HomeMy WebLinkAboutRT2-resource-housing-OH 1-Summary docs10/29/2025
1
Natural Resources, Parks, and Housing Update
Tigard Planning Commission Meeting
November 3, 2025
Presentation Overview
RT2.0 Natural
Resources, Parks,
& Housing Update
•Natural Resources Approach
•Parks Approach
•Housing Approach
•3x Development Scenarios
•Next Steps
1
2
10/29/2025
2
Natural Resources
Protection Approach
Background
•RT2.0 subject to Metro’s Title 13 for natural resource
protection
•Two-part process:
o Natural resources inventory (based on UGB expansion
date)
o Title 13-compliant protection program
•Draft approach maximizes flexibility and land for housing
while complying with Title 13
Natural
Resources
Approach
3
4
10/29/2025
3
Engagement Feedback
Natural
Resources
Approach
Public:
•Protect more nature and large trees compared to the rest of the city.
•Use land efficiently for housing.
•Everyone should have easy access to nature.
Development Community:
•80% blanket requirement of Title 13 model code not workable
•Should be more flexible and performance-based
•Consider incentives or mitigation for Specimen Trees
•Concerns about ground-truthing resources
Natural Resources
Inventory
•Habitat Conservation Areas:
o Riparian areas
o High
o Moderate
•Tier 1
•Tier 2
o Specimen Trees
5
6
10/29/2025
4
Natural Resources Approach Pathways
DiscretionaryClear & Objective
Clean Water ServicesRiparian Areas
90%95%High Habitat Conservation Areas
60%80%Moderate Tier 1
40%60%Moderate Tier 2
0.5:1 area1:1 areaTier 2 to Tier 1 Land Swap
100%100%High-Quality Specimen Trees
Incentivized100%Med-Quality Specimen Trees
5-20% reductionsAffordable Housing Incentive
EnhancedBaselineMitigation
Parks Approach
7
8
10/29/2025
5
Draft Parks
System Map
•8 Neighborhood
Parks
•Up to 1 Community
Park
•4-6 miles of trails
•3 Urban Plazas
Draft Parks
System Map •Is a Community Park needed in this area?
•Park sizes, locations, and amenities
•Trail design and access to nature
•Incentives for encouraging public parks and trails
•Ensuring RT2.0 parks are funded appropriately without
impacting operations and maintenance in the rest of the city
Key Considerations
9
10
10/29/2025
6
Housing Approach
Evolution of the Approach
Housing
Approach
Concept Plan
•20 units per net acre
•Block-by-block housing type mix
•Feathered edges near natural areas
•Encourage smaller units and middle housing for affordability
Community Plan Context
•Major societal and economic changes
•Oregon Housing Needs Analysis, other state law changes
•Subject to Title 13
Housing Plan
•Average of 20 units per net acre
o Min. by zone: 12-16 units/ac | 18-20 units/ac | 24-28 units/ac
•No block-by-block housing type mix,accomplished by zoning
•Undersupplied housing options required
o Min. by zone: 10-15% | 25-35% | 15-25%
11
12
10/29/2025
7
Community Input
Housing
Approach
Public:
•Priorities: affordability, accessibility, and climate resilience
•Housing to meet everyone’s needs and incomes
•Traffic concerns due to proposed number of units
Development Community:
•Why not replicate success of River Terrace?
•Feasibility concerns about housing type mix, 20 units/ac, and
undersupplied housing mix options
•Need strong incentives
Draft
Zoning Map
13
14
10/29/2025
8
Zoning
Housing
Approach
RTR-CRTR-BRTR-A
Small Form Res. (1-3 units)
Quad
Cottage Cluster
Rowhouse
Multiplex (5-12 units)
Courtyard Units
Apartments
28 du/ac18 du/ac10 du/acMin. Net Density
4 stories3 stories2.5 storiesMax. Height
Accomplishes 20
units/net acre
3 Residential Zones:
•River Terrace Residential –A (RTR-A)
•River Terrace Residential –B (RTR-B)
•River Terrace Residential –C (RTR-C)
Undersupplied Housing Options
Housing
Approach •Needed housing categories or features
•Credit-based system requiring needed housing in each phase of
development
•Menu of options for flexibility
•Draft Options:
o Smaller Units
o Family-Size Apartments
o Common Courtyards
o Accessible Units
o Affordable Housing
15
16
10/29/2025
9
Housing
Approach
Development Scenarios
•Three scenarios prepared:
o 2 Clear & Objective Path: meets minimum density by zone
o 1 Discretionary Path: reconfigures density across zones
•Two 3D Models
•Scenario Analysis Objectives:
o Test feasibility
o Visualize neighborhood scale and massing
Development Scenario 1: Clear & Objective Path
Gross Site Area: 58 acres
Net Site Area: 29.3 acres
Total Units: 594
Net Units: 20 per acre
Units by Zone:
•RTR-A: 11 units/net ac
•RTR-B: 18 units/net ac
•RTR-C: 53.2 units/net ac
Units by Type:
•Detached product: 43%
•Attached product: 57%
Resource Protections:
•Riparian: 100%
•Tier 1: 80%
•Tier 2: 86%
RTR-A
RTR-C
RTR-B
17
18
10/29/2025
10
Scenario 1 3D Model
Development Scenario 2:
Discretionary Path
Gross Site Area: 161 ac
Total Units: 1,340
Gross Units: 8.3 units/ac
Net Units: 20 units/ac
Units by Type:
•Detached: 44%
•Attached: 56%
Resource Protections:
•Riparian: 100%
•Tier 1: 92%
•Tier 2: 61%
19
20
10/29/2025
11
Scenario 2 3D Model
Development Scenario 3:
Clear & Objective Path Gross Site Area: 18.8 ac
Net Site Area: 11.9 ac
Total Units: 262
Net Units:22 per acre
Unit Count by Zone:
•RTR-B: 18 units/net ac
•RTR-C: 33 units/net ac
Unit Count by Type:
•Detached: 34%
•Attached: 66%
Resource Protections:
•Tier 2: 60%Ri
v
e
r
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
B
l
v
d
RTR-B
RTR-C
21
22
10/29/2025
12
Next Steps
•Continue developing natural resources and housing approaches
•Continue engagement
•Nov. 18th City Council: Parks
•Dec. 2nd City Council:
o Annexation hearing
•Fall 2026: City Council considers
Community Plan for adoption
Thank you
23
24
City Council Update – October 28, 2025
Natural Resources and Housing Overview
This document provides an overview of the draft natural resources and housing approaches for the River
Terrace 2.0 Community Plan. This information is not intended to be exhaustive, and aspects of both
approaches are currently in development. Following the October 28th City Council update and additional
community and stakeholder engagement, the approaches will continue to be developed and refined.
Natural Resources
River Terrace 2.0 is subject to Title 13 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. It requires the
creation of a natural resources inventory and Title 13-compliant resource protection program. Both must be
approved by Metro.
Title 13 categorizes resource areas based location and vegetation. Categories include High, Moderate, and
Low Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA) in riparian and upland habitat areas. Based on the draft inventory,
there are High and Moderate HCAs in River Terrace 2.0 that require protection consistent with Title 13.
Clear and Objective Approach Summary
Riparian Habitat (Clean Water Services buffer)
• High and Moderate HCAs: Subject to CWS requirements – estimated 95% protection
Upland Habitat
• High HCA: Oregon white oak grove – min. 95% protection
• Moderate HCA Tier 1: Forests near CWS buffer, large forest areas – min. 80% protection
• Moderate HCA Tier 2: Other vegetation near CWS buffer; smaller forest areas – min. 60% protection.
Specimen Trees (existing large and ecologically important trees suitable in an urban context)
• 100% protection of high and moderate-quality trees, except when conflicting with major streets
• Protected specimen tree area counts towards required upland habitat protections:
o High-Quality Specimen Trees count towards required Tier 1 protection.
o Moderate-Quality Specimen Trees count towards required Tier 2 protection.
Required Mitigation
• Place protected areas in a tract with a conservation easement.
• Remove hazardous and invasive vegetation within 50 feet of developed areas.
• Pay tree removal fee for healthy trees over 20 inches in diameter
Flexibility and Incentives
• Required Tier 2 protected area may be reduced to 0% with equal protection of additional Tier 1 land.
(1:1 land area swap)
• Reductions of required protected area between 5-20% available for affordable housing development.
Land Use Process: A Type 1 land use application will be required.
Discretionary Approach Summary
Riparian Habitat (CWS Buffer): Same requirements as clear and objective approach
City Council Update – October 28, 2025
Upland Habitat
• High HCA: min. 90% protection (5% reduction compared to clear and objective path)
• Moderate HCA Tier 1: min. 60% protection (20% reduction compared to clear and objective path)
• Moderate HCA Tier 2: min. 40% protection (20% reduction compared to clear and objective path)
Specimen Trees
• 100% protection of High-Quality Specimen Trees except when conflicting with major streets
• Voluntary protection of Moderate-Quality Specimen Trees
• Same allowance as clear and objective path to count area towards required upland protections
Additional Flexibility and Incentives
• Required Tier 2 protection may be reduced to 0% if 50% of required Tier 2 land is added to Tier 1
protected area. (0.5:1 land area swap)
• Same affordable housing incentive available
• Public parks and trails may be located in resource areas and count towards required protections.
• Flexible standards available for protection of Moderate -Quality Specimen Trees
Enhanced Mitigation & Public Benefits
In exchange for reduced protection requirements and additional flexibility, applicants that choose to follow
the discretionary path will be required to provide enhanced mitigation of natural areas and to demonstrate
that their proposal provides public benefits consistent with the Community Plan.
Land Use Process: A Type 3 land use application will be required.
Housing
This draft housing approach has been revised and refined since it was shared in the draft Housing Plan in
June. The information below summarizes the current housing approach; refinements are in process.
Zoning Districts
Three new residential zoning districts are proposed to be created and applied to River Terrace 2.0. They are:
• River Terrace Residential – A (RTR-A)
• River Terrace Residential – B (RTR-B)
• River Terrace Residential – C (RTR-C)
Each zone will include requirements for allowed housing types, minimum required housing units (based on
Net Development Area), requirements to provide undersupplied housing options, and other rules.
The first draft of the River Terrace 2.0 Zoning Map is included below. The three residential zones are shown
in addition to a new commercial zone (River Terrace Commercial, RT-COM) and a new Commercial Options
Overlay (COO) for optional mixed-use development. Housing aligned with state law will be allowed in the RT-
COM zone, and housing in the COO will follow the underlying zone district rules. Taxlot boundaries, streets,
and mapped natural resource areas are also included on the map for reference.
City Council Update – October 28, 2025
Zoning District Requirements
RTR-A RTR-B RTR-C
Allowed Housing
Types
Small Form Res. (SFR),
Cottage Cluster, Quad,
Rowhouse
SFR, Cottage Cluster,
Quad, Rowhouse,
Courtyard Unit, Multiplex
Quad, Rowhouse,
Courtyard Unit,
Multiplex, Apartment
Min. Net Density* ** 10 du/ac 18 du/ac 28 du/ac
Max Height 2.5 stories / 30 feet 3 stories / 35 feet 4 stories / 45 feet
*Achieves 20 dwellings per net acre across the plan area.
**Based on bedroom count for affordable housing development.
Undersupplied Housing Options
The draft housing approach includes Undersupplied Housing Options (USHO) which are categories or
features of housing that are identified needs of the Tigard community and region that the housing market
has not adequately provided on its own. The draft housing approach includes a requirement to provide
USHO in developments. The details of this approach are still being developed to fully consider community
and stakeholder input. The general structure of this requirement and a list of potential types of USHO is
included below.
The draft approach is a credit-based system that would require a total number of USHO credits to be
included in development. Required credits would be calculated based on the total housing units required
based on the zoning of the site. Development applicants would have a menu of USHOs to choose from, so
they can decide which option(s) are most suitable for their development proposal. USHO would be required
to be distributed on a site based on proposed phase boundaries to ensure that needed housing is offered
throughout the Plan area. Phasing requirements are still in development, and enhanced flexibility will be
available through the discretionary path.
