The Beaverton Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20, 2026, to consider a request from Southwest Bible Church to modify a previously approved land use decision (LU 30 32026 00182). The modification sought to remove a condition of approval that required a conservation easement over a significant natural resource area (SNRA) on the church campus. Staff recommended approval, citing a mistake of fact regarding the 1995 master plan. The commission unanimously approved the modification.
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.