Church had indoor concerts, but such indoor concerts are certainly not the same as these proposed outdoor concerts. Also as suggested by the Staff, just because another church in a community is engaged in some kind of activity does not make it a core activity. It should also be emphasized here that in the West Linn case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that there was no substantial burden where the church already had a facility elsewhere. In this case, the church has a facility on the exact same property. We also believe that the Hearings Officer was incorrect in relying on the definition of "church" in the DCC rather than a definition applicable to ORS 215.283. The Bechtold LUBA opinion made clear that a local definition is simply not relevant here. 3. Whether the Proposed Amphitheater Is a "Building" or "Structure" Subject to the Height and Building Setbacks in the EFU Zone. The Neighbors believe that the amphitheater, along with the proposed stage and the 12-foot high retaining wall are buildings and structures under the Code. All of these facilities are connected. The Applicant originally argued that the amphitheater was simply a natural feature and thus did not qualify as a building or structure. Substantial excavation work in fact had to be done by the Applicant to create this new amphitheater, and it was stopped by the County because it required site plan approval. 4. Site Plan Approval Criteria: Whether the Board Can Consider "Operating Characteristics" Such as the Type and Volume of Music Played in the Amphitheater, the Type of Religious Message, or the Time and Duration of Events in the Amphitheater. As stated in the Staff Report, the Hearings Officer interpreted the application of ORS 215.441 to make the County's site plan review "quite limited." The Neighbors believe that the Hearings Officer's interpretation is unnecessarily restricted in limiting the analysis to only physical characteristics of the use (as opposed to operating characteristics) and in so narrowly defining physical characteristics of the use to exclude such "physical characteristics" as noise. 5. Is the Proposed Amphitheater Use Designed to Provide a "Safe Environment"? a. Traffic Safety. There are essentially two aspects to the issue of "traffic safety," the "traffic safety" of the four to six concert events and the traffic safety of the remainder of the proposed events in the amphitheater. Exhibit Gl--- Page 2_ of a -"7 Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 3 The Neighbors have retained a transportation engineer to address these issues and his report is attached, with these conclusions: 441. There is inadequate capacity at the unsignalized US 20/Hamby Rd-Ward Rd and Hamby Rd/site driveway intersections to accommodate the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater, and as a result, traffic operations and safety will be degraded to substandard and unacceptable levels. 2. The US 20/Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection was neither designed nor intended to serve the extraordinary turning volumes that would be generated by the proposed development, and the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater would create significant traffic safety hazards for site traffic, local Hamby Rd and Ward Rd traffic and US 20 regional highway traffic. 3. Sight distance is limited/constrained at the Hamby Rd/site driveway intersection, creating a safety hazard for traffic exiting the site and for local Hamby Rd traffic." There is no question that the proposed amphitheater will have significant detrimental impacts on area circulation and on traffic safety on Hamby Road and US 20. The intersection of the rural crossroad of Hamby/Ward Road with Highway 20 is simply not designed to carry the traffic from the proposed development. Pre-event handling plans are not designed for these kinds of events, and no post-event handling has been prepared. Also, apparently MOT is not aware of the proposed church use of the amphitheater beyond the four to six concert events. The traffic engineer also analyzed impacts if attendance at events were only in the range of 800 people and found the same traffic safety problems and inadequacy of the area transportation infrastructure. This also applies to sight distance from the church driveway onto Hamby Road. b. Public .Health and Safety. As the Hearings Officer found, there is a lack of information about how safety and health of participants in amphitheater activities and other persons in the neighborhood would be managed. C. Privacy and Public/Private Transition. As the Staff Report points out, the site plan submitted by the Applicant shows the boundaries of the amphitheater less than 10 feet from the southwest property line. Exhibit- GI^ Page 3 of _5 7 Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 4 d. Parking and Points of Access. Again, as the Hearings Officer found, the site plan did not show an adequate circulation plan that demonstrates safe separation between the hundreds of vehicles and the thousands of pedestrians walking to and from the proposed amphitheater. Additionally, as the Staff points out, there would no longer be two access points to these events since the Highway 20 access would be blocked. The Applicant contends that the Hearings Officer could have imposed reasonable conditions of approval regarding the number of events, water, sewage disposal, security and emergency services, etc. It is not appropriate, however, to put the burden of all of these specifics onto the Hearings Officer. Even if the Hearings Officer could have issued conditions of approval, she would have had to make findings of feasibility and there was simply an absence of adequate information in the Record. The Applicant is also incorrect in describing these issues as "conditional use criteria" rather than site design criteria. The site plan criteria require that a "safe environment" be provided. 6. Does the Proposed Amphitheater Have a Floor Area? The Neighbors believe that the approximately 40,000 square foot amphitheater area should have been interpreted to be the "floor area" requiring a loading/unloading area. 7. Does the Proposed Amphitheater Use Have Adequate Off-Street Parking Spaces and Related Bicycle Parking Spaces, and Does the Parking Area Have to Be Paved? Contrary to the argument of the Applicant, we believe the Code does establish a maximum parking requirement, particularly in the context of this facility being located in the EFU Zone. Also, there is no reason not to apply the Code criteria requiring paving. All of these provisions concern the issue of whether or not a safe environment has been provided. There is also no basis for reducing the required bicycle parking for this area. There was no basis on which to reduce the requirement of 93 bicycle parking spaces and 47 covered spaces down to a total of only 23 bicycle spaces, of which only 12 must be covered. These rock concerts, after all, are designed to attract young people, and they are more likely to have to bike to these events. NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS ON THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE STAFF REPORT The Applicant is incorrect in its statements and arguments in response to the Staff Report in a number of respects.. Exhibit Page of A7 Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 5 1. Not All Outdoor Church Uses/Structures Are Permitted Outright. The Applicant's argument that churches are "allowed outright" only goes so far. The Oregon Administrative Rules ("OARs") do not allow churches within three miles of an urban growth boundary and only allow expansion of existing facilities. The allowed uses are not just everything a church chooses to do. Just because a church does something doesn't make it a church use. A church's "office/dormitory" was not allowed as a church use in Bechtold. This amphitheater is being built for 2,000-person concert events. This is an urban use not allowed in the EFU Zone without a goal exception. Note that the 200-300-person amphitheater in Tumalo State Park apparently had to be built with a goal exception. 2. ORS 215.441 Does Not Require Approval of the Amphitheater. ORS 215.441 provides that if a church, chapel, meeting house or other non-residential place of worship is allowed on real property, then a county shall allow the reasonable use of the property for customary religious activities. The Applicant contends it wants to build the amphitheater as a place of worship. The threshold question is whether the amphitheater is allowed in the first place. Even if the amphitheater were an allowable use, subsection (2) of ORS 215.441 provides that it may still be prohibited on the basis of such site plan factors as inadequate transportation. 3. Outdoor Mass Gatherings. The Applicant argues that it would be unfair to allow mass gathering events elsewhere on EFU land, such as at J-Bar-J Ranch, while prohibiting such events on church property. This land use application isn't for a mass gathering event; it is for the construction of a 2,000-seat amphitheater and 1,600-square-foot elevated stage. J-Bar-J hasn't applied for or been allowed that. 4. Core Activities Test Is a Legal Requirement. Apparently, the Staff was referring to RLUIPA in citing "core activities," or activities essential or traditional to the exercise of religion. ORS 215.441 refers to "customary religious practices." NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS ON THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORS' OCTOBER 7, 2005, LETTER The following comments are in response to the Applicant's response to the arguments raised in our letter of October 7, 2005. Exhibit Page of Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 6 1. Whether the Proposed Amphitheater Is Allowed in the EFU Zone. 1. The Proposed Amphitheater. From the beginning, this proposed amphitheater has been sought to put on amplified concert events for 2,000 people. A 1,600-square-foot elevated stage is part of the amphitheater, along with the 38,000-square-foot seating area. When the appropriateness of this use was challenged, the church revised its request to include current church events now going on within the church building, apparently to support the notion of carrying on protected church practices in the amphitheater. But when the impact of all of these events was questioned, the Applicant asserted that these other events will not be offered at an intensity greater than presently offered. That is directly contrary to church testimony at the hearing where the amphitheater was described as a venue to "provide a growth opportunity for the church." (Tr. 13) Also, it is inconceivable how the church would determine the cut-off points for attendance at various events and how the County and MOT would have to constantly monitor attendance at amphitheater events. 2. The Location of the Proposed Amphitheater Is Not Appropriate. B. The Applicant states that an amphitheater is a type of physical setting, not a use. While certainly the distinction between facilities and uses can be made (as when a statute or rule specifically refers to facilities instead of uses), the Applicant ignores that the amphitheater facility itself here, with its 38,000-square-foot seating area and 1,600-square-foot stage, is specifically designed for the use of large concert events. From the beginning, the Applicant has stated the objective of large concert events. The Applicant in fact has done its decibel test based on typical concerts. At this scale, the amphitheater is clearly an inappropriate urban use in the EFU Zone. C. The Applicant's suggestion that LUBA in Bechtold made its determination not allow certain church facilities in that case solely on the basis that they were residential is wrong. LUBA in Bechtold actually gave two other reasons first: 1) Since the meaning of "church" in ORS 215.283(1)(b) is controlling, and ambiguous, LUBA looked to the context of that statute and found that the language was limited to "churches," and not expressly to rectories, office/dormitories or other uses conducted in conjunction with churches. 2) LUBA also noted that other provisions under ORS 215.283 were more expansive than what were allowed with churches, such as for schools where all buildings essential to a school were allowed. The same was the case for wineries under ORS 215.452. The legislature did not allow such broad church facilities. Exhibit ~ Page _ of Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 7 D. In response to the three-mile urban growth boundary limit issue, the church raises the specter of bringing a Measure 37 claim, asserting the church owned the property before that OAR was adopted. Such a threat of a Measure 37 claim is neither "neighborly" (as the church professes to be), nor accurate, given that amphitheaters were not likely allowed as EFU uses in 1978. 3. The New Outdoor Amphitheater Does Not Qualify as an Expansion of Existing Facilities. The Applicant argues that the term "expansion" should not be narrowly read. To the contrary, since this amphitheater is to be located in the EFU Zone, all non-farm uses are to be narrowly construed. Additionally, where the OARs provide for an expansion within three miles of an urban growth boundary, they do not simply allow "any" expansion. They also do not allow expansion of "any facilities." Expansion is only allowed for "existing facilities." The Neighbors had pointed out to the Hearings Officer that the allowed expansion under OAR 660-006-0030(2), pursuant to 660-006-0020 and its Table 1, was only allowed for "existing facilities," and that where these rules are materially the same as the local rules, the local provisions must be interpreted consistent with the OARS, citing Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475, 478, 839 P2d 241, 242 (1992). The Applicant argued in its closing arguments to the Hearings Officer that this language from the OARs is not applicable here, alleging that the Court of Appeals had overruled itself, or that part of the Forster decision, in Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350 (1996). To the contrary, the Friends case does not actually overrule Forster on this issue, and in fact the State of Oregon is continuing to cite Forster for this proposition that these rules apply. See the attached State Measure 37 determination in "Benton," No. 118966, p. 7, fn.2 of the Final Staff Report. See also Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569, 583, 942 P2d 278 (1997) in which the Supreme Court affirmed the legislative mandate for LCDC to implement regulations even on Brentmar allowed uses. 4. Denial Would Not Violate Religious Activity Statutes. The Applicant is incorrect in saying a denial would mean that it could not hold church services on its property. The church is already doing so. The J-Bar-J Ranch and Bend Metro Parks experiences are not comparable. They have not sought to build 2,000-person amphitheaters. But State Parks, which wanted a 200-300-seat amphitheater had to go through an exceptions process which the Applicant here should also have to do. Exhibit "Z Page Of Deschutes County Commissioners October 11, 2005 Page 8 II. Consideration of Site Plan Criteria. 1. The Hearings Officer's Reading of ORS 215.441 and Site Plan Criteria re Noise Issues Raised by Neighbors The Applicant is incorrect in the premise of its argument that site plan review is limited to how a site is developed and that the project or use cannot be denied on that basis. The Applicant also too narrowly reads the Code to limit consideration to visual criteria, to exclude noise and to limit consideration to "on the site." This would fundamentally and unnecessarily alter consideration of site plans. DCC 18.124.050(A) clearly provides that a hearings body may deny a site plan. ORS 215.441(2)(b) even specifically allows rejection of a project based on site plan criteria such as inadequate transportation facilities. Assurances from the church that noise from the concerts will be well within "customary audio level standards for outdoor facilities," does not offer much solace to the Neighbors since what is customary in concerts can be quite loud. 2. Transportation Facilities Are Not Adequate. We have already addressed the transportation inadequacies above, and in the attached report. The Applicant's suggestion that it could not have any further traffic impacts than they already do (except for concerts) because there is a self-enforcing rule of needing to be able to move indoors in case of bad weather doesn't make sense. The rule certainly doesn't apply to the 2,000-seat concert events, which obviously cannot move indoors. The church can "risk" bad weather for other events in addition to the concerts. CONCLUSION The Neighbors respectfully request that this application for an amphitheater be denied. Very truly yours, PAUL DEWEY PD:ao 1 Attached is the Affidavit of Verson Pandian for purposes of standing if there is an appeal. Exhibit 671 Page of _ ROBERT BERNSTEIN, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner October 4, 2005 Hamby Road Neighbors c/o Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney 1539 NW Vicksburg Ave Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Review of Traffic Issues Associated with Proposed Christian Life Center Amphitheater in Deschutes County, OR Dear Mr. Dewey, I have reviewed and evaluated background information related to the project (list of references is attached). In addition, in preparation for my review of the project traffic issues, I visited the site on September 27, 2005 (photos attached.) Based on my review and assessment of the available traffic/transportation-related information, I have the following comments and conclusions: CONCLUSIONS The proposed development at the proposed site will have significant impacts on traffic safety and operations, and should not be approved. Neither the Applicant nor the County has prepared any traffic operations analyses; consequently, claims/conclusions that traffic safety and operations on US 20 and Hamby Rd are adequate and meet standards are wholly conjectural, and as explained in this letter, erroneous. 1. There is inadequate capacity at the unsignalized US 20/Hamby Rd-Ward Rd and Hamby Rd/site driveway intersections to accommodate the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater, and as a result, traffic operations and safety will be degraded to substandard and unacceptable levels. 2. The US 20/Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection was neither designed nor intended to serve the extraordinary turning volumes that would be generated by the proposed development, and the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater would create significant traffic safety hazards for site traffic, local Hamby Rd and Ward Rd traffic, and US 20 regional highway traffic. 3. Sight distance is limited/constrained at the Hamby Rd/site driveway intersection, creating a safety hazard for traffic exiting the site and for local Hamby Rd traffic. 507 - 18th Avenue East (206) 325-4320 Seattle, Washington 98112 RBemstein.CE76@GTalumni.org fax (206) 325-4318 Exhibit 5py Page~of Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION 1. There is inadequate capacity at the unsignalized US 201Hamby Rd-Ward Rd and Hamby Rd/site driveway intersections to accommodate the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater, and as a result, traffic operations and safety will be degraded to substandard and unacceptable levels. Traffic Operations Standards The Deschutes County Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) uses the concept of "level of service" (LOS) to describe traffic conditions. [ref. 10, p. 57]. Six LOS designations, ranging from "A" (free-flow conditions) to "F" (jammed conditions) are used. TSP Goal 9 is to maintain LOS D or better on the County arterial and collector road system [ref. 10, p. 173], and the TSP states that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requires LOS C conditions to be maintained outside of urban areas [ref. 10, p. 1721. Since 1999, ODOT has defined traffic conditions in terms of "volume:capacity ratio" (V/C), with the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) establishing a maximum V/C of 0.70 as its standard (in lieu of LOS C). For the purposes of this analysis, both LOS and V/C were determined and are reported. Traffic Operations for Capaci Events Using the 6:00-7:00 p.m. traffic counts reported by the Applicant and the Applicant's estimate of traffic generation for a capacity event (2,000 attendance and an average vehicle occupancy of 3 persons per vehicle [ref. 2, 3, 9]), LOS and V/C were calculated for the US 20/Hamby Rd- Ward Rd and Hamby Rd/site driveway intersections using the methodology prescribed by the Highway Capacity Manual [ref. 15] for both pre-event and post-event conditions'. Results are summarized below (LOS worksheets are compiled in Attachment B). • Hamby Rd at US 20, prior to an event: LOS F, capacity is zero (average delay > 3,600 sec/veh); V/C is infinite • Ward Rd at US 20, prior to an event: LOS F, average delay > 1,500 sec/veh; V/C=3.84 • Hamby Rd at US 20, after an event: LOS F, average delay = 205 sec/veh; V/C=1.38 • Ward Rd at US 20, after an event: LOS F, average delay = 490 sec/veh; V/C=1.76 • Site driveway at Hamby Rd, after an event: LOS E, average delay = 36 sec/veh; V/C=0.91 Not only are these conditions clearly substandard and unacceptable, but the delays imposed on Hamby Rd, Ward Rd, and site driveway traffic are excessive. As a result, the proposed amphitheater will have significant detrimental impact on area circulation and on traffic safety2 on Hamby Rd and US 20. Pre-event traffic is assumed to arrive over a 1.5-hour period, and post-event traffic is assumed to depart over a one-hour period. The Deschutes County TSP recognizes that traffic operational deficiencies at unsignalized intersections create safety problems: "Level of Service at unsignalized intersections is commonly evaluated by using the amount of time delay drivers perceive as they wait to enter or cross an intersection.... As cross-street volumes increase, these intersections can reach capacity limits and produce significant delays to cross-street vehicles as well as accident potential." [ref. 10, p. 57] Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit Page _ it>__ of Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page 3 These impacts will occur for any and every capacity event, be it a concert, a wedding, an outdoor church service, or anything else. Furthermore, the impacts described above will be worse for events that begin or conclude during the afternoon peak period (or shortly before or after), and they will become exponentially worse over time as traffic volumes on US 20 and Hamby Rd increase with increasing regional traffic on US 20 and continuing development north of the site in the Hamby Rd "trafficshed." Traffic Operations for Other Events In order to assess the full range of impacts of the proposed amphitheater, a traffic generation estimate was prepared for an event with an attendance of 800, and LOS was calculated for the US 20/Hamby Rd-Ward Rd and Hamby Rd/site driveway intersections for both pre-event and post-event conditions. Results are summarized below (LOS worksheets are compiled in Attachment B). • Hamby Rd at US 20, prior to an event: LOS F, average delay = 92 sec/veh; V/C<0.70 • Ward Rd at US 20, prior to an event: LOS F, average delay = 93 sec/veh; V/C=0.83 • Hamby Rd at US 20, after an event: LOS E, average delay = 36 sec/veh; V/C=0.80 • Ward Rd at US 20, after an event: LOS E, average delay = 43 sec/veh; V/C<0.70 These results indicate that traffic conditions are substandard and unacceptable for even modest- sized events at the amphitheater. Although the impacts are not as severe as for a capacity event, the impacts are still significant. The delays imposed on Hamby Rd and Ward Rd will have significant detrimental impact on area circulation and on traffic safety' on Hamby Rd and US 20. As they will for Capacity Events, the impacts described above for Other Events also will be worse for events that begin or conclude during the afternoon peak period, and they will become worse as traffic volumes on US 20 and Hamby Rd increase with increasing regional traffic on US 20 and continuing development north of the site in the Hamby Rd "trafficshed." 2. The US 201Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection was neither designed nor intended to serve the extraordinary turning volumes that would be generated by the proposed development, and the traffic generated by a wide range of potential events at the proposed amphitheater would create significant traffic safety hazards for site traffic, local Hamby Rd and Ward Rd traffic, and US 20 regional highway traffic. The heavy volume of turns off of US 20 prior to an event at the proposed amphitheater, and onto US 20 afterwards, will drastically increase the number of vehicular conflicts on US 20 at Hamby Rd, which creates severe safety hazards and significantly increases accident potential (even with implementation of the proposed pre-event "traffic handling plan"). Because US 20 at Hamby Rd is a high-speed (55 mph) rural highway and Hamby Rd-Ward Rd is a rural crossroad, US 20 highway traffic does not expect to be confronted with heavy volumes of turning traffic either turning across its path, slowing and queuing on the highway ahead of it, or turning onto the highway in front of it; such conditions create significant safety hazards, resulting in increased numbers of rear-end, broadside, and run-off-the-road accidents. The accidents also will have elevated severity due to the high speeds on US 20. Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit Page __IL_ of Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page 4 It also should be noted that the Applicant's proposed pre-event "traffic handling plan" is based on requirements that were developed for temporary traffic control zones for highway construction, utility work, maintenance operations, and incident management [ref 14, Chapter 6A]. Safety for the motoring public and for highway and emergency workers is the primary focus and concern of the requirements, and the underlying presumption is that activities with potential traffic safety impacts serious enough to require a traffic control zone should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary. Consequently, it is both unnecessary and undesirable to permit the development of a facility that will necessitate the [inappropriate] use of a temporary traffic control zone on US 20 virtually every time the facility is used. In other words, the nature of a temporary traffic control zone dictates that the proposed amphitheater should not be permitted unless and until the US 20/Hamby Rd intersection is improved to the point where it can safely accommodate event traffic without need for temporary traffic controls. 3. Sight distance is limited/constrained at the Hamby Rd/site driveway intersection, creating a safety hazard for traffic exiting the site and for local Hamby Rd traffic. Sight distance requirements are based on the laws of physics, and on crucial inputs like traffic speed and roadway grade and curvature. Safe stopping sight distance (SSD)3 and entering sight distance (ESD)4 requirements are specified by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [ref. 13, pp. 449, 665]. The general sight distance requirement established by many counties and municipalities nationwide is 100 feet for each 10 mph of traffic speed, which translates to 500 feet for Hamby Rd; per AASHTO, Hamby Rd SSD is 425 feet, and site driveway ESD is 555 feet. Sight distance at the site driveway is limited/constrained by trees, a curve in Hamby Rd and the crest of a hill (see Attachment A, photos C-D), and the required sight distance does not appear to be available. As a result, there is a safety hazard for traffic exiting the site driveway and for Hamby Rd traffic that has not been addressed by the Applicant or the County. If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Robert Bernstein, P.E. ' the distance from which motorists need to see an obstruction in the road in order to make a safe stop 4 the distance at which driveway or sidestreet motorists need to see oncoming traffic in order to be able to safely turn onto or across the main road Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit Page ~2 of-S-7 Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page 5 Robert Bernstein, P.E. Summary of Qualifications: I have Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil Engineering (from Georgia Tech and Northwestern University, respectively), and I am a registered professional engineer in Oregon (Civil), Washington (Civil), California (Traffic), and New Jersey (Civil). I have 29+ years of transportation planning and traffic engineering experience, including five years with the City of Portland and seven years as Senior Transportation Engineer with the Puget Sound Council of Governments. In these positions and as a private consultant, I have prepared the transportation element for nearly a dozen city and county comprehensive plans, and I have conducted numerous regional and subregional travel demand forecasting studies, traffic operations and safety analyses, and neighborhood traffic management studies. Over the last 20 years I have provided expert assistance on development- related traffic issues to nearly 100 community/neighborhood groups. In addition, I have prepared traffic studies for developers and I have provided on-call development review services for local governments in Oregon, Washington, and California. REFERENCES 1. Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer (File SP-05-13, LM-05-22) 2. Traffic Impact Analysis for Christian Life Center Outdoor Church, Revision #2, C.A. Rowles Engineering, April 30, 2005 3. Traffic Impact Analysis for Christian Life Center Outdoor Church, Revised, C.A. Rowles Engineering, April 11, 2005 4. "Site Review Application No. 0513-1712360000801," April 12, 2005, letter from William Hilton, ODOT District 10 Operations Coordinator, to Cathy White, Deschutes County Community Development Dept 5. "SP- 05-13, Christian Life Center," April 11, 2005, memo from Gary Judd, Deschutes County Road Dept, to Cathy White, Deschutes County Community Development Dept 6. "Traffic Control Plan for Musical Worship Events in the Amphitheater," April 11, 2005, memo to "Staff' from C.A. Rowles Engineering 7. "Site Review Application No. 0513-1712360000801," March 29, 2005, letter from William Hilton, ODOT District 10 Operations Coordinator, to Cathy White, Deschutes County Community Development Dept 8. "SP- 05-13, Christian Life Center," March 25, 2005, memo from Gary Judd, Deschutes County Road Dept, to Cathy White, Deschutes County Community Development Dept 9. Traffic Impact Analysis for Christian Life Center Outdoor Church, C.A. Rowles Engineering, February 23, 2004 10. Deschutes County Transportation Systems Plan, Deschutes County, August 26, 1998 11. Synchro 6 Traffic Signal Software User Guide, Trafficware, 2003 12. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Research Engineers, 2003 13. A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001 14. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition, Federal Highway Administration, 2001 15. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000), Transportation Research Board, 2000 Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit- Page of Attachment A: Photographs (A) Hamby looking north at site driveway Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page A-1 .t5 aF-~ L ~a Hamby looking south at site driveway (B) i r ~F IfG 4 6 1 A4 C 1 (C) Hamby looking north from site driveway Hamby looking south from site driveway (D) _w (E) US 20 looking east from Hamby US 20 looking west from Hamby (F) ..:..~,~..'i-ir.,-• . cif ~..,,Mw~a.... yrd (G) Hamby looking south at US 201Ward 49 ,r L Ward looking north at US 201Hamby (H) Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit_~~ Page _NL_ of Z7 Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page B-1 Site driveway at Hamby Rd: prior to an event (2,000 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d Intersection: Jurisdiction: Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street: Intersection Orient TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Hamby Rd / site driveway Deschutes County, Oregon Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA site access Hamby ation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 L T R 1 L Southbound 5 6 T R Volume 58 377 67 123 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 64 418 74 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT I LTR 1 v (vph) 74 C(m) (vph) 1091 v/c 0.07 95% queue length 0.22 Control Delay 8.5 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit-- Page 6 of 45,7= Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets Site driveway at Hamby Rd: after an event (2,000 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Hamby Rd / site driveway Jurisdiction: Deschutes County, Oregon Project ID: Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA East/West Street: site access North/South Street: Hamby Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 58 0 0 123 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 64 0 0 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 1 0 TR No Westboun 7 8 L T Volume 565 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 627 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 Percent Grade 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR 9 R 100 0.90 111 0 No 0 Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page B-2 0 1 LT No Eastbound 1 10 11 12 1 L T R 0 Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 LT I LTR I 0 738 1551 813 0.00 0.91 0.00 12.60 7.3 36.0 A E 36.0 E Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit Page -Aia- of G7 Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page B-3 US 20 / Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection: prior to an event (2,000 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d Intersection: Jurisdiction: Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street: Intersection Orient Major Street: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY US 20 / Hamby Rd Deschutes County, Oregon Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA US 20 Hamby-Ward ation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 11 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 407 347 59 17 239 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 452 385 65 18 265 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 24 64 24 15 51 57 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 71 26 16 56 63 Percent Heavy Veh icles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB No rthbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR I LTR v (vph) 452 18 123 135 C(m) (vph) 1252 1105 32 0 v/c 0.36 0.02 3.84 95% queue length 1.67 0.05 14.55 Control Delay 9.5 8.3 1535 LOS A A F F Approach Delay 1535 Approach LOS F Robert Bemstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit of Attachment B: Mr. Paul Dewey Intersection Analysis Worksheets October 4, 2005 Page B-4 US 20 / Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection: after an event (2,000 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Jurisdiction: Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street: Intersection Orient US 20 / Hamby Rd Deschutes County, Oregon Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA US 20 Hamby-Ward ation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 L T R I L Westbound 5 6 T R Volume 74 347 59 17 239 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 82 385 65 18 265 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 24 64 24 50 51 587 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 71 26 55 56 652 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB No rthbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR I LTR v (vph) 82 18 123 763 C(m) (vph) 1279 1105 70 552 v/c 0.06 0.02 1.76 1.38 95% queue length 0.21 0.05 10.87 34.64 Control Delay 8.0 8.3 490.8 204.5 LOS A A F F Approach Delay 490.8 204.5 Approach LOS F F Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit_ G Page __IS_ of Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page B-5 US 20 / Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection: prior to an event (800 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Jurisdiction: Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street: Intersection Orient Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L US 20 / Hamby Rd Deschutes County, Oregon Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA US 20 Hamby-Ward ation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound 5 6 T R Volume 207 347 59 17 239 21 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 230 385 65 18 265 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 24 64 24 15 51 57 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 71 26 16 56 63 Percent Heavy Veh icles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config L L LTR Southbound 11 12 LTR v (vph) 230 18 123 135 C(m) (vph) 1268 1105 149 203 v/c 0.18 0.02 0.83 0.67 95% queue length 0.66 0.05 5.36 4.04 Control Delay 8.5 8.3 92.5 52.2 LOS A A F F Approach Delay 92.5 52.2 Approach LOS F F Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit Page _ C of Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets Mr. Paul Dewey October 4, 2005 Page B-6 US 20 / Hamby Rd-Ward Rd intersection: after an event (800 attendance) HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Jurisdiction: Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street: Intersection Orient US 20 / Hamby Rd Deschutes County, Oregon Christian Life Center Amphitheater TIA US 20 Hamby-Ward ation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 74 347 59 17 239 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 82 385 65 18 265 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 24 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration 64 24 30 51 267 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 71 26 33 56 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No / No / 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L L I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 82 18 123 385 C(m) (vph) 1279 1105 211 484 v/c 0.06 0.02 0.58 0.80 95% queue length 0.21 0.05 3.24 7.33 Control Delay 8.0 8.3 43.5 35.6 LOS A A E E Approach Delay 43.5 35.6 Approach LOS E E Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Exhibit of BALLOT MEASURE 37 (CHAPTER 1, OREGON LAWS OF 2005) CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Final Staff Report and Recommendation June 8, 2005 STATE CLAIM NUMBER: NAME OF CLAIMANT: MAILING ADDRESS: IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY: DATE RECEIVED BY DAS: 180-DAY DEADLINE: M118966 Charles Benton III 2005 Tucker Road Hood River, Oregon 97031 2005 Tucker Road Township 2N Range IOE, Section 14 Tax lots 1000, 1100 and 1101 Hood River County December 14, 2004 June 11, 2005 1. CLAIM Charles Benton III, the claimant, seeks compensation in the amount of $12,751,760 for the reduction in fair market value as a result of certain land use regulations that are alleged to restrict the use of certain private real property. The claimant desires compensation or the right to divide the subject property into small rural lots with dwellings. The property is located at 2005 Tucker Road in Hood River County, Oregon. (See claim.) II. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusions set forth below, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (the department) has determined that the claim is valid. Department staff recommends that, in lieu of compensation, the requirements of certain state laws enforced by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (the Commission) or the department, specifically Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), OAR 660-033-100 and the standards for the approval of farm and non farm dwellings under OAR 660, Division 33 not apply to the subject property to the extent necessary to allow Mr. Benton a use of the property permitted at the time he acquired it on July 27, 1977. (See the complete recommendation in Section VI. of this report.) M118966 - Benton Exhibit 7_ Page _ of III. COMMENTS ON THE CLAIM Comments Received On March 14, 2005, pursuant to OAR 125-145-0080, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS), provided written notice to owners of surrounding properties. According to DAS, there were two written comments received in response to the 10-day notice. Comments received in response to specific requirements of Ballot Measure 37 are summarized below. (See letters in the department's claim file). A letter from Heather Blaine-McCurdy, an owner of property adjacent to the land that is the subject of this claim and claim MI 19862, dated March 23, 2005, raises the following issues: 1. "The claimants have yet to provide adequate information regarding the property deeds, title reports, or identification of when various land use regulations went into effect. There is no evidence in either of their claims that demonstrates that 0.25 acre lots are feasible or would even be allowed from a public health and safety issue." 2. "Should the state determine that compensation is not available, and decide - in lieu of compensation - not to apply the land use regulations, such a waiver is limited to a use permitted at the time the current owner acquired the property." 3. "In addition, state statute governs this requested use" and because "ORS 215.780 establishes a minimum of 80-acres" section (8) of Measure 37 authorizes only the "governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation" to not apply the regulation, neither the Department of Land Conservation and Development, nor the Land Conservation and Development Commission can waive this regulation. As a result, the claimant's 58-acre parcel may not be further divided unless and until ORS 215.780 is waived by the legislative branch of the State of Oregon." 4. "Should the Land Conservation and Development Commission decide to not apply certain land use regulations in lieu of compensation under Section (8) of Measure 37, such waiver is limited to allow the current owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. Goal 3 was adopted prior to the date the current owner acquired the property. As a result, any `waiver' of land use regulations must be consistent with the provisions of Goal 3." 5. "In addition, for the reasons discussed above [in the letter], I do not believe that the claimant could divide and develop his property for a residential subdivision of any scale at the time he acquired the property. Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 14 and other county zoning provisions prohibited urban development in farm zones and limited residential development to farmhouses (non-farm dwellings were only allowed on land generally unsuitable for agriculture, which this land is not)." M118966 - Benton 2 Exhibit - Pagel2 of 5;7 Response to Submitted Comments The department concurs with comments 2 and 4 for the reasons set forth in Sections V. and VI. of this report and does not concur with comments 1, 3 and 5 for the following reasons: Comment 1. For the reasons set forth in Section V. of this report, the department believes that there is adequate information on which to evaluate Mr. Benton's claim. It is not necessary at this time to determine whether "0.25 acre lots are feasible or would even be allowed from a public health and safety issue" in the evaluation of this claim. All that is necessary is a determination that a state law restricts the claimant's use of the property and that this restriction reduces the fair market value of the property to some extent. Comment 3. OAR 660-002-0010(8) provides that the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development is to "carry out the responsibilities and exercise the authorities of the Commission and the Department in responding to claims under Chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2005 (2004 Ballot Measure 37), including "not applying the statute(s), rule(s) or goal(s) that are the basis of the claim..." This rule language, prepared in consultation with the Oregon Department of Justice, reflects legal counsel's advice that Measure 37 authorizes a state agency that enforces state laws to not apply those laws in lieu of paying compensation on a valid claim. Comment 5. Under Goal 3 and the county's acknowledged 20-acre minimum lot size under Goal 3, some division of the claimant's property is possible, and certain statutory standards under ORS Chapter 215 apply to the approval of any farm or non-farm dwellings on the existing property or any resulting parcels. The determination of whether the claimant's property can be further divided or developed is for Hood River County to determine when it determines what use of the property was permitted at the time Mr. Benton acquired it. IV. TIMELINESS OF CLAIM Requirement Ballot Measure 37, Section 5, requires that a written demand for compensation be made: 1. For claims arising from land use regulations enacted prior to the effective date of the measure (December 2, 2004), within two years of that effective date or the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an approval criteria to an application submitted by the owner, whichever is later; or 2. For claims arising from land use regulations enacted after the effective date of the measure (December 2, 2004), within two years of the enactment of the land use regulation, or the date the owner of the property submits a land use application in which the land use regulation is an approval criteria, whichever is later. M118966 - Benton Exhibit Page -23 of-5 Findings of Fact The claim was submitted to DAS on December 14, 2004 for processing under OAR 125, Division 145. The claim identifies Hood River County's High Value exclusive farm use (EFU) zoning as the basis for the claim. Only laws that were enacted prior to December 2, 2004, the effective date of Measure 37, are the basis for this claim. (See citations of statutory and administrative rule history of the Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules.) Conclusions The claim has been submitted within two years of December 2, 2004, the effective date of Measure 37, based on land use regulations adopted prior to December 2, 2004, and is therefore timely filed. V. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1. Ownership Ballot Measure 37 provides for payment of compensation or relief from specific laws to "owners" as that term is defined in the Measure. Ballot Measure 37, Section I I(C) defines "owner" as "the present owner of the property, or any interest therein." Findings of Fact The claim includes two tracts: the Brinkhaven orchard and the Lucich orchard. Mr. Benton's grandfather, Charles King Benton, acquired the Brinkhaven orchard on August 16, 1927. He conveyed that property to the claimant's father, Charles King Benton, Jr., on February 19, 1955. Mr. Benton's aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. James Carr, acquired the Lucich orchard tract on June 19, 1951. They conveyed that property to the claimant's father on January 1, 1959. The claimant, Charles Benton, III, acquired both orchard tracts from his father by warranty deed on July 27, 1977. Conclusions Mr. Charles King Benton, Mr. Charles King Benton, Jr. and Mr. and Mrs. James Carr are "family" members and the claimant, Mr. Charles Benton III, is an "owner" of the subject property as those terms are defined by Section 11 of Ballot Measure 37. Charles Benton III acquired the property on July 27, 1977. 2. The Laws that are the Basis for this Claim In order to establish a valid claim, Section 1 of Ballot Measure 37 requires, in part, that a law must restrict the claimant's use of private real property in a manner that reduces the fair market value of the property relative to how the property could have been used at the time the claimant or a family member acquired the property. Findings of Fact M118966 - Benton 4 Exhibit Page Of Mr. Benton's claim asserts that current land use regulations do not allow the division of the subject property into "the smallest rural lot size capable of being supported by the land considering public health and safety regulations" (about four parcels per acre with dwellings). The subject orchard tracts are both zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) as required by Statewide Planning Goal 3 in accord with OAR 660, Division 33, and ORS 215. Current land use regulations, particularly ORS 215.263, 215.284, 215.780 and OAR 660, Division 33 as applied by Goal 3, do not allow the subject property to be divided into parcels less than 80 acres or for the subject tract or the proposed parcels to have farm or non-farm dwellings on them. Conclusions The minimum lot size and dwelling standards established by ORS 215.263, 215.284 and ORS 215.780, as applied by Goal 3 and OAR 660, Division 33 were all adopted after the property was acquired by the claimant's family in 1927 and 1951, and do not allow the division of the property or the placement of dwellings on them as was possible in 1927 or 1951, thereby restricting the use of the property relative to the uses allowed when the property was acquired in 1927 by Charles King Benton or in 1951 by Mr. And Mrs. James Carr. 3. Effect of Regulations on Fair Market Value In order to establish a valid claim, Section 1 of Ballot Measure 37 requires that any laws described in Section V.(2) of this report must have "the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein." Findings of Fact According to the claimant, the inability to divide his property into small rural lots because of the current restrictions of the County's EFU zone as required by Statewide Planning Goal 3, results in a reduction in fair market value of $12,751,760. Specifically, the claim states that the basis for this reduction is that when the claimant's family members (grandfather, father, aunt and uncle) acquired the property beginning in 1927, it could have been divided and developed into four residential lots per acre. The amount of compensation is identified as the difference between the value of the undeveloped 58-acre parcel and the property divided and developed with four dwellings per acre. No information on how the compensation amount was calculated is provided in the claim. Conclusions As explained in section V.(1) of this report, Charles Benton, III is an owner of the property and acquired the property on July 27, 1977. The claimant's family members acquired the property in 1927 and 1951. Without an appraisal based on the value of the proposed development or other explanation, it is not possible to substantiate the specific dollar amount the claimant demands for compensation. Nevertheless, based on the submitted information, the department determines that it is more likely than not that there has been some restriction of the use of the property and some reduction in the fair market value of the subject property as a result of land use regulations enforced by the Commission or the department. M118966 - Benton 5 Exhibit Page-2-S- of -,5DL- 4. Exemptions under Section 3 of Measure 37 Ballot Measure 37 does not apply to certain land use regulations. In addition, under Section 3 of the Measure, certain types of laws are exempt from the Measure. Findings of Fact The claim includes both specific reference to particular County EFU zoning and a general claim based on state land use regulations that restrict the use of the property relative to what would have been allowed in 1927 and 1951 when the Benton family first acquired the properties. These provisions include requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 3, ORS 215 and OAR 660, Division 33 relating to land divisions and the establishment of farm or non-farm dwellings, all of which are "land use regulations" under the Measure, and were adopted after a family member acquired the properties in 1927 and 1951. Conclusions It appears that the general statutory, goal and rule restrictions on residential development and use of agricultural land apply to the claimant's anticipated use of the property, and for the most part these laws would not come under any of the exemptions in Measure 37. There may be other specific laws that continue to apply under one or more of the exemptions in the Measure, because they were not raised in this claim, or because they are laws that are not covered by the Measure to begin with. VI. FORM OF RELIEF Section 1 of Measure 37 provides for payment of compensation to an owner of private real property if the Commission or the department has enforced a law that restricts the use of the property in a manner that reduces its fair market value. In lieu of compensation, the department may choose to not apply a law to allow the present owner to carry out a use of the property permitted at the time the present owner acquired the property. The Commission, by rule, has directed that if the department determines a claim is valid, the Director must provide only non-monetary relief unless and until funds are appropriated to pay claims. M118966 - Benton 6 Exhibit Page -26- of -5a- Findings of Fact Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this report, laws enforced by the Commission or the department prohibit the division of the subject property into "the smallest rural lot size capable of being supported by the land considering public health and safety regulations" (about 4 parcels per acre with dwellings). The claimant cannot create the desired small rural lots out of the subject 58-acre property and sell or develop those lots for residential use. Laws enforced by the Commission or the department reduce the fair market value of the subject property to some extent. The claim asserts this amount to be $12,751,760. Although the claim provides an explanation about how the specified restrictions reduce the fair market value of the property, an appraisal was not submitted and it is not possible to substantiate the specific dollar amount the claimant demands for compensation. Nevertheless, based on the current record for this claim, the department finds that the laws on which the claim is based more likely than not have reduced the fair market value of the property to some extent. No funds have been appropriated at this time for the payment of claims. In lieu of payment of compensation, Measure 37 authorizes the department to modify, remove or not apply one or more land use regulations to allow Mr. Benton to use the subject property for a use permitted at the time he acquired the property on July 27, 1977.1 Mr. Benton acquired the property on July 27, 1977 when it was zoned by the County as A-1, a qualified exclusive farm use zone under ORS 215. Under this zone, there was a five-acre minimum parcel size for the creation of new lots or parcels. However, the County's A-1 Zone that applied to the property at that time had not been acknowledged by the Commission under the standards for state approval of local comprehensive plans and land use regulations pursuant to ORS 197.250 and 197.251. The Commission reviewed the Hood River County Comprehensive Plan in 1980 and later acknowledged that the plan and land use regulations complied with the statewide goals in 1984. Because the Commission had not acknowledged Hood River County's comprehensive plan and land use regulations, including the A-1 Zone in effect when the property was acquired by the Mr. Benton on July 27, 1977, site-specific Goal provisions, including Statewide Planning Goal 3, applied directly to property on the date of acquisition.2 Until the 1 While the date of acquisition by a prior family member is relevant to the amount of compensation that may be claimed under Measure 37, Section 8 of the Measure provides that a government decision to remove, modify or not apply a land use regulation extends back in time to the date the present owner acquired the title to the property that is the subject of the claim. 2 Statewide Planning Goal 3 became effective on January 25, 1975 and was applicable to legislative land use decisions and some quasi-judicial land use prior to the Commission's acknowledgment of the County's Goal 3 program in December 1984. (See Sunnyside Neighborhood Assn. v. Clackamas-County, 280 Or 3 (1977); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Benton County, 32 Or App 413 (1978); Jurgenson v. Union County, 42 Or App 505 (1979); Alexanderson v. Polk County, 289 Or 427, rev. denied, 290 Or 137 (1980); and Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1 (1985). After the county's plan and land use regulations were acknowledged by the Commission, the statewide planning goals and implementing rules no longer directly applied to such local land use decisions. (Byrd v. Stringer, 295 Or 311 (1983). However, the applicable statutes continue to apply, and insofar as the local implementing provisions are materially the same as the rules, the local provisions must be interpreted consistent with the substance of the rules. Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475 (1992) and Kenagy . Benton County, 115 OR App 131 (1992). M118966 - Benton 7 Exhibit Page=oft County's land use regulations were acknowledged by the Commission, the use of the subject property was subject to both the County's ordinances and the applicable statewide planning goals. Statewide Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands," as adopted in 1975, required that agricultural land be "preserved and zoned for exclusive farm use pursuant to ORS Chapter 215," The subject property is "agricultural land" as defined by Goal 3 because it is composed predominantly of Class I-IV soils and was subject to EFU zoning pursuant to ORS 215 when acquired by the claimant on July 27, 1977. In 1977, the state standards for a land division involving property where the local zoning was not acknowledged, in this case the A-1 zone, required that the resulting parcels must be of a size that are "appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise in the area" (Statewide Planning Goal 3) 3 Further, ORS 215.263 (1975 edition) required that all divisions of land subject to the provisions for exclusive farm use zoning comply with the legislative intent set forth in ORS 215.243 (Agricultural Land Use Policy) 4 Thus, the opportunity to divide the property when acquired by the claimant in 1977 was limited to land divisions done consistent with Goal 3 that required the resulting parcels be: (1) "appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise in the area;" and (2) shown to comply with the legislative intent set forth in ORS 215.243. As for dwellings allowed under EFU zoning as required by Goal 3 on the date of acquisition in 1977, farm dwellings were allowed if determined to be "customarily provided in conjunction with farm use" under ORS 215.213(1)(e) (1975 edition) and non- farm dwellings were subject to ORS 215.213(3) (1975 edition). 3. The Goal 3 standard for the review of land divisions or the establishment of a minimum lot size states: "Such minimum lot sizes as are utilized for any farm use zones shall be appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the area." On August 20, 1977, the Commission distributed a policy paper explaining the meaning of the Goal 3 minimum lots size standard (see "Common Questions about Goal 3; Agricultural Lands" (August 30, 1977, as revised and added to July 12, 1979). Further interpretation of the Goal 3 minimum lot size standard can be found in Meeker v Clatsop County, 36 Or App 699 (1978); Jurgenson v. Union County, 42 Or App 505 (1979); Alexanderson v. Polk County, 289 Or 427, rev. denied, 290 Or 137 (1980); and Thede v. Polk County, 3 Or LUBA 336 (81). In 1982, the policy paper and court decisions were incorporated into an administrative rule to guide the interpretation and application of the Goal 3 minimum lot size standard (see OAR 660, Division 5, specifically rules 015 and 020 effective July 21, 1982). For further guidance on the interpretation and application of this standard and rule see Kenagy v. Benton County, 6 Or LUBA 93 (7/16/82); Goracke v. Benton County, 8 Or LUBA 128 (6/8/83); 68 Or App 83 (5/9/84); 12 Or LUBA 128 (9/26/84); 13 Or LUBA 146 (4/4/85); 74 Or App 453 (7/1785), rev. denied 300 Or 322 (11/26/85); and OAR 660-05-015 and 020 as amended effective June 7, 1986 (repealed effective August 7, 1993). The 1982 administrative rule (OAR 660-05-015 and 020) was further amended to incorporate the holdings of these cases (effective June 7, 1986 and repealed effective August 7, 1993). 4 Under the version of ORS 215.213 in effect when the claimant acquired the property, a farm dwelling could be established on agricultural land, only if the farm use to which the dwelling relates is existing, (Matteo v. Polk County, 11 Or LUBA 259,263 (1984) affirmed without opinion, 70 Or App 179 (September 14, 1984) and Newcomer v. Clackamas County, 92 Or App 174, modified 94 Or App 33, November 23, 1988). M118966 - Benton Exhibit Page 2E of5~ No information has been provided showing that the development desired by the claimant complies with either the Goal 3 minimum lot size standard for farm parcels under Goal 3, the standards for new non-farm parcels under ORS 215.263 (1975 Edition) or the approval standards for dwellings, in effect at the time the Mr. Benton acquired the property in 1977 5 Conclusion Based on the record before the department, Mr. Benton has established that he is entitled to relief. Therefore, the department staff recommends that, in lieu of compensation, the requirements of applicable state laws enforced by the Commission or the department not apply to the extent necessary to allow the claimant a use of the property permitted at the time he acquired it on July 27, 1977. On July 27, 1977, the property was subject to Statewide Goal 3 and the minimum lot size and dwelling standards specified therein (effective January 25, 1975), as well as the standards in ORS 215 for land divisions and dwellings. Therefore, staff recommends that the department not apply the current provisions of Statewide Goal 3, ORS 215.263, ORS 215.284, ORS 215.780, and OAR 660, Division 33, as they relate to land divisions and the establishment of dwellings. This proposed action would authorize Mr. Benton to apply to Hood River County for the division of the subject property and the development of a dwelling on each parcel or lot created pursuant to the provisions of Goal 3 and ORS 215 in effect when he acquired the subject property in 1977. These earlier provisions require that the resulting parcels or lots be: (1) "appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise in the area; and (2) shown to comply with the standards for the creation of non-farm parcels under ORS 215.213 (1975 Edition). Similarly, the standards for residential dwellings in effect in 1977 generally require that any farm dwelling be customarily provided in conjunction with farm use, or meet the requirements for non-farm dwellings under Goal 3 and ORS 215.213(1)(e) and (3) (1975 Edition). Any use of the property by the claimant remains subject to the following laws: (a) those state laws not specifically waived by the Final Order on this claim; (b) any laws enacted or enforced by a public entity other than the Commission or department; and (c) those laws not subject to Measure 37 including without limitation, those laws exempt under Section (3) of the Measure. VII. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT STAFF REPORT The department issued its draft staff report on this claim on May 19, 2005. OAR 125-145-0100(3), provided an opportunity for the claimant or the claimant's authorized agent and any third parties who submitted comments under OAR 125-145-0080 to submit written comments, evidence and information in response to the draft staff report and recommendation. Comments received have been taken into account by the department in the issuance of this final report. ' An indication of how these land division and dwelling standards applied to the property when it was acquired and that comply with the Goal 3 minimum lot size standards, ORS 215.263 and the farm and non-farm dwelling standards under ORS 215.213 are the land division and dwelling standards in the County's acknowledged EFU zone. The acknowledged EFU zone for Hood River County established a 20-acre minimum lot size for new parcels and required that farm and non-farm dwellings comply with the applicable standards under ORS 215.213. M118966 - Benton 9 Exhibit Ga Page-2R of -:5-1 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM ) FINAL ORDER FOR COMPENSATION UNDER ) CLAIM NO. M 118966 BALLOT MEASURE 37 (CHAPTER ) 1, OREGON LAWS 2005) OF ) Charles Benton III, CLAIMANT ) Claimant(s): Charles Benton III (the Claimant) Property: Tax Lots 1000, 1100 and 1101, T.2N, R.IOE, Section 14, W.M., Hood River County Claim: The demand for compensation and any supporting information received from the Claimant by the State of Oregon (the Claim). Claimant submitted the Claim to the State of Oregon under Ballot Measure 37 (2004) (Oregon Laws 2005, Chapter 1) (hereafter, Measure 37). Under OAR 125-145-0010 et seq., the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) referred the Claim to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) as the regulating entity. This order is based on the record herein, including the Findings and Conclusions set forth in the Final Staff Report and Recommendation of DLCD (the DLCD Report) attached to and by this reference incorporated into this order. ORDER The Claim is approved as to laws administered by DLCD and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the reasons set forth in the DLCD Report, and subject to the following terms: 1. In lieu of paying just compensation under Measure 37, the State of Oregon will not apply the following laws to the Claimant's division of the Property into lots or parcels or to the establishment of a single-family dwelling on each lot or parcel: those provisions of Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 3, ORS 215.263, ORS 215.284, ORS 215.780 and OAR chapter 660, division 33 that restrict the division of the Property into lots or parcels or the establishment of a single-family dwelling on each lot or parcel, except for the provisions of each of these laws that were in effect when the Benton's acquired their interest in the Property on July 27, 1977. 2. The relief granted by this order does not authorize the Claimant to use the Property for a use that was not permitted when they acquired their interest in the Property. The use of Property permitted in 1977 was governed by state laws that include, but are not limited to: the provisions of ORS chapter 92, Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 3, and ORS chapter 215 that existed at that time. FINAL ORDER Pagel of 3 Exhibit G Page of _5__- 3. To the extent that any law, order, deed, agreement or other legally-enforceable public or private requirement provides that the Property may not be used without a permit, license, or other form of authorization or consent, this order does not authorize the use of the Property unless the Claimant first obtains that permit, license, or other form of authorization or consent. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to: a building permit, a land use decision, a permit as defined in ORS 215.412 or ORS 227.160, other permits or authorizations from local, state or federal agencies, and restrictions on the use of the Property imposed by private parties. 4. Any use of the Property by the Claimant under the terms of this order remains subject to the following laws: (a) those laws not specified in (1), above; (b) any laws enacted or enforced by a public entity other than DLCD; and (c) those laws not subject to Measure 37 including, without limitation, those laws exempted under section (3) of Measure 37. 5. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing terms, in order for the Claimant to use the Property, it may be necessary for the Claimant to obtain a decision under Measure 37 from a city and/or county and/or metropolitan service district that enforces land use regulations applicable to the Property. Nothing in this order relieves the Claimant from the necessity of obtaining a decision under Measure 37 from a local public entity that has jurisdiction to enforce a land use regulation applicable to a use of the Property by the Claimant. This Order is entered by the Director of the DLCD as a final order of DLCD and the Land Conservation and Development Commission under Measure 37, OAR 660-002-0010(8), and OAR chapter 125, division 145, and by the Administrator for the State Services Division of the DAS as a final order of DAS under Measure 37, OAR chapter 125, division 145 and ORS chapter 293. FOR DLCD AND THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Lane Shetterly, Director DLCD Dated this _ day of , 2005. FOR the DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: David Hartwig, Administrator 'DAS, State Services Division Dated this _ day of , 2005. FINAL ORDER Page 2 of 3 Exhibit Page '30 of 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL OR OTHER JUDICIAL RELIEF You are entitled, or may be entitled, to the following judicial remedies: 1. Judicial review under ORS 293.316: Judicial review under ORS 293.316 may be obtained by filing a petition for review within 60 days from the service of this order. Judicial review under ORS 293.316 is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482 to the Court of Appeals. 2. Judicial review under ORS 183.484: Judicial review under ORS 183.484 may be obtained by filing a petition for review within 60 days from the service of this order. A petition for judicial review under ORS 183.484 may be filed in the Circuit Court for Marion County and the Circuit Court in the county in-which you reside. 3. A cause of action under Oregon Laws 2005, chapter 1 (Measure 37 (2004)): A present owner of the property, or any interest therein, may file a cause of action in the Circuit Court for the county where the property is located, if a land use regulation continues to apply to the subject property more than 180 days after the present owner made a written demand for compensation. (Copies of the documents that comprise the record are available for review at the Department's office at 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150, Salem, Oregon 97301-2540) FOR INFORMATION ONLY The Oregon Department of Justice has advised the Department of Land Conservation and Development that "[i]f the current owner of the real property conveys the property before the new use allowed by the public entity is established, then the entitlement to relief will be lost." FINAL ORDER Page 3 of 3 Exhibit Page of 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Application for an Amphitheater or a Christian Life Center in File AFFIDAVIT OF SP-05-13/LM-05-22; A-05-5/A-05-6 VERSON PANDIAN STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Deschutes ) I, Verson Pandian, being first duly sworn, do depose and say: 1. I own property at 21695 Hamby Road, approximately one-half mile north of the proposed amphitheater, and have contracted to purchase the land (tax lot 700) which is directly adjacent and north of the proposed amphitheater, again located on Hamby Road. 2. I will be seriously and negatively impacted by the proposed amphitheater because of amplified music coming from the proposed amphitheater and the substantial traffic on Hamby Road and Highway 20 that would be associated with the events at the proposed amphitheater. 3. I regularly use Highway 20 and Hamby Road not only for driving to and from my properties but also for bicycling in the area. My experience is that both Hamby Road and Highway 20 can be quite dangerous even with existing traffic. In particular, the curve on Hamby Road just north of the access to the Christian Life Center and to the proposed amphitheater is particularly dangerous because of the limited sight distance between the driveway and the crest of the hill (and beginning of the curve). 4. The noise and traffic will not only impact my personal enjoyment of the area but. will also negatively impact the value of my property in the area. VERSON PANDIAN AFFIDAVIT OF VERSON PANDIAN Exhibit Page of SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this i J day of October, 2005. OFFICIAL 7SEAL ANNIE M P]50 NOTARY PUBLICOMMISSION MY COMMISSION EXPIAF~: a AFFIDAVIT OF VERSON PANDIAN NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREG N 2 Exhibit --1 Page A of Exhibit Page i of ll ;z~~--- y October 11, 2005 Deschutes County Commissioners File Numbers-A-05-5 and A-05-6 (SP-05-13,LM-05-22) Subject: Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision denying a proposal to establish a 2000 seat outdoor amphitheater on a parcel zoned EFU Dear County Commissioners: In order that you might have a better understanding of our position and opposition to the amphitheater we have enclosed our previous letters outlining our concerns and issues. We would also like to add that we have seen an increase in traffic on Ward Road from large commercial trucks and semi trailers. We assume they are trying to avoid the traffic on 2Th and the lights. They come up Stevens Rd and travel along Ward. We also understand that the parcel of land between Highway 20 and Bear Creek just west of Ward is destined to have 300 Houses. There continues to be a number of accidents on Ward and Bear Creek, Highway 20 and Ward, Hamby and Neff. In fact, someone was killed on Hamby and Neff last week. Please consider the impact of the additional traffic from a 2000 seat amphitheater. How does this additional traffic impact the Fire Department located on Hamby should they need to respond to an emergency? Thank you, Roger and Sandy McJunkin 21680 Old Red Rd. Bend, Oregon 97702. Exhibit Page }2 of _ June 17,2005 To: Senate Presidents Office Senate Republicans Senator Ferrioli Senate Democrats Senator Kate Brown Senator Ben Westlund Senator Gene Whisnant 900 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Room S203 Fax#:503-986-1004 Room S223 Fax#503-986-1958 Room S323 Fax#503-986-1004 Room S211 Fax to %isant, Secretary will copy Room H277 Fax #503-986-1997 Re: House Bill 3474 Christian Life Center, Applicant Highway 20E, Bend, Or. File#SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 (Not faxed) File #CU-01-31 and SP -01-11, Applicant:Jewish Community of Central Oregon (Not Faxed) My letters dated and attached The Christian Life Center in Bend, Oregon is building an open amphitheater in close proximity to my neighborhood, which is East of Bend off of Bear Creek Road, directly south of Highway 20.The Christian Life Center is approximately 2000 feet from our home. The local community directly affected by this amphitheater has been opposed to it since hearing about it. A petition was signed by 125 rural residents against this amphitheater and many of us have attended the Deschutes County Community Development hearing. In reading the Bend Bulletin it has come to our attention that there is a bill that has passed the house and currently in the Senate for review concerning Church Land-Use Exemption. According to Republican Mitch Greenlich,Democrate, Portland as quoted in the Bulletin as saying, "there would be nothing to stop a religious group from putting a halfway house or an amphitheater in a residential neighborhood". Exhibit Page ofJ~ page 2 My husband and I have been voters and taxpayers in the state of Oregon and Deschutes County since 1973. We have lived in our subdivision that is directly south of this amphitheater since 1977. We have enjoyed the country life. Peaceful. We enjoyed working in our gardens in the summer after being inside all winter long. If they have concerts in this amphitheater, it will be an annoying noise to my ears not music. I do not force others to listen to me preach about my religion. I respect their rights and I expect their respect for my privacy. This will all be destroyed if an amphitheater is allowed to be built under the pretense of religion. They want to build this amphitheater for 2000 young kids. This is far and above the number in their church. They will be busing people in from everywhere, according to their minister. They have had smaller concerts of about 800 and charge approximately $16.00 a ticket. If they have 2000 people at their amphitheater that is a total of $32,000 and they want to hold concerts six times in the summer. If they hold hard rock concerts, they get more per ticket. That is $192,000 or more a year that you will not be receiving tax on because this is a non profit organization. However, who is going to regulate how many they have each year? Do you not see that this is a business under the disguise of a religion? Sure they have to show no profit at the end of year. How hard is that? You pay big bonuses and spend on whatever else you desire so you can get to a zero profit. Why can't they rent the amphitheater that already exists in Bend or the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and have their concerts there. You would then receive a tax income from the money made by the owners of that amphitheater. Also, have you considered the impact to our roads by the additional traffic on Highway 20 east. Currently there is no stop light at that church. People will enter from a main highway and there is no light nor a turn lane. The county has currently made them build an additional exit onto Hamby Rd. There is a fire station on that street and although they can take an alternative route they would be delayed. That could mean the difference between life and death. Who will pay for the road improvements as needed for this additional traffic? If amphitheaters are approved under this bill property taxes should be reduced because our land value will go down. All of us that are impacted by this noise will petition for a reduction. Our suggestion would be that they add on to their existing church and keep the noise enclosed. We will still have an issue of traffic and road maintenance, but at least we wouldn't hear the noise We are asking you to stop this bill from passing. We await a response to our letter. Voters and Taxpayers, Roger and Sandy McJunkin 21680 Old Red Rd. Bend, Oregon 97702 Exhibit Page 3B- of Apri19, 2005 Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 Re: File Sp-05-13 and LM-05-22 I would like to have my objection put on record against the amphitheater at the Christian Life Center located at 21720 East Highway 20, Bend, Oregon 97701. Our home is located approximately 3/10 of a mile south of the proposed amphitheater. We have lived in this home for 28 years and have always loved the peace and quite. The summer months are when we especially enjoy our yard. We love working in our yard, listening to the birds and the wind in the trees. We feel the noises from an amphitheater along with additional traffic and lighting would encroach on our rights to peace and quite on our property. The people attending these concerts have a choice of being a guest, we don't. We have to attend everyone of these concerts or leave our home. Where are our rights? We also feel that an amphitheater is not a proper use for an EAU zone. Also, we have concerns over traffic created by their concerts. This is a major two lane Highway with a 55 miles per hour speed limit and no turning lanes or traffic signals of any kind. Without major improvements ( paid for by taxpayers) there could be major accidents. Another concern is if there are more cars than available parking spaces, where will they park? On the Highway? Does this mean people will be crossing a major highway with high speed traffic? Does this mean more accidents? With the high traffic, how will an ambulance or the sheriff be able to assist. There is also an abundance of light coming from the Christian Life Center now. Our concern is the additional lighting that is needed for an amphitheater that is big enough for two thousand people. Our concern is a decline in our property value. Who wants to move into a residential area adjacent to an amphitheater? Sincerely, Exhibit Page 1-99 of April 16, 2005 Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97701 Attn: Catharine White, Associate Planner File # SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 Dear Ms. White: Under the Department of Environmental Quality the Oregon Administrative Rules the following policy for noise control regulations: Policy # 340-35-005 In the interest of public health and welfare, and in accordance with ORS 467.010, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Oregon: (1) To provide a coordinated statewide program of noise control to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Oregon citizens from the hazards and deterioration of the quality of life imposed by excessive noise emissions; (2) To facilitate cooperation among units of state and local governments in establishing and supporting noise control programs consistent with the state program and to encourage the enforcement of viable local noise control regulations by the appropriate local jurisdiction; (3) To develop a program for the control of excessive noise sources which shall be undertaken in a progressive manner, and each of its objectives shall be accomplished by cooperation among all parties concerned. As a homeowner within 2000 feet of the proposed Christian Life Center amphitheater, I oppose the approval of this amphitheater due to the deterioration of the quality of life by the excessive noise emissions from this amphitheater. If a permit is issued for the church to continue with the amphitheater, my suggestion would be to put a dome over it to contain the noise. It may be singing inside the amphitheater but as it moves out into the adjacent neighborhood all that will be heard is an awful noise. Since ODOT has Exhibit Page Z of Page 2 required the Christian Life Center to block entrance on Highway 97 during the concerts, I am now concerned with all of the concert traffic being channeled to one road, Hamby. I understand that ODOT has ordered a video survey of traffic not only on Hamby but Ward. They are also concerned with the traffic situation caused by 667 cars as well as with the current usage by locals on a two-lane road. Again, I am in opposition of this amphitheater being approved. Sincerely, Sandy McJunkin 21680 Old Red Rd Bend, Oregon 97702 Exhibit_ Page i~ of _;S~ October 7, 2005 61976 Bronco Lane Bend Oregon 97702 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend OR 97701 File # A-05-5 & A-05-6 (SP-05-13, LM 05-22) Opposition to Amphitheater, Christian Life Center Once again, we are writing letters in answer to the appeal by the Christian Life Center. Please review my attached correspondence: Memorandum to the Senate President's Office, Senator Gene Whisnant, Senator Ben Westlund, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans re: Church Landuse Laws and the Deschutes County dilemma over the proposal to build an amphitheater in our neighborhood. Letters to he Hearings Officer, Karen Green, with copies to Catherine White dated April 28, 2005, April 14, 2005, and April 9, 2005. The officers of the stand-alone church stated in their application for the amphitheater that they would have six (6) rock concerts per year. However, they expanded use into several other avenues so it would be in use quite often. That alone must speak to the traffic issues, as previously outlined, let alone the noise factor. Exhibit Page _L , of _ I want you to think into the future when several churches have their amphitheaters in use, competing with each other. I want you to think into the future when a Muslim mosque is built in Bend. If churches are allowed to use their land as they want, then this is a dangerous precedent. "This is SO IMPORTANT. STOP AND THINK! We expect elected officials to use wisdom in their judgments. This church claims they are saving souls by having rock concerts. Their church building holds 600 or 800 people. I have heard both numbers. They now hold concerts inside the church, selling tickets. This stand-alone church has made a lot of money over the years with their indoor concerts selling tickets. They want to EXPAND to sell 2000 tickets by holding rock concerts OUTSIDE. SO - THE REST OF THE YEAR THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM FOR THEM! I don't buy their story about saving souls. New members can come only if they buy a ticket - but sorry - no room inside for you! The officials of the church stated at the public hearing on April 12, 2005, "they had no financial worries, they had plenty of money". So why don't they just add on to the church walls. Why? Money! 2000 people at $16.00 equals $32,000.00. Times 6 equals $1929000.00. 2000 people at $20.00 (hard rock costs more) equals $40,000.00. Times 6 equals $240,000.00. In all the homes canvassed in our area and who signed petitions against this amphitheater, only two were members of this church. You have the petitions. Exhibit Page __L of This means that hundreds of us as neighbors have to put up with this nonsense and the traffic snarls on Highway 20 & Hamby-Ward Roads, with the noise of rock concerts, with the Sunday morning services, and all the other activities they so chose, etc., so the church can line their pockets. I'd like to see the amounts they give back to the community. Don't we have a Noise Ordinance on the books for the city and the county? And, I don't care about the decibels. I care about what is good for the community. If they were true Christians, they would care about their neighbors. But, they don't. The almighty dollar is pushing them further and further. Karen Green turned them down. What is it about "NO" that they don't understand. I know it was ruled that the Jewish Synagogue was in a MUA area and this church is on EFU. But, noise is noise and traffic is traffic, no matter the name of the landuse. Stop the nonsense so we can get on with our lives. Cord! lly, Ve,d~ral~ogt ii~ Exhibit Page _ of MEMORANDUM June 15, 2005 TO: Senate President's Office Fax 503-986-1004 Senator Gene Whisnant Fax 503-986-1997 Senator Ben Westlund Fax to Whisant, Secretary will copy for Ben Senate Democrats Fax 503-986-1004 Senate Republicans Fax 503-986-1958 FROM: Kendra Vogt Ph: 541-389-5767 61976 Bronco L e No E-Mail Bend OR 977 RE: Bill # HB 3474 Church Land-Use Laws and, RE: CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER, Applicant Highway 20E, Bend, OR. File #SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 (Not faxed) Amphitheater To File #CU-01-31 and SP-01-11, Applicant: Jewish Community of Central Oregon (Not faxed) To my letters dated April 28, 2005, April 14, 2005 and April 9, 2005 The Christian Life Center is building an amphitheater in close proximity to my neighborhood, which is East of Bend off of Bear Creek Road, directly south of Highway 20 and the Christian Life Center, about 2300 feet. I don't have a lobbyist. I am a 69 year old lady who is retired from law enforcement, bought this home in 1988 by myself, lived in Bend since 1970, and I'm just a dumb taxpayer without a voice, about to have our quiet rural area invaded by an outdoor amphitheater so a group of people from a church can make money. I blame Measure 37 for this mess. All I heard after the election was how poorly that bill was written. Well, who wrote it? How did it get on the ballot? Who the hell is in charge? Where is common sense? The voters only read the first part of that Measure and didn't realize it was on the ballot by design. Exhibit Page I of I blame the members of the House for passing the Bill. Each of them should have an amphitheater in their backyard. And - maybe they will! We have been opposed to this since we learned of it in April. They had it half built without a permit. Almost 125 rural residents signed a petition against the amphitheater and many of us attended the hearing at the Deschutes County Community Development hearing. Of all the homes in the rural area, only one person was a member of this church. We didn't have time to get to the rest of the residents. I am asking you to please read my attached letters so you get the full scope of the problems involved. Noise, traffic, etc. After reading my letters, ask yourself if you would like an amphitheater in your back yard with 2000 people chanting and rock bands playing. At the Deschutes County hearing, a representative of the church said they would be having Sunday morning services outdoors, of course, amplified. If you pass this law, you are forcing me to attend this church's services. Can you do that? Obviously, I have no rights as a citizen. I can't lobby in Salem. I am here to pay taxes and vote against poor measures put on the ballot. Do you realize the scope of what these new landuse laws are having on our communities? The Jewish Synagogue was told they could not have amplified music outside of their church because it would impact the surrounding residents. Discrimination? Yes. Only 5 neighbors complained about the synagogue being built. In 2 days we had about 125 signatures, but we had to stop and turn them in. This amphitheater business is just to line their pockets, tax free. Refer to my attached letter dated April 28, 2005. This stand-alone church will be making a quarter of a million dollars on only 6 outdoor concerts a year! Their "hard rock" tickets cost more than $16.00 per ticket. I do not want to listen to hard rock when gardening and outdoor dinners. Where does the money go? Why can't they build onto the church and let their bands blast inside the walls instead of going out over the countryside. I do not think the State of Oregon can force me to attend their amplified church services. Obviously, you can. Exhibit Page -Y&7 f -'S-) - YOUR TAXPAYERS EAST OF BEND ARE IN REVOLT. THIS WILL DAMAGE THE VALUE OF MY LAND AND MY HOME. DOES ANYBODY CARE? ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE FAMILIES THAT VOTE? Just wait until the Muslims have moved into every county. Your landuse laws may bite you. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that we should worship the Lord as we choose, and this is wrong. This whole fiasco started when they realized how much money they could make by having outdoor evening concerts for 2000 people and selling tickets and bringing in rock bands. I've never had to buy a ticket to attend a church play, etc. It's the almighty dollar behind this, I don't care how they try to cover up the fact with their almighty talk. The representatives of the church at the hearing were arrogant. It was obvious that they felt it was a done-deal all along. Deschutes County is holding off on their decision because of the legislation. None of us even knew it was going through the House. The Bend Bulletin put an article in the paper just yesterday. The House passed it. We would have been there if we had known. The Community Development of Deschutes County COULD HAVE NOTIFIED US ABOUT THE HOUSE HEARINGS, but they did not. Just like we were not notified by the County about the proposal in the beginning. On May 3ra.2005 they held an indoor concert, capacity 800. We can't pull out onto the Highway when these events occur. Our fire station on Hamby Road is north of the church. Three years ago in May I had a house fire. Lord help us if anyone south of the Highway needs help during their concerts for 2000 people. The area turning into the church is a 55 MPH zone, with semi's etc leaving Bend. All those teenagers headed to a rock concert is a disaster waiting to happen. Does that mean the TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR NEW HIGHWAY 20 CONSTRUCTION? ODOT told them they would have to close off the Highway 20 entrance and use Hamby Road. Hamby and Ward intersection only has a stop sign. Cars will be backed up forever. They said at the hearing they would only have 6 evening outdoor concerts a year, but if this law is passed, they can do as they please. They can blast us all they want when they want. Exhibit Page of 5 71 What did it cost the State of Oregon to get rid of the Rajueesh? I was on that investigation at Rajneeshpuram for a month. Did anybody learn from that? Please, think before you vote. Nobody should run scared from the word Church! I'm running scared. I'm very afraid for our way of life as it has been. I feel like I have been run over by a truck. I'm tired of feeling this way. I have a very hopeless feeling about what I have to contend with and have no control over my surroundings. I am asking you to please read my attached letters. I am voicing the opinions of all who signed the petitions against this amphitheater. I am asking you to please respond to this memorandum. We only get news in the paper after the fact. How can we be advised what is happening on this? A footnote: After 9-11, I drafted a plan to protect all of our small airports with retired volunteers, complete with a record keeping system. I faxed it to our Governor's office, U.S. Senators, and Washington DC. Never heard a word from anyone. Nobody cares. Our founding fathers never envisioned lobbyists. They expected our government officials to stand up for what is right for the people, not a chosen few. It is out of hand folks! So now I am headed to town to send faxes and spend my "pennies from heaven" (Social Security) to voice my concerns. Will this do any good? We'll see. Exhibit Page 49 0 Acj-j- 61976 Bronco Lane Bend, Oregon 97702 April 28, 2005 Karen Green Hearings Officer Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 N.W. Lafayette Bend, Oregon 07701 Ref: File # SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 Ref: Also Staff Report dated 4-06-2005 My letter dated 4-09-05 My letter dated 4-14-05 Permit to build amphitheater by Christian Life Center. I request that permits to build amphitheaters by religious organizations be reviewed by the Oregon Legislature before any new permits be issued. Statutes were written before a "church" put in amphitheaters to raise money at the expense of all their neighbors. Every county in the State is going to have to go through this process eventually. Greed dictates. I will notify my Congressmen! On May 3, 3005 the Christian Life Center is holding another indoor concert. Capacity 800. Tickets are $16.00 per person and they are almost sold out. That equates to $12,800.00 they will take in on May 3. I contend that the building of the amphitheater is purely for the purpose of taking in revenue, tax free. Because the concert on May 3 is "not hard rock" the tickets are only $16.00. Using the base of $16.00, 2000 persons who have to pay to attend "church" would be $32,000.00 for a 3 hour stint. Hard rock must cost more, so you can add to that figure. Six concerts a year equals $192,000.00. Tax-free. I contend that this is nothing more than a money making scheme. I have never had to "buy a ticket to attend church". This issue must be addressed by the Oregon Legislature. I contend that their amplified church affairs force me to participate. I do not wish to be a part of their religious teachings, sermons, or rock concerts. The Oregon Legislature is going to have to tell me that I have no religious freedom and that I must participate. Not the Christian Life Center. EFU and 3 mile limit from Urban Growth Boundary. They are within 3 miles of the Urban Growth Boundary and on EFU land. Deschutes County said they had to notify residences within 750' of the amphitheater. Since the church area covers 34.99 acres, the notification process included which residence? I contend then that Deschutes County felt their entertainment, music, sermons, all amplified sound would be contained within that 750', otherwise they would have wisely asked that all residences within the amplified sound area would have received notice of this impending permit, which we did not. The church states in their proposal in the staff report that 2000 paying "guests" will arrive typically three people to a car or about 670 cars. Where is their staging area to achieve this feat? Or will there be 2000 cars? Too many unknowns exist with this fiasco. If they were truly Christian, with all of the opposition, they would not go ahead with this project. Cordiall , Ken a Vogt kv cc: Catherine White Exhibit G Page _qrof 61976 Bronco Lane Bend OR 97702 April 14, 2005 Karen Green Hearings Officer Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 N.W. Lafayette Avenue Bend OR 97701 Ref: File # SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 In opposition to the amphitheater proposal by the Christian Life Center, Hwy 20 E, Bend There are not new topics - they were brought up at the hearing. DISCRIMINATION The good doctor that got up and spoke about the restrictions placed on their Jewish Synagogue built on Ward Road in Bend, said that they could not even have a radio playing in their parking lot! How then can a different denomination built this amphitheater and hold concerts? This would place the County into the position of discrimination against the Jewish Synagogue and for a non- denominational church. NOTE: I request the permit to build the Synagogue be pulled from the County files, with all restrictions attached, and be made a part of the record of this hearing. HIGHWAY 20 ACCESS INTO THEIR PROPERTY Mr. Rowles, engineer, stated they would block off their driveway into the church property from Highway 20 and use the Highway 20/Hamby Road intersection. Question: Did ODOT request the church make major improvements to their existing entrance off of Highway 20? If so, was that information included in their report? I have a hunch they did not submit any such requirements to the hearing's officer, just that they would use the Hamby Road intersection and block off their driveway. Evidently, they do not want to be responsible for any traffic collisions/problems at their driveway access. My neighbor learned from Rick Williams, 388-6458 at ODOT that the Christian Life Center has their first outdoor concert scheduled for October, not in the summer months as they said in the hearimg. They have been holding concerts in their church building for large, large numbers of people without a permit. That explains the influx of traffic at Hwy 20/Ward/Hamby intersection at times and we couldn't figure out where all the traffic was coming from. I thought an accident occurred further East on Hwy 20 and traffic had been held up. Mr. Williams was also told there would be (3) three concerts per year. During the hearing they mentioned (5)five or (6). That number does not include plays, weddings, and church services plus youth group meetings. ODOT should have been at the hearing on April 12, as well as the County Road Department. There seems to be a discrepancy between what the representative for the Christian Life Center told ODOT and what was said at the hearing. He inferred that all was complete with ODOT, it was a done deal, and they had no problem with this application. That is not true. ODOT is still holding meetings over the application. My neighbor has requested these meetings be open to the public and all of the neighbors of the church property. LOCKING THE CHURCH DOORS During the concerts they said they would lock the doors to the church. Then the amphitheater is not an extension of their church. It is a separate entity. Therefore, farmland use applies. Exhibit C Page !W of ' w Page 2 TRAFFIC - Hwy 20/Hamby Road intersection In July for three weeks, the High Desert Classic occurs at J Bar J Boys Ranch. Horses and huge trailers are coming in before the events and leaving after. The horse people come from all over the US to Bend every year and they spend a lot of money here for motels and restaurants. Their additional traffic at this intersection is done through attrition, not all coming at one time and leaving at one time. The wealthy people involved in show jumping travel all over. I wonder if they would come back to Bend if they were serenaded by the Christian Life Center during their competition. I rather doubt it. Now add in all the traffic from the Ball Field located behind the old fire station and 911 Center, plus the traffic from the whole neighborhood on the East side, and Buckingham School. EFU ZONE & WATER RIGHTS The church is clearly in violation of both of these issues. Parking lots are not built on farmland. If each county and each state does not start protecting farmland, we are in a world of hurt down the line. China is not going to raise hay for the livestock in the US, let alone food products. MONITOR If this permit is granted, and I can't see how it could be, exactly who is going to monitor the church's use of the facility. There are too many discrepancies in what we heard at the hearing and the facts. The members of the church do not care about their neighbors - only the dollar they will earn from donations! Cordially, K dra Vogt kv / Cc: Kathy White, Planning Department Exhibit Page ,Ef I of '-1 61976 Bronco Lane Bend, Oregon 97702 April 9, 2005 Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 N.W. Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Ref File # SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 Gentlemen: I am opposed to the amphitheater on tax lot 1712360000801, Highway 20 East of Bend. What in the world are you thinking? Noise Restrictions DCC 8.08.040(D). My home is in Dobbin Acres east of Ward Road and just south of Bear Creek. On summer nights I work outside in the garden and yard until dark, after it has cooled off. I'll be darned if I'm going to have to listen to drums, bugles and amplified rock music on a supposedly quiet summer night. NO WAY! Don't try to tell me I won't be affected. I can hear the shotguns popping at the Trap Club over on Brosterheus Road and that facility is miles from me. Residents up and down Bear Creek south of Highway 20 are furious. In order to build it and then turn it into a profitable venture, they would have to lease it out to musical groups. Perhaps you would all like the Rainbow people coming back to Central Oregon to hold their little concert. PLANNED USE VS LEGAL USE If they cannot legally lease out the use of the facility, possibly they could get around the law by taking in donations. "Also, who is going to monitor the use of the facility? The Planning Department? The Sheriffs Office? The County Commissioners? Well, who? Property is in an EFU Zone. How did they change that? Why was this property not posted as to a change in use? Nobody knew. Do they only have to notify neighbors up to 700'? If so, then their music cannot travel more than 700', right? Is the Christian Life Center immune to the laws? Well, what do you know - the good minister wanted to sneak it right past all of us. An amphitheater - music arena - whatever you want to call it IS NOT A CHURCH. They hold their meetings at their church, but have to have this huge amphitheater to sing! Come on........... I have lived in the Bend rural community since 1970 and in Oregon since 1957. I have been a good citizen and paid my taxes without complaint. NOW, I AM COMPLAINING. I didn't move here with a lot of big ideas about changing the place, but, I'm sick and tired of the ones that have. Highway 20 & Ward/Hamby intersection is already overcrowded. Accidents occur often. The increase in traffic would be terrible. This intersection is in a 55 MPH zone on Highway 20. It's difficult turning there now and I've lived out here 15 years. Exhibit Page Of -5-A Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 N.W. Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Ref File # SP-05-13 and LM-05-22 Page 2 LIGHTING ORDINANCE Deschutes County is the only county that I know of, in Oregon, that has a light restriction on and around homes - so people can see the stars! Lighting prevents burglaries. I brought this up in a law enforcement class and the instructor could not believe it. Since the homes in this area have to abide by this law, then that includes a stadium with seating for 2,200 people. No way can they light up the sky. The church is not paying taxes on property they own. But, your paying taxpayers up and down Bear Creek south of this proposed stadium are up in arms. Why don't you listen to them? It used to be easy to call the County phone numbers and get help or answers. Not any more. As I said - WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING - OR ARE YOU? The Christian Life Center can use the Les Schwab arena like everyone else. I want my property value left alone. With resew on, K dra Vogt kv Exhibit Page of r- DA- 1©f 7 K _n u 7 ~77oi-t9as -os-5 w-A- os`-(tz 3) L- tl-A cam' aa~ EFL) ✓ v - - - v W-w~ vJ C4- ou ~2- FU ` ~t D A, 4,0-1 C~- c ~-c s~ l~U ~crtX-aC c~c 2 t,~ ~ . t Rte. -I-~ S IF v z oA)( LAA- CL~ Uve o-vi E~ Exhibit 1 tze C ~e k Page . of - °~y-7 e / Of zoo i LamntiuO•~~ l zveAOPAIIO,4 -b 4 1 17 N u( ~ ea e 4 V"e -3,et,A CAA- Q77o(- tlaS Fide#/A -os -,5- -k-- A- os-(D C5t -oS-13) L M os-aa0 A cx, 40 a s c _ vt c r IIvv~ I~CII TM-Le , ou~ 'T" AtL~u Exhibit Page 5of ,Z (ff ems, LAA-5 ta, ock it kw 3 0 Fn a~ 'RS-9 7 u,,. ~ 0~ q 7 To $ ,5 Exhibit a Page s56- of 's-I - October 6, 2005 Tom DeWolfe Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Mr. DeWolfe, As a resident of Deschutes County, I am writing this letter to make known my support for the Christian Life Center Amphitheater project. Living in Central Oregon is a blessing for those of us who have the opportunity to do so. There are such a wide variety of cultural experiences for one to enjoy. I believe the Christian Life Center Amphitheater with its concerts, as well as, outdoor worship opportunities, will only add to what already makes our community so special. I also believe there will be a positive economic impact on the community as well. People who attend events/services and the artist's who come will stay in Hotels, eat in our restaurants and shop in our stores. I urge you to support this project and approve its construction and use. Sincerely, za Exhibit G Page -57_ of .Sl _ bmc Your health. OUr passion. Bend Memorial ClinicL11 Tuesday, October 11, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: Bend Memorial Clinic intends to provide a first aide booth for the amphitheatre at Christian Life Center during events, dependant upon the availability of volunteers from the medical community for staffing. Sincerely, Ritzenthaler, MD Medical Director Bend Memorial Clinic Exhibit H Page I_ of 1 3oVA rzi e PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN APPEALS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. INTRODUCTION A. This is a de novo hearing on an appeal of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision denying a site plan application for a proposed 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, located on Highway 20 east of Bend. File numbers: A-05-5 and A-05-6 (SP-05-13 & LM-05-22) B. In those applications, the applicant proposes to establish an outdoor amphitheater that would hold 2000 seats, add additional parking, and be used to conduct current church activities, including outdoor concerts. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Hearings Officer's decision dated July 19, 2005 and are posted on the wall. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the decision of the Hearings Officer report, the staff report as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes applies to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Page 1 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-5, A-05-6 (SP-05-13, LM-05-22) Date of Hearing: 10/11/05 Exhibit M Page of III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board. The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents of the appeal will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. When all other proponents have testified, opponents to the appeal will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. 4. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicants will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness may direct the question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a subsequent witness, Page 2 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-5, A-05-6 (SP-05-13, LM-05-22) Date of Hearing: 10/11/05 Exhibit 2 Page 2 of S that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all other witnesses have testified but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. C. Continuances 1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. V. PRE-HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS 1. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. 2. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex- parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) Page 3 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-5, A-05-6 (SP-05-13, LM-05-22) Date of Hearing: 10/11/05 Exhibit Page of WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit S Page of pl Exhibit sue' Page of - ~7 f;. i t - + e , .q~ N q r 7 ~ - - _ i~%•~~/~/%r~. `~-4... '~~''~-.'r Ct4_.!C.MC`-c~"C~~d_ C✓"" ' "C~'G~ t e e a r- 9 O yyl~ m~~co0 WNC~ • `ems a 72 ©vS ~I From; Alan G Morris 62265 Hamby rd. Bend, Or 97701 To: Deschutes County Commissioners. DELIVERED ICY: Subject: Christian Life Center (CLC) proposal for a "Out Door Amphitheater" I have written several letters in the past to the county hearings officer regarding the subject proposal. I understand that each of those letters are in the county records and available to you. In each letter I have addressed the multiple reasons why my family, I and many others in the affected surrounding neighborhood are in Opposition to the amphitheater. In-that-time is short I will keep this letter short and say that nothing has changed in our opposition to this amphitheater. We continue to oppose the (CLC's) proposal and recommend that it be disapproved for the following reasons: - It's use violates State, County and City noise regulation. - Citizens that attend a church should not have more rights than other citizens to build "harmful or unnecessary facilities." - Most of those ( nearly all) that attend the Christian Life Center do not live in the affected area, and therefore their testimony/ letters should not carry more weight than those citizens who do live in the affected neighborhoods. ( see % of opposition below) + The Christian Life Center has testified that other church leaders support the proposal... what the (CLC) fails to explain is that none of those cinirch leader's have poled their congregations, or even asked for their "Churches" support of the proposal. have spoken with members of the (CLC) and even they were confused and unaware of what their church had proposed. - Over 95% of all of those neighbors, home owners, voters contacted in all of the affected areas, to include over 97% in some of the affected areas oppose the subject proposal and willingly signed a petition against the ampitheater. -Although the (C1C) has testified that "land values in the area would not be affected" I have personally spoken to potential buyers to include a Pastor of another church, all have told me that they would not buy my land or home specifically because of the ampitheater. Clearly a decrease in buyers results in reduced value in any market to include the real estate market. A decrease in real estate value is a decrease in Tax revenue to the county, city. Such a decrease hurts the Schools, services, infrastructure and thus all citizens. - House Bill HB 3474 was a bill written to expand the definition of "Church Expansion." I wrote to Senator Westlund and Rep Whisnant to point out that churches 10-10-2005 R EIVED 13v: OCT 1 U ao Exhibit S Page ~ of 2 currently believed that they had no limits to the definition of "Church Expansion". That bill died in the Senate.... Clearly the state Senate believes that churches do not require an increased freedom to do what ever then deem appropriate. I would agree. An amphitheater should not be thought to be a natural expansion of a church, and neither should any other facility that is harmful or unnecessary. - If (CLC) wishes to build a "Music Ministry" then they should bear the burden of building it in a fashion that does not hurt those citizens around it. They should enclose the amphitheater with walls and an attached roof. In summary I oppose the subject proposal and offer my Very Strongest Recommendation for disapproval Respectfully Morri s~ Exhibit Page _ L _ of -?-A- a y i q Exhibit Page _ , of -j_ -bavelq/ylo-A 11-7 Nlvj L. DECEIVED 'Re', PAe 0C l 1 0 ZU05 D EIVERE® BY: CsP QS ~M -oS-aa~e~-/C Jew M s &~t~ , lN ~ ov2 (eC©!v5 l be2~k'S'CtS a v`~ G'~'k~ OVe R~ e2Q,ucec~ +MA t'C'et~ (}the C-\(\(~A4 .A,v 20 0s~c~ A rn i~~ne U S1r~ A SA - A-- 0 N (fie i` e(LA`CE' M P ec11aPJS 40 N 0 N e o `OQ- oAcs Uoo,-o j e o v~ i n; M ~ T.2.SLv t 0 US L¢ e- RS (See A A c1„e~, Coacle5) ~~AV2 C~-6Qc~ a ~1,ety~ I3SveS Yee: In~ct~S~~ tRA tc IrO e ©SS'i~~ EMS NC`~ 52.2V1G~S ~J 1 t~ C~ Ci. S ` CI S l ~E ~ c Q.t ~ • ( ` 1t'e. i M ~ c3 N S U 20 V lv c~ t tv PJZL- er, 4 v o use 5 ~~e Ise[ }i~;~e t~n,pp ©N a ~e~4 e S i Q-~ 6Liry J( t7~' ~I~~ - °i'11e IN.~2tN M~:~S1" CAN ~ `JL2~`{~kS f C1Q..t~ S ~A 5 ( ~ ff iC{1TS RS STWrteb iN -F~e U S ~~,s` i~ tA cC~'~Fr fia ~AP~1lNNss ~iM~f?SSj~~~ isCe~ 40 v ",eA ~-,,Od t 6nus e ~~a +v,A`T(010 1 AS N y o 4-o cH©c)se c)vk LASE- `tom `L ` )p ' "I".0 e MAY STS 6~N~; I'JUM C-R- CAS 4\A ~1 ~E' W a 00 ~ e u s e , ~ u~ , a s V~~U~ 5 ~ ens o,~ r~QaAy C\" AT t\) unl ~3 e-2 a~-- uri [ ~ owc\ , o's C l -50 e s ee'Q C - ~ f ~f l y C't o'u - eA 4-\-,e o-f,,- e- 4~11 e I W a4 40 ~A 8 Vl e- L~O A y (I 2 D~q i N N r N o~ c.0 rv -W-Ljc1 r,~, 3 °f- C O. A (K)u i W o p k o kj 41~ u0AV\O A C ttt`t ~J A TTI3 V 0. t `fkAe- AN\ ~tw e-RL l~~tZOvPA W~cr cLssv(~Nces/ ( t tc~RR M-es a.Re e('e 40 mA KE SAJ1~ A- Ney a & ems. 4-0 N c~~ b Wises ` e~ G rv>e cv(~~ ~a~ er c~s~c~rv~e WOV ~ ~v a\i a_-i ~c-\./i o if'Qc U4. Lc 1o(5 jjA 1 es cI ~ c7 ~Se cv~- wc~AA, wP-Vc\At,0 IV ta~~•.~~- ~c~etZ ct_~ - ono © ( ` w © ((t u2 l ebb\.e.,,A e Jeti \oe a ~bcoec~ 40 Ai-~S~ O rA M ~4"4crz c I'S i\J a T);-', 0b \0e AA t h i s t 4p T DSIA ~V'2. T A~. EX fs6k) ce-/US$ U T,1 S P~MU Lt-,~e k. -C1ne- ct'A i ,~1v esS c7-t~: o~~ A Role. L & ~Ae. V u N 4-- M" e2s c .C c~c . Tu UA W AV ~1S t~ LE t\ke C o uv-y 4o pP-o ~ AU, f2 c~ i-* ICUs i\c-AlvPTt e S d1,e- cAAuRcln -6-A. A42t t^Q Lt' MU~~t t UG Q )13 V RP-0UNci CzF ,n e 2~ 1 S LtU- b Q K IF U Lk S? ~\Kw ,AoMs om f\ u LEA Lx3 ku s VN mw CP>- P~WUA A6tz- CA~[~-CAkc-!& qzt~ ` l t ~tJiS nn ~n~`C~ e e CZ ® t~ 2 ~G~ V-e C C Q J t ~-u c. ease U G~ GLs21• C t c i~ C ~ e ,'vt ` ~ -1©~ C d 2 (a yl)'~ Q 1~ `Q~Cp LAS, 1J E~ p- N~t2 c e. S c 14 C+i bdj s Exhibit S _ Page of Sandra eeck (/V 1 C'~~; c L Box 8597 Bend, 0 R::9:770808_ 8597 yI Exhibit Page _ of j ! 17 N W LAS wetw- Ave e )A O2 c17 701- 19 Zs fie; V-c(es WL, ~e. S-VloS -13 pAsb LM-o5-a,), POW', C+rN ep t4\-- u -JA-e- / KAReN C eeN tAs C;-pee.t4 'f-t25T wAjJr -TO '(-1+A-uK /Y oL) r©n. /yOvR &fz-Q AT p4-ne.jjc,.e, }E2 p,~ n a a 12- ~,e A.- P-iN c O N ~::~n.i S MATT e.2 f w A S 1 M OPZr t 6 f -}-p u 5 .~i_t i ~n s v Re Ivor C N L~ 4o L~ s~t e,U 6U- O 6e ~ e A-2A e ~~he c1w,rtc~ l zarsa~ F-FL), T :-Lr\3b iu QvestoeO cs .SoMe 5 k-( L Use PLLow)4luctN `b ~F~il~ A etEU2tln j V`See~ Is 4-t, CC 2 Fr U, tas I s 't e S vp,_,f-v alOA c l.Xo-u l L Any p u~~~ n anr~ as ~ QN n1o ~SsZ CQUwt1s AwA fS ell. ,~CtiVl1'1 5 cS 14LL(,lcv-ec\ 40,.s tV s meAW cweope w'J~ F-f:-U Lcl-Pu\ w`c(( Aew- e,,se -if-D ~%OQA eaNcesr s? i~evivjs ? aq ie5 ? Lac-wr SNoLvs tlze~~~t~S ? CAeN~VCA S D2 47 1RS ? f4 k,(4 fvtp- tl~(A A-F APC we ~eA3tIj 6--fke C~ ` l,c~ e.2e r s e Lc sve iLATT S Ayg -'t kcc~ (s ~joT- Fpq-zm USe ? C ~e A ~ ~ ~ c. A NT' ~ ~ S' Ti ~S fr 'rhar ~`Inese ~,sr~oorz c_oNcek-_Cs e I,uis~ ~Io ~no~c~ CL("P- cc -t- ~tca~ Auk lokeR-o- , in1 outs QeA is 4VNQP-e A,vy LyrteR CWL RC44 wiTff -Ofzly)Alueo L. d, sOVN~( AM L. ie~l Ou.4 l np RM A J-eR ? 1,N hN F- F-U 7-OUe ? . ~ iN war bo?cozs W&-,L Gk we c~Qe~c ~N o-v2 must c CS ~e A~~`nc A,vr SiT~rt~b fib - -po ckAceA Aoop, /itvfl D2l:uk wC cL(4 ese c.oticel~tS t~N~ Soca,.~~~ c- Ltc-HTlmG- Exhibit Page d_ of 21 c-A-CUJ5 Pfoh e-o-w pm e,.r w i L` \v- \,A► R p- l~ e&7i-ep p, N b YJ R u v~T t o r ~t -r y f t ccal y c= c f> A/k&2 ~1 y A o ck -"l`i~ O'R- ~~e i,+ ~cx iZ. S ei~V IG es ~ ~..`S N t~ f~~ w 1-~ 6~T ~ k'-C~-~i2S c~ v c1~` GO✓v G~.d~C S ? ~c~'eS~1' a McA/j 4ese cooc'e t5 Ap-o- ~R.Onn WS - Not- 4-yp ' Se2ViCStS ~ +\J-le.y ct jae N) `~?~~R m o►v2` t.-~ ~IZ c b v+ -VVc)-y cry i ~ ~ AfIpQcAovr3 flC1M►sSIGN, ArJ oUTRec~{ pn0&42AM, 1,e- Am eP%P-T T-D Gi,+on MeM~ 42P .AA\au, R 'C2AcTLIU6 T'14eM tb -r..\Ae wKSIC, 5t-t;PptNC7r A RwjAwi}Y "reeN o( ct- Su►e•tAAL pea5W fIS arhTel 6q r~ko-uj r I5 loo p- bu~ Ivey e, o s t tti~i doe, c~ D,. ~v6 -1 C.~- oLf I I-) ~e'P, ipiboo e meeTs CUP-, me~tbe~2 Rec~a~`eU t`S N1~ f~N1~o~t_~ Ro~ea.~ VALue CoNS'bQRAT0MS w(2.ne JV\ e_f,.Pn00j the 1-1CAMT-) NZ Ow elv - kose (ri ~CLVCP- cp sitA"teis ~Pvffi Al j VAueS Fl(~vv,vc{ tk. Les SchwcL pULA t e.~ eA- LvfAe. 0- ft(z5(rMcAe l ~~b8 P21 SQUAAC- ~ io L(e Va.L.es e. EAST- s I ba. Wept A F'lap,° 4. I jL 3 t) rv yorU e w fto k L i v eA GO e UA kNowS I'S co,nr S iD4-AA13t-~ M vRe (x?e~ S i Ue ~ ~ntt A) I t 1 BAST SItZ2 ~ e 0tj. vp,.Tv~-ke-l~ we wov Lck hail 40 Lj,cHT VN~rI Wek dvP, pRoFo.A Y A 2uuNA -4..ke .2 Or--40A A kn 4 e.2 wov (c L ow-e-AeA v ALk-e 5 4-C) y p.. - - - vl s P o i fi /4 4I x a-f . Cl-Iouu 4 %e Couw4y e T 19, v'e knQ-Aa A -L'1 McPrvAuv~ . -T'ke 1 ~►CA'tCs 1-0)jG weEk-A& STA-ME _t"7•t t- -I-flel-e wouQL ~c (3tk)e C,Ap eve.2Y 10 S~.ca~ r C~wc-, 4c) ~eso- c:orvicelz,~s wo A Gt -f w2 vl~ T-eMQ JJT 1 l e e._`7 e v^-e- AL 4-I v~ 1~ C X12 S u -1 or ceA 0L4 oVe R_ 1 % ou p ~t o Ise rzeJ ec~e4 P S2. R lved w c OL4)) u% c_ #c Se- Li t 5 i t4n,~. N~,~Ul2Q v Mee+ A3&'; -1\ Cc~r1'~e L~ L.u s~-. v 3 d ~ ~ ti ~~2 ~--o ,q au e v~. arr- ~ ~T 4T- e a~ I )t,) 6~?v r' ! cuv A N~ 5 - ) i-a-a t,-e_ Exhibit S 4Ae SA,e CA._'LC,_~ O-Lo CL~- C&V 14-~Ve 'SUVVof~j- c_fz_,e_a_) Pecftc_ f -oo~ s 1 I7cKs ko e R LTE2, be o VeR~C)e -How rnA oY _ e 4-a e 4-o Je~ %VL'd'p. (i~tja tPfc..K up) loo (tine PASTORS 6.L& ,,r b Amoulu+) a P©T-r~teS ? How MANY , to/c,4Aas 6elo I- N3 mom- oneAi\6,os W A ~ + 11 e se c...Ami e p.i t3 &s be jeto 4 o 4tN e ?UUtic (#q s 1 j\j Arty. /ARE V1 ` We~Cvn~e 4Rep- wu ),tkeIp smTe b 05,o 1 s Irv oc~`~Reat ` v +V%e comm ufo t . Q~e.~~►rvice wp,s Iv\Abe ~o y~otse T iluc t1 b Acrivi+ies y 'F F N~►v1fl+- 4.9©iSPS AND MAcHirJ~2j~ Nc~ISpS ,Do tJc~T CoNTirvue `",~ec~uL~2Ly ~+NU coAus ~n~rtY T-Ap- i,,oTa --FRe N '&4f-' A k)b '1-1+e y ;)R6 No-r RM~'L-~riep ~~DAb CoMC9-Ps`f"1 DN bveS A56T CCcu1Z. 4:P_0uA 1~7Akm USe -fib -TI-C- i~Q6i2eC I-W' S F)A A-Pff ITK Ted wi(,L CALk S e , 11F -j--1N c+tut_c+t wAOrS .-..C ~RgjSe (4k Le Oa c i2Vn._ l.e c P_ GOATS - PI N e. V ter- I'S pA,,W.M UPS E a f J L t f Pc` CON c.ef2_ -s A P_~C- Q o -1, Untie t'TeM &L05SE.L over. AT -F4E- Mee K)6-- W,4-s 7u-6 Pe z_ vtoLA`T oN - 15 AAvLeTifIA36- c-otNU `-ro P6 DONSe -ro &NIroRce -t4 e. L4w2 Rte ~,Ne s 4c Levied T >/0u. ca>v ioefi 1- , Some `t Vie (~}F~E.4 vt o` clQ4 PQRrn t~ RQ Qat 2C A4,e +Lay Wou-Lb 4+,AVe -ta De4t__ wi71-~ RAF- OF j::7tWc, PaUt LeErAL, + e.:,pedzeuss(o~js , ~4.5; op- w;ll Aq Jy C~ STOP wa2k Bslaep 64_~,em I'ssuyea 4-o 2evek)+ 19AJY u~~ e pcTty~Ty ` R AT T ics s iTe L)»-nL ALL pe tz_m*(- ra oce s s es howe deem coM;F~eWc ? 11F Ncr, S her`e~y~ Rec2uesT ~ t~- Re- I NAL sTe.p cip T"IS _ReVleUj E4' you Ck_), i5 ~ P-Over c.u ff €lT-' (r.0 - . +e c6o w AVFe cTe N NeAQ2V fVop d ~ -4y o~,uNeRs ; ~ ~Ue cis 4AP Ck.~ c c 4r~~ to , <-c R.u.f,es Aeop c_oAv pv -lotus Exhibit Page jc~)_ of 9 F L.(M(~-' i,vr lt, ke ser ON HAe Nun11~e2 O~ CoNcer,-_AS, oLL+ADO2. SR-v(ce.s 5 eckAL, CeL~2 g2ATjWS 4 CS J u, C~t1) aT~2 S'?e,CiA _ eveNT5 pe.2 moNT{4. pNa Tm 1jow ry AA) ' rvtoovT s 2 4N)A LvV4 c~ss~/~~xe s ~~e.~ -4I&Cj +6y roox T^ cove-p-,, -Ck►s (A Anp h i+1 e A-MeL }1 N 6 L-t s.2 IT P LL, Yg Ap_ L.D WT? W In a i t ~1 e Ar--Du) oVe2rJt'&-tr CAMFIQ&- rf-_~P_ OLcLT a~-fL-wKj Vrst~o/s? dR clv-e s\ elf m o P~ P-UtJ a. w R y '7zetiS ? (DR MA `eB e rolnQ rv~ AOwm oti; L-uCK ? A\E} C~NS~T czmm tut. ? W c~oese bee~ititi(s,s• A coMnnu~nre L~v~ .L~~e ? ~~e2e is ~fU Lire ? w~ cA,50u. _ Noy r6Q_ cleciUt LPvt-ts SoW c1 e/uo-t iueee S C41-ti; m E AS V PZ w" AX ouU. ~oe Pk.oAu cec` 1 A c.c -&W e +0 _V~e C;JLy- c~~ rA m urn J,) oQ_ ~jk 6L& c.1 o w i Mow '+m ~ ReGULAT& i+A-r L' 40~) i,F ~ Ule 5 ,4ev.u)v2 (:D&)b►T7DNs ARCp_ o~to ; T A eeou2Se woU~ `tt~o5~ %n~ J14 ~zxUe ? f,J gyp' ~ env- ~2cefZ ? ~1,vfl w4fo 'jam. S y h e. C 2ceJ~? `~h~ Am~ieea2,??nn`~r ~s .be;ui`ec~ Cs~e s%~u~ I-to~e~llY)~ w t~aT wcl l lea pCA-) 4o--~\e ~Ao e_ 1'r\) - 4\e G-k0u rl b A N b im ,2ovTrne~u~, Cl2eAw i t_Le &ALLY D we sti t-L use IT w tTH ou=1- A p p-OVA --f~,ey H-Avejo`t 5+fc)wN Respecfi y oiz. `t-ke 'o scLieS C®un u~2Qu(2enne,J So ~AR. U A4-T- PLocov SO cAjouirb T4C p~\CRNT CorAA&u t'iY HAve -rNe:v ? J-6yt S -Wei i STAFF i2ePoRx "tha- +1ne Ae~pz_esstw "iS A HAo_AR~b -Fo L(TTl-a e_H((-1bP-Q,U\( i I' 2e R 1-Aw +k A r ( e&u(Re's f+ f~ij aujN t+ft2 Af-)_t Td ~j,e eL(AA, foo- cc( ifu 4L,, S 0 aS-e T`( ~t tLe kOt L 5 e, d D fi r Of_V_,) 'r, tJb0 t-k ' JOx O tO A LLO GUock Uses o~ EVU -zoNe_ "Rest -ic4(ov~;s 4 L4FS p20ovne jgey, Nor tt,4 voc J e~µ`l~~ SAti( VeeC k SIS-9 -7 (Z 9770 g 1 ( a~ 3 Exhibit Page of 9t ~Xl,L'I~AG ..7'r 117 NW L P FfA ~ ene. A vg. &OL 0i~- cl`770► - i 9~.3- N-`L'TN C'-THt2irv~ L A,,-tA~~ - 3<33-G719 tt ` f It 0 CoNCt kzTS ~klA. (C-+kv-- A Y 2-C,) -k v RN ~ ,,zkN e o tAv "A• 4 Y f o A-b S h 2e wLt( heAVt,3CStlo~} a~ ~-1~us ~rv~c 2sec~or~ ANd. ~a Lies t,,~EN cDNC~s Ake i,ic-r eAse- f-t ~n t~ l i ~ z C~p~ RECEIVED APR 1 1 DELIVEgEu 6~ Ac,A-R fits WA&_ Avg uRi~iNG- ~►J i~E ~Rrr~c~ i~~ $ SP 05-13 A" LM -05=2Z.. J J-ke C1r,izMsi/~in~ Li ~eJR a`yVcvotic~►j `;eak es ttus- 44,ve Via:;4 A ,x0.:0 s-r- ~uiDc~a icliv.PKrT~IeCCGL ~,r j rn~~~to~4~ti>c~vi~A~n~Cq r~tl o~~ - ,e c~r•>s~Rcact(~ of A acc o sc,-4t ol.Tborp, AokpK iTC{t c4-rp-R AT 'MIS Loc~ai lorJ .s C.4- ~esr `it(- aAv,s-eA),AKA 14 Lom:zsr. i-fiAL-uy Z)CADL`r'. (f\E Dl~G ~S~~ Loc4iOR) T1n1S jlMNA1THePTeR (S %N view 01 t4u-)Y C7iNUi is ° tl~ \O e A a l;AAAC Tl AS -6pflss i uc-- A p-kie oes , ISO MATT-Pi, f-F©W MANjY '~R~eS , oR OTHER A'1P~t~i~ l`nAY ~ E ~sc;~ tti AsU e~~ot~- `-fT~ ScRee~ -T-}{e i~fzCA ~ E t~nts~ ; Lt' fkTS, c,k)A mete ppese^,)cc) o~ a AGTiVi`I``r' (N~c~(~ cvc~v JvlO~MC~2t t ~ ~ ~tS~rzAeT ~e~-- bc~d ~~,f~iVeszS ~ MAr)Y OF `CF{QM l!J SFnnt--tQuc~S c~r~c, `~At(Qc2S) f}T `rte it)O~SC ~OSS(b'~ f`mC),/Vl s~ - iu~e:~ AP-6 APpRoocf(W~ t Rsec ~u o aP-6 ~~/AAu-)Y 20 a~ ~ltC~44~~jH~ S p&eb5 . ti c' `t `TL ht~Nb l c 1~,E LpcR--p, V 0 L Usti TP,~ik) IT OAPW Tl~itS t RrJ P ~ 61E ~ ('~~1~t 1C ~aG ktt~ OfU F-{iL'v 2 t,tSA( Exhibit j page 19 of ZA .VcG,k P &,,e. ,T (LeAL c. one 4*wcoi ►acxxk Ctoe-W) A--r, , ';.7~` 5ZTr4E r c 1 C-tj,^q-. . ~r✓Y i PA C t>ep ' off. ~,e2 access e,:A ) 4r, -~V\c EAR iDR? --Ni2ep, fop z 1v\'%A4s ( A % C5, Ii-o S4evcQ5- W ~sce cttcxCif MRp.J l h,e IV I ~NHMb r~l\ 1 E(2SQG~IQIJ Cl:~~~ ~Ue Q"k`J1Lq cotJC--esTel~ ` a-t- 10,26-tivN 1(J Cy X11 e-k-~ 0•~ ~~kAe, "Co NCp-2} IS A ivx Pam Peccoss `-~OLJ; 4po-\ ~C eSC *0 E:~~ /~,i-eA o -ke r3c~x•fi Rte A RiAiL-Af6v, S B.u~~ Unit" -MJ, S vl4eR" (V\ kuS t l . _se~ ,}zT14C te~ ~n ~P~ )LocUk) 4+I a~ z.o ANA 4 t e. LOA ~ ~ Couev,~ ik4ey 'Ooj q- cckkve~Y cis o rV\ ucu e-~ Cep..` 1~ L BAST bed Af2e~A 4- 4-~ I c a ~r - -o ALL. e McRC-,e~jc le U641Cl.ES Oft fEeLk~~V•E(Z l_cNCg- Tt,e Ct-r\,&-e 1~ L-ASTS -1A~~ a ~~icsZ ? t ~r ►2GiNl~1.~~ ~i EtiL1 D~~ ~(L C~NCE~~' C S , JQ~11~~ ()S1p- E -I~,ese Ucnc~les c, IM Ats© i Mppde_ . w 4 'A~, tf~C ScASC)f I e;,) Gt MA I.~pSS AccickeUt~ F1 eAA /AsstsNce cs clel,p-qe.a ~06caaSe. , Ce, r e f C. w~eR.Q &0 ~~e LQ ~ , A n;cl MAljZAL- e.sfoNS ~S;v~ Z?,LCInSNING- e bi~~ties Lle o `"the c\:xi2& epic~nE LcT (a.st BcMA teas ~j %j k^ EMs L tEI/1 ~vI :ZS R 1 veA ff,p-m-A,~ 1~jN1ly c-QN 5`t2kjL DtJ . he- RiS qr~ 6 t ~°2 ~rqS G ~ S E C--i:'o c,: NS ,c o,+~ c~ Ine A M p,n - c ~l~ A I Rgep c't t110V1 C? G~tiS tnt~Ct't~r,°J c`?~ ~F `a 4' Y ,3 Exhibit page _ ~ of P-1_ ,~Jo,1Sc. voLLACV,) _V~2ofvi f~~ur~~l S f I+UG `"r ~,a~11C~ GICC~,vt~~~~ me l ES~bCtl~CC:'S E,k tv" (tOCT TUST ~ec-4 S~ccl." 1tv I~ecofzb ` 1LP wi,,,!J C-Ol_JA P-LrAC1i CA f:~ 4 (-kA y Ad ~c-I /V,A'P. u~~~eN MAN4' ARC ~t51 T124 iNG -tc~ E'USo4' ENE Su;~tirv~eF~ Venjttit✓ , I war~T Music. Z u."A +AKe l_ L tvA wp,/,z~~ -T YJI:'_ - - cc-A ~o LL114c.A~ +0 t~ iJ 4i c~! H e2s Cever\j C~2co Musa C > 11-AiS is trv~zw~ to cf\ IG+tTS 0 ce-4ab 4o -}fie 1.2scAwVes `J Pero- oto s (V%A-Tre~ , oN A~-e la -t I~~ aP L icaw~ i ~t~ere~5 ib T Ae ('Afv PFW-Tf eA`teR u AYE - -A &v~quj2kA L-L-Y eXtSTltvc- 1')-T sefoev Cr,S A ftA~ki~~ `T77 ~SMAC-L Cttta'A v S.mocAV,k11 It (ALT A-lots City( Im ~f~~ RN%~RiTNekTE'R 1S RJtTT --fiirv6 `iZ> Mfkk-C- i T j F SS of IA iA P ZAJ- ~ -To L C I t1.C C t t Llak~j C"~ rN f'~ L'► tv. t N A~ CE ~~e ~IZO4~1e;~~ . is~PLtc~ r SJCR`t S Res oNstUC is -~o e A ~e551A~ CV: C)L) R 'Ty a F) "1 ?05 X1 Y'4- II A_~ ~Vle~ W i LL t.) elr B ul w, `rh (s F) AA C~JzLY 61ac~w e~c~2c7e~~Y s~c~~vices -I~ NjLlrV,e-rzvu5 i fI - ~ec~1e RrJD t►~tu2~'~rz~~~c,- i -+~e,t~ GZUA6T ; ek ~Y Subr,,Ai11 e -~v v ~ ~L~:~~.~~-ec~ ~ ~ se r~ r`;~ t~-I-i;r s~~ I Gar r a ~Lu~t ~y;~t~ 16t`lu2~tiG t_FCr L t~~~T fZm,kRenne.kjmt iS Nor A P4-EsWG- 0~3, J ~ ;r~v~ ~veut a ~r w•~(,~ ~e I~;~e ~ ~~~z sE_ ~A~ L, Veer-k t , _B cX N\,~,jJ`t', AAAO. Exhibit- Page -A~k,_ of 2% tel. N No sTp-EeT s I tt H ,,-r Ooy V. rCt(2c1 iJQ.~t W£.e:J ~7 $jL,) NcrT" _ i~ rv, ~ ~t,~~4~ore~ Access af` e ~D STeV`CNS (~A I i t ` Eo;-.IT. ~te~zsec~rcN~ TZ) i N t~H e ~2 Ik IT-AA X7 a ooG Exhibit S Page tc;_ of D 1)7 N\,J L.a~4~etfie,re, d t96t q-7-re ~ Avw ; Cti4w('Me u)l t 'Re~ SP- 05-- 13 aAa, L M -oS-aZ ---bBa.1Z MS 1,J lti:~~ q- R5 GR-ec- A?fhOVc -t(nst, Y U ©5eA .A nn~Q-~ a-G 141T -0 eA Od \ v -ttn e. Ma o A~e (inevious1~ ~wie.4i IJOlse.) +"4$ Cc 6AVe~ ISSu eS A lt,e ~~p,~ o c Rec2r.~vnne ~•n~,vts1~ s as a.- . NS use 0, Ext`k-,.se vie F&A M Use. -zOA. , ed p ' ~NA ~ -..k,,eRs- tS AL$o al (~o~lb`t✓ 2`Q.G'tf2A..C[E~f ~dl;Z~ ~t N ~6t.~3CyUq ~Q, t.45a_ -~f d~ t~? ~c,¢i e 1 ec~ wte ak eQ,u c ~a,,r,~,vt t A a_c LAS APfP~ +i ec~ ~ ,u~lp nne ,~a ~ck'o~~ne~ 1 i~ {21z~ a ~ vE: e~oS2 rp no x t M Ay t.-Q- e_ e CAtai'c, Sub-fit- O 40 -~Ax e-psr. ~'uMr~CQ, e, s e +iAe c~ vse 0 - , s A M ~ i S p S 0 V..e `fit M e AO R4.A3 - Carl ~~e- 4 e a- ~.t9 ~u`fi ~e sorvte ujj ~uQck.%k) (kLA-CL-;,..J 6ekveeto t-.e +W D . T-11% t S'%+ 44 0 oc~ 04 - ~ ew &k ~ 1,ms's Fveo ALscov4~ u ~ 'RavJ ,`tie rz~sfc. ~S( ~ ~ CCec~ ~ nn,~n~t ~vr.~.~ ~(zenna~w s , sot - if &PJ-ApXe- 15 .tLe a06,e xi nn ~~f o Hie l[lO jO~ A ~o A 4'wy a© . wv\eo 4e- RoAb is ' ~I G L J,((( tv o u lY a w e p-~ e k. a 22 aS' ~ Exhibit / -ILO of Page S c NZ, ®~~neAWI se. CD Wi --v J~I~ DR e) Dig-, CA oSe2 40 Awe r4~ iqr 4~Lc7C Uocle-,i W " i s 4o k nnatn tx,, C~ ? f co ? RNA y~ , -&P- ~,r~1~ e~ s~ou.Qc~ t`~wo 1 I ~r C1 A 5S4 aS a. s L. R-p- , 4- w c u ~ V2 se. c-~,, e- c c s 4 w-A-Ml?Z sew ic,Q Or a ~l Cd R Q . As Ot3 Zat - V F ~ ~ , Ce~ is 0n)2 mo'- . RTPIA ow' ac-as ► N `t~e e fl N A14-ti i ~ P- urn AXI~ see t,ICO PM artA' LawA u-se-r s44e -tte -vy q.semA u-;,jl[ ~oz expalvAtN -fie U,G[3, a- cGUt~exiN w►.me Lovj SoaN~2 "t plaau~~Q Si P ce h0.v~ tASt2~ie crJ S ocilt 1nave NMw~ ~eeu 0- a.o yeo,R, su o~ ' Ave- ©j"ao e. Lez~ t~ ' a s~ 7y ea , - ce G-e 'o- - s NAe Ao P-X f c ; LA e. cam e.x ~Q A" MAV~ Ma" VieLCsQSr3,~al~scnresses to ou-2 Q. V\®p-x-. k•ovvxQs C-Tae \Q- qb czv%,k ou.ae~ A4(.C, c.DucQ.~ 44o Le, o~csCle~e~•oc~c~..~l-e~ c~ Oy©5ed1 AM etvV f ( ALLOcw +r e. Tj"ta.K-& 4ve P, )v1"(L Wouu COLU ,SC t~ 1RR-QS(p~N5~W~8 W UN R-Q0. O~)e. 7A 0o,2 %J" U vke. ' N -~ANlS OUP M-ocreA 1n~ v0 e ea.LSa.. qite fZWWI ~,l o ON, AAA f\,-~LlLa~ce- scenrC, AN Lo- AIV4veoe-P, is Nol LsSeriVtotk IS OiZ r~ tx \ U Se + -~~uv G'tt °Yt~ O~2 O f &f ~ t avJ C J~ a. c-v-o-PZCG~- , -T--Ke ZAMQ, IS [xLLUs i t, Use. - u?~~ -V et c ne. ~V Usk -\A-e ~a~-c - 06-- ~PRnn t 1~~ 1 o Bby, 8sq7 -5QNG1 0--e, 9 -7 70 k Exhibit Page n of _2 ~A I ~T 2cc5 c~sc i\e.S ~eu ~ c.+~,sr~tn; D~JistorJ _ RECEIVED, BY: R a q 7 I MAY 0 5 cuuo - -VEEIVLKL BY: J v~ ff"n t, LL- kJL -m A ~z Cuov,ULT~" -~2- ~ato~ ~-w\ wvl,- jLL 4 CIr AC_( VA)-Ph ' CLt-QJL GL-11~t1~ViX / l \Y ~/I l td a vv1 ✓1~1 PZ (i &','L LC jL I f _ C, q6_ L)6-Z C-LC-C4 0- ID 3 4- C-J ~-t ) -L'c~ t T~# t~Is. Sandra L. Veeck PO Box 8597 Bend OR 97708-8597 f f Exhibit ty Os- ✓ Page _[S_ of --9 f 4 - acv - e.. . -4A 4C- - Exhibit Page __i:- of nA- ~ a -SIC. Exhibit Page 2Q of t 4 f i - - 06_---- i .1. 