Staff are currently working to develop a complete list of USHO, and the draft list below describes types of
housing needs that would earn credits. This list is based on Tigard’s last Housing Needs Analysis, the Oregon
Housing Needs Analysis, the City of Beaverton’s 2023 Housing Needs Analysis, and community input. Staff
are continuing engagement and research to refine the USHO approach to support flexibility and feasibility
for development while ensuring needed housing is delivered in River Terrace 2.0.
Draft USHO List:
• Smaller Units: This option intends to ensure that single-detached homes and middle housing are
available at a range of price points and sizes, such as starter homes, workforce housing, and homes
for seniors to size down.
• Large Apartment Units: We have heard from development professionals and the community that
family-sized apartments are needed in Tigard and surrounding cities.
• Common Courtyards: Shared greenspace supports climate resilience objectives by reducing private
yards and helps build community among residents. Housing types with a common courtyard like
cottage clusters are a top community priority based on engagement feedback.
City Council Update – October 28, 2025
• Accessible Units: The building code regulates accessibility, but regulations only apply to select types
of housing. When the rules do apply, only a small percentage of units must comply. This has led to a
shortfall of units suitable for individuals with disabilities and seniors in Tigard and across the region.
• Affordable Housing: Housing for individuals and households earning 120% or less of the Area Median
Income are undersupplied throughout the region. This option will be structured to capture a wide
range of affordability programs and providers to ensure affordable units are available in a variety of
formats.
Discretionary Approach Summary
• Flexibility from zone district boundaries and development standards available such as minimum
density, development standards, design standards, undersupplied housing options, and allowed
housing types will be available.
• Must provide public benefits; equitable distribution of housing that supports commercial, transit,
and access to nature; and consistency with the Community Plan.
• A Planned Development application will be required. Type 2 and Type 3 paths will be available,
consistent with state law.
City of Tigard
River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan
April Focus Group Summary
Prepared by JLA Public Involvement
May 9, 2025
Introduction
The City of Tigard’s planning process for River Terrace 2.0 prioritizes community input to
ensure the development is inclusive, sustainable, and reflective of the city’s diverse population.
As part of this process, two focus groups were held to gather culturally specific perspectives
from youth and Latino community members, two perspectives that are not often reflected in
traditional engagement activities.
Staff gave a brief overview of background on the project and described the project goals. This
summary reflects the ideas and opinions provided by participants in the two groups.
Summary of Key Recommendations
Suggestions from both groups ultimately line up with the goals and vision established for River
Terrace 2.0.
• Prioritize climate-resilient and sustainable design.
• Ensure safe, multimodal transportation and transit-oriented infrastructure.
• Build affordable, diverse, and accessible housing.
• Design walkable commercial areas that serve families and support local business.
• Create gathering spaces and parks that build community identity.
Climate & Environmental Resilience
Climate resilience and environmental protection were key concerns for both groups and a
desire to see proactive mitigation in the River Terrace 2.0 plan.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan Focus Groups 2
• Emphasize solar energy, rainwater reclamation, and bioswales.
• Protect and plant trees to improve air quality and reduce heat impacts.
• Design with durable, energy-efficient materials, and green infrastructure.
Community Desires:
o Shade structures and tree-covered parks.
o Sustainable landscaping with native, low-maintenance plants.
Transportation & Mobility
Transportation preferences showed a desire to walk or bike but also recognized the necessity
of driving for this area. Participants expressed a desire for functional paths and trails that
connect residences to businesses and parks. Safety is key for those interested in using bike
paths and trails; safety measures include proper lighting, enough space for all modes, and
clear visibility.
• Prioritize safe, direct, and accessible walking and biking routes.
• Integrate flexible and convenient transit access.
Preferred Design Features:
o Separated bike lanes.
o Paved paths for all ages and mobility levels.
o Better signage, lighting, and wayfinding on routes.
Lighting & Street Landscaping
• Provide adequate, downward-facing lighting for nighttime safety.
• Consider creative and solar lighting solutions.
• Preserve visibility near intersections with low landscaping.
• Place trees carefully to avoid sidewalk disruption.
Housing Preferences
Housing preferences highly align with the RT2 goals of providing a m ix of housing types at
various price points: apartments, townhomes, and family homes.
• Affordable, multigenerational, and accessible units.
• Proximity to parks and nature is key.
• Private or shared yard space, with dog-friendly options.
• Taller buildings are acceptable if privacy and parking are addressed.
Concerns:
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan Focus Groups 3
o Need for parking: “This is the suburbs – we need access to cars.”
Commercial & Community Spaces
• Walkable, neighborhood-scale commercial nodes with daily essentials (coffee shops,
markets) should be available to all.
• Community hubs like recreation centers and farmers markets.
• Adequate parking, even in walkable zones.
• Mixed-use areas with a comfortable pedestrian experience and buffers from traffic.
Parks, Green Space & Community Hubs
• Pocket parks close to homes.
• Trails through natural areas rather than next to roads.
• Community gardens, plazas, and intergenerational gathering spaces.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan Focus Groups 4
Summary of Meeting 1 with Students
April 24, 5-7 pm, at Tigard High School
Staff: Brittany Gada, Jessica Pickul, Stacy Zurcher
8 students participated in the meeting: Ethan, Charlotte, Miriam, Chloe, Asher, Jame,
Kailani and Kim. Either from the Tigard Youth Council or Tigard High School Future Business
Leaders group.
Brittany provided a project overview. Students asked the following questions:
• Will pump stations be needed?
• Will there be transit service in River Terrace 2.0?
• How does this tie into River Terrace 1.0?
Key Themes and Insights
Climate
Students mentioned some ideas to help RT2 be more climate resilient.
• Due to hotter weather, we will need homes with AC (although that impacts energy use).
• Use the weather as an asset with design:
o Solar
o Bioswales or rainwater reclamation
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 5
• Gathering places like parks need trees and a pavilion for shade.
• Protecting trees to help with air quality.
• Use durable/long-lasting materials
o This is good for human health too
Transportation
• Consider how rideshare can be accessed or used with the new neighborhood .
• Direct walking and biking routes are preferred to destinations – needing to take longer
more scenic routes may mean people don’t use the trail system regularly.
• Too many cars on a road can make it feel dangerous for cyclists.
• Make sure there is a functional sidewalk system. There are a lot of gaps in Tigard today
that make it unwalkable.
• Consider topography and hills, cars often speed down hills. Consider adding speed
bumps, or speed detection.
• Are there ways to mitigate cut-through traffic?
• One student shared the city site where people can report safety concerns.
Feedback on example transportation images
Bike lanes on main street:
Option with sidewalks on both sides and a two-way bike lane on one, was preferred.
• Good to have modes separated, including on the bike path.
• Ethan referenced the Sunriver paths as good examples.
• Parked cars as a buffer makes everyone feel safer.
• Group recognized that this option works better in an urban setting and higher speeds.
• How would you make turns off of this path?
Neighborhood bike trip:
• Overall the group mentioned that paved paths are preferred because it’s better for all
ages and abilities, and is more comfortable for longer trips and everyday use.
• Tree roots can disrupt paved paths – how can that be planned for?
• Soft surface paths can be nice for nature walks and walking dogs, but likely not regular
errands.
• Sidewalks and trails should be intentional in connecting people to their destinations.
Soft paths could also work for regular trips as long as they aren’t “out of the way.”
Slow local street options:
• Streets with sharrows do not feel safe for kids.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 6
• The multi-use path option would be nice if there was a line to separate directions of
travel.
• Desire to add wayfinding signs on paths and routes.
• Narrow streets slow people down.
o Streets should be wide enough for parking but still narrow enough to slow down
drivers
Lighting:
• There were several comments related to wanting light that allow s people to be seen for
safety. This helps people feel more comfortable walking at night, ensuring drivers can
see pedestrians.
• Someone shared that they like the creative lighting on the bridge path at Mary Shriver
Park on the bridge.
• Request to ensure any lighting is directed downward to reduce light pollution. Students
voiced a preference for lighting on trails for safety but specified that it should be low light
directed downward and horizontally to illuminate the trail.
Street landscaping:
• Students want trees but emphasized the need for visibility near intersections . They
recommended locating trees farther back from the street, not in a planter strip. Consider
using shrubs between the curb and sidewalk.
• Big roots can impact sidewalks and then the sidewalks are no t usable for all.
• Concern for camping on sidewalks and visibility to sidewalks from streets.
• Some commented that they like bump-outs or bright colors to call out where people are
walking or riding – especially near intersections.
Transit:
• Consider placing bus stops near trails for connectivity.
• Place stops at locations that will help the travelers feel safe. Always with sidewalks and
safe crossings.
• Request for a local Tigard bus route that doesn’t connect to Portland.
Housing
• There were several comments related to wanting a private yard or greenspace.
o Connected yards with no fence may work too, but that won’t work for people with
dogs.
o Having a variety of yard types is important.
• Housing near commercial and also near nature makes sense and creates options
depending on a person’s desires.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 7
• Consider building taller buildings to include more units to preserve some greenspace.
• All participants said they wouldn’t live some place that didn’t provide parking: “This is
the suburbs – we need access to cars.”
• The taller height of apartments may not work next to smaller housing options because
of the lack of privacy.
• Mixed feedback from the group on 6-plex – some liked it. Those who didn’t said it
lacked privacy and yards and seems too similar to apartments without the typical
amenities of a larger apartment building.
Commercial
• Many thought all residential areas should have access to local small businesses like
coffee shops and daily services.
• Parking will be critical in commercial areas. Even if it is walkable for many, there are
times of the year when it won’t be comfortable to walk. Parking could potentially be used
as a buffer between larger roads and more pedestrian commercial areas.
• This feels like a good place to add more building height.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 8
Summary of Meeting 2 with Spanish Speaking Community Members
Tuesday, April 29, 6-7:30 pm, at Tigard Public Library
Staff: Anthony Veliz
Participants: 10 Spanish-speaking community members
Executive summary:
This focus group revealed strong support for affordable and multigenerational housing, safe
and accessible transportation infrastructure, walkable business nodes, and environmentally
responsible neighborhood design. Participants shared a deep connection to community well-
being, a desire for intergenerational spaces, and concerns about climate change and housing
affordability.
Key Themes and Insights
Climate and Environmental Resilience
Participants identified multiple climate-related concerns, particularly the risks posed by
extreme heat, wildfires, and habitat destruction. There was a high level of awareness regarding
environmental degradation and a desire to see proactive mitigation in the River Terrace 2.0
plan.
Top Climate Solutions Identified:
• Reclamation of rainwater for irrigation
• Tree preservation and native plantings
• Walkable and bikeable neighborhoods
• Solar and renewable energy
• Energy-efficient and sustainable building materials
Housing Needs
Participants advocated for a diversity of housing types, from small apartments to family homes,
with thoughtful integration into the landscape.
Preferred Housing Characteristics:
• Proximity to parks
• Mixed housing density
• Accessible units
• Family-friendly layouts
• Private yards/shared spaces
Walkable Business Nodes and Community Hubs
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 9
The group supported neighborhood-scale commercial hubs tailored to families and walkability.
Recommended Amenities:
• Grocery stores, cafés, restaurants
• Childcare services
• Youth spaces
• Farmers market plaza
• Community gardens
• Recreation center
Transportation Infrastructure and Street Design
There was significant discussion around safe, accessible, and comfortable transportation
options.
Top Priorities:
• Wide sidewalks and crosswalks
• Sheltered bus stops
• Separated bike lanes
• Well-lit paths
• Natural routes
Lighting and Landscaping Preferences
A mix of lighting types was preferred, including solar lighting. Landscaping should not block
visibility.
Preferences:
• Mixed lighting (tall, path, solar)
• Trees and native low-profile plants
• Shade and low-maintenance
Additional Observations
• Roads often feel narrow and congested in new developments.
• Strong desire to build community identity through gathering spaces.
• Need for equity in housing for all income levels and family sizes.
