For the record, I will do a roll call to verify which Commissioner members are participating this evening.

Commissioner Holmes.

Present.

Commissioner McAvoy.

Present.

Commissioner McCann.

Present.

Commissioner Winter.

Let the record show that Commissioner Speck and Adams are excused and absent from the meeting tonight.

We are now at Commission Communications.

Commission, any communications.

We are now at the time of staff communications.

Staff any communications.

Good evening, Honest Latinsky Planning Division Manager.

I do not have any staff communications this evening.

Thank you.

The first item of the agenda is a public hearing on the application for LU 30 32026 00182.

Southwest Bible Church Tree Plan Modification of a Decision.

Case file number TP 22026 0014.

Before we move to the substances, substance of the hearing, I will ask the city attorney to cover the pre-hearing matters.

Good evening, Commission.

Robin McIntyre, Assistant City Attorney.

The applicant has the burden of proving that the applications are consistent with the Beaverton Development Code, comprehensive plan, and any applicable Beaverton Code provision.

The criteria that must be addressed in the hearing are development code sections 40.03.1 facilities review, 40.90.15.2C Tree Plan 2, and 50.05 modification of a decision.

Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward these approval criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or development code that the speaker believes apply to the application.

Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the planning commission and other interested parties an opportunity to respond.

May preclude an appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue.

Anyone who submits written comments or gives oral testimony has standing to appeal this decision.

Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city to respond may preclude an action for damages in circuit court.

Does any commissioner have a potential or actual conflict of interest?

Ex parte contacts or site visits to declare.

No to all three.

Commissioner Holmes.

No to all three.

Commissioner McCann.

No to all three.

Commissioner McAvoy.

No to all three.

Commissioner Winter.

No to all three.

Does any member of the audience wish to question a commissioner about ex parte contacts or site visits or challenge the right of any commissioner to participate in this hearing?

Let the record show no response.

The order of the public hearing tonight will be as follows.

City staff will give a presentation followed by commissioner's questions of staff.

The applicant will be given 20 minutes for its presentation, followed by Commissioner's questions of the applicant.

Members of the public in support of the application may speak for up to five minutes each.

Members of the public opposed to the application may speak for up to five minutes each.

And members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will then have five minutes to speak.

The applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal.

The planning commission will then hear any final comments from staff.

Thank you.

We will now begin with the staff presentation.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Steve Regner, Senior Planner with the City Beaverin's current planning division.

The application before you tonight is LU3 2026 00182, Southwest Bible Church modification of a decision.

The application before you tonight is a little bit different than the Commission is probably used to seeing instead of a development proposal.

This is actually a request to modify a previously approved land use decision.

Instead of a development proposal, this is actually a request to modify a previously approved land use decision, Southwest Bible Church Edition TP2 2025 00266, requesting to remove a condition of approval which required a conservation easement to be placed over an on-site significant natural resource area.

The site is uh Southwest Bible Church located at the northwest corner of Murray and Weir Road.

The entire church campus is outlined in red.

The area of development that was recently approved is in that uh hashed circle there.

The original proposal was an approximately 12,000 square foot building to be utilized by the church and school on site.

Uh and the development or the the placement of this building would require uh the removal of six trees from the on-site significant natural resource area.

That SNRA is this area shown in this kind of gray blue blob here.

Um, and you can see the um location of the new development was m just on the edge of that SNRA boundary.

So, like I said, uh the removal of those six trees triggered preservation requirements that are in our development code.

Essentially, our development code says if you're gonna do any development uh in the uh in an SNRA or a significant grove, uh the remainder of that area must be put in a preservation tract or easement.

As such, staff uh included a condition of approval requiring that the remainder of this SNRA uh go in an easement.

This condition of approval is what the applicant is requesting to remove tonight.

Um the applicant has to demonstrate compliance with everything in a normal tree plan, uh, but when you are modifying a decision, uh you also have to demonstrate compliance with Beaverton Development Code 5095, which handles modifications of a decision.

