Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet - 01/29/2026
• CITY OF Tigard Workshop Meeting Tigard AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: JANUARY 29, 2026-6:30 p.m. Special Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: Meeting will be held in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard. See PUBLIC NOTICE below. PUBLIC NOTICE: In accordance with Oregon House Bill 2560, this will be a hybrid meeting where some Council, staff or public will participate in person and some will participate remotely. How to comment: •Written public comment may be submitted electronically at www.tigard-or.gov/Comments by noon the day before the meeting date. • If attending the meeting in person, please fill out the public comment sign-in sheet at the front of the room and come to the microphone when your name is called. • If you prefer to call in, please call 503-966-4101 when instructed to be placed in the queue. We ask that you plan on limiting your testimony to two minutes. Upon request, the City will endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by contacting: City Recorder Carol Krager at 503-718-2419 (voice)/carolk@tigard-or.gov or 503-684-2772(TDD-Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVESTREAM ONLINE: https://www.tigard-or.gov/boxcast Workshop meetings will be shown live on Channel 21 at 7 p.m. The meeting will rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: • Every Monday at 1 p.m. • Every Wednesday at 3:30 a.m. • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 12:30 p.m. cirroF Tigard Workshop Meeting _ ' Ti gard AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: JANUARY 29, 2026- 6:30 p.m. Special Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: Meeting will be held in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard 6:30 PM 1. SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PUBLIC COMMENT 6:35 p.m. estimated time A. Public Comment—Written B. Public Comment—In Person C. Public Comment—Phone-In 3. RIVER TERRACE 2.0 POLICY WORKSHOP 6:40 p.m. estimated time 4. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 6. ADJOURNMENT 8:40 p.m. estimated time AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.B— PUBLIC COMMENT DATE: January 29, 2026 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and cities of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Please review the "Tigard City Council Protocol for Public Comment." NAME&CITY YOU LIVE IN TOPIC Please Print Name 6.4.4 -C-t tic— City 14.r)i Topic: ;vim• Please spell your name as it so ds if it will help the presiding 2•n officer pronounce: reA644, }� Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email Milt/% • l tr it.os s" For 0 Against❑ Neutral ❑ Name Va 2 re -elk-r City tj&' CI Topic: Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For ❑ Against ❑ Neutral ❑ Name City Topic: Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For❑ Against ❑ Neutral ❑ Name City Topic: Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: check one: Phone or email For ❑ Against 111 Neutral ❑ AIS-6069 3. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 01/29/2026 Length (in minutes): 2 Hours Agenda Title: River Terrace 2.0 Policy Workshop Authored By: Schuyler Warren Presented By: Community Development Director Kirkman, Assistant Community Development Director Warren, and Senior Planner Gada Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE The purpose of this workshop is to resolve certain outstanding policy questions for River Terrace 2.0 that require Council decisions and direction to maintain project schedule. ACTION REQUESTED Staff has provided a memo with this agenda item that summarizes all outstanding policy questions yet to be resolved. Staff requests Council direction on each policy question so the team can continue planning work within the project schedule. BACKGROUND INFORMATION As planning for River Terrace 2.0 progresses, critical outstanding policy questions require resolution. Staff requests Council direction on these key policy areas during the January 29th workshop. This will allow the project team to move forward with Community Planning within project and grant timelines. This workshop will consider each of these outstanding policy questions in sequence, organized by topic area. POLICY: HOUSING DENSITY POLICY: HOUSING OPTIONS POLICY: PARKING POLICY: PARKS LEVEL OF SERVICE POLICY: COMMUNITY PARK Each policy is detailed in the attached memo that includes information about the policy goals, rationale, and issues raised by stakeholders and Council. Additional policy alternatives are provided to Council, together with brief summaries of impacts. Council is requested to direct staff to continue with the current policy proposal, select from one of the alternatives, or propose another option not considered here. Notes: •The policy alternatives identified in the memo are not intended to be exhaustive and have not been fully analyzed by the project team. If Council directs staff to explore considerations associated with an alternative policy option, the project team will coordinate with consultants and share the results at a future Council presentation. • Shifting policy direction requires a commitment of resources: funds and staff time. The project budget is $1,451,742, including approximately $90,000 in contingency funds. To date, 86% of contingency funds have been expended to fund work outside the original project scope, including $39,000 (43%) on the housing scenario visualizations. Approximately $10,000 in contingency funds remain available. Additional resources to cover any further costs require identifying an additional funding source, likely by General Fund. Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations These topic areas were covered at prior Council meetings over the course of the past year. Public Involvement The River Terrace 2.0 project has included significant public involvement and each of these policy questions are the result of feedback from advisory committees, public open houses, surveys, public comments, and discussions at public Council meetings. A summary of community engagement events and feedback received is attached. Impacts Each policy topic area includes rough estimates of the budgetary impact of policy alternatives related to the project and, in some cases, to ongoing city operation budgets where applicable. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION N/A ADDITIONAL RESOURCES N/A Attachments Presentation Project Milestones Project Briefing Memo Community Engagement Executive Summary SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR J /2 1 ao24 - (DATE OF MEETING) RIVER 9 TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Policy Workshop Housing, Parks, Transportation, & Natural Resources Tigard City Council Meeting January 29, 2026 Brittany Gada, Senior Planner Schuyler Warren,Assistant Director of Community Development Workshop Purpose • Revisit outstanding policy issues on transportation, housing, parks, and natural resources. • Purpose: Provide Council with the information needed on each policy issue to deliberate and provide direction to staff. • Request: Take an informal vote on each issue or identify action items for staff to further analyze one or more alternatives for a future Council update. • Allows the project to continue along a critical path to the adoption process in November and December 2026. RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Transportation Policy Policy Issue Summary Current Policy Proposal: Retain current citywide parking policy of no minimum parking; maximize on-street parking. Alternative Policy Options: • Option 1: Adopt minimum parking requirements for commercial. • Option 2: Adopt minimum parking requirements for all development (not currently enforceable under state law). Parking Impacts: • Reduced land available for housing and commercial. • Increases development costs. • Reduces transit viability. • May alleviate some challenges experienced in River Terrace 1.0 related to on-street parking availability (only in commercial areas and near apartments). RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Housing Policies Policy Issue Summary Current Policy Proposal: Average of 20 units per net acre (approx. 