Recommendations for Planning Team
• Ensure a mix of housing types and affordability
• Walkable commercial zones
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 10
• Include climate resilience features
• Transit-oriented infrastructure that supports people being less reliant on cars
• Create a central community hub
Green Spaces and Nature Access
Green spaces were a recurring and highly valued theme during the River Terrace 2.0 Spanish -
language focus group. Participants consistently linked green areas with health, safety,
community-building, and climate resilience. The comments spanned several aspects of
planning, reflecting both practical needs and emotional ties to nature.
1. Pocket Parks and Housing Proximity
Participants favored homes near small public parks, reflecting a desire for walkable access to
nature and recreation.
2. Trails Through Natural Areas
Participants showed a strong preference for walking and biking paths through green, natural
areas rather than alongside buildings or streets. They should be well connected, with clear
destinations.
3. Community Gardens and Shared Spaces
There was enthusiasm for community-oriented green spaces such as a garden or Saturday
market plaza that could serve intergenerational and cultural purposes.
4. Sustainable Landscaping
Participants supported native and sustainable plantings, favoring a mix of street trees and low -
maintenance plants.
Alignment with Core Planning Questions
1. How can we integrate different housing options to welcome all people with a variety
of needs and backgrounds?
Participants emphasized a need for housing that serves a wide range of needs and life stages,
including homes for both small and large families, multigenerational households, seniors, and
people with disabilities. Suggestions included a variety of unit sizes, rental and ownership
opportunities, and homes near parks and community spaces.
2. How can we address the critical shortage of housing for first -time homebuyers,
small families, low-income households, and seniors?
Participants voiced concern over the lack of affordable housing and emphasized the
importance of providing options for entry-level buyers and low-income residents. They
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Community Plan Focus Groups 11
expressed a need for affordability that does not compromise quality, accessibility, or family
suitability.
3. What kinds of parks and public gathering spaces support our community best?
Participants expressed strong support for small, walkable parks (pocket parks), and proposed
creating community-oriented spaces such as a Saturday market plaza, gardens, and a
recreation center. These were seen as essential to promoting health, safety, and social
cohesion.
4. How should we protect and incorporate natural areas and critical habitat for wildlife?
Participants discussed environmental degradation and climate risks, especially extreme heat
and wildfire. They recommended protecting tree canopy, incorporating native plants, reclaiming
rainwater, and integrating solar energy into infrastructure to minimi ze environmental harm.
5. How can we make this a neighborhood where everyone has safe, comfortable, and
accessible alternatives to driving?
Participants showed strong interest in safe, multimodal transit options. They preferred wide
sidewalks, separated bike lanes, well-lit paths, and public transit stops with amenities. Natural
trails that allow people to walk or bike through green spaces wer e especially valued.
Conclusion
This Spanish-language focus group revealed insightful and heartfelt feedback grounded in
lived experience. Participants were clear in their vision for a safe, inclusive, environmentally
resilient, and community-centered neighborhood. Their voices should be considered essential
as River Terrace 2.0 moves from planning to implementation.
Prepared for:
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Prepared by:
JLA Public Involvement
123 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 210
Portland OR 97232
Spring 2025:
Open House Summary
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 2
Contents
Event Overview ........................................................................................................................ 3
Key Feedback .................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Feedback ............................................................................................................ 6
Climate Goals..................................................................................................................................... 6
Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Natural Resources ......................................................................... 10
Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 11
Active Transportation .................................................................................................................... 11
A New Regional Connection: Tile Flat Road ................................................................................. 12
Street Design ................................................................................................................................ 13
Business Nodes ............................................................................................................................... 16
Infrastructure and Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 17
Additional Comments ....................................................................................................................... 18
Demographic Information ..................................................................................................... 19
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 3
EVENT OVERVIEW
In spring 2025, the City of Tigard
hosted an in-person and an online
open house to share project
information with the community and
collect feedback on initial ideas for
the River Terrace 2.0 neighborhood
Community Plan.
The in-person open house was
held on April 9, 2025, from 5 - 7
p.m. at the Tigard Public Library.
A total of around 80 people
attended the event, and 45
comment forms were turned in. It
was an informal, drop-in style event
that allowed community members to join at any time and browse informational displays at their own
pace. Staff were available to answer questions and engage in more in-depth discussions. Attendees
were encouraged to provide feedback using comment forms and interactive activities or directly to staff
during conversations. Dinner and refreshments were provided at the event. Bilingual project staff were
available to engage with Spanish speaking participants.
The online open house was live from April 2 to 23. A total of 57 responses were collected. The
survey was available in both English and Spanish and provided the same information and feedback
opportunities as the in-person event.
Both the online open house and the in-person open house shared options and concepts that would
shape the future neighborhood and invited participants to share feedback on what feels important. Their
feedback will help the project team draft a plan that better reflects community priorities. Both events
were promoted on the City website, social media and by email. In-person flyering at local businesses,
religious organizations and community centers was also conducted to promote these events.
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 4
Key Feedback
Overall, in-person and online participants shared similar values and desired outcomes for the
neighborhood. Many emphasized the need for accessible and affordable housing, the urgency of
preserving habitat and trees, providing walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that are connected to
destinations, and the need for safe transportation infrastructure to encourage the use of alternative
modes of travel.
While the in-person and online events provided similar content, people participating in-person had the
opportunity to engage in conversation with staff and interact with other participants, which may have
influenced their choices. In the following summary we show information for both events combined, in a
few instances, results varied significantly between the two events, and we have noted where this
discrepancy is apparent.
Climate Goals
• Habitat destruction/tree canopy deterioration is considered the most critical climate
impact by both in-person and online participants. In-person participants selected flooding and
greenhouse gas emissions as the other two most critical climate impacts that should be
considered with River Terrace 2.0, while online participants selected electric grid instability and
extreme heat.
• Participants selected walkable/bikeable neighborhoods with nearby commercial areas and
services to reduce car dependence and preserving large trees as much as possible as the
most important climate protection solutions.
Housing
• The top two housing priorities included: 1) homes for purchase at a range of prices that are
affordable to households of all sizes and incomes and 2) homes without stairs that make the
neighborhood welcoming for seniors and people with mobility challenges.
Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Natural Resources
• Participants prefer to place parks near or within natural areas so that people of all ages and
abilities can access nature easily while using land efficiently to house more people.
Transportation
• Active transportation features: Participants shared that the most important street features that
would encourage non-automobile travel include:
o Bikeways separated from traffic;
o Street lighting that illuminates walkways, bikeways and crossings; and
o Wide sidewalks or paths.
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 5
• Potential Tile Flat extension: When considering a Tile Flat Road extension through the project
area, participants indicated that they would prioritize the following considerations:
o Comfort and safety biking or walking within the neighborhood, and
o Lessen the impact to streams and wetlands with less impervious surfaces.
• Transportation design options:
o Participants expressed that they would feel comfortable with both options: 1) a street
with a sidewalk and one-way bike lane in each direction separated from traffic, or 2) a
street with sidewalk on both sides and a two-way bike lane on one side, separated from
traffic.
o Participants liked both options for walking and bicycling: 1) on a trail through natural
areas, and 2) on a path near streets and buildings. There was a slight preference for
walking and biking through natural areas.
o Overall, participants were open to all of the lighting options presented (tall street lights,
lampposts or small lighting along paths). The in-person participants showed a
preference for lampposts next to sidewalks and bikeways.
o Participants preferred planting street trees compared to shorter plants that make it
easier to see and be seen.
o Participants preferred to have people walking and biking share a multi-use path over
people biking and driving sharing the road.
Business Nodes
• Participants showed a preference for three commercial nodes across the project area so
everyone has easy access to local businesses over having two larger commercial nodes.
Stormwater Facilities
• The in-person participants preferred the more creative style stormwater facility that allows
people to interact with it while virtual participants preferred the more natural and traditional style
stormwater facility that looks like a pond. Overall, the creative style was preferred by 56% of
participants.
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 6
Summary of Feedback
A total of 103 responses were received in-person and online. Below is a summary of feedback
provided.
Climate Goals
What are the most critical climate impacts that you think should be considered with River
Terrace 2.0? (select two)
Habitat destruction and tree canopy deterioration was by far the most concerning climate impact for
participants. Electric grid instability, extreme heat, flooding and greenhouse gas emissions all followed
closely after.
Participants were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other.” Eight participants shared
additional comments that included:
• Concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions from cars and increased traffic.
• A participant expressed the need for alternative transit such as access to a commuter train.
• Advocating to protect natural habitats by preparing for potential impacts from climate change.
• Concern over the impacts associated with increased water usage.
• Someone stated, “the housing crisis”.
• Traffic causing emissions due to poor infrastructure planning.
• One comment advocated against cutting trees and urged more trees to be planted.
4
4
11
11
10
13
15
26
0
3
6
12
13
11
11
22
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
Drought
Fire
Greenhouse gas emissions
Flooding
Extreme heat
Electric grid instability
Habitat destruction/tree canopy deterioration
Climate Impacts
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 7
What climate solutions do you think are most important to include in the neighborhood? (select
three)
Preserving large trees and creating walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, especially for commercial areas
and services, were the most frequently selected options for climate solutions. One key takeaway is that
participants favor creating a walkable neighborhood.
Participants were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other.” Seven participants shared
additional comments which included the following:
• Keep neighborhoods accessible to people of all abilities.
• It’s important to include bathrooms in parks.
• Focus on alternative transit modes instead of electric vehicle infrastructure.
• Concern over increasing traffic in the neighborhood.
• Natural gas energy options.
• Green space should be connected to minimize the impact on the displaced wildlife.
• A participant expressed the desire to see bigger lots and asked that existing homes around
River Terrace be considered during planning.
• One participant noted that climate solutions are not an important consideration for a
neighborhood.
0
4
4
4
4
9
11
13
24
23
31
1
2
4
8
9
10
14
15
22
28
20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Electric appliances
EV charging stations
Solar panels
Work/live options
Community gardens
Reclaiming rainwater
Energy efficient buildings
Sustainable landscaping
Walkable commercial
Walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
Preserving large trees
Climate Solutions
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 8
Housing
What kinds of housing options are most important for RT2.0? (select up to 3)
The options provided to choose from were:
• Homes for purchase at a range of prices that are affordable to households of all sizes and
incomes
• Homes with private yards
• Homes without stairs that make the neighborhood welcoming for seniors and people with
mobility challenges
• Homes nearby small public parks (pocket parks)
• homes at a range of different prices and rents
• homes that provide assistance to lower income households
• homes with private shared areas that are jointly maintained
• homes for rent in smaller buildings with limited height and size
• Homes for rent in large buildings near commercial corridors
The most frequently selected options for housing in River Terrace 2.0 are:
• Homes for purchase at a range of prices that are affordable to all households
• Homes without stairs
• Homes with private yards
Online participants also frequently chose homes near small parks and homes that provide assistance to
lower income households. In-person participants selected homes that provide assistance to lower-
income households as the third most frequent option.
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 9
Participants were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other”. Three participants shared
additional comments. These comments expressed the need for homes supporting multi-generational
households, senior living communities, and neighborhoods that support non-car transportation modes.
6
4
5
10
15
20
29
25
30
2
7
6
18
14
15
14
20
19
0 10 20 30 40 50
Homes with private shared areas
Homes for rent in large buildings near commercial
Homes for rent in smaller buildings with limited
height and size
Homes that provide assistance to lower income
households
Homes at a range of different prices and rents
Homes nearby small public parks
Homes with private yards
Homes without stairs
Homes for purchase at a range of prices
Housing
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 10
Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Natural Resources
What is the right balance of preserving natural areas to creating human access to nature?
Participants had two options to select from for this question:
• I prefer to place parks near or within natural areas so that people of all ages and abilities can
access nature easily while using land efficiently to house more people.
• I want to keep nature as undisturbed as possible even if it means there is less land for housing
and people can't use trails or access natural areas
66% of participants prefer to place parks near or within natural areas to increase access to nature.