06 i -j -A- 0, i , jj) SLl7► _ - - CVG~ 1 G 7 f S - vqle ))t,, g,,,j -7 11 op En 4p -,I n L Exhibit Page -L-of - F e ~ i I I an ct ~L aVrte ~ - h..6t,(livz C r,~1C EIVED BY.. T 1 0 ZUU5 4e decid (ft i b Lir ,,'It too- DELI~~RED BY: LIZ FANCREIR, ArroZNEY October 10, 2005 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY 1300 NW WALL STREET BEND, OREGON 97701 IQ OC -1 0 2005 DESCHUTES COUNTY Re: Site Plan Application for Expansion of Christian Life Center Church SP-05-13/LM-05-22 I am writing, on behalf of Christian Life Center, to provide you with an overview of the site plan application filed by the Christian Life Center and a response to issues raised by project opponents and County Planning staff. OVERVIEW Nature of the Existing Use The Christian Life Center received conditional use approval from Deschutes County to operate a church on the 35-acre subject property in 1978 when the property was zoned A-1. It built a church building and parking area and landscaped the grounds for church uses. The church sanctuary has a capacity of 832 persons per service. The Christian Life Center uses the existing church facilities for typical church activities. These activities include church worship services, religious concerts, baptisms, religious plays, religious dance performances, weddings, funerals, Church social functions and religious studies. Some of the church's activities are conducted outdoors on the property. The church is separated from existing residential development by roads, nonresidential uses and distance. Residences to the. south in Dobbin Acres are at least one mile away and are separated from the church property by Highway 20. A church building, Hamby Road and about 'h mile of distance separate the outdoor church from homes on properties located to the west. Residences to the north and northwest are even farther away. A power substation is located on the east side of the church property. Outdoor Church Use Permitted Outright The uses planned for the structures shown on the site plan are church uses.' Churches are allowed outright in an EFU zoning district subject to objective limits imposed by LCDC regulations. In this case, the church use must be allowed if it involves the expansion of existing church facilities. I The applicant's use clearly meets the County's definition of a church as "an institution that has a nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service." DCC 18.04.030. It is reasonable to apply this definition to this application, with the possible exception of the residential and school uses LUBA determined in Bechtold v. Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204 (2002) are not church uses for purposes of ORS 215.283(1)(b). State law provides no contrary definition of what is a church. The County's definition has been acknowledged by LCDC as complying with State goals and laws. Exhibit ~4l Page _J_ of -2- October 10, 2005 The applicant is expanding existing church facilities to improve an existing, natural amphitheater so that it can be used as an outdoor church for established church activities, including church services, funerals, weddings, concerts and religious performances. The only County approval needed is site plan approval. The outdoor church will serve as a location to offer existing church activities that would otherwise be offered indoors. The indoor church will remain vacant during outdoor events so it can be a back-up venue in case of rain and the number of persons attending the outdoor church will, therefore, be limited to the number of persons who can be seated in the church (832 persons). The only church use of the outdoor church that will exceed current indoor church attendance figures will be religious, evangelical concerts and performances. The applicant plans to offer these worship events four to six times per year. The outdoor church will provide seats for up to 2000 persons. ORS 215.441 Protects Church Use Proposed by Applicant ORS 215.441 directs the County to allow a broad range of activities as a part of the church use allowed by ORS 215.283(1)(b). ORS 215.441 says that where churches are allowed, as they are on the subject property, the activities conducted by the church may not be unreasonably restricted. Any "activity customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" other than residential and school uses, are to be allowed to occur on church real property. All activities planned for the outdoor church are activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activities of the Christian Life Center and other area churches and, therefore, must be allowed. ORS 197.441 specifically lists worship services, religion classes, weddings, funerals, child care and meal programs as being activities customarily associated with religious activity. Church concerts, plays and performances are also activities customarily associated with the exercise of religion. These activities are an integral part of the Christian Life Center's church worship program, as well as a part of the worship activities of other area churches. This claim has not been rebutted by opponents. ORS 197.522 Requires Approval Subject to Conditions ORS 197.522 requires that where, as here, it is possible to achieve compliance with land use approval requirement by imposing reasonable conditions of approval, that the County must approve the application with conditions. . . RESPONSE TO DEWEY LETTER OF OCTOBER 7, 2005 The applicant provides the following response to the claims raised by Paul Dewey's letter of October 7, 2005, using the outline created by Mr. Dewey: 1. Whether the Outdoor Church Amphitheater is Allowed in the EFU Zone. 1. The Proposed Outdoor Church Amphitheater The applicant filed a request for site plan review of a church amphitheater. It did not seek use approval for outdoor church uses as such approval is not required. Church uses are now allowed outright by State law and County code. It has a 1978 conditional use approval for its existing church. This is why it did not describe each and every use planned for the outdoor church. For site plan review, the increased use of the church facilities is what is relevant. The only increased use of church facilities planned is the concert, play and performance worship events from four to six times Exhibit__14_)_ Page_ of -3- October 10, 2005 per year. These are the only events that will be offered at an intensity greater than presently offered. 2. The Location of the Proposed Amphitheater is Appropriate. B. The County code and State law allow churches as uses permitted outright subject to specific conditions only. The use proposed is a church use, not an amphitheater. An amphitheater is a type of physical setting, not a use. C. The fact that ORS 215.283(1)(b) allows churches and cemeteries associated with churches does not mean that outdoor churches are not allowed. ORS 215.441 makes it clear that the ORS 215.283(1)(b) "church" use includes any activity customarily associated with a church. Religious concerts and performances are activities customarily associated with the worship activities of the vast majority of area churches. They are an important part of the evangelical mission of the Christian Life Center and are currently conducted indoors. The change in location from indoors to outdoors will not change the fact that these are legitimate church worship activities. LUBA's decision in Bechtold v Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204 (2002) relied on ORS 215.441 to set the parameters of a church use. The plain language of ORS 215.441 excludes residential facilities and religious schools from the protection of ORS 215.441.2 LUBA concluded this meant that such excluded uses are not allowed by ORS 215.283(1)(b). It did not find that any other uses, such as concert and performance religious uses, are prohibited and such a conclusion is not supported by LUBA's reasoning. The concert and performance uses proposed by the applicant are not excluded by ORS 215.441 from the definition of a church. D. The County code and State law allow the expansion of existing church facilities within three miles of an urban growth boundary. DCC 18.16.025; OAR 660-033-0120 & 660-033- 0130(18). Additionally, because the Christian Life Center acquired the subject property prior to the adoption of these State rules, Measure 37 provides a means by which a waiver of these rules can be obtained by the applicant. 3. The Outdoor Church Amphitheater Qualifies as an Expansion of Existing Church Facilities. A churches existing facilities includes its church building, its parking area, its septic facilities, its lawns, its natural amphitheater and its unimproved grounds where outdoor church social events are conducted. The improvement of the natural amphitheater next to the existing church building, like a church addition to add an indoor chapel, expands the existing church facilities. A narrow reading of the term expansion is not required to effectuate the intent of the State Legislature as its list of allowed uses indicates that church uses are to be allowed outright in the EFU zone without any limitation to expansions only. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995). z The applicant does not agree with LUBA that ORS 215.441 was written to limit church uses permitted by ORS 215.283(1)(b). ORS 215.441 applies to any County land use, not just the EFU zones. ORS 215.441, also, does not contain any language that indicates that it is intended to define what is or is not a church. Instead, it sets limits for all churches cases in any zone. It limits the scope of County review. This limitation is, however, in addition to the limits on County review imposed for ORS 215.283(1) uses, including churches, by the Brentmar decision. Nonetheless, the applicant believes that it is prudent for the County to follow LUBAs ruling as it relates to the prohibition of residential uses and parochial schools. Even if ORS 215.441 acts as a limitation, the applicant's use fits within the uses protected by ORS 215.441. Exhibit 141 Page __f- of -4- October 10, 2005 4. Denial Would Violate Religious Activities Statutes. A denial of this application would impose a substantial burden on the applicant as it would deny it the right to hold church services on its property without, at a minimum, building a new church building at the cost of many millions of dollars. This burden is not applied to others similarly situated such as the J-Bar- J Ranch that holds large outdoor horse events in the neighborhood to raise money for a boy's training school and the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District that hosts large outdoor sporting events in area parks. II. Consideration of Site Plan Criteria. 1. The Hearings Officer's Reading of ORS 215.441 and Site Plan Criteria re Noise Issues Raised by Neighbors ORS 215.441 The Hearings Officer correctly found that if a use falls under the protection of ORS 215.441 it must be allowed by the County, subject to developing the land for the use in compliance with site plan regulations.3 In this setting, the site plan criteria are not to be used to convert a permitted use to a conditionally allowed use - to decide whether the use is one that is desired by the neighborhood. Site plan criteria can regulate how but not whether a use is operated. Noise Not a Part of Site Plan Review Sound is a physical phenomenon. This does not mean, however, that noise is a relevant issue in a site plan review. The intended role of a site plan is to regulate how a site is developed with structures, not to determine if a use may or may not be conducted on a property. DCC 18.124.010, Purpose, makes this clear: "DCC 18.124.010 provides for administrative review of the design of certain developments and improvements in order to promote functional, safe, innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and man-made environment." The site plan law does not regulate the operating characteristics of uses that might be conducted on the site. DCC 18.124.020, Elements of site plan, confirms this fact stating that the elements of a site plan are "[t]he layout and design of all existing and proposed improvements The requirement of DCC 18.124.060(A) that a development "relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographic features" is a visual test applied the new development to see if its facilities will fit in with its setting. The term "relate harmoniously" is modified by language that directs applicant's to achieve this goal by "minimizing visual impacts" and preserving natural features including views and topographic features. This code criterion does not authorize denial of the site plan based on claims that sound levels of potential uses are objectionable to neighbors. 3 The applicant does not believe it is necessary to apply ORS 215.441 to limit the scope of the County's site plan criteria to exclude a consideration of noise impacts as the County code is properly interpreted to exclude a consideration of noise issues. The broader ruling made by the Hearings Officer that ORS 215.441 does not allow the County to apply site plan rules that may be used to regulate noise levels is not needed to support approval of this application and the applicant asks that the Board exclude noise issues under the authority of its own code rather than ORS 215.441. Exhibit- - Page - 4 of l -5- October 10, 2005 The requirement of DCC 18.124.060(C) for the site plan to provide a safe environment requires the site plan to be designed to provide physical facilities on the site that are safe for use. It is not a test that prohibits unsafe uses as use is regulated by the list of uses allowed in the EFU zoning district. Noise is regulated by separate ordinances that are not a part of the site plan criteria. Those laws will apply to use of the outdoor church to protect neighbors. The applicant disagrees with the Hearings Officer's reading of DCC 18.124.060(C) as applying to the off-site environment and asks the Board to change this interpretation. The code says "[t]he site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment..." The site plan is a plan for development of the site, not of areas beyond the boundaries of the site plan property. As a result, the focus of review is on the items depicted on the site plan; not on activities or impacts that occur off of the subject property. The reading adopted by the hearings officer converted this site plan requirement into a conditional use criterion that is used to determine if the use can be allowed rather than whether the site is properly designed. No other site plan criteria arguably involve noise impacts. Even if noise were an approval criterion, the applicant has designed the site to dampen noise and noise levels can be controlled by the applicant to comply with noise regulations. The outdoor church is already located in a noisy area - immediately adjacent to Highway 20, a busy highway that carries heavy truck traffic. It is also located next door to a utility substation and is far removed from area residences. Approval of this application will not create levels of noise that will disturb the Church's distant neighbors. Measures Taken to Address Noise Issue In an effort to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment and to be a good neighbor, the applicant addressed neighbors' concerns regarding sound by hiring sound professionals to study sound issues and to provide guidance on how to lower sound levels. Based on the professional advice of the sound professionals, the applicant developed a landscaping plan that uses berms and trees to buffer sound. The sound study also shows that the level of noise, without landscaping, will be well within normal and customary audio level standards for outdoor facilities. This study was conducted using the highest level of sound that might be used in the amphitheater. A condition of approval may be imposed to require the applicant to operate its use of the outdoor church to sound levels studied in the sound analysis report. 2. Transportation Facilities Are Adequate. The applicant studied the impact of holding events for 2,000 persons during evening hours. Any number of events of this size could be held during the studied times and transportation facilities would remain adequate. These are the only activities planned by the applicant that can or will exceed the capacity of the existing church. All other activities and their traffic are already authorized by the 1978 conditional use permit approval. Moving those activities outdoors will not increase the size of the church activity as such activities would all need to be able to move back indoors in the event of inclement weather. The applicant is willing to restrict its larger event use of the outdoor church to the uses described in its application to assure that the assumptions of the traffic report are fulfilled. If the County determines that a traffic study of other uses is needed, the applicant requests the opportunity to prepare and submit such a report prior to the Board's decision of this case. The Deschutes County Public Works Department and ODOT both agree with the applicant that its concert and performance traffic can be safely managed and that transportation facilities are adequate. Exhibit -)~4T Page G~_ of -6- October 10, 2005 STAFF REPORT OF OCTOBER 5, 2005 Outdoor Mass Gatherings Staff incorrectly claims that the Board may find that allowing the outdoor church violates the Outdoor Mass Gathering ordinance as it would allow the church to hold uses not allowed for other uses. This is incorrect as the mass gathering ordinance is not a land use ordinance and does not purport to require that land uses all occur indoors. It is a law that exempts limited duration events, like the concerts and performances planned by the applicant, from land use laws if the events are offered under the limits of the mass gathering law. The mass gathering ordinance does not prohibit land uses from occurring outdoors. If it did, the County's approval of the J-Bar-J Ranch and park located down the road from the church would have been illegal and farming would not be allowed in the EFU zone. The relevance of the outdoor mass gathering ordinance to this case is that it allows large outdoor events to occur on the church property and other properties throughout the County without land use approval. It would be unfair to allow mass gathering events to occur on other adjoining EFU land will prohibiting such events on the church property. "Core Activities" Test Not A Legal Requirement The applicant is required to show that its use of the outdoor church is a church use. It is not required to show that it will be used for "core activities" of the church. This requirement is found nowhere in the local or State law that applies to this application. The concerts planned for the amphitheater are church uses protected by ORS 215.441 that also meet the definition of a "church" provided by the County zoning code. Location of Church Use Not a Factor The State and local law that allows churches in EFU zones does not require that church activities occur indoors. The fact that the church services and weddings could be held indoors does not make those events something other than a church use that is allowed as an outright, permitted use in the EFU zoning district. Whether a requirement to conduct the church use indoors is or is not a substantial burden on the church is not relevant to determining whether the activity is a church use. The substantial burden test is a RLUIPA requirement and has no relation to defining church use. Safety of Site Plan The applicant is willing to agree to conditions that will address the concerns of the hearings officer regarding the safety of the site plan, even though it believes that the Hearings officer's reading of the safety criterion is too broad. The applicant has marked up its site plan to show how compliance with the issues raised by the hearings officer will be addressed and resolved. The applicant will also provide information on this topic at the appeal hearing. Loading Area/Floor Area The applicant's site plan includes a loading area. No more than one loading area is required by DCC 18.116.030(B)(2.). Exhibit l~ Page -1-P- of l -7- October 10, 2005 Privacy and Public/Private Transition The applicant's site plan shows that a distance of 32' exists between the outdoor church pathway and the west property line. The earlier site plan did not show the correct distance between the path and nearest property line. The area between the pathway is landscaped to provide for the transition desired by the Hearings Officer. Emergency Access Staff raised the concern whether one point of access to the site is safe. A single point of access was found to be appropriate by the County Road Department and ODOT. There is a second point of access to the site. This access will be closed during events but the closure will be a temporary closure with movable cones and signs so that the access can be used, in an emergency, by emergency vehicles and persons attending the outdoor church. III. Conclusion. The Christian Life Center respectfully requests that you approve its site plan application to improve an existing natural amphitheater so that it can be used for outdoor church use. It asks that any concerns about the site plan be resolved by imposing conditions of approval to obtain compliance with code requirements. The applicant also asks that the Board affirm the Hearings Officer's approval of its storage building. Sincerely, Liz Fancher Attorney for Christian Life Center Cc: P. Dewey L. Craghead C. White 644 NW BROADWAY STREET BEND, OREGON • 97701 PHONE: 541-385-3067 FAX: 541-385-3076 Exhibit _ Page n of 71 Deschutes County Commissioners October 7, 2005 Page 2 I * `Outdoor church services, weddings, plays, concerts and other church functions' in an `outdoor amphitheater setting' with its `peak use' being the proposed Christian music concerts for up to 2,000 people. i As a result of the Applicant's expanded request beyond a venue for 4-6 evening concerts each summer, the_prppgsed amphitheater has the potential to hold a wide variety of church activities, any of which could host up to 2,000 people and could occur at virtually any time of day on any day of the week." (HO Decision, p. 19) 2. The Location of the Proposed Amphitheater Is Not Appropriate. A. The amphitheater will be located on Highway 20 and Hamby Road, approximately one-half mile east of Bend's urban growth boundary. This location is significant not only because of traffic safety issues, but also because it is on EFU land and within three miles of an urban growth boundary. B. The County Code and state law do not allow such amphitheaters on EFU land. Amphitheaters are not listed as outright or conditional uses, and the courts have ruled that provisions allowing non-farm uses on EFU land should be narrowly construed and that this was an urban use. The Court of Appeals in Hammack and Assoc. Inc. v. Washington Cry, 890 Or App 40, 747 P2d 373 (1987), ruled that a proposed outdoor amphitheater in an EFU Zone is not similar to a church and other outright uses which the Legislature allowed on EFU land. The Court held that while churches, schools and other uses had been specifically allowed on EFU land, amphitheaters had not and thus need a Goal 14 exception. C. State law is also restrictive in allowing on EFU land only "churches and cemeteries associated with churches." ORS 215.283(1)(b). The statute does not allow "all buildings essential to the operation" of a church, in contrast to ORS 215.283(1)(a) which allows "all buildings essential to the operation of a school." This distinction was recognized in Bechtold v. Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204, 217-218 (2002), where LUBA ruled that certain facilities associated with a church could not be allowed. D. The County Code and state law also do not allow churches on EFU land within three miles of an urban growth boundary. The rationale of this rule is to preserve the urban- rural boundary protected by Goal 14 by limiting urban uses on rural land close to urban growth boundaries. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 46 Or LUBA 375, 400 (2004). 3. The Amphitheater Doesn't Qualify as an Exception for Expanding Existing Facilities. Despite prohibiting churches within three miles of an urban growth boundary, the County Code and state law do allow for existing facilities being expanded. OAR 660-033-0130(18); DCC 18.16.025(E). The Hearings Officer decided that nothing in the statutes precludes an expansion of an existing church through construction of a new outdoor amphitheater. That broad definition for "expansion" of "existing facilities" is not appropriate in the EFU Zone where non-farm uses are to be narrowly construed. It is one thing to expand an existing facility, the church building, and quite Exhibit L Page 2 of H Deschutes County Commissioners October 7, 2005 Page 3 another to build an entirely new and different kind of facility, the amphitheater. The law provides only for expansion of existing facilities. The amphitheater should not be allowed here where it is not allowed in the EFU Zone, and it is not an expansion of an existing facility. 4. The Amphitheater May Be Denied Without Violating the Religious Activity Statutes. The Applicant contended that a denial of the amphitheater would violate state law and federal law, including ORS 215.441 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). RLUIPA provides that a land use regulation may not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise except to further a compelling government interest with the least restrictive means. ORS 215.441 provides that if a structure is allowed under state law, then reasonable use of real property for customary religious practices should be allowed. Neither of these laws would be violated by rejection of this proposed amphitheater. The County has already allowed a church to be built on the site, so there is no substantial burden on religious exercise under RLUIPA. See Corp of Presiding Bishop v. City of West Linn, 192 Or App 567, 599, 86 P3d 1140 (2004), where the court found no substantial burden where the church already had a facility elsewhere. The regulation of church activities within three miles of an urban growth boundary was upheld as not a substantial burden under RLUIPA in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 46 Or LUBA 375, 409 (2004). (In an appeal of that case the Oregon Court of Appeals decided it did not have to reach that issue.) ORS 215.441 is not violated here where its premise of if a structure is allowed isn't met; such amphitheaters are not allowed. Further, outdoor amplified concerts are not "customary religious practices" for area churches. II. Consideration of Site Plan Criteria. 1. The Hearings Officer's Interpretation of ORS 215.441 as Restricting the County Site Plan Criteria Is Wrong. The Hearings Officer decided that ORS 215.441 substantially overrules or limits the Code's site plan criteria that the proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development. DCC 18.124.060(a). The Hearings Officer decided that ORS 215.441 allows consideration of only "the physical characteristics of the uses," and not such impacts as noise, rural lifestyle livability and property values. (HO Decision, p. 15) Again, it should be noted that ORS 215.441 does not require approval of the amphitheater itself. Only if the church or facility is first allowed on the property does ORS 215.441 apply to require reasonable use for religious activities, subject to site plan review and public facilities capacity. The Hearings Officer erred in her analysis of "the physical characteristics of the uses" when she excluded consideration of noise. Noise is a physical phenomenon, and it certainly is a physical characteristic of the use authorized. The amplified noise from this facility will seriously impact the area. Further, nothing in ORS 215.441 prohibits consideration of the impacts of the physical Exhibit L. Page __3 of _j_ Deschutes County Commissioners October 7, 2005 Page 4 characteristics of the uses, including compatibility, livability and impacts on property values. The amphitheater with its amplified concerts will obviously negatively impact the surrounding rural area. 2. Transportation Facilities Are Not Adequate for the Proposed Amphitheater. The Hearings Officer denied the application for the amphitheater because the Applicant failed to establish traffic safety since the Applicant did not provide specific information on its "expanded request" for an unknown type, number, frequency number, timing and attendance for activities. (HO Decision, p. 19) The Hearings Officer found that ORS 215.441 allowed such denial where the transportation facilities are not adequate. The Applicant in its appeal asserts that all these other uses will just be the same as occurs now at the church, so there will no extra traffic. There is no basis for that assertion where the capacity of the facility being built for these activities is up to 2,000 people. Where the Applicant proposes to build a facility for 2,000 people, then it has to do a traffic safety analysis based on that use and cannot simply claim that the facility won't be used for such numbers. See Weaver v. Linn County, 40 Or LUBA 203, 215 (2001), where LUBA ruled that future growth in church attendance associated with an expansion had to be included in a traffic analysis. It is also clear that the transportation facilities are not adequate for the 4-6 concert events. The Hearings Officer apparently thought that the facilities would be okay where ODOT would approve "special event" plans. The problem is that the information given by the Applicant to ODOT is wrong and incomplete with regard to the concert events, both with regard to the number of vehicles involved, and their timing of arrival. Furthermore, the single entrance and exit off of Hamby Road is dangerous and all of the traffic leaving that facility would create a dangerous situation both at the intersection with Highway 20 and on Hamby Road. III. Conclusion. The Neighbors respectfully request that you deny this application for the 2,000-seat outdoor amphitheater. Very truly yours, PAUL DEWEY PD:ao cc: Liz Fancher, Esq. Exhibit L_ Page y of LIZ FANCHEIR, ArrOIRNEY October 5, 2005 /CATHY WHITE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DESCHUTES COUNTY 117 LAFAYETTE AVENUE BEND, OR 97701 Re: A-05-5 and A-05-6 (SP-05-13 and LM-05-22) Dear Cathy: RE~EIVED BY. / LuvJ UL 5 DELIVERED 6Y: Enclosed you will find the transcript of the April 12, 2005 hearing in SP-0513 and LM- 05-22 for filing in appeal matters, A-05-5 and A-05-6. This transcript is being submitted on behalf of both appellants in this matter - Christian Life Center and Jill and Verson Pandion and the Neighbors of Hamby Road. Copies are also being provided to you for distribution to each member of the Board of Commissioners. Very truly yours, Sue Stinson Assistant to Liz Fancher ss Encls. 644 NW BROADWAY STREET BEND, OREGON • 97701 PHONE: 541-385-3067 FAX: 541-385-3076 Exhibit Page __E_ of CERTIFICATE I, Julie B. Tope, do hereby certify that I personally transcribed the audio tapes of the aforementioned Land Use Hearing to the best of my ability and allowance for the quality of the compact disc, received August 29, 2005, and transcribed August 31 to September 11, 2005. As a general rule, I do leave out the words like "um" and "uh". I do leave in the "you know", and "I mean" type phrases. Client has requested that this be verbatim to the best of my ability allowing for quality of tapes. All work on the premises of CTS is held in highest confidentiality, and all possible precautions are taken to ensure such. Julie . ope Transcriptionist Exhibit M Page 9_ of ~-So - DESCHUTES COUNTY LAND USE HEARING April 12, 2005 In Re: Christian Life Center ) Case No: SP-05-13/LM-05-22 Karen Green Cathy White Charlie Rowles John Bluebaugh Liz Fancher Jerry Thomas Paul Dewey Exhibit_ Page 3 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROCEEDING April 12, 2005 Tuesday --000000-- Ms. Green: --Good evening, My name is Karen Green and I am Hearing's Officer for this evening's hearing and my first question is for those of you are in the back, that are sitting in the back hear me? 9 1 Okay, so it is projecting back there? Great. All right. This is the 10 time and place set for a hearing on two matters tonight and I am going to change the 11 order of presentation that shows on the Agenda. So the first case I am going to hear is the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one that is listed as second on the agenda. That is an application by Jeffery Rank, File number CU05-14. It is an application for a conditional use permit for commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. The second matter is an application by the Christian Life Center to expand an existing church site, a request for site plan, and landscape management review. File numbers are SP05-13 and LM05-22. Before I open the hearing for staff reports and testimony, I want to go through the procedures we are going to follow for tonight's hearing. I am guessing that many of you have not been to a public hearing or a Land Use Hearing before, so I want to go briefly through these procedures. At the end of my reading of them, if you have any questions, please raise your hand and let me know and I will try to answer them for you. And Cathy, do we have any more chairs, like are we running out of seating in the back? Okay. All right. The purpose of tonight's hearing is for me to receive relevant testimony and evidence on these two applications. The order of the proceedings will be as follows: I will open the public hearing, I will ask for a presentation from staff, and Exhibit- Page __q_ of 3 1 then I'll ask for presentation by the applicant, then I will open up the hearing to public 2 testimony. First in support and then in opposition. If there is opposing public testimony, 3 I will allow the applicant a brief period for rebuttal and then I'll close the comments with 4 any comments from staff. If you wish to speak, I need to have you raise your hand and 5 let me acknowledge you and invite you to come up to the table on your right and my left 6 where there is a microphone. We need to have your testimony on the record, so you have 7 to wait to testify until you get to the microphone. Before you start speaking, I need to 8 have you print your name and your mailing address on the sign up sheet and then please 9 state your name and mailing address for the record. If you have submitted or you are 10 planning to submit written testimony, I thank you very much for that. It is very helpful 11 for me when it comes time for me to write the decision. What I would ask you do out of 12 consideration for all of the people here that may want to speak tonight, is that you not 13 read your written testimony verbatim, unless it is a page or less in length. Just summarize 14 it and submit your written testimony and I will read it if I have not already. 15 I want to state at this time that I have not visited the Rank property 16 prior to tonight's hearing. I have visited the Christian Life Center property prior to 17 tonight's hearing. When I get to that matter I will disclose on the record my observations 18 and impressions from my site visit. Oregon law requires me to disclose whether or not I 19 have had any, of what we call, ex parte contacts between the Hearing's Officer and a 20 party to this matter outside of the public hearing. I will state at this time that I have had 21 no ex parte contacts. Let's see, any party may challenge my qualifications to act as 22 Hearing's Officer if you believe that I cannot be impartial in deciding this case, and I'll 23 state that I have no personal or financial interest in the outcome of either of these cases. I 24 have not made a judgment yet on either of them and I believe I can be impartial. Is there 25 anyone who wishes to challenge my qualifications to act as Hearing's Officer in either of Exhibit Page r of~_ 4 1 these two cases? Okay. Seeing none, I'll proceed. Unless I hear an objection, I will rely 2 on the prior circulation of the written staff reports for these two cases as well as the 3 staff's oral presentations tonight to list the criteria that apply to these two applications, 4 and I notice that we do have some of the criteria, it looks like some of the criteria, it looks 5 like the criteria for the Rank application posted up here on the wall to your right and my 6 left. Any testimony and evidence you present tonight needs to be addressed to those 7 criteria or any others you believe are relevant that may not have been listed by staff. The 8 failure to address any issue with enough detail for me to understand and respond to it in 9 1my decision, may preclude an appeal of that, on that issue to the Board of County 10 1Commissioners or to the Land Use Board of Appeals. This is what we call the "Raise it, 11 for Waive it" rule. A similar rule applies with respect to proposed conditions of approval. 12 IIf any party has a claim that a condition of approval may, for example, be unlawful or 13 unconstitutional, that claim also needs to be raised at the Hearing's Officer level clearly 14 enough for me to resolve it in my decision or you may be precluded from raising that 15 issue in a Civil action such as a Taking's Claim in the future. Okay, any questions about 16 that procedure? Anything that is not clear? Also I want to say to you that this hearing 17 tonight is not exactly like a public meeting of a governing body, for example if you've 18 been to a County Commissioner or City Council Meeting, and it is not like a Town Hall 19 meeting. It is a little bit more like a Court Proceeding, in that it is somewhat formal. 20 You need to get your testimony on the record, you need to be invited to come up and 21 speak, and most importantly, you need to comport yourself in a way that would be similar 22 to that what you would do in a court room, and by that I mean you need to listen 23 respectfully when other people are speaking and other people will listen respectfully 24 when you are speaking. So I need to have you follow those rules of behavior at this 25 1hearing tonight, just as you would if you were in a courtroom. Exhibit M Page --6_ of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay, with that I will go ahead and open the hearing for staff report from Paul on the Rank application. Ms. Green: Okay, we will go ahead with the hearing on the Christian Life Center application and as I mentioned at the beginning of hearing, I did do a site visit to the property yesterday and so I want to briefly disclose my observations and impressions of that visit. I actually was on my way to Prineville so I did a site visit on way and on my way back from Prineville. I am familiar with the property, driving by it frequently, so I knew where it was and generally what the property looked like. But, I looked in particular at the access on Highway 20 and the access on Hamby Rd. as well as at the work that has already been done on the amphitheater, proposed amphitheater. I did have the site plan with me. I did not take the file with me, but I had looked at the site plan before I went by the property, so I had a general idea of where things were. What I observed was that there was a large, existing large building, two story building on the , set back from the highway it looked like probably 100 feet or so and in the space between the building and the highway (Highway 20) I observed a large depression that appears to have been smoothed, and graded, and contoured into the shape as we see it on the site plan, an oval shaped depressed amphitheater. I also observed what appeared to be pavers or pieces of stone stack stockpiled adjacent to the depression and it also appeared to me that there had been terracing work with some stonework supporting the terraces on the part that I could observe clearly from the road which was the, I guess it would be the north part of the amphitheater area. I observed that there is a little bit of topography and some trees, some vegetation existing between the amphitheater and the way which would obscure it somewhat from the highway, but not completely. I bserved that really the rest of the property is fairly open. There are parking areas, but here are no other structures that I could see. I also observed the area around the Exhibit- /M Page = of -98- 6 1property, noted the electrical substation which is just to the east and the rural, small farm 2 rural residences that surround it across Hamby Rd. and to the north running along Hamby 3 Rd. It was my impression that the site distance from both driveways, both the driveway, 4 the existing driveway on Highway 20 and the existing driveway on Hamby Rd. are good, 5 unobstructed and are clear for a considerable distance. At the time I went by the property 6 the traffic was light. It was probably 5:30 on the way by and probably about 7:00 on the 7 way back. It was my impression from what I could see of the amphitheater that it would 8 be, most of it would be below grade, only a portion of it would be at the existing grade or 9 at the grade of the highway and at the grade of the existing building so that most of it 10 would be below grade, however it was much of the terracing of the north, I am going to 11 call it the north side, it's kind of the northwest side of the amphitheater. Much of that is 12 visible from the highway, once you get past the little bit of the rock out crop in the trees 13 that are between the highway and the amphitheater. So even though it is below grade, it 14 is, some of it is quite visible from the road from portions of the road. Okay, so those 15 were my observations and my impressions were that the amphitheater will be quite large 16 and its footprint appeared on the ground as well as it does on the site plan as being 17 several times larger than the building that is currently on the property. It was also my 18 impression that the amphitheater is relatively close to the highway so that noise from the 19 highway would probably be heard in the amphitheater and noise from the amphitheater 20 would probably be heard from the highway and potentially property further distant, 21 including across the road because there is essentially no screening, no sound buffering if 22 you will that is existing on the property, other than potentially from the depression that 23 1has been created and contoured. So, those were my impressions. 24 Okay, with that I will ask for a staff report from Cathy White. 25 1 Cathy White: Thank you Ms. Green, I am an associate planner with the Exhibit Page _R of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deschutes County Planning Division. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to accept relevant testimony and evidence on site plan application SP05-13 and landscape management combining zone application LM05-22 and it is to establish an outdoor amphitheater and a maintenance and storage building in the EFU zone. The property is located at 21720 Highway 20 in Bend and is identified on the County Assessor's tax map as tax lot 171236, tax lot 801. The property is zoned exclusive farm use zone, landscape management combining zone, and a portion of the northwest corner of the property is what is called the airport safety combining zone. The site is developed with an existing church and related parking and the existing church was approved back in 1978 by a conditional use permit CU7844. The applicant and owner is the Christian Life Center. They are represented tonight by their agent Charlie Rowles, of C.J. Rowles Engineering and Liz Fancher, Attorney. The applicable criteria to review is listed on the wall to the right. The applicant is requesting an expansion to the existing church by constructing a 2000 seat outdoor amphitheater and a 3000 square foot maintenance storage building. The amphitheater is going to be located in a natural depression that has existed, at least since 1979, according to the applicant. The surface is proposed to be smoothed and grassed and seating terraces to accommodate 2000 people will be built and there will also be an open stage on the south side of the amphitheater. Staff observed during a recent site visit that commencement of the construction of the amphitheater has already begun and the site has been smoothed, graded, and seating terraces have been added. This is being done basically in violation of the site plan ordinance because it has yet to be approved and we notified the applicant today of that. The applicant proposes four to six musical worship services and Christian music concerts per year. The worship and concert events will be held during the summer months with concerts typically beginning Ett 7:00 pm and finishing by 9:30 or 10:00. Anticipated traffic generated by the 2000 Exhibit Page of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concert goers will be about 670 cars and this was determined by the applicant's traffic impact analysis study that was included in their application. These cars will arrive starting at around 5:30-7:00 pm and routed onto Hamby Rd. and the church's Highway 20 entrance. The applicant proposes 759 parking spaces. This includes their existing paved parking areas and proposed gravel parking areas. The proposed storage and maintenance building will be located northwest of the existing church and consist of 3000 square feet. The building will be used for maintenance and storage related for the existing church use. Water is supplied by Avion and sewage disposal will be on an onsite septic system. Notice of tonight's hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on March 20, and mailed as required by law to those properties located within 750 feet from the applicants property. The applicant also posted notice of the proposed land use action on the property. Agencies comments start on page four of the staff report. Of note, I am just going to highlight some of the more significant comments we received. The Oregon Department of Transportation expressed significant concerns about the impact of the use to Highway 20 and requested that a condition of approval be added requiring the applicant to meet with ODOT and any changes required to the approach be added as a condition of approval. The County Road Department has requested an event travel control plan and the Deschutes County Environmental Health says the septic system is under a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality and DEQ did not respond to our transmittal that we sent. The Central Oregon Irrigation District has assessed the property with four acres of water rights. These water rights, according to them are located where the construction is planned and they said that they must be removed. The agent has informed the staff that they have contacted the Road Department and ODOT to discuss their concerns and as of yesterday, I received revised comments from the County Road Department who reviewed an event traffic control plan for the Exhibit Page ~Q_ of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amphitheater is consistent with the EFU zone and approval would be considered if you were to approve this to be precedent setting, who will monitor the use of the facility. A couple of people suggested to use the Les Schwab Outdoor Amphitheater, and in addition to the neighbor's concerns, I have raised a couple of questions for the hearing's officer to review, which is listed in my staff report (there are copies by the door). It is a basic question that I think needs to be answered first before, you know, some of these other site plan review and landscape management review criteria can be reviewed, but is the amphitheater and the maintenance storage building, are they considered to be expansion of an existing church in the EFU zone. The staff understanding that nonfarm uses in the EFU zone are supposed to be construed narrowly, but, you know, how do you apply this narrow construction to an expansion of an existing church to include what the applicant is proposing which is the amphitheater and the maintenance building. As some guidance there is a case that I have attached for the Land Use Board of Appeals that discusses the court's interpretation as it relates to the definition of church in the EFU zone in the context of the Oregon revised statutes that is applicable to ORS215.283 which is relative to uses permitted in the EFU zone. And then secondly, I also mentioned that I believe the applicant's burden of proof is inadequate in some areas that I tried to highlight in the staff report and I don't believe that at this point that they have addressed all the approval criteria in order to approve the application. And finally, the staff realizes the applicant may have some Constitutional rights related to the use of the property that may supersede any local zoning ordinance, but they have yet to raise those points. So I am recommending that the Hearing's Officer review whether the proposed amphitheater and maintenance storage building constitute an expansion of an existing church in the EFU zone in light of the LUBA case and if it is considered to be an expansion, then I believe that the applicant needs to provide the Hearing's Officer with Exhibit Page °f - - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 might be able to point out where you live for the Hearing's Officer, but-- Ms. Green: We will call this exhibit 2. Cathy: Do you want this one exhibited? Ms. Green: We will just treat that as part as exhibit 1. Cathy: So, this just shows, the different colors show the zoning and so the brown color indicates exclusive farm use zone. This color down here is what is called the multiple use agricultural zone, and some of you, I know live down in this area. And then also is the, up here is the multiple use MUA10 zone. This is the urban area reserve zone UAR10 zone, and then this red line depicts the city limits. And just to let you know that Highway 20 runs along here going east and Hamby Rd. goes along in that direction. I guess that is Ward Rd. and that is Hamby, and the church is outlined in yellow. Anything else? Okay. So that concludes my presentation. Available for questions. Ms. Green: Cathy, I did, earlier today send you an e-mail inquiring about an assumption or comment made in your staff report about whether or not a building permit would be required for any portion of the amphitheater since you had raised the issue as to what degree of setbacks apply, whether or not it is building, or whether or not it needs a building permit. Can you share with us what you learned from that conversation? Cathy: Okay, I got an e-mail response from Mike Roberts who is a Plans Examiner for the Building and Safety Division for the county Department of Building and Safety Division. I'll just read it, it is fairly short. He says section 105.2 of the Oregon structural specialty codes states that retaining wall less than four feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall does not require a structural permit. With that said, I could not determine the height of the wall to give you a definitive answer regarding the requirements for a permit in this particular case. Exhibit Page-A4 of C(q 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: So four feet and above requires a building permit? Cathy: That is what I would interpret. Ms. Green: Okay. I think that was the only question I had. Cathy: Okay. Ms. Green: Thank you, Cathy. Okay, I will hear from the applicant. Charlie Rowles: Good evening. Ms. Green: Oh, I'm sorry, let me stop you for just a second. Cathy I forgot to ask, and let me ask. Is there anyone from a state agency or other county department here to speak tonight? Okay. Sorry, go ahead. Charlie: Good evening, Madame Hearing's Officer. My name is Charlie Rowles. I am a professional Engineer and also the Engineer of record for the project and further a member of the Christian Life Center church. In our efforts to provide a venue to expand and provide a growth opportunity for our church, this vision came about 10 years ago and I will let Pastor John develop that for you a little bit later. So, my objective here is to simply introduce additional items into the record, respond to some of the staff's concerns in the staff report. Having only received it last Wednesday, we have been under 24-7 run to try and respond to these concerns. Okay, the first thing that I would like to submit into the record is an actual response to staff report that is dated April 5, 2005. This is a document from my office dated April 11, 2005. I have walked through this, I am not going to spend responding to reading this, I don't think you need to have me read this to you, you will have a chance to read it in your review, but I have done everything I can to read through her comments, or her staff report and provide supporting evidences to help her feel better about those comments and sufficiently answer them. It is a four page document so I would like to Exhibit Page J,;5-_ of g~ 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submit that as exhibit 3, would that be appropriate, or? Ms. Green: If it is testimony we don't need to mark it as an exhibit- Charlie: Okay. Ms. Green: You can just hand it in as written testimony. Charlie: Okay, let's start with that one. Ms. Green: Thank you. Charlie: Okay, some of the concerns in the staff report regarding the traffic impact analysis that were raised in meetings with ODOT regarded the initial traffic impact analysis allowed for traffic to enter and exit the Highway 20 access, subsequent meetings with the ODOT people and staff here. We came to the conclusion that we are just going to block that driveway off. No exit or entrance during the special events. We are going to direct all the traffic out Hamby and take the northerly access off of Hamby Rd. In reviewing that plan with the ODOT staff and with the County Traffic Engineer, Gary Judd, I am submitting into the record to revise traffic impact analysis that addresses the re-routing of the traffic and the position that there will still be no measurable impacts to the community during these events because of all of this is occurring after the traditional PM peak hour. So at this time I am submitting a revised traffic impact analysis to the record. Ms. Green: Thank you. And this one I will mark as exhibit 3. Charlie: One of the elements of working with ODOT and the County Engineering offices was to develop a traffic handling plan that would successfully meet the manual of traffic control devices for dealing with the influx and the outgo of the traffic from the site, so we sat with the ODOT people last week and with the help of Bill Hilton who is the Permit Tech there at ODOT, we compiled a traffic handling plan that is Exhibit Page J5- of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I approved and I have a supporting letter from his office that was addressed to Cathy White, and I will submit both of these into the record. Part of this traffic handling plan includes six steps in the actual processing of each event. The personnel, the location, identifying the process of going through the traffic handling, in addition to a copy of a miscellaneous application ODOT needs to know any time we are out there effecting traffic on a state Highway, they have no problems with it. I am submitting as part of that an 11 x 17 colored traffic handling plan that was prepared with, and actually, by the hands of Bill Hilton and with my approval it identifies on here that the Highway 20 I access to Christian Life Center is closed off during the event. So this is another item I am going to submit to the record. Ms. Green: Thank you. This will be exhibit 4. Charlie: Okay, I would like to briefly comment on a few of the concerns that were raised verbally by Cathy and her staff report that would help the general tenor of tonight's meeting. The amphitheater is entirely below natural grade. We are not going to provide for seating or any kind of attending membership to be above grade or on the outside of the actual depression. The planting will screen the backside of the stage and I would like to direct you to one of the diagrams here where we presented a colored diagram and I am going to bring that to you for closer examination. Thank you Pastor John. Ms. Green: Why don't you let me just look at that and then we can put it back on the easel for- Charlie: This- Ms. Green: the public to see. Charlie: This fulfills the requirement for the landscape management zone Exhibit Page __\3_ of _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 to provide screening of any structures from the highway. That stage sits about 200-300 feet from the highway and so we are providing the landscaping screen behind the stage. The top of the stage itself will only be about 14 feet above, actually 12 feet above the actual amphitheater. So, not much higher than the ceiling of the room that we are in. That is about a 10 foot ceiling. It will only be about 2 feet taller than this that you will see physically from the highway. Okay, the retaining wall is identified in that picture that was discussed here and Mr. Roberts is exactly correct having background in structural engineering and done retaining wall designs. The permit will be filed for to retaining wall permit and it will be designed by a licensed Structural Engineer to comply with the Oregon specialty code 2004 edition. The - Ms. Green: Mr. Rowles let me stop you there just for a second. In addition to, or are there any other grades in addition to the retaining wall just behind the stage that are 4 feet or larger. Charlie: Grades? Ms. Green: That is not the right term, what I, faces, I guess would be the way of putting it. Any faces requiring retention that are taller than, 4 feet or taller, anywhere else on the amphitheater? Charlie: The wall will be a maximum of 12 feet tall. Ms. Green: The one I just looked at? Are there any other locations in the amphitheater that have a face that requires retention that is 4 feet or higher. Charlie: No everything else is landscaped and retained by natural stone placement or vegetation. Ms. Green: Are there any places where the stone placement exceeds 4 feet in height. Exhibit Page Of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 Charlie: NO. The nature of the placement of the facility, as can be noted by the mapping does provide a projection of sound and facility to the north which is the nearest residences are '/2 to 3/a of a mile a way. The addition of the retaining wall will act as a further sound reflection, so based on my limited background work and sound decibel sound energy projection, we, without having the formal document here, we do have, and have gained the support of a sound Engineer that has worked with the amphitheater in downtown Ashland and he is heavily involved with that, however he was in Minnesota this week and could not be contacted to gain his support, but if we need to we can get a study that would identify the decibel level based on the equipment that we are going to be using and provide that information if that should be necessary. It is our heart felt intention that it be nothing but a blessing to the community and not to be a burden. That is not our intention here. If we become a burden on the community, then we have lost our plan, we have lost our intention and our mission for our church. Okay, further item. The sound booth is gone from the plan that she has shown here on exhibit 1 that does show a sound booth at the north side of the facility, but it is now gone and it will not be asked for there on the north side at the back side of the terracing. So the only structures requiring permitted per say in the county building department will be the maintenance and storage shed, the retaining wall, and the open sided structure. Okay, in response to the work having gone on after the site plan application. We actually began landscaping our facility last fall. A long time before we ever applied for anything, and under my understanding in county code, we do not need a permit to landscape our property. In recognizing that we did file and we had some landscaping in process we are apologizing for that and did not understand that once the site plan had been filed that we had overstepped that bounds. Exhibit_ Page -\-10L of qg 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay, one of the other issues for the attendees of the musical worship services. We will be providing portable restrooms. They are not allowed to use the existing church facilities. Those church facilities are only for people attending services within the structure and the church. These outside events will be totally be provided for by portable restrooms and if there are any kind of beverages or anything sold like that will be totally in contained bottles or whatever, or else we start violating the sanitation food services code. We have had conversations with the Health Department on those issues. We do not intend on providing food for the attendees. That is not the plan. They are not going to be there long enough. Excuse me a minute. Ms. Green: Go ahead. Charlie: If we do, Pastor John has corrected me. If we do provide anything it will be totally a packaged product. It won't be preparing food on site for these concerts. That puts us in the wrong, that violates the sanitation health code. Ms. Green: Let me ask you a question about the Port-a-potties. Charlie: Yes. Ms. Green: How many would be on the site and where would they be located. Charlie: Karen, I don't know that quantity, I am not up to speed on that. We would look to the help on that, we would look to the help from say, Calvet Disposal, or Advanced Supply to provide the appropriate number based on an event of 2000 people. They will be placed in an area where there is not any proposed parking or provided around in various locations around the backside of the amphitheater. We have a lot of territory around there with the walkway around the amphitheater, we have a variety of places to place them. So, since we don't know that number, I'm, you know, I am imagining what 50 or 100, but I don't know. I know that there are numbers and that the Exhibit N*A Page C21)_ of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people who rent those know those figures. So we didn't for see that as a situation, we have a lot of ground to put some on if we need to. Okay, one final issue. In regards to the water rights. I did communicate with Jed Barrett of the Central Oregon Irrigation District. We did have a copy of a letter here I will submit into the record that he has provided us with a copy of the water rights map and it is evident that where we are proposing some parking there is some water rights, but he felt there would be no problem in moving the water rights mapping on the property to cover where the new amphitheater will be because that is where we will move the water to, is to irrigate this new lawn and landscaped area. I would like to submit this letter and a copy of it into the record. Ms. Green: Thank you. Charlie: Okay, my final effort that I would like to submit into the record are a series of letters in support by Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church from Pastor Daniel Dillard, Desert Streams Church from Pastor Gill Miller. The first church is right there on the corner of Hamby and Highway 20, our immediate neighbor- Ms. Green: Presbyterian? Charlie: It is, the Grace Reformed Presbyterian church, and the amphitheater should be a blessing to the whole community through the outreach to Christian Life Center, I quote. Desert Streams, again, the same scenario and will submit these letters in without reading them into the record, I don't think we need to spend that time. Further, from Eastmont Church from Pastor John Lodwick, again, another letter of support for the overall effort recognizing that this is a tremendous outreach opportunity. Another letter from New Life 97 KNLR radio from the owner and General Manager Terry Cowen, again he lends his support in the form of a letter. Another one from the Bend Ministerial Association from Pastor David Miller, President of the Bend Ministerial Exhibit Page _12- of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Association addressing and speaking for a group of churches and faith based organizations, not just one, but a large contingency, and speaking in behalf of that. Okay, so I am going to submit these letters into the record. Okay, One more item that we did some research, there were some concerns about potential impact to property values for an amphitheater, so we coordinated with a local realtor who has been in the area all of his life, very experienced in the business of real estate and he did a report, and since I am not a realtor, he has entitled this a CMA report. There are two pages and I will submit this into the record. The first one is a group of homes that he scanned for sales of homes around the Les Schwab amphitheater in downtown or west side Bend and he looked at those properties, and these