4,600 units) Alternative Policy Options: Polic #1 • Option 1: Average of 18 units per net acre (approx. 4,100 units) y • Option 2: Average of 16 units per net acre (approx. 3,700 units) HousingImpacts: • May reduce viability for commercial and transit. Density • Between 500-800 fewer units, primarily middle housing. • Reduces affordability for residents. • Reduces progress towards meeting state housing production requirements. • Minor reductions in traffic estimates and parking demand. RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Policy Issue Summary Current Policy Proposal: Require minimum 10-15% undersupplied housing options using a points system. • Proposed options include smaller units, family-size apartments, common courtyards, accessible and affordable units. Policy #2 Alternative Policy Options: • Option 1: Require a set percentage of undersupplied housing units Undersupplied to reduce complexity. • Option 2: Remove requirement but maintain incentives. Housing Options Impacts: • Option 1 reduces flexibility for developers. • Option 2 may reduce affordable homeownership and accessible housing goals. • Reduces progress towards meeting OHNA requirements . RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Parks Policy Policy Issue Summary Current Policy Proposal: Parks Level of Service 5.3 acres per 1,000 residents. • Results in 59 acres of parks, including up to 1 Community Park, and 6 miles of trails. Alternative Policy Options: • Option 1: Increase Parks Level of Service for Community and/or Neighborhood Parks. Parks Level o Option to increase Neighborhood Parks and eliminate Community Parks. of Service & • Option 2: Use River Terrace 1.0 methodology. Cornmunity • Adds linear parks, Community Parks, and inaccessible natural areas. Reduces Parks Neighborhood Parks and trails. Impacts: • Reduced land available for housing. • Increases development costs and results in fewer units, reducing affordability. • May support community's interest in Community Park-scale amenities. • Added City costs for acquisition, operations, and maintenance. Natural Resources Policy Policy Issue Summary Current Policy Proposal: Custom Title 13-compliant natural resource protection approach using tiered structure and baseline protections. Alternative Policy Options: • Option 1: Adopt Metro model code (requires 80% protection). Natural • Option 2: Reduce required protections, maintain tiered approach Resources (may not comply with Title 13). Protection Impacts: • Changes to buildable acres assumptions for housing units, affects Approach SDCs. • Option 1 would protect more resources, a top community priority, but reduces land for housing. • Option 2 would decrease protected resources. RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Thank you C prnnay Sbeet Mounldtanle ..._ - ¢ .r. K ansa'Maury Sheol e logs School SW SspottsicrrY Secondary Street r_score Tranuponaton Connecaon —proposed Lab s Ow 111 • Potenual bait Connection ''t l.J proposed parka Draft Streets r KeposedRund �-- f$ . Proposed Roundabout p RT 1.0 a proposed Italic Signal � v Network ,f ,. tllueeerry • Proposed RgM•YVRnghl out Ntll giMiti .. i " RT 10 A podeatnanCrownd 0 Commaicw —Euattnq Sheet rran Louse Rd — RI 20 Buuntoary 7 D ,1 r. `. - - T s., Rosh.* a \N RT 2.0 � Comzrc pars K. area 1NE2. a oWlMuunam ad l SW f k J St J� 2 f Sc.Fkrth Rd 11 Sr •. An Rutk, r F Elementary Ult.' � - s RT 2.0 ' SOUTH y 1 • v fi.. :s / ,. f i k _1 '. . - r _ ., , j 'Draft .,ii U% � f . . . . ' ':F I4110;44'/.ia 'Zoning Ma -�, , : ,: . „:„:77,,,,r • .,.. , :i ; i:, 7.:, t . %/ . SW Bull Mounfain Rd •• '..z ;tlii •v F —Primary Street Network --- //„ r —Secondary Street Network rd-' rb i r, x Potential Street Connection OV.'-' * cat (= • i �1, —Active Transportation Connection •..= . ; - -Commercial Ground Floor Required ,/ h • ;`'. •!`y River Terrace Residential-A(RTR-A) 'r Y �� River Terrace Residential-B(RTR-B) i; -, River Terrace Residential-C(RTR-C) m o - i.A`/' NE River Terrace Commercial(RT-COM) *it a Q jjjj/ Commercial Options Overlay(COO) .,;k . • /j,� _ • AU, Natural Resources Overlay(NRO) .:- �. ; V • Taxlot Boundaries 4 Be 0 n oou (- .-,t !SSW } eef Bend Rd l _ 'mot, Zoning 3 Residential Zones: Housing • River Terrace Residential - A (RTR-A) Approach • River Terrace Residential - B (RTR-B) • River Terrace Residential - C (RTR-C) RTR-A RTR-B RTR-C Small Form Res. (1-3 units) • • Quad • • Cottage Cluster • Rowhouse Multiplex(5-12 units) • • Courtyard Units Accomplishes 20 Apartments • units/net acr' -' Min. Net Density 10 du/ac 18 du/ac 28 du/ac Max. Height 2.5 stories 3 stories 4 stories Scenario 2 3D Model S 4`• s , ; r. •; �t �\— $\ c Jean Loeiise Rood c._ _ _ 0 '' .,i4"'t y s o ,.,t a Grand Street / .1p ``- ? ` i v. 10.- t 4" \\. 3 c ., ' .. ❑ '• j , edflll • Co erc o �o D Parka ~ ♦'t 74 s. \ \ t Sto mwater m.Y.y s•Y 4 h,n•,u an. M m `pt .4113teitnimin Il Protected �w ,� �. ' '` ��` tt,.,.L Apartmentsn'� 3t••+,_..,. / Resource Area 5se 414 We.. l '4,.'•;,,,`k.'4." ,,,`.-____ -,r' �"+ PAixed Use .,,�� •Q: = Park 'y ar4 , '^ , Bull Mountain Road • v .�.. �RnaaX I �' ►' A T Cottage_1.p _ o A { \ e4 ® " • 'e/+M' tsa ' e v cn «- :, w>• m w,r T • Y r . $ w . w w f,...r.Z a. • -z Single Unit r — .? ,••• ® s ."' " ? a am. --.+...o.a Iifi1?l"_ Aw',1i M*74• Tw# 01 '\ .. ' Detached ccr, at A * s it Park 1 w w a. 1l COM Otallo Stq mwdter r • ay s N '�A 1*IA�.1' w4�14 •N Townhon,e awl • a® at vacpee ..: -. �. ,r �. milt MN MI N _.._.._.._.._......_�_.._.._.._.._.._.._ .� �•......_.._.. _.._ —• — T Trail, 2-4 Unit Housing 00-: .�. Mountamstec'-,5 WEST /--_ r r-- — Legend Natural Features: I w. Natural Resources: j 4 4- I Wetlands and high value .t Q - i Sat nne tree groves co. wy IL ti `r m Par, Blueberry Parks oora„ ISpecimen T rees_--�., in within public or private open space System Map ' w° � j j ;, Streams � Y -1 eir a Proposed Within RT2.0: Option z - -. --� �•` r_�,-- H Potential t ✓�' - , c„,m w,,,r Greenway Trails • 8 Neighborhood °'~ �iOn2 Bike Facilities Parks l��j SV`i B Mounwun Road ® General Neighborhood I j Park Location • Up to 1 Community 0 Potential Community -r Park Site Option Park Plaza Opportunity * Commercial/ • 4-6 miles of trails ?� Mixed Use Centers x 6 SOUTH Outside RT2.0: tx • 3 Urban Plazas �' • Existing Bike Facilities Art Rud.ms `S - Existing Trails r • , I ', --- Planned Trails I it - -- 1 kllFuture " 'jLasech Par .- f --r------.J Background • RT2.0 subject to Metro's Title 13 Natural • Two-part process: Resources Approach 1. Natural resources inventory (based on UGB expansion date) 2. Title 13-compliant protection program • Protection program can either: 1. Adopt Metro's model code, or 2. Create a substantially comparable custom approach • Title 13 Model Code: o Clear& Objective: 80% protection o Discretionary: flexibility on how 80% protection is achieved • Draft approach maximizes flexibility and land for housing while complying with Title 13 RIVER TERRACE L COMMUNITY PLAN erili Rd Study Area Natural Resources ,4A ,.: ...) • :, Fr. Tax Lots 4 `4 Inventory rc,•- . CWS Buffer HCA Designation iv, Pi 4. . , Moderate Tier 1 e• • Habitat Conservation Areas: Moderate Tier 2 :::::ir ....,i. , IIIII High HCA. I:4:4 0 /,.,:voio„,.:1,"IV: 0 Riparian areas . , -,, .. -..