Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 01/07/2009
City of Tigard a 0 Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee—Agenda MEETING DATE: January 7, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER..................................................................................................................6:30-6:35 2. Introduction and Opening Remarks.......................................................................................6:35-6:40 3. Approve Minutes.......................................................................................................................6:40-6:45 4. Revised Purpose Statement for Urban Forestry Master Plan.............................................6:45-6:55 5. Vision Statement Discussion for the Urban Forestry Master Plan............... 6:55-7:05 6. Discussion of Urban Forestry Survey Results.......................................................................7:05-7:25 7. Discussion of Tigard Tree Canopy Analysis.........................................................................7:25-7:45 8. Public Comment........................................................................................................................7:45-8:00 Urban Foresta Master Plan Citizen Adviso Committee AGENDA—januanr 7, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Current Planning Division RE: Regular Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting of January 7,2009 DATE: December 15,2008 INTRODUCTION The following summarizes topics proposed for discussion at the January 7,2009 meeting of the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 5,2008 URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING The Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee held a meeting on November 5,2008. The minutes of the meeting have been summarized by Todd Prager for the Committee's review and approval. REVISED PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN In response to comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee,staff has revised the draft purpose statement for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Attached is a memo describing the revisions. DRAFT VISION STATEMENT FOR URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN In response to comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee,staff has drafted the attached vision statement for the urban forestry master plan. Please review and be prepared to comment at the January 7,2009 meeting. DISCUSSION OF URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY RESULTS At the November 5,2008 meeting,the Citizen Advisory Committee provided input to staff regarding the types of questions they think would be appropriate for inclusion in the urban forestry survey. The Committee's recommendations were incorporated into the survey,and the survey was completed in early December. The attached"topline"document shows the exact survey questions that were used,and how interviewees responded. A hard copy of the cross tabulated report will be available for the Committee at the January 7,2009 meeting. Page 1 of 1 DISCUSSION OF TIGARD TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS Tigard staff completed a preliminary analysis of canopy change using Metro's results from 1996 and 2007 air photos and presented,the data to the Tree Board last June. In order to bring members of the Citizen Advisory Committee up to speed,staff will present the data again at the January 7,2009 meeting. Staff will also display maps at the meeting that will visually demonstrate the results. In addition to the analysis already completed,additional canopy data can be gathered for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Citizen Advisory Committee members are encouraged to provide input on additional canopy studies that they think will be useful for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been attached for the Committee's review. There will also be an opportunity at the end of the January 7,2009 meeting for additional public comment. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1: MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 5,2008 URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ATTACHMENT 2: MEMO REGARDING REVISED PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 3: MEMO REGARDING DRAFT VISION STATEMENT FOR URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 4: MEMO REGARDING URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY RESULTS ATTACHMENT 5: MEMO REGARDING TIGARD TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 6: PUBLIC COMMENT Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 City ofTigard a Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes MEETING DATE: November 5, 2008, 6:30-8:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present Janet Gillis,Tony Tycer, David Walsh,Matt Clemo,Dennis Sizemore,Mort Ettelstein,Morgan Holen,Phil Hickey Members Absent—Rob Callan,Alan DeHarpport Staff Present—John Floyd,Todd Prager, Marissa Daniels,Ron Bunch Visitors—Harry Reid,John Frewing, Greg Schifsky 1. Introductions and Opening Remarks The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:35 p.m. with and opening statement by Todd Prager describing UFMP as a continuation and implementation step of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Prager then asked for everyone to introduce themselves and provide background information highlighting the skills they intend on contributing to the UFMP. A summary of the introductions are as follows: Todd Prager, staff—City Arborist, employed by the City of Tigard for one and a half years,A.S. in Forestry, B.S. and M.S. in Environmental Horticultural and Urban Forestry,research focus on root structures of urban trees, previously employed by City of San Francisco Urban Forestry, strong interest in street trees. Marissa Daniels, staff—Planner,Long Range Planning Division, specializes in citizen involvement. Dave Walsh—Tree Board member, Tigard Planning Commission member for 3 years,liaison between the Planning Commission and Tree Board,B.S. in Forestry, currently works in the paper industry. Phil Hickey—Commercial Arborist,consulting Arborist, originally a forester but has been in arboriculture for the past 10 years,B.S. in Forestry from the University of Montana. Tony Tycer— 18 years in the tree industry, owner of A Picture Perfect Tree Service,Tree Board member since 2006,Tigard resident since 2001. Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—November 5,2008 Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.*rd-or.gov I Page?of6 Mort Ettelstein—B.S. from Penn State in Industrial Engineering,Masters in Business Administration, worked for the U.S. Navy in maintenance management, experienced in personnel research, conducted audits of city agencies,worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doing workforce planning, performed contract work for the Federal Aviation Administration, landscape chairman of his townhouse association. Matt Clemo--Tree Board member for approximately one year, work experience in the lumber industry, currently studying to become a certified arborist. Janet Gillis—Tree Board member for five years,21 year resident of Tigard, grew up on a tree farm, involved through family in the timber and logging industry. Dennis Sizemore—Tree Board member for two years,Tigard resident for three years, his family lives in Tigard and he is interested in leaving a positive environmental legacy for his children and grandchildren. Morgan Holen—Chair of the Lake Oswego Natural Resources Advisory Board, fourth generation forester, B.S. in Forest Management from the University of Washington,Master of Environmental Management from Yale, currently the contract arborist for the City of Lake Oswego, has performed lots of arboricultural consulting work in and around Tigard. Ron Bunch, staff—Assistant Community Development Director for the City of Tigard,Landscape Architecture degree from the University of Oregon, fourth generation logger,experienced in parks and landscape management. John Floyd, staff—Planner,Long Range Planning Division,worked on the Urban Forest section of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan,will be working with the Tree Board on tree code updates in the future. Harry Reid,visitor—Resident of Tigard,volunteers with Friends of Trees. John Frewing,visitor—Has an interest in trees in Tigard. Greg Schifsky,visitor—Has been involved in the City of Portland tree code revisions. 2. RoICs and Responsibilities At 6:45 p.m., Marissa Daniels then summarized the following roles and responsibilities of the CAC members: ♦ Attend all meetings. If you are unable to attend, send your comments to staff in advance of the meeting. ♦ Review material provided in advance of the meeting. ♦ Ask questions for information or clarification, not to challenge or intimidate. ♦ Consider all opinions as valid and worthy of respect. Urban Forestry Master Plan,Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—November 5,2008 u+r� r��irr�r Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2of6 ♦ Be willing to learn, compromise and/or negotiate. ♦ Aim for a consensus that is fair and in the best interest of the community. David Walsh asked if the CAC could be provided with a list of the committee members and meeting dates. Prager said he would email that information to the CAC as soon as possible, and reminded members that the meeting dates and other information are posted on the UFMP website. I P}irpose Statement for Urban Forestry-Master Pla At 6:50 p.m., the committee then discussed the purpose statement for the UFMP. Todd Prager read the following draft purpose statement that was developed by staff to the CAC: The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and policies in the Urban Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and to determine the future of Tigard's urban forest by: a. Documenting past and present conditions; b. Providing management recommendations and measurable goals; and c. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions, and with the community's vision for trees in Tigard. Dennis Sizemore and Matt Clemo suggested that the statements following"a."and "b." should be clarified so that readers can better understand what the subject is. Past and present conditions "o£what"? Management recommendations and measurable goals "of what"? Morgan Holen expressed concern with the word "determine"in the statement,and suggested that "manage" would be a better substitute. The rest of the CAC agreed that a better word should be used. Ms:Holen-also-noted-that-time-fram-es-a=-tnrti�dn the purpose statements of other ans, an perhaps Tigard should consider a timeframe for this Plan. Prager agreed noting that if the purpose is to set measureable goals, then it is appropriate to set a time frame. Tony Tycer said that a "d." should be added to specify that the Plan will provide a foundation for future plans, policies, and ordinances. Morgan Holen explained that when Lake Oswego was developing their Plan, they clearly communicated to the community that it was non-regulatory. Prager agreed that the document needed to be non-regulatory, but that it was an appropriate purpose of the document to act as a resource when crafting future regulations. Mr. Tycer then asked if the Plan should specify that it will affect both public and private property. Prager said that by definition, the urban forest exists on public and private property, and he didn't see a need to specify that in the purpose. Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—November 5,2008 r�rr�n ir��ir.�ro�re Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Asgv 3 of6 Prager ended the discussion saying that staff would work on revising the purpose statement and present it to the CAC at their next meeting. 4. Discussion of Urban Forestry Survey Questions At 7:05 p.m.,the CAC began to discuss the survey component of the UFMP. Prager explained that during the Comprehensive Plan process a need for an independent analysis of community attitudes towards urban forest issues was identified. Prager went on to say that the City was in the process of hiring a consultant to administer the survey. Prager asked the committee for input from the CAC as to the types of questions they think will be important to include in the survey. Tony Tycer said that example question four in attachment three should be reworded to allow respondents to state whether they agree or disagree with the statements. Prager responded that the questions will be refined by the survey consultant so that they are asked in a neutral manner and provide valid and quantifiable responses. He asked that the CAC focus more on themes they would like to see in the survey rather than specifics such as how the questions are worded. David Walsh offered to compile a list on the white board, and the following themes emerged from the CAC: ♦ Financial resources (Dennis Sizemore) ♦ Social,economic,and environmental values of trees (Morgan Holen) ♦ Personal vs. public tree care and maintenance (Dennis Sizemore) ♦ Community willingness to participate Uanet Gillis) ♦ Hazard trees Qanet Gillis) ♦ Attitudes towards trees (Mort Ettelstein) ♦ Regulations, should the removal of trees require a permit? (Phil Hickey) ♦ Perceptions of the urban forest,name a City that has good trees (Morgan Holen) ♦ Balancing trees with development (Dennis Sizemore) ♦ Fees for permits (David Walsh) ♦ Ask the same question in different ways (David Walsh) ♦ Community satisfaction (Morgan Holen) ♦ Identify respondents by neighborhood,and use results to target those areas (Morgan Holen) ♦ Ask questions that can be followed up on in future surveys for tracking(Tony Tycer) ♦ Open-ended questions (Tony Tycer) ♦ Should the City focus on the social benefits of trees or environmental benefits?Qohn Floyd) ♦ What is the appropriate level of regulation,State vs.Metro vs. local? (Tony Tycer) Marissa Daniels added that many of the themes may be more appropriate for a web survey, especially open-ended type questions. She said the City will conduct a web survey in addition to the telephone survey so that more questions can be included. Urban Forestry Master Plan,Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes–November 5,2008__ - tY g Tigard, r 1 www.tigar�—or ice...__of6 Ci of Ti axd 13125 SW Hall Blvd. T' rd OR 97223 503-639-4171 5. Vision Statement for Urban Forestry Master Plan At 7:35 p.m.,Marissa Daniels led the CAC in a discussion of the vision statement for the UFMP. She asked the CAC to split into two groups to answer the following questions: A. What is your vision for Tigard's urban forest? B. What are the obstacles to your vision? C. How can the obstacles be overcome? The responses to the visioning questions are as follows: A. What is your vision for Tigard's urban forest? - Should be concise - Lots of trees - Large,healthy,diverse - Room in development - Aesthetic (No 99V/) - Keep parks nice (Woodard) - Planning - Quality of life - Sustainable - Citizen awareness - Adjust for shifting canopy:Replanting and Planting(Beef Bend,for example) - Valued by the Community (Ownership) (Personal) - Sense of Place - Plant tomorrow's Heritage Trees today - "Tools in the toolbox"to preserve existing trees during development B. What are the obstacles to your vision? - Education Development Dissemination Lack of care - Not wanting to maintain Providing positive incentives Make vision meaningful - Don't scare public into removing - Metro density requirements - Coordination - Roles and relationships Urban Forestry Master Plan,Citizen Advisory Committee Meetit%Minutes—November 5,2008 ■�e�w sn��rrr��rnr+ar�r City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigud-or.gov I Mage f of6 - Self interest(education) - Personal value vs. Community value - 2 classes - Bad looking urban areas (99W) - Public vs.private - Density requirements - Conflict - Right tree,right place C. How can the obstacles be overcome? Provide incentives/solutions (identified by obstacles) Partner with other groups Outreach/communication plan Reach out to developers,educators,schools,parents Deconflict(City,County,Metro) - Better Communication:City,Developers,Interested Parties - Creative/flexible code - Define process - Mitigation process $Funding. tax,etc. Incentive based: Conservation easements,etc. Enforcement:Fines,penalties,etc. Working together - Partnerships:Schools,Friends of Trees Tree manual that includes best management practices The visioning exercise ended and Marissa Daniels told the CAC that staff will develop a draft vision statement for their review at the next meeting. 6. Closing Remarks and Adjournment At 8:00 p.m., the meeting was opened up for public comment and Greg Schifsky addressed the CAC. Mr. Schifsky compared the size of a railroad car, house, and tractor trailer, to a 130 foot tall tree using models. He visually demonstrated the impact of removing a 130 foot tree and replacing it with a 6 to 7 foot tall tree. John Frewing then suggested that the CAC read an article about the beneficial effects of trees on human health in the November 5,2008 issue of the Oregonian. Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Urban Foresta Master Plan, Citizen Adviso Committee Meeti Minutes—Novembers,2008 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6of6 ATTACHMENT 2 U ° MEMORANDUM TtGARD TO: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist RE: Urban Forestry Master Plan Purpose Statement DATE: December 9,2008 In order to inform users as to the purpose of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan,staff presented a draft purpose statement to the Citizen Advisory Committee. In response to comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee,staff has revised the draft purpose statement as follows: The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and policies in the Urban Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,and to deme guide the future of Tigard's urban forest by: a. Documenting past and present conditions of the urban forest; b. Providing managemen recommendations and measurable goals that will improve urban forest management;and c. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions,and with the community's vision for trees in Tigard:;and d. Providing a legislative resource for future plans,policies,and ordinances. Page 1 of 1 AM i i n%.nivttriv t J �� City of Tigard C Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (UFMP CAC) From: Marissa Daniels,Assistant Planner#9 Re: Urban Forestry Master Plan Vision Statement Date: -December 31, 2008 Draft Vision Statements: A. Tigard's urban forest is an interconnected mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements valued,protected, and managed to enhance Tigard% aesthetic identity;sense of place,and the social, ecological, and economic services they provide. B. Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by City residents as a thriving and interconnected ecosystem effectively managed to improve quality of life,increase community identity,.and maximize aesthetic,economic, and ecological benefits. C. Tigard's urban forest is a thriving and interconnected ecosystem valued and protected by City residents. To develop the draft vision statements,staff considered the vision exercise at the UFMP meeting#1,the topline results for the urban forestry survey,vision statements from other city's master plans, and the Comprehensive Plan Urban Forest section. Option.A is similar to the description of Tigard's urban forest in the Comprehensive Plan document,and Options B and C are similar to the City of San Jose's urban forestry vision statement.All options contain the ideas that were presented in the discussion from meeting#1,the urban forestry survey results,and the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. In an effort to keep the vision statement clear and concise,neither vision statement contains all of the elements discussed by the committee or touched on in the Comprehensive Plan or survey results.The Committee can decide to add any additional or remove any unnecessary themes-or elements in the vision.statement. . At the first Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) CAC meeting the committee;broken into two small groups, came up with the following list of elements for staff to consider when drafting the vision statement: ■ Should be concise - ■ Room in development ■ Lots of trees Aesthetic (No 99W) ■ Large,healthy, diverse Keep parks nice (Woodard) ■ City of San Jose San Jose's residents will live within and value a thriving,sustainable urban forest that will be effectively managed to improve the quality of life and sense of community and maximize environmental,economic,and aesthetic benefits. ■ City of Portland- PORTLAND'S URBAN FOREST IN 2020 The view from the eastern foothills of Mt. Hood to the ridgelines of the West Hills is a panorama of a healthy and diverse forest with groves of tall native evergreens that identify Portland as a Pacific Northwest city.The health of this urban forest,a mosaic of the planted landscape and the remnant native forest,is a reflection of the city's health,well-being and livability.These trees and other plants are a vital part of Portland's character,giving it a special sense of place. The urban forest canopy is cohesive,not fragmented,because development includes trees as part of the total vision for sustainable development.The air and water are cleaner because the trees and other plants remove pollution from the air and reduce runoff. Fish and wildlife have healthy habitats. Open spaces and urban stream corridors define a sense o£ space in our communities while providing a quiet respite from hectic urban life.Tree-lined streets offer shade and protect us from inclement weather. Shoppers frequent shaded business districts where trees help save energy,reduce noise and soften the hard edges of structures and paved areas. Coordinated management of the urban forest occurs because city agencies, businesses,civic organizations and residents have formed partnerships to make a place for trees in the city.Portlanders recognize trees as a vital,functioning part of the city's infrastructure and ecosystem and provide adequate,stable funding to maintain and enhance the urban forest. We have achieved a healthy, sustained urban forest, carefully managed and cared for, which contributes to the economic and environmental well-being of the city. Portland has made room for trees. In June of 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.This plan, developed by the Tigard Tree Board and Planning Commission, represents many hours of community input focused on trees.The beginning of the chapter contains a pretty clear vision of Tigard's urban forest today: "A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment.The protection,management,and enhancement of this resource is important not only for Tigard's aesthetic identity and sense of place,but for the social,ecological,and economic services it provides to the community." And the goals provide a vision for the future: 2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological,and social benefits of trees. 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. ATTACHMENT 4 �I MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist RE: Urban Forestry Master Plan Tigard Citizen Survey Results DATE: December 15,2008 At the November 5,2008 meeting,the Citizen Advisory Committee provided staff with a variety of themes they think should be included in an urban forestry survey of Tigard residents. Staff has since reviewed the list(see November 5th meeting minutes),and incorporated the themes into the urban forestry survey questions. Further refinement of the type,content,and format of the questions were developed with input from Community Development staff,Parks Department staff,the City Manager, and Steve Johnson,PhD and Associates (the survey consultant). The questions were split into three major themes which included satisfaction/tracking,programmatic, and regulatory. The satisfaction/tracking questions allow for an understanding of how satisfied residents are with Tigard's urban forest,and allow for tracking of resident satisfaction in the future. The programmatic questions allow for a better understanding of what types of urban forestry programs residents value and/or want to be funded. The regulatory questions allow for a better understanding of what type of tree regulations the public would be willing to support or oppose. The survey was completed in early December after interviewing 400 randomly selected Tigard residents using Random-Digit-Dial methodology. Every Tigard resident with a land line had an equal chance of being interviewed. The attached"topline"document shows the exact survey questions that were used, and how interviewees responded. A cross tabulated report will be available for the committee at the January 7,2009 meeting. The cross tabulated report will be written by the consultant,and provide interpretations of the survey's results. The survey will be incorporated as a section of the Urban Forestry Master Plan and allow for a more detailed understanding of how to manage the urban forest in a way that better meets the needs of the community. In order to allow residents who were not interviewed via telephone to participate,there will be a parallel urban forestry survey conducted on the City of Tigard website. This will allow for some comparison of results between the phone survey and the web survey to see if people answer differently when they have more time to contemplate the questions. There will also be a couple of additional questions on the web survey that were not feasible to include on the phone survey due to time and budget constraints. Some highlights of the survey results are as follows: • Residents are satisfied with the amount and quality of trees/forests in Tigard(^-86% satisfaction). However,approximately 740/c agreed that more street trees would be good for the City. • Residents feel strongly that trees contribute to quality of life(^-96%agree) and residential property values (-92%agree). • Residents want the City to direct more resources to maintain/protect trees and forests in Tigard (^-74%agree),although support for increasing funding for tree and forest management is less strong(-55%support). • Residents support tree preservation and replacement during development(^-88%support). In addition a majority(^-56%) support development regulations even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. Approximately 32%of residents oppose tree regulations that limit development. • Residents consistently prioritize planting,protection,and maintenance of natural forested areas over other resources such as street trees and ornamental landscape trees. • Approximately 55%of residents would like to see new protection measures focused on larger groves of native trees as opposed to individual trees of significant size. • Residents are supportive of tree regulations for developed private property that would protect large,healthy trees (-75%support). • Finally,a majority of residents support the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees (^-59%support). ATTACHMENT: ATTACHMENT A: TOPLINE RESULTS OF URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD 2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY STEVE JOHNSON&ASSOCIATES * P.O.BOX 3708 * EUGENE.OREGON 97403 TOPLINE FREQUENCIES **Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories, and the number and percent of responses In each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97),Don't Know(8 or 98)and No Answer(9 or 99).In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," "I can't think of anything"and "no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim. They have been correctedfor spelling but not grammar. HELLOI Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and.urban forestry. The survey takes about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now. [INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL] PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK *INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)? SATISI I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First,what about the trees on your street? PROBE: Are you very satisfied,satisfied,dissatisfied,or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees on your street? 1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75% 2 SATISFIED 246 61.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 32 8% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25% 400 100% SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in your neighborhood? City orrigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page I I VERY SATISFIED 104 26% 2 SATISFIED 242 60.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5% 400 100% SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied,or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the city as a whole? 1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25% 2 SATISFIED 251 62.75% 3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75% 400 100% HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve its appearance and environmental quality? 1 YES 101 25.25% 2 NO 294 73.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% IMPORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees. For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree,disagree, or strongly disagree. First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25% 2 AGREE 138 34.5% 3 DISAGREE 10 2.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5% 400 100% IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? I STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 2 2 AGREE 148 37% 3 DISAGREE 28 7% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5% 400 100% IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50% 2 AGREE 170 42.5% 3 DISAGREE 19 4.75% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2% 400 100% IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree,disagree,or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25% 2 AGREE 205 51.25% 3 DISAGREE 45 11.25% - 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5% 400 100% IMPORT5 More street trees would be good for the City. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25% 2 AGREE 202 50.5% 3 DISAGREE 62 15.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5% 400 100% IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5% City of Tigard urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 3 2 AGREE 203 50.75% 3 DISAGREE 50 12.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75% 400 100% IMPORT7 The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on sites that are being developed. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40% 2 AGREE 193 48.25% 3 DISAGREE 30 7.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2% 400 100% FORESTI All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10 years? 1 INCREASED 73 18.25% 2 DECREASED 166 41.5% 3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 44 11% 400 100% FOREST2 In the future,do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to increase, decrease, or stay the same? 1INCREASED 113 28.25% 2 DECREASED 126 31.5% 3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75% 400 100% FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10,where one is poor and 10 is excellent, how would you rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard? IONE 3 0.75% 2 TWO 0 0% 3 THREE 14 3.5% 4 FOUR 11 2.75% City of Tigard Urban.Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 4 5 FIVE 61 15.25% 6 SIX 48 12% 7 SEVEN 96 24% 8 EIGHT(GO TO TAX 1) 119 29.75% 9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75% 10 TEN(GO TO TAXI) 24 6% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE Not out them all.They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require developers to keep some of the existing trees. Better maintenance. More variety. They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized trees. Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that. Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should. More maintenance, I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there. Certain areas. Save certain trees. _ Taken care of the trees. I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees. Trimmed when it comes to wires,and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done building. In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars. It would help with gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot. Public awareness. Developers not remove existing trees as much. One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid. Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities. Don't do anything.They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers'money on trees that can take care of themselves. High quality maintenance. Let the trees get older. You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work. Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street. More fir trees or pine green trees. Plant more, I guess. I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees. Plant more trees;take care of them. They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks. City o1'Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—200S Topline Frequencies Page 5 Maintenance More maintenance from landowners and the city. Better protection of the exciting trees in areas. Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them. Quit cutting them down I think. They could be taken care of. Trimming. Quit cutting them down. They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees. Plant more trees. Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees. They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone. Plant more. I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots. Ones left are well maintained, pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers. To trim them. Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road. Not letting people cut them down. Grow more. There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be everywhere,especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas: Trees should be used to shield them from their neighbors. Streets be lined with trees. Leave them alone. Basic maintenance. I think if there is some sort of a plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals. In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on. Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area. Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development. Maintenance around power lines. More trees.Nothing else. Trees aren't taken care of well,trees in vacant lots should become less neglected. Fertilize. Find a way to keep away all the leaves. Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better. More volunteers to maintain them. Plant more treesi Plant more quality trees. I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have more trees we will have a better community. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 6 Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown. They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees.Don't put them there for no reason. Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain. Probably the amount. There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road. Plant more trees. More placed in better locations,not be so messy. Add more trees, keep the exciting trees. Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly. Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way. Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their trees probably. If we are going to have trees,they need to be maintained. Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing. Don't know, maintain them. Get the city counsel in the city forest,they should be running the city not the trees. Maintain damage is done. Leave them standing,pruning assisting their health. Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones after they have built homes or buildings. Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos. I wish people would take care of trees better. They could have more trees where there are no trees. More street trees. Don't think anything should be done. Trim them. Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious. Plant more trees,when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be a law to plant trees. Provide good maintenance. Downtown area needs more trees. Old trees be cut down, plant new ones. Preserve during development. Better overall maintenance. Better maintained. Pick up more leaves. I don't have a problem with it, so nothing. Need more trees in old town. Cut them all down, too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need to at least be trimmed. Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot. A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees. More of them along the main streets. They could be preserved. Planting the right trees.And more of them. Trimming and landscaping around trees. Like the downtown,they made it look all cutesie. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 7 Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit,they cut down beautiful trees for that. Improve the city council decisions. Pruning. A little bit of pruning. There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of death that needs to be maintained a little bit better.More trees on busier streets. Plant more of them,take care of them, and cut their branches and everything. First of all plant more trees if there is the space. Largely,plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones. Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that have trees and preserve them. Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain,they should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth. I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks. Maybe more trimming on trees. Plant more. Expert looking at the issue. Old ones let go.Cleaned up. By preserving existing trees. Better maintenance. Leave them alone. Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services. Downtown could plant trees. Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I live there are many trees in the community. More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and appearance. Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth. Plant more, rip up cement and plant trees. In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them.And more yard debris pick-up, so that people are not afraid to have trees.Anything that would make having a tree easier would be good. I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker. If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better. They put up some new dinky trees.And they just don't look as good.It's too late. Maybe better maintained and kept trees. Maintain existing trees. Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced. Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads. Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down, requires two of three tree in their place. Adding variety. More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 8 I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas. Add some along 99. Better trimming and maintenance. Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking about some trees are planted too close to the street,and that causes problems with leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots. Maintenance Maintenance and replanting with trees that die. Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have.And not cut them down unnecessarily. Pruning. In the greenway,we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees. Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the parks. I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that. I don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek. Stop chopping down trees. More maintenance and planting more trees. Plant more decorative trees.Some of the ones that flower in the spring.More evergreens. The big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall. More red maples. Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying. They're in pretty good shape. Maintain the one we have,and plant more. Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff. Replace trees as they are taken out. Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged looking. Better up keep. Get rid of the old ones that are dying. Just clean up. Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees. I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen. So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves. Need to be more proactive. I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are important. Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments. Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem,they make a mess. Nothing I think they are fine. Take down the trees that drop leaves. I'm not sure we need more trees. City of Tigard Urban forestry Survey--2008 Topline Frequencies Page 9 I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees,build where they do not have to remove trees. Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees. More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas. Plant more trees. Better maintaining by replanting. More planting. Plant more. I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree. Stop building houses. Cutting them back and some pruning them. More planting. Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to. I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees. More development of downtown,Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping. Better management by the city and government. When developing,keep more trees that are already existing.Or replanting trees that have been taken down to build a new house. Regular maintenance. I think there should be more, plant more. I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that. They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest. I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved, too many businesses. I think they are okay. I don't have an opinion on it. Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to do it. More trees. Better upkeep. Not cut them down. I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location where they fit size wise. Leave the consumer alone.They have their own trees, so let them do what they want. Some of them need to be shaped better.The ones on the road. I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become available. They are properly cared for and planted more of them. Better maintenance. Better care and clean up. Variety and maintenance. I would presume plant more. We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park, we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are diseased and prune them, or remove them. Quit cutting them down for new developments. Planting more trees. ._...._.._•__._____._.._.___•.___.. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008��' __._..__�___�_.____-_____. Topline Frequencies Page 10 Just constant vigilance. More and just more. Plant trees where there are no trees.Where I live there are lots of trees. Leave them alone. Better maintenance. Plant more. TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose a program that transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25% 2 SUPPORT 128 32% 3 OPPOSE 136 34% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25% 400 100% TAX2 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program? I STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25% 2 SUPPORT 151 37.75% 3 OPPOSE 132 33% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25% 400 100% TAX3 Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces? PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard,not just on streets. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8% 2 SUPPORT 190 47.5% 3 OPPOSE 104 26% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25% 400 100% TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City to do this? PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer? City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—21008 Topline Frequencies Page I I I PLANT 208 52% 2 PAY 106 26.5% 3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25% 400 100% CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant more trees? (PROBE FROM LIST) 1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75% 2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5% 3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75% 4 IN PARKS 79 19.75% 5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 32 8% 400 100% CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about trees. 1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32% 2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED,REPLACE THEM 129 32.25% 3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15% 4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES 1F WISH 71 17.75% 5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2,,75% 400 100% HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5% 2 SUPPORT 185 46.25% 3 OPPOSE 101 25.25% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75% 400 100% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 12 REGI Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits? I STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75% 2 SUPPORT 168 42% 3 OPPOSE 99 24.75% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5% 400 100% REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting afterwards? 1 YES 264 6611/6 2 NO 97 24.25% 3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25% 400 100% REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? I YES 80 20% 2 NO 293 73.25% 3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5% 400 100% REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures,would you like to see them focused on natural areas,ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something else. 1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25% 2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75% 3 BOTH 192 48% 4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75% 400 100% REG5 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? PROBE: This would apply to all current private property. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 13 2 SUPPORT 224 56% 3 OPPOSE 60 15% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 18 4.5% 400 100% REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures,where would you prefer to see them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. 1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25% 2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25% 3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75% 4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25% 400 100% AGE In what year were you born? Coded Categories: AGE 18-24 3 0.75% AGE 25-34 23 5.75% AGE 35-44 59 14.75% AGE 45-54 106 26.5% AGE 55-64 91 22.75% AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0% 400 100% GENDER Are you male or female? 1 MALE 160 40% 2 FEMALE 240 60% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0% 400 100% RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent? 1 OWN 344 86% 2 RENT 49 12.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75% 400 100% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 14 STREET What neighborhood do you live in? PROBE: What is your closest elementary school? PROBE: What is your closest cross street? OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE END That's the end of the surveyl On behalf of the City of Tigard,we would like to thank you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye. NOQAL I'm sorry,we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice(day/evening). City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003 'topline Frequencies Page 15 Al"1'At;HM�N'1' S fl MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist RE: Tigard Tree Canopy Analysis DATE: December 12,2008 Approximately six months ago,Metro completed the classification of 1996 and 2007 Tigard air photos using software that can detect the presence of tree canopy cover. This has allowed City staff to do a comparative analysis of tree cover change in the community spanning the past ten years. It will also allow Tigard to continually track canopy change in the future as Metro runs the software on Tigard air photos every two years. Tigard staff completed a preliminary analysis of canopy change using Metro's results from the 1996 and 2007 air photos and presented the data to the Tree Board last June. In order to bring members of the Citizen Advisory Committee up to speed,staff will present the data again at the January 7, 2009 meeting. Staff will also display maps at the meeting that will visually demonstrate the results. It is recommended that the Citizen Advisory Committee members review the attached results prior to the January 7"'meeting. Any questions regarding the canopy analysis will be addressed directly by staff at the meeting. Also,if there are additional canopy data analyses that you think will be useful for the Urban Forestry Master Plan,please let staff know. In addition to the analysis alreadycompleted,additional canopy data can be gathered for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Below is a list of possible canopy studies identified by staff: 1. Compare canopy using photos from the 1970s and 1980s so that there is a longer timeframe available for tracking canopy change and trends. 2. Determine parking lot canopy coverage percentages for Tigard parking lots to help in the analysis of what parking lot designs work,and why. 3. Determine what potentially plantable areas exist in Tigard and where they are so that realistic canopy goals can be set. Citizen Advisory Committee members are encouraged to provide input on additional canopy studies that they think will be useful for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. ATTACHMENT: ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF CANOPY ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1 j-, pq Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 200 located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits City Limits, June 2008 7556 acres W ' 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of June 2008 June 2008 Acres City Limits Acres City Limits Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52% i 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of 1996 1996 2007 2007 Canopy Canopy Canopy Canopy Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres j Cover Clusters Cover Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.30 31.54% 7231 93.86% 0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14% 1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70% 2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67% 5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62% Tota! 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres 1996 2007 Acres Percent Acres Percent Canop Cover of Urban Renewal Zone 19.67 10.30% 18.41 9.64% 1 Within June 2008 City Limits Jan 1,2008 Buildable Lands Inventory BLI 528.75 acres BLI 1996 1423.32 awes Canopy Cover Year BLI Acnes Acres Percent 1996 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 2007 528.75 226.26 42.79% 9996 BLI Canopy Cover Change 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover within 1996 BLI within 1996 BLI Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 1996 BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79% City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres May 13,2 08 Ta)dots 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Ownership Ta)dot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13% Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12% Other Public Entity 79 1 431.65 105.10 24.35% Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63% Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52% Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canop Coverage 1852.69 acres Acres in 2007 Cano y Coverage Percent of 2007 C'dyn►ide Habitat Class T and Acres Percent Canopy Cover Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46% Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43% Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68% Total 1413.23 696.08 49.25% 37.57% Sensitive Lands j 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres 1996 Canopy Coverage 1952.75 acres I t t Acres in 2007 Can Coverage 1996 Can y Coverage Percent Change 1996 Type Tigard Acres Percent Citywide Percent Acres Percent Citywide Percent to 2007 Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30% CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.40% 17.83% -0.43% FEMA 100- Floodplain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.150/0 213.17 35.97% 10.92% -4.24% Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 w 66.64% 6.67% -0.33% Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 i 46.96% 42.890/c -5.6fi% i f I l 1 i f City Limits,June 2008 7556 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Can o y Cover Percent Change 1996 Zonina 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent to 2007 Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95% Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26% Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21% Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76 Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -1.32% City Limits,June 2008 7556 I 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Change 1996 Zoning 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent to 2007 Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95% Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26% Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21% Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534:72 29.5( -0.76% Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -1.32% ATTACHMENT 6 Todd Prager From: Todd Prager Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:21 AM To: 'John Frewing' Cc: jgillis c@jblk.com; Rob Callan;Tony Tycer;John Floyd; Darren Wyss; Marlssa Daniels; Ron Bunch Subject: RE: Urban Forestry Master Plan Thank you for your comments John. I will include them In the citizen comments section of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. I think you bring up many good points, but as we are In a very early stage I am not prepared to make decisions on the points you have raised. Thanks, Todd From: john Frewing [mallto:jfrew(ng@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:58 AM To:Todd Prager Cc:jglllls@jblk.com; Rob Callan;Tony Tycer Subject: Urban Forestry Master Plan Todd, You can see from my earlier email this morning that I was disappointed in any progress made last night at the Tree Board meeting. I have several concerns about the UFMP which I want to get on the table as early as possible, in an attempt to make it as good as possible. 1. You said that the UFMP is not regulatory, yet later put It in the same class as the TSP, the Public Facilities Plan, etc. The TSP,which seems most parallel, has a strong regulatory position. I believe that it Is Incorporated in the city comp plan,the same way that the zoning map is part of the comp plan. TDC regulations refer repeatedly to the TSP, and I would expect that TDC regulations regarding tree protection would refer to the UFMP. So to proceed with the UFMP while the comp plan is on appeal seems logically no better than proceeding with development of the actual regulations for trees. Don't get me wrong, I support the concept of the UFMP, but correcting longstanding weaknesses of the regulations should come first. 2 While you presented a'communications plan' last night, your words made it essentially a work plan for development of the UFMP. As a work plan, i thought it was incomplete In several regards. First, there was no Indication of what kind of staff work or how much staff work would go into the project. As you know, the old comp plan had a good deal of Tigard- specific facts and policies which are not in the new comp plan words--these need to be updated, expanded and added to the UFMP. Second, there is no time given for staff to respond to comments received in review at the different stages. I think that after comments for a given stage are completed, staff should prepare a response to be approved or not approved or modified by the relevant body considering the UFMP(CAC and Tree Board, Planning Commission or City Council). 3. The only content item in the work plan seemed to be'analyze tree canopy results'. Much other work should be detailed,even in the'current conditions' material. In the downtown area, I provided the city with a tree-by-tree Inventory some time ago--it should be validated and preservation priorities assigned to trees or groves. All parking lots with more than, say, 16 spaces, should be reviewed for canopy cover now and canopy cover required or desired--notices should be sent to property owners. 