are properties within just the immediate neighborhood and found that the average sale price was about $168.00 per square foot. As compared to, he did a further search for homes on the east side and in this area, everything from Dagget Ln. to Decader, to Sierra, Desert Sage, on and on I can just go on down the road of streets here, but the land values are about $120.00 per square foot, sales value, so it seems that the Les Schwab amphitheater has not impacted the value of homes down there that we were able to find. So anyway I am going to submit this into the record. Ms. Green: This will be exhibit 5. Charlie: At this time I would like to introduce Liz Fancher, Attorney for The Christian Life Center to come forward and present her letter to the record. Ms. Green: Before she does that I do have a couple of questions- Charlie: Okay. Ms. Green: either for you or for your client. Tell me about these evening programs. What would they consist of? Charlie: Okay, Pastor John. Exhibit M -Z% Page -0- of 77 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: And if you will introduce yourself for the record. John Bluebaugh: Good evening, I am Pastor John Blubaugh, staff pastor at Christian Life Center and for the record I have served Christian Life Center on two different occasions. I was on staff from 1995 through 1998 and again came back on staff February of 2003 through present. In 1995 we started doing these concerts outreach events within our building, doing indoor events, and we have done, on record four a year and in the past year, we have completed three already, one more concert event is scheduled for May 3, 2005 inside our facility. The nature of the concert events is an outreach event of our church. As a church, our job is to propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is my belief and our church's belief that we live in the sight and sound generation and with that churches across the board in America, they are closing their doors more frequently than they are opening them. That is to say more churches are going out of business. That is cross denominationally. That is a national statistic. I believe the reason is a lot of churches, for whatever reason, are losing relevance to society, culture is changing, society is changing and with that a lot of people do not see the need to go to church, at the same time will come to an outreach such as an outreach or a play and will hear the same gospel message, but just in a different format. It is, I believe really important that as a church we don't become stagnant and keep trying the same old, same old to reach people, you know it is kind of the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and I think we have done that too much. To answer your question, our concert outreach events that we have done have been solely for the purpose of spreading the gospel and doing the job of the church, (inaudible voice), yes, and the time frames of those on every one of them have been, our concerts are usually Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday evening. We do not do Saturday evening, Sunday evening, or Monday evening concerts. We do them, the Exhibit M Page of C~R 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concerts begin at 7:00 pm and generally are over by 9:30 pm, but it can go closer to 10:00. They will always be done by 10:00 no matter what, so between 7:00 and 10:00 pm is the length of the event. With people arriving onsite usually an hour beforehand. We open the doors usually %2 hour before the concert. Ms. Green: How many people when you were doing these concerts indoors? How many people could you seat. John: Up to 800. Ms. Green: 800? John: Yes. And we have always, in every event that we do have Parking Attendants and handle the traffic as best we can to prevent any accidents or prevent any problems in the community. We have to date not had a single incident nor that I know of, complaint for either noise level or traffic nuisance. Ms. Green: Tell me about the lighting, what you propose for lighting, outdoor lighting. John: The path that goes around the rim of the amphitheater will have short 36-48 inch lighting, that is directional lighting that will be at a 45° angle that will be pointed down at the path for evening walking around the path, not only just for our events when people want to go out and just walk, take a walk around the path. As far as lighting in the amphitheater itself, there will be no light standard or poles in the amphitheater. There will be lighting inside the roof of the stage itself, and there will be a couple, what we call "prison lights", we have a couple big lights on the side of our building that shine over the parking lot. There will be a couple mounted up within the stage structure, the roof structure to shine down on the amphitheater for house lighting at the end of the event so people can leave, but there will be no permanent lighting on at night unless there is an event going on, other than the path parking, I mean the path lighting. Exhibit -M -2L_ of -S Page I 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: What sort of lighting, if any, would the concert itself create, the performers for example? John: What would be customary for a concert event, such as what they do at the Les Schwab amphitheater with the light trusses and the concert or event lighting that is brought in with events. (inaudible voice), Yeah absolutely no large yard lighting, any kind like that. Ms. Green: I have not been to a concert at the Les Schwab amphitheater-- John: Okay-- Ms. Green: --an evening concert, so I know what concert lighting is, I think, but can you be a little bit more specific? John: Well, yeah- Ms. Green: Where does that light shine? John: Onto the stage. Ms. Green: Just on the stage? John: Yes, Ma'm. Ms. Green: Not out into the audience. John: They do, you know, they do some where they do like a flash to the crowd on occasion, but the majority, 90% of the light is directed at the stage and at the performers. (inaudible voice). Ms. Green: Okay, thank you. Charlie: Again at this time I would like to introduce Liz Fancher, Attorney to come and present her findings on the issues at hand. Liz. Liz Fancher: Okay, good evening. My name is Liz Fancher and I am here to represent the applicant this evening, and actually in this case pretty much the church has gone forward and handled this application, put it all together and provided all Exhibit in Page _2a of_ 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the detailed responses for the Hearing's Officer. Mr. Rowles has been the primary person in charge of this application. I have been asked, however to address some of the legal issues that were raised by the staff report and what I did was I wrote a letter that I would like to submit into the record. At this point I'll-- Ms. Green: Do you have a copy for staff? Liz: Yes. So the primary issue raised for staff, was I guess backing up, was sort of the setting of this case was, this was a site plan application. We are not here on a conditional use permit to determine whether this is an appropriate use of this area. Churches of this type, an expansion of church use is allowed outright in the zoning district in providing that the site plan can be designed appropriately to comply with the county code. State law ORS 197.522 which I didn't mention in my letter indicates that the county must approve an application with reasonable conditions of approval if it is possible to do so, or I mean to achieve compliance with all of the approval criteria if you impose reasonable conditions of approval on the application. So in this particular circumstance if it is determined that if additional landscaping is needed or berms need to be built or things of that nature, those are basically reasonable conditions of approval that can be imposed to chief compliance with a subjective criteria of the county site plan ordinance, but in the bigger picture this is an application where it has already been decided that this kind of use is permitted in the zoning district and on this property. Ms. Green: Well that is the fundamental question, is it not? Whether or not what is proposed as a church as defined for purposes of the EFU zone. I mean it begs the question to say that it only a site plan review if the use itself is not permitted in the zone, it doesn't matter whether-- Liz: If you believe it is not a church use, so that is the question that I then addressed in the letter, that I submitted to you, but the county is reviewing this as a site Exhibit Page 21.o--of- 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan application as a site plan application as an expansion of a church in EFU zone. The state law does include a revision that is mentioned in the case that Ms. White attached to the staff report and that is ORS215.441 and that law actually is helpful to the church's position, which is, it indicates that if there is a church or a meeting house, or a synagogue, or temple, or other non residential place of worship on real property, and then it says, "The county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of religious activity including worship services, religious classes, weddings, funerals, child care, meal programs and excluding education." Looking at the LUBA case that was included with the staff report, what LUBA said in that instance was that residential uses of church property were not a church use and that is supported by this particular staff sheet that excludes non residential uses. So that exclusion specifically listed here and then also private and parochial education, pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or higher education is excluded, but the other typical practices of a church congregation are considered to be church activities for purposes of the statute, and then LUBA in the Bechtold case said that ORS215.441 is really the only reference that they had for determining what the state thought a church was, so therefore they were going to use that particular revision of law. In this case the applicants use meets, you know, fits within that particular definition as provided by the state statute. Ms. White had indicated that the Bechtold case indicates that you should construe narrowly against allowing uses in the EFU zoning district. This is an exception to that particular rule because the county specifically directed. It says, "The county shall allow .he reasonable use of the real property for these activities associated with the typical ,hurch use". In looking, you know, I think the evidence is fairly strong that churches lave always been strongly involved in relaying religious messages through music, that hey typically offer concerts, that they have musical performances, they have plays, Exhibit M Page-23- of -CAIR- 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 religious passion plays, Easter celebrations and services as part of church worship, and obviously there is gospel music tradition in this country that is pretty well established. Also the Messiah by Handel is a fairly common religious piece that is performed by Choirs in a concert type setting around Christmas time. So obviously, churches for a long time have been very much involved in using music as gospel and a form of worship over the last maybe 20 or 30 years, it has been more common for churches to also use, to have more standard concert venues to appeal to younger church goers and the church have obviously put evidence into the record on that particular point. So what is being proposed here certainly does fall within the scope of the state statute and we believe should be viewed as a church use. It is clearly religious and is going to be confined to that particular use. The expansion of a church, also I believe is, in this case it would be clear that if you read this as an expansion of a church that you could certainly build a larger building. I think the narrow reading that might be implied by the staff report is that, that you would say, "Well it is fine to have this concert use on the property, you can continue to worship in the church, but that you might have to expand the building instead of expanding the church use and the church activities on its property, so perhaps you could have a reading that would say that you have to build the amphitheater attached to the main church and you have to cover it and put a structure on the side of it, or provide some physical connection. We believe that that reading is not actually not protective of the EFU zoning district than would be a reading that would say the church is able to expand its activities outdoors or to conduct its outdoor activities and the reason for that amphitheater, the type proposed here or certainly any sort of church use that would be conducted outdoors, like outdoor weddings or funerals or things of that nature, can occur without permanently transforming the landscape into a large structure covered area, then never really have a chance of reverting back into farming if the church outgrew its Exhibit Mi. Page of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facilities or needed to move on and to sell the property to another user. If you don't construct as much of a structure, you certainly encourage the church, at some point if the use becomes discontinued or it no longer becomes a part of the church's mission to have concerts and religious performances outdoors, they could then convert the property back to agricultural use. Additionally in a different church setting, perhaps the church would have a pasture that was associated with their existing church they could have weddings on the field, but then using it for grazing other times of the year, like in the summer it could be used for events and they could have leased grazing to area farmers in the spring and fall when the pasture is not being used for the wedding events and all sorts of things that are allowed by the state statute. So I believe that the correct reading of the law is one that says you are looking really at the nature of that activity, you are not looking whether or not it is in a structure. I think that is really consistent with what land use is about. It is about uses and it is about regulating activities by the type of use that is occurring there, not based on the structure. Also, I don't know if it was really clear enough, but the church intends to hold services in the amphitheater area of the property, and so it certainly it will be used for what is considered a fairly standard church service and worship service as well on certain occasions. So it is not just a performance venue. Ms. Green: Let me ask you about that, because quite frankly the record is less than clear as to how often this would be used. The testimony was four to six times for these Liz: Those are for the larger-- Ms. Green: concert events. Liz: Correct. Ms. Green: There has been implications that it would be used at other Exhibit Page of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 times for other events. What exactly would it be used for and how often-- Liz: I shall ask the Pastor to address that. John Bluebaugh: Again this is Pastor John Bluebaugh, the staff Pastor at Christian Life Center. The number of events that we listed were based essentially because of the weather. We really only essentially have about four months that we can really use that for the large events, so as a Pastor, my job is, I am not a promoter and I am not doing this for a living or for a profit basis. We are doing this strictly as an outreach and in fact, the concerts that we have done over the last year, have actually cost us money. We are not showing a profit on them, much to my dissatisfaction, but my goal is to pay for the concerts and that is why we do them, but as far as the number of events, I want to do one a month when we can in the good weather months, during summer. That would limit us to about four a year. The reason I want to only do that much is because I have multiple other tasks and jobs that I do at the church. I am the College Pastor, I am the Worship Pastor, I am in charge of visitor follow up and visitor assimilation in our church and so I wear multiple hats. In order to do more events, as far as concert events, it would just require too much time. Now, on the other hand, our plan is to do Sunday morning services, probably not every Sunday, but on a case-by-case or week-by-week, that is not my call, that is our Senior Pastor's call as far as how many he would like to do. I know that there is a church that during the good weather they do quite a few services in their outdoor arena. They have an amphitheater as well. Our intent is not to make that our sole place of meeting during the summer. We will use our building and the outdoor facility as needed, but on a Sunday morning, you are not talking 2000 attendees either, you are talking, you know 400-500 on a Sunday morning and our service times end by 12:00 noon on a Sunday morning. Ms. Green: What time will it start? Exhibit Page_ of 29 1 John: Well, right now we do two Sunday morning services 8:45 and 2 10:45 and I would imagine, this hasn't been said, but I would imagine that we would 3 combine them and do just one, since the seating capacity could handle the 400-500 4 people that we see every week as it is now, and so we would probably do it like from 5 10:00 am to noon type of thing. 6 Ms. Green: Would you use any-- 7 John: Pardon me? 8 Ms. Green: Would you use any kind of amplification of your speakers? 9 John: Yeah, consistent with the church though, not with a concert event. 10 There is quite a huge difference as far as the decibels produced and, we have a small, 11 portable system that we currently use in our fellowship hall, that we would use something 12 equivalent to that out in the amphitheater, just for projecting, again our specific worship 13 which usually lasted 15-20 minutes, the music part of our services and then our Pastor, 14 his sermon. 15 Ms. Green: So weather permitting, you might do this on Sunday's over a 16 four-month period. 17 John: Yeah, that is the most we would be doing it, yes. And again, that, 18 on a Sunday I don't believe there would be any question as to traffic to anything like that 19 because it is not going to do anything different than what we do now. That is what we do 20 every Sunday morning. That is the numbers of people and vehicles that are arriving 21 currently on Sunday mornings. We currently do a Sunday evening service and there 22 won't be any Sunday evening services in the amphitheater, and so the way it is proposed 23 now, is just our regular Sunday mornings which would again, not be any impact. And to 24 go back to the four events, it is not just concerts, again, you know we plan on doing 25 concerts, yes, but you know, possibly a passion play or plays, or live theater, that kind of Exhibit M of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thing, that is consistent with the gospel. It is all about gospel. The other thing is that as a church, we don't make it a habit and we never have, and I believe it will be addressed later by our Administrative Pastor. This won't be rented out to concert promoters or any other people. This will strictly be used for our church purposes, for our services, and for I our outreach events. Ms. Green: Thank you. John: Thank you. Liz: So, as, so then the next sort of point of the letter that I looked at the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the exercise clause in the Oregon Constitutions, those laws give the church members the right to free exercise of religion. They also guarantee them the right to be treated on reasonably equal terms with other similar uses that are allowed by the county in the area. And so what I did is I looked at other types of uses that could be allowed on this property without a land use permit. One of the uses is a mass gathering. The state exempts mass gatherings of fewer than 3000 persons from regulations, "Fewer than 3000 persons for a period of less than 120 hours in a three-month period." is completely exempted from the definition of a land use decision by the state's Land Use Law ORS 197 I think it is 010 or 015, but in the definition section of the land use, yeah 0151 OD and so the church is entitled to go ahead and have those sorts of events within those limits and they wouldn't be regulated by the county. They are here with the site plan because the site plan obviously required if you are going to build structures and things of that nature and make alterations to the property, but special events of the type that are proposed by the church are completely consistent with the mass gathering law and people who own property in the EFU zone can open their properties up for this use without county regulation to the land use process. Additionally then, there is a process if you have gatherings of 3000 or more persons that Exhibit Page32 of 925 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last for more than 120 hours in a three-month period, one or the other of those two things, then it is a mass gathering and there is a permit process for that and it is not reviewed through the land use review process, it is regulated from the Board of County Commissioners. So that use is already allowed so this type of activities that are proposed are already essentially allowed by state law. Additionally this state law allows an EFU zone's park uses on park master plan, they require park master planning, but you can allow the, amphitheaters are one of the uses that are allowed in the EFU zoning district. They, let's see, they allow interpretive educational information facilities in state parks and meeting and dining halls in certain circumstances. They allow the natural history or cultural resource museums, natural history or cultural educational facilities, so any of these sort of educational facilities could have an amphitheater use, can have large gatherings of people to come together for performances that relate to history or cultural history or natural history. So those uses are allowed. Additionally there are a number of other uses that are allowed in EFU zoning districts such as private park that could have an amphitheater use, golf courses under certain circumstances are allowed and those particular uses also could involve assembly uses of this type. So what the Federal Law says is that in order to fulfill the county's compelling governmental interest, that it needs to do that in the least restrictive means possible in order to achieve the compelling governmental interest. In this particular case, I feel that reading the law in a very, very narrow way would certainly, you know to require a physical expansion of the church in order to host these events is not consistent with that law. It would impose a huge additional expense on the church to conduct events in a completely covered arena and we feel it is not consistent with the intent of the EFU zone to protect agriculture land for future agricultural use if and when the church is discontinued on the property. And so I'm not going to cover all the other points because it is getting late and I know there are a Exhibit M Page 45 of q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 lot of people that want to talk so I'll just rely on the written information provided and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Ms. Green: I don't right now. Thank you. Liz: Thank you. Ms. Green: Is there anyone else speaking on behalf of the church, I representing the church? Charlie: Yes at this time I would like to ask our Administrative Pastor, Jerry Thomas to come forward please. Jerry Thomas: Hi, my name is Jerry Thomas, I am the Administrative Pastor of the Christian Life Center and have been so for the last five years. Just to restate the policy of our organization is the nature and the purpose is to be a house of worship, providing a place of gathering for that purpose and we do so on a regular basis. In addition, in an effort to be friendly to the community we are involved in numerous activities throughout the year that we provide for the community. Just a list of a few annual gatherings for the community: Halloween Family Fun Festival that we do every year, 41h of July events, we also make our facility available to the community when we can and its available annually. We do, we just hosted the state wide FFA group meetings and we make those times available when we can, not for profit, many times we don't even charge a fee, just a free will contribution to our church.. So just to restate that we are not in the business of making profit with the things that we do as activities and events, mainly, as I said, we are a house of worship for that purpose and then also events that we make available to the community. (in-audible voice) I am, as administrator and our doctrines, and our by-laws that are stating, you know we have a governing board. We are a 5013C non profit organization so I have the mandate to insure that we conduct our business and activities to comply with IRS codes. We are not a for profit. I do exercise Exhibit M Page of g_ 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 due process to make sure that we are in compliance with non profit status and that is I some of the responsibilities that I have to insure that we don't violate those things. Okay, Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Is there anyone else that is representing the church who wishes to speak. Charlie: I don't believe so at this time, no. Ms. Green: All right, I am going to open the hearing for public testimony I and again I want to remind you that, to listen and speak respectfully. 1 know you are all I capable of doing that. Can I see a show of hands of how many of you would like to I speak if you can tonight? Okay. What I am going to attempt to do is to impose reasonable limitations on the time that you speak so that each person who wants to speak will have a chance to do so. I appreciate that the applicant has taken probably about an hour or a little bit more than an hour to present their case. The applicant does have the burden of proof and so that is part of the reason that the applicant gets to put on their case and also to get the last word, which they will at this evening's hearing. So in order to assure that everyone can speak and that we are not here until sometime tomorrow morning, I am going to impose reasonable limitations on the time. What I am going to shoot for is about 10 minutes, no more than 10 minutes per person and less would be better. So what I would suggest that you do, is that if you want to speak, if you know that you are speaking on behalf of others who share your view, if you could designate someone to speak for you, that would be ideal and then you can identify who it is that you are speaking for. Another thing to think about that is if someone has spoken and covered your points already, you need not state them all again. You can simply say that you agree and focus on perhaps something that has not been spoken to, okay? So, with that I am going to ask Exhibit M Page -,3~5L of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for public testimony first in support of the application, in favor of the application. Come on up, sir, and again you need to sign, print your name and mailing I address on the sheet. Please remember to do that, and then state your name and mailing address for the record. Larry Kine: Okay, I am Larry Kine. I live at 62105 Torkelson Rd. and I I am probably the very closest neighbor. I'll show you on the map where I live. Directly across the highway, this is an older map, but my house actually sits here. Ms. Green: So, since you don't have a mic, with you, let me just restate what you said. You pointed to across highway 20 southeast from the subject property about 1/4 mile. Larry: It is probably not even that, I'll bet that it is maybe 300-400 feet is where my property line starts. The property in front of me is still vacant to the west. Ms. Green: Okay. Larry: Nobody knows Highway 20 better than I do because I drive it five or six, or eight times every single day with having three children coming out on Torkelson Rd. and on Sunday nights or Thursday nights, or Tuesday nights I sit out in my hot tub and there is no one on that road to speak of. So the traffic impact that they are going to have is non existent. They will do a great service to all of that. They have that other road that goes out on Hamby. You know for ODOT to make them cut that off to the highway, I think is ridiculous. I think they should be allowed to be able to use that. The facility that they have there, you know, I have lived there for three years now, and that church has never, ever done anything that has caused a nuisance to me. Me being the closest one to them ever. I don't attend the church, although I should. It sounds like a great church, (laughs), I believe it is selfish for people to stand up and start complaining about noise, especially, you know for something like that, that is a little bit ridiculous. Exhibit Q_ of Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The job that they have done there has only been to beautify for the landscape management that they have done. When I first started buying my property and started doing that, that property was not in shambles, but I mean it was more run down and in the last few years they have made it, you know, nicer. They have re-grassed the area out in front. They have been great neighbors. I could not say enough of support for them and I am their absolute closest neighbor. I think it is crazy, I wasn't going to come and I had a person come trespass on my property trying to get support for it, which I think is ridiculous, it was a gentleman named Tom, you will probably find him tonight. I think that is crazy to trespass on other people's property to try to go get support for doing that when they are not invited. I think it is a great asset. Anytime you are going to go and fight against, anything, whether it's a church or not, you are fighting that they don't succeed. I think that is crazy. Liz Fancher put it perfectly, this is a no brainer for it to be approved. I mean anything less than that, I would be embarrassed by the county and by the Hearing's Officer and everything. This is a great asset to the community. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Kine. Anyone else wishing to speak in support. Yes, Ma'm in the back. Forgive me pointing, it is the only way I can note who you are. Carol Tirrell: My name is Carol Tirrell and I live at 61760 Tamahawk St. which is 3/4 of a mile south of the church building. Ms. Green: Could you spell your last name for me? Carol: Yeah T-I-R-R-E-L-L. My husband and I have lived there for 17 years. We have taken our 1.2 acres and turned it from desert into an oasis of grass, trees, and gardens and we love that neighborhood. We have defended it in every way. We have been there for 17 years and are now attending Christian Life Center. We have been here for two years and I appreciate everything about it. As far as noise goes, it is below Exhibit Page d of V4 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ground, its, the speakers will be facing away from us, we are south of the church. The timing is very reasonable, 7:00 to 9:30, I can live with that. I am sensitive to noise, we have had some neighbors that we have actually had to call the police on because they were too noisy and the police stood by us and encouraged them to turn their noise down. We have participated in the group in our neighborhood who tried to block the Wedding Chapel and reception that came into our neighborhood because of the traffic, but this traffic will be on Highway 20 and Hamby Rd. I am 3/4 mile south of that. I am also a Nurse at St. Charles and as far as, they talked about emergency response, there are several nurses there, we will help in any way that we are needed. There is a fire station just one mile away where paramedics are. I don't think it is going to be a problem with emergency response. As far as dust goes, that whole neighborhood is dusty (laughing). I am thankful that my immediate neighbors, including another family that goes to our church, they grassed and that has helped our yard dust problem. When we moved there 17 years ago, all you had to do was open a window and it looked like you hadn't dusted in weeks, but I think landscaping and grass and trees is going to help, not create dust. There is a synagogue on Ward Rd. about''/2 mile from my home and they bought residential property and improved it and I appreciate it being there. They have landscaped, put in asphalt. I have been there only once for a garage sale, but that hasn't hurt our neighborhood at all to have that synagogue there and whatever uses and parties that they have, they have all been beneficial. And that is all I have to say. Ms. Green: Thank you, Ms. Tirrell. Anyone else wishing to speak in support. Yes, sir, in the back. Denny Stahl: Good evening. My name is Denny Stall, I live at 20085 SW Jessica Ct. in Bend which is on a direct line, if you were looking from above, from Exhibit Page 37 1 the stage at the Les Schwab amphitheater, about a miles distance, so for free this summer 2 I got to listen to Willy Nelson, the Doobie Brothers (laughing) ZZ Top too, yeah 3 (laughing). I am a concerned citizen and one who is also a concerned Christian. I am a 4 Senior Pastor of Deschutes Christian Fellowship in Bend, Oregon and I have been 5 privileged to go to events, special events that have been hosted by Christian Life Center. 6 One of the things that I think is pretty established already, that of course there is more 7 traffic on Highway 20 or Hamby Rd., I have used both approaches to the church property, 8 when going to these events. And, the interior of the church was packed, with probably 9 800 people. Lots of cars on the gravel areas and in the paved parking areas, so this is not 10 going to be a new occurrence even with the approval of the amphitheater which I highly 11 support. The ability to reach out to young and old alike in our community in a fashion 12 this way is something that I think the county ought to support and approve. I think we 13 live in a wonderful area that enjoys the outdoors and I have been at events at Les Schwab 14 amphitheater and as I mentioned have also heard them even when I didn't pay the price 15 of admission. You know when you are relaxing at home on a Sunday evening, the music 16 kind of comes and goes as the wind and the breezes bring the sound our way. I have 17 never found it objectionable even though it is not necessarily the music that I would listen 18 to on the radio or on my own CD player. I have not objected because it is part of being a 19 community. It is part of living in an area where we celebrate the ability in the 20 summertime to get outdoors and to enjoy the clean air and our culture. Actually that the 21 noise that I have had to worry about more is the noises that come from my own neighbors 22 and their stereos, their parties, and so forth, but that is part of living in a neighborhood. 23 That is part of living in a community. 24 When we first came to Bend as a church about six years ago, we rented the 25 old funeral home, Tabor's Mortuary, where now, the Bend Police Department sits. In the Exhibit Page of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 summertime we found it quite pleasant to go outdoors just on the lawn area behind the buildings and hold our services on Sundays. We had an amplifier, sound systems, band and drums and all that stuff, pretty much aimed at Pilot Butte. We never got any complaints, no one ever called the police. No one ever seemed to object to the music that we made and the noise that we made with our regular services, so I highly encourage Deschutes County to approve this application and I hope that will be the result, Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you. Anyone else wishing in support of proposal? Yes, sir, come on up. Jack O'Malley: My name is Jack O'Malley and I am a member of Christian Life Center. I have lived in Bend since 1983 and the major comment that I can make is of all the events that have occurred in the city of Bend, there have also been a lot of opposition, for example to the events at Drake Park, in the Music Festivals, and Munch and Music there on Thursdays and the protestations and when Les Schwab went in the amphitheater all those objections too, or the events that occur on Wall St. in downtown Bend. The many festivals, they have to have an impact too. They do, they have a greater impact because there is much more residential housing around them. I can see where people are concerned for lighting, sound, and for traffic down there. I have been involved in it, but out on Highway 20, you don't have that impact. Most of the lighting comes from the Forum Shopping Center. The greatest traffic is from the Forum Shopping Center, so I don't see the impact in the same way and the fewer events, compared to many events that occur in the city of Bend, for example, during the summer. Mostly what I see in observing over the last 20 some years is, unfortunately a not in my backyard syndrome. So, I feel that this would be a great advantage and a great opportunity for people and kids and I don't think it will have an adverse effect. You Exhibit Page %-AQ of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, some people may not like it there, which I understand, you know, it is fully I understandable, but as for myself and my family and the 20 some years we have lived here, we think it is a great advantage. Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. O'Malley. Anyone else wishing to speak in I support? Yes, sir. Come on up. Scott Thomas: Name and address? Scott Thomas 1283 Purcell. Man, I'm nervous up here (laughing), I speak to crowds every week and I am nervous in front of this crowd. I am the Youth Minister of Christian Life Center and I want to speak on behalf. Charlie asked me to come up, I wasn't preparing anything, but truthfully just agreeing with what he was saying and what we want to show for this amphitheater. The tremendous value of this amphitheater to the youth of Central Oregon. We, as a church are very interested. Weekly we minister to in service times anywhere from 70-120 students through our youth ministry. We also have after school programs Wednesdays and Thursdays at Buckingham Elementary, Jewell School, and Pilot Butte. We believe enormously in the value of outreach, however outreach off campus does one thing, but truly bringing about transformation in people's lives, we need to have that place as an entry point to our church that brings people in that may not necessarily be looking for church, but are looking for an opportunity to worship, are looking for an access point. And for us at Christian Life Center, for myself, passionate in a history of tenures of youth ministry in different churches throughout Oregon, I believe amazingly in the potential that this has to bring, and when I say transformation, we often think just of a Christian, a faith transformation, but we as a church and myself in youth ministry and just proven throughout our culture, transformation in faith in our students brings about enormous transformation in every aspect of their life, and so we are interested in the betterment of our community through this. I believe as we bring in, sometimes up to 50% of our Exhibit Page L 0 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 crowd, possibly being students for some of these concerts, the enormous potential that we have. One other thing I do want to address that came up in notes while I am up here. A few of the neighbors have mentioned. We are not making an us versus them, I never want to appear that way at all. Just to let you know why we can't, why we don't hold an even possible to use the Les Schwab amphitheater for these outreaches, there is an enormous level of overhead. Some may have seen circulated, last summer, Prayer Mountain Northwest, an attempted prayer event, it ended up not happening. Now I am not sure that played into the overhead cost of using the Les Schwab amphitheater for that, but when you are trying to make an affordable, an available event at an affordable cost for people who may not hold faith to be valuable, but they want to hear some music, we want to keep that cost as far down as possible and that is exactly what we are attempting to do by creating our own place for those events. So, that is all I have to share. Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir, in the red, come on up. Robert Fish: Good evening, my name is Robert Fish. I live at 19850 2nd St. that is Bend, but actually in Tumalo and I am in direct line, but I won't hear anything that comes from there (laughing). In the past I have organized and managed the traffic flow and parking for some of the larger events we have had, where we have maxed out about 800 people. Traffic counts for those were 350-400 cars. They begin working their way trickling anywhere from, well the staff and the people helping with the concert start early in the day and then traffic begins to get heavier. I would show up about an hour and a half before the concert, organize the traffic and they would start in an hour and 45 minutes because people want a good seat. So there wasn't a lot of heavy traffic until the last/2 an hour before the concert would start. Ten minutes before the concert started, traffic would actually slow down and there would be, people would trickle in after the Exhibit M Page LA 9 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I concert started and within 20 minutes of the concert ending, the parking lot was pretty much empty. So there were some high flow times, not anything different than a high school football game or the 4th of July celebration. So what I had seen being first hand with the traffic was high flows, but nothing out of the ordinary, nothing that needed to have actual flaggers and traffic control officers or anything like that. So with shutting off Highway 20 and having all of the traffic go through Hamby, that will allow more options for people to take to get to where they are going. They can head to the south and go directly to Highway 20 where there is the intersection, or they can turn to the north, go up Hamby and then take the various other roads to get to where they need to go. So the heavy traffic will be within '/z mile of the Hamby driveway, and as soon as they hit the other arterials, the traffic will spread out and the length of time will be very short. And that's what I have to say. Ms. Green: Mr. Fish, remind me. The, I know I noticed it, but I can't recall the intersection of Highway 20 and Hamby. Is that just a stop sign regulated or is there a flashing light there. Robert: There is a flashing light. Red and yellows and stop signs and it has turn lanes. Ms. Green: Okay. Robert: Also for both directions. Ms. Green: All right, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application. Yes, sir, come on up. Robert Cox: Hi. My name is Robert Cox and I have been going to Christian Life Center for six years. I have lived in Bend for 24 years. The last six years I had three daughters that were going there through their Jr. High and High School years so [ got to see first hand a lot of kids who were influenced in a good way and I just want to Exhibit Page of 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 give credit to what is really going on there as far as reaching the community and changing lives. I think all of our tendency is, especially as we get older, I am 48, we get things taken care of, our payments are getting down, we are looking at our retirement, and things are slowing down. We come home from work, we can hit the garage door and go inside and close the doors and we are in for the day and it is just our natural tendency. I guess mine's an emotional imploring for the passion that Pastor John has to reach our community, to reach kids. I think the tendency to become selfish and to shut down and to just think of ourselves until something like 9/11 happens and then our whole nation is shook up. I think our churches are full. I don't know all of the reasons, but everybody wants to know why, what's going on, and getting things right. I will bring it down to a smaller, more intimate. In our own town we have kids that are dying on cars racing on highways, doing drugs, drinking, those kinds of things. If one of these concerts reaches even one kid and keeps that kind of stuff from happening, I think it is huge. And so, to do nothing, I think is one thing, but to come out in opposition to something that could be good for our community, that could reach kids, I don't understand it at all. I am so excited about the potential this has that I just want to put everything I have behind it. Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Cox. (Man): Can we read a quote into the file? I don't know how this is called? Ms. Green: Why don't you submit that in writing and let me hear from the other folks that are here. You can definitely get it into the record. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the proposal. Yes, sir, back three rows or so. Mike Desouza: My name is Mike Desouza I live at 2032 NE Wells Acres in Bend. Exhibit Page of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: Could you spell your last name for me. Mike: D-E-S-O-U-Z-A. I didn't expect to step up, but hearing everyone speak, I just wanted to explain something that has happened to me since I have been here. We don't live near the church and we won't be subject to any of the sounds, I mean, other than attending. Something that comes to my mind is that when we first moved over here five years ago, we were fortunate as a family to be able to live right in the flight path of the Life Flight for St. Charles Hospital. At first I was annoyed because that chopper comes in pretty fast with the blades pitched deep, so it is a pretty loud sound and it probably resonates throughout Bend. And, I could see as a community that an enormous opposition coming against this, but what I see is, and I think it was my children that helped me to understand was that, that helicopter is saving a life. That chopper is coming in and they are going to save somebody, and you know what, I don't care if it wakes me i up at 2:00 in the morning, someone is going to have another day on this planet. And I was able to turn the other cheek. And ever since then, every time we hear that helicopter, I think that hospital is going to save another man, woman, or child. In retrospect, that is exactly what this amphitheater is going to do, point blank. I don't have to go spiritual on this. There is going to be people invited to a concert here that are probably contemplating suicide, husband divorcing a wife. These will be day-to-day normal life issues, and they are going to come to one of these concerts, they are going to see other people, they are going to see other families, they are going to see other children and children and teenagers and they are going to realize that they are not alone, because this type of gathering will be of love. It won't be selfishness, it won't be greed, it won't be thinking about themselves. The person has to be thinking about the people around them and just the fact that out of 2000 people, if one person is saved, I am talking about by taking their life, if a marriage is saved, if a teenager doesn't run away from home, Exhibit M Page L- of C_ 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because during a concert they speak a small message. If that can touch somebody, that will have an impact and I think it is well worth the cost. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Desouza. Yes, sir, come on up. Derek Farrington: Good evening. Ms. Green: Would you please sign in first, just so you remember to do it. Derek: My name is Derek Farrington, I also live on Wells Acres, 2743 NE Wells Acres Rd. across the street from Mountain View High School which has several football games and basketball and all kinds of events which traffic is very severe, but as a community member you deal with it. Which I don't think is the main subject here. I just want to let people know that I do have four children. I do own several properties in Deschutes County and Crook County so I do know the value of properties and things to make properties worth more or less based upon what is in the area. So the value is not going to decrease if any property is nearby or, it would only enhance it. Also for my children, Christian Life Center is a safe place for my kids to go and have fun, not only learn and read the Bible, but also to make friends in a safe environment and listen to music, which I have been to a couple of concerts which I am 36, and everybody is listening from anywhere from 18-25 year-old white music which I thought it was pretty cool. So from what I am gathering, I think it is again a safe environment. The Les Schwab amphitheater is, you know they sell, they have several you know alcoholic beverages, you know wine, it is a kind of a place to fellowship in the way of, I am kind of nervous, not a really healthy environment for children. I know some of the other parents, I don't want to say other aside either, but just in the community, they have children also which I am sure they've ran into some issues themselves. I just want to say it is a good situation, not only does the Christian Life Center do all the outreaches in the Easter, the 4th of July, which I am sure several of these folks here have been there or their family Exhibit Page _ of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 members have been there, but they also help the homeless with the Bethlehem Inn. They have housed them several years in a row, which is also for the community. So, again like the Pastor said, we are just here to benefit the community, not to take away. I know the property owners around there, they have their concerns, which is our concern too, as a member or someone who attends the church, not a member. So, I just want to say thank you for Pastor Dan and his staff and his wife, they would be willing to help anyone out there who needed a helping hand and myself too. So thank you for this time and thank you for everybody who showed up. So, thanks. Ms. Green: Okay, anybody else wishing to speak in support? It looks like we are getting lots more hands than I saw earlier, (laughing). Sir, come on up. And I am going to hear from a couple more people and then we are going to take a very short break and then we will resume (inaudible). John Walker: I'm nervous too. (laughing) I live at 19827 Hollygrape St. in Bend OR. I used to live down in the LA area, Harbor City. I was part of an outreach there where a skateboard park was put on a very small portion of parking lot and it happened every Wednesday night from 7:00 to about 10:00. There was major large opposition to this. Of course they didn't need any land use permits or need anybody's permission from the county to do it, but the neighborhood sure was up in arms about it. (in-audible question) Yes. What I noticed is a lot of people don't seem to know the blessings or the benefit of things until it is too late. That outreach actually benefitted and was the starting of reaching out in a community in which the people, most of the people who were in opposition of it, later saw the good in it. Its, now there are a lot of things that happened in my life where until the very end when the good was bestowed upon me, 1 didn't see it. I think, I think that, I don't know what her position is in this, but I think she had said that there would be a precedent setting decision as far as the EFU zone. If Exhibit Page l 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you had made a decision on that it could go one way or the other. It could be precedent setting, but I think what we need to do here is decide. If something is going to be precedent setting. Whether it goes on the bad side of it, or whether it goes on the good side of it. If we can't see the good side of it, maybe we should step back and see if there could be a good. So that, I know you are probably the decision maker in all of this, I just wanted to bring that to light, that sometimes good can't be seen until later and I just wanted to add that. Okay, thank you. Ms. Green: The woman with your hand up, you wanted to speak in support? Come on up. Clarissa Wentzel: My name is Clarissa Wentzel. I live at 20958 SE Greenmont Dr. in Bend. I apologize, I wasn't born in Bend and I haven't lived here for more than five years, so up front. Ms. Green: Can you spell your last name please. Clarissa: W-E-N-T-Z-E-L. I would like to say that I am on staff part-time at Christian Life Center and I have had numerous occasions with interacting with individuals that have actually called, expressing concern about what we propose to do initially with our property. And, all-in-all until the last, I would say, couple of weeks, it has all been very positive. Then I had actually had opportunity to personally interact with an individual that had expressed concern about his property values and what the amphitheater would actually do to his property values. He believed that they would actually decline. Now, we purchased our home here in Bend in 2003. We actually purchased in the old farm district, and to be quite honest, we could not afford to purchase in the Les Schwab area of influence, or even in Mountain View High School influence. I know both of those have been addressed this evening of examples of bad that could be happening in our community. The other individual who also addressed the Life Flight Exhibit_ Page _ of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going into the hospital. Living in the old farm district, and I live over at 15th and Reed Mkt. I mean we, we're in that flight pattern also. We spent six and a half years in St. Louis in the flight path for St. Louis International Airport. Yes, there are occasionally, from noise interruption, and its just like when you hear the whistle of a train going through at 3:00 in the morning, there are certain things that you do get used to, and definitely we're not going to tell the railroad to take their train whistle and do something with it between the hours of midnight and 6:00 am, but one of the things that really came out in some of my interaction with, there was a verbal expression of disbelief that we weren't in it for the money. And, that has come up from two, I believe, our direct opponents, and I would just like to say that we've proven that. We could prove it financially if we had to, I'm sure that we wouldn't want to go there, but it has never been about the money, and I, I think that is a heart change that has to happen. Ms. Green: Okay, we are going to take just a brief break until about 9:00 (inaudible) okay, then we will start back about 9:00. (inaudible) Okay, unless someone has an absolutely burning desire to speak in favor of the proposal (inaudible) (noticing the microphone was not working) Ms. Green: What I'd like to do, given the hour is to go ahead and move to testimony and opposition, and I was asked during the break about people submitting additional testimony, things from other people who couldn't be here tonight. And I should have clarified for you that I will be leaving the record open for written testimony following tonight's hearing for anyone who couldn't be here and wants to submit a letter and for any of you would like to add something to what you said. You'll have an opportunity to do that. Woman's Voice: How long will the record be kept open? Ms. Green: We'll talk about that. At least a week and probably a little bit Exhibit Page C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 longer. So, what I want to do now is open the hearing to testimony and opposition to the proposal and Cathy indicated to me that the lady who is sitting in the second row with the black shirt, the one who just asked me a question, had a pressing family matter. You're welcome, you're welcome to come up. Woman's Voice: (in-audible) Ms. Green: That counts as a family matter, and speak and then we will go back and hear from everybody else. Susan Haupt: Okay, my name is Susan Havpt, I live at 61925 Dobbin Rd. Which is, I think about % mile from this site. Ms. Green: And how do you spell your last name. Susan: H-A-U-P-T. Ms. Green: Thank you. Susan: I'd first like to say that I do support this sort of activity. I believe that it probably is a good thing for the community, however I do have questions about the term expansion of church use, although I do believe that music and musical worship and even concerts might be typical church activities, I would not consider a 2000 seat theater, outdoor theater on EFU land, a typical church feature. Also, I happen to work for an agency, a public agency, and we are advancing proposals that don't seem to be very consistent with the community, the immediately surrounding community, we typically present multiple alternatives and those are scrutinized and looked at in depth. It seems to me that there is a lot of ways for a church to conduct outreach, to recruit new members, to reach youth outside of building a 2000 amphitheater in a farm use area. I do live near the area and I will be impacted by the noise and that is why I'm here tonight. And a lot of you might consider me a nimbi, or not in my backyard person, but I consider myself actually a member of the effected community that is very concerned. I think I represent a Exhibit Pager of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot of us that live in the immediate area when I say, I did not move to this area to hear concerts and that is a use that if you are within the city limits or even within the urban growth boundary of which we are, most of us here, are outside of both of those, we might tolerate a little noise, but most of us have moved out there for the quiet. Somebody mentioned the fact that the Les Schwab amphitheater and some other places are in high real estate areas, and I would venture to guess that the desire of people to buy homes in those areas is not because they can't wait to hear concerts at the Les Schwab theater, but because those are just desirable areas and we all know that. I have questions about the term expansion of church which I have already sort of disclosed. Somebody mentioned grazing on the land when it was not in use when it was not in use, which I think is a ridiculous notion, but I will say that dismantling this amphitheater for use of EFU land in the future would be no more difficult than dismantling or taking down a building, and in fact landscaping wise it will probably be more difficult. I have a concern about the definition of music concerts, musical worship. There was, the proposal mentions that the primary use would be for these and there would be four to six music concerts a year, however there is no indication how many musical worship, how much musical worship events there would be or how many. There is not really any clear indication about secondary uses, other than it would be used for services and I really don't want to wake up to the sound of amplified speakers on Sunday morning in my home. I can tell you that I live, like I said before, approximately % mile from Highway 20 and inside my house with all my windows shut, I can hear traffic on Highway 20, and I would venture to guess that I could hear anything going on that was amplified that was going on in that theater regardless of the depression at anytime of the day. So, I have noise concerns. I do have light pollution concerns, but they are minor and I agree that the light pollution from the shopping center, the Forum Shopping Center probably rules this out. I don't have visual Exhibit M Page of -q[a 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impact concerns. I think the power substation is a pretty tough eye sore to follow. I don't have concerns about the visual impact. I do have concerns about the traffic. I think it should indicate something to us that ODOT, after doing an analysis believes that the traffic will be significant enough that they will need to close access to Highway 20. And, of course ODOT's main concern is providing freight and through traffic on Highway 20 to maintain their capacity volume standards on that highway. However, ODOT, it is not within their jurisdiction to care about Hamby or Ward Rd. or to care about how long it might take somebody coming from Ward Rd. to make a left turn on Highway 20. Yeah, you can could say we can take alternative routes during concerts, but sometimes most of us coming home from work, won't know there is a concert until we get to that intersection. I happen to pick my child up at daycare everyday at approximately 5:30. I get to the, by the time I pick her up, get her stuff together, and get to the intersection of Highway 20 and Ward/Hamby Rd. its about anytime between 5:50 and 6:00. I would say more than 80% of the time I have to wait several minutes to get across Highway 20 there. I don't want to think about a line of 50 cars trying to make a left turn and then me trying to make a U-turn to avoid it. That intersection is already, has got to be already reaching capacity given county standards and it already warrants a light during peak hours, I will tell you that. So those are things I would like you to consider in your decision and I appreciate the opportunity to comment, and I appreciate your time, and I understand it is late and these things aren't a lot of fun, but I appreciate you being here. Ms. Green: Thank you Mrs. Haupt. Okay, Paul Dewey. Thanks. Paul Dewey: Thank you. For the record, Paul Dewey. I am the attorney for Jill and Verson Pandian and the neighbors of Hamby Rd. My client has a 5:00 flight tomorrow morning and could not stay to testify, which raises the issue of keeping the record open and for the record, I would like to make that request. Exhibit _ Page ]~~A~of 51 1 The issue tonight, I think it is important to clarify exactly why we are here. 2 Its not whether it is a good idea to have a concert facility somewhere for youth or to have 3 outreach programs or whether the church is doing a good job or serving a vital function in 4 the community. The issue really is whether this is an appropriate site for what is being 5 proposed to be built, which is a 38,000 square foot amphitheater, 3,000 square foot 6 building, and apparently a 3,000 square foot stage. There is a reference in the burden of 7 proof to a stage and the storage building totalling 6,000 square feet and since the building 8 is 3,000 square feet, I assume the stage was 3,000 square feet, but that just points to some 9 of the difficulties we are facing as we address this issue, is there are a lot of unknowns or 10 a lack of specifics here. But we are dealing with an exclusive farm use zone and state 11 law is quite clear, is quite narrow in fact, in allowing certain uses within the EFU zone 12 that are considered to be non farm uses, and in fact ORS215.283 1 B specifies that it 13 allows churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches, a quite narrow definition. 