-...... Moderate HCA [WEST] High , ,.... • SW Bull Mountain Rd. Moderate Ir. ,,...,_.._ 0 ." .. • . -fi,-..,--'4, ii,,,,,ie..,.-x..4.7:-* '-e'''. • --I't.-,-4'-'`;',--.4-' 41) Az, _ .....p.,... r,'•Aver1.7, :',•'":2•14 4 i 1 i 4... . ' ., ,eai rrIP104 0 • Tier 1. .0 11 • • Tier 2 , 1.41011-4 - r. -...,:: -. . -.":. -,.&_.. .--,,-, . , v NA.,_:•_,. . ... : o Specimen Trees .,...,• .‘ ..; $4 - ---.-•,t: ' .:;:e 1 [SOUTH] -.-., , . _ ' .;t2;'• , v,-..-- ,.---- -A-# SW Beef Bend Rd. Natural Resources Approach Pathways Clear & Objective Discretionary Riparian Areas Clean Water Services High Habitat Conservation Areas 95% 90% Moderate Tier 1 80% 60% Moderate Tier 2 60% 40% Tier 2 to Tier 1 Land Swap 1:1 area 0.5:1 area High-Quality Specimen Trees 100% 100% Med-Quality Specimen Trees 100% I ncentivized Affordable Housing Incentive 5-20% reductions Mitigation Baseline Enhanced RIVER TERRACE la COMMUNITY PLAN City of Tigard e,til • Tigard MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Hu and City Councilors From: Brittany Gada, Senior Planner/ Project Manager Re: River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan Upcoming Milestones Date: January 20, 2026 Touchpoint Date Topic(s) City Council Workshop January 29, 2026 Policy Direction on Parks, Natural Resources, Transportation, & Housing Developer Forum First week of March Transportation, Finance Strategy Metro Grant Milestone March 2, 2026 Submit Draft Transportation Plan, Parks Plan, & Natural Resources Code Approach City Council Update March 24, 2026 Policy Direction on Transportation & Finance Strategy Developer Forum Late March/Early April Housing and Natural Resources Follow Up Planning Commission April 20, 2026 Discuss Transportation, Finance Strategy, Update Housing, & Natural Resources City Council Update April 21, 2026 Policy Direction on Housing, Natural Resources, & Finance Strategy Metro Grant Milestone May 31, 2026 Submit Draft Equitable Finance Strategy City Council Update June 9, 2026 Policy direction on Development Code amendments Planning Commission Update June 15, 2026 Discuss Development Code amendments City Council Update July 14, 2026 Policy direction on Development Code (tent.) amendments (follow up from June 15) Public Engagement July 31 —Aug.20, 2026 Public review of draft Development Code Period _ Developer Forum Mid-August 2026 Draft Development Code Community Advisory Committee Mid-August 2026 Draft Development Code DLCD Grant Milestone August 31, 2026 Submit draft Development Code amendments Planning Commission Workshop September 14, 2026 Development Code amendments workshop City Council Workshop September 15, 2026 Development Code amendments workshop Metro Grant Milestone October 1, 2026 Submit draft Development Code amendments Planning Commission November 16, 2026 Community Plan Adoption Hearing Hearing City Council Hearing December 8, 2026 Community Plan Adoption Hearing City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Hu and City Councilors From: Sambo Kirkman, Community Development Director Schuyler Warren,Assistant Community Development Director Brittany Gada, Senior Planner/ Project Manager Re: River Terrace 2.0 Policy Briefing Memo Date: January 22, 2026 As planning for River Terrace 2.0 progresses,critical outstanding policy questions require resolution. Staff requests that City Council provide definitive direction on these key policy areas during the January 29th workshop. This will allow the project team to move forward with Community Planning within project and grant timelines. This memo summarizes outstanding policy questions, organized by topic area.These topic areas were covered at prior Council meetings and include housing, transportation, parks, and natural resources. Each policy item includes information about the policy goals, rationale, and issues raised by stakeholders and Council.Additional policy alternatives are provided to Council, together with brief summaries of impacts. Council is requested to direct staff to continue with the current policy proposal, select from one of the alternatives, or propose another option not considered here. Notes: - The policy alternatives identified in this memo are not intended to be exhaustive and have not been fully analyzed by the project team. If Council directs staff to explore considerations associated with an alternative policy option, the project team will coordinate with consultants and share the results at a future Council presentation. - Shifting policy direction requires a commitment of resources: funds and staff time.The total project budget is $1,451,742, including approximately $90,000 in contingency funds. To date, 86%of contingency funds have been expended to fund work outside of the original project scope, including $39,000 (43%) on the housing scenario visualizations.Approximately $10,000 in contingency funds remain available. Next Steps: Following Council's review of this memo, city councilors will be invited to small group briefings in mid-January to ask questions and request any additional information needed to provide policy direction during the special Council workshop discussion scheduled for January 29. Page 1 City of Tigard OF e Tigard Tid MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Housing POLICY 1: HOUSING DENSITY Current Policy Proposal Average of 20 units per net acre (approximately 4,600 units) Policy Goals • Ensure housing options at a range of sizes and price points. • Efficiently develop limited land supply. • Ensure that commercial development and transit service are viable. • Reduce per-unit share of fixed costs for infrastructure. Concept Plan Basis City Council directive to plan for an average net density of 20 units per acre. Rationale • Meets policy goals, including allowing for single detached houses. • Incremental increase in density seen in recently developed areas. • Responds to community concerns regarding lack of affordability and access to homes in River Terrace 1.0. • Ensures RT2.0 will satisfy a significant portion of Tigard's Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA) target in the income bands above 80%Area Median Income. • Increases walkability. • Attainable with supportive financing strategies and incentives. Jurisdictional Requirements State: • Oregon Housing Needs Analysis: 20-year housing need analysis, overall units and by income band • Contextualized Housing Needs Analysis: socioeconomic and demographic current and future needs analysis • Housing Production Strategy: plan and implementation of strategies to deliver housing need Metro: • Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Ordinance: required to plan for at least 3,000 units Page 2 City of Tigard e Tig`ard MEMORANDUM Issues and concerns identified about the current policy proposal • Issue 1: Concerns about feasibility, preference for RT1.0 model (Developers) • Issue 2: Concerns about marketability of homes and lower profit margins (Developers) • Issue 3: Concerns about community character and aesthetics with homes closer together and smaller lots (City Council members, developers) Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1:Average of 18 units per net acre (approximately 4,100 units) • Option 2:Average of 16 units per net acre (approximately 3,700 units) Project and topic area impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impact: Delayed deliverables, extended