HomeMy WebLinkAboutRT2-OH 1-Summary-May 2025
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%