Uh there's there's several approval criteria, but the one that really does the heavy lifting um is 5095 7.1.

And in this case, um the applicant has to demonstrate that a mistake of law or fact occurred, and that the mistake was substantial enough to warrant modification or removal of the condition to correct the mistake.

So that is the important threshold to consider um when we're reviewing this application is did a mistake of law or fact occur.

So this is the condition language itself.

It's long, I'm not going to read it all, but it essentially says by the time the project is developed and built and to be occupied, a preservation easement has to be placed over the SNRA, has to be recorded at the county, they have to give us a copy.

That's generally what this says.

Um it's understandable.

Um this is just an excerpt of the site history here, but we pulled things we felt were relevant to kind of share with the commission of how we kind of got here.

Uh so the site originally got approval to build a church in 1986, um, and they got approved for uh their first edition in 1991.

Neither of these applications affected the tree grove, so those are just for context.

In 1995, the city approved a master plan for future phases of development for the church.

Uh master plans are uncommon.

In fact, we don't really do them anymore for various reasons.

Uh one being we don't have a very good mechanism to approve track, administer, enforce them.

They're they're very tricky and difficult to do over time, especially 30 years later.

Um but the fact of the matter is that the city did approve this master plan in 1995, so the city is obligated to interpret administer and enforce it to the best of our ability.

Um this master plan approved uh three future development phases referred to as phases three through five.

Um it also identified tree preservation requirements for the removal of those trees with phases three through five.

And I'll talk more about the the 95 master plan in a bit.

Um in 1999, there was an expansion of the church consistent with this master plan.

Uh in 2018, a tree preservation tract required by the 1995 master plan was recorded and dedicated.

And then in 2025, there was an additional church expansion approved, also consistent with the master plan, and it's that 2025 approval that is being uh requested for modification tonight.

So, really the two important ones we're talking about tonight is the 1995 master plan and then the 2025 approval that is being asked to be modified.

So here's an image from the 1995 master plan.

Um couple of important things here.

You can see this is what a fully developed site would look like.

You see a lot of development on the east side, athletic fields to the north, parking kind of wrapping the building, a little bit of development on the west side, um uh significant tree preservation in the northwest corner, um, and then a wetland that the area where there's nothing there, that's the wetland um delineated boundary as they understood in 1995.

So you can see there's tree preservation speckled throughout with an emphasis to tree preservation in the northwest corner.

So this is the master plan that we are evaluating against when we look at future development.

So I mentioned that this master plan approved three phases of future development.

One thing the master plan made clear was that each future phase needed design review approval because as you can see, it's just boxes, right?

There's no elevations, there's no detailed design.

So the applicant has to come back for design review each time, which they have done.

The other thing that's important that this master plan did was it identified preservation requirements for tree removal.

Um as I mentioned, the first thing that they did, and this was finalized in 2018 was dedicating that 1.06 acre tract in the northwest corner.

You can see we'll go back to the front of it.

That this kind of weird Lego tetracy shaped piece in the northwest corner, that's the dedicated track that was uh recorded in 2018 to satisfy that 1995 requirement.

Um the master plan also uh clarified that future tree removal um in the SNRA could only be done at the time of development and no clear cutting is allowed.

So any trees they would need to remove, they could only do it by demonstrating, hey, this building has to go there, these trees have to come out, okay, you're good.

But they couldn't go take anything out just kind of for fun.

Um when we initially were reviewing uh the 1995 master plan for last year's approval, um, as I mentioned, master plans were sometimes a little bit difficult to uh go back, read the history, try and understand what it was some of the languages trying to accomplish 30 years ago.

Um and so staff went with what the code said required the uh the mitigation of the preservation easement.

Uh however, when the applicant came back and requested to modify this decision, we took a closer look.

We dug into the master plan again, we looked at their case files to see if there was anything else that could kind of help us understand what people back 30 years ago were actually trying to accomplish.