Participants in-person were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other”. Five participants
shared additional comments. Several of the respondents noted the desire for a third option that is in the
middle ground. One participant noted that farmland is not a natural area and should not be protected.
Another participant highlighted the need to plan for high-speed rail in the area.
Place parks near or within
natural areas/increase access
(in-person), 27, 30%
Place parks near or within
natural areas/increase
access (online), 33, 36%
Keep nature as
undisturbed as possible
(in-person), 9, 10%
Keep nature as
undisturbed as possible
(online), 22, 24%
Nature
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 11
Transportation
Active Transportation
Of the following street features, which would most help you to walk, use a bike, or take a bus
instead of driving? (select up to 3)
Wide sidewalks or paths, street lighting that illuminates walkways, bikeways and crossings, and
bikeways with curbs or plantings separating them from traffic were all selected as features that would
encourage non-vehicular travel. Frequent safe crosswalks were also a highly selected option.
Note: Access to safe, comfortable bike lanes, sidewalks or paths was a frequently selected option
online, however it was not included as an option at the in-person event.
Participants were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other.” Ten participants shared
comments. Suggestions included:
• Include destinations that are walkable or accessible by transit (without destinations such as
grocery stores within walking distance, everyone will drive).
• Consider fareless transit.
• Include more lanes and roads to reduce traffic.
• Include benches along the paths and at transit stops.
• Wildlife-friendly street lighting would also help encourage active transportation.
• There were a couple respondents advocating for light rail or commuter rail service.
12
12
21
22
24
28
31
8
9
8
18
17
16
0 10 20 30 40 50
The opportunity to spend time in nature while I
travel
Bus stops with benches and shelters
Access to safe, comfortable bike lanes, sidewalks or
paths
Frequent safe crosswalks
Bikeways with curbs or plantings separating them
from traffic
Street lighting that illuminates walkways, bikeways,
and crossings
Wide sidewalks or paths
Active transportation
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 12
A New Regional Connection: Tile Flat Road
How would you prioritize the following? / Which transportation outcomes are most important to
you? (select up to three)
The options to choose from were:
• Comfort and safety biking or walking within the neighborhood or to school.
• Lessen the impact to streams and wetlands with less impervious surfaces.
• Providing additional connections from River Terrace 2.0 to other areas in the region.
• Ensuring the success of commercial hubs in the neighborhood.
• Reducing housing costs by reducing the cost to build streets.
• Reducing travel time to get to other communities and areas outside of the neighborhood.
• Reducing noise impacts of traffic on nearby housing.
Comfort and safety biking or walking within the neighborhood was by far the most important feature for
participants.
Participants also frequently selected lessening the impact to streams and wetlands and reducing noise
impacts of traffic as high priorities for the new regional connection.
Participants were given the option to share additional feedback in “Other.” One participant shared a
comment advocating for preservation. Another comment was added to the display board noting the
importance of using traffic calming methods on all roadways.
6
16
17
17
26
22
41
11
11
12
13
10
15
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Reducing housing costs by reducing the cost to build
streets
Reducing travel time to get to other areas
Ensuring the success of commercial hubs
Providing additional connections from RT2 to other
areas
Reducing noise impacts of traffic on nearby housing
Lessen the impact to streams and wetlands
Comfort and safety biking or walking
Tile Flat Road
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 13
Street Design
Participants at the event were invited to share feedback on street design features through a series of
interactive display boards and activities. With the online open house, participants were able to select
their top preferred design option.
Bike Lane Options
Which would you prefer?
Most participants expressed that they would feel
comfortable with both options: 1) a street with a
sidewalk and one-way bike lane in each direction
separated from traffic, or 2) a street with a
sidewalk on both sides and a two-way bike lane
on one side, separated from traffic.
That said, more participants prefer a sidewalk
with one-way bike lanes in each direction over
the two-way bike lane option.
9
16
19
7
6
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
A street with sidewalks on both sides and a two-way
bike lane on one side, separated from traffic
A street with a sidewalk and one-way bike lane in
each direction, separated from traffic
I'd feel comfortable on either type of street
Bike Lanes
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 14
Neighborhood Active Travel
Which would you prefer when making a neighborhood
trip?
When making a neighborhood trip, most participants like
both options. Walking and bicycling on a trail through
natural areas received slightly more selections than the
alternative, walking and bicycling on a path near streets
and buildings.
Lighting
What kinds of lighting would you most want in
your neighborhood?
Participants like all lighting types, with a preference
for lamp posts next to sidewalks and bikeways and
small lighting features along paths and trails.
10
12
27
3
6
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Walking and bicycling on a path near streets and
buildings
Walking and bicycling on a trail through natural areas
I like both
Paths & Trails online in-person
3
9
11
26
2
6
10
6
0 10 20 30
Tall streetlights
Small lighting features along paths and trails
Lamp-posts next to sidewalks and bikeways
I like them all
Lighting
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 15
Landscaping
Which kinds of plantings do you prefer?
Most participants preferred street trees over
shorter plants that make it easier to see and be
seen. Some indicated that they would be
comfortable with either landscaping option.
One comment expressed that trees can be an
issue on the Tigard Heritage Trail.
Mode Sharing
If we need different kinds of travelers to share
space on slow local streets, which would you
prefer?
Participants strongly preferred people walking and
biking on a shared-use path, with people driving on
the road.
4
19
29
4
3
13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shorter plants that make it easier to see and be seen
I'd feel comfortable walking and bicycling on either
type of street.
Street treets
Landscaping online in-person
9
11
31
2
2
19
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
I'm comfortable with both
People biking and driving share the road, people
walking use the sidewalk.
People walking and biking share a multi-use path,
people driving use the road
Mode Sharing
online in-person
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 16
Business Nodes
What should be a higher priority for River Terrace 2.0?
More participants prefer three commercial nodes so everyone has easy access to local businesses
over two larger commercial nodes.
2 commercial nodes
(online)
23
24%
2 commercial nodes
(in-person)
15
16%
3 commercial nodes
(online)
33
35%
3 commercial nodes
(in-person)
24
25%
Business
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 17
Infrastructure and Stormwater
What type of stormwater facilities do you prefer?
Participants at the event were invited to share feedback on the design of stormwater facilities. They
were asked if there is a preference between stormwater features that can also serve as places for
people to enjoy or interact with nature (shown as creative style below) or for the feature to be more
natural, like a pond.
Most participants in-person preferred a more creative style that allows people to interact with the
feature. Participants online preferred a more natural style stormwater facility that looks like a pond.
Overall, 56% of participants selected the creative style option.
Natural style like a pond Creative style that allows people to interact
Natural pond style (in-person)
7
8%
Natural pond style
(online)
31
36%Creative style (in-person)
26
31%
Creative style
(online)
21
25%
Stormwater
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 18
Additional Comments
Participants in-person were invited to share additional feedback on the comment form. Below is a
summary of the comments received.
Community amenities and services
• There is a strong desire for a community center or clubhouse, indoor/outdoor pool and public
restrooms in parks.
• Including a grocery store and pharmacy are noted as important businesses, especially in the
southern area of the development.
Transportation and mobility
• Participants placed an emphasis on reducing car dependency, promoting walkability and
bikeability and improving public transportation such as bus routes, transit centers and rail
systems.
• Support for using alleys for utility and waste management to save space on main streets.
• There is support for a roundabout on Beef Bend Road.
Climate goals and equity
• Participants highlighted the importance of protecting wetlands and natural areas while keeping
youth access and education in mind.
• To support equitable access include low-income housing.
• Participants encouraged the planning to be done with future advancements in mind, ensuring
that it is adaptable with technology and to break away from traditions and car-centric models to
focus on equity, accessibility and sustainability.
Other comments
• Participants advocated for “form-based” zoning with narrower lanes and avoiding walled
subdivisions.
• Participants expressed desire for the new development to emulate Multnomah Village or NW
Portland.
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 19
Demographic Information
Participants online were invited to share their demographic information, 38 respondents participated in
the demographic questionnaire. Most participants of the survey identified as white, between the ages of
35 – 44 and the majority spoke English as the primary language.
Race/Ethnicity
Age
White, 32, 76%
Black or African
American, 3, 7%
Prefer not to answer,
3, 7%
Latinx or Hispanic,
2, 5%
American Indian or
Alaskan Native, 1, 3%
Other entries,
1, 2%
25 -34, 6, 16%
35-44, 15, 39%
45 -54, 3, 8%
55 -64, 9, 24%
65 +, 4, 10%Prefer not to answer, 1, 3%
RT2.0 – April Open House Summary Page 20
Primary Language
Three participants selected “other”. Of those, two shared that their primary languages are Thai and
Italian.
English, 36, 82%
Spanish, 3, 7%
Russian, 1, 2%
Prefer not to answer, 2, 4%
Other, 2, 5%
EVENT OVERVIEW
In fall 2025, the City of Tigard hosted an in-person and online open house to share project information
with the community and collect feedback on the proposed plans for the River Terrace 2.0 Community
Plan.
The in-person open house was held on September 16 from 5 - 7 p.m. at the Tigard Public Library. A
total of 53 people attended the event, and 31 comment forms were turned in, including three from
Spanish-speaking participants.
The online open house was live from September 16 to October 10. As of October 7, 51
responses were collected. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and provided the
same information and feedback opportunities as the in-person event.
Key Feedback
Overall, in-person and online participants shared similar values and were mostly supportive of the plans
shown.
While the in-person and online events provided similar content, more in-person participants expressed
excitement about the improvements and opportunities this project will bring. In-person participants also
shared additional feedback and suggestions, including ideas on how to make the neighborhood more
climate-friendly, community amenities such as bike racks and electric vehicle charging stations, and
other traffic features to improve the safety of everyone on the road. Online participants shared
additional comments expressing their concern for the level of density proposed in the plans and how it
may increase congestion; some highlighted the need for thoughtful planning to ensure business viability
in the commercial areas. People participating in person had the opportunity to engage in conversation
with staff and interact with other participants, which may have influenced their choices. For people
participating online, the opportunity for additional feedback was mostly limited to when they selected
“no” in response to a question, signaling that their perception was already primarily negative. This
feature of the online open house may have influenced the additional feedback and comments received.
In the following summary, we show information for both events combined.
Housing
• Participants mostly agreed that the example neighborhood shown provided housing
varieties that meet the community’s needs. Some participants were unsure but did not share
additional feedback. Participants who disagreed shared that the housing density shown is too high,
which would lower quality of life, and that the housing options need more variety. Some participants
shared additional comments and questions, including emphasizing the importance of affordable
Fall 2025:
Open House 2 Summary –
Early results through October 7
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 2
housing, concerns about the cost of purchase and the feasibility of the plan being developed given
the complicated process involved.
Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Natural Resources
• Participants mostly preferred having the community park closer to nature over transit routes
and businesses.
Transportation: Bikeways, Paths and Trails
• Most participants could imagine themselves walking and biking in River Terrace 2.0 based
on the transportation plan shown. The participants who disagreed shared different reasons,
including safety concerns due to the volume of traffic on Roy Rogers Road.
Street Designs: Mountainside Way
• Participants mostly agreed that the design did a good job in incorporating community
feedback for separate biking and walking spaces and slower vehicle traffic. Some participants
were unsure but did not elaborate on their response. Participants also shared additional feedback
including suggestions for more traffic calming and safety features such as speed bumps and
concerns about the increased congestion and volume of traffic on Roy Rogers Road.
• Participants mostly preferred bigger trees over the sidewalk and bike lane. Trees over the
sidewalk and bike lane are noted to make dog walking possible in hot weather.
Street Designs: River Terrace Boulevard
• Participants mostly agreed that the addition of a sidewalk next to the path addressed
community concerns about safety and comfort in shared-use spaces.
Street Designs: Main Commercial Street
• Participants mostly agreed that the design did a good job in creating an attractive and
convenient space that supports businesses and walkability. Participants who disagreed shared
additional feedback, including a call for fewer bike lanes and to use the space for landscaping.
• Participants mostly prefer head-in angled parking over parallel and back-in angled parking.
Participants shared a suggestion for parking lots or garages. Some mentioned a dislike for back-in
parking.