project timeline, and increased cost for additional consultant hours to recalibrate complete or drafted items, including but not limited to: • Zoning map • Total unit count estimates • Transportation analysis and Transportation System Plan Amendment to update land use assumptions and trip generation estimates on the internal and regional street networks • Stormwater analysis and Stormwater System Plan • Funding strategy assumptions Estimated delay between 1-3 months. Housing Impact • Reduction in housing units between about 500 and 800 units. • Reduced progress towards meeting OHNA requirements; Need to increase middle housing production elsewhere in the city since RT2.0 is Tigard's last urban reserve area. • Reduced affordability for future residents due to fewer middle housing units, more larger homes on larger lots, and increased cost share per unit for infrastructure development. • Development will be more similar to existing development in the area with a majority of single-detached homes. Transportation Impact: • Transit service may be less viable. • Some intersection improvements may take longer to meet warrants, meaning that no signals can be added until sufficient densities are reached. • Minor reductions in traffic estimates and parking demand. Page 3 City of Tigard eTigard MEMORANDUM Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impact: • Reduced viability may deter or delay larger commercial development. • Smaller commercial storefronts may be less viable without sufficient density. Parks Impact: Increased parks level of service standard per 1,000 residents. Number of parks not expected to change since based on geographic distribution to place parks within a 10-minute walk of all residences. Natural Systems Impact: None Financing Impact: • Higher per unit RT2.0-specific System Development Charges (SDC) for developers • Higher per unit RT2.0-specific Transportation Use Fee and Park and Recreation Fee for residents • Supportive financing strategies such as tiered SDCs based on unit size still needed to support affordability goals and to encourage middle housing development. Community Goals Impact: • Fewer starter homes and options for workforce housing (households earning between 80-120% of the Area Median Income) likely to result in affordability concerns. • Delayed or reduced delivery of commercial and transit services may reduce support for the plan. Page 4 City of Tigard OF e ` Tigard MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Housing POLICY 2: HOUSING OPTIONS Current Policy Proposal Require minimum 10-15% undersupplied housing options using a points system. Proposed options include: • Smaller Units • Family-Size Apartments • Common Courtyards • Accessible Units • Affordable Housing Policy Goals • Deliver a full range of housing needs distributed equitably across the plan area • Implement a flexible and scalable approach for different development types and sizes Concept Plan Basis The concept plan included a block-by-block housing type mix. This was found to be unviable and was replaced with the undersupplied housing options program to allow greater developer flexibility. Rationale • Ensures the City will at least partially meet housing needs identified by the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis, the city's Housing Capacity Analysis, and members of the community. • Points system ensures flexibility for developers to include the options that fit best with their plans and scales with development size, rather than the mandates used in other cities. • Requirements are paired with other incentives and flexibility to make the approach economically viable for developers such as development standards flexibility, reduced natural resource protections, reduced SDCs, and other direct funding support. Jurisdictional Requirements State: • Oregon Housing Needs Analysis: housing unit delivery targets by income band Page 5 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM • Contextualized Housing Needs Analysis: socioeconomic and demographic analysis of need, including an assessment of housing tenure, homelessness, needs for individuals with disabilities, and others. • Housing Production Strategy: implementation of specific actions to achieve needed housing production such as development code updates, incentive programs, etc. Issues and concerns identified about the current policy proposal • Issue 1: Most developers specialize in building 1-2 housing types, most commonly single-detached homes and townhomes. (Developers) • Issue 2: Requires additional support in the form of matchmaking, incentives, and capacity building. (Developers) • Issue 3: Concerns about complexity of development review for a points-based system. (Developers) Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1: Require a set percentage of undersupplied housing units instead of the points system to reduce complexity. For example, 15% of total units. • Option 2: Remove requirement but maintain incentives for undersupplied housing options. Project and topic area impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impacts: • Delayed delivery of code framework for housing approach. Estimated between 1-3 months. • Option 2 would require significant analysis and additional engagement to calibrate a package of incentives that is likely to deliver undersupplied housing needs. Project delay could exceed 3 months. • Additional cost to increase consultant hours scoped for housing approach. Housing Impacts: • Fewer undersupplied housing units. Incentive-based approach could fail to deliver accessible and regulated affordable housing. • Reduced progress towards meeting OHNA and Contextualized Housing Needs Analysis requirements; need to increase housing production and develop strategies to deliver undersupplied needs elsewhere in the city. • Option 2 may: Page 6 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM o Allow more development aligned with conventional development models and reduce risk for developers associated with new models and new pro formas. o Reduce affordability for future residents due to fewer starter homes and regulated affordable units. o Limit smaller units to rental apartments, reducing affordable homeownership opportunities. o Limit larger family-sized units to detached homes and townhomes, reducing affordable options for families. o Reduce options for seniors to downsize and stay in Tigard and for individuals with disabilities. Transportation Impacts: None Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impacts: None Parks Impacts: None Natural Systems Impacts: None Financing Impacts: With Option 2, additional supportive financing strategies may be needed to encourage undersupplied housing provision in addition to planned strategies including tiered SDCs, SDC credits, broadened eligibility for the Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund, and others. Community Goals Impacts: • Top housing priorities are affordable and accessible homes. A reduced or incentive- based approach may not fully meet this goal and may reduce support for the plan. • Fewer starter homes,workforce units, options for seniors to downsize, and accessible units likely to result in affordability and opportunity concerns. Page 7 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Transportation POLICY 1: PARKING Current Policy Proposal Retain current citywide parking policy, including no minimum parking requirements; maximize on-street parking provision. Policy Goals • Maintain consistency with state law. • Provide adequate parking while limiting excess land dedicated to surface parking lots to allow more