And we found a little bit of insights from a 1995 case file uh for a church approval, and there was language supporting the idea that these trees essentially were already authorized for removal.

In fact, there's two different chunks of language.

This is in the staff report, I won't read it out.

But essentially these two highlighted areas identify that trees on the site essentially were already authorized for removal through the 1995 plan, and no extra mitigation or preservation requirements were required.

Um that's the most contemporaneous other analysis we have to try and figure out what the master plan was intended to do.

Um and that's new information that we discovered after the approval last year through this kind of review process.

So with all that being said, um staff has reached the following conclusions about the proposal.

Um we have uh found that the 1995 master plan did authorize future removal of trees on site within the SNRA if a couple of conditions were met.

First, the development has to be consistent with the master plan, and second, um only trees removed or trees can only be removed at the time that they are impacted by development.

Um and then supported by that 1990 case, 1999 case I just shared, um, trees removed from the SNRA when they meet these conditions, um, that no more mitigation or preservation requirements should be applied.

So when we compare last year's approval and their development proposal with the 1995 master plan, we found that one the development is consistent with that 1995 master plan.

Uh we found that the six trees that were uh approved for removal were impacted by the development, and because those two thresholds had been met, uh the city did did in fact improperly uh uh condition this conservation easement to be placed on there.

So going back to that threshold from 1595 I talked about at the beginning, that mistake of law or fact occurred.

We do um as staff find that a mistake of fact did occur uh by requiring this easement.

Um and as such, staff does support the applicant's request to remove this condition of approval.

Um to conclude, staff recommends approval of uh case file LU3 2026 00182, Southwest Bible Church modification of a decision.

Um I will make it clear that uh the only change if planning commissions approve this request, the only change that would happen is that the condition of approval to place the easement over the SNRA would be eliminated.

The development as approved last year, otherwise would remain exactly as is.

The building would be built as is, um, and all the other conditions attached would still remain.

So that would be the only change that would happen tonight if planning commission approved this decision.

Um that was a lot of information that we don't normally get into that amount of detail and process for, so I'm gonna stop talking.

Um and if the commission has any questions um about it uh about this project, um, we're happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff with regard to the proposed application?

Sure.

Thanks for that.

I guess I have a number.

The first one is there a functional difference between the what I guess what's called the preservation tract, that 1.06 acres and the conservation easement in terms of their I the size I get and the number of trees involved, but uh in terms of like their durability or their permanence or restrictions on future development.

Um it all depends on how the easements and and the language attached to the tract is written.

Um ideally they're supposed to function the same.

Arguably there's benefits to some versus the other.

The way we do things these days is functionally, if if you're gonna do a land division where you're already dividing land, we ask that it be put in a tract.

And if you're doing design review, you put it in an easement.

That's kind of what directs us to do one versus the other.

Um in 1995, I don't think that approach existed.

Um there was actually some back and forth about whether it should be an easement or a tract or fenced off after lots of back and forth, it ended up being a tract.

Um but but functionally they are trying to accomplish the same thing.

Okay, gotcha.

Um and it seems like one of the challenges here is um like as you said, interpreting the master plan and also um the fact that so much time has elapsed since that master plan was approved and today's code.

So how do you all handle this situation in other cases?

Forgetting you know, trees for a second.

When there's a discrepancy between the master plan and um existing or current development code, does the master plan always supersede current development code or is that something that there's discretion for?

Yeah, so in cases where the master plan is specific about what has been approved, typically the master plan will will supersede.

Um I will say master plans are very uncommon.

I I'm having trouble thinking of another one that's in the city off the top of my head.

So this is a very uncommon conversation we have, which kind of leads to the challenges of us trying to enforce it because it's not something that we do very commonly.

Um, you know, you look at that site plan, you can see it's really just a rectangle on a on a on a sheet.

So when they come in with a more detailed design, if it's kind of within the bounding box of where that building was supposed to be, we we consider that consistent width.