Street Designs: Neighborhood Routes
• Participants mostly agreed that the design safely linked people traveling on primary streets
to residential streets. The participant who disagreed shared that the proposed plans included too
many bike lanes in spaces that could be used for landscaping.
Street Designs: Local Streets
• Participants mostly agreed that the designs created a safe and comfortable space for
everyone to get around in residential areas. Some participants who disagreed shared concerns
about congestion and parking rules.
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 3
Business Nodes
• Participants mostly agreed that the plan responded to community feedback regarding more
shops and services within walking and biking distance of residential areas. Participants who
disagreed shared additional feedback including, concern for the viability of businesses in the area
and the increased congestion. Two participants noted that additional services and businesses
beyond what is shown are needed to serve existing communities in the south end.
SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK THROUGH OCT. 7
A total of 82 comment forms were received in-person and online.
Housing
Does this example neighborhood provide housing in a way
that meets the community’s needs? (68 responses)
Participants were given the option to share an explanation or
additional feedback if they chose “No”.
11 participants elaborated on their choice:
• Housing density in the proposed plan is way too high,
beyond what the infrastructure can handle.
o One participant is concerned about increased
traffic due to density.
o Another participant noted the level of density would
make it difficult for people to travel in cars and may lower quality of life.
• We need more variety in housing options, property lots and building shapes. One participant
suggested more cottages and apartments.
• Lack of space and privacy. Several participants noted that the housing examples shown are too
small and close together.
• One participant noted that the housings options do not seem affordable.
• One participant advocated for more housing and less green space, as well as to plan with local
builders in mind, prioritizing housing options feasible to local developers and builders and not
regional builders and developers.
Seven participants shared additional feedback including:
• Emphasis on the importance of affordable housing and low-income housing.
o Concerns about the cost to purchase and to heat and cool the housing, as well as the
cost to be part of a Home Owners Association (HOA).
• A participant questioned if too many housing options are provided.
• A participant suggested the possibility of including a retirement community.
• A participant noted the different factors that could influence the plan, including design
requirements.
• A participant noted that the Latino population is young and young people prefer apartments.
• Note about the lack of parking space in River Terrace 1.
39
12
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No I'm not
sure
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 4
Online Only: Do you think the neighborhood would be safe
and welcoming to everyone? (39 responses)
This was an online only question. Four participants who chose
“No” shared additional comments.
• Concern regarding the high density proposed in this plan.
Several participants suggested that the level of density shown
in the plan would lower the quality of life and would not
provide enough space for children and families.
• One participant suggested the plan would cause traffic issues,
possibly leading to conflicts.
• One participant noted that the plan is not ideal for older
adults.
Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Natural
Resources
If there is a community park in River Terrace 2.0, would you
prefer that it is closer to a transit route and businesses or
nature? (70 responses)
Transportation: Bikeways, Paths, and
Trails
Can you imagine yourself or people you know walking and
biking to get around in River Terrace 2.0? (67 responses)
A participant noted that there needs to be less housing and more
nature, including community gardens.
22
5
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yes No I'm not
sure
3
24
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Other Transit
route and
businesses
Nature
57
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 5
Street Designs
Mountainside Way
Does this design do a good job of incorporating community
feedback for separate spaces for bikes and people walking
and slower vehicle speeds? (66 responses)
Do you want bigger trees over the sidewalk and bike lane or
over the road? (70 responses)
River Terrace Boulevard
Does the addition of a sidewalk next to the path address
community concerns about safety and comfort when bikers
and walkers share space? (68 responses)
Main Commercial Street
Does this design do a good job of creating an attractive and
convenient place that supports businesses and walkability?
(62 responses)
54
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Over the
sidewalk
Over the road
54
8 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No I'm not
sure
45
12 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No I'm not
sure
54
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 6
What type of on-street parking would you prefer on a main
street in front of businesses? (62 responses)
Neighborhood Routes
Does this design do a good job of safely linking people
traveling on primary streets like Mountainside Way to
residential streets? (59 responses)
Local Streets
Do these local street designs create safe and comfortable
spaces for everyone to get around in residential areas? (62
responses)
Business Nodes
Do you think River Terrace 2.0 responds to community
feedback to have more shops and services within walking
and biking distance of residential areas? (67 responses)
Feedback comments were a mix of feeling that this plan will not
provide enough businesses and services, and those thinking it
will be too much and be unsustainable for the businesses.
• One participant suggested more nature and parks are
needed, rather than commercial.
12
45
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Parallel
parking
Head-in
angled
parking
Back-in
angled
parking
52
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No
50
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No
51
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No
RT2.0 – Fall 2025 Early Results Open House Summary (as of Oct. 7) Page 7
Additional Comments
Climate goals and equity
• Participants shared ideas about how to make the new development more climate-friendly, including
solar panels instead of fossil fuels, creating microgrids within neighborhoods using solar and
battery-powered energy plants, and solar-powered electric vehicle charging ports.
• Participants had questions about the project’s plan to protect nearby natural habitats and wildlife,
including the possibility of creating wildlife corridors, the plans for reducing light pollution, and if eco-
friendly materials will be utilized or required for certain community amenities, such as a playground.
1
RIVER TERRACE 2.0 COMMUNITY PLAN
DEVELOPERS FORUM #1 – NATURAL RESOURCES AND HOUSING APPROACH
MEETING SUMMARY
Details
Date and Time: Monday, September 29, 2025; 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual | Microsoft Teams meeting
Watch: View the recording of the forum at this link.
Attendance
• Ben Hemson, Homebuilding
Association of Greater Portland
• Craig Schuck, Riverside Homes
• Elin Michel-Midelfort, Metropolitan
Land Group
• Isaac Ambruso, Homebuilding
Association of Greater Portland
• Jeff Roberts, Crandall Group
• Jilian Saurage Felton, Community
Partners for Affordable Housing
• Joseph Fanelli, Fanelli Properties
• Kent Metcalf, Lennar
• Laura Standridge, Standridge, Inc.
• Levi Levasa, Venture
Properties/Stone Bridge Homes NW
• Lydia Slocum, Northwest Housing
Alternatives
• Marc Farrar, Metropolitan Land
Group
• Matt Wellner, Crandall Group
• Nick Peets, Metropolitan Land Group
• Pam Verdadero, New Home
Company
• Patrick Espinosa, Pacific
Community Design
• Peyton James, Pacific Community
Design
• Rachel Vickers, Pahlisch Homes
Inc.
• Richard Wiley, Fore Property
Company
• Roseann Johnson, Land Forward
Consulting, LLC
• Scott Nelson, Taylor Morrison
• Sita Walker, Standridge, Inc.
• Stacy Connery, Pacific Community
Design
Staff: Brittany Gada, Schuyler Warren, Emily Tritsch, Sambo Kirkman (City of Tigard), Jessica
Pickul, Valentina Peng (JLA Public Involvement)
2
Welcome
Jessica Pickul, JLA Public Involvement, welcomed the group and opened the meeting. Brittany Gada and
Schuyler Warren, City of Tigard, introduced themselves and their role with the project.
Jessica reviewed the agenda and explained that the meeting objective is to review proposed approaches
for natural resource protections and housing in for the River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan and to identify
opportunities and constraints for developers on what’s being considered.
Natural Resources Approach
Brittany Gada presented the project’s natural resources approach and covered the following points:
• River Terrace 2.0 is subject to Title 13 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
This requirement is unique to River Terrace 2.0 in comparison to the rest of the city, as only land
annexed into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) after 2005 is subject to this rule.
• Compliance with Title 13 involves a two-part process: First, creating a natural resources
inventory, then a Title 13-compliant protection program. The natural resource inventory must be
created based on resources existing when River Terrace 2.0 was annexed into the UGB on
February 2, 2023. This inventory follows the methodology laid out in Title 13 to identify Habitat
Conservation Areas (HCA) using aerial imagery, available public information, and limited site
access.
• There are three ways to comply with Title 13 - to adopt the model code, to demonstrate an
existing program is compliant, or to develop a new program. The City of Tigard decided to
develop a new program, as the model code would be too prohibitive for development in River
Terrace 2.0, and there is no existing Title 13-compliant program in Tigard.
• A custom Title 13 program is required to provide a certainty of habitat protection and be
substantially comparable with the Title 13 model code, which generally requires 80% protection of
all resources. Title 13 requires the program to have a Clear and Objective path with clear,
quantified requirements, and optionally, a Discretionary path. The Discretionary path must require
a level of protection that meets or exceeds the Clear and Objective Standards. The City has been
working with Metro to find creative ways to comply with Title 13 while creating flexibility for
developers by focusing their approach on preserving better quality habitat instead of the blanket
80% protection requirement.
Brittany shared the draft inventory map and reviewed the process of implementation for natural resource
protections. The inventory map shows the HCA designations. The inventory map and the associated
Development Code amendments are subject to Metro approval. After Metro approval, the City Council
will then review and decide whether to adopt the code amendments implementing the Title 13-compliant
program.
She shared that there are four HCA designations: High HCA, Moderate HCA, and under Moderate HCA,
the areas will be categorized as Tier 1 or Tier 2.
Brittany reviewed the natural resources in the context of the draft community plan, noting that the street
designs have been created to avoid natural areas when possible, and the trail network is designed to
3
provide transportation connections to certain areas and access to nature along the edges of the resource
areas.
Brittany reviewed the public input received so far regarding natural resources. Preservation and
protection of natural resources is key for the public and the Community Advisory Committee. For the
development community, it is important to be able to preserve as much land as possible for housing
developments and have the flexibility to determine where resources are retained to develop land in ways
that works best for their plan.
Brittany shared the Clear and Objective Path. That option includes:
• High and Moderate HCAs within the Riparian Habitat will be subject to Clean Water Services
(CWS) requirements, which are estimated to result in about 95% protection.
• Within the Upland Habitat, there are High and Moderate HCAs. High HCA, a small area of
Oregon White Oak grove, requires a minimum of 95% protection. Tier 1 Moderate HCA requires a
minimum of 80% protection, and Tier 2 Moderate HCA requires a minimum of 60% protection.
Any resource areas impacted due to required major streets will be excluded from this calculation.
• To offer flexibility to the development community, the City is offering a 1:1 resource swap where
all of Tier 2 could be eliminated with equal Tier 1 protection (above the 80% minimum).
• Specimen trees, including high- and moderate-quality specimen trees, such as Giant Sequoia
trees require 100% protection, except when its location conflicts with major streets. An
adjustment process will be available to request removal of moderate-quality specimen trees.
• The City is also working on an affordable housing incentive which would decrease the required
protection for each category when a certain amount of affordable housing is developed. Metro
has confirmed this is allowable under Title 13 as it furthers other Metro and City housing goals.
Brittany and Schuyler emphasized that this proposed approach is subject to Metro approval,
and staff are still working with Metro to refine the approach within the Title 13 framework.
• The Clear and Objective path will require a separate Type 1 land use application.
Brittany also shared the draft plan for the Discretionary path. That option considers:
• A goal to increase flexibility for development and reduce required protections with enhanced
mitigation while maintaining substantial compliance with Title 13.
• The level of protection for the areas within the Riparian Habitat will have the same requirement to
meet CWS rules as the Clear and Objective Path.
• Within Upland Habitat, High HCA will require a minimum of 90% protection, a reduction of 5%
compared to the Clear and Objective path. Tier 1 Moderate HCA will require a minimum of 60%
protection, and Tier 2 Moderate HCA will require a minimum of 40% protection, each providing
20% reductions compared to the Clear and Objective Path. With enhanced mitigation, the City is
offering a 0.5:1 Tier 2 to Tier 1 swap for improved flexibility and further reductions compared to
the Clear and Objective path.
• The requirement for High-Quality Specimen Trees will stay the same at 100% protection, while
the protection of Moderate-Quality Specimen Trees will be voluntary but incentivized.
4
• A Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will be required for the Discretionary path.
• The affordable housing incentive will also be available for the Discretionary path. Staff shared that
they continue to work on refining incentives, but an incentive to allow public parks and trails in
resource areas and counting them towards protection requirements is also being considered.