land for housing and businesses. • Encourage housing affordability by reducing the per unit share of on-site parking construction costs. • Encourage walkability and more homes closer to commercial services. Concept Plan Basis This policy was not considered with the Concept Plan. Rationale • Consistent with state law, current city policy, and policy goals. • Provides adequate parking while using developable land efficiently.Allows market demand to drive parking supply. • Uses right of way efficiently to maximize on-street parking provision through proactive street designs and access management standards. • Aligns with industry best practices and state policy, as informed by parking underutilization and construction cost data. • Supports housing affordability goals. One surface parking space costs between $1,500 and $5,500 which is factored into prices. Jurisdictional Requirements State:Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) Requirements: • No minimum parking for single-detached or middle housing • No minimum parking for affordable housing • No minimum parking near transit • Limits minimum parking to up to 1 space per apartment unit; the city is required to allow this to be adjusted to 0 spaces, effectively making it no minimum parking. Page 8 City of Tigard • TY OF e Tigard d Td MEMORANDUM Issues and concerns identified about the current policy proposal • Issue 1: Concerns about parking availability. (City Council, community members) • Issue 2: Street designs need to maximize on-street parking to accommodate high demand. (Developers) • Issue 3: Market-determined parking may lead to an under supply. (City Council) • Issue 4: Challenges for street maintenance due to on-street parking use. (Public Works) Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1:Adopt minimum parking requirements for commercial development. • Option 2:Adopt minimum parking requirements for all development.This would require legislative changes at the state level to be enforceable. Project and topic area impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impacts: • Delayed development code amendments and increased cost for additional consultant hours. • Additional engagement would likely be needed with developers. Estimated delay 1-2 months. Housing Impacts: • Potential reduction in housing units due to reduced land available for housing. • Increased costs for developers and future residents with a larger share of parking construction costs factored into home prices and rents. Transportation Impacts: • May make commercial development more expensive. • May reduce transit viability due to decreased ridership. • Detracts from walkability and active transportation goals. Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impacts: • Reduced square footage of commercial uses due to greater share of commercial-zoned land dedicated to surface parking. • May delay delivery of commercial due to increased construction costs. • Limits flexibility for businesses to move into existing tenant spaces and increases costs to businesses due to required land use process and study to confirm minimum parking standard is met. Page 9 City of Tigard TY OF e Tigard d Td MEMORANDUM Parks Impacts: None Natural Systems Impacts: None Financing Impacts: Increased construction costs for developers will require additional private financing. Community Goals Impacts: • Top community priorities including transit viability, walking and biking, commercial services, and affordability are negatively impacted and may reduce support for the plan. • May alleviate some challenges experienced in River Terrace 1.0 related to on-street parking availability but only in commercial areas and near apartment sites. Page 10 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Parks POLICY 1: PARKS LEVEL OF SERVICE Current Policy Proposal Parks Level of Service 5.9 acres per 1,000 residents • 59 acres of parks, including 28 acres of accessible natural areas and up to 1 Community Park • 6 miles of trails • Excludes inaccessible natural areas from parks calculation compared to River Terrace 1.0 methodology. Policy Goals • Provide high-quality parks within a 10-minute walk of all residents and a robust trail network near nature. • Maximize usability and efficiency of parks land to better serve residents while balancing housing and commercial development goals. • Improve quality of parks and amenities provided compared to River Terrace 1.0. Concept Plan Basis This proposal deviates from the Concept Plan, which used the River Terrace 1.0 Parks Level of Service methodology for 10.3 acres per 1,000 residents and would result in: • 112 acres of open space, including approximately 48 acres of inaccessible natural areas • 3 miles of trails Rationale • Meets policy goals. • Aligns with community feedback for larger, better quality Neighborhood Parks compared to River Terrace 1.0. • Natural areas that are inaccessible to the public do not serve a parks purpose. • More miles of trails increases opportunities for active transportation, access to nature, and healthy activities. • Community parks compete with residential and commercial development for flat land. • Operations and maintenance costs are already higher for River Terrace than the rest of the city, reducing equity. Page 11 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Jurisdictional Requirements State: None Metro: None Issues and concerns identified about current policy proposal • Issue 1: Concerns about reduced Parks Level of Service standard compared to River Terrace 1.0. (City Council) • Issue 2: Concerns that proposed Parks Level of Service conflicts with housing and affordability goals. (Developers) • Issue 3: Additional staff needed for operations and maintenance estimated at 6-8 FTE (including 1 Community Park). (Public Works) Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1: Increase Parks Level of Service Standard per 1,000 residents for Community and/or Neighborhood Parks to increase land set aside for parks. • Option 2: Use River Terrace 1.0 methodology. Adds acreage for linear parks, Community Parks, and inaccessible natural areas. Reduces acreage for Neighborhood Parks and trails. Project and topic area impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impacts: • Delayed Parks System Plan and additional budget needed to modify Parks Level of Service standards and maps. • Delayed Equitable Finance Strategy. • Delay to Developer Forum to request feedback on the finance strategy. Estimated delay 2-3 months. Housing Impacts: • Reduction in housing units due to reduced land available for housing. • Reduced affordability due to increased costs for developers to build more parks. Transportation Impacts: More parks would slightly reduce the distance to parks for some residents, enhancing walkability. Page 12 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impacts: • May reduce land available for commercial uses. • Additional parks in the northern area of RT2.0 West may decrease viability of commercial areas due to fewer homes within walking distance of the commercial area. Parks Impacts: • More land set aside for parks and open space purposes. • Additional acreage will increase staff and funding needs for operations and maintenance. Natural Systems Impacts: None Financing Impacts: Increased development construction costs and Parks SDCs. Community Goals Impacts: • RT1.0 parks methodology does not align with community priorities. Lack of support for linear parks and smaller neighborhood parks and desire for more trails. • Additional parks land supports community goal for ample shared green spaces and public parks. Page 