4. While canopy cover is mentioned, and is one important element, there are many others not mentioned. For example, I think that an urban forestry master plan should provide for the development of fruit trees as well as shade trees. If nothing else, It is part of a sustainable landscape. Tigard has a long history of growing fruit trees,and they should not be allowed to pass entirely away. 1 5 In building an 'Interested Parties List', it was suggested that,METRO staff be included. I would suggest developing an agency'technical advisory committee'with public interest agencies In addition to the proposed 'citizen advisory committee'. I would hope that you would include groups such as the Portland Audubon Society, Friends of Trees, CWS, Tualatin Basin Watershed Council, etc. and also plan to regularly consult with Lake Oswego and City of Portland staff, who have preceded Tigard in urban forestry planning. The HBA should certainly be on the'Interested parties list who get invitations to participate, but they should be treated equally as others, not with a'reserved'position or special oversight role. 6. It was suggested that a'history'of trees in Tigard would be useful in the UFMP. I would be glad to contribute to that effort if you so desire. Please let me know. 7. A survey is Identified in the work plan. You said it would be 'scientific', but that seems to be placing sclence in a funny position. What questions are asked and how they are phrased makes a big difference in what conclusions can be drawn from any survey. When will the Tres Board or other public have an opportunity to look at the survey material before being fielded? I look forward to working with you and others on the UFMP; I would like to be considered as a member of the CAC. I have previously shown Interest In Tigard tree matters, have some familiarity with the regulations of Tigard and the policies of other communities, understand most of the technical material which has appeared In similar publications for other cities, am a resident of Tigard,etc. Please share this email with other appropriate persons and keep it in the UFMP file under 'citizen input'. Sincerely, John Frewing 2 Todd Prager From: John Frewing Ufrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 200812:54 PM To: Todd Prager Cc: John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Tom Coffee; Craig Prosser; Craig Dirksen;jgillis(@jblk.com; Rob Callan;Tony Tycer; Sue Bellke; Lisa Hamilton-Treick; Brian Wegener; Carl Hosticka;Alice Ellis Gaut; Pat Leonard; lwelssman@commnewspapers.com Subject: Canopy Cover along Hwy 99 Todd, You indicated that in the near future,you will be providing a paper to the Tree Board on'present conditions'as part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan for Tigard. Please include this data as well as the data I provided last year(inventory of trees > 12 inches in downtown Tigard)in that paper. Thanks. John Frewing TIGARD CANOPY COVER: PACIFIC HIGHWAY PARKING LOTS A survey of parking lots in Tigard, along Pacific Highway was taken on October 2,2008,before leaves dropped from deciduous trees,to determine the percentage of lot area covered by tree canopy. The survey was organized by`parking lots' with 15 or more spaces; such lots may serve more than one business establishment. Those lots in the survey either front directly on Pacific Highway or have major signage directing auto traffic to the lot behind some fronting structure. The survey extended from SW 72,d on the north to SW Canterbury St on the south. Parking lot identifier No. of Percentage Parking spaces Canopy cover Fred Meyer 280 2 Matzalan Mex Rest 15 0 Taco BeII 15 5 Key Bank 30 30 West Coast Bank 20 0 Baja Fresh 15 0 Pacific X Roads 125 5 Cash/Carry 25 5 City Bible Church 70 0 Young's Funeral 40 5 SA Botique 25 0 Interior Motives 20 0 Tigard Plaza 180 5 Bank of America 30 10 Meineke 20 0 Morlan Plumbing 50 0 St Anthony's 50 10 New York Grill 25 0 7(under construction) 25 est 0 Union 76 20 0 Texaco 15 0 Smoke Shop 15 0 Scott Realty 20 15 Midas 20 0 i School District Parking 40 0 Schuck's/Ole' Rest 25 0 7-11 25 0 Papa Murphy Pizza 15 0 Taco Bell 20 0 Steel Horse Rest 25 10 Public Storage 15 0 Fast Oil Change 15 0 Animal Hosp Offices 25 0 Chiropracter Offices 15 5 Meineke/Subway 50 10 Gaarde Pacific Shops 30 10 Walgren's 60 10 Elmer's 80 5 Furniture Outlet 20 0 Canterbury Square 130 0 Animal Hosp 15 0 Gardener's Choice 40 10 Chiropracter 15 0 Union 76 15 15 Goodwill 80 5 Tigard Grange 20 20 Church 30 10 Lodge 20 10 Apartments 40 20 Bimart plus Shopping Center 320 5 Medical Plaza 50 50 Jack in Box 25 0 Rodney's 15 0 Park Plaza Offices 30 0 Hudson Plaza 40 0 Jiffy Lube 20 0 Davidson's 25 5 Village Square 60 0 Tigard Dental Offices 25 0 Kauffman/Rite Aid/Woodcrafters 120 20 Bar/Tigard Auto 20 0 Russ Chevrolet 360 0 Enterprise Car Rental 20 0 Park 217 Office Park 420 20 Shell 15 10 Car Toys 25 0 Standard Appliance 25 0 Tigard Bowl 25 0 Uptech/Trophy/George's/Starbucks 30 10 Subway 20 20 Westside Dance 30 10 TriMet Park/Ride 60 0 Tigard Cinema 350 5 Natural Furniture 15 0 2 Tigard Tire/Auto 20 0 McDonalds 60 5 76 Total Parking Lots> 15 spaces 4270 5.16 Average I don't know what is a better statement of our culture in Tigard. Note that the banks,medical offices and business parks are the best performing commercial lots,while lots at the non-profit enterprises handily beat the commercial lots in canopy cover. The existance of a planting strip which separates pedestrian ways from automobile traffic was noted on I percent of the street frontage. I did not make a similar survey of other cities in the area. These data suggest to me the immediate need for a provision in the TDC to require any new development along Hwy 99 (and perhaps elsewhere)to provide ADEQUATE root system space and tree plantings to achieve a 30 percent canopy cover for all parking lots some 20 years in the future. In many instances,the trees that HAVE been planted are narrow and tall instead of providing spreading branches above the level of autos and trucks. John Frewing 3 Todd Prager From: Greg Schlfsky[gregl@q,com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:10 AM To: Todd Prager Subject: OF Master Plan,trees Todd, Listed on the Urban Forest Master Plan for Tigard are examples of cities that are working on management of trees. Missing is Sacramento, CA,which has probably the best plans for preserving,protecting and relevance surrounding the issue of tree retention. You may wish to review it. Greg Schifsky Portland 1 Todd Prager From: John Frewing gfrewing d@teleport.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12,2008 4:55 PM To, Todd Prager Subject: UFMP Survey Todd, You asked for input on a questionaire by today. I would agree with the comment at first meeting that we should use at least a couple of prior questions to track changes. I think a useful question would be"Can youtwould you please name an area or city that has a nice urban forest, both on public property and private properties?" Please don't ask a question such as the Vancouver,WA number 3,which asks the respondent to choose ONE of three statements which are ALL good answers. Instead, make the choices Indicate different approaches. Maybe one way to do this is to admit that all 3 are good, but you are asking for'priorities'for the next 5 years. Ask a question"How much do trees, both street trees and trees on private property, add to the value of my home? 11%, 10%or 25%." A finance question might be"How much public funding should go to tree regulation, public areas tree planting and care, purchase of greenbelt areas, education,volunteer support, etc all together? 1%of city budget, 3%of city budget,6%of city budget" Thanks for opportunity to comment. John Frewing 1 Todd Prager From: John Frewing Ofrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:34 PM To: Todd Prager; Gillis, Janet; Sue Beilke; Tony Tycer; Rob Callan Subject: Fw: Tuesday November 18 Metro Council Work Session: Update on Title 13/Nature in Neighborhoods Attachments: Performance_and_lmplementation objectives and_indicators.pdf Todd, I got this email from Portland Audubon last night and thought it had some good ideas in the performance objectives for Tigard. It is obviously broader than just trees, but it seems to me that it would make sense for Tigard to have some performance measures which parallel METRO, since they would then be in a position to help gather Tigard data. John Frewing Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:28 PM Subject: Tuesday November 18 Metro Council Work Session: Update on Title 13/Nature in Neighborhoods > FYI. Starting at 2:30pm next Tuesday November 18 in the Metro Council > Chambers, Metro staff will be reporting to the Metro Council on Title 13 > implementation. There will be two parts to the presentation: > 1. Metro Staff Tim Obrien Brian Harper will report on the status of local > government's compliance with Title 13. I have been working with many of > you at the local level on Title 13 implementation. . . several jurisdictions > outside Washington County are preparing to meet the January 2009 deadline > to substantially comply with Title 13. > 2. Lori Hennings will be reporting on the performance indicators and > targets adopted as part of the Title 13 Functional Plan (see attached) to > monitor results over time. She'll provide trends for the first two years > (2005-2007) documenting the loss of floodplains and habitats of concern > (HOCs). > Unfortunately problems with data availability have required staff to reset > the base year to 2007 for other indicators relating to riparian corridors > width/condition and extent of forested upland habitat. Thus any loss in > riparian and upland forest habitat (other than that in floodplains and > HOCs) during the first two years of implementaiton will be lost to the > region's performance monitoring. However Lori will also be reporting on > some new indicators for monitoring future trends, including a new, highly > accurate measure of urban forest canopy. > Hope you can make this meeting. > "Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that simple." s Targeted Performance Condition Based Objectives Targets on 2004 Metro Example Indicators Inventory Performance 2a. Preserve 75% 2a. 2004 Baseline Objective 2: of vacant Class A Condition: • Number of acres of Class A habitat and B upland • 15,500 acres of Preserve large wildlife habitat in vacant Class A • Number of acres of Class B habitat areas of contisuaus each subwatershed and B upland habitat and avoid over the next 10 wildlife habitat . Number of wildlife habitat patches fragmentation. years(2015), that contain 30 acres or more of upland wildlife habitat 2b. Of the upland 2b. 2004 Baseline habitat preserved, Condition: retain 80%-of the • 23,400 acres of number ofpatches upland habitat in 30 acres or larger 133 patches that in each contain 30 acres subwatershed over or more of upland the next 10 years wildlife habitat (2015). Em Performance 3a. Preserve 90% 3a. 2004 Baseline • Number and miles of all wildlife Objective 3: of forested wildlife Condition: corridors habitat acres • 28,300 acres • Corridor quality:%of habitat acres Preserve and located within 300 within 1,453 within corridors with a vegetative improve feet of surface patches of width of 200 ft connectivity for s(reams n each forested wildlife . Acres of wildlife patches with a wildlife between subwatershed over habitat located connectivity score of 3 or greater riparian corridors the next 10 years within 300 feet of . Acres and number of forested and upland wildlife (2015). surface streams wildlife habitat patches(forest habitat. canopy or wetland with a total combined size greater than 2 acres) within 300 feet of surface streams compared to acres of the patches located outside of 300 feet of surface streams. I Targeted Performance Condition Based Objectives Targets on 2004 Metro Example Indicators Inventor Performance 3b. Preserve 80°6 3b. 2004 Baseline • Acres and number of non-forested Objective 3 of non-forested Condition: wildlife patches(shrub or low (continued): wildlife habitat 14,400 acres within structuretopen soils with a total acres located 1,633 patches of combined size greater than 2 acres) within 300 feet of non-forested located within 300 feet of a surface surface streams in wildlife habitat streams. each subwatershed located within 300 over the next 10 feet of surface years(2015). streams r s ' Performance 4a. Preserve 9517b 4a. 2004 Baseline + • Number of acres of wetland Objective 4: o{habitdts of Condition: • Number of acres of white oak concern acres in • 33%of all habitat woodland Preserve and each subwatershed designated as • Number of acres of bottomland improve special over the next 10 HOCs hardwood forest habitats of years(2015). • 26,700 total acres • Number of acres of vegetated concern. of HOCs riverine islands • Number of acres of key connector habitat(list out HOC connectors) Implementation Objectives Example Indicators Implementation • Number of jurisdictions that allow or require LID Objective A: a Number of jurisdictions providing LID incentives • Percentage of region in forest canopy Increase the use of habitat-friendly • Percentage of impervious area development throughout the region • B-IBI(benthic index of biological integrity)scores Implementation • Number of restoration projects in one year Objective B: • Number of mitigation projects in one year • Acres and distribution by resource class of habitat Increase restoration and mitigation actions inventory to compensate of adverse effects of new • Number of culverts that need improvement and existing development on ecological . Number of watersheds in region with adopted action plans function rye ' . .. 4. Y�OO� Department of Forestry 00 1 State Forester's Office 2600 State Street Theodore R.Kulongoski,Govemor e s 9 Salem,OR 97310 (503)945-7200 OCT v2QQ$ FAX(503)945-7212 October 23, 2008 'TTY(503)945-7213/(800)437-4490 http://www.odf.state.or.us Todd Prager City of Tigard -STEWARDSHIP IN FORESTRY' 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Todd, Congratulations! The ODF Urban and Community Forestry Program has reviewed your proposal for funding through the UCF Small Projects Fund and have decided to support your request in an amount not to exceed$ 2,500.00. Enclosed please find a one-page grant agreement covering this project. Please sign this document, keep a copy for your files, and return the original to me. Please read the terms and conditions of this agreement carefully. If you have any questions about these terms and conditions, let me know immediately. Again, congratulations and thank you for your interest in sustainable urban forests and raising the awareness of trees and community forestry. If you have any questions or concerns about the grant or accomplishing your project, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (503) 945-7391. Sincerely, 74 Paul D. Ries Urban and Community Forestry Program Manager PR/dlp OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY GRANT AGREEMENT Urban and Community Forestry Small Projects Fund 0 Grant Recipient: City of Tigard Agreement Number SPF08-06 The Oregon Department of Forestry (hereafter referred to as "grantor' and/or "Department") agrees to provide the City of Tigard (hereafter referred to as "recipient") a sum not to exceed $ 2,500.00 for the expressed purpose of conducting a community forestry project using funds provided through USDA Forest Service. A copy of the proposed project submitted by recipient is hereby considered to be a part of this agreement. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Projects may begin upon execution of this agreement by the grantor and must be completed within six (6) months of this date unless otherwise authorized by grantor. Any significant changes to the grant project must be submitted in writing to and approved by the Department. A completed final report form will be provided with the final reimbursement request. 2. The recipient's financial contribution, as detailed in the proposal, will be provided. Grant amount will be equally matched with tax revenues, donations, or in kind contributions as specified in proposal. No portion of the recipient's matching funds will be derived from federal monies unless authorized by grantor. 3. The UCF-SPF is a reimbursable grant program. Recipients may request disbursement of grant only upon completion of the project and documentation of grant and match expenditures. The Department shall disperse funds within 30 days of receiving a properly completed invoice voucher from recipient. 4. Any product, publication, and or publicity related to this project must list the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service as sponsors and/or financial contributors to the project. 5. Acceptance of grant implies recognition of the obligation to comply with all applicable state and federal laws. Recipient will permit the Oregon Department of Forestry to audit the project in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Government Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. 6. Recipient agrees to defend or cause to be defended and to indemnify and hold harmless the state of Oregon, the Oregon Board of Forestry, the State Forester, and the Oregon Department of Forestry, its officers, agents, employees, and members, against any and all claims, suits, liens, damages, or causes of action for damages of any nature resulting from or arising out of the activities of the recipient, its contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees under this agreement. 7. The Oregon Department of Forestry reserves the right to withdraw this grant award for non- performance of grant activities, and recipient agrees to return any grant funds to the Department in the event the terms, conditions, or certifications of this agreement are not met to the satisfaction of the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service. Signed, For the Oregon Department of Forestry., For the: City of Tigard � � /6/2,a oY 1'01— —Og Paul D. Ries Date ame: Date Urban &Community Forestry Program Manager Title: A.4-& STEVE JOHNSON&ASSOCIATES • P.O. BOX 3708 • EUGENE,OREGON 97403 Summary of Results Tigard Urban Forestry Survey By Stephen Johnson, PhD& Christine McCaslin, MCRP December 2008 Introduction The City of Tigard has an active program to regulate, encourage and manage trees inside the city. As part of these efforts Tigard decided to conduct a survey to assess the opinions of residents on the quality of Tigard's trees, the state of the urban forest inside the city,and attitudes toward changes in regulations and funding related to the future management of the urban forest. Working closely with Tigard's City Arborist,Todd Prager, Steve Johnson&Associates planned and implemented a telephone survey of 400 Tigard residents in the Fall of 2008. Survey Results This report summarizes the major survey results. Readers can look at the Topline Frequencies section of the report for the exact question wording and the summarized responses to each question. Readers may refer to the 26 tables in the Banners section of this report for more detail and to find cross-tabulations of each question with a wide range of demographic information. Readers should also look at the open-ended responses inside the Topline section, where respondents give narrative answers to one of the questions. Finally, when looking at the figures in this report readers should note that the horizontal scale is not always the same. The goal of each figure is to give the reader an accurate visual representation of the positions taken by respondents and the scale is adjusted with that goal in mind. The exact numbers used to produce each figure are available both in the Topline and in the Banner Tables. For this survey of 400 Tigard residents the margin of error is±4.8%at a confidence level of 95%. This means for any result there is a 95%chance the true answer, if all residents of Tigard had been interviewed, would be within a range no greater than 4.8%above or below the number estimated from the survey and used in this report. Sto c.lohnson & Associates Paque Cit\ ol'Tienrd urban Forest•; Suno 2008 Summary ol'Rcsults Satisfaction with City Trees In general, residents of Tigard are satisfied with the quality and quantity of trees in the city. The survey asked respondents to judge their satisfaction with trees on their own street, in their neighborhood,and in the city as a whole. The following figure shows the percentage of respondents who are either"very satisfied,"or"satisfied"with the trees in each of these three locations. Figure One: Satisfaction with Quantity and Quality of Trees 100% 90% 80%-- 70%- 60%-- 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% _ 0%70%60%5040%30%2010% 0% Trees on Your Street Trees In Your Neighborhood Trees in the City ■Very Satisfied ■Satisfied As displayed in Figure 1,the levels of satisfaction with the trees in Tigard is high, especially on people's own street and in their own neighborhood,where in both cases 87%of respondents report being either"satisfied,"or"very satisfied." For the city as a whole the level of satisfaction is slightly less,but still a very high 78%. As a follow-up to the questions on satisfaction with trees,respondents were also asked if their neighborhood needed more