These incentives are being offered in exchange for enhanced public access to nature, an
interconnected system of public parks, trails and streets, an equitable distribution of housing
options near nature, and enhanced mitigation. The City is still working with Metro to refine the
approach.
• A type 3 land use application will be required for this path.
Natural Resources Discussion
The attendees asked clarifying questions about how the percentage of protection required will be
determined, the specific requirements of the affordable housing incentive, how these incentives and
metrics were developed, and the next steps in this process. See details of questions, comments, and
staff responses in the Q&A Summary beginning on page 6.
The group expressed interest in seeing the code language and shared that providing feedback related to
incentives is challenging with this level of information. Staff noted that the approach will continue to be
refined over the next few months and that there will be more opportunities to comment.
The group shared ways to provide more flexibility and more attractive incentives for development,
including:
• The ability to relocate specimen trees, replant specimen tree species elsewhere
• Flexible lot and design standards for protecting specimen trees
• Offering SDC credits to offset costs to build parks and trails when dedicated to the public,
especially if credits are greater than actual costs
• Counting the crown area of protected specimen trees towards the percentage of required HCA
protections.
• Having funds available to offset the costs of preservation for affordable housing developments,
such as through fee and tax waivers or URA funds.
• Density, height, and FAR bonuses for preserved habitat can help affordable housing
development.
Refined Housing Approach
Brittany began the presentation with an overview of how the approach has evolved since the Concept
Plan. The concept plan identified 20 dwelling units per net acre, a block-by-block housing type mix,
feathered edges near natural areas, and encouraged smaller units and middle housing to boost
affordability. Since the Concept Plan, changes have been made to the housing plan based on community
input and updated codes. The first draft of the housing approach for the Community Plan was shared in
June. The June approach included 20 dwelling units per net acre as an average density across the plan
area with three residential zones with proposed minimum density ranges being considered (12-16 du/net
5
acre, 18-20 du/net acre, and 24-28 du/net acre). It no longer required a block-by-block housing type mix
but accomplishes housing type mix by zone locations, minimum density, and allowed housing types. The
June plan also required a minimum percentage of units of undersupplied housing options by zone
(considered ranges of 10-15%, 25-35%, and 15-25%).
Brittany shared that the public and Community Advisory Committee have expressed that affordability,
accessibility, and climate resiliency are the top priorities for housing. We have also received feedback
that the neighborhood needs to offer a variety of housing options to meet various needs. The
development community shared that a block-by-block housing type mix is not feasible, and there are
concerns that 20 dwellings per acre is not feasible without high volumes of apartments. Additionally, they
noted that the 25-50% undersupplied housing mix is prohibitive, and strong incentives are needed for
this plan to work.
Brittany reviewed a draft land use map from June. However, the team is updating it now and will share a
draft zoning map for the October 28th City Council housing update.
Brittany presented the refined approach, noting that different elements within the plan are still under
development.
• The refined approach identifies different minimum net density requirements for different zones -
River Terrace Residential (RTR) A, B and C. These include different minimum net densities but
still achieves the goal of 20 dwelling units per net acre outlined in the Concept Plan for the project
area as a whole. Brittany noted that for affordable housing developments, the dwelling unit per
net acre will be based on the number of bedrooms available based on feedback from the Housing
Advisory Committee.
• The design approach is still being developed and will be more form-based, taking street frontage
into consideration.
• Calculation of net density and the net development area is based on the existing Community
Development Code. The net density is calculated based on net development area, which is the
area left over when un-developable areas are subtracted, including Title 13 lands, dedicated
public lands, land for streets, and habitat areas preserved in a tract.
• Brittany presented undersupplied housing options which will have a credit system based on the
proposed number of dwelling units, up to the minimum required density. The plan for the
distribution of undersupplied housing options is still being worked on, but the plan is for it to be
based on phasing. The proposed undersupplied housing options are required to be incorporated
into each phase of development. Each zone is required to achieve a certain number of credits for
undersupplied housing.
• Brittany also presented a Discretionary approach that includes more flexibility. The Discretionary
path will offer flexible development and design standards, the ability to reconfigure density across
zone boundaries, and a more flexible approach for undersupplied housing options for qualifying
types and phasing. In exchange for these flexibilities, the developers will be asked to provide
public benefits, equitable distribution of housing to support commercial, transit and access to
nature, and consistency with the Community Plan.
6
• For land use applications, the Clear and Objective Path will be implemented through the new
Type 1 application. The Discretionary path will either go through the new Type 2 administrative
Planned Development application or the Type 3 Planned Development application, which will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Brittany presented two development scenarios showing Clear and Objective and Discretionary paths to
development of two areas in River Terrace 2.0. The scenarios are developed using site-specific data,
draft street, parks and trail networks, and other information and assumptions from nearby recent
developments including lot sizes and building footprints. Brittany shared the assumptions used and
walked through how each scenario was meeting the proposed housing approach, including an example
of how to meet undersupplied housing options.
Housing Discussion
The attendees recommended balancing the need for smaller detached housing types with the need for
larger, higher-density forms of housing like apartments. They questioned the feasibility of achieving
required mix on smaller development sites like on 10 acres compared to the large scenario sites and how
density assumptions were determined. They expressed concern that the mock-ups may not reflect
realistic unit sizes or market demand. They recommended allowing four-story apartment buildings which
were seen as feasible by both market-rate and regulated affordable developers.
The group emphasized the importance of tailoring scenarios to the actual existing parcel sizes in River
Terrace 2.0 and requested clearer information on how stormwater, infrastructure, and phasing
requirements will be addressed.
Someone asked about the city’s 20 units per acre standard, how it compares with state and Metro
requirements, and whether more flexible approaches could be incorporated in mid-density areas to
support affordable apartments sooner.
The group encouraged consideration of transferable credits between sites to help meet undersupplied
housing requirements. They also noted that not all infrastructure costs are covered by SDCs and
requested more transparency about the Discretionary and Clear and Objective paths. They highlighted
the need for scenarios and standards that balance density goals with market feasibility and community
priorities.
Closing
Jessica closed the meeting by sharing additional opportunities for the participants to provide feedback.
There are two more developer forums planned:
• January 2026: Transportation and Parks
• Spring 2026: Draft development code
The City Council meeting to review the natural resources protection and housing approaches is
scheduled for October 28. Forum attendees are invited to share additional feedback and comments via
email to Brittany by October 6.
7
Q&A SUMMARY
This summary includes three sections for each topic discussed during the forum. First, the attendee
questions section provides a written account of the questions and comments received during the forum
and staff’s responses. In this section, staff have added follow-up information when relevant or requested
to respond to attendee questions. Second, the staff questions section captures attendees’ responses to
specific questions asked by staff during the discussion portions of the forum. Lastly, the follow up
questions and comments section includes staff responses to all questions from the meeting chat that
were not answered during the forum in addition to comments and questions received after the forum.
Natural Resources Approach
Attendee Questions
• Will HCA boundaries be able to be adjusted during entitlements based on field
data/ground truthing?
Yes, Title 13 requires habitat verification to be done when development applies for land use.
During the habitat verification process, if what was onsite is found to be different from what was
established based on the 2023 conditions, it could be adjusted accordingly. For example, if all of
the streams are documented as perennial streams in the inventory but proven to be ephemeral
stream during the verification process, the record could be adjusted with data and documentation.
It is unclear at this point if that would be a separate land use process.
• On the last map, are you saying the 95% requirement within the white CWS lines to be
after ground truthing to be preserved, or is it 95% of what is shown in the map to be
preserved?
It would be the former. There would be a habitat verification requirement when the land use
application is submitted. Whatever resources that are confirmed onsite, based on the February
2023 requirement. The habitat verification process will need to demonstrate back in February
2023; this map was not accurately reflecting what was on-site.
• I appreciate the incentive and flexibility, but struggle with how housing affordability and
natural resources are tied together. Is there flexibility because we are protecting natural
resources at a higher percentage than required by the state? Where did the 5 - 20% come
from? Why is it not at the base level?
The flexibility is offered in both Clear and Objective and Discretionary paths. The 5 - 20% is a
decrease in natural resources that will have to be protected. This is not saying there would be an
additional amount of resource protection, but that if you’re offering affordable housing, you’ll be
protecting less land. Based on Metro’s Title 13, we’re required to protect these resource lands in
River Terrace 2.0. Most of the City is not subject to Title 13. Title 13 requires 80% of all the land
on site to be protected, and we’re hoping to develop a code that meets this requirement while
offering flexibility. The tie between affordable housing and natural resources is arbitrary. We have
to have a policy goal that is convincing to Metro to make the argument that a decrease of the
protection requirement is possible. Metro agrees that an incentive for affordable housing is one
8
that would warrant a reduction in the protection target. They recognize the need for housing.
There is no explicit connection, but we cannot lower it across the board, as we need to have a
demonstrable policy outcome as to why we decrease natural resource protection.
• I would like to see the plan focusing on maximizing the buildability and usability of the
land that was brought into the UGB for housing purposes. Rather than the trade-off, which
can be more difficult to deliver. Emphasizing the goal and importance of increasing
housing to Metro from the start, instead of proposing the tradeoff.
Yes, maximizing developable area is our goal, but we also have to meet Title 13. What you’re
asking for is in line with what we’re proposing in the discretionary path.
• Would there be an option for preserving more High HCA in place of Moderate Tier 2 at a
ratio of less than 1:1? Or is the "resource swap" only proposed as an option within the
classification of Moderate HCA?
This comes back to how we’re leaning on Clean Water Services for protection of the high HCAs
within the Riparian buffer. Right now, it’s only proposed as a swap to eliminate tier 2 and protect
more tier 1 land. The discretionary path offers a 0.5 to 1 swap as the path includes more
mitigation and public benefits. This does not include other areas in the high HCA category
because there are only 2 areas, one of which is within CWS jurisdiction, where we have no
control. The other high HCA area is a small area of Oregon White Oaks Grove, which is a
precious resource that we want to minimize impacts on.
• With affordable housing, you mentioned Affordable housing with a capital A and just
affordable housing. Are there other incentives tied to affordable housing like tax breaks?
And what is deemed affordable that is not subsidized by another party? How is affordable
housing deemed affordable if it’s not subsidized?
It will have to either meet the City’s definition of affordable housing, which is 80% area median
income or less, and affordable for at least 20 years, but we’re also exploring other types of
affordable housing, such as regulated affordable housing and those offered in partnership with
affordable housing providers. This is in development, but the idea is that it would be in regulated
forms.
• For other types of housing that is not subsidized, how are they determined? Is it a price
range, and are there any System Development Charge credits (SDC) reductions for
affordable housing?
The distinction between Affordable Housing and affordable housing is still being worked out. The
incentives proposed here are still in development; we’re still exploring ideas, but the 80 to 120
income band is an important guideline. In terms of other incentives, we’re exploring options
available that already exist, such as property tax reduction, which is more targeted to the
homeowners rather than developers. There are SDC exemptions for anything that meets the 80%
mark, which includes affordable homeownership. The City is also looking for ways to utilize
existing funds and grants to subsidize home purchases, making homes more affordable to buyers
without asking developers to reduce prices.
9
• Are moderate-quality specimen trees within Moderate HCA Tier 1 or Tier 2? Or do they
have their own requirements? What does Moderate Quality mean?
They’re treated separately and not part of the HCA requirement. We’re classifying them as
moderate HCA resources in the inventory, but they are subject to different rules. Moderate
Quality is a different list of trees that exist in the area, that are slightly less valuable from a
quality/habitat standpoint, such as Black Walnuts. We can share the list as a follow-up item.
• Is there a DBH that is related to moderate specimen trees, or is this determined based on
species?
Both are species and the DBH. The natural resources consultants inventoried the specimen
trees, and it’s based on both DBH and whether the species can survive in a developed context.
• To clarify, the difference between High and Moderate-quality trees is the type of tree, or
the size?
The species.