13 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Parks POLICY 2: COMMUNITY PARK Current Policy Proposal Reduce the required number of Community Parks to one. Policy Goals • Ensure all residents are within a 10-minute walk of a park. • Provide a full range of amenities across the parks system while using land efficiently for housing. Concept Plan Basis This proposal deviates from the Concept Plan and the River Terrace 1.0 Parks Level of Service methodology which would require 3 Community Parks based on projected population. Rationale • Meets policy goals. • Community Parks are challenging to deliver and typically require City acquisition of the land at fair market value, such as occurred with Blueberry Hill Park. • Community Parks are more costly for developers to construct and for the City to operate and maintain compared to Neighborhood Parks. • Some Community Park-scale amenities can be provided in Neighborhood Parks. Jurisdictional Requirements State:None Metro: None Issues and concerns identified with current policy proposal • Issue 1: Community-scale amenities, including sports fields, should be provided in River Terrace 2.0 to serve all of Tigard. (City Council) • Issue 2: Concerns that requiring any Community Parks conflicts with housing and affordability goals. (Developers) • Issue 3:Additional staff needed for operations and maintenance, estimated 2 FTE needed per Community Park. (Public Works) Page 14 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1: Increase Level of Service Standard to require more than one Community Park. • Option 2: Increase Neighborhood Park Level of Service standard and eliminate Community Parks altogether. Project and topic area impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impacts: • Delayed Parks System Plan to assess modified Community Park assumptions and update maps. • Delayed Equitable Finance Strategy while revisions to Parks System Plan occur. • Delay to Developer Forum to request feedback on the finance strategy. Estimated delay 2-3 months. Housing Impacts: • Fewer housing units due to reduced developable land. One Community Park eliminates approximately 150 homes compared to a Neighborhood Park. • Reduced affordability due to fewer units and increased infrastructure and SDC costs for developers. • Option 2 minimizes impacts to affordability and number of housing units. Transportation Impacts: More parks would slightly reduce distance to parks for some residents. Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impacts: • May reduce land available for commercial uses. • One or more Community Parks in the northern area of RT2.0 West may decrease viability of commercial areas due to fewer homes within walking distance. Parks Impacts: • More land set aside for parks. • Additional City staff and funding will be needed for operations and maintenance,with greater resources needed for any Community Parks. Page 15 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Natural Systems Impacts: None Financing Impacts: • Increased development construction costs and SDCs. • City acquisition needed for each Community Park,typically at fair market value of the land. Community Goals Impacts: • May support community's interest in more Community Park-scale amenities like a splash pad, short-sided sports fields, a dog park, and reservable community gathering spaces. • Citywide support to provide more regulation-size sports fields and courts in Tigard. Page 16 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Policy Topic Area: Natural Resources POLICY 1: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION APPROACH Current Policy Proposal Custom Title 13-compliant natural resource protection approach using tiered structure • Uses a tiered approach, prioritizing protection of highest quality resources while allowing more impacts to lower quality resources. • Includes flexibility for development and incentivizes affordable housing. • Discretionary approach opens up more land for development while providing a baseline of protection. Policy Goals • Ensure compliance with Metro Title 13 and prioritize protection of the highest quality natural resources. • Balance housing goals and provide flexibility for development. • Support climate resilience. Concept Plan Basis Used current citywide approach. Requirement to comply with Title 13 was unknown at the time. Rationale • Meets policy goals using an innovative, tiered approach and incentive structure. • Baseline protections ensure consistency with Metro requirements. • Clean Water Services will continue to enforce protection of riparian areas. Jurisdictional Requirements State: • Clear and Objective pathway for housing development • Statewide Planning Goal 5 Metro: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13 Identified issues and concerns about the current policy proposal • Issue 1: Concerns about flexibility and preference for performance-based discretionary approach. (Developers) • Issue 2: Concerns that the approach conflicts with housing goals. (Developers) Page 17 City of Tigard Tigard MEMORANDUM Alternative Policy Options (require further analysis) • Option 1: Adopt Metro model code (requires 80% protection across the board). • Option 2: Reduce required protections, maintain tiered approach (may not comply with Title 13). Project impacts if Council selects a policy alternative Project Budget and Timing Impacts: • Delayed development code amendments and increased cost for additional consultant hours to modify approach, reassess Title 13 compliance, and update project deliverables. • For Option 2, additional coordination with Metro is needed. Estimated delay between 1-3 months. Housing Impacts: Changes buildable acres assumptions and resulting number of housing units. Transportation Impacts: None Economic Opportunity and Commerce Impacts: None Parks Impacts: Minimal. Some colocation of natural areas and parks anticipated. Natural Systems Impact: • Option 1 would increase protected resources. • Option 2 would decrease protected resources. Financing Impacts: Changes to buildable acres assumptions and resulting number of housing units affects SDCs. Community Goals Impacts: Top community priority to protect as much nature as possible. Reductions would lack support. Page 18 RIVER j la TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Public Involvement WHAT WE _`S. � of HEARD FROM .�l i� T ����� � ° , 4\ Ai: THE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITES From late 2024 through fall 2025,the City of Tigard engaged the community through open houses, surveys,focus groups, presentations,tabling, and informal outreach at schools,community events and other community gathering places,in order to reach a wide range of the Tigard community. IN TOTAL, ENGAGEMENT INCLUDED: 2 in-person&online Open Houses • Spring 2025: -80 in-person attendees;57 online responses • • Fall 2025:53 in-person attendees;51 online responses 4 Short Surveys with over 440 responses 8 Focus Groups and presentations: • Youth engagement(high school students and Tigard Youth Advisory Council) t a w • Spanish-language focus groups(spring and winter) • Low-income housing and social justice groups • } 4 Tabling Events at fairs, markets,and neighborhood events, _ _ _ reaching hundreds more residents 7 Community Advisory Committee meetings with 13 members 4 Housing Advisory Committee meetings with 16 members 1 Developers Forum with 23 participants (3 more planned for 2026) OVERALL TAKE-AWAY People support River Terrace 2.0 when it protects nature, meets everyday needs,creates a safe,walkable neighborhood that works for real life,and provides housing options for different needs and incomes. Participants are largely encouraged by the direction of the project and are asking the City to continue focusing on balance—between nature and access,growth and affordability,and regional goals and neighborhood feel. RIVER ila TERRACE Z COMMUNITY PLAN Public Involvement WHAT MATTERS MOST `.."