14 And I believe the case, the LUBA case the Bechtold case that has been cited to you 15 before is quite instructive because LUBA, in that case identified at least four reasons why 16 the proposed developments did not fall within the definition of a church and this follows 17 a basic statutory interpretation case PGE that the Oregon Supreme Court stated a number 18 of years ago, but the first criteria set down Bechtold was the fact that the legislation 19 identified and was quite specific in identifying two uses, churches and cemeteries. It 20 further emphasized that in contrast, the legislature, when it was allowing for schools in 21 the EFU zone allowed schools and all buildings essential to a school and LUBA was 22 making the point that the legislature was obviously capable of drafting very broad 23 provisions as it did for a school, but it did not do that for churches. Another point made 24 by LUBA, was in the case of wineries. They set forth very specific requirements for 25 wineries. Again, LUBA was emphasizing that the legislature really can identify clearly Exhibit Page of 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what it is allowing and it was quite narrow in allowing just churches and cemeteries. They also identified that there were no church related residences identified in the legislation. Now all of these same reasons apply here, except for the latter one, but that is made up by the fact that the legislation does not mention amphitheaters, to the extent that these statutes are specific and in fact as Court of Appeals has ruled a number of times, we are talking about non farm uses. Statutes should be read narrowly because of the policy of limiting uses and that if the legislature wants a particular use, it can identify that and that actually came out in the Warburton v. Harney County case regarding schools where the Court of Appeals ruled that the term school could not, should not be interpreted too broadly and that it should be limited to just K-12 and not include adult education. Liz Fancher also identified the statute of ORS215.441 as supportive for their position, but we do not believe that, that is in fact the case. What that statute does is allow reasonable use of the church, temple, mosque, for activities like weddings, funerals, child care. What that statute is really aimed at is allowing reasonable uses of the church facilities. It doesn't allow additional facilities such as amphitheaters or residences to be built as a church, it just states that existing church facilities can be used for child care or weddings. So, it really doesn't support their position. And in fact Bechtold really didn't just rely on that statute. And actually in terms of the classic interpretation of text and context for interpreting statutes, that wasn't in existence at the time of 215.283 so it really isn't relevant for that anyway. I won't go into too much detail about the religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that was mentioned, except to, and I'll supplement what I've written so far. There are two cases: One Court of Appeals. It is called the Corporation of Residing Bishops v. Westland 192 Or APP567 and 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas. In both cases the jurisdictions denied the construction of a church. Not an amphitheater or not additional facilities, but outright denied the use of a building Exhibit- Page of 53 1 of a church. And in both cases, LUBA and the court ruled that, that was fine under this 2 statute. The test is whether or not it imposes, the Land Use imposes a substantial burden 3 on the exercise of religious speech and you have to show a propelling government 4 interest. But here we are not talking about blocking a church. A church is already in 5 existence, so we do not believe that this statute is applicable. I also wanted to draw your 6 attention to the case Hammack v. Washington County. That was a case where developers 7 wanted to build an amphitheater in the EFU zone and folks opposed it saying, and this is 8 essentially an urban use you're proposing and the developers argued that this 9 amphitheater is just like a church, just like a school. And the court of appeals said , no, 10 the statute allows churches, it allows schools, it doesn't allow amphitheaters. So we 11 believe in terms of statutory construction, which is what we are concerned with here, the 12 statute or the definition of church should be narrowly drawn and that it does not include 13 an amphitheater. Now turning to the issue of whether or not there is an expansion 14 involved, the expansion issue comes about, or the Oregon administrative rules provision 15 that no churches can be built within three miles of an urban growth boundary or on farm 16 land, there is an exception provided in OAR666.0330 stating that existing facilities may 17 be expanded. Liz was arguing earlier that the expansion should incl-is really oriented to 18 uses, not oriented to facilities, such as expanding a church, but I believe that if you will 19 look at the origins of the Deschutes County code, it is clearly oriented toward facilities 20 and we are not looking at an expansion of this 10,000 square foot church, we are looking 21 at an entirely new structure, dwarfing what exists there now at 38,000 square feet. There 22 was a change made in the code at the end of last year that changed the character of these 23 applications. It used to be that there were conditional use permits and then the ordinance 24 was changed to allow outright uses and I do not know the history of that. I would like to 25 investigate it, but one of the more interesting aftermaths of this is that DCC 18.128.080 Exhibit Page !~E of _ 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was apparently left unchanged and that statute, or that code section specifically applies to churches and other uses and talks about additional conditional use criteria that are applicable and I addressed this in the memorandum and I won't go into much detail here, but I just wanted to point out that the staff, neither the staff or the applicant have addressed the criteria that are still in the code that are applicable to churches. With regard to site review criteria, obviously the key issue, or one of the key issues here is going to be noise. There is simply no evidence on noise. There was some reference to the church retaining an expert to identify various decibels and I think that is probably a very good idea, but it is not in the record. And just the experience, and I have no specific evidence. If I find some, I will present it. The experience at the Les Schwab amphitheater, that music travels for miles. And with the burden of proof on the applicant, they should be able to establish what decibels will cause, what radius of noise, or what levels of noise in this surrounding area, to be able to do an analysis as required under the code. The other major issue, of course, is transportation. And the previous speaker raised an issue that I particularly wanted to raise and that is the intersection of Hamby and Highway 20, as well as the intersection of Hamby and Neff. There really is no true traffic impact analysis presented to you. Usually a TIA involves an analysis of existing use, the existing level of traffic at an intersection and then considers the additional impacts the proposed use will cause to the intersection. While ODOT's closing of the access from Highway 20 may be warranted for safety on Highway 20, it is obviously going to cause an increased load on Hamby, and thus those two intersections. So we believe an analysis of the base use and then those two intersections is really necessary to make a decision here. I won't go into too much more detail. I have identified a number of other issues in the memorandum, but there are a lot of people here Exhibit Paged of 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 waiting to speak. I 25 I did want to briefly raise the issue of parking and the vast amount of area of this EFU land that is going to be taken up with parking spaces. As I discussed in this legal memorandum we believe that the number of spaces is very excessive and that it is really not appropriate on this EFU land. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them, otherwise I would like to address a number of issues in writing. Ms. Green: I don't have any questions right now, thank you. Okay, next person wishing to speak in opposition. Sir? You got the jump on everybody by standing I up (laughing). Bob Main: I'm Bob Main 21715 Old Red Rd. about 2500 feet due south of the amphitheater. Ms. Green: Mr. Main, I haven't seen you in-- Bob: Since I retired. Ms. Green: --decades, it seems like (laughing). It is nice to see you again. I'm sorry, tell me what street you live on again. Bob: 21715 Old Red Rd. Ms. Green: Old Red Rd. Bob: It is in Dobbin Acres. Ms. Green: Thank you. Bob: As, really, this Paul Dewey stated, the question is not whether this church or any church is an asset to the community. The question is whether any church sited in an EFU zone can build and operate an outdoor concert facility as an outright allowed use in an EFU zone. And paraphrasing what Liz Fancher said, because they are a church they can build anything they want and if the government interferes, the government will be guilty of discriminating against them. In reading the county code, it Exhibit /V1 Page cf)~-Z of g~ 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is apparent that the code assumes that a church is in part defined by its walls, roof, etc. It is a building. This is not a building and it will be loud. As the Pastor said, there is a huge difference in the amplifiers that they will use for the outdoor services, and those for the concerts. As I stated, and I submitted written objections, I believe that the proposed outdoor concert amphitheater would violate both the spirit and the letter of our zoning laws and planning laws. It fails to meet the conditions for the exceptions allowed in the ordinances for siting churches and schools in an EFU zone. And that is all I have. Ms. Green: Thank you. Next person, come on up. Cathy, I can't see you over there, but are we doing okay with the tape. Okay, just holler if we need to stop to change it (inaudible). Oh, it is on a chip now, isn't it, and you've got lots of time on it? Okay. Alan Morris: Good evening. My name is Alan Morris. I reside at 62265 Hamby Rd. It turns out that my property and home are to the northwest of the proposed facility about 1800 feet or so. Basically when I started on this, I actually received a notice from your office. I put it aside for the time being, and I eventually got back to it, I came back into town, got back to it and I went over to Pastor Bluebaugh and asked him a few questions about what he had in mind. The one thing I didn't know was who else had a notice. He mentioned to me that he thought I might have gotten a letter because he sent a letter out to a number of people. We went up to his office and thumbed through his file. You, know I didn't count them. It appeared to be about a half dozen letters. It could have been more, it could have been a little less. And then I am aware of the September 20th meeting as per the staff report, and only one person showed up in opposition. I believe that that is probably true because all of the surrounding people that I believe he sent letters to and that maybe you, yourself sent letters to were absentee owners. I believe that the majority of the people that are effected by the sound associated with this Exhibit Page 5 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 did not receive notice, and yes I understand it was in the Bulletin and yes I understand it is posted on the property. Apparently that system failed us. And the reason I know that is because once I just started to just walk around in the community at large and asked if anybody knew about it, which was my main thrust at the time, nobody did. Ms. Green: Let me just explain very briefly about the notice. First of all, I I don't send the notice-- Alan: Okay. Ms. Green: The county does, I just contract with the county. Alan: Very well. Ms. Green: The notice, written notice sent to all owners of record-- Alan: Right. Ms. Green: Of property located within 750 feet. Alan: Right. 750 feet, understood. Ms. Green: Yeah, and the notice I think strongly suggests that it be shared with tenants, for example, but the law only requires that it be sent to the owner of record. Alan: Right Ms. Green: As well as publication and posting. Ms. Green: Alan: And I, I'm not suggesting this is as accusational. The last thing I want is a divisive conversation. It is unfortunate that we have had a little bit of the word selfish and some other words posted today. I believe all of the people that I have spoken to are very good people on both sides of the fence. I have no problem with that. What I can tell you though, is that in my sampling, and my testimony also includes the petition that I drew up and the petition that I asked people to take a look at and search their heart Exhibit Page of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to see if they felt like signing. As you mentioned earlier there is something of a number of about 100 of those people signed that. Now of all the people that I talked to, over 95% of them voiced, at least voiced opposition and, to the proposal. Only one turned his back on me and walked away and a number of others said they weren't interested, but of the time that I spent and the time that some other folks that I talked to spent. Those 100 testimonies were in opposition. So, and they came from four different neighborhoods that will be effected by the sound. Now, that said, I currently farm right across the street, and without being accusational again, the county would not let me put a farm dwelling on my farm, even though I bought it in 1985 and was allowed at that time. And no, I don't plan on going-- Ms. Green: I was going to say, it sounds like you have a Measure 37 claim. Alan: I don't plan on going for a 37 because I eventually was allowed to put a home for my two children, my wife, and myself, two dogs, and a cat. We're talking 2000 people here. So it is interesting to me, particularly after listening to the attorney on the side of the church that there seemed to be tons of uses for farmland except for my home. A man with two children, a wife, and himself, struggled mightily to get that done. Again, I think that we need to narrowly define for everyone else as well because what we are trying to do is protect farmland. With that in question, I remember, and you may correct me, I think it was Gosney Descamp 58 Charlie was the type of soil I had and when I did my study of the surrounding properties which was required by the county, I found out that all of them had the same type of soil. As a matter of fact the soil and the levelness of the place at the church EFU property is probably deeper than mine. The church also has 4 acres of water that has been in violation of using for many, many years. All the rest of us farmers are threatened with the regulation that if we don't use it every Exhibit Page f as of 59 1 five years, we will have it taken away from us. Apparently it isn't true, or hasn't been 2 true for the church and I am not understanding that situation. I hopefully don't have 3 churches with more rights than the people that live around them, which brings me to the 4 noise. I thought Mr. Main might bring it up. Basically we get this cool air in the 5 evenings, and you can hear in the high desert air forever. I can't imagine, and the same 6 thing happens in the mornings and I suspect there are times during the middle of the day 7 where it occurs, but that needs to be taken into consideration of how this conduit will 8 transmit sound over to us. Also in the codes for sound, I believe the county code 9 DCC8. 08 states that they are supposed to provide for other persons, sleep, peace, quiet, 10 and repose. Now, the use that was discussed, and I think Mr. Dewey covered that quite 11 nicely, that use, that even if we were going to discuss use, ought to stay on church 12 property. That is why generally they are defined with four walls and a ceiling. If you 13 allow that use to spill over, like sewage onto my property, then I have an issue, and as it 14 turns out, I don't want to listen to the noise. The Pastor mentioned earlier that there 15 weren't any doors on the amphitheater, that is exactly the problem. There are doors on a 16 regular church and I can walk in and they are not locked and I can walk out. As it turns 17 out, I go to a church. And as it turns out, although the Pastor mentioned that they had 18 talked to a number of other Pastors in the area and one he mentioned was John Lodwick 19 at Eastmont Church. I spoke with John Lodwick this evening, just before I came over 20 here. He absolutely insured me, reassured me that he spoke as a person, as a citizen, not 21 as Pastor and certainly not as a Pastor of Eastmont Church. So I think that we need to get 22 some of that clear. And that makes me wonder if the other Pastors that weren't able to 23 testify this evening were speaking of themselves as an individual or not, which Mr. 24 Lodwick has the privilege of doing, obviously. 25 Traffic. The westbound traffic as they turn on to Highway 20, people are Exhibit Page S 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be looking into the sun that time of the evening in the summertime. It is blinding, I drive it all of the time, okay? You've got the large trucks and fast traffic. Everybody is coming out of the desert at 65, 70 mph, and yes they see the little yellow flashing light, but that doesn't mean they start slowing down until they get up by the nursery. Second, if you put it onto Hamby, there is a hill on Hamby that nobody has spoken of. That hill is a blind spot. There was a report of some people being killed just past my property because some folks came off of Highway 20 too fast, over the hill, couldn't stop on the icy roads and hit somebody who was holding up to turn left into a property. The opposite is also true. So, while they are directing traffic onto Hamby from the church location, there is a blind hill and a curve and people are going to be coming from the north going south and I live there. I watch them go by. I moved my house 500 feet off of the road so I didn't have to deal with the traffic on a daily basis. They go very fast over that hill and they are going to have to stop and there is going to be problems associated with that. The message. Nobody has brought this up and I'm sure, I don't mean to be divisive here, I don't need to get any arrows in the back of my head, but I don't need to listen to the message. There are over 400 different sects of Christianity. I believe that I have a right of choice of worship and that I also have a right of choice of religion. Not everybody prescribes to the particular religion of the Christian Life Center and for them to pipe their music and their message into their living room is an abuse of my privilege of choice. Even the Lord gave us all a choice, and we should have that everyday. That is again, why I think they put it inside of a building. Okay, let's see. My recommendation. Well the users, we have talked about the users a little bit and the frequencies. I think it has been covered, but, you know I don't know what it means about non profit, or donated, or church-other churches with ministries. Exhibit Page -b22 of 61 1 Clearly there is a number of churches in the area that support this, does that mean that 2 they are going to be there. If you think that it is only going to be on Tuesday, Thursday, 3 and Friday, in the report, but now we are talking Saturday, and also Pastor Bluebaugh has 4 told me that he is going to do weddings. My experience is that those are generally held 5 on Saturday. So now we are talking Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday, Saturday, and 6 there may be music with all of that and there may be amplification with all of that that 7 needs to be addressed. And if he does that then in one week he will have covered, four of 8 the five times that he is going to do this, or four of the six times or five of the six times 9 that he is going to do this, so are we going to all do it in one week? You, know how is 10 this going to be scattered out? And I think we have asked that question before. My 11 recommendation. My recommendation is that, you know, you know 95% of the people 12 that I contacted are against this. And I did it at random. I don't know the people that live 13 in Providence and Glacier Ridge and the Quail Ridge Road area. And/or I went clear 14 around the whole thing, or the people that live over in the Dobbins. I don't know all of 15 these people. I picked them at random, and that means we are talking about a divisive 16 situation going on here. And so I would submit to Mr. Bluebaugh and his congregation 17 that the same thing that John Lodwick told me. And then I said, "John, if you had 100 18 folks in your community telling you that they did not want whatever it was that you were 19 trying to do, that they would be adversely affected by it, would you pull your proposal or 20 your permit?" and he said, yes, yes I would. Now, that is what I am asking Mr. 21 Bluebaugh to do. He told me, the first thing he told me was he really cared about us, he 22 really cared about the community and all I am suggesting then, is that, if that is true, that 23 1 would request that the community has spoken, not just myself for others this evening, 24 but the 100 testimonies on this petition. I thank you very much and if you have any 25 questions of me, then I would be willing to answer them. Exhibit Page of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: I don't think I do, thank you Mr. Morris. Next person wishing to speak. Sandy McJunkin: Hi. My name is Sandy McJunkin and I live at 21680 Old Red Rd. which is in Dobbin Acres and I'm approximately 3/10 of a mile of that proposed amphitheater or 2000 feet. I am a little more that 750 feet, but I feel that the music will be farther than 750 feet. And I feel it will be in my yard, in my home. I have lived in that house for 28 years. That subdivision has been there at least 29-30 years I think, if not longer. We moved out there for the peace and quiet. When we moved out there, there was hardly anyone there. Growth comes, you cannot stop it. And with that the noise comes, but I enjoy my yard, I enjoy the peace and the quiet and the birds. I am a Christian, I go to church, but I can tell you, I can hear God more clearly in my yard from the peace and quiet and the birds and the things that God has given me than I can sometimes in Church because of babies crying, children coughing, etc. But I love my house, I love my home, I love my yard, I love my neighbors. We have been become very close in our neighborhood and I feel the noises from the amphitheater along with the additional traffic, along with the lighting would encroach on our rights to this peace and quiet on our property. The people attending these concerts have a choice of being a guest, we don't. We have to attend every one of these concerts or leave our home. Where are our rights? One person commented on the transformation of our lives, and I think we will have a big transformation in our lives with this concert and this amphitheater. I did a lot of the knocking on the doors and having the petition signed. I found out there is approximately 55 tax lots in Dobbin Acres and as evidence that you will see in the petition, approximately 95% in Dobbin Acres does not want that amphitheater and the concerns are the noise, the traffic, and the lighting. I know they talked about the lighting, and so I think more it is the traffic and the noise from the Exhibit Page IQ- of 63 1 amphitheater. It wasn't clear, but to me if the stage is going to be on the south side of 2 that building and you are going to have speakers all around that amphitheater from the 3 north to the west, to the east, that is facing my subdivision, and therefore, I am going to 4 hear that. Another thing is that, amphitheater is not a proper use for an EFU zone. And 5 we have concerns over that traffic. There is a major two lane highway with a 55 mph 6 speed limit. There are no turning lanes from Hamby and Ward. And there are no traffic 7 signals without any major improvements, paid by taxpayers there can be some major 8 accident there. Another concern is if there are more cars than available, where will they 9 park? On the highway? Does this mean people would be crossing a major highway with 10 high speed traffic? Does this mean more accidents? And with the high traffic, how will 11 an ambulance or a Sheriff be able to assist. One of the people said that she was a nurse, I 12 think she said and that there were other nurses at the church if there was a need for that, 13 well, I don't have a nurse or a doctor in my house, so when that ambulance or that doctor 14 is trying to get to my house through that traffic, how are they going to get there? Are 15 they going to be delayed. That minute or two delayed and possibly more than a minute or 16 two could mean my family's life. My husband, mine, or my child. The Fire Department 17 is off of Hamby too, it is farther down that road, and although they can take alternate 18 routes from their fire station, instead of going right on Hamby Rd. across Highway 20, 19 down Ward Rd. to my subdivision, that there is a house on fire, has to go an alternate 20 route that is going to delay them to get there and that house is burned to the ground and 21 someone dies, what does that mean? Who's fault is that? So, my concern is I, those are 22 my objections to the amphitheater and I thank you very much. 23 Ms. Green: Thank you Mrs. McJunkin. Is there somebody way in the 24 back? Yes. Come on up. 25 Cindy O'Neal: My name is O'Neal. I live at 61862 Dobbin Rd. in Exhibit Page L of 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dobbin Acres approximately'/2 mile from the amphitheater. One of the points I want to bring up is that when everyone chooses their home, where they want to live, they take things into consideration. We have heard from people tonight that live near the Les Schwab amphitheater and get to hear concerts for free, we've heard from people who live near Mountain View High School and listen to football games whether the like it or not. I chose my home in Dobbin Acres because I did not want to hear those things and I think that should be taken into consideration when we are talking about different neighborhoods, different types of noise impact that people choose to live in certain areas because of the things that those areas provide. Case in point, we are talking about a rural area and people have chosen to live there because it is rural, because it is quiet. I think it would be pretty neat, as a matter of fact to get to hear a concert for free once in a while if it is a concert I choose to hear, but when it is something I have to listen to, and as the point was made earlier, I have to leave my home if I don't want to hear it, my rights have been infringed upon. I would invite anyone to come to my home on a summer evening. You can hear volleyball games going on at the Christian Life Center from my home. If I can hear a picnic or a volleyball game going on, I will certainly hear an amplified concert whether I want to hear it or not. I have concerns like many of the others who have spoken about their restrictions, or perhaps lack thereof. We are hearing things like there will be four to six concerts a year, there may be Sunday morning services. Is there a limit? Will other churches be using this facility? Is there a limit in writing about the number of times it will be used in a week or month? Is there something about the hours that they are allowed to operate? Is there something in writing about a decibel level? I haven't heard anything about that. All I am hearing is, "Well, we don't have time to plan more activities." Well, things change, and if we don't have this in writing now as to what the restrictions are, there's, there's no insurance that it won't become a seven day a week Exhibit Page of 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposal during the entire summer. I am concerned about the traffic. Larry Kine spoke tonight. He is the first person who spoke on behalf of the Christian Life Center. He lives right across the street. I know exactly where he lives. When he first moved into his home. He had a driveway, illegal though it may be, that went directly off of Highway 20 off of his property. The government, I don't know which department it was, many times blocked that driveway with boulders and other things, because it was dangerous. We are talking a right hand turn off of Highway 20 directly onto his property. A right hand turn that the government decided was dangerous, so that has been permanently blocked, that doesn't happen anymore, but that was just one car going onto one property and a right hand turn at that. Now we're talking about many cars. I have heard that the center has said that they will block the entrance off of Highway 20. It only takes one person out of the 2000 people that will be traveling there who doesn't realize that that entrance is blocked, so they travel down Highway 20 and try to make a left hand turn into that blocked driveway. They are going to have to slow down significantly before they realize they can't turn there and we all know that if you slow down significantly on Highway 20, you're going to be rear ended. You are going to have an accident. So I have concerns about that. As far as the idea that this should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, this idea of expansion or use on an EFU zoned property. When you think about it being narrowly defined, in my opinion, I am not opposed to the amphitheater itself, I am opposed to the noise and the traffic that goes with it. An amphitheater is not a typical church use. A typical church use is indoors. Somebody mentioned earlier the synagogue off of Ward Rd. That is probably '/4 mile from my home, if not closer, and there has been no impact from them, I would agree. They do their activities indoors. They do not use amplifiers. That's a big difference. A typical church, if we are talking about narrowly Exhibit of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defining here on what a typical church is, typical churches do not impact neighbors in their own homes. If I have to listen to a concert in my own home, and let's face it on a summer evening, my windows will be open, I am being impacted in my own home. A typical church doesn't do that. It doesn't impact the neighbors in their own homes, especially % mile a way. There is currently noise restrictions on things like barking dogs. I can call the police or Sheriff if a dog barks too much in my neighborhood. If that's not okay, then how come amplified music is okay? I propose that it's not. I have a recommendation as well. I think that the concert is a nice idea. It needs to be indoors, so it doesn't impact the neighbors. We've heard lots of people talk tonight about how the outreach program is good for people, it could save a life, it could save a teenager, that's great, but the county is not in the business of bolstering church membership or bolstering outreach activities. That is not what the county does, so the county needs to take into consideration the definitions we are trying to enforce. Ms. Green: Thank you Mrs. O'Neal. Way in the back, sir, come on up. Do we still have room on the sign up sheet? Pat Brown: Yep. Ms. Green: Okay. We have more if we need it. Pat: I am Pat Brown and I would like to thank Mr. Morris for going out and contacting neighborhoods because I live in Quail Ridge subdivision. I live right off of Hamby. I estimate probably about less than a mile away from the blast zone and I drive Hamby every morning and every afternoon when I go for a workout and I drive past the east side of the property and I am an observant guy. I never noticed a land, you know, a land proposed use signage that was going on, and so I was really taken back. And when I started to inquire about the process of notifying land owners I was shocked to learn that it was a 750 foot boundary that would determine who would get a mailed Exhibit Page of 67 1 notification. I know that, that has been mentioned before, but that was only 17 letters that 2 were sent out and something that effects so many people. Just this afternoon, I finally 3 went, because I only learned about this on Saturday, I drove, after work I drove to the 4 Christian Life Center and looked at what we're talking about. And it is an interesting 5 area geographically. And I know that you guys have probably been over this, but I was 6 taken myself when I saw it. It is a collapsed lava tube with maybe a 12 foot cliff like 7 embankment on the south side and that is going to have a steel roof on it and be a stage 8 and there is a gradual upsloping hillside that, where people, you know will be seated to 9 participate in the activities there. My take on it, was that it looked like a giant speaker 10 directed due north, directly towards our subdivision (laughing). And that is the 11 perception that I had, that this thing wasn't going to be contained. The original, the 12 Christian Life Center building is to the east and in no way would impede any projection 13 of sound from that stage. And so I began to think about another situation where this 14 came up in our neighborhood. About 12 years ago when I sat in this room, not in this 15 room, I guess this is a new room, but we were talking about Bend Parks and Recreation, 16 putting in a new park across the street from us, Big Sky. And it started in the spirit in a 17 young, I guess the Parks had always had property over there, but really what motivated 18 was the spirit of youth, just like this event, and you can't discount that because that is 19 vital to our community, it just has to be channelled the right way and I applaud Mr. 20 Bluebaugh here for his efforts with the youth, because I think that that is crucial, but I 21 think that sometimes the zealousness needs to be put into reality by those that have to 22 stay and remain around these environments and the generations that will go on and be 23 effected. Such is the case with Big Sky. And the big concern there with the 24 neighborhood was amplified sound and night use. And also knowing that that property 25 was zoned MUA which is a notch more flexible that EFU as you know, but it was a real Exhibit 68 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concern. It is also out of district, but you know, we recognize the utility of having the park developed and the, actually Parks and Rec. had pretty grandiose ideas of what they were going to put over there and what kind of facilities and in this quorum we are having today, was back to reality, and that was to support the spirit of these zoning laws and what they meant for Oregonians and what makes Oregon such a special place, that is, you know, what was it in '77 when we decided that, you know, we didn't want to be like California, we didn't want to have farming areas turn into Metropolitan areas that were developed around the spoke of a wheel and were insane to drive through. We wanted communities where populations were concentrated so that development could be orderly and the infrastructure would, would, could be put in at the greatest efficiency in terms of cost to the people that were paying for it, the taxpayers and then preserve the benefits of rural areas and keep them natural so that people could escape from the urban areas and at the same time get the biggest bang from the tax buck. I think that's exactly what we still have here and that, that just like in the early 90's when our neighborhood worked it out with Parks and Rec. regarding Big Sky, I think the same, the same considerations need to be made now, because that is where the lines were drawn as to what the original intentions of EFU and MUA were and why we all lived there, why we chose to live there as we did. You know, I think that once again, I am sort of torn up here because I feel like by speaking out like this, that I am not a Christian. I am a Christian. My boys have gone to the Christian Life Center and my friend's boys have gone there and it is a real attractive place for youths and once again, I really appreciate that, but I think that the zealousness needs to be brought in and they can be part of the community just like all other churches are, just like all other people are excited about what they are doing. Just like baseball teams that want to have amplified sound at all costs because they are excited about it, but it has to be brought into some social order so that everybody can live with it. Exhibit Page Z of 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You know once again, I think that the message could be brought to the youth that Pastor I Bluebaugh is ministering without raising hell with the neighbors. Ms. Green: Yes sir, come on up. Gary Dodd: Okay, my name is Gary Dodd and I live at 21681 Old Red I Rd. there in the Dobbin Acres area, and I know everyone is getting a little tired tonight I and I won't belabor a whole lot of things here tonight. We've heard a lot of testimony back and forth this evening, I think. I I think I might qualify myself, being able to speak a little bit about this, the fact that I was I an Oregon State Trooper here for 28 years, the last 14 of which I served here in the Bend areas. So I am very familiar with traffic, traffic flow problems and all that kind of thing. The one thing that no one has addressed here this evening, everybody is talking about the present. And I have been here now in Bend since 1977 and I have seen this town go from about 25,000 to the new sign out there I saw yesterday it is 65 some thousand people. Probably the biggest thing that we have to worry about and there is noise and this type stuff, of course I am getting deaf now, so the noise does not bother me quite as bad (laughing). But that is my own problem. The main thing is that if you've lived around here long, you've seen 27`h St. down here go from a two lane back road to what it is now, and I think everybody in this room knows what I am talking about without me going into it. Now the traffic is being pushed as an arterial into Hamby Rd., Ward Rd., and even on out to Gosney Rd. If you are around this area and you really watch the traffic flow, which I was trained to do by the State of Oregon, you will see the trends going that way. And I know during different events out at the Christian Life Center of late, I have seen traffic coming out of there and whenever they come out there is quite a bit of flow on 20. Highway 20 is a high speed area. I have worked out there over the years. I have hit speeds of 95, 100, 110 mph coming off the desert. I think everyone here has seen people Exhibit Page = of 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fly through, out there through the intersection and stuff. What we really need to think about, I believe is not immediately right now, but what's it going to be like in two years, a year from now, two years from now, three years from now? Because this area that we're talking about is building fast. They are building apartments out east out there, they are putting in more stores and stuff and we're gonna have to look at the whole picture of not exactly even what's right now, but what it is going to be whenever we make a decision on something like this. And I think the Christian Life Center out there is a wonderful place, you know. I go to church myself, not there, but, I would, I suppose if I wanted to. I think probably the people out there at that church are first rate citizens, they are wonderful people and they are trying to do great things, but we have to look at the total picture I believe and mainly, I believe like I say, and I think I can speak as an expert on traffic. If you get an event out there with 600 some cars plus more, whatever, you are going to get people that are going to turn in there. I don't care if you block the road off. They are going to go out there, turn in, make U-turns in the middle of the highway. I've worked these kinds of events before and the American motoring public are really, well, I don't think I have to go into that (laughing). You, know, you know, I've learned over the years, people will do anything, and so I don't think, I don't think blocking entrances and stuff like that is solve some people's problems, but I do know that dumping all of that traffic out of an event like that out on Hamby Rd. will make it impossible, totally impossible for traffic to even flow in that area, for a time at least while that is going on. I have said my peace, and I will get out of here, and hopefully we can get out of here sometime tonight. Ms. Green: Thank you, Mr. Dodd. Yes sir in the back, along the aisle. That's you, yep. While he is signing in, can I see a show of hands as how many of you still want to speak tonight? Would like to? Come on get em' up there so I can see em'. Exhibit Page of 71 1 Okay, thank you. 2 Joe Deeringer: I live at 61841 Dobbin Rd. in Bend. My backyard is 3 about 200 feet south of Old Red Rd., but it is also directly unobstructed by anything to 4 this, to the Christian Life Center. And I know that the noise will be a problem, but that's 5 not even my, my big problem here is that a concert by its, in its own definition is a form 6 of entertainment. And regardless of what anybody says that they're trying to create here, 7 what we're ending up with is an entertainment venue. And I don't believe that that has 8 even been addressed. It needs to be addressed. I'm concerned mainly about the traffic 9 and the noise. Noise carries fantastically out in that area and everyone that lives out there 10 is aware of that. There have been several accidents annually at the corner of Hamby, and 11 Ward, and Highway 20. Several accidents annually at the corner of Hamby and Neff. 12 Any amount of increase in traffic from what we have already is going to increase any 13 occurrence of that. And I am concerned about that. My big concern is the noise and 1 14 just, I did not find out about this until I was informed by somebody that walked around in 15 my neighborhood on Friday. So I would suggest that the county needs to overlook their 16 rules of notification when it comes to something that has to do with noise, because I live 17 2 miles, or a mile and a half from Mountain View High school and I can hear football 18 games very clearly, so I think something needs to be done about that, but my biggest 19 problem is that I just found out about this four days ago and I can look and see that in 20 their plans they are stating that they were looking to have three or four events a year and I 21 have already heard of umptine more events already with just them talking amongst 22 themselves about what they might do, so I just simply want to say that I don't feel enough 23 consideration has been given to this plan at all and I would hope that we would be given 24 some time, and everyone given some time to try to come to a plan that may possibly work 25 or at least, or delay it until they can prove to me that it is not going to effect me and my Exhibit Page J of 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 life. Thank you. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Deeringer. Okay, in the back on the aisle there. Yes, you. Jeff Drutman: My name is Jeff Drutman and I live at 62526 Quail Ridge Rd. One of my neighbors came up a little while ago. If you look at where the amphitheater is and where the stage would be and therefore where the speakers would be and where they are pointed by direct line, they would head to my neighborhood. We are about a mile, a little less than a mile away. And I don't have a lot to add. To everyone, I agree with everyone who has spoken in opposition and each of them expressed points that are my points also, but just a couple of things I wanted to say. I live about as far from this amphitheater as the Pastor lives from the Les Schwab amphitheater. He himself said that he got to listen to concerts for free. So, regardless of the fact that the people may be sitting below grade, the speakers will certainly be above grade, but even if the speakers were low, unless you seal a building shut, the noise gets out. And there is no question in my mind, that I will be listening to these concerts whether I like it or not. I have no problem with the concept and what the church is trying to do, but I think this is an infringement. The Pastor himself, said that, when you asked him about the amplification system he would use for Sunday morning services, he said, "Well, that is nothing like they use for these events." Which means that the scale, you got my drift, we are talking about rock concerts here and rock concerts by their nature are loud. There is no acoustic music, it is all electrified music. I also heard the lawyer for the Christian Life Center described some of the laws about what, how a church can expand and what uses their church can use, playgrounds for children etc., etc. And she went through a fairly lengthy list, but nowhere on that list did it talk about outdoor amplifiers or amplified sound. I think that in my estimation, this sort of, in terms of church expansion, this goes a little bit Exhibit _ Page -L of 73 1 too far, actually quite a few steps too far. 2 There have been two references to the Jewish synagogue which is on 3 Ward Rd. '/4 or''/2 mile or so south of Highway 20, well I can speak to that because I am 4 a member there. Our conditional use permit is that we cannot have even a radio out in 5 the parking lot, let alone a PA speaker system. And in fact if you can hear the sound of 6 amplification from inside the synagogue and the neighbors can hear it outside, that is a 7 violation. So, talk about restrictive. And, and there is a landscaped yard there, but it is 8 the typical church type landscaped yard. It is a place for the kids to play, there are 9 swings, there are places to-there is a big ball field there. The typical church uses. In 10 my opinion an amphitheater is entertainment and it does not constitute in my mind how I 11 could ever see it constituting an expansion of a church. 12 There was reference made to the number of concerts four to five, well it 13 would not be cost effective to build this huge project and have four to five concerts out of 14 365 days a year, so from a logical standpoint I could not imagine that that would stay, 15 and if it were approved and there were no restrictions, I think over time, maybe not 16 immediately, but over time I think we would see considerably more activity. My, just to 17 finish up, my two other things. A couple of other things. One is the notification. I 18 recognize now, sitting here, that the law is 750 feet notice for churches and church 19 expansions. And that is reasonable for a church and a church expansion I agree with that, 20 but when it comes to this and where the noise is so far reaching, and will, not only hit my 21 neighborhood, but will hit neighborhoods north of me, considerably north of me, l 22 believe that we should be notified. I happened to just be walking in my neighborhood, in 23 my yard when Mr. Nelson drove through and saw me and spoke with me. I happened to 24 speak with one of my neighbors, who spoke earlier tonight. That's the only way we 25 knew. I didn't see the notice in the Bulletin. I saw the article just this morning, but that Exhibit Page n of 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I might have been too late if I had plans tonight to come here. By the same token, if there I was some continuance here and we were going to have another hearing, and we had I notification to my neighborhood and the neighborhoods north and slightly west, I could tell you that there would be standing room only, in fact we probably couldn't fit the people in the room that would show up for that. And actually I have not even had time to talk to the other 20 or so neighbors that I have, direct neighbors who I know personally. I didn't even have time. The precedent that this sets is another thing that concerns me and it's been addressed before. To me, if I had an EFU property and I knew that someone was building an amplified, an outdoor stadium, bringing in outside entertainment and charging an admission, lets say, then I would feel a right to do that on my own property. And I am not saying that I would do that personally, but you could certainly make a case and it would be very hard to argue that someone didn't have the right to do that on their own EFU property. That bothers me. Also just preserving the rural character. One of the people from this Dobbin neighborhood spoke about this being-She made a choice to move to this side of Bend because of the lifestyle, specifically the sound. And I think it is different when you move to a dense neighborhood you've got to expect you are going to have noise. If you move to a neighborhood near the Les Schwab amphitheater you're already getting noise before they come in. All the houses, most of the houses around Mountain View High School, that has been referred to tonight, were built after Mountain View High School was built. It was built and there was desert around there. So you knew it was there when you came. We didn't know that this amphitheater and the amplified sound was there. And I can tell you I would not buy a house in my neighborhood if I knew. Because the one thing I do when I buy a house is I drive around and I am more concerned about what Exhibit Page of 75 1 is around me than what is necessarily in that house because that to me, that creates the 2 I environment more than anything else. 3 And just to finish up, the traffic is an issue. Neff and Hamby which is 4 very close to my house is one of the more dangerous intersections in Bend. There have 5 been more fatalities and more critical injuries. I am a physician and I see that and I am in 6 I touch with the ambulances and the air lifes and if that intersection is impacted more than 7 it already is, it could be a real danger. The blind curve that Mr. Nelson talked about is 8 another issue as you travel south. There is going to be a line up of cars facing south 9 trying to make a left turn. There will be a line of cars facing north trying to make a right 10 turn if all the traffic is diverted as you said from Highway 20 onto Hamby. They will 11 come over that rise and encounter a stopped group of cars waiting to make a left turn and 12 that is a recipe for disaster. Thank you very much for letting me speak tonight. 13 I Ms. Green: Thank you Dr. Drutman. Yes, Ma'm in the back (in- 14 1 audible). 15 Lynne Connelly: It'll probably take longer to write this than to say. I 16 just find it ironic, I agree with everything that was said-- 17 Ms. Green: Would you introduce yourself, please. 18 Lynne: I'm sorry, Lynne Connelly. I live on Erickson Rd. over by the 19 Bend airport. We are about a mile and a half away. I know we are going to hear the 20 noise. I know Elkhorn Estates is about a mile from Les Schwab and I know they hear the 21 noise. I have a lot of objections that were already raised tonight. My one thing I do want 22 to say tonight is that I find it ironic that the first case on the agenda tonight questions 23 selling 30 goats and some hay from farm property. They are questioning whether that is 24 appropriate use and we're being asked to assume that a 2000 seat amphitheater in EFU is 25 appropriate, that is absurd. Exhibit Page of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: Thank you Ms. Connelly. Yes, Ma'm. Sandra Veeck: Thank you for your patience. My name is Sandra Veeck. Ms. Green: Could you spell your last name. Sandra: V as in Victor, E-E-C-K. I live at 21651 Old Red Rd. and I have a rental on Old Red Rd. also. I have had people that were interested in renting the house that said it was too close to Ward Rd. and too much noise, so they wouldn't rent it. If that was a problem, who knows, you know what would be happening with the proposed amphitheater. I agree again, with just about everything that has been said in opposition. I do have a couple things I wanted to ask. Somebody was talking about what's happening in the future. Is there any guarantee that in the future the church is not going to decide that they can roof this over and have things year round. While it might cut down on the noise, it is certainly not going to cut down on the traffic problem. And someone else, the attorney for the church stated that meetings of less than 3000 people were allowed, but nowhere does it say that they are allowed to have music, noise, or anything of that nature. I just want to reiterate I moved there for the peace and quiet and I am with others in saying that I would not buy there, if I knew that I was going to be subjected to that level of noise that we will be getting. My house is '/z mile from due south west. That's it. Thank you very much. Ms. Green Thank you. All the way in the back, sir. Come on up. Anthony Kupelian: My name is Anthony Kupelian, I live at 21665 Old Red Rd. To be honest with you, when I came here I had no intention of speaking. I go to Eastmont Church and I am an Evangelical Christian. And I agree with the opposition. I highly recommend that the church from Evangelical Christian perspective withdraw their proposal to put up this facility on the grounds that why would you want to upset your local, your immediate community where Eastmont, it is all we can do is try to reach out Exhibit Page of 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I and not offend our neighbors, so I highly recommend that Christian Life Center would just withdraw their proposal from a Christian perspective. That is all I have to say. Ms. Green: Thank you Mr. Kupelian. Go ahead. I saw one other hand. Kendra Vogt: I sat there so long, Oh, I am Kendra Vogt 61976 Bronco Ln. Dobbin Acres. Ms. Green: Is that V-O-G-T? Kendra: V-O-G-T. I have some disjointed notes here. I am not going to belabor anything, because everybody has said everything that I wanted to do. But, I picked up on a few things that I don't quite understand, so I am going to ask a few questions with this. Mr. Rowles, I take it is the engineer. The contractor that is already out there working on a project that there is no permit for is in Minnesota, but Mr. Rowles must know that you need to get a permit before you dig and before you go through all of this extensive work that they've done. And obviously if they go ahead and build it, then the County is going to say, "Okay, fine" not knowing that there would be this much opposition. When they were talking about the screening. The pine trees in that picture look like they are about 50 years old. Where we live, pine trees don't grow, we get Scrub Juniper and it takes forever for them to grow. So, if they think they are screening with vegetation, wrong, there isn't any. So, let's see. On the, when he was talking about all this running out to ODOT and talking to them and the revised traffic analysis and all this work he did, I wish we had all known about this project, we would have all been at ODOT. ODOT won't do anything until people get killed and the statistics go, "whoa." And the State of Oregon says, "Oh, we've got to do something out there." Highway 20, I have to go up Ward Rd., turn left, to go west into town. It has gotten so dicey I don't go :hat way anymore. I go down Bear Creek, hit 27th at the light and go up to the highway ind then go. My daughter works at St. Charles and I am at the facility now and then and Exhibit Page -19 of 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going across that highway anymore, its just, I can't do it, it's scary. And I never thought about the hill that the gentleman brought up, but the hill before you get to Buckingham School, it's blind. When you are coming towards the highway, it is a hill and a corner and it's blind. A lot of people don't even know there is a stop sign coming up. So, that is a big, and like Gary Dodd brought up, 20 years down the road what is this going to look like? You've got to think like that. I noticed something when Mr. Rowles was talking about the sanitation there, that the people attending the amphitheater cannot use the church facility restrooms, so they have to have porta-potties. Obviously then, they don't consider that a church, which none of us do. The attorney, Ms. Finch, started quoting an ORS statute and I didn't write down the number of it, but it's in your record and all of the activities that you can have at a church, and we all know what those are. Weddings, and wakes, and this is not going to be a four time a year deal. This is going to work into something just like one of the members of the church said, "We have 4th of July activities", well Pilot Butte will be shooting off, the amphitheater will be shooting off, on the 4th of July. Okay, I just know I can see the use growing because all of these other little ministers from their own little congregations here in Bend are going to want to use it. And no, they're not going to lease it out to them, but they are all going to want to use it. It is a church activity, therefore, nothing in this says it has to be the members of the First Christian Church that use it. So, I can see days and days for this going on. The noise is another thing. I had a house fire three years ago and thank heavens that the Hamby station got to my house when they did and they didn't have to fight their way through 600 cars. I don't understand the cost of building something like this when they already said they are going under financially. So, why are they taking this on, and yet they are not going to charge to use it? I can't weigh that, it doesn't come out. The speaker that spoke about Air Life Exhibit Page f~-Q of 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 saving lives, you bet they do, but they don't hover over your house for three and four hours. They blip, blip and they're gone. I don't know why they couldn't save some of the same lives inside of a building. I don't want to attend their church every Sunday and in the evening, and like the minister said, "We're trying to bring in the younger people". And the younger people like loud, loud music and rock. They may not go for the gospel, they may want all of the hard rock. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it shouldn't be forced upon us. Thanks. Ms. Green: (inaudible) Rudy Molzan: Thanks for hanging in there. My name is Rudy Molzan, its M-O-L-Z-A-N. I live at 61775 Tomahawk St. which is south of the church. First off, my wife and I belong to several churches, we go to different ones, so I have nothing against the church and I don't want to get into that. But, I am a former law enforcement officer for 31 years and traffic was my specialty. And I plan on, since I just learned of this project this morning, going to ODOT and to Deschutes County and discussing the traffic situation and the traffic impact there. A lot of people brought up a lot of good points. And one of them I thought was very valid was about the Jewish church synagogue down the street there and the restrictions that the county has imposed upon them to not even allow them to have a radio outside. I thought that that was very informative, so back and forth, how can we allow on this EFU property to have an amphitheater. And I don't know if, I have lived here for awhile, and I don't know of any other churches on EFU land that has outside concerts of this magnitude. I totally agree with everybody else, that you know, a church should be a good neighbor, should be inside and not impacting adversely the neighborhood. But, my major concern is the traffic. My brother law enforcement officer, I hope will join me in going down to DOT and Deschutes County. He brought up some very valid points that the traffic Exhibit Page 5aj- of C?S- 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impact on Ward Rd., Hamby, and Highway 20 would be very adverse to what is going on today: So that is all I have to say, thank you. Ms. Green: Anyone else, speaking in opposition? Okay, excuse me, As I mentioned earlier, I will allow the applicant a brief period for rebuttal. I emphasize the word brief given the hour and I will be leaving the record open for a period of time which we can talk about so you might want to keep that in mind when you formalize your rebuttal. I also want to hear from Cathy White before we close the oral testimony tonight, so if you want to come up and give whatever rebuttal you want to on the oral record, you can do that now. Applicant (Charlie Rowles We are extremely grateful for your patience and your willingness to work through this matter with us. In terms of rebuttal, I would like to offer that probably the one thing that was not discussed earlier, and it seems that we probably should have is a comment about the traffic handling plan that people do not seem to have an understanding and that is because nobody's had a chance to look at it. We provided it into the record today and it was approved through the ODOT people. First thing that I would like to explain, is that its going to be in the neighborhood of 650- 675 vehicles over an hour and a half entry and an hour and a half exit, so that rate roughly configures to about, I don't know, 450 vehicles per hour or for about six to eight vehicles per minute. Now if you look at the clock, that would mean one vehicle about every 10 seconds and I'm not going to spend the time watching that second hand go by for 10 seconds, and that is during the peak flow is about one vehicle every 8-10 seconds through that intersection. Number two thing is that during the entrance and the exit of each event, we will be providing lighted flaggers as noted on the plan, in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices, and I am certain that any of the Police Officers at all levels are familiar with that book and that is exactly what that plan was set up in accordance Exhibit Page of 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that, based on the speeds of the vehicles in the neighborhood on Highway 20. So I welcome their, their investigation with the ODOT staff and if they would like I will be more than glad to provide the names of the individuals that helped me through those issues. Okay, we are more than willing to contract or obtain the services of a sound engineer. I am not a sound engineer, I am a civil engineer and we, like I indicated that sound engineer is out of town in Minnesota and since we only got this Staff Report last Wednesday afternoon, nobody, including ourselves, had any idea of the depth of the concerns in the Staff Report. So, that being said, we are all kind of in the same boat as far as notice goes and the opportunity to present our information. Okay, one of the comments by Mr. Morris, about one of our neighbor's Tom Collier, we do have a statement here written, and a verbal conversation written down, that he is in absolute support of what we are doing. He was the one member who did attend the meeting in September at our decision to notify our neighbors. Nobody said we had to, we were trying to do the right thing. We thought that was more than well ahead of the schedule. We knew the county would issue notice, so we did have Mr. Collier come and we have a written statement that he is in support of that. As far as any parking on the highways related to any particular function, one of the plans, or the plan that we have provided, provides for over 750 vehicles to park on site. We can't forsee that we would ever exceed that and if they did, they are still not allowed to park on the highways or the -ounty road because the authorities would come along and tow them away. The ODOT specifically said that you can't allow any parking out there along your highway frontage ind we would very seriously, I mean we would be very strong about that and disallow hat. In the traffic handling plan addressing that entrance to Highway 20, we deal with >eople turning left in there every Sunday and every Wednesday night on a regular basis. Exhibit PageQaLof9~8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 Lots and lots of vehicles do make that left turn east bound on Highway 20, make that left turn in there. For our traffic handling during the event, we will put a barricade right across the entrance to that driveway at the highway and post signs back up the road 500 feet in accordance with the MUTCD that would indicate no left turn ahead. So if they see that, they're coming down the road, they will have to go down to Erickson, come back around and go all the way around the block. Okay, as far as the additional uses, I think there has been quite a misinterpretation that the additional uses were going to create sounds and have the same kind of volumes as related to the four to six events a year. I'm sorry, but a wedding doesn't constitute that kind of volume. Most of that is all acoustical. It might have a guitar hooked up to amp. and one speaker, but since we don't have 2000 people at a wedding, because any of us wish we would have that many friends, but (in-audible) yeah, could, I guess, yeah. Anyway, the weddings are no, its like having one in your backyard. So we don't anticipate that those uses are going to be an imposition on the sound issues that seem to be the predominate element of tonight's concerns. Okay. I guess that is about all I have and I'll turn the mic. over to Liz Fancher. Liz Fancher: Thank you. Initially, if it relates to sound, sound isn't very directly regulated in the county code. It is however, directly regulated by DEQ and those DEQ regulations apply to any amplified sound or other amplified sound that is conducted in the county. So there is a whole other body of law that relates to that and will regulate the sound. It obviously will need to be conducted in compliance with the law. The Ms. Green: Do you know if DEQ still has a sound, a noise department (in-audible) Liz? Liz: I don't know. Exhibit Page _F;?