Staff follow up item:
• The criteria used to identify specimen trees are:
o Native to this part of the Pacific Northwest or adjacent ecoregions outside of tree groves.
Excludes Oregon ash, western red cedar, and black cottonwood due to typical pest,
drought, or survival issues.
o Minimum size (as measured when site access was granted or as estimated from other
measured trees and canopy size):
• Oregon white oak, Ponderosa pine, and Pacific madrone: at least 24” diameter at
breast height (dbh)
• Other native trees: minimum 36 inches dbh
o Healthy: minimal storm or physical damage, no visible disease or pests, and not
extensively pruned.
• Specimen Trees were scored based on their condition, context, rarity, and ecosystem value.
• High- and moderate-quality specimen tree species are categorized as follows:
o High-Quality: Oregon White Oak, Giant Sequoia, Ponderosa Pine, and other trees
clustered with Oregon White Oak
o Moderate-Quality: Bigleaf Maple, Douglas Fir, and Black Walnut
• We know you must make your case to Metro for the trade-off, and the connection between
natural resources and affordable housing is that Metro has requirements for both, but
where is that 10-20% coming from? And are you open to feedback on the proposal you’re
sharing with Metro?
We’re hoping to get feedback today and within the next week about the proposal we’re sharing
with Metro. We’re sending them the packet of natural resources approach tomorrow for initial
feedback. We’ll continue to work on the approach, so there will be more opportunities for
feedback. 5-20% additional reduction is just something we created and proposed to get more
flexibility for natural resources protection policies, and affordable housing was what felt
compelling to Metro. The 5-20% number is on the table for further discussion.
10
• What is the timeline between presenting this to Metro versus when you need to present to
the City Council? Is it 30 days? Is that enough time?
We’re going to continue working on this in the next few months. The submission to Metro
tomorrow is just a preliminary review, so we’ll be able to incorporate the feedback we’ve heard.
On October 28th, we will have the natural resources and housing update with the City Council.
We’ll incorporate feedback from today and earlier outreach and continue updating the plan over
the next few months. Development code amendments are not expected to be fully drafted until
mid-January. There’ll be a lot of iterations and check-ins with the community along the way.
• Will you share everyone’s answers and responses with the group?
Yes, we will share the meeting summary and recording.
• We’ve talked about the Title 13 model code ordinance and the clear and objective path,
and why you’re not pursuing that. I’m curious if you could provide a response about the
discretionary path in the Title 13 model code, as it would provide more flexibility rather
than what was shared? Is there a Clear and Objective Path shared for Scenario 2? How’re
you responding to the council regarding how you’re bridging the gap between the
community goals and feedback about the drafts?
We’ll follow up on the model code. We did prepare a clear and objective path for both scenarios
but only showed one due to time constraints. Effectively, what we’re presenting is our
discretionary pathway with Metro.
• Metro’s ordinance has a discretionary path in section 7, I’m wondering how it’s different
from your plan.
Staff follow up item:
Staff reviewed the discretionary path in Metro’s Title 13 model ordinance. It offers flexibility for
how a development can demonstrate that it is avoiding natural resources, minimizing impacts,
and mitigating disturbances. However, the model code approach lists specific alternative methods
that development must demonstrate have been considered and implemented to the greatest
extent practicable to reduce and avoid impacts. The discretionary approach in the model code is
also complying with Title 13 code section 3.07.1330(d)(2) which states that the discretionary
approval process must “require a level of protection for, or enhancement of, the fish and wildlife
habitat that meets or exceeds the level of protection or enhancement that would be achieved by
following the clear and objective standards.” Since the clear and objective standards in the model
code require a minimum of 80% protection, an approval through the model code’s discretionary
process would also have to demonstrate the same level of protection, just through more flexible
means. For this reason, the city has chosen to create a customized Title 13 approach that allows
more flexibility for resource protections through the clear and objective and discretionary
approaches which will open up more land for development in lower-quality habitat areas than the
model code provides.
11
Staff Questions and Attendee Responses
What incentives or flexibility would be helpful to encourage the protection of moderate-quality
specimen trees?
• Being able to relocate the moderate-quality trees if they are in the path of development would be
helpful.
• All the examples of incentives shared can be helpful, and being able to count the set-back areas
within the percentage of protection would also be helpful.
• The concept of incentives and being able to define them is great and needed but given the level
of information about the specifics of the paths and zoning, there is some basic information we
don’t have, making it difficult to understand and define the flexibility we need and what incentive
is attractive. The standards are specific. The metrics are at that level. It’s hard to provide
feedback on incentives without more information.
• I'd like to see a mitigation option toward flexibility by planting high and moderate quality species.
Is the incentive to dedicate parks and trails to the public in exchange for eligible System
Development Charge credits (SDC) and a reduction in protected resource area attractive?
• Yes, an SDC offset for parks' SDCs in exchange for trails or other lands can be very attractive. It
is most attractive if the offset is the greater of what the City estimates it would cost to build itself
or the actual costs.
What factors would you consider in deciding whether to incorporate affordable housing into your
plan in exchange for a reduction in required resource protections?
• The best approach would be to have funds available to offset the costs of preservation for
affordable housing developments, either through additional fee and tax waivers or through URA
funds. A reduction can help already challenging affordable housing budgets, but increased
density through height or FAR and funds to preserve habitat may result in achieving both goals.
Follow Up Attendee Questions & Comments (Natural Resources)
• An ongoing concern is a potential exaggeration of published areas to be preserved as natural
space. We continue to urge caution so the general public isn’t led to believe that certain
areas on published maps will automatically be preserved. Additional language
acknowledging the property specific conditions which may exist could help address this
expectation, fully adhering with all applicable laws.
Thank you for identifying this concern. Staff will explore ways to improve how natural resource areas
are portrayed to help avoid confusion.
• What specifically does it mean that “all homes need to have easy access to nature”?
This comment references the high-level discretionary approach objective that developments provide
“enhanced public access to nature” that was shared during the overview of the natural resources
approach. This statement is not code language. However, the purpose of a discretionary criterion like
this in code is to communicate a policy objective while intentionally using vague language to allow
12
development the opportunity and flexibility to demonstrate how their plan accomplishes it. Without a
specific definition, this allows room for innovation and creativity from developers that cannot be
accommodated in a clear and objective regulatory path. It also allows decision makers to apply their
expertise and discretion when considering a land use application for approval. When staff begins
drafting code language, we will consider how to more clearly communicate what would adequately
satisfy a criterion to provide “enhanced access.”
• Why isn't natural resource ground truthing allowed earlier in the process? Critical decisions
about development scenarios are dependent on reliable resource boundaries.
Due to limited site access granted by property owners at the start of the Community Plan project in
2024, it was not possible to investigate the natural resources on specific properties to help determine
if they existed at the time this area was brought into the UGB on February 2, 2023. Further, Title 13
requires that development applicants submit a habitat verification report by a qualified professional at
the time of land use application submittal which will confirm precise natural resource boundaries (as
existed when brought into the UGB) that will apply to development.
Refined Housing Approach
Attendee Questions
• Will you please provide a definition of small lot detached residential?
The small form residential is in Tigard’s code today, 3 or fewer units on a lot that is attached. It
was also known as single-family residential.
• Typically small lot for me is 35 ft or less, which would not allow you to fit an ADU and meet
ADA standards.
• Will required stormwater facilities be deducted from the gross area as well?
It is something we’re figuring out. It has not been done in the past. It depends on whether the
stormwater facility is dedicated as a park or included as an access easement.
• Would you please share the calculations that you are using for determining the Plan Area-
wide Net Development Area with the presentation slides or responses to questions heard
today?
Yes, we’ll follow up with the calculations.
Staff follow up item:
The RT2.0 consultant team prepared a memo detailing the Net Development Area calculation for
the full Plan area. That memo has been shared with Developer Forum invitees as a separate
attachment from this summary document and is also available from staff upon request.
• Single-story ADUs or ADA-accessible or multi-gen housing will be a challenge.
• The scoring system is confusing to me – what does it mean as to be up to minimum
density?
We’ll dig more into this as we look at the scenarios.
13
• Is undersupplied housing what was shown by zone? Are all those examples considered
undersupplied, or do you have another definition?
Undersupplied housing is all the types shown earlier, including climate-resilient units, common
courtyard units, and affordable housing. We’re still working to identify what the qualifying
threshold for undersupplied housing is. It is not based on type.
• At what point is the deeming of the undersupplied housing decided? Is it during land use,
engineering or permitting?
Land use process. In the application, you’ll be shown a list of what’s defined as undersupplied
and the credits assigned to them. The list was created by reviewing community feedback and was
based on the housing needs analysis done in Tigard a few years ago. We’re also inviting the
development community to share ideas on what other undersupplied housing types should be
added.
• It's curious to see small units as undersupplied, but the previous slides say family-sized /
intergenerational housing is a top need. Seems like small units may be needed in lower-
density housing types, whereas larger units are needed in high-density types?
Staff follow up item:
Thank you for this suggestion. Changes have been made to the Undersupplied Housing Options
proposal to reflect this feedback including adding large apartment units to the list of options,
changing the size thresholds for small unit credits to add flexibility, and limiting the total credits
earned for small units from attached housing products to 50% to encourage a mix of smaller
detached and attached units across the Plan area.
• This is assuming all this land is applied for simultaneously and developed
simultaneously?
Yes, applied for simultaneously, development would likely be in phases.
• If it’s in phases, it’s unlikely that you would be able to develop it the way it is shown,
right?
We haven’t figured out what the code requirements would be for each phase, but we planned out
the development scenario to be developed in phases. The idea is that there’ll be some
undersupplied housing option mix built into each phase. That is the only thing needing to be
specifically distributed by phase; there might also be some housing type mix distributed by phase
but not required.
• There’s no max density requirement. Would residential A allow higher density? Would any
of the zones allow higher density?
Yes, the approach is only requiring minimum density, but there is no maximum density.
• Are credits transferable between sites?
No
14
• It's curious to see small units as undersupplied, but the previous slides say family-sized /
intergenerational housing is a top need. Seems like small units may be needed in lower-
density housing types, whereas larger units are needed in high-density types?
The larger units in the higher density areas is a good idea. One of the ways we’re trying to help
with this is basing dwelling units for affordable housing on bedrooms, allowing affordable housing
to do larger units and more bedrooms rather than additional smaller units and count density by
units. This is one way we’re approaching the undersupplied housing option. Outside of affordable,
we have not explored different approaches.
• Looking at both scenarios, do you not show stormwater?
They’re shown merged with green spaces. They are based on draft plans that we have and not
engineered data. It’s not specific.
• On Scenario 1, how large/small is each multi-unit? 3-story buildings?
The multiplex is assumed to be 2 stories. 6 units per building. The apartment is assumed to be 3
stories, 166 units.
Staff follow up correction: The multiplex buildings included 12 units per building.
• That does not seem like a housing type that’s in demand; those units will be tiny. I’m very
curious how you’re achieving 166 units in 3 buildings. How realistic is this mock-up? I’m
not sure people will live in such a small dwelling.
o Agreed - a 3-story maximum is not going to yield the density shown here for
multifamily.
o We’ll need to double-check that we’re getting the 166 units based on 1000 sq ft in 3 stories.
We’ll verify that. You mentioned 4-story buildings, one of the reasons we went with 3 stories
was to avoid the elevator factor. Is 4 4-story more feasible within UGB?
Staff follow up item:
The apartments shown in Scenario 2 were assumed to be 3 stories with 166 units. 1,000 gross
square feet was assumed for each unit which included 200sf of assumed area for accessory and
maintenance space in the building. This means the apartment units themselves were assumed to
be 800sf on average. This feedback is helpful, and we will be revising our assumptions for
apartments to account for larger units.
▪ Four-story buildings are feasible, and they serve folks who can’t do stairs. It offers single-
story living with zero stairs. I’m curious about the efficiency of these units with their
square footage in achieving the density.
Staff follow up item:
It was helpful to learn that four-story apartment buildings are feasible in RT2.0. The maximum
height limitation will be increased to allow four-story buildings (including those with ground floor
commercial) in the RTR-C zone.