--_ a;p -e`er, A0, asp �. ,y '. 4 ' - - - HOUSING THAT FEELS LIVABLE AND INCLUSIVE The most prominent theme that emerged around the housing conversation,was that a variety of options need - to be available in order to make this a truly inclusive and welcoming neighborhood.The community noted "When I am older,a small-scale that it is challenging to find an affordable home in Tigard and support the focus on middle housing and a wider apartment building in a walkable range of housing price options.While some are concerned and bikeable community will about finding a larger unit that would accommodate a make more sense than the usual multi-generational family,others would like a smaller unit suburbs with no access [to] green where they can age in place,without stairs and convenient spaces and no community hub to access to services. gather in." Some concerns and requests will also need to be Open House participant considered in the planning process: • Fear that increased density could worsen traffic and parking shortages • Limited private yard space increases the need for public access to nature and parks • Long-term management and infrastructure capacity needs to be carefully thought out These responses highlight a shared desire for housing that balances affordability, variety, livability,and neighborhood character. EVERYDAY AMENITIES IS A COMMUNITY PRIORITY Participants repeatedly stated the neighborhood's ability to meet everyday needs within accessible distances as a "Without destinations such as main factor for their support. grocery stores within walking Across surveys and open-ended comments, people distance, everyone will drive." asked for: - Open House participant • Grocery stores and daily retail located nearby, preferably affordable and locally owned • Walkable access to parks,schools,and services within about a 20-minute walk • Public restrooms,shade,seating,and covered gathering spaces in parks • Business areas that feel active and welcoming,but not overwhelming to nearby homes Survey responses showed support for neighborhood-scale businesses, along with concerns about traffic, noise,and parking impacts if commercial areas are not carefully designed. RIVER la TERRACE Z j_ COMMUNITY PLAN Public Involwmeat WHAT MATTERS MOST (Continued) PROTECTING NATURE WHILE MAKING IT ��� � PART OF DAILY LIFE Across all engagement opportunities, participants were clear: protecting nature is a top priority,especially large trees,wildlife habitat,wetlands, and views of nature. << Nature is viewed not just as scenery,but as essential to What is most important to me health,climate resilience, and community identity. is protection of wetlands and natural areas, while still making At the same time, people want nature to be protected but it accessible for youth to view still accessible to residents and visitors, not isolated. Many and respect its beauty." noting that parks,trails, and gathering spaces should be designed carefully so access does not come at the expense Open House participant of ecological health. • Preserve large existing trees,even on private property • Design parks and trails at the edges of natural areas,not through them • Provide shade,seating,lighting,covered group space,and restrooms so parks are usable by everyone • Preference for paved,accessible trails that are easier for kids,elders,and people with disabilities Protect nature while designing for thoughtful human interaction was one of the most consistent messages across all engagement. SAFE, COMFORTABLE WAYS TO GET AROUND FOR ALL AGES Safety and comfort for walking, biking,and driving emerged as a major priority,especially for kids,older adults,and people who don't feel comfortable biking today. Respondents emphasized: • Wide,well-maintained sidewalks or paths with adequate lighting and shade • Traffic-calming features that slow vehicles and make pedestrian areas highly visible • Clear separation between people walking,biking,and driving • Reliable,easy to access transit services and direct routes to destinations • Parking designs that support businesses while also slowing traffic •• •• e > x e'� •. ° • RIVER TERRACE Jan. 29 Policy Workshop - Housing Density COMMUNITY PLAN Commercial Viability Impacts The lead River Terrace 2.0 consultant, ECOnorthwest, provided an opinion on the potential impacts of a density reduction on commercial viability. Based on their assessment of grocery industry standards, 5,000 households within a 2-mile radius is generally the threshold for development of a moderate sized grocery-anchored commercial center. This threshold is already met in this area, meaning that a grocery-anchored center can be supported in this area regardless of RT2.0 density. However, reduced density may impact River Terrace 2.0's competitive advantage compared to other planned commercial centers in Beaverton and other areas. Furthermore, if the decrease in density primarily comes from fewer apartments adjacent to the commercial and mixed-use areas, this could impact the viability of walkable ground floor commercial and neighborhood-serving business potential to a greater extent. This could reduce the amount of supportable retail space and make viability more dependent on pass-by vehicle traffic from major streets rather than households within walking distance. A more in-depth analysis would be required to fully assess potential impacts. Transportation Impacts SUPP ,EMENTA PACKET FOR l fad ao, 6 Traffic (DATE OF MEETING) Peak Hour Trips* % Change in Peak Hour Trips* Location 20 units/ac 18 units/ac 16 units/ac Mountainside Way (south of Scholls Ferry) 685 -12% -24% Scholls Ferry Road (east of Mountainside) 3,000 -2% -5% Roy Rogers (north of Bull Mountain) 4,610 -1% -2% Bull Mountain (east of Roy Rogers) 805 -3% -6% Beef Bend (west of 150th) 1,795 -3% -6% *In all directions, all origins and destinations. Transit Staff contacted TriMet for comment about the impacts a density reduction may have on the potential for transit service in River Terrace 2.0. They replied that more density means more propensity for transit ridership, but density alone cannot predict or encourage transit ridership. A healthy mix of housing types and incomes in this area can also be a driver for transit ridership. The biggest factor in providing future transit service down Scholls Ferry to River Terrace 2.0 is the agency's long-term budget forecasts. Despite recent service cuts, TriMet confirmed that the long-term vision to serve this area remains. Anticipated Revenue Compared to Cost to Provide City Services Due to time and budget constraints, it is not possible to provide information on the anticipated revenue that would be generated from River Terrace 2.0 development compared to the cost to provide city services. Our consultant team estimates this would cost between $8,000 and $10,000 to add this to the scope of the Equitable Finance Strategy. Would Council like to add this to the project scope? Information would be available in late March or April. Key Questions 1. Does Council support the proposed housing density of an average of 20 units per net acre? • If not, what alternative policy does Council set? 2. If an alternative policy is identified, does Council direct staff to continue to prioritize middle housing options or supporting walkable commercial viability? Or, another housing priority? RIVER d) . ,,--, TERRACE L ', 1_ Jan. 29 Policy Workshop - Parking COMMUNITY PLAN Kingston Terrace Town Center Parking Assessment • Constructed by Risewell Homes, a River Terrace 1 developer and prospective developer of a portion of River Terrace 2.0 • No minimum parking required • 1,186 total units (22 units per net acre) Land Use/ Housing Type Apartments Small Lot Standard Rowhouses Rowhouses Cottage Commercial (0-2 beds) Detached Detached (Alley) (Front) Cluster Off-Street Spaces per Unit 1 - 1.5 2 4 1 - 4 2 - 4 1 2/1,000 sf Total Street Parking Spaces 1,316 (1.1 average additional spaces available per unit) I LII. 1�i 11 1:®:,1i9':gI R I flTgrg ' ` Kingston Terrace Parking :ItIW 0�i `l :Q �" " w T7'!H 7 l� Duo HUM Availability Analysis 1 irai�i�ir�il�I���i 2/3/1215 It�EISF :1ZTgitis�glill , rigi�drtlm:l ilt�gell,11I 1 Uses: Apartments and Commercial .x.w��� � �.o�t� Nlg�r $u��9Y �.