Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRT2.0 Developer Forum Feedback Summary 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.