trees or landscaping. A large majority, 74%,thought that more trees or landscaping was not needed, further reinforcing the idea that people are well satisfied with the current state of trees in the city. At a later point in the survey respondents were asked if they thought the overall quality of the urban forest had"increased,""decreased,"or"stayed the same"over the last 10 years. Forty-eight percent thought the quality of the urban forest had either"increased," or"stayed the same,"while 42%thought it had"decreased." Older respondents,over age 65,were much more likely to think the quality of the urban forest had"increased." Such respondents are more likely to have been in the city during the last 10 years than are younger respondents. There was also a significant difference between men and women on this question,with women twice as likely as men to think the quality of the urban forest had"increased." See Banner Table 11 for more detail. Steve Johnson &Associates Page 2 City offigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary of Results Respondents were also asked if they expected the quality of the urban forest to "increase,""decrease,"or"stay the same" in the future. Respondents were very optimistic about the future of the Tigard urban forest, with 63%thinking the quality would either"increase" or"stay the same." Again, respondents over age 65 were the most optimistic about the future of the urban forest, while there was no difference between men and women. See Banner Table 12 for more detail. As a final question about the quality of the urban forest, respondents were asked to rate the extent and appearance of the trees in Tigard on a scale from 1-10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent. Forty-one percent of respondents gave the trees in Tigard a high score of 8, 9, or 10,while only 4%gave trees a"poor" score of 1, 2, or 3. For those who gave the trees anything other than one of the three highest scores, we asked a follow-up question about what could be done to improve the appearance and quality of the trees. These respondents had many suggestions, but by far the most common ideas were to add more trees, prevent trees from being removed, and to improve the maintenance of existing trees. See the narrative responses to question Forest 4 in the Topline section that follows this report for the complete set of suggestions for tree improvements. The Importance of Trees Respondents were asked to give their level of agreement with seven statements about the importance of trees, or what trees contribute to the city of Tigard. For each question respondents were asked if they"strongly agreed,""agreed,""disagreed,"or"strongly disagreed"with the statement that was read to them. Figure 2, below, shows the percentage of respondents who either"strongly agreed,"or"agreed"with each statement. Steve Johnson R Associates Page 3 Cite ol'Tit3ard Urban f=orestry Survey 2008 Summary of Results Figure Two: Level of Agreement with Statements About Trees 90% -- 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% --- 30% 20% ' 10% --- 0% - Community 0%0% - Community View of Trees Residential Commercial More Street More Preserve and Character Value Value Trees Resources Plant o Strongly Agree ■Agree Looking at Figure 2 it is clear that a substantial majority of the people of Tigard agree with every statement about the importance of trees and what they contribute to the city. The"lowest"level of support is a very high 75%for the idea that more street trees would be good for the city,while the"highest"level of support is almost 97%for the idea that trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. For three of the items:the importance of trees to community character;the importance of being able to view trees from home; and the importance of trees to residential property values,trees are so highly valued that the level of strong agreement with each statement is over 50%,and total agreement is over 90%. An analysis of the data shows that women are much more likely than men to hold strong opinions in support of trees,with the level of"strong agreement"ranging from 12%to 25%higher than that of men. However, unlike the position older respondents took on the questions about satisfaction with trees, older respondents were the least likely to "strongly agree"with the statements on the importance of trees, although a majority of older respondents did generally agree with each statement. See Banner Tables 5 to 10 for more information. Steve Johnson&Associates Page 4 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary of Results Funding Programs for Trees At this point in the survey, respondents were asked about their level of support or opposition for possible new tree programs. In addition, support for increased fees, charges,or property taxes to pay for new tree programs was also investigated. See Figure 3 below for the level of support and the level of opposition for each of these programs. Figure Three:Support Levels for City Tree Taxes s0% socio - - - - - 40% - - - 30% - 10% -- 0% - Street 0% Street Tree Maintenance Transfer Increase Charges for Street Tree Increase Charges for to City Program Comprehensive Tree Program ■Strongly Support■Support o Oppose o Strongly Oppose From Figure 3,we see that there is weak support for the idea of transferring responsibility for the maintenance of street trees from property owners to the City(48%vs.44%). However, when asked about the idea of increased taxes or fees for a City street tree program,the weak support turns to opposition with almost 50%of respondents opposed. On the question of fees for a comprehensive tree program inside Tigard parks and open spaces,respondents are much more receptive,with significantly greater support than opposition(56%vs. 39%). For the funding increase questions,women are more supportive than men,and support levels are highest among respondents from ages 35 to 64 (the ages when people are more likely to be employed). For each of the funding increase questions, approximately 90% of the supporters for one program also support the other program. The main difference is that the program for trees in the parks picks up additional supporters. See Banner Tables 14, 15 and 16 for more detail. In addition to the three questions about programs and funding,respondents were also asked whether they would prefer to volunteer to plant and maintain trees,or to pay a fee for the city to do this type of work. See Figure 4 below. Steve Johnson&Associates Page 5 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary o1 Results I f , Figure Four: Volunteer to Plant or Pay a Fee? 60% - 50% - 40% -- 30% -- 200/6 -,- 10% 0%50%40%30%20% -,-10% l 0% -Ali Plant Pay Neither As Figure 4 shows,by a two-to-one majority,people would prefer to volunteer rather than pay. This was true across a wide spectrum of the people of Tigard,with majorities of both women and men, renters and owners, and all ages except those over 65 or younger than 25. However,there was weak support for volunteering among those who strongly supported the idea of increased funding for tree programs. Supporters of increased funding for trees were more supportive of paying the city to carry out tree planting and maintenance. See Banner table 17 for more information. Planting and Preserving Trees Respondents were next asked to pick their first choice for where the City should plant new trees from a list of five possible places. Figure 5 shows, in descending order,what percentage of respondents support each of the five choices. Steve Johnson &Associates Page 6 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary of Results Figure Five: Where Should the City Plant Trees? 35% 30% - 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Near Along Streets In Parks In Commercial Areas In People's Yards Strearrn/Natural Areas The most common choice for where to plant new trees is clearly near streams and natural areas. In addition, if the support for planting new trees in parks is added to the support for ste4ms and natural areas,the total support level would slightly exceed 50%. There is nearly twice as much support for new trees along streets,than there is support for new trees within private commercial property or within people's private yards. According to the open-ended responses within the Topline section,many respondents desired street trees and specifically,Highway 99 trees. Respondents were also asked to choose among four different statements about tree preservation that most closely represented their own opinion. Figure 6 shows the level of support for each of these statements. Steve Johnson&Associates Page 7 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary of Results Figure Six: Tigard Residents Want To... 35% ---- 30% - 25% - 20%- 15% - 10%- 5% - 0% 5% --30%25%20%15%10%5%0% Replace Trees When Preserve as Many Trees Allow Individuals to Preserve Large or Unique Removed as Possible Remove Trees Trees As Figure 6 shows,two very related opinions are the most commonly held by residents of Tigard. Thirty-two percent of the public wants trees replaced if they are removed,and 32%want as many trees as possible to be preserved. On the other hand,there is very little support(18%)for allowing individuals to remove trees if they wish to. Hazardous Trees Respondents were asked if they thought the City should create a new program where they would be directly involved in disputes between neighboring property owners over potentially hazardous trees. Residents of Tigard are in favor of such a program and by a margin of 60%to 38%and want the City to become directly involved. Those residents who want the City to be more involved are also strong supporters of transferring responsibility for street trees to the City and increased funding for tree programs. See Banner Table 20 for more information. New Tree Regulations The survey finished by asking respondents a set of questions about six possible new tree regulations the city might consider. The first regulation concerned the regulation of tree removal during property development. It was made clear in the question that such a regulation might limit the size and extent of possible building or profits from development. However, even with this limit explicitly described a strong majority of residents, 57%,were in support of the idea,and only 33%were opposed. Respondents who had previously supported increasing fees were much more likely to support this idea than those who opposed increasing fees. See Banner Table 21 for additional information. The second regulation asked about requiring the preservation of existing large trees,as well as subsequent landscaping and tree planting, if the respondent were to develop their Steve Johnson&Associates Page K City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey 2008 Summary ol'Results own property. Even though such a regulation might have a direct economic impact on respondents, 66% said they would be in favor of regulation, and only 24%were opposed. The opponents of this measure were much more likely to also oppose increasing tree related fees than were the supporters. See Banner Table 22 for more information. The third regulation asked if the City should leave tree preservation decisions up to developers. Tigard residents were overwhelmingly opposed to this idea,with opposition almost four times as large as support(73%vs. 20%). Here too,the supporters of this measure were also much more likely to oppose tree taxation measures. See Banner Table 23 for more information. The forth regulation asked if people desired protection measures on trees in natural areas, on ornamental landscape trees, or on both equally. Most people(48%) wanted the protection focused on both areas equally. However, a large number of people wanted the protection focused on natural areas(37%), and few respondents wanted the protection focused on ornamental trees(3%). The fifth regulation asked for their level of support for rules that would give some protection for large healthy trees on developed private property. The total level of support for this idea was a very high 77%, although strong support was only 20%. Similarly to the second regulation above,the opponents of this measure were much more likely to also oppose increasing tree related fees than were the supporters. See Banner Table 25 for more information. - Finally, respondents were asked if they would prefer to see the City enact tree protection measures aimed at large groves of native trees, or at individual trees of significant size. By almost two-to-one(55%vs. 28%)residents would prefer to see protection aimed at large groves of native trees. Conclusions The residents of Tigard have substantial interest and concern about trees inside the City, as demonstrated by their agreement with with statements about the importance of trees and their choices regarding tree preservation. In general residents are very satisfied with the trees in Tigard, in particular those on their street or inside their neighborhood. The residents also think the Tigard urban forest is in good shape and is likely to stay that way or improve over time. Tigard residents think trees are important community attributes and that they contribute to and enhance the community in a variety of ways, including both residential and commercial property values. Tigard residents want trees preserved, new trees planted, and increased regulation aimed at the protection of groves of trees as well as individual trees. In particular residents would like to see more trees planted in natural areas and along streets. Steve Johnson &Associates Page 9 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey ?008 Summary of Results In addition, residents of Tigard are in support of regulations that would add limits to what property owners and developers can do with existing trees especially when making changes or additions to their property. Most residents want more resources to be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. However, there is limited support for funding and an urban forestry program through new fees or taxes. Although most residents felt more street trees would be good for the city, there is higher support for increasing funding for trees inside parks or open spaces compared to street trees. Steve Johnson &Associates Page 10 City of"I'igard Urban Forestry Survey '008 Summary of Results CITY OF TIGARD 2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY STEVE JOHNSON& ASSOCIATES * P.O. BOX 3708 * EUGENE,OREGON 97403 TOPLINE FREQUENCIES "Topline results include the text of each 4uestion, the response categories, and the number and percent of responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97), Don't Know(8 or 98)and No Answer(9 or 99). In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," "I can't think of anything,"and "no comment"have been removedfrom the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim. They have been corrected for spelling but not grammar. HELLOI Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now. [INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL] PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK *INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)? SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First, what about the trees on your street? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees on your street? 1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75% 2 SATISFIED 246 61.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 32 8% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25% 400 100% SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in your neighborhood? City of Ti-ard Urban Forestry Survey—2005 Topline Frequencies Page I I VERY SATISFIED 104 26% 2 SATISFIED 242 60.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5% 400 100% SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the city as a whole? 1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25% 2 SATISFIED 251 62.75% 3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75% 400 100% HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve its appearance and environmental quality? 1 YES 101 25.25% 2 NO 294 73.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% IMPORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees. For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25% 2 AGREE 138 34.5% 3 DISAGREE 10 2.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5% 400 100% IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003 Topline Frequencies Page 2 2 AGREE 148 37% 3 DISAGREE 28 7% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5% 400 100% IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? I STRONGLY AGREE 200 50% 2 AGREE 170 42.5% 3 DISAGREE 19 4.75% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 8 2% 400 100% IWORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25% 2 AGREE 205 51.25% 3 DISAGREE 45 11.25% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5% 400 100% IMPORT5 More street trees would be good for the City. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? I STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25% 2 AGREE 202 50.5% 3 DISAGREE 62 15.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5% 400 100% EMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 3 2 AGREE 203 50.75% 3 DISAGREE 50 12.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75% 400 100% IWORT7 The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on sites that are being developed. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40% 2 AGREE 193 48.25% 3 DISAGREE 30 7.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 8 2% 400 100% FORESTI All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10 years? 1 INCREASED 73 18.25% 2 DECREASED 166 41.5% 3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 44 11% 400 100% FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to increase, decrease, or stay the same? IINCREASED 113 28.25% 2 DECREASED 126 31.5% 3 STAYED T14E SAME 138 34.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75% 400 100% FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent , how would you rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard? IONE 3 0.75% 2 TWO 0 0% 3 THREE 14 3.5% 4 FOUR 11 2.75% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 4 5 FIVE 61 15.25% 6 SIX 48 12% 7 SEVEN 96 24% 8 EIGHT (GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75% 9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75% 10 TEN (GO TO TAXI) 24 6% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE Not cut them all. They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require developers to keep some of the existing trees. Better maintenance. More variety. They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized trees. Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that. Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should. More maintenance, I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there. Certain areas. Save certain trees. Taken care of the trees. I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees. Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done building. In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars. It would help with gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot. Public awareness. Developers not remove existing trees as much. One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid. Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities. Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers' money on trees that can take care of themselves. High quality maintenance. Let the trees get older. You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work. Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street. More fir trees or pine green trees. Plant more, I guess. I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees. Plant more trees;take care of them. They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 5 Maintenance More maintenance from landowners and the city. Better protection of the exciting trees in areas. Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them. Quit cutting them down I think. They could be taken care of. Trimming. Quit cutting them down. They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees. Plant more trees. Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees. They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone. Plant more. I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots. Ones left are well maintained, pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers. To trim them. Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road. Not letting people cut them down. Grow more. There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to shield them from their neighbors. Streets be lined with trees. Leave them alone. Basic maintenance. I think if there is some sort of a plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals. In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on. Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area. Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development. Maintenance around power lines. More trees.Nothing else. Trees aren't taken care of well, trees in vacant lots should become less neglected. Fertilize. Find a way to keep away all the leaves. Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better. More volunteers to maintain them. Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees. I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have more trees we will have a better community. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003 Topline Frequencies Page 6 Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown. They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees. Don't put them there for no reason. Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain. Probably the amount. There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road. Plant more trees. More placed in better locations, not be so messy. Add more trees, keep the exciting trees. Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly. Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way. Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their trees probably. If we are going to have trees, they need to be maintained. Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing. Don't know, maintain them. Get the city counsel in the city forest, they should be running the city not the trees. Maintain damage is done. Leave them standing, pruning assisting their health. Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones after they have built homes or buildings. Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos. I wish people would take care of trees better. They could have more trees where there are no trees. More street trees. Don't think anything should be done. Trim them. Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious. Plant more trees, when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be a law to plant trees. Provide good maintenance. Downtown area needs more trees. Old trees be cut down, plant new ones. Preserve during development. Better overall maintenance. Better maintained. Pick up more leaves. I don't have a problem with it, so nothing. Need more trees in old town. Cut them all down, too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need to at least be trimmed. Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot. A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees. More of them along the main streets. They could be preserved. Planting the right trees. And more of them. Trimming and landscaping around trees. Like the downtown, they made it look all cutesie. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2005 Topline Frequencies Page 7 Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit, they cut down beautiful trees for that. Improve the city council decisions. Pruning. A little bit of pruning. There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of death that needs to be maintained a little bit better. More trees on busier streets. Plant more of them, take care of them, and cut their branches and everything. First of all plant more trees if there is the space. Largely, plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones. Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that have trees and preserve them. Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain, they should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth. I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks. Maybe more trimming on trees. Plant more. Expert looking at the issue. Old ones let go. Cleaned up. By preserving existing trees. Better maintenance. Leave them alone. Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services. Downtown could plant trees. Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I live there are many trees in the community. More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and appearance. Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth. Plant more, rip up cement and plant trees. In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them. And more yard debris pick-up, so that people are not afraid to have trees. Anything that would make having a tree easier would be good. I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker. If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better.They put up some new dinky trees. And they just don't look as good. It's too late. Maybe better maintained and kept trees. Maintain existing trees. Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced. Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads. Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down, requires two of three tree in their place. Adding variety. More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 8 I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas. Add some along 99. Better trimming and maintenance. Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking about some trees are planted too close to the street, and that causes problems with leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots. Maintenance Maintenance and replanting with trees that die. Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have. And not cut them down unnecessarily. Pruning. In the greenway, we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees. Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the parks. I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that. I don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek. Stop chopping down trees. More maintenance and planting more trees. Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring. More evergreens. The big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall. More red maples. Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying. They're in pretty good shape. Maintain the one we have, and plant more. Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff. Replace trees as they are taken out. Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged looking. Better up keep. Get rid of the old ones that are dying. Just clean up. Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees. I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen. So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves.Need to be more proactive. I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are important. Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments. Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem, they make a mess. Nothing I think they are fine. Take down the trees that drop leaves. I'm not sure we need more trees. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 9 I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees, build where they do not have to remove trees. Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees. More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas. Plant more trees. Better maintaining by replanting. More planting. Plant more. I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree. Stop building houses. Cutting them back and some pruning them. More planting. Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to. I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees. More development of downtown, Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping. Better management by the city and government. When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been taken down to build a new house. Regular maintenance. I think there should be more, plant more. I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that. They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest. I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved, too many businesses. I think they are okay. I don't have an opinion on it. Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to do it. More trees. Better upkeep. Not cut them down. I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location where they fit size wise. Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want. Some of them need to be shaped better. The ones on the road. I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become available. They are properly cared for and planted more of them. Better maintenance. Better care and clean up. Variety and maintenance. I would presume plant more. We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park, we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are diseased and prune them, or remove them. Quit cutting them down for new developments. Planting more trees. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003 Topline Frequencies Page 10 Just constant vigilance. More and just more. Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees. Leave them alone. Better maintenance. Plant more. TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose a program that transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25% 2 SUPPORT 128 32% 3 OPPOSE 136 34% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25% 400 100% TAX2 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25% 2 SUPPORT 151 37.75% 3 OPPOSE 132 33% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25% 400 100% TAX3 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces? PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard, not just on streets. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8% 2 SUPPORT 190 47.5% 3 OPPOSE 104 26% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25% 400 100% TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City to do this? PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer? City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page I I I PLANT 208 52% 2 PAY 106 26.5% 3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25% 400 100% CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant more trees? (PROBE FROM LIST) 1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75% 2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5% 3 IN COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75% 4 IN PARKS 79 19.75% 5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 32 8% 400 100% CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about trees. 1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32% 2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED, REPLACE THEM 129 32.25% 3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15% 4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75% 5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75% 400 100% HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose,or strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5% 2 SUPPORT 185 46.25% 3 OPPOSE 101 25.25% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75% 400 100% City of Ti-ard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 12 REGI Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75% 2 SUPPORT 168 42% 3 OPPOSE 99 24.75% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5% 400 100% REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting afterwards? 1 YES 264 66% 2 NO 97 24.25% 3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25% 400 100% REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? 1 YES 80 20% 2 NO 293 73.25% 3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5% 400 100% REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures, would you like to see them focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something else. 1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25% 2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75% 3 BOTH 192 48% 4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75% 400 100% REGS Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? PROBE: This would apply to all current private property. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 13 2 SUPPORT 224 56% 3 OPPOSE 60 15% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 18 4.5% 400 100% REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. I LARGE GROVES 221 55.25% 2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25% 3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75% 4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25% 400 100% AGE In what year were you born? Coded Categories: AGE 18-24 3 0.75% AGE 25-34 23 5.75% AGE 35-44 59 14.75% AGE 45-54 106 26.5% AGE 55-64 91 22.75% AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0% 400 100% GENDER Are you male or female? 1 MALE 160 40% 2 FEMALE 240 60% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 0 0% 400 100% RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent? 1 OWN 344 86% 2 RENT 49 12.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75% 400 100% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 Topline Frequencies Page 14 STREET What neighborhood do you live in? PROBE: What is your closest elementary school? PROBE: What is your closest cross street? OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard, we would like to thank you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye. NOQAL I'm sorry, we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice (day/evening). Citv ofTivard Urban Forestry Suryev—?008 Topline Frequencies Page 15 Table of Contents Table Variable Table Title Page Table 1 SATIS1 trees on your street 1 Table 2 SATIS2 trees in your neighborhood 3 Table 3 SATIS3 trees in the city as a whole 5 Table 4 HOOD Neighborhood need more trees and landscaping 7 Table 5 IMPORT1 trees are important to character and desirability 9 Table 6 IMPORT2 It is important to have a view of trees from 11 Table 7 IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. 13 Table 8 IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. 15 Table 9 IMPORT5 More street trees would be good for the City. 17 Table 10 IMPORT6 More resources to better maintain and protect existing trees. 19 Table 11 IMPORT7 Require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted 21 Table 12 FOREST1 Overall quality of Tigard's urban forest in the last 10 years 23 Table 13 FOREST2 Future overall quality of Tigard's urban forest 25 Table 14 FOREST3 Rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard 27 Table 15 TAXI Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City 29 Table 16 TAX2 Additional funding to fund a City street tree program 30 Table 17 TAX3 Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program 31 Table 18 TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City? 32 Table 19 CHOICEI First choice of where the city should plant more trees 33 Table 20 CHOICE2 Your opinion about trees. 37 Table 21 HAZARD City would become involved in disputes between neighbors 41 Table 22 REG1 Tree removal regulations during property development 43 Table 23 REG2 City required preservation of existing large trees 45 Table 24 REG3 Allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? 47 Table 25 REG4 Focus of new tree protection measures 51 Table 26 REG5 Protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? 53 Table 27 REG6 larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. 55 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 1 SATISI trees on your street 1 :VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED =DISSATISFIED =VERY DISSATISFIIDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Rowe/o l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)P/o Total 103 25.75 246 61.50 32 8.00 10 2.50 9 2.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 1.0(33.3) 2 0.8(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0,0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 10 9.7(43.5) 10 4.1(43.5) 1 3.1( 4.3) 2 20.0( 8.7) 0 0,0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 10 9.7(16.9) 45 18.3(76.3) 2 6.3( 3.4) 1 10.0( 1.7) 1 11.1( 1.7) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 29 28.2(27.4) 61 24.8(57.5) 13 40.6(12.3) 2 20.0( 1.9) 1 11.1( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 20 19,4(22.0) 62 25.2(68.1) 8 25.0( 8.8) 1 10.0( 1.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 33 32.0(28.0) 66 26.8(55.9) 8 25.0( 6.8) 4 40.0( 3.4) 7 77.8( 5.9) 118 29.5(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 26 25.2(16.3) 111 45.1(69.4) 13 40.6( 8.1) 4 40.0( 2.5) 6 66.7( 3.8) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 77 74.8(32.1) 135 54.9(56.3) 19 59.4( 7.9) 6 60.0( 2.5) 3 33.3( 1.3) 240 60.0(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 82 79.6(23.8) 217 88.2(63.1) 28 87.5( 8.1) 10 100( 2.9) 7 77.8( 2.0) 344 86.0(100) RENT 18 17.5(36.7) 27 11.0(55.1) 3 9.4( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 11.1( 2.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 2.9(42.9) 2 0.8(28.6) 1 3.1(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 11.1(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 18 17.5(27.7) 38 15.4(58.5) 8 25.0(12.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 11.1( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 33 32.0(25.8) 80 32.5(62.5) 9 28.1( 7.0) 3 30.0( 2.3) 3 33.3( 2.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 35 34.0(25.7) 84 34.1(61.8) 10 31.3( 7.4) 5 50.0( 3.7) 2 22.2( 1.5) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 11 10.7(28.9) 21 8.5(55.3) 3 9,4( 7.9) 1 10.0( 2,6) 2 22.2( 5.3) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 6 5.8(18.2) 23 9.3(69.7) 2 6.3( 6.1) 1 10.0( 3.0) 1 11.1( 3.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 9 8.7(36.0) 13 5.3(52.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 20.0( 8.0) 1 11.1( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 31 30.1(20.5) 95 38.6(62.9) 20 62.5(13.2) 4 40.0( 2.6) 1 11.1( 0.7) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 32 31.1(24.2) 92 37.4(69.7) 2 6.3( 1.5) 1 10.0( 0.8) 5 55.6( 3.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 23 22.3(36.5) 29 11.8(46.0) 8 25.0(12.7) 2 20.0( 3.2) 1 11.1( 1.6) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.8(27.6) 17 6.9(58.6) 2 6.3( 6.9) 1 10.0( 3.4) 1 11.1( 3.4) 29 7.3(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 13.6(43.8) 15 6.1(46.9) 1 3.1( 3.1) 2 20.0( 6.