Um in cases where, for example, um there there is a there is a clean water services easement on the property um that wasn't there, I think, in 1995.

When development comes in, they will have to reckon with that of how development is going to work within a clean water services easement.

That's not a problem we have today.

Um, but that's an example of maybe where um new rules might actually come into play.

Um but as far as our development code goes, generally I think the rule is if the master master plan is specific about it, we defer to that.

But where it's vague, unclear, or unreferenced, we use today's code.

Agreed.

And just to put a finer point on that, in this case, where there's a tree protection plan that identifies individual trees, would you consider that a specific plan?

So if you know looking at this plan here, arguably it's probably a little bit tough to figure out you know, all the trees in circles, which one that actually is.

Um I think we do our best to look and compare.

You know, some of these trees are probably don't exist anymore just due to nature, or there are new trees that weren't on this plan.

So I I think when we look at tree preservation, we do our best to determine which trees on site actually these trees are.

Um probably not with 100% accuracy, to be quite honest.

Um, but we look at you know where there are other other landmarks and try and compare.

Um but I think when they do come in for future development, we're gonna look and see, hey, which trees do we think these are?

Are they maintaining them?

Um and if so, then they are in compliance with the master plan and don't need to go through additional preservation or mitigation requirements.

Okay.

Right, just one final question.

Um is all is all this development fully executed now?

Okay.

Um there so essentially phase one and two, phase three, there's a little bit of what could be called phase five, and then the new development is kind of in this area here.

So it's not an not an exact footprint, um, but generally speaking, what we have is generally kind of this area along here.

There is nothing on the west side.

Parking stops probably right about here, and everything north doesn't exist.

Um so maybe halfway there, roughly speaking.

So um, and you might not have an answer to this, but when the assuming this master plan comes to total fruition, all that development and parking lot is there.

Um do you have a estimate of the difference in the either the percent of the SNRA or number of trees that will be left on site under the tree preservation plan or the conservation easement approach?

Yeah, so I don't have a perfect graphic here.

And I didn't highlight the full SNRA because the full boundaries in here, but it's a little bit faint.

So if you can see this dashed line here, that's the boundary of the SNRA.

So the CWS conservation easement probably makes up 60 to 70 percent of what the SNRA boundary is.

And you'll notice the boundary like goes into an existing development.

So the SNR boundary is not perfect.

It was probably done by an aerial um 20 years ago, and it it you know shade things and aerials mess things up to you.

So it's not a perfect boundary, but you can see the trees start right around here.

So I would say this this clean water service easement makes up seven sixty to seventy percent of the SNRA, and that easement is in place right now.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So sticking back to that.

Uh um just some clarification or understanding.

So the map comparison that you had with the final master plan clearly goes into the SNR A area on the back side of the Yes.

The um the master plan shows future uh parking going up into this area here, which is clearly and the SNRA, I wish I'd outline this.

This area here is gonna be essentially authorized for development through the 95 master plan.

That's correct.

And with that the tree sort of protection was already assessed in into the red area to accommodate the additional parking.

That that essentially was the mitigation and preservation requirement met in 1995 is the area in red.

The the numbers were lower then.

Um they're they're much higher now, but because they got it approved in 1995 and then they vested it by actually building a phase, it it does actually hold today still.

Okay.

So this phase that would be happening is still sort of within the boundaries of previously authorized, which would which are associated with the red words.

Yeah, yeah.

Everything they have proposed to date is consistent with the master plan.

So they are still falling within the bounds of what they were allowed to do offset by the mitigation and in the and preservation in the in the red area in the northwest corner.

Okay.

Uh my one question also is going to be like has there been a conversation of hey, you're taking six trees out of this area, like maybe not the whole thing become something, but maybe a little bit.

But basically what you're saying though is they're already within the bounds of what was already set aside.

We we before we had a better understanding of what the 1995 master plan actually did.