~of 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Charlie: They do not. Ms. Green: (inaudible) Charlie: It was. Liz: Okay, but they also have DEQ regulations and I think if we have a sound engineer look at it, they can look at those standards or, you know those levels and commit to operate within the law as far as DEQ regulation as a condition of approval. So I guess the main issues, I think there is some confusion about the proposal that was presented. The proposal was to have a certain number of events that would be using the amphitheater that would be a larger size. The rest of the use would be the normal, typical church service use, wedding activities, things of that nature. This church normally does also, offer concerts. This would allow them to have a greater capacity than they currently have for their existing concerts. So, the idea is that the existing church uses that occur in the church building will be able to be conducted in a larger venue and that it would be outdoors. Nothing in the law says that you can't conduct an activity outdoors. And some people have typified the use as being as well this is amphitheater use, well, no it's an amphitheater structure, that's a physical structure or place, but it is an outdoor area where the activity is church, is intended to be a church use, just the same activities that happen indoors. The law 215.441 keys to uses of the worship services, religion classes, weddings, those types of uses, funerals, child care, meal programs as being related church uses customarily associated with religious activity and it is a list that is not exhaustive and a list that is giving examples of types of things that churches do. And those worship services, fairly clearly under the law are protected and are allowed to occur on their property and are a part of a church. And in this instance, the state has defined a church use more broadly than it has other uses. It is not just defined as a church or a graveyard, or cemetery is the word they used. It is supplemented with ORS215.441 where they Exhibit Page -GLC~~, Of 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussed what is allowed in the area. I think that was argued to the contrary by Mr. Dewey and we disagree with his position on that obviously. I guess I'll go back sort of to the first comments. Oh, okay. Also Mr. Dewey argued that the use, it is not really defined as a use it is really defined in a different way that it relates to a building because the word facilities is used in the statutory scheme and definition. We disagree with that particular position that the word facility means building. I looked up the word facility in the dictionary and it can include things like transit facilities, utility facilities, public facilities needed to support development. It has a much broader term, it is not a building specific use. It can be water and sewer facilities that are in the ground. A parking lot is a facility, the property itself is their facility. The law then keys into a tract so that the church can't go buy more property and expand on it, but if they have an existing church on a tract of land, they can essentially put, expand within their existing tract. (in-audible voice) Yeah, and also in the LUBA case there is a quote where there is a quote where the Supreme Court of Oregon had concluded that the word church applies not only to building use for worship, but to any body of Christians holding and propagating a particular form of belief. And it says that it is not absolutely just the building and they understand that. So, we think looking at the law in this particular setting that you have a statute that particularly protects a church and its related activities in the State's statutory scheme that there is an intention to protect and include uses like this, and I think it is really absolutely clear because the worship practices and the wedding uses that are proposed, clearly fall within this list. And the list doesn't talk about where you actually conduct it, they talk about what the use is and that it should be allowed. It says, "The county shall allow". Not just should, "shall allow that reasonable use of the real property" , not of the buildings "for those activities customarily associated with the practice of religious activities." Many people obviously hold weddings outdoors. It is Exhibit Page ~ of 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really, really typical. And the focus of what is typical or customary doesn't relate necessarily to where it is conducted. It relates to whether the use is customarily practiced as part of the church use. Because a number of people have argued that the real issue is whether or not it is customary to have an amphitheater. The issue is whether or not it is customary to have religious classes, worship services, weddings, funerals, and musical performances, that perform musical messages, plays, and things of that nature. The statute does not regulate the forum, the particular forum. Additionally Mr. Dewey argued that the conditional use criteria, some old conditional use language in the county code should be applied and this language was not identified by the staff as an applicable approval criteria and they were correct to not apply it. The Brentmar decision, Supreme Court decision says that uses that are listed ORS283, well actually it was 213 in that case, but 213 and 283 have exactly the same uses as it relates to churches listed. It says that, "any use that is listed in subsection 1 is a use permitted outright. The county cannot adopt additional more restrictive regulations." So to prohibit or change the nature of a use from a permitted use to a conditional use. So any of those provisions were cited by Mr. Dewey are not applicable and are not applicable approval and should not be applied to deny this application. Also, I really, -my understanding of reading the cases that were cited by Mr. Dewey indicated that the churches were denied. I believe the Clackamas County, 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County was in approval by the local government body and that that was reversed on appeal, so I understood that to be somewhat different than he stated. (in- audible voice) Yeah, and both the county code and the state statute say churches they use that term when they list what use is allowed in a particular zoning district. Oh, additionally people had argued that the county code that defines churches as being buildings. That a church is a physical building. The county code has a definition section Exhibit Page of _ 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that is section 18.04 and it lists the definition for a church. A church is defined as an institution that has a tax exempt status. It is not defined as a building. It is a group of people, a corporate entity that has a corporate tax exempt status and that operates as a nonprofit. That is how it is defined by the county code. Additionally I think, in this case I think it is pretty important to think about what can be done on the property without a permit and what can be done on the property with a permit. In this instance the applicants use without a permit, it can conduct these uses on the property. Certainly it makes sense to put them in more contained environment on the property and to have it regulated in terms of landscaping and noise reduction and have noise reductions on this if the applicant develops this through consultation with a noise expert than it is to just have events that are mass gathering events on the property, events larger than the size discussed here could be operated on the property, over 3000 is an allowed use. You can conduct those activities. You go through a different review process, but certainly under 3000, those uses can be operated and that is what the applicant is proposing here this evening. Also the EFU zone itself allows a lot of noise activity. In this area, I think there isn't a great deal of farm use, I think there is a great deal of residential use in the area. There is some farm use, but farm machinery can be operated in the early morning hours and be extremely loud. There are certain kinds of agricultural uses that, or animal uses that can also create a fair amount of noise also. So I don't think that all EFU activities are quiet activities. As mentioned before, Park uses are allowed in this setting. They can have Park development and Mr. Brown testified that those are noisy, or at least implied that those are noisy and disruptive. They have ball games and things like that and gatherings of people and lights and amplified sound and things of that nature. So, I think those are basically all of my points. Thank you for your patience. Exhibit Page 00 of _ 87 1 (John Bluebaugh?): First off I want to thank you for your patience in 2 this and for all of you it has been a long evening and a long day actually. But to our 3 neighbors I do want to state to you that in no way have we ever tried to deceive you or be 4 deceptive in any way, in our heart or in our actions we have tried to do everything above 5 board and to literally cross every t and dot every 1. 1 do understand your concerns, every 6 single one of them and I don't, I don't discount them at all. I do, I would like to address 7 just a couple things. Number one, as far as the stage is concerned and projection. There 8 will not be speakers all the way around the amphitheater. It is just the stage facing north. 9 The stage itself, actually the ground floor of the amphitheater is approximately 14 feet 10 below grade. The stage itself will be roughly 12 feet, the stage floor. That in itself is 11 going to create a sound barrier. In relation to Les Schwab. We all know that Les Schwab 12 is really not an amphitheater it is a grassy knoll with a stage and there is nothing, literally 13 to block sound. As far as our trees. Pine trees were drawn for illustrative purposes. 1 14 understand pine trees grow extremely slow. We will plant more mature trees. We are not 15 going to plant saplings. Our intent is to try to create not just a sound barrier, but a visual 16 impact barrier. Not just on the stage, but on the west end of the amphitheater as you 17 noted area, Ms. Green in your findings when you went out there that the terracing is 18 viewable from the highway. As you pull up you can see through the west end. There 19 will be substantial amounts of trees and shrubberies. Not only on the berm, but around 20 the amphitheater to block that line of sight as well. And then one last thing. The bottom 21 line I think a lot of this is a lot of miscommunication and a lot of preconceived notions 22 that we have a tendency to come up with when our emotions run high, but I do want to 23 address a couple things. Four outreach events a year. That is the larger events. Other 24 than that there will be nothing different than what we do on a normal basis already as a 25 church. It will just be outside instead of inside on occasion, not all of the time. Exhibit Page 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Obviously we are not going to be out there in 100° weather getting sunburns. Most of our people of our church wouldn't come if we did that, but there will be occasion when we I are outdoors doing our Sunday services and also as far as the weddings. I mean it is no different than doing a wedding up at Shevlin Park. One thing, one reason we would offer the amphitheater for weddings is if any of you have tried to rent the hall down at you know, Sunriver, just to turn, just to open the door it is about 10,000 dollars and it is very costly for young couples and for families and that is one way we can be a blessing to the community and it is not going to be exorbitant fees for them to have a wedding in a beautiful setting. And again, as Charlie addressed, weddings are very, very low level as far as amplification, mainly just for the Pastor and, and some music that might be played live, but very low. I, as far as a contractor. Someone stated earlier that we have a contractor who has been doing our work and is in Minnesota. None of the work that we have performed on our site has been contracted out. Everything has been done by volunteers in our church and we haven't-the only thing that we have paid for is some materials and some equipment that we have had to get to do some of the things, but all of the labor has been volunteer and we have no contractor. I think there was a misunderstanding in that the gentleman that is in Minnesota right now is a sound engineer who deals with a festival in Jacksonville Oregon called the Brit Festival. That festival conducts approximately 52 events a year and they are right in the middle of town. I don't know if you are familiar with that setting, but there were stipulations put on them concerning the decibels and projection of the sound and this particular individual developed the equipment used in monitoring and measuring the decibels and keeping sound projection at the levels that were stipulated to them by the community and so that is the man that we have tracked down to talk to him about the sound issues. And again it's, you know, we don't want to be a curse to the community in any way, we want to be Exhibit Page Ja of CIE_ 89 1 an outreach, you know, and a church that loves our community. We love our neighbors 2 and we've I think proven over 26 years on that property that we have been good 3 neighbors. And as Charlie stated, Tom Collier is one of our neighbors. He is a large land 4 owner around our church to the south and to the east. He is the only individual that 5 showed up in September and he was not in opposition. He was absolutely for us and he 6 called me today and stated that such, again he couldn't be here tonight, but as I stated to 7 you, he would send a letter if need be. The last thing I want to address is that we are not 8 going under financially as a church. I didn't state that. I stated that some of the outreach 9 events, the concerts that we do are not for profit and they are not making a profit. Our 10 church is very much not going under. We are debt free and we are very solvent as a 11 church and so again, my point in stating that was to state that this is not a for profit or a 12 fund raiser. One of the ladies had called me a week ago and said, "You know, I know 13 churches are hurting financially and you are probably doing this as a gimmick to raise 14 funds". And I was trying to state that so it would be clear that it is not about raising 15 funds. We don't need the funds and this amphitheater, it is large and it is extensive and if 16 we were to actually contract this out and build it in the real world by real money, would 17 probably cost about million and a half. And I have asked contractors that. We are 18 spending roughly $150,000.00 to build this thing because we are doing it in volunteer 19 labor and that money was donated as well. It is not even coming out of our general 20 budget. I just wanted to state that because we are not going under. It is not about 21 finances. It is about outreach. We don't have a contractor that we've hired and, and, and 22 honestly, you know, not only does the law or the ruling that LUBA cited from 1914 in the 23 Oregon Supreme Court. It states that, you know, that the word church applies to not just 24 a building, but a gathering of Christian believers that have assembled for the purpose of 25 worship. I think it is important to understand that even the Bible states that. The Bible Exhibit Page C 90 1 doesn't refer to buildings. Church buildings were constructed much later after the Bible 2 was written and the church is the people. It is not the building and so as far as definition. 3 And then the outhouses that we are bringing in, not because we are trying to cause a 4 separation of this being not the church, but because we want to be sensitive to our septic 5 system and what that is going to do with that many people and so we want to contract that 6 in as far as the outhouses so that that can be hauled off and dealt with in a proper way and 7 create less wear and tear on the building with that number of people. And so again, to 8 our neighbors. I do thank you, you know for stating for what you have stated, and again I 9 make myself available to you if you have any questions or you want to voice concerns to 10 me. Please come talk to me. We can sit down and talk about it. And then again if we 11 have come across in any way as being deceitful in any way, we ask your apology and I 12 ask your forgiveness on that. So, thank you. And thank you. 13 Ms. Green: Cathy. 14 Cathy White: Just one thing relative to Ms. Fancher's comment about 15 mass gathering. About 10 minutes before 6:00 tonight I got a call from our legal council 16 and she questions whether we do have an outdoor mass gathering code. And 17 unfortunately what was in the computer available on the website is outdated. It is Title 8 18 it is chapter 8.16 and it is separate and apart from the land use process and if it does 19 apply, it does take into account, you know, let's see, outdoor mass gathering number is 20 anticipated to be less than 3000 persons, but more than 500 persons. It does address that 21 and my understanding in talking to her is that permit would be a mass, outdoor permit, or 22 whatever is required for each event, but is a separate process not handled through the land 23 use process, but through this different title. It also addresses things such as sanitary 24 facilities. It tells you how many toilets you have to have. That was a question you were 25 kind of inquiring about, fire protection standards, medical service, public safety, and the Exhibit of Page Ciz 91 1 process. I guess to obtain a permit. If I can secure a copy, I will put it in the record, just 2 to let you know, but that is all I have to add. 3 Ms. Green. Okay, I am going to close the oral part of the hearing tonight. 4 And I want to just briefly talk about the schedule for submitting post hearing evidence of 5 argument. We have had requests from several parties to keep the written record open for 6 a period of time so I just want to talk with the parties about how long would be 7 appropriate, and Cathy, I think we are okay, we are in really good shape on the 150 days, 8 are we not? 9 Cathy: Right. 10 Ms. Green: Acceptance date was March 30, so we're okay. So we have 11 quite a bit of time. Let me start with the applicant and see how much time you would like 12 to have to submit anything, any additional evidence that you want to submit before the 13 record closes. 14 Applicant: (inaudible) 15 Ms. Green: Well, you can tell me and I'll put it back on the record. 16 Applicant: I am guessing that we would like, you know, give me two 17 weeks to contact the sound engineer and get some kind of feedback. Beyond that, Ms. 18 Green, I don't know what his schedule may be, so certainly we are going to need some 19 time to investigate and provide to the record some kind of engineering workup to address 20 the decibel issue and provide some backup on that. Beyond that, I don't have any other 21 issues that I am going to present as the applicant's agent. I don't know about Liz 22 Fancher. Okay, she seems to be good with that couple two or three weeks. 23 Ms. Green: Okay and that as I understand it is for you to make contact 24 with the sound engineer and have further discussions with him about what you might or 25 might not get. Exhibit Page C of 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Applicant: Let's go for three weeks. Ms. Green: Three weeks, okay. All right, then I know we have a number of people, opponents in the room who undoubtably want to submit some additional evidence and a number of people have expressed concern about folks who were outside the notice area, perhaps not knowing about this and needing an opportunity to respond or to submit testimony, but I want to start with Paul Dewey who is here representing at least a couple of opponents and some neighbors and see what time frame would work for Paul for a rebuttal. Paul Dewey: So they would get something around May P? Ms. Green: That sounds right. May 4tn Paul: The 18th would be fine. Ms. Green: Two weeks, okay. Which takes us to the 18t". Okay. Paul: But I am only speaking for a few folks. Ms. Green: Right, I understand. And I know many people have left to go home tonight, so for those of you that are here still who are opponents. Is there anyone for whom a two week period would, and actually it is longer than that, a two week period following the 4th would not be sufficient to respond to anything new that the applicant submits. That you just know right off hand that is not going to be enough. Okay. Cathy, I would like to have your comments come in the first round by May 4th. And Liz, go ahead. Liz Faucher: I have a question. I think, by May 4th I am assuming that that is the time that any party can submit-- Ms. Green: It is. I should have made that clear. Liz: And the rebuttal to respond to only the things that were submitting after the-- Exhibit Page of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Green: Yes. It's, It's late, I am not making myself as clear as I usually do. Thank you for that reminder. So lets go back and talk about the first three week period. What I wanted to do is to be sure that I leave enough time to do what the applicant wants to do to supplement the record. The May 4th deadline would be what I would call the first round of evidence and that means that anyone that wants to submit evidence, new evidence, or rebuttal to what you heard tonight can do that by 5:00 pm May 4th. The second round would be two weeks following that between May 4th and May 18th which would be rebuttal, meaning response to what came in by May 4th, not going back to what might have been in the application. Then I am open to leaving the record open for another period for new evidence, rebuttal evidence from the applicant or just final arguments. What is your preference? Liz: Rebuttal evidence and (inaudible). Ms. Green: And how much time would you want for the third round? One week? Okay which would take us to the 25th and final arguments on the 1St of June. Okay, so let me go over this again. Anyone wishing to submit testimony, written evidence, regarding anything that you've heard tonight or anything that was in the application may do so by 5:00 pm May 4th. And that needs to be submitted to the County. And if you would be kind enough to put Cathy White's name on it and the file numbers, that way it will make sure it gets to the right person. Then by May 18th, anyone who wants to submit rebuttal to what came in through May 4th may do so, but it is limited to that rebuttal, and then the applicant will have until 5:00 pm May 25th to submit rebuttal to the second round, and then under Oregon Law the applicant has an additional seven lays to submit final argument, not new evidence, but argument, and so that period will -xpire on June 1St. And if any party, for example, if the, if opponents believe that -vidence that the applicant submitted by the third round the May 25th deadline constitutes Exhibit Page Caof-98.- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 new evidence, that party may request that I re-open the evidentiary record or extend it to I allow rebuttal to that evidence. So if something comes in that no one has seen then I will, I will entertain a request to extend the record to extend additional rebuttal by opponents for example. Mr. Rowles? Charlie Rowles: But anything we submit for new evidence in that first three weeks, like the sound engineering, since it is not presented here tonight that's good. Ms. Green: Yes. Charlie Rowles: So we are talking about in the second-- Ms. Green: We are narrowing it, at each level we are narrowing it down to rebutting what came in the round before, so hopefully we are getting all the issues and all the evidence into the record by the end of that period on May 25th. But should new evidence come in by May 25th, the opponents, other parties, do have a right to request that the evidence, the evidentiary record be re-opened to rebut that, if it is new evidence they haven't seen before. Okay, Cathy, any comments, concerns about that schedule? Cathy White: No, I'll be out of during some of these (in-audible). Okay. Paul? Ms. Green: Okay. Just make sure somebody else collects the paperwork. Paul Dewey: Even though we are in good shape for the 150 day rule, I assume (inaudible). Ms. Green: No, under the county procedures ordinate, it is any extension or continuance that's agreed to or requested by the applicant tolled the 150 days. $ Charlie Rowles: The 150 days would recommence on Ms. Green: It would be tolled between today and May 25th-- Charlie: Okay. Ms. Green: The end of the evidentiary record. Which is six weeks Exhibit Page q[ „Q of Y_ 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 roughly. For those who are not following this discussion. Oregon law requires the, a local government to issue a final decision within 150 days of the date that the county concluded that the application was complete, that means all the way through all appeal processes through the Board of County Commissioners. So, we have to be mindful of that time frame to make sure that there is enough time for my decision and for an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners for the Commissioners should they decide to hear an appeal to issue a decision. What we are talking about now is that there is a period of time when the applicant agrees to extend that record out to get more evidence and where that 150 day period stops and then starts up again at the end of the evidentiary period, so that is what we are talking about right now. Charlie: That 150 day period essentially ceases tonight. Ms. Green: It's tolled, it stops. Charlie: Okay, until and then re-- Ms. Green: Restarts on May 25`h Charlie: May 251h, okay. Ms. Green: All right, yes, Ma'm. Woman's Voice: Are we as the general public (inaudible). Ms. Green: Okay, the question was, "How does the public get involved and get advised as to what is going on". You are subject to these same deadlines as to what I described. If you want to look at anything in the record, which I assume you are going to want to do. The best thing to do is to contact Cathy White and arrange to come in and get documents that have been submitted into the record. And she can explain to you what that process is and the copy costs and so forth. Once the record closes, and that would be not later than June 1, after the applicant submits final argument, then the case comes to me for decision. And if you testified or you submitted written evidence, you Exhibit Page q-T of _ 96 1 will be notified when the decision is issued. If you came tonight and didn't speak and 2 didn't submit anything in writing, and didn't get notice, then if you want notice of the 3 decision, you need to let Cathy know. You need to give her your name and address. So 4 everybody who got notice originally, everybody who submitted written testimony, 5 everybody who testified tonight. You will get notice of the decision. Okay, and that 6 decision is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. Yes, Ma'm? 7 Woman's Voice: (inaudible) Will there be another hearing? 8 Ms. Green: No. This is the one and only time for oral testimony, is 9 tonight. But I am leaving the record open for written testimony. Okay, there won't be 10 another hearing before me. If there is an appeal to the County Commission and the 11 Board decides to hear the appeal, they may conduct another public hearing. That is 12 possible. 13 Woman's Voice: Do the people of record get notified of that? 14 Ms. Green: Yes, again you would be notified of that. So the point is, if 15 you don't know or if you are not sure that you are on that list of the people I have just 16 described, then let Cathy know to make sure that you are on the list so that you can get 17 notice. Okay, any other questions? Okay, Thank you very much for your civility and 18 good humor. Thank you for coming. We're adjourned. 19 20 Case Proceedings Closed Exhibit Page of Cis Chrl*stl*an Life Center Proposed Outdoor Church Facility AUDIO DECIBEL MEASURMENTS Prepared for: Christian Life Center 21720 HWY 20 E Bend, OR 97701 Prepared by: Mark Smith VP, Integrated Solutions 5/2/05 ~'M w W w pr w INTEGRITY • TALENT • EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS Exhibit Page _ of 5/2/05 Christian Life Center 21720 HWY 20 E Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Audio Decibel Level Measurements for Outdoor Church Facility To whom it may concern: These are the results of Audio Decibel Level Measurements taken on 4/29/05 from 10:00am to 11:30am, at the proposed Outdoor Church Facility at Christian Life Center in Bend, OR. This is the verifiable data that was recorded for all to consider. All tests were performed at `A' weighted scale. We are not making any acoustical recommendations at this time to control or mitigate any audio conditions that could occur at this site. We consider the findings, contained herein, are favorable for all concerned. We are happy to report that the readings are well within normal and customary audio level standards that prevail for outdoor facilities. Test Equipment and Personnel Mark Smith, VP of Delta Systems Integration, Syn-Aud-Con & Audio Engineering Society, directed the criteria and confirmed measurements. Bruce Main, of Vector Corporation, Graduate TEF Level I & III Classes, Member TEF Advisory Council, Syn-Aud-Con & Audio Engineering Society performed all measurements. Equipment provided for this test sequence: Goldline TEF-20 with Windows TDS, MLS, Polar ETC & SLX software Goldline TEF-05 Measurement Microphone Larsen-Davis CAL200 Microphone Calibrator Hewlett Packard Pavilion Laptop Computer Goldline PN-3A Pink Noise Generator White Instruments 155 Pink Noise Generator Goldline MK8A Measurement Microphone Goldline DSP30 Digital Real Time Analyzer Goldline TS-2 Test Set Syn-Aud-Con Test Disc All equipment is in excellent condition. Oregon CCB#113213 2 Exhibit The purpose of these tests were to measure the sound pressure levels in and around the proposed Outdoor Church Facility both in typical ambient conditions and with full bandwidth audio playing at 100dB A-Weighted at the mix position, 90 feet from proposed downstage edge in the amphitheater (typical performance level). These tests were taken between 10:00 AM and 11:30 AM on April 29, 2005. Traffic and wind were moderate (traffic being the main contributor to ambient noise). To this end, measurements were taken at the mix position with a PA system providing the necessary SPL utilizing 20-20KHz pink-noise as the stimulus. Ambient SPL noise measurements were then taken at three locations around the amphitheater corresponding to the vectors to the closest neighbors as a baseline. Measurements were also taken with the sound system energized to provide 100 dB A at the mix position at the same locations for comparison. Oregon CCB#113213 Exhibit of Test Report Figure 1: Ambient noise measurement at the paved road near the power lines at North- end of property, 53 dB A. W x „r K J_' C_ Nat ® Gfiner.x --11 to SPt. P ~A- V t ao 53.0 d6 A e.m. oa Aa.a xa w„e x... Figure 2: Ambient noise dt the North-side of Church sign next to the highway. This measurement reflects the proximity of the traffic noise, 63.7 dB A a~.... f 01. cpue Pw ~ Wtmenm ^ Wa.rtau t~,s. sP~ rv P..M tda RTA3b Octrn i... Ben ~OVacF,T rcn M1gAwa,~ u«dw nrA ^ w 63.7 dB A ' - - 'i Oregon CCB# 113213 4 Exhibit Page _~J_ of Figure 3: Ambient noise level at the top of the amphitheater stairs outside the bowl. a -4 7 - ~ le _ ~ i i :a 3 ae r Sep 1 z~~-Y 4P TS ~ ~'-,C "E i ~'{9 Iwe bg ~ L(( ttyW 'mac 41 'w ~kJ: `TXYf r c:' F r 3 v k` - dsx $ 41 .s Q t 4 a ~f~'s'~4.~ll IFS 124 -VT r - _ - ~ _ 6Mban LleAmmh su s s s a 8 a A ~ ~ 5 ~ $ ~ i § _ ~ a a m-- m b m ~.:o a d a L~w , oawaiv A~aa ~ VOAleaerce 'M'dMall Lige SPl r'Peak d RTA3,d0ebve Le.-vi..n ea OR ~~tltlao - FlrA V 30 58.5 dB A Figure 4: All three of the previous ambient noise measurements overlaid. i Oregon CCB# 113213 5 Exhibit Page of t- F watedan Large sat F Peal Hdd RTA3rd Octave - Figure 5: SPL and spectral response measurement taken at the mix position in the bowl with the PA system energized. This established the pink-noise reference 100db A criteria level at 90 feet from proposed downstage edge. This reflects typical concert level at the mixer position. _s x, i'E~ x }4_ G eat + FAkx'~'la'" z aezsw r ~k ~ t S e, t u~~r y ~`yx Y 27 RTA ktl Octave _J tam SPL F Peck Hdd Gque PN ®pflemce ° WxM.II 5 PTA 3D 100.5 dB A R Mleda f sta... 20r, i.b elu~[_ci ? ~ c~,~~ oaaAN .a~~~m Bend, Ofl raC im PAm wa Figure 6: Measurement at the church sign by the highway, with the PA energized to 100dBA at the mix position. The difference from the ambient reading is + 3.3db A. x, 11.. Oregon CCB#113213 6 Exhibit Page ~ 0 of Figure 7: Measurement taken at the North road by the power lines, in a NW direction perpendicular to the stage with the PA energized to 100 dB A at the mix position. This is a difference from the ambient reading of + 12db A. We consider this measurement to be the most critical measurement as it shows what happens to full bandwidth audio in a straight line from the stage position. L_ : _ Oregon CCB#113213 ~ ~ s Q ~ g @ _ s a ~~r~ a n ~a a a~ n ~ y o~,nr ,vim fA 3rd Octave ~Poad by pores fm~-PAm 652 dB A L-~ 7 Exhibit Page = of Figure 8: Overlay of all the test responses. The :red trace is the reference 100 dB A pink-noise level at the mix position with the PA energized. The MM and green traces are all ambient readings with the PA off. The and blue traces show the decibel noise level at the sign and power line locations with the PA energized. Ar~ d` z tF x 18 The energy from the sound system is being contained quite well within the bowl, even in its unfinished state. Landscaping, especially low hanging trees such as Spruce trees and shrubs, will improve that. In some frequency bands, you can see the ambient noise levels exceed the PA leakage already, even this close to the bowl, (Hwy 20). At longer distances the sound emanating from the bowl at concert level will be lower than the ambient noise because of the Inverse Square Law. The Inverse Square Law is a property of physics that states: "as a sound waves propagate spherically in free air, the sound energy is distributed over the ever-increasing surface diameter of the wave front surface. The Inverse Square Law teaches us that for every doubling of the distance from the sound source in a free field situation, the sound intensity will diminish by 6 decibels, which is half of the intensity." It is important to accept the notion that sound will diminish in intensity with distance. For example, in a typical classroom, a teachers voice is 70 decibels at a 3-foot distance from the teacher; at 6 feet away the sound intensity will be 64 decibels and at twelve feet it will diminish down to 58 decibels. Oregon CCB#113213 _irl xl 8 Exhibitw ~ of Page P By applying this principle of physics to the Christian Life Center Outdoor Church Facility situation, we can calculate the decibel levels that will occur from the information collected above. HERE I I~ I ~ j GRAVEL F TAK IIIiI r A 'I , n m D i READING TAKEN r^r^ r-~'" HERE We can see from all this documentation that the decibel level at the Northwest corner of the property will be: 65 dB A at 470' (Inverse Square Law) = 59 dB A at 940' 59 dB A at 940' (Inverse Square Law) = 53 dB A at 1880' Therefore at 1880', overall, audio generated form the proposed stage area will roughly be less than or equal to the normal ambient noise level already present in this area form road noise. A note of caution; you can see from Figure 8 that there may be low-end frequencies that could be an issue when the air is dead calm. Should controlling those frequencies become an issue, we can help you at the appropriate time and propose appropriate solutions. Delta Systems Integration is committed to improving how people present, receive, understand and exchange important information in their communication environments. We are confident that our participation in your Audio Decibel Level Measurements for your Outdoor Church Facility will contribute to everyone's understanding. We trust you will find this information useful and look forward to being of service to you and your community. Best regards, HM4 S► VP of Integrated Solutions Oregon CCB# 113213 9 Exhibit Page _ CL_ of . High Desert Classic Horse Show The J BAR J Boys Ranch presents: V1 f - ?gas<L:^.s'm Maoo~c ~o JWy 20 - 249 2006 Featuring the $15,000 Eagle Crest Resort Grand Prix & the Umpqua Bank Mini Prix Featuring the $25,000 Unicel Grand Prix & the Umpqua Bank Mini Prix c~J3D ,-tz U,,~~L;7 12s, hok~d o~ 0-sopm ~V c')Uc9 7023 a 70300 Page 1 of 2 SPFE UAL EVEWT SCHEEDULE 2005 To view the document above, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. Click the "Get Adobe Reader" icon to download a free copy of the latest Reader program. V~L)o dr ~Jo International Class A Hunter/Jumper Competition showcasing world class equestrian talent, to benefit J Bar J Youth Services and its many programs for Central & Eastern Oregon children and their families. 7~ The event is located at the J Bar J Boys Ranch, a 40 acre site two miles east of Bend, Oregon, rated as one of the "top 15 sports and recreation communities in America" by Outside Magazine. The site features over 36 acres of groomed, irrigated grass fields with a comprehensive electrical system for barns, concessions and displays. The view of the Cascades from the site is dramatic, with seven peaks visible to the West. D9sa~Pa ?z c & Azs:srsencs Ava,[eble. Cai] (5v~u) 389-1409 fog http://www.jbar .org/horseshow.htm 10/10/2005 Exhibit 0 High Desert Classic Horse Show Page 2 of 2 REGULAR MEMBER SHOWS OF THE US EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC. Every class offered herein which is covered by the rules and specifications of the current USEF Rule Book will be conducted and judged in accordance therewith. WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP HUNTER RIDER HORSE SHOW -#1 QUALIFIER FOR THE ZONE IX FINAL COMPETITION Moms / Academy at Sisters / Bw Brothers Big Sisters / Cascade Youth and Family Center High Desert Classic Home / Pria_s List / Entry Forms / Show Results / Sponsors Accommodations & Area Information / Photos / Patron's Tablas / Directions Links / About J &.r J Youth Services Schedule: Wsdnesday / Thursdav / Eg'jU /Saturday / Sunday 7 mall Us © 2001-2005 J Bar J Youth Services • All Rights Reserved Site Designed by Curran Communications, Inc. http://www.jbar .org/horseshow.htm 10/10/2005 Exhibit Page 2005 OREGON HIGH DESERT CLASSICS Schedule of Special Events July 20-24 & 27-31 WEEK 1 Wednesday 7/20 6 - 8 pm - Exhibitor Welcome Party (Academy Catering) Thursday 7/21 8:00am - Golf & Gallop Tournament, Eagle Crest Challenge Course 6:00 m omplimentary en Clinic & Dinner Party C Catering) Friday 7/22 S:OOpm - Gambler's Choice 6 - 8pm - BBQ (TLC Catering) 6 - 9pm - Moon Mountain Ramblers West Cou Kid's Hi Jump Competition Saturday 7/23 S:OOpm - Supper (TLC Catering) 5:30pm - eagle crest Resort Grand Prix Sunday 7/24 12 Noon - Boxed lunch in Patron's Tent (TLC Catering) 2:00pm - KTVZ Lead Line Class 2:15pm - vmi>62 AA g,4NK Mini Prix WEEK 2 Wednesday 7/27 6 - 8pm - Exhibitor Welcome Party (Academy Catering) & Beer Tasting with Deschutes Brewery Thursday 7/28 Friday 7/29 S:OOpm - Gambler's Choice class 6 - 8pm - BBQ (TLC Catering) 6 - 9pm - Stone Soup West Cou Kid's Hi Jump Competition Saturday 7/30 5:00pm - Supper (TLC Catering) 5:30pm - KmaeLL Grand Prix Sunday 7/31 12 Noon - Boxed Lunch in Patron's Tent (TLC Catering) 2:00pm - K7-vz Lead Line Class 2:15pm - Km>Q A l-AN K. Mini Prix Exhibit Page j of Home Page Page 1 of 3 JI Press Release: 3r ajvf Lrwitt.$ November 12, 2004 (Bend, ®R) The much-anticipated CD by Bend's local string band th Mountain Ramblers has flna€Ey arrived. To celebrate the occasion, they will be hosting a 4 ivWlef fly caivti,~.,r Party on Saturday, December 4 at the Grove (8:30pm, $5 cover). Ramblin' in from aCl pai territory, Moon Mountain has drawn four musicians together to create an original high de Avvi,c.vs and a soulful interpretation of traditional bluegrass, azz/sk'VIng and country tunes. The Ramblers consist of Dan McClui the double bass and log^on' the harmonica, Jenny Harada sat-An' the fiddle, Joe Schulte mandolin and Matt Hyman picldn' the gg.uitar. Recently voted the \"Best Sand in Central ef,jvtu lrry 2004\" by the Source publtcaton, the Won Mountain Ramblers have performed in festiv the High Desert region openhn for well-known bands such as the David Grlsman Quint( c River, Jackstraw, and the lr~ ashy Brothers Band. ..tom Their self-Ned CD reflects the kaleidoscope of styles that separates the Ramblers from bluegrass band. !Within 13 or€girhal son S, you get a taste of bluegrass, swing, jazz, klezr* ~,~,t<.tc blues, and reggae. The CD was recur Ted in three sessions in July/August 24 at Music which is owned by Dan McClun former owner of the Piano Sho pe). Recorded and ma Andy Armer on location and at a ation Studio in Bend, OR, the captures the "live m ambiance that fans know and love. The Ramblers have already started working on a second CD, which will incorporate their player, Jenny Harada. Forever bound by a voracious addiction to music, the Moon Moun player, are forming their own niche in the music world. Moon Mountain Ramblers CD Release Party at The Grove December 4, 2004 http://www.centraloregonmusic.com/mmr.htm 1Qh012n0s Exhibit O G a ~ zit' ~'da-a s- ('c l~l:a•_ (~;rt+l'~' Home Page Page 2 of 3 http://www.centraloregomnusic.com/mmr.htrn 10/10/2005 Exhibit Page 65 of Home Page asca Barr sponsOF: uEhMz You can SpOnSOP thas Pago ffoP $60.00 a Month, coutM~C66 Moo © OlahArfs, 2001 Contact: 541-548-6306 V-js~2®°s 93053 Page 3 of 3 http://www.centraloregonmusic.com/mmr.htm 10/10/2005 Exhibit C) Page __U_ of t Page 1 of 1 ( 3 ~ ~av----~ ) Co ~ cv~ Abp t~,- http : //www. j b arj . org/Horse/Photos/Three%20Quarters%20 Short%2Ocopy . j pg `f 10/10/2005 Exhibit CD Page of OREGON HIGH DESERT CLASSICS # I & # II Benefiting the J-Bar-J Boys Ranch Bend, Oregon SHOW MANAGER Dianne Johnson - (425) 823-2802 SHOW SECRETARY Barbara Baierle - (360) 668-0518 19716-82nd Ave. SE • Snohomish, WA 98296 USEF JUMPER JUDGES Tom Thomson - Talent, OR Peggy Fackrell - Sacramento, CA USEF STEWARD Jodee Snyder - Salem, OR VETERINARIAN Dr. Andy Dibbem, DVM - (503) 310-0916 FARRIER Ron Gallagher- Bend, OR OREGON HIGH DESERT CLASSIC # I July 20-24, 2005 USEF HUNTER & HUNTER SEAT EQUITATION JUDGES Susan Ashe - Wellington, FL Jeff Wirthman - Wellington, FL Nancy L. Wallis - Lambertville, NJ COURSE DESIGNERS Chris Brandt - DeWinton, AL Mike Gallaway - Eugene, OR USEF STEWARD Lucy Franklin - Sherwood, OR OREGON HIGH DESERT CLASSIC # II July 27 - 31, 2005 USEF HUNTER & HUNTER SEAT EQUITATION JUDGES William Ellis - Ocala, FL Dianne Grod - Reno, NV COURSE DESIGNER Patrick Rodes - Argyle, TX Nancy L. Wallis - Pennington, NJ USEF STEWARD Patty Jean Lebon - Monroe, WA ENTRIES CLOSE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005 REGULAR MEMBER SHOWS OF THE USEF, INC. Every class offered herein which is covered by the rules and specifications of the current USEF Rule Book will be conducted and judged in accordance therewith. WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP HUNTER RIDER HORSE SHOW - #1 QUALIFIER FOR THE ZONE IX FINAL COMPETITION -1- Exhibit Page --S- of GENERAL RULES AND INFORMATION 1. CLOSING OF ENTRIES: High Desert Classic #1: Entries dose Wednesday, June 22, 2005 High Desert Classic #2: Entries dose Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2. ENTRY PROCEDURES: Only complete entries, by the following specifications, will be accepted. Exhibitors may choose Procedure A or Procedure B. Incomplete entries will not be processed. One check per owner. Procedure A 1. Exhibitors may choose to pre-pay all fees before the dosing date of entries either by check or credit card (Visa or Mastercard). These exhibitors will receive their prize money one week after the Horse Show. Procedure B 1. Exhibitors may pay the total of: 1.) A deposit fee of $50 per horse 2.) All stall and tack room fees 3.) Nominating fee for the Grand Prix and Mini Grand Prix 4.) Jumper Nominating Fee. Horses entered in Levels 5, 6, 7, 8 or Amateur Owner/Junior Jumper Class must pay a $100 Jumper Nominating Fee by closing date of entries in addition to the $50 entry deposit 2. If entries are postmarked on or before the closing date and are completely and properly filled out, the $50 deposit will be credited to the horses entries. 3. Trainers and owners may leave a signed open check or credit card authorization for charges during show. All accounts to be closed by 5:00 Saturday. 4. All entries which are late will be assessed a $25 late fee. NO EXCEPTIONS. 5. Exhibitors utilizing this method of entering will receive their prize money four weeks after the Horse Show. To be complete, entry forms must include: 1.) Horse's name and complete descriptions. 2.) All classes or sections entered. 3.) All mandatory signatures. 4.) Organization membership numbers. Any changes of entries after the dosing date of entries will be subject to the Post Entries, Substitutions, Transfer Rule. A new check or cash, in addition to original entry payment, will be required. 3. CREDENTIALS: Exhibitors must present the following credentials to the horse show. 1.) USEF & USHJA membership card 2.) USEF & USHJA amateur certification 3.) USEF Junior Hunter & Pony measurement card 4.) USEF horse recording WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT PHOTO COPIES OF THE ABOVE CARDS BE SENT WITH ENTRIES. 4. CANADIAN EXHIBITORS: Entries must be paid by draft payable is US Funds or check on Canadian US Dollar account. Canadian checks with US Funds written on the face of the check will not be accepted. Your Class Entry Fees may be paid at a discounted rate of 30%. Stabling, Drug Fee, and all other charges, must be paid in U.S. funds. Exhibitors utilizing this discount will receive prize money discounted at same rate, in U.S. funds. 5. POST ENTRIES: Post entries will be accepted at base cost plus an office charge of $5 per class until 5:00 P.M. the day before classes are to be held and $10 per class after 5:00 P.M. All new entries which are late will be assessed a $25 late fee. NO EXCEPTIONS. No refunds will be given if entry does not use up his transfer credit. 6. TRANSFERS: The transfer of horses and/or riders from class or division to another will be allowed under the following circumstances: a. The horse show office is notified the day before. b. Full credit will be given for the scratched class or division but post entries must be paid for all added classes. c. No refunds will be given if the horse does not use up his transfer credit. 7. SUBSTITUTIONS: With a vets certificate, a new horse may be substituted for a scratched horse. There will be a $25.00 office charge. Any added or scratched classes will be treated under transfers. 8. CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES AND REFUNDS: Exhibitors cancelling entries after the closing date shall forfeit their entry fees, except in the case of disability of a horse, when entries shall be refunded on presentation to the Show Secretary, a certificate of disability from a -3- Exhibit Page Of J qualified veterinarian PRIOR to the first class in which the horse is entered. This applies to all exhibitors whether they use Procedure A or Procedure B. 1). No refunds of entryfees shall be made after the first class in which the horse is entered unless the certificate of disability is issued by the Official Show Veterinarian on duty. 2) A $25 or 15% of remaining entry fees (whichever is greater) office charge will be made on all cancellation of entries. No refund of entry fees for classes already held prior to notification to the Horse Show Office. 3. No refund of stall fees unless requested directly to the show secretary before July 8. 4) Refunds will be mailed within three weeks of the Horse Show. 9. RETURNED CHECKSICREDIT CARDS: There will be a penalty of $25 per check/credit card returned by the bank for any reason. No checkstcredit cards will be processed through the bank a second time. To retain entries, the fees and penalty must be paid by Money Order, Cashiers Check or Cash before 4 PM the day before the Horse Show starts. In the event a check/credit card is returned after the completion of the show, it will be handled in accordance with USEF GR1508. No personal checks will be cashed at the Show. Please plan accordingly. 10. MAILING: Mail entries and fees to: Barbara Baierie, Show Secretary (360) 668-0518 19716-82nd Ave. S.E. Snohomish, WA 98296 11. USEF FEE: For every horse participating in any competition recognized by the USEF, a $12 USEF fee will be collected ($7 shall be a Drugs & Medication fee to provide for research, inspection and enforcement of rules regarding use of medications and drugs; see GR407.1,.2 and .3. 12. MEASUREMENT AND AMATEUR CERTIFICATION: All Junior and Pony Hunters must possess and present a current Measurement Card to the show secretary before numbers may be picked up. If the cards are not available, MEASUREMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. Photocopies of current Amateur Certification of Junior Memberships may be included with entries or made available when picking up numbers. NOTE that USEF memberships are not in effect until the day that correct fees and application are received in the USFN office. YOU CAN NOT apply at the show and be eligible to show in classes which require USEF membership. If an exhibitor does not have a current Amateur certification, an application provided by USEFforsuch certification must have been lodged with the Show Secretary at least 1 hour prior to the first class entered. Exhibitors in the USEF Hunter Seat Medal Class may join the USEF prior to the class through the steward. 13. MANAGEMENT: Management reserves the right to cancel or combine any classes that do not fill to their satisfaction. Equitation classes not filling maybe combined with the next age group. Notice will be given to exhibitors affected. Management reserves the right to start the first class of any session 30 minutes earlier than the scheduled time if entries warrant. Management reserves the right to make changes of arenas, judges, or class orders to facilitate time schedule and conditions. 14. COMBINED CLASSES & SECTIONS: Any class or section that does not have at least five entries 12 hours before the first class is scheduled (unless otherwise specified) will be combined. 15. TROPHIES, RIBBONS, PRIZE MONEY: Trophy and ribbons will be awarded to six places in all classes except in Equitation and Junior classes which will go to eight places. Hunter prize money will be divided 30%,250/6,200/6,150/6, 10%. Jumper prize money will be divided 25%, 23°/6, 20°/6,17%,15%. Grand Prix prize money will be divided: 30%, 22%,13%18%16%150/614%13% 3%, 26/6, 2%, 26/6.. 16. HORSE SHOW OFFICE: Show office hours are: Tuesday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday: 7:00 a.m. to one half hour after the dose of show Phone Number During Show Only: (541) 312 -4021 17. STABLING: Stabling preference will be given to exhibitors showing at both High DesertClassics#1and#2,promotnessofentry anddistance travelled. Portable box stalls with doors provided. Each box stall will receive 4 (14 cu. ft.) complimentary bags of shavings per horse show. Additional shavings may be purchased. Stalls will be available for occupancy at 10:00 am. Monday morning July 18, 2005 and July 25, 2005 and must be vacated no later than 7:00 am., Monday July 25, 2005 and August 1, 2005. Fee for box stalls for the entire show shall be $160 each and fee for tac krooms shall be $150. Please indicate arrival and departure date and who you are to be stabled with on the entry blank. Exhibitors do their own stall cleaning. No refund of stall fees unless requested directly to the Show Secretary before July 10, 2005. Refunds after those dates will only be made if the stall is reissued to another entry. -4- Exhibit n Page _Aof 1 8. SHAVINGS & MANURE DISPOSAL FEE: There will be a $15 per horse shavings & manure disposal fee. 19. SCHOOLING AND EXERCISE: Schooling areas will be available for use before, during and after the show. Schooling in the performance rings will be limited. Schooling will be allowed over a course on Tuesday July 19, 2005 and TuesdayJuly 26, 2005 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There will be no schooling in the Grand Prix Ring. A schooling fee of $25 will be charged all entries except horses paying a Jumper Nominating Fee. Hard hats must be worn while schooling. 20. PATRON'S TABLES: See Ad in Prize List 21. MOTORIZED VEHICLES USEF RULE GR301 EFFECTIVE 4-1-05: MINORS WHO DO NOT HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE A MOTORIZED VEHICLE IN THE STATE IN WHICH THEY RESIDE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE A MOTORIZED VEHICLE OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GOLF CARTS, MOTORCYCLES, SCOOTERS, OR FARM UTILITY VEHICLES, ON THE COMPETITION GROUNDS OF RECOGNIZED COMPETITIONS. MINORS WHO HAVE A VALID TEMPORARY LICENSE MAY OPERATE THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED MOTORED VEHICLES AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT WITH A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE. VIOLATWNSOFTHLS RULE WILL BE CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PARENT(S). GUARDIAN(S), ANWOR TRAINER(S) WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD COMMITTING THE OFFENSE. PENALTIES MAY INCLUDE EXCLUSION OF THE CHILD, PARENT(S), GUARDIAN(S), ANWOR TRAINER(S) FROM THE COMPETITION GROUNDS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE COMPETITION AND CHARGES BEING FILED AGAINST ANY OF THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH USEF RULE 7. WHEELCHAIRS AND OTHER MOBILfTY ASSISTANCE DEVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS RULE. 22. FACILITIES: There is one portable shower unit. 23. HAUL-INS: There will be a charge of $30 a day per horse for horses not stabled. 24. MUSIC: In accordance with the County conditions there shall be no music on the Show grounds between 9:30 PM and 8:00 AM. 25. RV PARKING: Electricity and water will be provided on a first come first serve basis for a fee of $125.00 per week. Fee for Non-hook-up parking is $75.00 per week. 26. FOOTING: Competition rings are grass. Warm-up areas are grass and all weather footing. Hunter & Jumper Ring #2 are 300 X 150, Grand Prix ring is 320 X 320. 28. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION Every dass of/erad herem whch is covered by the rules and specifications of the current USEF Rule Book will be conducted and judged in accordance therewitIL LIFE, SENIOR ACTIVE AND JUNIOR ACTIVE MEMBERS SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL CLASSES AT REGULAR COMPETITIONS, EVENTING COMPETITIONS AT THE PRELIMINARY LEVEL OR ABOVE AND COMBINED DRIVING COMPETITIONS ATTHE ADVANCED LEVEL, DRESSAGE AND VAULTING COMPETITIONS AND ENDURANCE RIDES PROVIDED THAT RESPECTIVE BREEDIDISCIPLINE DUES OR BREEOIDISCIPLINE CATEGORY FEE HAS BEEN PAID. A NON-MEMBER MAY PARTICIPATE AS A HANDLER, RIDER, DRIVER, OWNER, LESSEE, AGENT, COACH OR TRAINER AT REGULAR COMPETITIONS, EVENTING COMPETITIONS, DRESSAGE COMPETITIONS AND COMBINED DRIVING COMPETITIONS UPON PAYMENT OF A $20. NON-MEMBER REGISTRATION FEE AND A $5 BREEDIDSCIPLINE CATEGORY FEE FOR EACH BREEDIDISCIPLINE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FOLLOWING CLASSES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE; 1) LEADLIIE; 2) EXHIBITIONS; 3) GAMES AND RACES; 4) CLASSES FOR 4-H MEMBERS; 5) WALK TROT AND ACADEMY CLASSES (academy classes are classes fimited to horses used regularly in a lesson program); 6) USOF INTRODUCTORY LEVEL TESTS, PAS DE DEUX AND QUADRILLE CLASSES. ALSOEXEMPTED FROMTMS REQUIREMENTARE RESIDENTSOFOTHER NATIONS WHO ARE MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING OF THEIR NATIONAL FEDERATION, AND 7) USEA BEGINNER NOVICE DIVISION 8) ASSISTANT HANDLERS IN DRESSAGE HORSE SPORT BREEDING CLASSES; AND 9) CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS WHO ARE MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING OF THEIR NATIONAL FEDERATIONS, AND IN THE CASE OF RIDERS, DRIVERS OR VAULTERS COMPETING IN DISCIPLINES RECOGNIZED BY THE FEL IN POSSESSION OF A FOREIGN COMPETITORS LICENSE TO COMPETE IN NATIONAL COMPETITIONS, WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE FEDERATION. (See Article 807.4 of the Federation rules). • USEF ENTRY AGREEMENT By entering a USEF - recognized Competition and signing this entry blank as the Owner, Lessee, Trainer, Manager, Agent, Coach, Driver, Rider, Handier, Vaulter or Longeur and on behalf of myself and my principals, representatives, employees and agents, I agree that I am subject to the Bylaws and Rules of USEF ("the Federation") and the beat rules of the competition. I agree to be bound by the Bylaws and Rules of the Federation andofthecompeti ion.lwillacceptasfinalthedecisionoftheHearingCommittee on any question arising under the Rules, andagreetorelease andhold harmlessthecompetition,theFederatbn theirofficials, directors and employees for any action taken under the Rules. 1 represent that 1 am eligible to enter andfor participate underthe Rules,and every home) am entering is eligible as entered. I also agreethat as a condition of and in consideration of acceptance of entry, the Federation andfor the competition may use or assign photographs, videos, audios, cablecasts, or other likenesses of me and my horse taken during the course of the competition for the promotion, coverage or benefit of the competition, spurt, or the Federation. Those likenesses shall not be used to advertise a product and they may not be used in such a way as to jeopardize amateurstatus. 1 herebyexpressy and irrevocably waive and release any rights in connection with such use, including any claim to compensation, invasion of privacy, right of publicity, or to misappropriation. The construction and application of Federation Rules are governed by the laws of the State of New York, and any action instituted against the Federation must be filed in New York State. See Art. 15025 -5- Exhibit_ALl Page of High Desert Classic Horse Show Saturday July 24, 2004 • Saturday July 31, 2004 • Prize List West Coast Event Productions Jumper Ring 1, 7:30 a.m. Class 222 BET/ROLEX-USET Show Jumping Talent Search • Entry Form Class Class 223 Jumpers, Level 4, Table II, Sec. 2(b) • Sponsors Class 224 YJC, 5 Year-Old Qualifying Class Table II, • Vendor-, Optimum Time Accomodadons/ Class 225 YJC, 6 Year-Old Qualifying Class Table II, Area Info Optimum Time Photos Class 226 Jumpers, Level 5, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Patran's Tables Class 227 Jumpers, Level 3, Table II, Sec. 2(b) r Class 228 Adult Amateur Jumpers, 18-39, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 229 Adult Amateur Jumpers, 40 & over, Table II, Sec 2 (b) Class 230 Children's Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) . ► Class 231 Modified Amateur/Junior Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2 (b) West Coast Event Productions Jumper Ring 1, 6:30 p.m. Class 232 $15,000 EAGLE CREST RESORT GRAND PRIX (July 24) Class 232 $25,000 OREGON HIGH DESERT CLASSIC GRAND PRIX (July 31) Bend Oil Jumper Ring 2, 8:00 a.m. Class 234 Beginning Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 235 Low Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 236 Jumpers, Level 1, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 237 Schooling Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 238 Pony Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 239 Jumpers, Level 2, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 240 Special Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 241 Pre-Adult Amateur Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 242 Pre-Children's Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Class 243 Jumpers, Level 3, Table 11, Sec. 2(b) Class 244 Training Jumpers, Table II, Sec. 2(b) Cellular One Hunter Ring 1, 7:30 a.m. http://www.jbar .org/Horse/schedules/sat.html Page 1 of 4 10/10/2005 Exhibit Page _j2 of _A':?_ High Desert Classic Horse Show Page 2 of 4 Class 245 Amateur Working Hunters Class 246 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 18-30 Class 247 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 18-30 Class 248 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 31-39 Class 249 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 31-39 Class 250 Johnny Johnson Amateur Medal Class, 18-39 Class 251 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 40-49 Class 252 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 40-49 Class 253 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 50 & Over Class 254 Adult Amateur Working Hunters, 50 & Over Class 255 Johnny Johnson Amateur Medal Class, 40 & Over Class 256 Modified Adult Amateur Working Hunter Class 257 Modified Junior/Amateur Owner Working Hunters Class 258 Amateur Owner Working Hunters, 18-35 Class 259 Amateur Owner Working Hunters, Handy, 18-35 Class 260 Amateur Owner Working Hunters, 36 & Over Class 261 Amateur Owner Working Hunters, Handy, 36 & Over Class 262 Amateur Owner Working Hunters Under Saddle, 18-35 Class 263 Amateur Owner Working Hunters Under Saddle, 36 & Over Class 264 OHJA Senior Medal Class 265 Junior Working Hunters, Small, 16-17 Class 266 Junior Working Hunters, Handy, Small, 16-17 Class 267 Junior Working Hunters, Small, 15 & Under Class 268 Junior Working Hunters, Handy, Small, 15 & Under Class 269 Junior Working Hunters, Large, 16-17 Class 270 Junior Working Hunters, Handy, Large, 16-17 Class 271 Junior Working Hunters, Large, 15 & Under Class 272 Junior Working Hunters, Handy, Large, 15 & Under Class 273 Junior Working Hunters Under Saddle, Small, 16- 17 Class 274 Junior Working Hunters Under Saddle, Small, 15 & Under Class 275 Junior Working Hunters Under Saddle, Large, 16- 17 Class 276 Junior Working Hunters Under Saddle, Large, 15 & Under Class 277 US Equestrian/Pessoa Hunter Seat Medal Class Class 278 OHJA Junior Medal Class 279 Hunter Seat Equitation, Not to Jump, 16-17 Class 280 Hunter Seat Equitation, Not to Jump, 14-15 Class 281 Hunter Seat Equitation, Not to Jump, 11-13 Class 282 Hunter Seat Equitation, Not to Jump, 10 & Under http://www.jbo.orgfflorse/schedules/sat.html _ 10/10/2005 Exhibit 0 Page 3 of . High Desert Classic Horse Show The Bulletin Hunter Ring 2 To start at the conclusion of Class 222 Class 283 Amateur Working Hunters Class 284 Children's Equitation Over Jumps, 15-17 Class 285 Children's Working Hunters, 15-17 Class 286 Children's Equitation Over Jumps, 13-14 Class 287 Children's Working Hunters, 13-14 Class 288 Children's Equitation Over Jumps, 12 & Under Class 289 Children's Working Hunters, 12 & Under Class 290 Show Circuit Magazine National Children's Medal Class 291 Modified Children's Working Hunters Class 292 Pony Equitation Over Jumps Class 293 Green Pony Working Hunters Class 294 Green Pony Working Hunters Class 295 Large Pony Working Hunters Class 296 Medium Pony Working Hunters Class 297 Small Pony Working Hunters Class 298 Large Pony Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 299 Medium Pony Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 300 Small Pony Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 301 Green Pony Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 302 Pony Equitation, Not to Jump Bank of the Cascades Hunter Ring 3, 8:00 a.m. Class 303 Low Working Hunters, Fences 2' Class 304 Short Stirrup Working Hunters, Ponies Class 305 Short Stirrup Working Hunters, Ponies Class 306 Short Stirrup Working Hunters Under Saddle, Ponies Class 307 Short Stirrup Working Equitation, Not to Jump, Ponies Class 308 Low Working Hunters, Fences 2'3" to 2'6" Class 309 Short Stirrup Working Hunters, Horses Class 310 Short Stirrup Working Hunters, Horses Class 311 Short Stirrup Working Hunters Under Saddle, Horses Class 312 Short Stirrup Equitation, Not to Jump, Horses Class 313 Low Working Hunters, Fences 73" to 2'6" Class 314 Long Stirrup Working Hunters Class 315 Long Stirrup Working Hunters Class 316 Long Stirrup Working Hunters Under Saddle http://vvww.jbad.org/Horse/schedules/sat.html Page 3 of 4 10/10/2005 Exhibit Page --U- of jC; High Desert Classic Horse Show Page 4 of 4 Class 317 Long Stirrup Equitation, Not to Jump Class 318 Low Working Hunters, Fences 2'6" to 79" Class 319 Pre Adult Amateur Working Hunters Class 320 Pre Adult Amateur Working Hunters Class 321 Pre Adult Amateur Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 322 Pre Adult Amateur Equitation, Not to Jump, Horses Class 323 Low Working Hunters, Fences 2'6" to 2'9" Class 324 Pre Children's Working Hunters Class 325 Pre Children's Working Hunters Class 326 Pre Children's Working Hunters Under Saddle Class 327 Pre Children's Equitation, Not to Jump Home / Academy at Sisters / Big Brothers Big Sisters / Cascade Youth and Family Center High Desert Classic Home / Prize List / Entry Forms / Show Results / Sponsors Accommodations & Area Information / Photos / Patron's Tables / Directions Links / About J Bar J Youth Services Schedule: Wednesday/ Thursday/ Friday/ Saturday[ Sunday Email Us © 2001-2005 J Bar J Youth Services • All Rights Reserved Site Designed by Curran Communications, Inc. http://www.jbarj.org/Horse/schedules/sat.html 10/10/200_5_ Exhibit Page _F:;> of Deschutes County Geographic Report 0 Page 1 of 3 Land Use Information General Account No: 1712230001700 Owner: I BAR I PROPERTIES Situs Address: 62895 HAMBY RD Mailing Address: 62895 HAMBY RD BEND OR 97701 I GIS Computed Acres: 38.14 Prop Class: ggi Subdivision: I N/A Maint Area: 1 3 Block: ;'N/A Value Area: 35 Lot: I N/A Zoning: Description: View County Code AS MUA10 MULTI USE AGRICULTURAL Land Use UV> Map displaying tax lot 1712230001700 Permit Number: (Application Date: Status: CU9381 I SP9383_ _ SP9419 107-14-1993 107-14-1993 03-16-1994 A A A TU8430 SP9772 11-26-1997 F CU8164 1 A9211 06-10-1992 1 H SP8239 l M826 SP8438 CU9240 03-18-1992 H Inside UGB: N - _I --Legal Lot: N Sales Date: I Code: Price: Inst Num: FB: I Total Sq I Ft: Garage Sq Ft: Year Built: Last Sale: N/A N/A $ 0 N/A i N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 Grantor: N/A (Grantee: N/A 2nd Sale: N/A 1 N/A $ 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I t http://1 ava. deschutes. org/mox4/apps/index. cfm?fuseaction=reports.l anduse&profile=Pub1. 