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 39 37.9(20.5) 128 52.0(67.4) 19 59.4(10.0) 3 30.0( 1.6) 1 11.1( 0.5) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 22 21.4(21.2) 70 28.5(67.3) 5 15.6( 4.8) 2 20.0( 1.9) 5 55,6( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 23 22.3(43.4) 22 8.9(41.5) 6 18.8(11.3) 1 10.0( 1.9) 1 11.1( 1.9) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 5 4.9(23.8) 11 4.5(52.4) 1 3.1( 4.8) 2 20.0( 9.5) 2 22.2( 9.5) 21 5.3(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 1 2 SATISI trees on your street 1 :VERY SATISFIED =SATISFIED :DISSATISFIED -VERY DISSATISFIEDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)O/. Total 103 25.75 246 61.50 32 8.00 10 2.50 9 2.25 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 61 59.2(29.3) 126 51.2(60.6) 13 40.6( 6.3) 5 50.0( 2.4) 3 33.3( 1.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 22 21.4(20.8) 69 28.0(65.1) 11 34.4(10.4) 3 30.0( 2.8) 1 11.1( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 12 11.7(19.7) 36 14.6(59.0) 8 25.0(13.1) 2 20.0( 3.3) 3 33.3( 4.9) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.8(32.0) 15 6.1(60.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 22.2( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 103 100(25.8) 246 100(61.5) 32 100( 8.0) 10 100( 2.5) 9 100( 2.3) 1 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 1 3 SATIS2 trees in your neighborhood 2 €VERY SATISFIED (SATISFIED ;DISSATISFIED =VERY DISSATISM.DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Rowp/a Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 104 26.00 242 60.50 43 10.75 5 1.25 6 1.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.2(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 5 4.8(21.7) 12 5.0(52.2) 5 11.6(21,7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 16.7( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 12 11.5(20.3) 41 16.9(69.5) 5 11.6( 8.5) 1 20.0( 1.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 28 26.9(26.4) 64 26.4(60.4) 11 25.6(10.4) 3 60.0( 2.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 22 21.2(24.2) 56 23.1(61.5) 12 27.9(13.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 16.7( 1.1) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 37 35.6(31.4) 66 27.3(55.9) 10 23.3( 8.5) 1 20.0( 0.8) 4 66.7( 3.4) 118 29.5(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 29 27.9(18.1) 112 46.3(70.0) 16 37.2(10.0) 1 20.0( 0.6) 2 33.3( 1.3) 160 40,0(100) FEMALE 75 72.1(31.3) 130 53.7(54.2) 27 62.8(11.3) 4 80.0( 1.7) 4 66.7( 1.7) 240 60.0(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 92 88.5(26.7) 204 84.3(59.3) 37 86.0(10.8) 5 100( 1.5) 6 100( 1.7) 344 86.0(100) RENT 11 10.6(22.4) 34 14.0(69.4) 4 9.3( 8.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.0(14.3) 4 1.7(57.1) 2 4.7(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 18 17.3(27.7) 37 15.3(56.9) 7 16.3(10.8) 2 40.0( 3.1) 1 16.7( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 30 28.8(23.4) 79 32.6(61.7) 15 34.9(11.7) 1 20.0( 0.8) 3 50.0( 2.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 36 34.6(26.5) 81 33.5(59.6) 16 37.2(11.8) 2 40.0( 1.5) 1 16,7( 0.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 12 11.5(31.6) 23 9.5(60.5) 3 7.0( 7.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.7(24.2) 22 9.1(66.7) 2 4.7( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 16.7( 3.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 8 7.7(32.0) 14 5.8(56.0) 1 2.3( 4.0) 1 20.0( 4.0) 1 16.7( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 30 28.8(19.9) 94 38.8(62.3) 23 53.5(15.2) 2 40.0( 1.3) 2 33.3( 1.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 36 34.6(27.3) 85 35.1(64.4) 8 18.6( 6.1) 1 20.0( 0.8) 2 33.3( 1.5) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 23 22.1(36.5) 31 12.8(49.2) 7 16.3(11.1) 1 20.0( 1.6) 1 16.7( 1.6) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 7 6.7(24.1) 18 7.4(62.1) 4 9.3(13.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 104 100(26,0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 11 10.6(34.4) 16 6.6(50.0) 3 7,0( 9.4) 2 40.0( 6.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 44 42.3(23.2) 116 47.9(61.1) 26 60.5(13.7) 3 60.0( 1.6) 1 16.7( 0.5) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 23 22.1(22.1) 72 29.8(69.2) 7 16.3( 6.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 33.3( 1.9) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 22 21.2(41.5) 25 10.3(47.2) 5 11.6( 9.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 16.7( 1.9) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 3.8(19.0) 13 5.4(61.9) 2 4.7( 9.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 33.3( 9.5) 21 5.3(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 2 4 SATIS2 trees in your neighborhood 2 :VERY SATISFIED ;SATISFIED =DISSATISFIED -VERY DISSATISFITYDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 104 26.00 242 60.50 43 10.75 5 1.25 6 1.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 68 65.4(32.7) 120 49.6(57.7) 14 32.6( 6.7) 2 40.0( 1.0) 4 66.7( 1.9) 208 52.0(100) PAY 18 17.3(17.0) 68 28.1(64.2) 17 39.5(16.0) 2 40.0( 1.9) 1 16.7( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 10 9.6(16.4) 38 15.7(62.3) 11 25.6(18.0) 1 20.0( 1.6) 1 16.7( 1.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.7(32.0) 16 6.6(64.0) 1 2.3( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 104 100(26.0) 242 100(60.5) 43 100(10.8) 5 100( 1.3) 6 100( 1.5) 1 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 2 5 SATIS3 trees in the city as a whole 3 :VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED -DISSATISFIEDVERYDISSATISFI)KDI{/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%.Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Dotal 61 15.25 251 62.75 59 14.75 10 2.50 19 4.75 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 0.8(66.7) 1 1.7(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0,0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 5 8.2(21.7) 14 5.6(60.9) 3 5.1(13.0) 1 10.0( 4.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 6 9.8(10.2) 38 15.1(64.4) 13 22.0(22.0) 1 10.0( 1.7) 1 5.3( 1.7) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 22 36.1(20.8) 62 24.7(58.5) 15 25.4(14.2) 3 30.0( 2.8) 4 21.1( 3.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 10 16.4(11.0) 64 25.5(70.3) 12 20.3(13.2) 2 20.0( 2.2) 3 15.8( 3.3) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 18 29.5(15.3) 71 28.3(60.2) 15 25.4(12.7) 3 30.0( 2.5) 11 57.9( 9.3) 118 29.5(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 15 24.6( 9.4) 111 44.2(69.4) 22 37.3(13.8) 3 30.0( 1.9) 9 47.4( 5.6) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 46 75.4(19.2) 140 55.8(58.3) 37 62.7(15.4) 7 70.0( 2.9) 10 52.6( 4.2) 240 60.0(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 50 82.0(14.5) 217 86.5(63.1) 51 86.4(14.8) 10 100( 2.9) 16 84.2( 4.7) 344 86.0(100) RENT 10 16.4(20.4) 29 11.6(59.2) 7 11.9(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 15.8( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.6(14.3) 5 2.0(71.4) 1 1.7(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 13 21.3(20.0) 41 16.3(63.1) 9 15.3(13.8) 1 10.0( 1.5) 1 5.3( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 16 26.2(12.5) 83 33.1(64.8) 18 30.5(14.1) 5 50.0( 3.9) 6 31.6( 4.7) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 19 31.1(14.0) 85 33.9(62.5) 21 35.6(15.4) 3 30.0( 2.2) 8 42.1( 5.9) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9 14.8(23.7) 22 8.8(57.9) 5 8.5(13.2) 1 10.0( 2.6) 1 5.3( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 4 6.6(12.1) 20 8.0(60.6) 6 10.2(18.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 15.8( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 5 8.2(20.0) 13 5.2(52.0) 6 10.2(24.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6,3(100) SUPPORT 18 29.5(11.9) 93 37.1(61.6) 29 49.2(19.2) 5 50.0( 3.3) 6 31.6( 4.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 16 26.2(12.1) 93 37.1(70.5) 12 20.3( 9.1) 2 20.0( 1.5) 9 47.4( 6.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 15 24.6(23.8) 39 15.5(61.9) 5 8.5( 7.9) 2 20.0( 3.2) 2 10.5( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 7 11.5(24.1) 13 5.2(44.8) 7 11.9(24.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 10.5( 6.9) 29 7.3(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 4 6.6(12.5) 16 6.4(50.0) 8 13.6(25.0) 2 20.0( 6.3) 2 10.5( 6.3) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 24 39.3(12.6) 116 46.2(61.1) 35 59.3(18.4) 5 50.0( 2.6) 10 52.6( 5.3) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 16 26.2(15.4) 72 28.7(69.2) 10 16.9( 9.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 6 31.6( 5.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 13 21.3(24.5) 35 13.9(66.0) 3 5.1( 5.7) 2 20.0( 3.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 6.6(19.0) 12 4.8(57.1) 3 5.1(14.3) 1 10.0( 4.8) 1 5.3( 4.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 3 6 SATIS3 trees in the city as a whole 3 =VERY SATISFIED =SATISFIED 'DISSATISFIED :VERY DISSATISFIEDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 61 15.25 251 62.75 59 14.75 10 2.50 19 4.75 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 35 57.4(16.8) 133 53.0(63.9) 27 45.8(13.0) 3 30,0( 1.4) 10 52.6( 4.8) 208 52.0(100) PAY 10 16.4( 9.4) 68 27.1(64.2) 22 37.3(20.8) 3 30.0( 2.8) 3 15.8( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 11 18.0(18.0) 37 14.7(60.7) 7 11.9(11.5) 3 30.0( 4.9) 3 15.8( 4.9) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 5 8.2(20.0) 13 5.2(52.0) 3 5.1(12.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 3 15.8(12.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 61 100(15.3) 251 100(62.8) 59 100(14.8) 10 100( 2.5) 19 100( 4.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 3 7 HOOD Neighborhood need more trees and landscaping 4� 4 ;YES :NO ;DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%s Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 101 25.25 294 73.50 5 1.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.0(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 10 9.9(43.5) 12 4.1(52.2) 1 20.0( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 14 13.9(23.7) 45 15.3(76.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 29 28.7(27.4) 77 26.2(72.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 28 27.7(30.8) 63 21.4(69.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 20 19.8(16.9) 94 32.0(79.7) 4 80.0( 3.4) 118 29.5(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 35 34.7(21.9) 124 42.2(77.5) 1 20.0( 0.6) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 66 65.3(27.5) 170 57.8(70.8) 4 80.0( 1.7) 240 60.0(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 82 81.2(23.8) 257 87.4(74.7) 5 100( 1.5) 344 86.0(100) RENT 17 16.8(34.7) 32 10.9(65.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 2.0(28.6) 5 1.7(71.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 22 21.8(33.8) 43 14.6(66.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 36 35.6(28.1) 89 30.3(69.5) 3 60.0( 2.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 31 30.7(22.8) 105 35.7(77.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 4.0(10.5) 34 11.6(89.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DKINA/REF 8 7.9(24.2) 23 7.8(69.7) 2 40.0( 6.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 12 11.9(48.0) 12 4.1(48.0) 1 20.0( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 53 52.5(35.1) 94 32.0(62.3) 4 80.0( 2.6) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 19 18.8(14.4) 113 38.4(85.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9 8.9(14.3) 54 18.4(85.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 63 15.8(100) DK/NAIREF 8 7.9(27.6) 21 7.1(72.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 13.9(43.8) 18 6.1(56.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 58 57.4(30.5) 131 44.6(68.9) 1 20.0( 0.5) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 17 16.8(16.3) 87 29.6(83.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 6.9(13.2) 46 15.6(86.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 53 13.3(100) DK(NA/REF 5 5.0(23.8) 12 4.1(57.1) 4 80.0(19.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 4 8 HOOD Neighborhood need more trees and landscaping 4 ;YES iNO DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%,Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 101 25.25 294 73.50 5 1.25 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 42 41.6(20.2) 165 56.1(79.3) 1 20.0( 0.5) 208 52.0(100) PAY 37 36.6(34.9) 66 22.4(62.3) 3 60.0( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 18 17.8(29.5) 42 14.3(68.9) 1 20.0( 1.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 4.0(16.0) 21 7.1(84.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 101 100(25.3) 294 100(73.5) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 4 9 IMPORT, trees are important to character and desirability 5 :STRONGLY AGRE1 AGREE :DISAGREE :STRONGLY DISAG`DK/NA/REF Total l Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%s Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)/o Total 249 62.25 138 34.50 10 2.50 1 0.25 2 0.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 2.2(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 16 6.4(69.6) 6 4.3(26.1) 1 10.0( 4.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 33 13.3(55.9) 25 18.1(42.4) 1 10.0( 1.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 76 30.5(71.7) 29 21.0(27.4) 1 10.0( 0.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 65 26.1(71.4) 21 15.2(23.1) 4 40.0( 4.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 1.1) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 59 23.7(50.0) 54 39.1(45.8) 3 30.0( 2.5) 1 100( 0.8) 1 50.0( 0.8) 118 29.5(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 79 31.7(49.4) 73 52.9(45.6) 5 50.0( 3.1) 1 100( 0.6) 2 100( 1.3) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 170 68.3(70.8) 65 47.1(27,1) 5 50.0( 2.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 240 60.0(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your Lome,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 213 85.5(61.9) 119 86.2(34.6) 9 90.0( 2.6) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 33 13.3(67.3) 15 10.9(30.6) 1 10.0( 2.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 1.2(42.9) 4 2.9(57.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 47 18.9(72.3) 17 12.3(26.2) 1 10.0( 1.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 65 16.3(100) J SUPPORT 81 32.5(63.3) 44 31.9(34.4) 1 10.0( 0:8) 1 100( 0.8) 1 50.0( 0.8) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 80 32.1(58.8) 53 38.4(39.0) 3 30.0( 2.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 21 8.4(55.3) 12 8.7(31.6) 5 50.0(13.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 20 8.0(60.6) 12 8.7(36.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 3.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 22 8.8(88.0) 2 1.4( 8.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 100( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 112 45.0(74.2) 39 28.3(25.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 67 26.9(50.8) 62 44.9(47.0) 3 30.0( 2.3) 0 0,0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 35 14.1(55.6) 19 13.8(30.2) 7 70.0(11.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 100( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 13 5.2(44.8) 16 11.6(55.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 29 11.6(90.6) 2 1.4( 6.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 100( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 140 56.2(73.7) 49 35.5(25.8) 1 10.0( 0.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0:0) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 42 16.9(40.4) 59 42.8(56.7) 3 30.0( 2.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 29 11.6(54.7) 16 11.6(30.2) 6 60.0(11.3) 0 0,0( 0.0) 2 100( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 9 3.6(42.9) 12 8.7(57.1) 0 0,0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0:3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 5 10 IMPORTI trees are important to character and desirability 5 STRONGLY AGREI=AGREE €DISAGREE ;STRONGLY DISAGsDK/NA/REF Total 'Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)%,Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)/0 Total 249 62.25 138 34.50 10 2.50 1 0.25 2 0.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 128 51.4(61.5) 75 54.3(36.1) 4 40.0( 1.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 0.5) 208 52.0(100) PAY 71 28.5(67.0) 33 23.9(31.1) 1 10.0( 0.9) 1 100( 0.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 38 15.3(62.3) 18 13.0(29.5) 4 40.0( 6.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 1.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 12 4.8(48.0) 12 8.7(48.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 249 100(62.3) 138 100(34.5) 10 100( 2.5) 1 100( 0.3) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 5 11 IMPORT2 It is important to have a view of trees from 6 ISTRONGLY AGREEAGREE ;DISAGREE =STRONGLY DISAG'DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%I Count Col(Row)%I Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)'/o Total 218 54.50 148 37.00 28 7.00 4 1.00 2 0.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 0.5(33.3) 2 1.4(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 11 5.0(47.8) 10 6.8(43.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 50.0( 8.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 31 14.2(52.5) 22 14.9(37,3) 6 21.4(10.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 72 33.0(67.9) 29 19.6(27.4) 5 17.9( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0,0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 55 25.2(60.4) 30 20.3(33.0) 5 17.9( 5.5) 1 25.0( 1.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 48 22.0(40.7) 55 37.2(46.6) 12 42.9(10.2) 1 25.0( 0.8) 2 100( 1.7) 118 29.5(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 63 28.9(39:4) 77 52.0(48.1) 16 57.1(10.0) 3 75.0( 1.9) 1 50.0( 0.6) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 155 71.1(64.6) 71 48.0(29.6) 12 42.9( 5.0) 1 25.0( 0.4) 1 50.0( 0.4) 240 60.0(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 185 84.9(53.8) 129 87.2(37.5) 24 85.7( 7.0) 4 100( 1.2) 2 100( 0.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 29 13.3(59.2) 17 11.5(34.7) 3 10.7( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 1.8(57.1) 2 1.4(28.6) 1 3.6(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 37 17.0(56.9) 23 15.5(35.4) 5 17.9( 7.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 64 29.4(50.0) 57 38.5(44.5) 6 21.4( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 0.8) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 81 37.2(59.6) 47 31.8(34.6) 7 25.0( 5.1) 1 25.0( 0.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 17 7.8(44.7) 11 7.4(28.9) 8 28.6(21.1) 1 25.0( 2.6) 1 50.0( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 19 8.7(57.6) 10 6.8(30.3) 2 7.1( 6.1) 2 50.0( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 19 8.7(76.0) 6 4.1(24.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 95 43.6(62.9) 53 35.8(35.1) 3 10.7( 2.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 62 28.4(47.0) 58 39.2(43.9) 12 42.9( 9.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 28 12.8(44.4) 18 12.2(28.6) 12 42.9(19.0) 3 75.0( 4.8) 2 100( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 14 6.4(48.3) 13 8.8(44.8) 1 3.6( 3.4) 1 25.0( 3.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 28 12.8(87.5) 3 2.0( 9.4) 1 3.6( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 116 53.2(61.1) 71 48.0(37.4) 3 10.7( 1.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 45 20.6(43.3) 46 31.1(44.2) 13 46.4(12.