We actually went down that route of exploring like is there a compromise?

Do we put a tree preservation easement in a smaller area?

Maybe we overlap the clean water services easement to make it more robust.

We explore that idea, but at the end of the day, when we kind of made our final assessment of what the 95 plan actually did, we realized there actually wasn't a place for us to make that move.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh the app.

Apologies.

Uh we will move to applicant uh presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The applicant will now have 20 minutes to present.

Please begin by introducing yourselves and stating your names and addresses for the record.

Uh good evening, Vice Chair Mettler.

My name is Garrett Stevenson.

I am an attorney representing the applicant.

My address is 1211 Southwest Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, suite 1800.

Uh with me today is uh my primary client contact uh with the church, uh Gary Dozier, and um I'll go ahead and let him introduce himself.

Yeah, Gary Dozier, and I am one of the pastors at Southwest Bible Church, and so I am here as the uh applicant representing Southwest Bible.

So I want to um start by uh expressing my sincere thanks um to the applicant.

Oh, this is it, okay.

I knew I was gonna screw that up.

There we are.

Okay, uh I apologize.

Um I I wanted to start by um thanking Steve in particular uh for helping us nail this down.

Um I don't have a lot to add to his analysis.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Um but I will say that um it it was very interesting to me how relatively well thought out this program was back in 96.

Um it turns out that back then um that planning commission that was operating then had a lot of the same concerns that I'm sure you share now, which is there's a lot of trees on the site, how do we want to protect those permanently?

Um and that's why they established the tree tract.

And when I looked at this, roughly speaking, um, I'll go through those in just a bit, uh there's a substantial amount of trees being protected in that tract.

I went out and took a look at it, they would look really, really good.

Um but the planning commission at the time and the council thereafter understood that this was a compromise.

And um I think that as land use professionals and as planners and as lawyers, we always think like, hey, let's put everything down on a plan and let's execute that, and so everybody knows what's going to happen over the long term.

Um it is fairly rare, as Steve mentioned, to have a plan that unfolds over this period of time.

Um, but he was correct in saying that the plan is vested because under Oregon law, if you have a master plan and you put a certain amount of investment um backed expectation into it by building out what you are authorized to build, that uh plan vests, which means you can finish it.

Think of it as like I go out and I get a building permit, um, and then suddenly the zoning changes on my property, and I couldn't build a new house, but I've got a house.

Could I add on to that?

Absolutely, you could.

Um and so it's a very similar legal principle that Steve was getting at there.

Um so I I found it really, really interesting because I don't run into this stuff as much as I used to anymore, um just like Steve.

Um, but I I think it's a good example of what was pretty decently thoughtful planning 30 years ago in 96.

I don't know very many cities that were protecting trees um this thoroughly back at that time.

Um let's see if I I hope this will work.

There we go.

Um but as you can see, unfortunately this doesn't show the SNRA because I don't think the SNRA existed at the time.

But um, you know, what we what hasn't changed here is a couple things.

Number one is the tree tract hasn't changed.

And number two is the clean water services easement.

Those absolutely prohibit development in those areas.

And as a matter of fact, the tree tract, I was reading up on it, um, Commissioner McAvoy, when you raised the question about how vigorous its protections might be.

Um I did go back and take a look and see what they were thinking at the time.

This is the city council.

Um what it says is the grove of trees in the northwestern corner of the tree preservation plan shall be recorded as a separate non-buildable tract prior to any construction beyond phase three.

And then actually there's a number of conditions, um, like ten of them, uh, all about how to uh protect trees in this tree tract.

And at this point, all those trees are significant trees, and under the city's code, we can't remove those without a permit anyway, nor do we have any intention of doing so.

But the church does want to see its final build out, and the fact that it has tracked pretty diligently over the years to build out this site is evidence that it it remains serious about seeing the site plan to fruition and the and realizing this master plan.

Now, the fundamental reason why we were very concerned about uh not necessarily SNRA, and I I think it I'm gonna uh pause for a slight digression.