1.0/1_U2005 Exhibit Page of 4 :Dese-hirtes County Geographic Report Page 2 of 3 1 Grantor: N/A !Grantee: N/A 1 Percent Good: , N/A Year Appraised: 119961 Assess zone: MUA Total Acres: 40.00 Property values Real Market Values: Total Value_ I $ 248,20Q Improve Value: I N/A Land Value: $ 248,200 Assessed Values (Taxable): Assessed Value: Is 0 Improvement Values: Factor Book: I Value: $0 Land Values: Assessment Type: (Acres: Real Market Value: 24 40.00 $ 279,840 SD 0.00 $ 15,000 TOTAL 40.00 $ 294,840 Road Access Permits N/A for this tax lot Building Permits 9 building permit(s) available Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional information. PermitID: 141542 Serial: 1 Status: App Date: 150977 Final ;01-14-1998 Issue Date: 04-17-1998 Final Date: 109-04-1998 I - 142043 1 134305 134801 1 110299 110300 1 111161 I 11890 113131 150977 Final 150977 Final 1509771 Expired 1509771 Final 150977 Final 150977I Final 150977 Final 1509771 Expired 04-06-1998 .10-28-1993 03-16-1994 ' 10-22-1982 10-22-1982 10-20-1983 08-23-1984 ;01-01-1986 04-13-1998 02-25-1994 104-04-1994 110-25-1982 10-25-1982 10-26-1983 109-19-1984 102-25-1986 103-16-1999 102-09-1995 103-24-1995 102-04-1983 1 ; 02-04-1983 1 110-01-1984 !01-25-1985 104-23-1993 1 Electrical Permits 0 electric permit(s) available Click on the arrow button [ : > ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional information. N/A for this tax lot http://lava. deschutes. org/mox4/apps/index.cfm?fuseaction=reports.landuse&profile=Publ... 10/11/2005 Exhibit Page 2^ of L Deschutes County Geographic Report Page 3 of 3 Site Evaluation (Feasibility) 2 site evaluation Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve (s) available additional information. 1 Perm RID: I Serial: I Status: App Date: Issue Date: Final Date: 180 11509771 Final ,10-01-1982 I 1 114902 11509771 Final 08-31-1993 108-31-1993 110-18-1993 Mechanical Permits 4 mechanical permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ > ] to the left of a record to retrieve available additional information. PermitID: 1 Serial: Status: App Date: Issue Date: i Final Date: 1344 11509771 Expired 03-04-1988 1 03-04-1988 104-23-1993 -19135 1 150977 Final ;02-23-1994 1 02-25-1994 102-08-1995 1 119248 1 150977 Expired ;03-31-1994 1 04-04-1994 X03-24-1995 (16240 1 150977 Final 101-14-1998 1 04-17-1998 109-01-1998 Manufactured Home Permits 0 manufactured home permit(s) available Click on the arrow button : > to the left of a record to retrieve additional information. N/A for this tax lot Plumbing Permits 3 plumbing permit(s) available Click on the arrow button [ : ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional information. _I PermitID: = 18236 I:;> 14556 114593 I Serial: F Status_ 150977 Final 1509771 Final 1509771 Final App Date: I Issue Date: 02-23-1994 - 02-25-1994 04-06-1998 04-06-1998 01-14-1998 04-17-1998 I Final Date: 102-07-1995-- 102-18-1999 1 108-31-1998 1 Septic Permits 6 septic permit(s) available Click on the arrow button [ : ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional infnrmatinn Perm RID: Serial: Status: App Date: Issue Date: 1 Final Date: 1 11014 150977 Final ~ 11-17-1986 11-17-1986 112-05-1986 1 34666 150977 Final !10-28-1993 10-29-1993 106-17-1994 1 1 3092 1509771 Final 10-22-1982 1 10-22-1982 111-24-1982 1 3442 1 150977 Final i09-18-1984 1 09-18-1984 109-18-1985 1 41339 1 150977 Denied :01-14-1998 1 09-25-1998 1 1 1 10501 1 150977 Final 01-03-1986 1 01-03-1986 i01-17-1986 1 Special Inspection Permits 0 special inspection Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to permit(s) available retrieve additional info. N/A for this tax lot http://lava. deschutes. orglmox4lappslindex.cfm?fuseaction=reports.landuse&profile=Publ 10/11/2005 Exhibit P_- Page _2-.>_ of L~A Deschutes County Geographic Report Page 1 of 3 AGRICULTURAL Map displaying tax lot 1712230001700 Account No: 1712230001700 Owner: 7 BAR ] PROPERTIES Situs Address: 62895 HAMBY RD Mailing Address: 62895 HAMBY RD BEND OR 97701 GIS Computed Acres:.48 + Prop Class: ! 991 Subdivision: ! N/A Maint Area: 3 Block a N/A j Value Area: 35 Lot: N/A ; . Zoning: Description: View County Code; AS MUA10 MULTI USE General Land Use Information Land Use Permit Number: Application Date: Status: 'SP8438 CU9381 ,07-14-1993 A TU8430 -A9211 06-10-1992 H SP9383 07-14-1993 `A SP9419 03-16-1994 A 'CU8164 SP9772 11-26-1997 IF M826 ISP8239 ~CU9240 03-18-1992 H Inside UGS: N Legal Lot: N Sales Date: Code: Price: Inst Num: FB: Total Sq Garage Sq Year i Ft: Ft: Built: Last Sale: ' N/A N/A $ 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grantor: ' N/A Grantee: N/A 2nd Sale:: N/A N/A $ 0 N/A N/A ;N/A N/A N/A http://lava. deschutes.org/mox4/apps/index.cfin?fuseaction=reports.l anduse&p rofile--Public... 3/29/2005 Exhibit Page _ of _ Deschutes County Geographic Report Page 2 of 3 Grantor: N/A iGrantee: N/A Percent Good: i N/A Year Appraised: 1996. Assess Zone: I MUA, Total Acres 40 00' Improvement Values: 'Factor Book: - Value: ....__-r _ _ $ 0 . Land Values: l Assessment Type: Acres: Real Market Value: 24 40.00 $ 233,200 SD ' 0.00 $ 15,000 'TOTAL 40.00 $ 248,200 Road Access Permits N/A for this tax lot Building Permits 9 building permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional available information. _ _ - PermltID: f_ . - - _ I Serial Status: ---l APP Date. - Issue Date: 4 f Final Date: j11161 150977 Final ;10-20-1983 110-26-1983 ,10-01-1984 11890 150977, Final 08-23-1984 :09-19-1984 101-25-1985 ;13131 150977'Expired 101-01-1986 102-25-1986 04-23-1993 41542 150977, Final 101-14-1998 `04-17-1998 !09-04-1998 42043 150977 Final i._. 04-06-1998 04-13-1998 _ . 103-16-1999 < `34305 _ _ 150977. Final _ 10-28-1993 X02-25-1994 1102-09-1995 = 134801 150977; Expired 03-16-1994 04-04-1994 103-24-1995 10299 150977; Final ~10-22-1982 10-25-1982 02-04-1983 :10300 150977 Final 10-22-1982 10-25-1982 02-04-1983 Electrical Permits 0 electric permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional available information. N/A for this tax lot http://lava. deschutes.org/mox4/apps/index.cfm?fuseaction=reports.landuse&profile=Public... 3/2.9/2005 Exhibit Page _c3- of _111 Deschutes County Geographic Report Page 3 of 3 Site Evaluation (Feasibility) 2 site evaluation Click on the arrow button [ - ] to the left of a record to retrieve (s) -available additional information. PermitlD' Serial: ; Status: App Date: Issue Date: Final Date 80 150977; Final 10-01-1982 14902 150977 Final ;08-31-1993 108-31-1993 1;10-18-1993 Mechanical Permits 4 mechanical permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve available additional information. ;PermitlD: Serial. I Status, App Date Issue Date I Final Date i 344 1150977 , Expired i 03-04-1988 ; 03 04 1988 s 04 23-1993 j x •9135 1150977 Final 02-23-1994 102-25-1994 102-08-1995 9248 150977 Expired ;03-31-1994 04 04 1994 ' 03 24 1995 ' 16240 ; 1150977, Final 01 14-1998 04-17-1998 09_01_1998 Manufactured Home Permits 0 manufactured home permit(s) available Click on the arrow button 1 to the left of a record to retrieve additional information. - N/A for this tax lot Plumbing Permits 3 plumbing permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve available additional information. PermitID: _ i Serial Status: _ App Date. - - Issue Date: r _ Final Date. } 8236 150977 Final ~ 02-23-1994 02-25-1994 j02-07-1995 14556 150977:Final 104-06-1998 ,04-06-1998 X02-18-1999 14593 '150977 Final i01-14-1998 .04-17-1998 08-31-1998 Septic Permits 6 septic permit(s) Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional available information. PermitlD: Serial Status: App Date: Issue Date. i Final Date: 10501 150977 Final 01-03-1986 01-03-19 86 01-17-1986 11014 v 150977. Final 111-17-1986 11-17-1986 ;12-05-1986 '41339 150977: Denied 01-14-1998 09-25-1998 34666 1150977'Fina1 10-28-1993 .10-29-1993 ;06-17-1994 " `3092 150977; Final 10-22-1982 10-22-1982 J11-24-1982 3442 150977. Final 09-18-1984 09-18-1984 X09-18-1985 Special Inspection Permits 0 special inspection permit(s) available N/A for this tax lot Click on the arrow button [ ] to the left of a record to retrieve additional info. http://lava.deschutes. orglmox4lapps/index.cfm?fuseaction=reports.landuse&profile=Public... 3/29/2005 Exhibit ~D Page of_ • • Community Development Department FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: SP-97-72 APPLICANT/ J Bar J Properties PROPERTY OWNER: 62895 Hamby Road Bend, OR 97701 AGENT: Sharon R. Smith Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division REQUEST: Site Plan Review for an addition and remodel to the existing boys ranch facility in an MUA-10 zone. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Zoning Ordinance. B. C. 11. A. B. C. Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agriculture Zone. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions FINDINGS OF FACT: h87g19 C~ DEC N 4b N Cy% c-, LOCATION: The ranch property is located at 62895 Hamby Road, Bend, and is identified on Deschutes County Assessors Map #17-12-23 as tax lot 1700. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record. ZONING: The property is zoned Multiple Use Agriculture, MUA-10. D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 40 acres and is the site of the existing boys ranch facility, which includes administrative office building; living quarters for staff and students, classroom building, parking area, playing fields and landscaped areas. Vegetation on the site consists of some trees and grass. SP-97-72 Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit Page of :sK_ 0 0 E. SURROUNDING PROPERTY: The subject property is surrounded by residential subdivisions to the west (Eagle View Estates), north (East Villa), and east (Los Serranos), and on the south by 2.5 to 10 acres parcels with single-family dwellings. Properties in the surrounding area are zoned UAR-10, Urban Area Reserve to the west, northwest and southwest, and MUA-10 to the north, south and east. F. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Plan for a 1,252 square foot addition to an existing dormitory living facility/dining hall building, with some associated interior remodeling of the building. According to the information provided by the applicant, the existing building has 4,247 square feet and will end up with 5,499 square feet. The applicant has indicated that a twelve foot wide extension of the building on the east end will occur. The first floor of the building is to continue to have a kitchen with dry storage, utility room, three sleeping areas, a small conference area and an upgraded handicap accessible bathroom. The second story will continue to have three offices and the bathroom will be remodeled to remove the bathtub and upgrade the bathroom facilities. The exterior of the addition will match the existing building. The applicant has submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and a written burden-of-proof statement in support of the application. G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed use to several public agencies and received the following comments: 1. County Road Department: The applicant is not proposing any change in the access to Hamby Road, thus an access permit is not required. Hamby Road is a rural collector two lane paved road maintained by Deschutes County. Hamby Road had an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 1547 in 1994 at a point located .08 mile south of Butler Market Road. In 1990 the ADT was 1140, in 1987 it was 900, in 1986 it was 765 and in 1980 it was 608. Traffic volumes have increased at a steady rate but capacity is not problem at this time. 2. Bend Fire Department submitted the following conditions: Fire Safety During Construction -1996 OUFC Article 87 Approved fire department access roads, required water supply and fire hydrants shall be installed before any combustible construction commences. Water Supply -1996 OUFC Appendix I11--A The required water suply for fire suppression for this building shall be 2,0000 gallons per minute at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure. This flow requirement is based on Type V-N 5,499 square foot building construction. Fire Hydrants -1996 OUFC Section 903 The minimum amount of fire hydrants needed on this site shall be two spaced no more than 150 feet from the most remote portion of the building measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building and outside of the building collapse zone. SP-97-72 Page 2 Exhibit Page of E 0 Obstruction and Protection of Fire Hydrant -1996 OUFC 903.4.3 A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants. When exposed to vehicular damage, fire hydrants shall be suitably protected by concrete curbing, sidewalks, or 4-inch concrete filled bollards placed 3 feet from the hydrant. Premises Identification -1996 OUFC 901.4.4 Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be visible at night. Dwellings and foster homes that are located off of street frontage shall post a visible approved reflective address sign at the entrance to their driveway. Streets or Road Signs -1996 OUFC 901.4.5 Streets and roads shall be identified with approved signs. Fire Lanes -1996 OUFC 901.4.5 (1.) Fire lane curbs shall be painted bright red with white letters. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches high to read 'No Parking Fire Lane°. Spacing for signage shall be every 25 feet. Fire Apparatus Access Roads -1996 OUFC 902.2 Fire apparatus access roads shall be placed within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the first floor of all buildings. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width on not less than 20 feet designed with a uniform all-weather driving surface to support the imposed GVW of 50,000 lbs. and a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Turning radius shall not be less than 45 feet and gradient shall not exceed 10 percent unless a variance is approved by the authorities having jurisdiction. Dead-end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. A cul de sac, hammerhead or other approved means for the turning around of fire apparatus may be approved. Key Boxes -1996 OUFC 902.4 Key Box (Knox Box) or Key Switch for Fire Department access is required to be installed at each the main entrance. An application for the Knox Box is available by calling the Fire Prevention Office at 388-5536. Portable Fire Extinguishers -1996 OUFC Section 1002. Fire extinguishers rating shall not be less than a 2A-10BC. Maximum unobstructed travel distance to any approved extinguisher shall not be more than 75 feet. SP-97-72 Page 3 Exhibit Page __C~_ of 4 L~ - 0 0 Dumpsters -1996 OUFC 1103.2.2 Dumpsters of 1.5 cubic yards or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof save lines unless such containers are provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Gas Meters and Piping -1996 OUFC Section 1106 Above-ground gas meters, regulators and piping exposed to vehicular damage due to proximity to alleys, driveways or parking areas shall be protected in an approved manner. Smoking -1996 OUFC 1109.4 No Smoking signs shall be conspicuously and suitably located in each building, and outside of structure. Fire Alarm Systems -1996 OUFC Section 1007 Installation and maintenance of fire alarm systems shall be in accordance with section 1007.2, Control Units, annunciator panels and access keys shall be maintained at a location approved by the chief. Fire Extingwishing Equipment for IGtchen Appliances - 1996 OUFC Section 1005 Approved fire suppression equipment systems shall be provided for the protection of commercial-type food heat processing equipment. Smoke Detection - ORS 479.255 Smoke detectors shall be in compliance with Oregon State Laws and the Building Code. OUFC 1007.2.9.1.3. 3. County Environmental Health Division states that a septic authorization notice is required. 4. County Building Safety Division states that the applicant must provide plans in compliance with all applicable codes. 5. Avion Water Company: No comments. 6. County Property Address Coordinator. The address of record for this parcel is 62895 Hamby Road. 7 No response was received from the County Property Address Coordinator, Central Electric Cooperative, Pacific Power and Light and US West Communications. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this proposal to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. No comments were received. SP-97-72 Page 4 Exhibit Page Q_ of _4 ,4=__ • 0 H. ORS 215.428 120-DAY RULE: This application was accepted and deemed complete on November 26, 1997. The 120' day on which the County must take final action is March 26, 1998. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: Conformance with Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning: A. Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agriculture zone. Section 18.32.030. Conditional uses permitted. B. Semipublic use. FINDING: The boys ranch facility, according to information contained in the County's file, has operated at this site since 1968. Approval was granted in 1981 for a conditional use permit (CU-81-64) for a residential child care center. A site plan (SP-82-39) was approved for two modular units in 1982. A site plan (SP-84- 38) for a recreation room addition -to an existing structure was approved by the County. In 1992 the County approved a conditional use permit (CU-92-40) for an equestrian event facility. In 1993 the County approved a conditional use permit (CU-93-81) and site plan (SP-93-83) for a multi-purpose building for the ranch. In 1994 a site plan (SP-9419) was approved for the equestrian events facility. Staff finds that the use as a boys ranch facility has been ongoing since 1968 and is considered initiated. The proposed minor addition to the existing dormitory/ dining hall building does not require conditional use review. It is considered a semipublic use. 2. Section 18.32.050. Yards A. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 30 feet from a property line fronting on a collector right of way. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet, except on the street side, which shall be a minimum of 30 feet. For parcels or lots adjacent to an intensive agricultural use, the adjacent side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 eet, except when parcels or lots have rear yards adjacent to an intensive agricultural use, rear yards shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in section 18.116.180. FINDING: According to the site plan submitted, the proposed addition is to be 40 feet from the front property line along Hamby Road, a rural collector road. The side yards are approximately 68 feet and 1200 feet, and the rear yard is approximately 1,145 feet. The solar setback standard is met by the proposed building. There are no intensive agricultural uses adjacent to the subject property. SP-97-72 Page 5 Exhibit Page _ of l~ _ 0 0 S. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review. 1. Section 18.124.060. Aooroval Criteria. a. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDING: The subject property is level and has vegetation consisting of a few trees on the east side of the property and grasses throughout the property. The proposed addition is to match the existing exterior appearance of the dormitory/dining hall building, which relates harmoniously with the natural environment and the existing development. There will be no visual impacts, including views from adjacent property, created by the small addition. b. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDING: The applicant states that the addition will require the removal of some lawn area and potentially two trees. Staff has visited the site and it appears that two juniper trees will need to be removed in order to accommodate the addition. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDING: The site plan submitted by the applicant shows visual and physical separations between motorized and non-motorized traffic. As indicated in a foregoing finding, the boys ranch has been operated since 1968, and two modular units and a multi-purpose building have been placed on the site. The site provides a safe environment and an easy transition from the parking and driveway areas to the buildings. d. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of handicapped persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDING: The applicant has indicated in the burden of proof statement that one of the reasons for the remodel is to make the building more handicap accessible, including the bathrooms. Based on the applicant's ability to meet the requirements of the County Building Division, Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. e. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. SP-97-72 Page 6 Exhibit Page -2-- of 4- FINDING: The existing parking area is paved and is accessed from Hamby Road. There is also an existing driveway which extends from Hamby back to several of the buildings on the site. These accesses appear to be safe. The sight distance in both directions is good. The parking and driveway areas have been in place for several years and are adequate for the ranch use. No new parking or access is proposed as part of the addition and remodel. f. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDING: The submitted site plan indicates that drainage will run into the adjacent natural vegetation on the site next to the building. There is enough vacant land around the site to absorb stormwater runoff. g. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: The applicant states that no changes to the existing storage, garbage mail and utility facilities is proposed. h. All above-ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: There are no utilities other than electric visible on the property. No change to the utilities is proposed, so no additional visual impact should occur on the site or neighboring properties. 1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). FINDING: The proposed use meets the setbacks of the MUA-10 zone, as indicated in a foregoing finding. j. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDING: The applicant states that no exterior lighting is to be added for the addition and remodel. C. The proposed use is not considered a residential development, multi-family, commercial or industrial use. Consequently the standards of section 18.124.070 do not apply to the proposed site plan. D. The proposed addition and remodel of one building within the entire boys ranch complex, as stated by the applicant, will not create any additional need for parking, including bicycle parking, since no new students or staff will be on site. Bicycle parking can be accommodated within existing buildings on the site. SP-97-72 Page 7 Exhibit Page - of L L 3gg low- 7 ~MA~i~{/iAf♦tl4 I 00 moo 00 000 0 0 00 0 ©o ~ o 0 a a imp fill.. pYY§[p4 l~ W Ob Exhibit Page _!L~_ of Cl. S, goo Cq- gig . Ira n~R EL8'CsREMR _ S ° p~o~0 n a'pmp. i!°•°ro~pmWL•~. cm° •°,io~ c. Pro, t m a S o gym' c qtr . v' c ti wE. `O , `O m ; $S ~ p• m ~ R ~ R roo CA - TAa~+`+fb~o °a n0 ~ Qm ~"'A m ~p p~°em: oMOo.00 ~a.m~ p► SOD ° a °oo99 7 tb . X `►~'i ~e W a~ ~•r r°•w R .p A a R a' QD o peo $ f3.,y ~ C ~ • ""M° p < a $ e o $ ~ m p t7' ~ yt:106S Ptcoor O ap ~~.C~ 6-cc C4 ~ R P• ~ !Y m 8q Cr Of a- to e~' CC" 9 F a', ~ m l m ope a t c. P• C. w 4 C9 m SD V m caop~'°d d. m < er aao'o° v a' c~ m a•oRy m ~ yip c~+a@.~~`a ~R[r eo "'•'x jr 'R. :3 [8 ~u~c.W S r.rgQ aco ,rA a sTl pCe ovoTQ°~A~v ~mQ0 017 -1 to Pr ;~J- ~orno°~~~• oq~m.o.Kg'~~'sPW ~Sf►~c~i•~mo: . a4 ° (A8 Ooap C-4 CS 1. a .0 0 CO M-0 L o . m R o ti S. a CO rb R (p m R A C7 b .~R. 0 m `Fi'g Cr If E; 400 m o l- m 82; OD ia SAM ~ wmM M 0 M I F .1 [f-IiMk e+ :r• R R E 4WD C'n W 'd.rr o oa a to p' Oa m er c~ (CD ID CD GA F C~ Go glq C. Ma CA v cg"- 8110-0 An. (D 9 om R {T04oM -dam % SIm.m ~G.A.mmJ~O ~m oQ.C7'ob*Qf04p~o v~ o R m «a a •C a a- ..o oC S P- r, -C~ CS R rpm t•.• P' lD R R .°if o m o° 4 e► Cl ;L f"' n'~ .7 P~$ o p C'R'7 ~aMq Q.~ p~ 3 ~ ~ (R~ YQp~" ~ R!'►~~07'~ ~r n Sri boy Fd+. 9 R~•. C~ f7 m ~ m N m R'7 e~'► ~ ~ ~ P n n N 3 H CD 3 cD CL v 0 3 3 O t- O T 3 O 3 T C w tr G 3. CL O 3' 3 3 O C 1 0. 1 Q 3 n T O C ~ Ck. IC p ~p n 3 h~ O q y O ZP- CL O Q vs ' ~ ~ A Ip ~p O ~ O t~ii ? ~ ~ 3 rC ~ Ip ~D 7 N flocumant- Reproduces Poorly (Archived) t. C. ---I- 0 s 0 (n S O Cr C 4- C~ s Cr 0 ::E 0 "Ol Ol< 463 Exhibit Page -Lf)- of ~ L- _ Expanded horse show scheduled By Steve Irvin Bulletin Staff Writer By adding five more days of competition, the Michelob Classic Grand Prix Horse Show could ben- efit the J Bar J Youth Services and the J Bar J Ranch twice as much as last year. The first of the show's two five- day sessions Wednesday at Stevenson in Bend and con- timtes through Sunday. The second five,day session runs July 22-26. More than 750 horses are ex- L to arrive in Bend for the hunter and jumper competitions. Horses in the hunter classes are judged on their style while clearing obstacles, and the jumper classes require horses to jump higher fences within time constraints. A $4,000 matching grant from the Oregon Tourist Division al- lowed the horse show to double in size. That, in turn, has J Bar J executive director Craig Christian- sen optimistic about the show's contribution to his agencies„ which provide residential .treatment for juvenile criminal offenders and coma nunity-based programs for at- risk children: "Last year, we made about $20,000 net, and tliis year we're looking to raise between $85,000 and $50,000 by going.-to the two. week format," Christiansen said. The event is Oregon's only 'A" rated comTee tition - the top rank given by American Horse Show Association - and has included world-class riders such as four-time Olympian Kevin Freeman, who rode to victory on the last mount of last year's vent. Highlightuig the fifth annual event are two Grand Prix competi- tions - the Gambler's Choice and the Michelob Grand Prix. The Gambler'•s Choice, which has, a $7,500 purse, is set for Sunday, and the Grand Prix is scheduled for July 25-26 and offers a purse of $15,000. Admission is free during the week and $2 on the weekends. Exhibit_ Page _LP_ of 1-1 lA Horses'. n eigh.b.o'rs. often s ay By lomar Laden: ; Bullotln Stall Writer What could be more natural than horses and stables in rural Bend, where residents seek to hold on to their priaedpace and quiet? The answer is not so simple when one looks at two neighbor hoods on either side of town. In Tumalo, a 180-foot barn built without hors' wrat- tand a by bid Des- chutes County for a court injunc- tion to shut a horse-boarding operation. East of Bend, the J Bar J Boys Ranch wants to hold its major fund-raising event, moving the Michelob Classic horse show from the Stevenson Ranch, now up for sale. But =a -J Bar J neighbors are crying foul Both can involve proposals for .equestrian programs ark land coned for multiple agricultural uses. tThhoeurgeb. we e many.- differences, it bard and Denise Moony, owners of the Tamalo barn, want to play boat ;to up to a dozen horse shows. and several. smaller clinics each year Their troubles stem from the lack of permits for their 180- foot-hog barn, as well as the comma- am nature of their intended opera' ti The Moodys lost their first attempt to win a county permit when a state appeals boarif ruled tbe.county could hibit.c~mer ejal stables In ma useb ture zones. The couple is now back before t bves .arena,., to operate a a which is allowed in the zone. But county Oanneri have urges hear- ings officer Ed Fitch to reject the request, and an appeal is likely maer way. Over at the J Bar J, officials prop~e riding rims and temporary stables for the in July when the site . would- play bat to the Michelob Classic. The top hante-jumper horse show in the region, the cleasic expanded to two weeks this year, drawing 460 horses and riders. Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived)- 'pay' In'.both canes, some neighbora fear the' impact ofmare noise, crowds and traffic, not io mention manure. Riders who would use the sites feel differently, of course. The Moodys and their attorney accuse the county of selective en- forcement. Efforts among . neigb- bors to resolve the dispute have fallen through. The Moodys are talking about selling the place. But out of frustra. Lion, they warn they could put in a driving range or go cart track, uses the zoning would allow. Both cases involve not only county zoning laws, but also rural residents' desires to hold on to a slow and easy lifestyle. (A dosser look, Pogo B-1) fS Exhibit Page_ of ~AW This year's Michelob Classic was the biggest ever; next year, it could move to J Bar J. Boys Ranch 2 0 E r~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW July 13, 1992 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The show has gotten distinctly bigger and, and J Bar J has expanded its services in accord with that. We The show originally started out this is our fourth show that I've, that I've done. Michelob Classic, and any way, we call them now Michelob Classics I and II. We've gone to a two week format MR. BONACQUIST: Wow. MR. CHRISTENSEN: each week being, essentially, hundred jumper competition all week long. The first week on the weekends, we have two different competitions. We have a Gamblers' Choice Speed Series during the first Sunday and the second Sunday, of course, is the Grand Prix, which everybody has heard something about. * * * * * Exhibit Page 1<C;' of 3 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i MR. CHRISTENSEN: * * * On the 19th, the Gamblers' Choice American Speed Series. This is a new event for us. We've always just done the Grand Prix on Sundays, but when we went to the two week format, we decided to bring in more horses from California and Canada who who looked to the Speed Series as their premier event, rather than the Grand Prix. And so, what's happened this year is instead of the last year we had about two hundred seventy horses. This year we have four hundred horses. MR. BONACQUIST: Wow. MR. CHRISTENSEN: And actually about four hundred thirty portable stalls have been set up in addition to the fifty five or so stalls that, that are there at Stevenson Ranch. So, we are bringing in a lot more competition. California is has probably tripled its participation. We're going to have representatives from ten states in the United States. And six Provinces in Canada. So, we're really, really expanding that competition. The American Speed Series is part of that. * * * * sq Exhibit Page-a- of ~A~A 0 0 • 0 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 MR. BONACQUIST: * * * And the Michelob Classic, which is J Bar its major fund raising of the year, practically the only one, is coming up starting tomorrow. Its expanded, its bigger. Over four hundred entries. Seven hundred fifty horses. Its going to be tremendous coming up. Now, when when all of this is put together and the bottom line is done, the prize money is given away, what's left over goes to J Bar J Youth Services * * * * * * Exhibit of . a • • 0 0 FI 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CHRISTENSEN: * * * Our other key sponsors are Cadillac, Bob Thomas Cadillac here in town and they'll have some really nice Cadillac's on display out at the event, including Allante' convertibles and some, some of their newer models. We've got all kinds of display activities for them. Almost like a trade show in that regard. Also, we other as you're well aware, Bend businesses support events like almost no other businesses in the state. And we've got thirty to forty other corporate and small business sponsors that have come in and contributed significant amounts. * * * * * bl Exhibit Page Of _ 10. J BAR J APPLICATION FINDINGS AND DECISION Before the Board was signature of the Findings and Decision on the application of J Bar J Youth Services for a Conditional Use Permit for an equestrian activities facility in an NDA-10 zone (CU-92-40, A-92-11). Bruce White said the Hearings Officer's decision was unclear in that it allowed for permanent arena fencing and then required that the entire site be put up and taken down within 20-days. Therefore he suggested putting into the decision a condition allowing permanent arena fencing which was part of the J Bar J proposal and was in the Hearings Officer's decision. The Board agreed to allow the permanent arena fencing. Bruce white pointed out condition #4 on page 15 concerning parking for RVs serving as overnight lodging for participants not being adjacent to property lines. Commissioner Throop had expressed concern over the impacts of these parking areas. Condition #5 proposed that a site plan be submitted. The Hearings Officer's decision required a revised site plan to be resubmitted and approved by the County, but didn't say whether that should be part of the regular approval site plan process or not. He felt it should be a requirement, however he didn't know whether the ranch had been informed of that. He asked whether the Board wanted the J Bar J Ranch to have to come back through a formal process which would require that they apply for a site plan approval permit. Commissioner Schlangen felt they should have to go through the process to make sure it was done right the first time and Chairman Maudlin agreed. Mr. White said they were proposing to start using this site in the summer of 1994. Under operation limits, the ranch was proposing to have a musical event on each Friday evening, and he put in language allowing the music only until 9:30 p.m. Under 6(e) he put in language regarding Commissioner Throop's concern that this event not use any more RVs for housing than necessary. In the record, it was reported that in 1992 there were 15 RVs at the event with 7 people using them for overnight accommodations. Since there needed to be some security people staying on the site, he put in language that there,be a maximum of 15 people staying overnight in RVs. He suggested alternative language of "those necessary for taking care of the animals." Commissioner Throop said he like that alternative language better. Bruce white said that under (f) he wasn't sure whether the Board had any concerns about defining the scope and number of concessionaires, so he put in some language for discussion. The Board agreed with his suggested language. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 12-16-92 Exhibit Page 22 of Mr. White had added a condition ( j ) concerning fencing off the two streets which came in through other subdivisions which might lead to the property. The Board agreed with that condition. He said a condition would also be added to require that they get an access permit. Commissioner Throop suggested that the Board approve signature of these findings and decisions upon review of the agreed upon changes. 11. 12. THROOP: I'll make the motion that we adopt this findings and decisions which implements the decision made earlier. SCHLANGENs' Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHBB§ Before the Board was approval of two batches of accounts payable vouchers in the amounts of $299,262.37 and $222,864.00. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGENz YES MAUDLIN: YES COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS WORK TEAM/COMKUNITY SERVICE CRITERIA Before the Board was approval of Community Corrections Work Team/Community Service Priorities and Decision Making Criteria as outlined in the memorandum from Dennis Maloney, Community Corrections Director dated December 15, 1992. Commissioner Throop felt the memorandum "implemented perfectly the conceptual discussion that the CDD management team had with the Board." THROOPs I would move that this be adopted as Board policy for the work team program. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGENs YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 12 MINUTES: `12-16-92 Exhibit Page ---3 ~ of I- i C 1] DESC$OTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT CU-92-40 I-LS61 ZRARII~G DATE: Tuesday, May 5, 1992 7:00 P.M. City of Bend Public Works Building Forbes Avenue, Bend APPLICANT/ J Bar J Youth Services PROPERTY OWNER: c/o Craig Christiansen 62845 Hamby Road Bend, Oregon 97701 REQIIEST: An application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equestrian activities facility for the J Bar J Boys Ranch on Hamby Road in an NUA-10 zone. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 62895 Hamby Road east of Bend, and is further described as 17-12-23, tax lot 1700. REVIEWER: Paul Blikstad BURDEN OF PROOF: A. Chapter 18.32 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code establishes uses and standards for the NUA-10 zone. B. Section 18.128.015 of Title 18 establishes general standards governing conditional use applications. C. Section 18.128.040 (E) of Title 18 establishes standards for land uses such as parks, playgrounds, grounds and buildings for games or sports, etc. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall planning and development framework for the County. E. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code establishes CU-92-40 Page 1 )75 -'ro {71819. 0 , CV Exhibit Page FL _ of . i i procedures for land use applications in the county. BASIC FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is zoned NUA-10, Multiple Use Agriculture, and is designated Rural Residential on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The subject property is 36.82 acres and slopes gently to the north. The property is the site of the J Bar J Boys Ranch, which includes a group living facility, administrative offices, maintenance facility, dormitory living facility and dining hall, apartment area, classroom area, paved parking area, volleyball court, barn, irrigation.pond and a well. There is also a lawn area and landscaping on the property. Beyond this developed area is a large pasture area proposed for the equestrian facility, which currently contains exercise structures and a gazebo structure. 3. Land use in the area includes single-family residences in the East Villa subdivision to the north, the Eagle View Estates subdivision to the west, Los Serranos to the east, Vista Del Sol subdivisicon to the southeast, and larger lot parcels with dwellings to the south and northeast and northwest. Zoning in the area includes: Eagle View Estates and the parcels to the southwest and northeast - UAR-10, Urban Area Reserve, East Villa, Vista Del Sol, Los Serranos and parcels directly south of the Boys Ranch - MUA-10, and larger parcels to the northeast zoned EFU-20, Exclusive Farm Use. 4. The applicant has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equestrian events facility to be accommodated on the existing J Bar J Ranch property in the existing pasture area. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan drawing showing the areas for the proposed equestrian activities, which include two Hunter Rings and two Grand Prix Rings, bleachers, a jumper warm-up area, and a stabling area. The property is to be used for the "Michelob Classic", referred to in the information submitted by the applicant as "a Class A-rated hunter-jumper competition held each July at the Stevenson Ranch on Knott Road. This is the premier hunter-jumper competition in Oregon, and supports our education and treatment programs." The stabling area on the site plan indicates a series of rectangular shapes which do not adequately describe what will be done in the "stabling areas". A gravel access road is proposed to serve the use, with access from Hamby Road. A show office is also indicated adjacent to the gravel road. CU-92-40 Page 2 1'), Exhibit Page of 1~ 5. The applicant has included what appears to be two letters in support of the proposed use. 6. The Planning Division has received the following transmittal responses: A. The County Public works Department states that an access permit is required for any new access to Hamby Road. Any access to Hamby must have a turnaround so that vehicles do not back out onto the road. B. The County Environmental Health Division states that a septic site evaluation is required for the new septic system. C. The Bend Fire Department states that if this is a building plan, hydrants are required within 150 feet of all exterior walls. D. The Watermaster's Office states that their records show COI water rights on this property. " The applicant will need to go through the District to make sure the water rights are taken care of before final approval. E. Central Oregon Irrigation District states that tax lot 1700 is being assessed for 35.0 acres of irrigation water rights by COID. There are no easements or right of ways within the property. However, no structures or improvements shall be placed within the irrigated areas. Any development within irrigated areas will required removal of water rights by due process. F. The County Assessor's Office states that this is a non-assessable account. G. The County Property Address Coordinator and Building Division had no comments. 7. Notice of the proposed land use action has just recently been sent to adjoining residences and property owners. The Planning Division has received a few phone calls regarding the proposed equestrian facilities. It is likely that additional inquiries will be made, as well as testimony at the hearing. The Hearings Officer will need to take these comments into account for the decision. 8. The subject property is a legal lot of record. CONCI,USIONARY FINDINGS: CU-92-40 Page 3 Exhibit Page /77 of 1. The MUA-10 zone, as listed in Section 18.32.030 of Title 18 lists a Semi-public use inder item B. A Semi-public .use is defined as: "A structure or use intended or used for both private and public purposes by a church, lodge, club or any other non-profit organization." Also listed under this section is item I as follows: "Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves, campgrounds, motorcycle tracks, rodeo or livestock arenas and other recreational uses." The proposed equestrian facility will be similar to both of these uses, specifically the "rodeo or livestock arenas and other recreational uses" language. It is clear that a use of this type is a Conditional Use in the MUA-10 zone. 2. The MUA-10 section of Title 18 has no specific criteria for reviewing conditional use requests. Section 18.128.015 of Title 18 establishes general standards governing conditional uses, which are addressed below. 18.128.015 General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. In addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of this chapter, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: a. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; Staff findings: The site, design and operating characteristics of the use will be spread out over most of the existing field/ pasture area on the property, north of the existing J Bar J complex. The applicant is proposing to stage the "Michelob Classic" on the property, which according the letter submitted by the applicant, is a fundraising activity for the Ranch, that occurs during July every summer. The applicant is proposing to replant the equestrian area in mixed grasses suitable for equestrian use, including hunter-jumper cross country and general showing. The applicant is also proposing to construct a CU-92-40 Page 4 1* Exhibit Page-2:1- of 900-1,400 square foot office facility for general use. "General Use" is not specified by the applicant and it is unclear what the office would be used for both during the event and the remainder of the year. The proposed use is to have a gravel driveway off of Hamby Road serving the equestrian facility. The road is shown on the site plan as leading to the jumping and stabling areas. The applicant has indicated that temporary fencing is to be utilized for the jumping areas and the existing pasture area would be used for parking. The zoning ordinance requires that the proposed use be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors under item A. The Planning Staff has a concern about the impact of the "Classic" on the adjacent residences. The following questions must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Staff and Hearings Officer: 1. What is the time frame (duration) of the Michelob classic? 2. what time period on a daily basis is used for the Classic? (i.e. hours of operation). 3. How may people generally attend the Classic? 4. Do the people attending stay on the property overnight? 5. Are there refreshments sold on the property during A the Classic? 115P°S4 6. Is any lighting used in the events? 0` 7. Are there other events proposed for the property other than the Classic? If so, when are they held and what do they entail? 8. Who runs the Classic and what responsibility do they have for noise, setup and takedown, cleanup, supervision, etc.? Staff finds that in order for this criterion to be addressed adequately, these questions must be addressed by the applicant. Information must be provided and findings made that the use is compatible with existing and projected uses. b. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and Staff findings: CU-92-40 Page 5 17q Exhibit Page_ of L~ Hamby Road will be the access to the proposed use, with a gravel driveway from the road to the equestrian site. The applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from the County Public Works Department for any access to Hamby. The sight distance at the entrance must be reviewed and approved by Public Works. If the sight distance and access permit are approved by Public Works, the transportation access to the site will be adequate for the intended use. c. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. Staff findings: The subject property slopes gently to the north and has no physical features which would inhibit the proposed use. The subject property should not have any natural hazards. The property is in pasture, with no major change in this use proposed. The applicant is proposing to replant the area for the equestrian use in mixed grasses. The natural resource value of the property should not be impacted. As stated above, the applicant must provide additional information in order that a determination of impact can be made. 2. Conformance with Section 18.128.040(E) of Title 18. E. Clinics, clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations, community centers, grange halls, golf courses, grounds and buildings for games or sports, country clubs, swimming, boating, tennis clubs and similar activities, government structures and land uses, parks, playgrounds. In considering the above, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may authorize the conditional use after it has been determined that the following will be provided: a. Access from principal streets subject to Deschutes County Public Works Department standards. Staff findings: As stated above, the applicant must obtain approval of an access permit for the proposed access to Hamby Road. The access permit will be reviewed for sight distance along the road. b. Off-street parking subject to Section 18.116.030. Staff findings: CU-92-40 Page 6 IO Exhibit Page 2q -f A~ The zoning ordinance requires paved parking for all uses. However, the proposed limited duration of the Classic ,equestrian use would not warrant paved parking, nor would the paving over of irrigated pasture. The applicant must provide ample parking for the people attending the classic on-site, with no parking allowed on Hamby Road. The applicant has not submitted information on the numbers of people attending the Classic, nor the usual number of vehicles accommodated for this use. Without this information, the adequacy of parking cannot be determined. C. Building and site design provisions, including landscaping, that will effectively screen neighboring uses from noise and glare. Staff findings: The applicant has not submitted any details of the proposed office building, including specific size, uses, appearance or colors. The applicant has mentioned temporary fencing for the different equestrian events, but no specfic information has been submitted about what type of fencing materials are to be used. The burden of proof also mentions the possible later construction of 4-5 gazebos and covered, single level seating areas. No information as to location or use for the gazebos has been submitted. QONC[IISIOUs: Staff has concern about the proposed use, given the lack of information necessary to make an informed decision. The proposed use could have an adverse impact on the neighboring residences, although with a short duration of two weeks in July. The applicant has not indicated whether other events would take place on the site. Staff finds that additional information must be submitted to review the proposed use against the criteria of Title 18. Staff has no recommendation at this time. CU-92-40 Page 7 W/ Exhibit ~ Page's of U4 r ~ o RECEIVED 4 MAY 2 61992 FINDINGS AND DECISION& FIVE NO. CU-92-40 I N Mp,~~5 1 APPLICANT: J Bar J Youth Services Vic`, t~~GpV c` c/o Craig Christensen 62845 Hamby Road Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: An application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equestrian activities facility for the J Bar J Boys Ranch on Hamby Road in a MUA-10 zone. PLANNING STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Paul Blikstad BURDEN OF PROOF: The applicant must establish that the Conditional Use Permit conforms with applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code. PR33LZNMNARY FINDINGS 1. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 62895 Hamby Road east of Bend, and is further described as 17-12-23, Tax Lot 1700. 2. ZONE: The subject property is zoned MUA-10, Multiple Use Agriculture, and is designated Rural Residential on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. HEARING AND EXHIBITS The hearing was held on the above-referenced application on May 5, 1992. The following exhibits make up the record in this matter: A. Application; B. Project synopsis filed by the applicant; C. Site plan; D. Staff Report; E. Applicant's letter dated April 30, 1992; F. Lindsay Stevens' letter dated May 4, 1992; G. John Cooley letter dated May 4, 1992; H. John and Mila Lindsey letter dated May 5, 1992; I. William Herz letter dated April 25, 1992; and J. Bouche letter dated May 4, 1992. PAGE 1 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 Exhibit Page Of 40 00 t CRITERIA i The KUA-10 Section of Title 18 has no specific criteria for reviewing conditional use requests. Section 18.182.015 of Title 18 establishes general standards governing conditional uses, which are addressed below: 18.128.015 General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. In addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of this chapter, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and C. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. 2. Conformance with Section 18.128.040(E) of Title 18. E. Clinics, clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations, community centers, grange halls, golf courses, grounds and buildings for games or sports, country clubs, swimming, boating,'tennis clubs and similar activities, government structures and land uses, parks, playgrounds. In considering the above, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may authorize the conditional use after it has been determined that the following will be provided: 1. Access from-principal streets subject to Deschutes County Public Works,Department standards. 2. Off-street parking subject to Section 18.116.030. 3. Building and site design provisions, including landscaping, that will effectively screen neighboring uses from noise and glare. PAGE 2 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 11cq Exhibit Page _32 of ~ALL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is 36.62 acres and slopes gently to the north. The property is the site of the J Bar J Boys Ranch, which includes a group living facility, administrative offices, maintenance facility, dormitory living facility and dining hall, apartment area, classroom area, paved parking area, volleyball court, barn, irrigation pond and a well. There is also a lawn area and landscaping on the property. Beyond this developed area is a large pasture area proposed for the equestrian facility, which currently contains exercise structures and a gazebo structure. 2. Land use in the area includes single-family residences in the East Villa Subdivision to the north, the Eagle View Estates Subdivision to the west, Los Serranos to the east, Vista Del Sol Subdivision to the southeast, and larger lot parcels with dwellings to the south and northeast and northwest. Zoning in the area includes: Eagle View Estates and the parcels to the southwest and northeast - UAR-10, Urban Area Reserve, East Villa, Vista Del So, Los Serranos and parcels directly south of the Boys Ranch - MUA-10, and larger parcels to the northeast zoned EFU-20, Exclusive Farm Use. 3. The applicant has submitted an application for a Conditional Use permit for an Equestrian events facility to be accommodated on the existing J Bar J Ranch property in the existing pasture area. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan drawing showing the areas for the proposed Equestrian activities, which include two Hunter Rings and two Grand Prix Rings, bleachers, a jumper warm-up area, and a stabling area. The property is to be used for the "Michelob Classic", referred to in the information submitted by the applicant as "a Class A-rated hunter-jumper competition held each July at the Stevenson Ranch on Knott Road. This is the premier hunter-jumper competition in Oregon, and supports our education and treatment programs." The stabling area on the Site Plan will be temporary structures on-site for no more than twenty (20) days. A gravel access road is proposed to serve the use, with access from Hamby Road. A show office is also indicated adjacent to the gravel road. 4. The applicant has included what appears to be two letters in support of the proposed use. 5. The following transmittal responses were received: A. The County Public Works Department states that an access permit is required for any new access to Hamby Road. Any access to Hamby must have a turnaround so that vehicles PAGE 3 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 )AO Exhibit Page,::;~~ of M M do not back out onto the road. B. The County Environmental Health Division states that a septic site evaluation is required for the new septic system. C. The Bend Fire Department states that if this is a building plan, hydrants are required within 150 feet of all exterior walls. D. The Watermaster's Office states that their records show COI water rights on this property. The applicant will need to go through the District to make sure the water rights are taken care of before final approval. E. Central Oregon Irrigation District states that Tax Lot 1700 is being assessed for 35.0 acres of irrigation water rights by COID. There are no easements or right of ways within the property. However, no structures or improvements shall be placed within the irrigated areas. Any development within irrigated areas will require removal of water rights by due process. F. The County Assessor's Office states that this is a non- assessable account. G. The County Property Address Coordinator and Building Division had no comments. 6. The subject property is a legal lot of record. 7. In response to concerns by neighbors, the applicant has indicated the follow: A. The "Michelob Classic" which will be the only event allowed by this conditional use will be held in the last two weeks of July. Generally, set-up begins around the 10th and tear down is completed around the 31st. B. The Classic is conducted Wednesday through Sunday on consecutive weeks. Competition begins at 8:00 a.m. and concludes at 5:30 p.m. each day except Sunday, when open events conclude at 4:30 p.m. C. The estimated attendance on any given event day is estimated at 750 persons. D. Patrons attending the show do not stay overnight. There will, however, be approximately 10 to 15 recreational vehicles which stay on-site. E. There will be concessions which sell food and beverages. PAGE 4 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 12t Exhibit Page F. There will be no lighting for any of the events. G. The parking demands are estimated at 50 cars during the week and 125 to 150 cars on the weekends. H. The structure of the ticket booth is a 30, x 40' single storage frame construction, which will be a show office and during the balance of the year will be used as multi- purpose room for committee meetings. The appearance will be composition roof, T-111 brown siding and to be painted in neutral colors to match the existing buildings and ground. 8. The applicant does propose permanent fencing eventually. Fencing would either be white PVC commercial fencing or Douglas fir wood 2 x 6 cross-members with 4 x 4 treated posts painted neutrally white. 9. The applicant has proposed using the fields for agricultural use and when crops are not being grown for small events such as 4-H shows and handicapped riding programs. These plans have not been specified and a modification of the conditional use would be required for any specialized wherein there would be any attendance by the public. 10. At the hearing, the applicant also clarified that the road next to the property by the stable area would be deleted. BASED UPON the foregoing, the Hearings Officer hereby approves the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit authorizes the use of the property for the "Michelob Classic" only. This will be during the month of July of each year. No other events may be staged by the applicant without a formal modification of this conditional use permit and notice to the adjacent property owners. 2. The only permanent structure allowed under this conditional use permit will be the show office which shall be constructed as represented by the applicant in Finding No. 7(H) and as approved by the Planning Department. 3. All temporary facilities including the stables shall be placed on the premises and taken off of the premises immediately before and after the "Michelob Classic". 4. The applicant shall provide sufficient parking area for 750 patrons. Said parking need not be graveled over or paved since it will be only for a limited duration of time during the month of July. The defined parking area PAGE 5 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 ILZ Exhibit Page of • > 40 shall, however, be approved by the Planning Department. 5. The applicant shall restrict the use of the property for the "Michelob Classic" to the times represented in their letter of April 30, 1992, to-wit: The show will be conducted generally during daylight hours. No lighting shall be allowed on the premises excepting customary lighting for the building premises. 6. The site plan shall be revised to delete the road between the stable area and the property line. The revised site plan shall be submitted and the applicant shall obtain approval of the revised site plan from the Planning Department prior to any of the activities allowed in conjunction with this conditional use permit. THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE MAILED, UNLESS APPEALED. DATED and MAILED this 22nd day of May, 1992. EDWARD P. FITCH cc: BOCC Deschutes County Planning Commission Deschutes County Planning Director Barney Lerten Lindsay Stevens John Cooley John and Mila Lindsey William Herz Mr. and Mrs. Walt Boucher Darrell Ries Alta Brady John Van Patten Jim Koehler Rick Hickmann Gordon and Teren Wood Cheryl Circle Cheryl Gardner Steve Josse Dick Uhlin Greg Hendrix PAGE 6 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, File No. CU-92-40 Exhibit Page of 1. lJ Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman. Bend, Oregon 97701 (503) 388-6575 Planning Divison 1314 Humng Safety Division FINDINGS AND DECISION w,~12 7$7 mer>tal Hearth Division op - NO FILB Nit: SP-94-19 ~Q~ 1Q s APPLICANT/ J Bar J Boys Ranch, cq Inc. Gd ° PROPERTY OWNER: Craig Christiansen \ 62895 Hamby Road t0 4. Bend, Oregon 97701 6BZCz REQUEST: An application for a site Plan for a horse show competition referred to as the Michelob Classic on the Ranch property in an NUA-10 zone. STAFF CONTACT: Paul E. Blikstad, Associate Planner BURDEN OF PROOF: A. Chapter 18.32 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code establishes uses and standards for the NUA-10 zone. B. Chapter 18.124 of Title 18 establishes standards and criteria for site plan review. C. Section 18.116.030 of Title 18 establishes off-street parking and loading standards. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall planning and development framework for the County. E. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code establishes procedures for all land use applications in the County. FINDINGS OF FACT• 1. LOCATION: 'The subject property is located at 62895 Hamby Road northeast of Bend, and is described on the County Assessor's map as 17-12-23, tax lot 1700. SP-94-19 Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride Community Development Department Exhibit 2~ Page of N. i 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned MUA-lo, Multiple Use Agriculture, and is designated Rural Residential by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The boys ranch facility includes the group and independent living facilities, administrative offices, maintenance and shop area, classroom facilities, dining hall, barn, well and pond, volleyball court area, exercise or obstacle course structures, parking and landscaped areas, and including the new multi-purpose building under construction, as well as the surrounding grass and hay field on the 39-acre parcel. Access to the site is off of Hamby Road. Land use in the, area includes dwellings in all four directions, as well as farming to the east, south and west. There is also some farming further north beyond the dwellings in East Villa subdivision. 