Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRT2.0 Fall Open House Summary - Oct 7 Results 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.