This application does not change the boundaries of the SNRA.

This application does not ask to remove trees that haven't already been approved for removal.

And if the planning commission were to deny the application, um the church would still have authorization to remove those trees.

Um but what it does do is it removes the requirement to effectively give up permanently its property rights to a portion of land that it was hoping to develop as part of the master plan, and then it was authorized to develop as part of the master plan.

And so when I think that the city's code um did not anticipate a when they were drafting it, thinking like, okay, we're gonna ask somebody to remove six trees and we're gonna get a conservation easement over nine acres for removal of six trees.

I mean, on its face, I don't think anybody was thinking about that possibility.

But like anything else, when you have a project that's as interesting and dynamic as this one, um when you run it through codes that were kind of thought uh through for a standard type of application where you have perhaps uh ten trees, you're taking down five of them will protect the the you know those five that are left.

Here, um when you just apply the code without doing the great research that Steve did, you end up with the circumstance that nobody nobody frankly would into it.

Um because nine acres is an awful lot of uh conservation easement to give up to remove six trees.

I mean, it just is.

So, and if we were to give up that nine acres, um a great majority of this would not be buildable.

And I will kind of illustrate that here.

So here is the tree tract from 96, and then we build on that.

Um this is effectively the clean water services buffer, and again, as I mentioned before, um the church will not be able to build in that buffer um uh regardless of what we do with the NR uh SNRA.

Um then that is the current extent of the clean water services buffer, but then you see the SNRA.

And um if you look here in this area, you know, that's really the area that would be permanently you know effectively removed from the land that uh the church was hoping to develop um according to its 96 master plan.

So um the other thing I wanted to point out, and it uh sort of an addendum to what Steve mentioned about the code is um chapter 60 section 6015 2C5, which is the code that implements the conservation easement requirement says um preservation areas, and I'm gonna kind of skip some uh irrelevant parts of it, but preservation areas conditioned for protection shall be set aside in conservation easements.

Um but there's a final sentence that Steve didn't mention, which is unless otherwise approved by the city.

So nothing we're doing here is like in the nature of a variance where the code absolutely requires in every case the maximum extent of uh conservation easement.

It gives the city the discretion to do what we're asking the city to do here.

Um that's something that the code anticipated.

So you know, whoever wrote the code may not have seen a project like this coming where you have um uh trigger for such a large conservation easement, but they did provide us an escape valve for situations like this.

So luckily uh this isn't uh case about why the code is wrong.

I think the code is fine because it does allow the discretion to make these decisions when it makes sense to make them.

So um there's some additional stuff uh concerning um Fifth Amendment Takings Law.

I'm not gonna belabor the point, but the uh the legal standard for something like this is um since the city would be asking for a property right instead of say a development regulation, when we convey to the city a conservation easement, we're essentially giving up effective ownership of that land.

We have title to it, but we can't really use it.

That's subject to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and under those doctrines, basically the amount that the city would have to take has to be roughly proportional to the impact.

And here we have a removal of six trees.

It's our belief that requiring a conservation easement over nine acres is not roughly proportional to the removal of six trees.

But um, luckily, uh when Steve and I were working on this, we found that we didn't have to have that discussion at all because we have a vested um site plan that uh provides for this area to be developed.

So before I turn it over to Gary, do any of you have any questions for me.

Sure.

Um thanks.

I appreciate it.

Um could you just kind of spell out in a little bit more detail because it's it's hard with all the iterations over the years here, you know, where the development is today and and what the full extent of the master plan is.

But uh if you have a figure or a map or something you could point to, what development has not yet been built that would be prohibited by or impacted by this the conservation easement.

Well, I tell you, Commissioner, I'm gonna do my best to answer that, but I'm gonna invite Gary to um slap me on the side of the head if I get something wrong because uh this is his church, not my church, and they um are far more uh uh knowledgeable about what their own plans are compared to what I understand because I didn't get involved in this until um you know after this problem had arisen when they took a look at the conditions.