4. The applicant is proposing to conduct the Michelob Classic on the site, with portable arenas, stabling areas, and vendor setup, as well as toilets. The Classic will include show events within two arena areas on the west side of the property, horse stabling areas on the south side of the property, a vendor setup near the arena areas and parking areas adjacent to Hamby Road on either side of the driveway entrance. The Classic is to occur for a two-week period in July of each year. 5. The applicant received approval of a Conditional .Use Permit (CU-92-40) for the Michelob Classic in a written findings and decision of the Deschutes County Board of commissioners on December 16, 1992. This decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, and was affirmed by LUBA. 6. The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed building to several public agencies and received the following responses: A. The Bend Fire Department states that the applicant should.contact Bend Fire Inspector Mike Skeels for a site inspection prior to the event. B. The County Property Address Coordinator states that the address of record for this parcel is 62895 Hamby Road. C. Central Oregon Irrigation District states that they are currently assessing the subject parcel with a water right of 35.0 acres. There are to be no improvements or development on those lands possessing a water right without first removing the water right via a water right transfer through this office. SP-94-19 Page 2 Exhibit Page F:E . Of _ 0 0 D. The County Building Division and Avion Water Company had no comments. 6. There has been no response from the public notice sent out on this application. 1. Conformance with Section 18.124.060 of Title 18. 18.124.060 approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The elements of the site plan shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing buildings and structures having a visual relationship with the site. Staff finding: The proposed Classic event will be a temporary use which occurs only once a year during two weeks in July. The only portion of the use that may be constant throughout the year is the fencing for the arenas. The subject property has the existing boys ranch facility_ and the pasture areas surrounding it. The Classic event will have only limited impact on the natural environment and structures. Given its limited duration the Classic will will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and the existing development. B. Each element of the site plan shall effectively and efficiently serve its function. The elements shall be on a human scale, interrelated and shall provide spatial variety and order. Staff finding: The elements of the site Michelob Classic event, -with the most part will be removed facilities will serve their event. Parking will be avak the pasture area. plan are portable after the function table for directed toward the facilities which for Classic event. These to accommodate the the event on-site on C. The landscape and existing topography shall be preseirved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. SP-94-19 Page 3 Exhibit Page3~1_ of L i .0 Staff finding: The proposed classic event will not require any extensive excavation and no removal of trees. The ground is level and the soils appears to be stable enough to handle the vehicular, foot and horse traffic that will utilize it for the Classic. D. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. Staff finding: The Classic will have one entrance from Hamby Road. Parking is to be provided in the pasture areas adjacent to the access driveway. Spectators and entrants should have adequate safety for entering and leaving the site, as well as getting to and from each event within the site. The applicant has obtained approval of an access permit from the County Public Works for the new access to Hamby Road. B. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of handicapped persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. Staff finding:- There are no specific handicap requirements for a hunter- jumper event such as the one proposed. F. In the Landscape Isanagesent Zone, emphasis shall be placed on maintaining the existing landscape close to travel routes as well as any view of distant vistas. Staff finding: The subject property is not within a Landscape Management zone. G. The location and number of-points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. Staff finding: The Classic is to have one access to Hamby Road, which has been approved by the County Public Works Department. The interior circulation patterns will be determined by how the applicant sets up the temporary parking, both for spectators and participants. The applicant will need to establish a SP-94-19 Page 4 Exhibit Page V_Y~D of UAA consistent parking pattern, which allows vehicles to leave at intermittent times. Staff believes that given the applicantFs experience with the Classic over the last several years, this can be accomplished with only minimal difficulty. There may be some supervision of the entrance driveway necessary to promote organized parking. The parking areas are required to be away from the property lines, with a minimum of a 50-foot separation between any property line and parked vehicles, with the exception of the front property line. No on-street parking on Hamby Road is allowed. H. Surface dll be designed to prevent adverse properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. Staff finding: The surface drainage that does occur on the site is sheet flow to soil/landscape areas. The subject property is large enough to prevent any runoff from reaching other properties. 1. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to nininize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. Staff finding: As stated above, the parking for the Classic is not allowed to be adjacent to the property lines of the subject property, except the front property line, which is adjacent to Hamby Road. The applicant will be required to keep vehicular parking a minimum of 50 feet away from the south and/or any other property line. This condition will be established to minimize any adverse impacts to neighboring properties. In order to facilitate the 50-foot minimum, the applicant will be required to mark off the 50-foot boundary with ribbon and staking. There will be no permanent storage, machinery or equipment that needs to be buffered or screened for the Classic. J. All abovd-ground utility installations shall be located to ainimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. Staff finding: The proposed use should not require any special utility installations. The existing utilities will be used for the Classic. R. The location, texture, lighting, movement and materials of all exterior signs, graphics or other information or SP-94-19 Page 5 Exhibit Page of directional features shall be compatible with the other elements of the site plan and surrounding properties- Staff finding: The Classic will have no permanent signs and lighting is not allowed as per the findings and decision for CU-92-40. L. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). Staff finding: There are no specific criteria for the NUA-10 zone other than setback requirements. Since none of the proposed structures are permanent, the setback standards do not apply. The proposed Michelob Classic meets the criteria of Title 18 for site plan approval. The following conditions must be met. DSCISIONAPPROVAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall meet all conditions of approval established in the findings and decision of the Board of County Commissioners for CU-92-40. 2. The applicant shall meet all requirements. of the Deschutes County Building Safety and Environmental Health Divisions. 3. The applicant shall have the Michelob. Classic site inspected by the Bend Fire Department prior to beginning of the Classic in 1994. 4. The applicant shall meet all requirements of Central Oregon Irrigation District for the transfer or removal of water rights from the area of the Classic, if necessary. 5. No on-street parking for the Classic on Hamby Road shall be allowed. 6. The on-site parking for vehicles shall be kept away from the property lines of J Bar J Boys Ranch (except the SP-94-19 Page 6 Exhibit Page l_ of _ • 0 front property line) a minimum of 50. The applicant shall clearly mark this setback with stakes and ribbon to prevent vehicles from getting within the 50 feet. This decision becomes final ten (10) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCBDTBS COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Pa E. Bliks ad, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Kevin M. Harrison, Principal Planner PEB:slr SP-94-19 Page 7 Exhibit Page l_ of ■ ' 1.•. i ~ tt V i • - ONE r > It ` Cs, Irr f ~ M1 • ~r l 3f ' ,~s -fit • r ~k~ly ~ ~ar~tu ty' ~ aY~• t ~,`,~'ar : • - ~ r . ~ ` ~ I~, ~ ~t ~'ti r i .i. « Y w. ! rf t a . ~ `7'vy >i~rrYY.~S•~..;►'~ 3 ~ ~ ~ } ~ ' p f ~ aT i- Mme'✓` 4~..1. 'F 1' P~J'"k • ~ {~kp., t~• 3 F•~ ~ f `"i~f f ..,rl~ 'r<✓.u ;A~~)'f7 ,•R -74 'At I) r ! ; ~ t ~ t"~-~na •iwL~. "F'~ ~y~ i ( ts'4~' Jl:gr~; ' Ynsi,7~•i pY~~(i~~~•~ t,cr S~ ! « i' 1~ 7~"sp r1T ,ry~4 7 §iyi SF} - -t e ~'~r~ t,,' wl i ;T_it~/$ t Ci.(~r,`I. Nlv 3 ~ ' •,7 •Ii t y.. tt . J' ~ ~ i ~'y 1 ~ ' 1 •4~4~ ytx .t~ 71~ r :t ~1 / • tt,.~'{~1}g}•~} ~ h •ih ~ ' .~y~ i 1 J.M. F' ::77~ i~ i i♦ at 1 ~ t /1 , ~ y' +jj`~%.r, 71, _{~J.i.a r~" C .7. .r 'i'-r +i * l ~ ~7 'I • 7A' f~ }~lr+~` a a!''Sf t r .'"c'~ 3J r`a .t~`~~ ICA', . 1 ~ j ;i ~'i j. t ~J, ,~yal ~ oy f; } ♦ i7 F•f i'••~~ •P~''.~ rlV .l +~S C~„`y-Ir~./~, r 1 Irf•~ y. i i Sci.' r ~ . ~ ~.fV lP'~~ r.~ - I~]SJ., i u .T '7~.+i ' • r Z( tti Y •1~ d','ru~ ti 1'~3 t``,~ r{~'A Yh~-,1 1T •♦r y~t~a rf~•- ♦ 1~jr ♦ ti a, c ~ + 7 ~ •„1 r 7yn~ 3 7 ,t { y •.1 f r-j#. +♦~„~p~rK~' e... t,t$}•'t. • • ~ ~~y sr ~ f' 14 .r ~ ~r+~ t~~ .Y{7"q ~ ~59P+";. if r_V7tT Y ~«~`t~Tal l~~•`~• ♦ Et ji i + , u yis, ~ • r r 1 r jj y t r. ~7C ~ •Y Y~-, a~'{~` ' ..rt ~ ~ ' any . `t ''/~+7 '.s ~y;i+ l v r^' ~'rt~Y~ ~ V .gJV ~ f q • ~ t' ~ tu. 1 •a'.p 'i r. 3•t#~ P'.4 ~ ' 1Fa'. :~l ,yi.~w 4• _ f ',att j i~^~• ti1^. S~=p..,.t71''7 q Y- a vf~ ~ aTl,~'~~• ~ y .~4 lti.F ~ 'aR .n 4 .A7• i~ t IN ' l (7 • s •20 7~' ~ ♦ ~~r f i ~P K'- ~ „Nw ,fr'_ 7 Yf • •r.Y JS~ sSi#~~'..a7.+rY~' ♦ ~'-0'~'„' SI.R - .3a~'~t' /•t + ~ ~ ~ a~`►,~tt + t,1~•7k►S~~t y ~ ti r 1 i ~"~q.~'F;;".tiS. c i '•.'xt,;•. E .•~/t r •r ~,~~'~f.'~'' r ~~s~~' ,1 y~y ! IG ~tr ''>♦s ~K: { - 3..3-s. - , I ~4,• -~/•7 i i'y. •v,. ♦.•.~~51~ RLt Y.."!..i 1, ,1.:..•s'+• ) i' - .,•✓•1 : t .x{~ • •a \ • f'S~• S7 r~s~p. • I l~tJ ±'3 t'.A R , ,ir(i i'• l • _ M S ;for for, t tJ,_ T>x+ a--n - _tP ► y ,i$ f f *a i * }~r'rf { S• '}~r: ~ 1 t!. ~ f A ,I,.sU s-s/ \ S F .~.~S~j~~ ~ ?I.r.. '4. ~~1'. i• t~+• •h! . •7+ t, ~ A{~y. ~r ~T~• t. , t f • _ i 1 ti ~S4 ~ ff f -r any' £ . ~ 3, • _ i ~ • .r ~Iy'~ - I4 R}(•~~ .1~ L'jY~ a 3 r < '}S K~ it f ~"r`~~ yt/~:` I y~•~J ai.•=•. . }t. edT..aV~{''.~ ~ U t ` f.!i. i~. •_~x~. ti NMf~.-'Rlt~ ~~d >~~3I,`I } ail ~ • 2 ~ T 'Iff F ~ - • N \ IV. 1 T r, v "a- ~ P7. '0.;91'• 'h+ ~i - j ~ .'rte 4y •r•M~'•~•j•~•¢'/~~ ~j•j _ j J•.r ~ • pt•t~'' - Exhibit Pagel o f CHURCHES WITH OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATERS IN OREGON: Applegate Christian Fellowship - Jacksonville, Oregon Beaverton Christian Church - Beaverton, Oregon Community Chapel at Ames Creek - Sweethome, Oregon Countryside Christian Fellowship - Eugene, Oregon (Coburg) Eastridge Covenant Church - Clackamas, Oregon First Congregational Church - Eugene, Oregon Southwest Bible Church - Beaverton, Oregon SAMPLE OF CHURCHES WITH OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATERS IN OTHER STATES: Anitoch Progressive Baptist Church - Sacramento, California Cherry Street Baptist Church - Springfield, Missouri Grace Baptist - Santa Clarita Valley, California Greek Orthodox Church and Amphitheater - Marietta, Georgia Lake Bowen Baptist Church - Greenville, South Carolina Los Altos Lutheran Church - Los Altos, California Lutheran Church of the Cross - Evergreen, Colorado Mt. Spokane Church - Spokane, Washington St. Colman Church - Cazadero, California Exhibit G Page ► of CHURCHES PERFORMING OUTSIDE SERVICES: Salem-Keizer United Methodist Churches - Easter Sunrise Service (Riverfront Part" Amphitheater) Adventist Church - outdoor church, baptism at church campout (Greeley, Colorado) B'nai B'rith Jewish Camp at Lincoln City, Oregon Camp MacGruder - outdoor church camp (Rockaway Beach) Salem First Church of the Nazarene - Church Outreach -16th Street in Salem, Oregon Evergreen Presbyterian Church - Grassroots Music Festival (Riverfront Park Amphitheater - Salem) Salem Chinese Church - Church Picnic and Service (Cascades Gateway Park - Beaver Grove Salem) West Salem Foursquare Church - church service (Riverfront Park Amphitheater - Salem) Capital Park Wesleyan Church - church service/picnic (Riverfront Park Amphitheater - Salem) People's Church - outreach (Riverfront Park Amphitheater - Salem Court Saint Christian Church - Church in the Park (Riverfront Park Amphitheater - Salem) First Christian Church - outdoor service following 9/11 - City of Eugene park Day for Grace - Douglas County Fairgrounds' outdoor amphitheater Country Gospel Concert - Canyonville Pioneer Park Lutheran Church of the Cross - outdoor amphitheater (Evergeen, Colorado) Grace Baptist - outdoor amphitheater and natural rock baptismal (Santa Clarita Valley) Lake Bowen Baptist Church - outdoor amphitheater (Upstate Alive 2005) (Greenville, South Carolina) Westside Church - baptism in Deschutes River (Bend, Oregon) Les Schwab Ampitheater - Palau concert Exhibit Q Page 9- of,-3D CU I S t cu_ C.V n ~ob The Word and worship! Praise and worship with practical, topical and in-depth studies taken from our Thursday night studies in the Word. During the summer we will be meeting for one service in The Garden, our outdoor sanctuary (weather permitting). Children's worship will begin in The Garden and then the kids will be dismissed to their respective classes. Communion is always available before the service. AIL Exhibit Page -3 ~ ( Clackamas, Oregon: Eastridge Covenant Church hopes to break ground for a new building in July - a building permit is being sought - and National Covenant Properties will assist the congregation with financing, said pastor Dwain Tissel. A capital campaign has netted more than $1 million in pledges over a three-year period. The church received written approval from Clackamas County last fall to build a 32,665-square-foot church on 8.8 acres. The suburban Portland congregation hopes to build a multipurpose building capable of seating 800 people for worship service, including classrooms and office space, an outdoor amphitheater and a 268-space parking lot. Eastridge Covenant Church was organized in 1993 and has an average worship attendance of 775, according to Tissel. The church is using a local junior high for worship services. Exhibit a Page. _ of 3t> -Santa Clarita Valley News - The-Signal.com - Religion Page 1 of 2 V r s t t M it ~t;►ri r~it~frs ERCELLENCE By JENNIFER M. KUPTZ Signal Staff VV!ter Saturday, July 11, 9,98 Eight believers met in a home to discuss and pray about forming a new evangelical church in Newhall in April 1961. After meeting in the home for some time, they began a Sunday school and morning worship that grew steadily into Grace Baptist Church. After spending 30 years in Placerita Canyon, Grace Baptist has moved to Copper Hill Drive to make more room for members and a growing number of attendees. Approximately eight years ago, Grace Baptist acquired 23 acres on Copper Hill Drive with the intention of eventually relocating. i Danny Behr, 13 (Ceft), and Brandon Hartich, 7, emar-nine the new baptismal on the center of the 1'00 seat outdoor amphitheater Mafdrig up a smail part of the new Grace Baptist Church duty on Copper HM Drive. (Photo by SCOTT ROBY / The Signal) Their plans materialized this past Independence Day, when they opened for services. The new site, with some sections still under construction and an estimated completion date of 2001 or 2002, will eventually offer 110,000-square feet, including a conference center and a 2,300-seat sanctuary. The property also features an outdoor amphitheater with a rock podium above a natural rock baptismal. The amphitheater seats 2,000 people and is surrounded by 300 trees, a park, ponds, streams and soon to be, a hiking trail. They are considering planting hitching posts for members who want to ride their horses to church. The amphitheater at Grace Baptist was modeled after an amphitheater in Ashland, Oregon, and was built by volunteers. It will be used for concerts, church services and weddings. With such a spectacular site, Geoff Beckwith, a Care Pastor at Grace, said, "The building is just another place to meet. It's really about the people." Services at the new site will be held weekly on Wednesdays at 7 p.m., Saturdays at 5:30 and 7 p.m. and Sundays at 8, 9 and 11 a.m. Grace Baptist features choirs, weekly meetings for seniors and ministries for adults, men, women, youth and children. http://207.178.248.67/religion/0798/071198a.html 10/7/2005 Exhibit Q Page L- of _ RSapta,Clarita Valley News - The-Signal.com - Religion Page 2 of 2 There is an extensive library with books and tapes, and there is also full childcare provided for children up through the eighth grade. Grace Baptist Church welcomes everyone to come worship with them, take a look around or just enjoy the amphitheater. The new location of Grace Baptist Church is 22833 West Copper Hill Drive. For more information contact the church office at (805) 259-1640. CO;fW Offm to The S'lgnd ©1998, THE SIGNAL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://207.178.248.67/religion/0798/071198a. html 10/7/2005 Exhibit Page _La_ of d March, David W. Page 1 of 3 .,-.os Ar CED'es Ca ra4y Sheri NS ®epealMer of d cf 3, *,T,:): March 29, 1969 a"e Avvci:^ted: JuGy 19, 1995 r°d o", VVatch: April 29, 2002 Los Argales Coun'uy Sheriff's Deputy David VV. March was shot and ;tined 'M'onday morning, Ap::1129, in Irwindale after pulling over a stolen vehic?O. March, who was woj,k:rg t',^,e unincorporated area of Irwindale, was ;nvest,gaV,,ig a reportst so'o. ^ Cat when he spotted it at a easy intersection. After vu lir:g the car over, the driver got out and met him haifway be-4ween:no oatro' car and stolen vehicle and a struggle 'T', ensued. i i~T ne driver p j7 ,'2-c' a weapon and shot March several times point blank," Sr er: , :..ee 3aca repo led. The assailant and two others in the car sped off after t:ie s"oozing. A truck driver from a r:ear'cy concrete plant heard the shots and ran to March's patrol car, grabbed the radio mike and broadcast: "A deputy's boors shOtl;' ~aai o: Cars responded, quickly. One of the arrcving officers gave March mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, Baca said. The man, suspec"rod of bci:^g oe deputy's filler, 25-year old Armando Garcia, remains at 'arge, authorities stated. ~e was described as L atino, about 5-foo¢--%, wi°h shod; dark heir and a mustache. ' //9.~saa~. ~ o->-.v .r ,ia• -b,~ i~a~~r xa -~'m'l. "re rysah,~~r 'rd, - h'F>.a zo arch or` May 4. Thousands gathered rC;r ':r L iUnedat sedv'ce inc'-ding lamely members, friends and fellow iaw enrorcomer t oi:!ccrs. Sheriff Baca eulogized March, a veteran of seven years, as a trusting, honest mar" wt~ o had no fear - a man of faith who believed in others. "'Dave was w;Jr?g to nobly put his life on the line with style http://www.camemorial.org/htin/marchO2.htm 10/7/2005 Exhibit Q Page of L~ Recreates the Byzantine Period STONE® in a Church Amphitheater RETA N NG WALL SYSTEMS Regaining IE ss c e L71 e n C e - lthough many buildings across the country have tried to reproduce the architectural style of the I ~ Byzantine Period, not marry come as close to the true structural stylings of the 8th century as the W W W. keystonewa lls. COm _ oly Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church and Amphitheater in Marietta, GA. The Holy Transfiguration Leadership Team had the grand vision to construct a church and surrounding grounds that were reminiscent of the same building style, design, materials, and craftsmanship found in the ancient cities of Asia Minor (now Turkey). Keystone Country Manor was selected for its distinctive random-pat- tern look of hand-masoned stone, which fit perfectly with the churclis theme. "We were passionate about creating an authentic amphitheater structure reflective of the roots of Greek theater-in-the-round during its golden time, commented Alex Miltiades, Holy Transfiguration Church Construction Committee Chair. It was imperative to the church leadership team that the materials selected for the 600-seat amphitheater also remain true to the Byzantine design and style of the church, without sacrificing structural integrity and necessary durability. This outdoor amphitheater was expected to withstand years of direct public con- tact, plus extreme weather conditions including heat, humidity, and acid rain. With these requirements in mind, the final product solution, meeting both the stringent aesthetic demands and the necessary per- 1. CountryManor when we visited another local amphithe- ater that used the material;' noted Miltiades. "Keystone Country Manor exudes the kind of style that you would a~. p think to find in the theaters of ancient Greece" _A_ - i- Mike Mike Heer of the Keystone Group in Marietta, GA., helped supply the Keystone Country Manor product, and worked closely with ECM's installation crew. "I've worked with ECM's manager, Bill Johnson, on a number of Keystone Country Manor amphitheaters. Bill likes the product because it's easy to handle and installation is a snap due to the unique pin method that assures Keystone Country Manor unit alignment," notes Heer. EMC's Bill Johnson adds that having three sides textured Y makes Keystone Country Manor different from a lot of other products on the market today. "It is an easy product to use in building corners, and its design makes it easy to end a wall because youre not left with a non-textured unit side glaring at you. We've used it in a lot of projects and have always been extremely pleased with the installation and the outcome," Johnson con- cludes. Johnson also said he installs Keystone Country Manor in many amphitheater projects because his customers are impressed with its appearance and ultimate durability. Whether for castle, cathedral, home, or commercial property, Keystone Country Manor provides an old- world charm and handcrafted appearance in any application. With the ultimate design flexibility it offers, Keystone Country Manor can build graceful curves, monumental corners, freestanding parapets, and 02005 Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc more. For more information on Keystone Country Manor, along with the full Be of Keystone products A Contech Company and services, please visit us on the web at www.kentonewaUs.com. 800-747-8971 • wvvw.keystonewalls.com formance, was a Keystone Country Manor retaining wall system. s- a 'L a project contractor, ECM Modular Walls, Inc., out of Marietta GA, had used Keystone Country Manor in a ' a number of other amphitheater applications and showed the church committee some local examples. "We 4L instantly fell in love with the look and feel of Keystone l... - Exhibit Page_ ofd GreenvilleOnline - Link - Upstate Alive 2005 Page 1 of 2 7t; Search VOM(E NEWS COMMUN7iFES Ei1i7=L37XNiVIEN CLASSH< EDS REAL EESTA72 JOBS CARS Customer Service (864) 298-4100 (800) 800-5116 Contact Us Link 305 S. Main St. PO Box 1688 Greenville, SC 29602 Send: Story idea Letter to the editor Find: An editor or reporter Home > News o Communities o Entertainment Upstate Alive 2005 Posted Monday, May 9, 2005 - 11:22 pm By Lillia Callum-Penso STAFF WRITER Icallumpenso@upstatelink.com Last year, as the Lake Bowen Baptist Church youth group headed back from the Toccoa Fest in Toccoa, Ga., Kenny McDowell had an idea - why not create a similar outdoor festival with music, food and celebration of the Lord hen:. So that's what he and his youth minister did. Upstate Alive 2005 will be held in the church's outdoor amphitheater and McDowell hopes it will lay a path for an annual event. What made you guys decide to build an outdoor amphitheatre behind your church? We had just purchased (40 acres) in the back of our church. We've just got the perfect area. There's nobody else doing anything else quite like it around here. Well it does seem kind of different for a church. Well yeah. This is the first year we're doing it and we don't really know what we're getting into but we're gonna give it a try. So who are you trying to attract with this event? Well, this is actually for young families, teenagers. the younger folks. It's all contemporary Christian music. We've got close to the same lineup from Winter Jam at the Bi-Lo Center. Well bring in an evangelist, Jamey Ragle, which is one of the top five youth evangelists in the country. And we've lowered the price so a family could come - $10 per person. Normally to see these artists, you'd pay $30, $40 a piece, so it's affordable. What would make this event a success in your eyes? The purpose behind everything is to create an atmosphere of praise and worship for the day and then when the preacher gets up and preaches, our whole goal is for people to be able to hear the gospel and for people to be able to respond to that. You said you'd like for people to respond to the gospel, how would you like them to respond? Coming to Christ, coming to know him. Anything people should know? People should bring lawn chairs and coolers, so you can bring lunch. Remember sunscreen and rain gear because this is gonna be a rain or shine event. It may turn into a Christian Woodstock if it rains, who knows? Staff writer Lillia Callum-Penso can be reached at 298-3768. e-mail this Mope M90 What: Upstate Alive 2005 Where: Lake Bowen Baptist Church When: 11 a.m.-8 p.m., May 14 Details: Contemporary Christian bands N music, Chick-fil-A and Little Caesar's will food, Jamey Ragle will provide the gospe Tickets are $10. Parking is $5 per car. Fc information and a detailed schedule of ev out www.upstatealive.com. Related Related Web site • Learn more about Upstate Alive More Music Music with Mario Mix of the Week: Rick's best moments Full Music Archive http://www.upstatelink. com/entertainment/2005/05/09/2005050964134.htm 10/7/2005 Exhibit C~ _ Page q ofd Christian band NewSong will perform at Li Baptist Church's Upstate Alive 2005 Festi% FILE Los Altos Lutheran opens amphitheater with bluegrass concert this Sunday - Los Altos T... Page 1 of 2 wxattom/'~ Z~,Jatu-tkl t, f 11 Browse rc ives® r_-a; Serving the Hometown of Silicon Vallev Since 1947 Current Issue » X~-;U90 I %ti~ ~ >C S ' J,~~'u I 3 7r 9~ G J c_- Find it Fast » Site Search Google Search! j Today, October 11, 2005 Go to .os 3,--~-3 ` V , <Fe i,, Ay Newspaper Services Submit Classifieds Subscribe Send Us Feedbacl< Contact Us Published on 09/01/1997 G\:::: Los Altos Lutheran opens amphitheater with bluegrass concert this Sunday Oy 19 nfz yz,~ c Town Crier Staff Writer Hoping to attract more church- goers, members of the Los Altos Lutheran Church have renovated the church amphitheater to accommodate Christian concerts and musicals. The congregation will kick-off the opening of the new theater with a concert and dedication ceremony Sept. 7. Sidesaddle & Co., a five- piece band, will perform gospel and folk music at 3 p.m. The band has opened for notable artists such as Emmy Lou Harris and Willie Nelson. Two of the band's recordings made the top 10 on the national Bluegrass charts, and its latest CD was nominated for an INDIE AWARD as best independent label bluegrass recording in 1991. I r:n f ya r_ f e~ -1114 ti Aq~ 'rT Photo courtesy of Vince Vargas The bluegrass band Sidesaddle & Co. will perform next Sunday at the Los Altos Lutheran Church amphitheater. The five-piece band will perform gospel and folk music as well. Church officials hope the new amphitheater will help Los Altos Lutheran better reach out to the community. Church pastor John Sullivan said using the amphitheater is one way the church can do something interesting to become more active in the community. "We want to be friendly in the community and give children access to Christian entertainment," Sullivan said. http://Iatc.com/1997/09/01/special sect/stepping2.html 10/11/2005 Exhibit ~ Page 1® ofd Los Altos Lutheran opens amphitheater with bluegrass concert this Sunday Los Altos T... Page 2 of 2 Vince Vargas, a church-goer who helped renovate the amphitheater, said a member of the congregation gave a cash donation to the church for the renovation project, and about a dozen church members donated the manpower. The congregation volunteered more than 200 hours during July putting in a stage, a new lawn, arbors, landscaping and upgraded concrete terraces for the seating, he said. The new theater can easily accommodate the entire congregation, or about 150 people, Vargas said. The theater will be used for outdoor church services and, during the summer, for ongoing Christian musical theater performances and workshops designed for elementary and high school students from throughout the community. Sidesaddle & Co. will play at 3 p.m., Sept. 7 at the Los Altos Lutheran Church, 460 S. El Monte Ave. A $5 donation is suggested. Families are advised to bring cushions or blankets to sit on. For more information, call 948-3012. News I Cor^^.e^t I 'eon e I Co ~t~;nity I S-'-00. s 1 5~ O.^ I 3 s. ass & t ai Estate I Weekly RACKTOTOP 5;'a -;ndex I Xevwsq; e- ~~:'2sc: v~ ohs I ace an Ad A'3o;,:~ is I Cot-acr:_..s I http://Iatc.com/1997/09/0I/special-sect/stepping2.html 10/11/2005 Exhibit Q Page of Page 1 of 1 i r s u k r jj~ M M i Ow. 1 http://www.osprey.net/-csbc/images/dbimages/page_id1288csbc4O292a7e9O257.jpg- _ _ 10111/2005 Exhibit Page A' of Lutheran Church of the Cross - Evergreen, CO A mountain community church in Evergreen, Colorado. We provide a beautiful mountain setting to worship Christ. We offer many ministries for our community including a Mom's Day Out program (Joyful Noise), couples groups, bible studies, book club, prayer groups, and a very successful teen coffee house (Higher Ground) every Saturday night. We've recently added a wonderfu!-~utdeer anaphrtheater as well. Come join our happy family! Exhibit Page 13 of Special Events Calendar 2005 CITZY-AT YOUR SERVICE Page 1 of 9 Department of Community Services Community Resources/Recreation Division 555 Liberty Street SE, Rm 300 Salem, OR 97301 503-588-0261 N Aquatics 0 Calendar of Events 0 Fall Recreation Guide M Fall Youth Soccer 2005 0 FAQs - Youth Sports N How to Register for Classes Jaycees Kids Relay. May 2005 f Lifeguard/Swimming Instructor Neighborhood Recreation Recreation Homepage M Rent a Recreation Facility 11 Reserve a Park N Resources 0 Schedule a Community Event 3 Street Closure Request 31 Volunteer Opportunities ,11 Winter Youth Basketball January 2006 /1 GW Addw Click here for free software to view PDF documents. 2005 Community and Special Events Calendar (City Parks, Streets, and Open Spaces) To quickly link to a specific time of the year, click one of the months below: January May September February June October March July November AApol August December DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Spiridon Race Management January 1 Kettle Foods Klassic Willson Park/Court Street Rids Fordney 503-371-4995 January 8 Bicycle Safety Rodeo Marion Parkade - City of Salem Jan Calvin Downtown Salem 503-588-6261 January 15 Sprague HS Championship Parade Downtown Salem Sprague HS Jane Servais 503-391-0794 Oregon Right To Life January 16 Roe vs. Wade Rally Oregon State Capitol Steps Gayle Atteberry 503-463-8564 Stand for Children February 21 Stand For Children Rally Oregon State Capitol Steps Mwitu Ndugu 1-412-812-2496 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT March 10 Celebration at the Oregon State Capitol Mall r Society Courtnia Dresser Capitol 1-503-795-3979 http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm 10/6/2005 Exhibit Q Page of Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 2 of 9 Salem-Keizer United Methodi March 27 Easter Sunrise Service Riverfront Park Churches Amphitheater Sue Owen 503-364-6709 April 2 Ribbon-Cutting Riverfront Park boat dock City of Salem TJ Newman Ceremony and overlook 503-588-6261 McCulloch Stadium - Willamette University April 2-3 Invitational Track Meet Bush's Pasture Park Mark Majeski 503-370-6420 Salem Soap Box Derby April 2-3 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 April 2-3 Divine Mercy and Cascades Gateway Park, Divine Mercy Group G ill M ti Children Days Beaver Grove u ermo ar nez 503-581-8606 City of Salem April 9 Arbor Week Workshop Civic Center Courtyard Jan Staszewski 503-588-6336 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Bush's Pasture Park Rose Friends of Bush Gardens April 9 Crabapple Festival Garden Gretchen Carnaby 503-588-2410 Bush's Pasture Park Willamette University April 9 Tracy Hoffman Run Running Paths Jesse Bakay 503-400-3756 Under the Center Street Downtown Rotary Club April 11-May 1 Rotary Pavilion Project Bridge and North Meadow Jim Desantis 503-364-8376 Salem Soap Box Derby April 16-17 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 Minto-Brown Island Park Willamette Valley Roadrunner April 16 Arbor Day Run shelter and running paths Christian Gary 503-945-5022 Riverfront Park South Willamette University April 16 Governors Cup Regatta Meadow Mark Majeski 503-370-6420 Riverfront Park National Multiple Sclerosis Sc April 16 MS Walk Amphitheater and Cristie Mather Pathways 1-503-223-9511 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT April 21-24 Spring Plant Sale ' Friends of Bush Gardens Bush s Pasture Park Art Gretchen Carnaby http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/Parksrec/calendar.htm 1.016/2005 Exhibit U Page __L'-_) of 1 Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 3 of 9 Barn Parking Lot 503-588-2410 April 24 Monster Cookie Bicycle State Capitol grounds to Salem Bicycle Club John Henry Maurice Ride Champoeg Park and return 1-503-977-4480, 503-399-96t . Willamette University April 30 Wulapalooza Willamette University Tricia Durgin 503-375-5381 March of Dimes April 30 March of Dimes Bush's Pasture Park (start Ellen Bowman WalkAmerica & finish) 503-222-9434 503-998-4337 Wednesday Farmers Chemeketa Street between Salem Saturday Market May 4 Market High and Commercial Colleen Walker Streets 503-378-1047/503-585-8264 May 7 Awesome 3000 Bush's Pasture Park - Salem Schools Foundation McCulloch Stadium Canoe & Kayak Demo Oregon Canoe Sport May 7 Day Walter Wirth Lake James Bradley 503-361-7824 May 8 Mother's Day Carriage Bush's Pasture Park Salem Art Association Rides 503-581-2228 City of Salem May 14 Jaycee Kids Relays McCulloch Stadium 1 Melinda Mokalla 503-588-6261 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT American Lung Association a May 14 Reach The Beach Wallace Marine Paris - Old Oregon Bicycle Ride Boat Ramp Area Porter Childs 503-708-7678 Riverfront Park Salvation Army May 14 Concert amphitheater Brian Saunders 503-399-0206 Riverfront Park Howard Street Charter Schoo May 20 Concert/Picnic Amphitheater Kim Vogel 503-399-3408 City of Salem Public Works May 20 Public Works Day Riverfront Park Department Mike Gotterba 503-588-6211 May 21 Walk Riverfront Park Pathways & Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Julie Eiguren Amphitheater 1-503-226-3435 May 21 Walk and Rally Riverfront Paris south OPEU-SEIU Maureen Crawford meadow 503-581-1505 May 22 Iris Festival Paddle & Wallace Marine Park old Keizer Chamber of Commerc Christine Dieker Excursion boat ramp area 503-393-9111 Return to top j http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/Parksrec/Calendar.htm 10/6/2005 _ Exhibit C~, Page -iL-Q of~_ Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 4 of 9 DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Salem Soap Box Derby May 26-30 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 City of Salem May 26 West Salem Spring Fair West Salem Park Rachel Dixon 503-588-6261 May 27-28 Grand Opening and Car Comer of 12th and State Adams Rib Company Mike Adams Show Streets 503-362-2194 Alley between Liberty, Straight From New York Pizza June 1 Concert Commercial, Court, and Michael Rice Chemeketa Streets 503-581-5863 Bush's Pasture Park soap Cub Scout Pack 624 June 4 Cubmobile Races box derby track Becky George 503-588-6261 Riverfront Park North and Mid-Willamette River Connec June 4 National Trails Day South Meadows TJ Newman 503-588-6261 Cascades Gateway Park - Boys & Girls Club June 11 Day at the Lake Bluegill A Jason Caldwell 503-581-7383 Riverfront Park Pathways & Marion-Polk Food Share June 11 Hunger Walk Amphitheater Linda Kromer 503-581-3855 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Salem Track Club June 11-12 Track Meet McCulloch Stadium Becky George 503-588-6261 Salem Soap Box Derby June 11-12 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 Oregon Department of VeterE June 14 Flag Day Ceremonies Oregon State Capitol Mall Affairs Bruce Bolton 503-588-6261 Riverfront Park Exchange Club of Salem June 18 Picnic With A Purpose amphitheater Ed Hallett 503-362-5155 Willamette Girlchoir June 18 Trebles for Turtles Pringle Park Karma McNutt 503-370-63831503-559-9583 Salem Amateur Radio Club June 24-26 Radio Club Field Day Blue Gill A & B, Cascades Dan Bathurst Gateway Park 503-364-3672 503-887-7921 http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm 10/6/2005 Exhibit Page_ of,~~Z Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 5 of 9 Riverfront Park Salem Multicultural Institute June 25-26 Salem World Beat Amphitheater & South Ken Chambers Festival Meadow 503-581-2004 503-623-6099 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Independence Day South Salem Rotary Club July 3-4 Celebration Riverfront Park Randy Cook 503-485-4248 First Wednesday Chemeketa Street between Salem Downtown Associatior July 6 Cruisin' Downtown Commercial and Cottage Valerie Sovern Streets 503-373-3848/503-371-4000 Salem Soap Box Derby July 9-10 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 Northgate Neighborhood July 10, 24 Concert Series Northgate Park Association Kate Tarter 503-362-3203 Riverfront Park City of Salem July 13 Volunteer Event amphitheater Bruce Bolton 503-588-6261 Salem Public Library July 14 Bookmobile Visit Riverfront Park pathway Jason Openo 503-588-6183 503-588-6163 Salem Art Fair Salem Art Association July 15 Children's Parade Bush's Pasture Park Debbie Leahy 503-581-2228 Salem Art Association July 15-17 Salem Art Fair Bush's Pasture Park Debbie Leahy 503-581-2228 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Salem Art Association July 16 Salem Art Fair Run Bush's Pasture Park Debbie Leahy 503-581-2228 Temporary closure Salem First Church of the July 16 Church Outreach of 16th St between Nazarene Keith Ritter East and Market Sts 503-781-7522 Jammin' 95.5 Radio Station July 16 95.5 Park Party Marion Square Park Melissa Knight 1-503-417-0377 July 16 Salem's All Mopar Car Riverfront Paris South Roberson Chrysler/Jeep Randy Rogness Show Meadow 503-391-9166 Cascades Gateway Park - St Joseph's Church http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/Parksrec/calendar.htm 10%6/2005 Exhibit U Page of_ Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 6 of 9 July 17 Church Picnic Beaver Grove Suong Nguyen 503-390-3008 July 21-24 Hoopla 3 on 3 Basketball Court Street and the State Hoopla, Inc. Jim Kniffin Tournament Capitol Steps/Mall 503-362-7592 Grassroots Music Riverfront Park Evergreen Presbyterian Chur July 23 Festival Amphitheater Stephen Lewis 503-371-1177 July 23 Capitol Pride Cascades Gateway Park Capitol Pride David Hall (all areas) 503-999-3289 South Salem Rotary Club July 29-31 12th Annual Bite of Riverfront Park North & Randy Cook Salem South Meadows 503-485-4248 www.biteofsalem.com Temporary closure of Elm Kingwood Bible Church July 30 Neighborhood BBQ St between Gerth and Gordon Bergman McNary 503-399-9600 July 30 Church Gathering Cascades Gateway Park - Templo Betel Gerardo Elias Ranirez Bluegill A 503-585-6086 July 31 Church Picnic and Cascades Gateway Park - Salem Chinese Church Vera Teo Service Beaver Grove 503370-9135 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT August 2 National Night Out temporary street closures in City of Salem Bruce Bolton various neighborhoods 503-588-6261 August 4, 11, 18, C C t R Bush's Pasture Park, Lower Willamette Valley Roadrunnei 25 ross oun ry uns Leffelle Field Dan Rideout 503-363-0072 August 6 Exit Skate Classic 2 Bush's Pasture Park soap EXIT Real World Jake Hauswirth box derby track 503-585-3948 Riverfront Park West Salem Foursquare Chui August 6 Church Service amphitheater Sarah Page 503-391-4346 Riverfront Park Capital park Wesleyan Churc August 7 Church ServicelPicnic amphitheater Ron Comer 503-362-6626 Northgate Neighborhood August 7, 21 Concert Series Northgate Park Association Kate Tarter 503-362-3203 Salem Public Library August 11 Bookmobile Visit Riverfront Park pathway Jason Openo 503-588-6183 503-588-6163 August 11-12 Extreme Tour Marion Square Park Extreme Youth Ministries Jared Warden http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm 10%6/_20.05 Exhibit C~) Page -xg-- of :5c::~_ Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 7 of 9 971-240-1522 Gallagher Fitness Resources August 14 Salmon Run Riverfront Park Pathways John Gallagher 503-364-4198 Minto-Brown Island Park Salem Geocach and City of S August 20 Geocache Event picnic shelter, Rotary ' Thomas Swint pavilion, Bush s Pasture 503-371-6028 Park, and PHillips Field www.Wggmachers.com Salem Soap Box Derby August 20-21 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 Salem Public Library August 25 Bookmobile Visit Riverfront Park pathway Jason Openo 503-588-6183 503-588-6163 Cascades Gateway Park - Salem Chinese Church August 28 Church Picnic & Service Beaver Grove Vera Teo 503-370-9135 closure of 15th Street NE Northeast Neighbors, Friends August 30 Block Party between Court & Historic District Chemeketa Streets Eleanor Miller 503-371-0681 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT September 3 Carousel Cruise Car Riverfront Park South Willamette Valley Street Rod: Jeff Foster Show Meadow 503-399-8089 September 4 People's Church Riverfront Park People's Church Eric Shaffner Outreach amphitheater (4:00-8:00pm) 503-304-4000 Riverfront Park Court St Christian Church September 4 Church in the Park amphitheater (7:00 am- Ben Bryson 3:00pm) 503-363-6161 Riverfront Park Lupus Foundation September 10 Lupus Walk amphitheater Bruce Waldner 503-599-6631 September 10 Block Party Fir Dell Drive SE between Bud Armstrong Hrubetz and Arlene Streets 503-585-4691 closure of 16th Street Salem First Church of the September 11 Community Block Party between East and Market Nazarene Keith Ritter Streets 503-781-7522 Willamette Valley Down Synd September 17 Buddy Walk Riverfront Park Association Keri Prince 503-437-1961 South Salem Cross South Salem High School September 17 Country Invitational Bush's Pasture Park Becky George 503-588-6261 http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm __1016/2005 Exhibit a Page 20 of Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 8 of 9 Salem Soap Box Derby September 17-18 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Park - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 Spinnaker Lake/Fairview Salem Triathlon Club September 18 Salem Triathlon Race Industrial Park Ian Doyle 1-503-2435604 Liberty House September 24 Liberty House Walk Minto-Brown Island Park Gretchen Bennett 503-540-0407 ALS Association September 24 ALS Walk Riverfront Park pathways Rebekah Kassell 1-503-238-0559 American Lung Association o September 25 Asthma Walk Riverfront Park pathways Oregon and amphitheater Danielle Kilian 1-503-924-4094 Lancaster Mall to NSHS via North Salem High School September 30 Homecoming Parade D Street 1 Amy Divelbiss 503-399-3241 Return to top DATE EVENT LOCATION CONTACT Cross Country ' Willamette University October 1 Invitational Meet Bush s Pasture Park Becky George 503-588-6261 Salem Police Department October 1 SPD Open House Peace Plaza Matt Riddle 503-932-5013 Riverfront Park Pathways Alzheimer's Network of Oregc October 8 Walk and Amphitheater Lynda Crandall 503-945-5918 Salem Soap Box Derby October 8-9 Soap Box Derby Rally Bush's Pasture Paris - Soap Association Chuck Fauser Race Box Derby Track 503-930-4021 503-559-5543 AC Gilberts Discovery Village November 5 Run Riverfront Park Pathways Pamela Vorachek 503-371-3631 Regional Cross Country ' Willamette University November 12 Meet Bush s Pasture Park Becky George 503-588-6261 Riverfront Park Pavilion and City of Salem/Comcast November 25 Tree Lighting Ceremony north meadow Bruce Bolton 503-588-6261 December 10 Festival of Lights Holiday Parade Downtown Salem KBZY/PGE Cherly/Bob Mitchell 503-871-0736 Retum to to http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm 10/6/2005 Exhibit Page -2_of~Z Special Events Calendar 2005 Page 9 of 9 City of Salem ♦ Information * City Departments The City of Salem values all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, domestic partnership, disability, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity and source of income. updated on 08/30/05 Copyright @2000-2005 City of Salem, all rights reserved Email questions to communityservices@cityofsalem.net. http://www.cityofsalem.net/scserv/parksrec/calendar.htm 10/6/2005 Exhibit Page of r f C~ m 8 INSIDE THIS ISSUE The Race is On 1 July Birthdays i Calendar of Events 2 Outdoor Church 2 Small Group Conf. 3 Fall Meetings 3 The Race, Continued 4 .m Tx~ m ~ i p~oo f A , 931 m~oV T ~m THE RACE IS ON! PHASE I... There's been a lot of talk about 'Chapter 2' recently. Chapter 2 is just The Adven- ture's way of saying that we are headed into a new phase of our existence. As a re- minder, Chapter 1 was our way of saying we created a safe place for people to come - we've done that in our two weekly worship experi- ences - musically, in the preaching, and in our small groups. They are all designed to be safe places for people to come and investigate the claims of Christ Now, Chapter2 is our way of saying, it's time to set out and reach those who don't Th fCha know Christ, and reach them with the good news of salva- tion. Here's some of the things we've done to move in that direction: • We're hiringa 2nd pastor to help us focus on our target in the areas of programming, small groups, and outreach • We sent out cards asking CHAPTER 2, who would like Bible studies in the commu- nity - about 50 people responded • We're teaching an ongo- ing class on how to give Bible studies • We're doing more ser- vant Evangelism - see inside about July 6th. • We're working on preparing for the Dan Bentzinger meetings this fall in various ways • Our goal is to have 150 in attendance BEFORE the fall meetings. • We're planning a baptism at our church camp out (Continued on back) JULY ANNIVERSARIES AND BIRTHDAYS Anniversaries: • Darren Christensen (7) • Daryl and Vicki Bohlender (2) • Charlotte Christensen (20) • Calvin and Amy Gane (30) • Gina Curtis (11) • Jerry and Kathy Lewis (26) • Dustin Curtis (16) • Manuel and Vivian Montoya (21) • Shelly Davis (23) • Franco and Tristi Ramos (12) • Debbie Donahew (14) Birthdays • Brian Fuller (2) • Chris Bohlender (14) • Calvin Gane (28) • Gene Maycroft (12) • Hannah Simonds (24) • Jaden Villarreal (3) • Bennie White (20) • Matt Wood (7) • Melinda Wood (16) Congratulations! Exhibit C_ Page _2.~ of aLZ e race o ..,,.,..,.g ..g....~.,..: Page 2 Volume 2, Issue 4 Calendar of Events Weds. Women's Purity Group (afternoon) Thurs. Men's Purity Group 6.•30am Ed- Prayer Meeting 7.00pm Sabbath: 9.15 - Early Worship Experience 10.30 - Kid's Classes, Study Groups, The Early Adventure 11.30 - Late Worship Experience July 6 - Outdoor Church July 19-21- Church Campout - Wellington Lake August 2-3 - Reaching In, Reaching Out - Small Group Conference Ou tdoo r Churchl Jul 6thl y a p4~e err tree wM At►e peen ' NP 00 d 1 Me I* on s-- . . WHERE? Lincoln Park on the corner of 10th St. and 9th Avenue WHEN? 10:30 ant WHAT? Potluck Lunch to follow Great Music! Great Food! Great People! Great fun! Your ®vn B9anlket or chair Also on that day - during and after 1000 church, we'll be handing out bot- tles of cold water to people in the park and the ares for a kindness/ servant evangelism project....E201: Servant Evangelism - "Evangelism for the Rest of Us!" Come on out! Let's Wor- Aal ship and Celebrate Exhibit Page _2 of _ Gear Up News Page 3 Large number of Adventist churches have tried to start small groups in their local church. Some have been successful while many have given up. What makes the difference? During this seminar we will look at a simple and re- producible approach to small groups that is working in the Adventist Church. Ies about how yourgroup, your church, and your team can come out on top too. As a church we have a special message to share with our world Groups are one of the best places to share that message. People everywhere crave meaningful relationships - they get that in a group. Also in a group we learn how to share God's love with friends and family in a real, relevant, and reladona/way. This is what this seminar is all about. Plan now to attend AvAusf 2-3 2002 The Philosophy At The Adventure, one of our core values is that we be- lieve `%fe change happens best in smallgrorrps. " That mean s that we know people make decisions at events, meetings, church, etc. But where the rubber meets the road is the people they hangout with, the people who will help them work through their decision, hold them accountable, and help them to follow through. At The Adventure we are continually striving for more people to be involved in small groups. Currently we have roughly 60% of those in attendance in a small group. These groups are growing our church deep, while we grow in numbers. The Seminar Friday Night: 7:00 - 8:30 pm - Opening session Sabbath: 9:15 am - Identical session to 11:30 time Your Instructor 10:30 am - 11:15 am session Pastor Milton Adams began training small group 11:30 am - Identical session to 9:15 time leaders while in college, a movement that is still 1:00 pm - Potluck Lunch (this helps w keep the going strong at Walla Walla College. He authored a group study guide for college and high school cost of the srmmar down, so bring some food and, join us) students called The Beginning of Reaching 2:30 - 5:30 pm - Concluding session out in Love. Currently he serves as a pastor of two churches in Oregon and has recently devel- oped Growth Group Training. Small Groups that are Working in the Adventist Church. He has con- ducted training in the Oregon, Upper Columbia and Wisconsin Conferences. These materials are currently being translated into Chinese for the Hong Kong Conference. Amazing Discoveries With It Is Written speaker Dan Bentzinger. Begins: October 21, 2002 in the Monfort Concert Hall at the Union Colony Civic Center Ends: November 23, 2002 Please pray for people to bring with you Please pray for God's blessing on these series Please pray for the city, that it will be prepared to come, to listen and to grow with God during this series. Exhibit Page -25 of ~3c)- 7WAdN = mal tg: PO Box 336301 Greeley, DO 80633 use" 6101 W. 10th St / (West) Greeley, CO Phone: 970/686.2411 Fax: 419/730.1474 Email: Infoftheadverdure.org Mail To: aplaa forthose who box gian up on church, but not on God... F ow 6"Adventure THE RACE CONTINUED The next major thing to come our way is the Amazing Discoveries series with Dan Bentz- inger this fall. This will enter us into the 2nd phase of Chapter 1 We hope to be near 200 in attendance when that is over in late November. The race is on. Paul says in 1st Timothy that we need to run the race that is before us with perseverance. In an- other place, he says that training of a spiri- tual nature is of much more value than for anything else we could be in training. As we move forward, there are several things that we are looking forward to yet • Having our own piece of property (we are continu- ing discussions with a de- veloper in the area about a 20 acre piece ofground) • Growing our attendance to the point (200+) where we 3. need to add another ser- vice - possibly on the west side of 1-25, in the Love- land/Ft Collins area. 4. • Having at least 80% of our people involved in a small group during the week (see nside about the upcom- ng Small Group Confer- ence) Having FUN together. Our Evangelistic Strat- egy has 4 main points: 1. E1O1- Friendship Evangelism - Evangelism for the Individual. This is a place where each of us can make a dent 2. E201-Servant Evan- gelism - Evangelism for the rest of us. This is the place where ANYONE can get involved helping oth- ers. E301- Event Evangelism - Evangelism for the crowd. This is Special Events that we do. E401-Target Evangelism - Evangelism for the Profes- sional. This is like our upcoming series this fall. Exhibit, Page -2-Cp- ofd Paul says that we should mn the race with petsever- uUm. ~tors-.Page Page 1 of 24 About Our Church Sunday Services Mission Education Youth Fellowship Music Programs Join a Group Interfaith Ministries Sermons Pastor's Page Firs r,sT1 n , r a r N A Uglht to the Wodd to the Heart at Eugene Pastor's Page Interfaith Worship Warship in A Strange Land A Case Study of Interfaith Worship Daniel E. H. Bryant Prepared for the 2005 Northwes Association of Theological DiscusE With appreciation to Eliza Drummond for her assistance and all those who have served on the Planning Committee of the Interfaith Service for Prayer and Reflection http://www.heartofeugene.org/PastorsPage/Pastorslnterfaith.htm Exhibit Page _2:1_of` C- The News-Review - News Page 1 of 3 Newsreview,1111% ave the gk2k1 -b*W Online- L,ZWOY 0 SUNNY BO° FRONT PAGE News Sports Mariner Action Police & Fire Logs Business Archives More News HOT LINKS Election 2005 Graying of Douglas County Government Links Road Reports Photo Galleries Email Headlines Click & Vote Poll Weather Furry Tail Times Special Sections RSS Feeds OPINION Reader Advisory Public Forum Guest Columns Staff Columns Editorials Blog SPOTLIGHT iqu @411 SUBMIT IT News Tip Press Release Business News Newsmaker Write the Editor EDUCATION Education Newspapers in Education Graduation Spelling Bee ENTERTAINMENT Entertainment Events Calendar Features Outdoors Life Search: Classifieds Puce an Ad 04 Weekend's Best Bets September 10, 2004 4&, Comments (0) I5 Print ® Email Q Subscribe * MELON FESTIVAL. Mud volleyball, a grand parade and a talent show are some of the many activities planned for the annual Winston-Dillard Melon Festival running today through Sunday. The free festival will take place from now to after 9 p.m. today, from 7 a.m. to after 7 p.m. Saturday and from 7 a.m. to after 5:30 p.m. Sunday in Riverbend Park. Some of the other highlighted activities on these days include a chili cookoff, a car show, live entertainment and a softball tournament. 679-0118. All State Real E * SCRAPBOOKING EXPO. The annual Southern Oregon I VIEW FULL A Scrapbooking & Rubber Stamping Expo will take place today and Saturday at Seven Feathers Hotel & Casino Resort in Canyonville. The event will run from 5: p.m. today and from noon to midnight on Saturday. Tickets for the first day cost $30 each and cost of a light supper, round robin classic, free make and takes and admission to the vendor fa following day, tickets cost $40, which covers all-day cropping space, one class, admission to i fair, make and takes, a goodie bag and dinner and dessert. Tickets are available at Stamper's C Scrapbooking 2 and at Roseburg Book & Stationery. Expo-only tickets will be available at the $10. 957-9040,673-5356. * DAY FOR GRACE. A series of Christian bands are performing today, hosting a concert to I sick Sutherlin girl. The local bands, Face in the Crowd and Last Adam, are joining the nationf group Tree63 at 6 p.m. at the Douglas County Fairgrounds' outdoor amphitheater in Roseburg activities scheduled include a raffle and a BMX rider performing stunts. Tickets cost $10 in a< are available at Evangel Christian bookstores, Koinonia Koffee House and Absolute Sound. T available at the door tonight for $12 each. Proceeds will be donated to Isabella Stone, a Suthei who has only one kidney and underdeveloped lungs. 643-7161. * SUMMER BLOCK PARTY. A three-day music festival is taking place today through Sund Oakland to benefit a local woman with cancer. The summer block party is being hosted by To Restaurant, located on Locust Street. The event will begin with a lamb barbecue tonight, whic include wine and music. Local bands will perform all three days. Proceeds will benefit Misti I Sutherlin, a 20-year-old with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. On Saturday, live music will be perfo noon to 11 p.m., and on Sunday, music will be played from noon to 9 p.m. Some of the bands to take the stage include Tweeds Mob, A Strange Attractor, Joe Ross and Friends, the Hotqua Band and Six Inch Cowboys. The price of admission is $10, while the barbecue costs $39. 8F 459-3796. http://www. newsreview. info/app slpbcs. dll/article?AID=1200409101NEW S/ 109100042 10/7/2005 Exhibit --Q Page 2~C of _3C ADVERTISEN ytastors Page Page 4 of 24 cluster of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. The group made t critical decisions: 1) the new organization would be interfaith and 2 would include lay leaders. "Ecumenical" was dropped the following y from the name in favor of Interfaith" and thus we have been knowr River's Interfaith Ministries (TRIM) ever since. One of TRIM's first public events was given in 1995 in respons performance of Bach's St. Matthew Passion marking the 50th annivei the end of World War II. Local Jewish leaders were quite disturbed selection and requested help from Christian clergy to engage the Ba, Festival leaders in dialogue. The result was a "Service of Reconciliat held at the Hult Center where the Bach piece was to be performed jt couple of days later. In the service Christian leaders, which include( Rodney Page, requested forgiveness from members of the Jewish community for the church's contribution to anti-Semitism and failure stand up to the atrocities of the Holocaust. Many were the misty ey, the 300 in attendance. Slowly over the next six years the interfaith character of TRIM to expand from largely a Jewish-Christian organization to a truly int( community as a new faith community found their way into the grou f couple of months. Other than the community thanksgiving service z Service of Reconciliation, however, there were no attempts to join t( in a service of worship. Long philosophical discussions were held in TRIM gatherings on whether one could worship at all in an interfaith gathering. Indeed, the only ritual that could be found that all could comfortably was a time of silence. The sufficiency and serenity of tt silence, however, was shattered on the morning of September 11, 2 The community, if not the world, needed something more. The first response to the terror of that fateful day was organiz the Reverend Ken Henry at Central Presbyterian Church. Where oth opened the doors of their sanctuaries for a much needed time of pra Ken put together a community service of prayer for that evening ang me to find a suitable location. We settled upon an outdoor amphith( owned by the City of Eugene. All the normal fees, rental for sound equipment, union labor and the rest were donated by the City. The program included Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders. Word went the local news channels. Approximately 400 people attended. On September 13th the President proclaimed September 14th 1 Day of Prayer. I received a call that morning on my way up I-5 to a previously scheduled EMO meeting that Steve Overman, the pastor Eugene Faith Center (a Foursquare congregation), wanted to talk to about it. Steve was the organizer of a quarterly Pastor's Prayer Lun which had been meeting for a couple of years and included a wide sl of clergy from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal. He was also the prim http://www.heartofeugene.org/PastorsPage/Pastorslnterfaith.htm 10/7/2005 Exhibit Page s of The News-Review - News Page 3 of 3 sate their curiosity through a dance parry on Sunday. The free event will run from 2 to 5 p.m. Buckaroo Barn, 5051 N.E. Stephens St. Throughout the afternoon, demonstrations in round d: square dancing, ballroom dancing and line dancing will take place. Visitors are also encourage the dances for themselves. Refreshments will be served. 459-5278. * DELORES POWELL FUND-RAISER An auction, cake walk and music jam are taking pla to help a local woman in need. The event will begin at 4 p.m. at the Sutherlin Eagles Lodge. I to aid Delores Powell of Sutherlin, a 59-year-old blind woman with heart troubles and diabete is to visit her mother again before either she or her mother die, and she can't afford the trip on Funds generated from the event will be given to her to help her achieve this goal. Donations v accepted. 459-5532,459-3162. * COUNTRY GOSPEL CONCERT. Performers from numerous church groups are hosting ar country gospel concert on Sunday. The event begins with a potluck at 5 p.m., followed by the from 6 to 8 p.m. in Canyonville's Pioneer Park. Some of the entertainers scheduled to perform Praise Team and Common Ground from the Assembly of God Church, and Loren Fenton fron Seventh-day Adventist Church. Free admission but donations will be accepted. 839-4332, 825 If you live here, you get it! For the most up to date news and information in Douglas County, subscribe to The News-Review. CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE 4c BACK Privacy Policy I Advertise Contact Us I Archives I Classifieds Subscribe I Site Map I RSS Feeds Visit our other news and portal sites. All contents p Copyright 2005 newsreview.info The flews-Review - 345 N.E. Winchester - PO Box 1248 - Roseburg, OR 97470 http://www. newsrevi ew. info/appslpbcs. dll/article?AID=/20040910/NEW S/ 109100042 10/7/2005 Exhibit U Page of,-3C)_ -A, T,l Vl-E 0 JTDOO Ftl ~ CIII-Efi~IlTEf~ VN, tX N aS, h Il i Exhibit 1' _ Page __I_ of Exhibit li~ Page-2-- of Iq V- 3L S L t 1 hN t 1 s i ~ r sp~y « ~ _ R l SI ~ _i t ti ~ u ra Exhibit Page _ of A9~- r~ .714 ji Exhibit Page of _L r ,,ttNOW 55 . . r s .y.. r E ,r~ ~4 y 4.` i 4 p ~ 1 ~ yr ' µ g . Exhibit Page -p of Exhibit Page of 6' "r a { Exhibit Page_ of I~C g ~ 5 . r 1*44 r F.r v _Vk n 4b w„ Z ~ Ti± Exhibit Page -Z, of -i~ T',3 Exhibit Page _L(D _ of COMMUNITY CHAPEL AMPHITHEATER SWEETHOME, OREGON The following pictures are of the Amphitheater at Community Chapel in Sweethome, Oregon and show the Amphitheater full on a typical Sunday morning, as well as, empty. These pictures are provide to give an example of what we are trying to accomplish at CLC. Exhibit Page of I LU V G n5z O V z 0 u 0 L t G I a 00 ti cn c~ 0 o Lo 'o ~y bjD Al ~O Off' a- 0 C) tt N O Cl) N vi~ blO o l~ w i y 8 -8 43 Fi W CD DC .y cd O ccS e~ p, cd - CL) C~ P C~J q an 4 A ;a C02 ° ° cd api a p ^ s: o led. ul w 75 td U w bin' no + ti ti Q o , cd b-0. uo °0 a4 p p n by o ~ ~ o c bC ~ ~ ~ R. ~j a> ~ op •r5 ~ ~ taq o ~ ~ a~ a~ a Exhibit Page `F' `~z 1iajuXa fi l 41 0 4, 'o cu ~O p ~ q -:J bA -tom N U O U ° O ° ~ L -i ~ U ~ U S J .Sy bO H b f- ma b y W -+Cj r~ y q j l Cd o Cd ~ pJ ~ u t O ° ,'7 Vl (V R ° cd b b4 • F.' . , 1 O P v c°J. "Do cd n . KI o F j 4 0 ao o :H o ai ° o 'y cu d C: H td 'b N O r7s o 0 o E- 3 U r 7 4a~~t to " P ca f+ V) vqq~ faH..~, _ ~ w -0 ccf U . P o o -19 O Y 3 'a b.0 rli U a l o N c d o > G U b o ~ ~ ~ cad S" i 41s \ Tin bf 't7 y a) -Lot H or, p N n cd C7 bi0 ccdd p N -0 aw) cu o co 0 > '9b cn vi ?r G u N c~V c~ ,w-V- N U N v] H N (]y H O 'bC 'C' cn W o CZ C:) cd cu b4 0.0, PD. TJ 0 S low M ) / ~N -~j N '4q f•-1-i-~ "q Cd Gd 1 ~J N CU 0 CWD P, cd ,m .wo rc7 `A cO C) A b C ti f a,. f w•. fir 4 }iirf .17 .70" At r th a -AL e bA ~ ~ ~ ~ p tom., ~ v bA ~ ~ t U N v] N U "d ~ ~ N CC U c7 ed CO o W o -Eby ~cu ~ >pp, p w rn y cw" _ b p cd U •Q A -B ~ rn 'ti~ p m cu 3 cu o mo a F, !f~~' N . ~'i GV O cd O C11 o '0 ~ -n vS ~ .t7 vOi w b N O a r r L 5~ y 3<F d 1'_. .f _ a. 1 At i~ ,'gyp- Ar /A r " , h J, "A Y AT AM ES CREEK }Ybac =-s zmaui fea to be ;part of a unl ue sunnier out:'-or church ser Vice in Community Chapel's a1-~nphitil eai:er. r ~ 5 Experience inspiring music and li~~ e-re_aced messages in a beautifal setting. the services start at :30 am. (o:co a1n beginning in September.) III l eb2nen Al'oFnf a II. - Les Sch%tvab Ona fJnes Creel(R file 42250 Ames Creek Rd. Sweet Home - Oregon - 541-367-5io6 1 mile south of Hwy 20 at 18th Ave. (Les Schwab) Exhibit 91 Page qof d Py -y~}`.i.~~ ti 7 t: d;F per' t, t .r~,• .f',n S i t"~y` d n ~ *W F t }4 1 16 ,yT 4 y w 'r ~ M1 S f ~ ~ ~t r M1p AM- r, 7 Y h ; i' { j ~ r t Y 4W ~i z , 7i Exhibit- Page I II .may t Liu X:~e M r Exhibit i Page of %4 I /F a Exhibit f Page l` of F t , C r t w. u~ s i Exhibit Page !t= of