• These 2 examples look good. Is there another expansion area in the state that’s used 20
units/ac as its standard? Something in real life for us to look at how it’s adopted?
15
Yes and no. River Terrace 2.0 is uniquely subjected to Metro’s Title 13 rules – there are limited
places within the state subject to the same rules. The 20 dwelling units/ac, we’ve seen recent
developments in Bend with this density. However, we haven’t seen examples of a large UGB
expansion area like this 500-acre area that has done this density.
• Is the state requiring the city to do 20 units/ac? Or is it the city’s own standard?
It is the City’s commitment in the concept plan, and it was determined and identified based on the
city’s housing needs analysis. The state will hold Tigard accountable to provide housing that
addresses the needed housing identified in the housing needs analysis. Metro is requiring that
the city provide at least 3,000 housing units as a condition of the UGB expansion area approval,
but it is separate from Tigard’s commitment of 20 units/ac.
• The phasing question seems to assume a 58-acre or 161-acre application will be made.
And it seems like those are not the sizes within River Terrace 2.0, how do you expect
developers and property owners to achieve these varieties on a 10-acre lot?
These scenarios do assume a certain amount of site assembly. We had that happen in River
Terrace 1.0 which is why we made that assumption for these scenarios. For people developing
on a smaller parcel, the unit requirement is calculated based on the net density. The only thing
bound to the phases is the undersupplied housing, which is calculated based on the number of
units needed to meet minimum density. There are a lot of ways to hit the undersupplied housing
requirement, including installing solar panels or doing visitable townhomes, and it scales with the
size of your development.
• It would be more helpful for the City Council's consideration to create these phasing
scenarios based on the realistic size of properties in River Terrace 2.0.
Staff follow up item:
To better understand the implications of the draft housing approach on smaller-scale
development sites, the RT2.0 team is preparing a development scenario on a roughly 20-acre
parcel. We searched the plan area for a roughly 10-acre parcel that was suitable for this
analysis but due to natural resources constraints and draft zoning, a 20-acre parcel was
selected for this third scenario. We appreciate this suggestion to study the approach on a
smaller scale that does not assume site assembly.
• There is assumption about where apartments will go, but if the intention is for density to
meet minimum, the areas where townhomes are shown in scenario 1 could also allow
higher density, such as apartments. Is this scenario showing that it meets minimum
density?
Yes, it is hitting that minimum density. At this point, it’s not allowing the typical apartment building,
but a smaller multiplex type is allowed in RTR-B. Part of it is the height restriction, and part of it is
the allowed dwelling types that determine this. In the case of a planned development, a
discretionary path approach, proposing apartments in the RTR-B zone would be an option.
• Encourage more flexibility in the mid-density area. Given the plan shown and current
requirements, the opportunity for affordable apartment housing to be developed would be
put last, which would make the cost of development more expensive. I would encourage
16
the option to include it in an earlier phase. If the concern is making it fit with the
neighborhood, it could be done with setback requirements. I also want to agree with
earlier comments that a four-story height unit can make the project easier to pencil.
Elevators are expensive, but another floor of housing can offset that.
• Is the assumption that all of the infrastructure is done by future developers?
Yes, with SDC credits available.
• Infrastructure could include roads, sewers, and water. Usually, SDC credit is not available
for sewer and water. Looking at some funding opportunities would be the best way to
encourage development. Finding ways to subsidize infrastructure costs could really make
or break a project. When looking at applying affordability standards to homeowners, I want
to encourage Tigard to look at going up to 100% AMI as an affordable definition for
homeownership. 100% AMI in Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) including
Tigard, is about 125k a year for a family of four. This makes a house affordable at half a
million dollars; an average house in Tigard at this time is around 625k - 650k. 500k may not
sound affordable, but if we’re aiming to attract middle-income and housing, establishing
that 100% AMI could be helpful.
Staff Questions and Attendee Responses
If phasing rules generally required the mix of housing units and undersupplied options shown in
these scenarios, what financial or operational feasibility considerations would your organization
have? If you are familiar with Bend’s phasing requirements, what has been your experience
developing under those rules?
• Phasing rules will be the most impactful. UHO credits being transferable could help achieve the
same goal while mitigating concerns and allowing collaboration.
What general feedback do you have?
• Thank you for sharing this information with us! It's challenging to balance the goals of
development, housing, and preserving our natural resources and habitat.
Follow Up Attendee Questions & Comments (Housing)
• Will stormwater be allowed to be subtracted in the Net Development Area calculation?
We are looking into the implications of allowing stormwater facilities to be subtracted from Net
Development Area. Tigard’s development code does not currently allow this, but we are exploring it
for RT2.0.
• Was there a Clear and Objective Plan shared for Scenario 2?
Scenario 2 showing a part of RT2.0 West was only prepared to demonstrate a development that
would comply with the draft discretionary approach. For budget and project timeline reasons, only a
discretionary example was prepared for this area to analyze and depict one example of each
regulatory path.
• Could you give background to the height restrictions?
17
Yes, the proposed maximum height of 30 feet in RTR-A was based on allowing 2.5 stories, assuming
some tuck under parking would be needed. RTR-B proposes 35 feet which would allow 3 full stories,
assuming more flexibility for ground floor garages would be needed. RTR-C proposes 40 feet which
assumed three-story buildings that accommodate a taller ground floor for commercial uses where
applicable.
The feedback received during the forum helped staff better understand the interest in and viability of
four-story buildings in RT2.0. We will be revising the RTR-C height to 45 feet to allow this.
• I recommend that UHO credits be transferable between sites that are in the same part (West or
South) of River Terrace 2.0. based on how parceled these areas are.
As we continue to refine the discretionary approach, we will be looking into this option for greater
flexibility.
• The 58 and 161 acre mapped development examples across specific portions of RT2.0
seemed untethered to how development will likely proceed… given the numerous properties
across the planning area which will develop 5, 10, or 20 acres at a time. Further, it is
unfortunate that actual and built examples of this new development theory implemented at a
neighborhood scale aren’t available. (Note: Comment combined from an email and letter from the
same attendee on this topic.)
The project team is preparing a third development scenario on a 20-acre parcel to explore the
implications of the proposed approaches at this scale. This will be shared with City Council during the
October 28th meeting.
• What exactly is “undersupplied housing”?
Undersupplied Housing Options is a term that staff created for code writing purposes. They are
categories or features of housing that the Tigard community and greater region need based on local
and regional technical analyses and community engagement. Undersupplied Housing Options are
needs that the housing market has not adequately provided on its own. The draft list includes
housing needs identified in Tigard’s last Housing Needs Analysis, needs informed by the Oregon
Housing Needs Analysis, the City of Beaverton’s 2023 Housing Needs Analysis, and by community
input received during the RT2.0 Concept Plan and Community Plan processes. As mentioned during
the forum, staff are open to suggestions from the development community about what housing needs
could be included on this list based on their expertise.
• Is the “Clear and Objective” pathway intentionally more difficult/burdensome than the
discretionary process so the City can realize more benefits in the latter?
No, the clear and objective pathway has been drafted to result in specific and measurable results that
meet state law requirements for clear and objective standards, support Community Plan policy
objectives, and ensure that RT2.0 delivers housing mandated by the Oregon Housing Needs
Analysis.
• Are architectural factors considered in either pathway of review, which may conflict with new
state laws?
18
Yes, code amendments will be fully compliant with state law regarding exemptions from design
standards.
• Densities and housing unit counts are adopted goals, not mandates…shouldn’t we be making
it easier to accomplish them rather than more difficult?
The Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA) mandates the City of Tigard to deliver on housing
needs identified within city boundaries, including housing needs identified by income band. Since
RT2.0 is the last UGB expansion area available to the city, RT2.0 must contribute a substantial share
of housing necessary to deliver on its OHNA requirements. While ensuring that RT2.0 delivers
needed housing aligned with the OHNA, staff will continue to work on code flexibility and incentives in
the housing approach in addition to funding resources and tools to support development in this area.
• How will an “Equitable distribution of housing to support commercial, transit, and access to
nature” be calculated or determined?
This comment references a high-level discretionary approach objective shared during the overview of
the housing approach. This statement is not code language. However, the purpose of a discretionary
criterion like this in code is to communicate a policy objective while intentionally using vague
language to allow development the opportunity to demonstrate how their plan accomplishes it.
Without a specific calculation method or strict parameters, this allows room for innovation and
creativity from developers that cannot be accommodated in a clear and objective regulatory path. It
also allows decision makers the opportunity to use their expertise and discretion when reviewing land
use applications for compliance with approval criteria. When staff begins drafting code language, we
will consider how to more clearly communicate the expectations to adequately satisfy “equitable
distribution.”
• Block length for specific products, mixed use apartment calculations, access/connectivity
and stormwater management are other key issues needing clarification within the new credit
system.
Staff is actively working on additional details of the draft approach including block length and
connectivity requirements, vehicular and pedestrian access, and if stormwater will be subtracted in
the Net Development Area calculation. Mixed use apartment calculations will follow the city’s current
method in the code which does not apply minimum density to mixed use buildings with housing and
commercial uses. These details will not be a part of the credit system which is only used for
Undersupplied Housing Options.
• Developers large and small have repeatedly communicated that a uniform density of 20 units
per acre is not feasible under current land costs, infrastructure expenses, and financing
conditions. Despite this feedback, the City seems intent on moving forward without adjusting
to the market realities that determine whether housing actually gets built. For smaller and
mid-sized builders, the implications are especially severe. A developer purchasing a 10-acre
parcel at today’s constrained land prices cannot meet a 20-unit-per-acre requirement and
remain financially viable. To do so would require delivering smaller, lower-margin homes
while paying top dollar for limited land and shouldering the same development fees,
infrastructure obligations, and financing hurdles as much larger builders. This approach
effectively shuts smaller developers out of River Terrace, leaving only large national firms
19
able to absorb the cost and complexity (and even they will tell you this approach does not
pencil).
It would be helpful for staff to review and discuss typical pro formas for detached dwellings and types
of middle housing with local builders to better understand the financial constraints and implications of
the approach. Staff will be reaching out to this attendee for more information and to request a
meeting to discuss further. Staff understand that the proposed RT2.0 housing approach, the Oregon
Housing Needs Analysis, and recent changes in state law necessitate a change to the development
model and that this will add some cost to development and potentially to future homeowners.
Recognizing that, staff are continuing to work on funding and incentive strategies to help offset these
costs. These were not shared during the Developer Forum because these efforts are in progress.
Examples include a tiered SDC structure to place lower fees on smaller housing units, code
incentives for flexibility and development bonuses, and opportunities to provide direct funding
resources to development of needed housing. Staff continue to investigate available resources and
would appreciate feedback from the development community on ways the Plan can support
development of needed housing. Lastly, the proposed housing approach does not apply a minimum
20 units per acre uniformly across the Plan area. Based on feedback received from the Housing
Advisory Committee, minimum densities were lowered to 10 du/ac in RTR-A and 18 du/ac in RTR-B
and set at 28 du/ac in RTR-C. A draft zoning map will be shared during the October 28th City Council
meeting.
• The proposed point-based code intended to promote affordable housing is overly complex
and confusing, and we believe it will actually increase housing costs due to the additional
time and effort it requires. The outcome will not be greater housing opportunity – it will be
less competition, fewer local participants, and slower housing delivery. It undermines the very
goals of housing diversity and affordability that the River Terrace plan is supposed to
achieve.
Staff will work to simplify the point-based system for Undersupplied Housing Options wherever
possible. We understand that providing undersupplied housing requires a change in most developers’
and builders’ models which comes with added cost that may be passed on to future residents. We
also recognize that the current development model has not adequately provided the spectrum of
needed housing in Tigard or the region based on the findings of housing needs analyses in Tigard
and other cities in the region. By using a point-based system, the draft housing approach provides a
menu of options to allow developments the flexibility to decide how best to provide undersupplied
housing in their plan, and we are working to identify direct financial subsidies and regulatory
incentives to help combat the concerns identified.