So I'm gonna see here.

Gosh, I don't know if I've got a great graphic.

Um honestly just with with this figure here.

If you could just use your cursor to kind of show what parts of the parking lot.

I'll do my level best here.

Um I can I guess I can sort of draw, but I need to flip back and forth to make sure I I get this relatively correct.

So we have this is the so if you look, this is the area of the new building.

Um I think all of this, if it develops out, would be parking, and then we have new buildings and parking here.

And so if you look here, um that area kind of like uh, and I'm just gonna use some sweeping.

It's kind of like so.

Um that is the area that the conservation easement would basically make impossible to develop.

Um I don't know how soon that you guys would be coming in for that project.

Um, but you have additional buildings here, additional parking here.

And I did walk the site because I wanted to know just like is this there's a little drainage that goes through there.

And I walked the site uh and with Steve.

And this area where you see the buildings and parking, it's fairly flat.

Um it's not what I would characterize as wet by any means.

It's just got trees on it.

Um the area within the clean water services um vegetated corridor uh that's covered by that easement.

That's a lot wetter, so you see different types of species there that like uh the rain and the little drainage going through there.

But um I uh I'm remiss by not having prepared that graphic for you.

I apologize, but um that's kind of roughly what we're talking about.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Did I get that right, roughly?

Yeah, yeah.

If a line right there this much of the parking lot is already developed, where I'm had the circle here, and so everything up here hasn't been developed.

So this is developed.

Gotcha.

Actually, I do have one one additional one.

This might be for staff as well.

But um staff earlier referred to you know, sort of the details in in an easement um when I asked them the comparison between the preservation tract and the easement, that kind of thing, and he sort of said, well, it kind of depends on how it's structured.

Is it a given that the conservation easement as required currently would preclude all of this development, or are there easements that would be structured that would allow some of this development while maintaining the integrity of the SNRA, so to speak?

Conservation easements absolutely preclude development.

You cannot pave a parking lot or build a building in a conservation easement.

There's a couple of reasons for that.

Number one, um, I don't think the city would have any interest in a conservation easement that didn't prohibit removal of those trees, which would have to happen if we um built what were what's remaining to be built.

Um typically with a conservation, there's conservation easements are kind of a specific animal.

Um, but you have you all you can't just give um necessarily an easement to anybody.

You have to give it to a party who's willing to enforce it in this case, it would be the city.

And what that conservation easement would in theory allow you to do is not pay taxes on that portion of the property.

But obviously, if you were to go in and build on it, number one, you'd be violating the easement, the city would uh sue to enjoy the church from doing that.

Um, but also the church would have to pay taxes on that area.

So um conservation easements allow very limited um recreational uses within those areas, like you know, trails and stuff.

Um sometimes there's an interpretive sign, but they are extraordinarily restrictive.

Um and I think Steve was was right when he talked about you know the tract versus the easement.

Um nowadays um if we are going to reserve basically uh create a property right for those trees.

If we are dividing land, you can create a tract, and that restriction goes onto the face of the plat.

Uh you can also create easements on the plat alone, and they're equally as enforceable as if you draft a separate easement and record it.

Um but here there would be no way to build any of this under a conservation easement or any other similar restriction.

Thanks.

If there are no further questions, we will move to public testimony.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thanks for your time and patience with me.

Thank you.

We are now at the public testimony portion of this agenda item.

We will call for testimony in groups, starting with those in favor of the application, then those in opposition to the application, then those neither in favor nor in opposition.

We will take testimony from those attending in person first, followed by those attending via Zoom webinar.

As a reminder, testimony is limited to the criteria that apply to the application.

Now is the time for testimony in favor of the application.

Are there any yellow cards?

No yellow cards.

No one is testifying in person.

We will move to the Zoom webinar.

For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar.

If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak.

Do we have uh anyone virtually?

All right.