�:w'.;:�ln�r� s..w,rr%,rA ao...�� dr �l�r : ;` 1]!. LPL � ,] uLl.h!I �I.Ijl. LULL �;�,J' I L1Ll �C[ �UI:I.' •Ll [ �. UL►�.',:: :::— �� —`1,� ' '0 v''t `err: A 0. Number of Apartments: 144 (0-2 bedrooms) }..aii� ■S,.•-•. ..._,�aegnt..A ...,e■LI�•�s�►T_ _ ,■•.Y ...........................p4 F, Off-Street Space /Apartment. 1.5 (Max. Off Stree s " re�� N5.t'4 ,, , , ` ``-. .. �' Allowed) r --- `,7` ill Commercial Area: 2 00 � ,a a ���. .�............ ommercia Approx. square feet ■_■-•_•uo.•ua_u ., ..Eu-•.:s-•ith.h._•Ut .!.HZ : ' nI .:�- 1 1� a.; 6 5 € _ ,g= , ; r Off-Street Spaces/1,000sf: 2 O� co!' 0�! ���saQ' �.6.�.-1 w Qi; •O� ^ gip. r I6 li ff� 7E IIIiI'AGLIE1.�`�I�.'m r�'' rrlirrE 111111 i�Y�F'Ii l d�lifl�i''�'1t1l�nli, Total On-Street Spaces: 71 (®IU !,u.Ir.uS�®•i,e�if�1•!!I� tMI!ls��rsl.,. :lli;ia�i IIU �IUI�R 111lleil��1�1�1llIW . �i e a e 11 a e a I aTotal Spaces: 240 ,� �� Average Spaces Available per Unit = 1.7 Mi MHO:l ; ; III11-11 , _3 _vicionscomormommommon. _4.---..--..--.-----...r,7: --.....---,—.---..—......._ Kingston Terrace Parking 1 Availability Analysis 2 Eye I I _ Housing Types: Small-Lot Detached and 1 gliml I _ Standard Lot Detached 1 Total Units: 41 SW TOURMALINE LN. Off-Street Spaces/Unit: 2 - 4 — .2 Total Street Parking Spaces: 61 few 8 . Total Spaces: 159 Average Spaces Available per Unit = 3.9 1 Aln k I i .- ii ------- 1 p.,: I 42 55 O , e :s 56 k ® 71 River Terrace Parking Availability I 1 I' ;I II ' I 57 '' ® 70 ,11 Comparison (Scholls Meadows) 43 54 F I i1 I g1 Y`- -s > 58 I,: -, 69 1 E /, 1 : - .1 I Required off-street spaces/unit: 1 44 53 -` LI Q r q, 59 I '' 68 "I I 3 qy S-1 60 I y 'c® 67 1 I Required street spaces/unit: 0.5 - 2 3 "1 I 45 52 I 1� ,1! U 61 6a I Housing Types: Single Detached and Rowhouses 46 5� I : I 62 ,!�s i v • 65 t51 Number of Units: 38 I I �- -� Off-Street Spaces/Unit: 1 - 4 a.: -. .. .. SW B LANE '" 48 49 - ` : ; ;kr;,;:;t - I f Total On-Street Spaces: 25 L aVeR 'cwtdtNN ---- © - . 6' I +I Total Spaces: 125 spaces • 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 1 STREET L7[T ° I Average Spaces Available per Unit = 3.3 RIVER TERRACE Jan. 29 Policy Workshop - Parking COMMUNITY PLAN River Terrace Scholls Meadows Street Parking Photos (7 p.m. Jan. 28th) •I. 1 l; +PA _ ei, _I fill . rie En i I - _ -11, -..ram -ram L 4je, !� ti � — Main Takeaways • Access management requirements like driveway spacing and shared access solve existing design problems by allowing more street parking directly in front of units. • Private development provided similar or more off-street parking in Kingston Terrace without minimum parking requirements compared to in River Terrace (prior to state preemption). • Operational changes like curbside management and enforcement could further improve street parking conditions by reducing conflict and easing street maintenance challenges. Key Questions 1. Would Council like to retain the current citywide parking policy, so no minimum parking requirements will apply to River Terrace 2.0 development? 2. If not, would Council like staff to develop a proposal for minimum commercial parking requirements? Or, for all development (risk of appeal, unenforceable)? RIVER 9 TERRACE L Jan. 29 Policy Workshop - Parks COMMUNITY PLAN Parks Level of Service Comparison Master Planned Areas Parks Level of Service (Acres/1,000 Residents) Park Type River Terrace 2.0 River Terrace King City Kingston Terrace Wilsonville Frog Pond Community Park 1 3 3 1.9 Neighborhood Park 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.9 Pocket Parks - No standard 0.25 - Linear Parks - 1.25 1.25 - Open Space/Natural Areas 2.5* 4.25 4.25 7.4 Urban Parks/Plazas 0.05 (plazas only) - 2.6** (Town Center only) - Town Center: 6.7 Total Parks LOS 5.35 10 10.2 Other Areas: 10.25 *RT2.0 Natural Areas are intended to serve a neighborhood-scale nature park purpose that are accessible to the public. **No LOS standard was set for urban parks in the Kingston Terrace Town Center(22 unit per acre net density).Calculation based on land use approval. River Terrace Planned and Built Parks Acres Comparison Park Type River Terrace 1 River Terrace 1 Acres To-Date Proposed Planned Acres River Terrace 2.0 Acres Community Park 19.25 8.2 11 Neighborhood Park 9.6 10.7 20 Linear Park 8 1 (along RT Blvd Trail, approx.) - Pocket Park Undefined 1.2 (approx.) - Open Space/Natural Area 27.3 27.3+ 28 (accessible)* Private Recreation Area - 0.5 (approx.) - School Facilities - 1 acre (approx.) - Total Acres 64.15 49.9 (22 publicly accessible) 59 *All River Terrace 2.0 protected natural areas are expected to total roughly 90 acres. River Terrace Parks Usage compared to Citywide All Tigard parks are well used. Based on Tigard employee observations and anecdotal information, River Terrace parks have similar usage rates to similar types of facilities citywide. To identify park usage rates, Council could commission a formal study. PARF Revenue to Operations & Maintenance Comparison Projected Park Equipment FTE FTE supported % O&M costs PARF Households Revenue Acres* Needs Needed** by PARF supported by PARF 4,600 6 50% River Terrace 2.0 (low) $491,887.20 59 4.03 ($122,000 per FTE) $9 38* (20 units/ac) 8 40% River Terrace 2.0 (high) $250,000 4,100 (18 units/ac) $438,421.20 59*** 8*** 3.59 36% River Terrace 2.0 54% Citywide *FY 2026 PARF rate, used for citywide comparison purposes. The PARF increases 4.03% per year and is charged once development is complete. **The number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) needed to operate and maintain River Terrace 2.0 parks will depend on the amenities constructed,which is unknown at this time.To account for this and a lower level of amenities in accessible natural areas within parks, a range of needed FTE is provided. ***The estimate for 18 units per acre does not factor in an expected minor reduction in park acres based on population and Parks LOS standards. More analysis is needed to determine if fewer FTE would be needed based on the resulting acreage. Park Amenities with High O&M Costs • Water features (splash pads, etc.) • Sports fields (highest for regulation-size, programmed, with parking) • Restrooms • Heavy landscaping, irrigation Key Parks Policy Questions 1. Does Council support the proposed River Terrace 2.0 Parks Level of Service standard? If not, what alternative policy would Council like to set? 2. Does Council feel that River Terrace 2.0 must provide regulation-size sports fields to meet a citywide need? • If so, at what scale? • If not, does Council feel that short-sided fields in larger neighborhood parks satisfy community needs? 3. Does Council want River Terrace 2.0 parks planning to move forward with 1 Community Park, none, or more than one?