Staff has stated that we do not have any public testimony in favor of.

Okay.

Yes.

Um the commission calls Morgan Harrington to speak.

Please state your name and address for the record.

I will give just one more moment.

Okay.

We can move forward.

Okay, thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

I'm so sorry.

Um this is neither for nor against.

I would just like to ask a clarification.

I think it might have been discussed, but in that northwest acre that was outlined in red.

Are there plans for a building, a parking lot, tree removal in that specific area?

The time for testimony and not for asking and answering questions.

However, you know, staff can certainly um ask answer any questions when they come up for.

Okay, we will reserve that for staff questions at the conclusion of uh public testimony.

Thank you, Morgan.

Uh now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application.

Uh any yellow cards.

Okay.

Uh we net we have no one testifying in person.

We will move to the Zoom webinar.

For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in the Zoom menu bar.

If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak.

Do we have uh anyone virtually?

No.

Staff has stated we do not have any public testimony in opposition via webinar.

Uh now is the time for testimony, neither in favor nor opposed to the application.

Are there any yellow cards?

No.

Um we have no one testifying in person.

We will move to the Zoom webinar.

For those of you uh viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar.

Staff has stated that we do not have any public test of testimony, neither in favor nor opposed via webinar.

We will skip that.

Does staff have any final comments?

So Vice Chair, I do want to give the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal just in case they would like to, because of that question that was asked.

Just I mean it wasn't clear whether that was in favor or opposition.

So if if um the applicant would like to just address that question if you like to.

I suppose I can do this for the benefit of our commentator.

Um the I believe the question was uh is this area here going to be proposed for development at the northwest corner.

Absolutely not.

Um as we've discussed, it's in the tree tract.

We can't develop it because the city would never issue a permit for removing those trees.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Does staff have any final comments?

Uh thank you.

Uh Steve Regner, uh City of Beaverton.

Just want to say staff uh concurs with uh the applicant's clarification there on the tree tract.

Thank you, Steve.

Uh with final comments completed, I will close the public hearing.

Now is time for deliberation.

Do any commissioners have further discussion on the proposal?

Um I I appreciate the sort of uniqueness of this situation for sure.

Uh with the master plan that not being such a common occurrence and that sort of thing.

And um uh and with all the evidence that you all have provided, staff and applicants, um the master plan is vested, and um, and I think I agree with with staff's recommendation to approve here.

But I do just want to say that I find it discouraging, and this is not um this is not a reflection of of the applicant here at all or the way they've conducted their their business over the past years.

But I find it discouraging that uh we can develop so much of a significant natural resource area into parking lot and buildings, and would love to see some attention on that, either the definition or the code in the future around what that really means, because again, this has nothing to do with uh with the master plan itself, but um the the code may allow for uh such a large area of the SNRA to be developed and still be quote unquote significant, but it hardly seemed it seems like a significant impact to me on on the quality of that uh of that habitat, that ecosystem and function.

So just wanted to state that for the record.

Appreciate it.

Is there a motion?

I guess I'll I'll jump into the fry.

Commissioners and chair, I move to approve LU 32026-00182, Southwest Bible Church Tree Plan 2 modification of the decision based on the facts and findings of the staff report dated May 13th, 2026, and incorporating all of the memorandums that memory don't have how many memorandums we had, but there are multiple memorandums, so include those.

Do I need to annotate each and every that's what I thought too, and then I went, uh oh, I've been caught here before.

Is there a second?

We need a second.

I will second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

No discussion.

A vote will be taken by rope roll call.

When your name is called, please say a if in favor or nay if opposed.

Commissioner Holmes.

A.

Commissioner McCann.

Aye.

Commissioner McAvoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Winter.

Aye.

And I am an aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

The planning commission's decision will be memorialized in land use orders provided to all parties who testified.

Appeals must be filed in accordance with the Beaverton Development Code and LUBA rules.

We are now adjourned at seven twenty p.m.