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 21 9.6(39.6) 17 11.5(32.1) 10 35.7(18.9) 3 75.0( 5.7) 2 100( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 3.7(38.1) 11 7.4(52.4) 1 3.6( 4.8) 1 25.0( 4.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 6 12 IMPORT2 It is important to have a view of trees from 6 =STRONGLY AGREFAGREE =DISAGREE €STRONGLY DISAG DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)°/u•Count Col(Row)P/6 Count Col(Rowp/o Total 218 54.50 148 37.00 28 7.00 4 1.00 2 0.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 118 54.1(56.7) 76 51.4(36.5) 12 42.9( 5.8) 2 50.0( 1.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 208 52.0(100) PAY 58 26.6(54.7) 43 29.1(40.6) 5 17.9( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) IF VOLUNTEERED-N 32 14.7(52.5) 18 12.2(29.5) 8 28.6(13.1) 2 50.0( 3.3) 1 50.0( 1.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 10 4.6(40.0) 11 7.4(44.0) 3 10.7(12.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 50.0( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 218 100(54.5) 148 100(37.0) 28 100( 7.0) 4 100( 1.0) 2 100( 0.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 6 13 IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. 7 STRONGLYAGREI-AGREE €DISAGREE -STRONGLY DISAG)DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%z Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)%i Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)'/o Total 200 50.00 170 42.50 19 4.75 3 0.75 8 2.00 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 1.2(66.7) 1 5.3(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 11 5.5(47.8) 6 3.5(26.1) 3 15.8(13.0) 2 66.7( 8.7) 1 12.5( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 25 12.5(42.4) 30 17.6(50.8) 2 10.5( 3.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 25.0( 3.4) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 60 30.0(56.6) 40 23.5(37.7) 5 26.3( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 57 28.5(62.6) 27 15.9(29.7) 5 26.3( 5.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 25.0( 2.2) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 47 23.5(39.8) 65 38.2(55.1) 3 15.8( 2.5) 1 33.3( 0.8) 2 25.0( 1.7) 118 29.5(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 66 33.0(41.3) 78 45.9(48.8) 10 52.6( 6.3) 2 66.7( 1.3) 4 50.0( 2.5) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 134 67.0(55.8) 92 54.1(38.3) 9 47.4( 3.8) 1 33.3( 0.4) 4 50.0( 1.7) 240 60.0(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 174 87.0(50.6) 149 87.6(43.3) 14 73.7( 4.1) 2 66.7( 0.6) 5 62.5( 1.5) 344 86.0(100) RENT 23 11.5(46.9) 20 11.8(40.8) 3 15.8( 6.1) 1 33.3( 2.0) 2 25.0( 4.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 1.5(42.9) 1 0.6(14.3) 2 10.5(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 35 17.5(53.8) 25 14.7(38.5) 2 10.5( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 37.5( 4.6) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 54 27.0(42.2) 67 39.4(52.3) 3 15.8( 2.3) 1 33.3( 0.8) 3 37.5( 2.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 77 38.5(56.6) 53 31.2(39.0) 5 26.3( 3.7) 1 33.3( 0.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 17 8.5(44.7) 12 7.1(31.6) 8 42.1(21.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 17 8.5(51.5) 13 7.6(39.4) 1 5.3( 3.0) 1 33.3( 3.0) 1 12.5( 3.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to Hund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 18 9.0(72.0) 7 4.1(28.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 88 44.0(58.3) 60 35.3(39.7) 1 5.3( 0.7) 1 33.3( 0.7) 1 12.5( 0.7) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 58 29.0(43.9) 62 36.5(47.0) 7 36.8( 5.3) 1 33.3( 0.8) 4 50.0( 3.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 27 13.5(42.9) 24 14.1(38.1) 10 52.6(15.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 25.0( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 9 4.5(31.0) 17 10.0(58.6) 1 5.3( 3.4) 1 33.3( 3.4) 1 12.5( 3.4) 29 7.3(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 26 13.0(81.3) 5 2.9(15.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 3.1) 32 8.0000) SUPPORT 108 54.0(56.8) 77 45.3(40.5) 2 10.5( 1.1) 2 66.7( 1.1) 1 12.5( 0.5) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 32 16.0(30.8) 59 34.7(56.7) 9 47.4( 8.7) 0 0.0( OA) 4 50.0( 3.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 27 13.5(50.9) 17 10.0(32.1) 7 36.8(13.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 25.0( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 7 3.5(33.3) 12 7.1(57.1) 1 5.3( 4.8) 1 33.3( 4.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 21 5.3(1 W) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100( 4.8) 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 20) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 7 14 IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. 7 =STRONGLY AGREI AGREE _DISAGREE :STRONGLY DISAG-DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%-z Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%z Count Col(Row)0/61 Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 200 50.00 170 42.50 19 4.75 3 0.75 8 2.00 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 107 53.5(51.4) 86 50.6(41.3) 8 42.1( 3.8) 2 66.7( 1.0) 5 62.5( 2.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 52 26.0(49.1) 49 28.8(46.2) 3 15.8( 2.8) 1 33.3( 0.9) 1 12.5( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) 1F VOUNTEERED-N 31 15.5(50.8) 23 13.5(37.7) 6 31.6( 9.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 1.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 10 5.0(40.0) 12 7.1(48.0) 2 10.5( 8.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 200 100(50.0) 170 100(42.5) 19 100 4.8 3 100( 0.8) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 7 15 IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. 8 :STRONGLY AGREEAGREE ;DISAGREE =STRONGLY DISAG`DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)O/o Total 125 31.25 205 51.25 45 11.25 3 0.75 22 5.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.5(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 6 4.8(26.1) 9 4.4(39.1) 3 6.7(13.0) 2 66.7( 8.7) 3 13.6(13.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 12 9.6(20.3) 36 17.6(61.0) 6 13.3(10.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 22.7( 8.5) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 35 28.0(33.0) 55 26.8(51.9) 13 28.9(12.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 13.6( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 40 32.0(44.0) 43 21.0(47.3) 6 13.3( 6.6) 1 33.3( 1.1) 1 4.5( 1.1) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 32 25.6(27.1) 59 28.8(50.0) 17 37.8(14.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 10 45.5( 8.5) 118 29.5(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) . 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 32 25.6(20.0) 86 42.0(53.8) 28 62.2(17.5) 3 100( 1.9) 11 50.0( 6.9) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 93 74.4(38.8) 119 58.0(49.6) 17 37.8( 7.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 11 50.0( 4.6) 240 60.0(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 106 84.8(30.8) 177 86.3(51.5) 41 91.1(11.9) 2 66.7( 0.6) 18 81.8( 5.2) 344 86.0(100) RENT 18 14.4(36.7) 24 11.7(49.0) 3 6.7( 6.1) 1 33.3( 2.0) 3 13.6( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 0.8(14.3) 4 2.0(57.1) 1 2.2(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.5(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 24 19.2(36.9) 29 14.1(44.6) 5 11.1( 7.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 31.8(10.8) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 35 28.0(27.3) 73 35.6(57.0) 13 28.9(10.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 31.8( 5.5) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 43 34.4(31.6) 74 36.1(54.4) 12 26.7( 8.8) 2 66.7( 1.5) 5 22.7( 3.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 10 8.0(26.3) 16 7.8(42.1) 12 26.7(31.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 13 10.4(39.4) 13 6.3(39.4) 3 6.7( 9.1) I 33.3( 3.0) 3 13.6( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 15 12.0(60.0) 8 3.9(32.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 9.1( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 51 40.8(33.8) 83 40.5(55.0) 9 20.0( 6.0) 2 66.7( 1.3) 6 27.3( 4.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 37 29.6(28.0) 72 35.1(54.5) 16 35.6(12.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 31.8( 5.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 16 12.8(25.4) 24 11.7(38.1) 19 42.2(30.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 18.2( 6.3) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 6 4.8(20.7) 18 8.8(62.1) 1 2.2( 3.4) 1 33.3( 3.4) 3 13.6(10.3) 29 7.3(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 21 16.8(65.6) 9 4.4(28.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 9.1( 6.3) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 60 48.0(31.6) 112 54.6(58.9) 11 24.4( 5.8) 2 66.7( 1.1) 5 22.7( 2.6) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 22 17.6(21.2) 54 26.3(519) 20 44.4(19.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 8 36.4( 7.7) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 17 13.6(32.1) 20 9.8(37.7) 12 26.7(22.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 18.2( 7.5) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 5 4.0(23.8) 10 4.9(47.6) 2 4.4( 9.5) 1 33.3( 4.8) 3 13.6(14.3) 21 5.3(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 9 16 IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. 8 =STRONGLY AGREIAGREE =DISAGREE =STRONGLY DISAG'DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)0/6 Total 125 31.25 205 51.25 45 11.25 3 0.75 22 5.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 67 53.6(32.2) 104 50.7(50.0) 24 53.3(11.5) 2 66.7( 1.0) 11 50.0( 5.3) 208 52.0(100) PAY 34 27.2(32.1) 61 29.8(57.5) 4 8.9( 3.8) 1 33.3( 0.9) 6 27.3( 5.7) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 19 15.2(31.1) 28 13.7(45.9) 11 24.4(18.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 13.6( 4.9) 61 15.3(100) DKINA/REF 5 4.0(20.0) 12 5.9(48.0) 6 13.3(24.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 9.1( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 125 100(31.3) 205 100(51.3) 45 100(11.3) 3 100( 0.8) 22 100( 5.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 8 17 IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City. 9 €STRONGLYAGREVAGREE IDISAGREE ;STRONGLYDISAUDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 97 24.25 202 50.50 62 15.50 9 2.25 30 7.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.5(33.3) 2 3.2(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 5 5.2(21.7) 13 6.4(56.5) 2 3.2( 8.7) 1 11.1( 4.3) 2 6.7( 8.7) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 13 13.4(22.0) 34 16.8(57.6) 7 11.3(11.9) 2 22.2( 3.4) 3 10.0( 5.1) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 29 29.9(27.4) 61 30.2(57.5) 11 17.7(10.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 16.7( 4.7) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 34 35.1(37.4) 32 15.8(35.2) 18 29.0(19.8) 2 22.2( 2.2) 5 16.7( 5.5) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 16 16.5(13.6) 61 30.2(51.7) 22 35.5(18,6) 4 44.4( 3.4) 15 50.0(12.7) 118 29.5(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 21 21.6(13.1) 87 43.1(54.4) 35 56.5(21.9) 7 77.8( 4.4) 10 33.3( 6.3) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 76 78.4(31.7) 115 56.9(47.9) 27 43.5(11.3) 2 22.2( 0.8) 20 66.7( 8.3) 240 60.0(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 80 82.5(233) 179 88.6(52.0) 51 82.3(14.8) 7 77.8( 2.0) 27 90.0( 7.8) 344 86.0(100) RENT 16 16.5(32.7) 21 10.4(42.9) 7 11.3(14.3) 2 22.2( 4.1) 3 10.0( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.0(14.3) 2 1.0(28.6) 4 6.5(57.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 20 20.6(30.8) 33 16.3(50.8) 8 12.9(12.3) 2 22.2( 3.1) 2 6.7( 3.1) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 30 30.9(23.4) 75 37.1(58.6) 16 25.8(12.5) 1 11.1( 0.8) 6 20.0( 4.7) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 33 34.0(24.3) 65 32.2(47.8) 25 40.3(18.4) 1 11.1( 0.7) 12 40.0( 8.8) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 6 6.2(15.8) 16 7.9(42.1) 10 16.1(26.3) 4 44.4(10.5) 2 6.7( 5.3) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 8 8.2(24.2) 13 6.4(39.4) 3 4.8( 9.1) 1 11.1( 3.0) 8 26.7(24.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 17 17.5(68.0) 8 4.0(32.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 42 43.3(27.8) 95 47.0(62.9) 8 12.9( 5.3) 1 11.1( 0.7) 5 16.7( 3.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 24 24.7(18.2) 68 33.7(51.5) 29 46.8(22.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 11 36.7( 8.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9 9.3(14.3) 21 10.4(33.3) 22 35.5(34.9) 6 66.7( 9.5) 5 16.7( 7.9) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 5 5.2(17.2) 10 5.0(34.5) 3 4.8(10.3) 2 22.2( 6.9) 9 30.0(31.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 24 24.7(75.0) 8 4.0(25.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 49 50.5(25.8) 119 58.9(62.6) 15 24.2( 7.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 23.3( 3.7) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 14 14.4(13.5) 50 24.8(48.1) 23 37.1(22.1) 1 11.1( 1.0) 16 53.3(15.4) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 8 8.2(15.1) 14 6.9(26.4) 20 32.3(37.7) 7 77.8(13.2) 4 13.3( 7.5) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 2.1( 9.5) 11 5.4(52.4) 4 6.5(19.0) 1 11.1( 4.8) 3 10.0(14.3) 21 5.3(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 9 18 IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City. 9 =STRONGLY AGREI=AGREE :DISAGREE =STRONGLY DISAG DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)0/6 Total 97 24.25 202 50.50 62 15.50 9 2.25 30 7.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 50 51.5(24.0) 103 51.0(49.5) 31 50.0(14.9) 5 55.6( 2.4) 19 63.3( 9.1) 208 52.0(100) PAY 29 29.9(27.4) 60 29.7(56.6) 12 19.4(11.3) 1 11.1( 0.9) 4 13.3( 3.8) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 14 14.4(23.0) 26 12.9(42.6) 14 22.6(23.0) 3 33.3( 4.9) 4 13.3( 6.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 4.1(16.0) 13 6.4(52.0) 5 8.1(20.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 10.0(12.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 97 100(24.3) 202 100(50.5) 62 100(15.5) 9 100( 2.3) 30 100( 7.5) 400 100(100 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 9 19 IMPORT6 More resources to better maintain and protect existing trees. 10 ,STRONGLY AGREEAGREE :DISAGREE _STRONGLY DISAG=DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%.Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 102 25.50 203 50.75 50 12.50 10 2.50 35 8.75 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.5(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 7 6.9(30.4) 14 6.9(60.9) 1 2.0( 4.3) 1 10.0( 4.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 11 10.8(18.6) 33 16.3(55.9) 9 18.0(15.3) 1 10.0( 1.7) 5 14.3( 8.5) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 31 30.4(29.2) 54 26.6(50.9) 11 22.0(10.4) 2 20.0( 1.9) 8 22.9( 7.5) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 30 29.4(33.0) 35 17.2(38.5) 15 30.0(16.5) 3 30.0( 3.3) 8 22.9( 8.8) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 23 22.5(19.5) 64 31.5(54.2) 14 28.0(11.9) 3 30.0( 2.5) 14 40.0(11.9) 118 29.5(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 29 28.4(18.1) 78 38.4(48.8) 37 74.0(23.1) 6 60.0( 3.8) 10 28.6( 6.3) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 73 71.6(30.4) 125 61.6(52.1) 13 26.0( 5.4) 4 40.0( 1.7) 25 71.4(10.4) 240 60.0(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 82 80.4(23.8) 175 86.2(50.9) 47 94.0(13.7) 10 100( 2.9) 30 85.7( 8.7) 344 86.0(100) RENT 18 17.6(36.7) 24 11.8(49.0) 2 4.0( 4.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 14.3(10.2) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 2.0(28.6) 4 2.0(57.1) 1 2.0(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 25 24.5(38.5) 33 16.3(50.8) 5 10.0( 7.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 5.7( 3.1) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 30 29.4(23.4) 76 37.4(59.4) 10 20.0( 7.8) 1 10.0( 0.8) 11 31.4( 8.6) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 32 31.4(23.5) 75 36.9(55.1) 16 32.0(11.8) 4 40.0( 2.9) 9 25.7( 6.6) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 6 5.9(15.8) 6 3.0(15.8) 16 32.0(42.1) 4 40.0(10.5) 6 17.1(15.8) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 9 8.8(27.3) 13 6.4(39.4) 3 6.0( 9.1) 1 10.0( 3.0) 7 20.0(21.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 17 16.7(68.0) 8 3.9(32.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 50 49.0(33.1) 86 42.4(57.0) 5 10.0( 3.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 10 28.6( 6.6) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 21 20.6(15.9) 81 39.9(61.4) 19 38.0(14.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 11 31.4( 8.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 6.9(11.1) 15 7.4(23.8) 24 48.0(38.1) 10 100(15.9) 7 20.0(11.1) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 7 6.9(24.1) 13 6.4(44.8) 2 4.0( 6.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 20.0(24.1) 29 7.3(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 24 23.5(75.0) 7 3.4(21.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 2.9( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 57 55.9(30.0) 114 56.2(60.0) 7 14.0( 3.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 12 34.3( 6.3) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 14 13.7(13.5) 55 27.1(52.9) 21 42.0(20.2) 3 30.0( 2.9) 11 31.4(10.6) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 6 5.9(1 L3) 13 6.4(24.5) 21 42.0(39.6) 7 70.0(13.2) 6 17.1(11.3) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.0( 4.8) 14 6.9(66.7) 1 2.0( 4.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 14.3(23.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100( 2.5) 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 10 20 IMPORT6 More resources to better maintain and protect existing trees. 10 €:STRONGLY AGREVAGREE €DISAGREE :STRONGLY DISAG DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%--Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 102 25.50 203 50.75 50 12.50 10 2.50 35 8.75 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 47 46.1(22.6) 105 51.7(50.5) 31 62.0(14.9) 5 50.0( 2.4) 20 57.1( 9.6) 208 52.0(100) PAY 34 33.3(32.1) 60 29.6(56.6) 5 10.0( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 20.0( 6.6) 106 26.5(100) 1F VOUNTEERED-N 13 12.7(21.3) 25 12.3(41.0) 12 24.0(19.7) 4 40.0( 6.6) 7 20.0(11.5) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7:8(32.0) 13 6.4(52.0) 2 4.0( 8.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 1 2.9( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 102 100(25.5) 203 100(50.8) 50 100(12.5) 10 100 2.5 35 100( 8.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 10 21 IMPORT7 Require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted 1 1 STRONGLY AGREE-AGREE =DISAGREE =STRONGLY DISAG°DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%.Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%j Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowe/o Total 160 40.00 193 48.25 30 7.50 9 2.25 8 2.00 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 0.6(33.3) 2 1.0(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 12 7.5(52.2) 9 4.7(39.1) 2 6.7( 8.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 24 15.0(40.7) 28 14.5(47.5) 6 20.0(10.2) 1 11.1( 1.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 41 25.6(38.7) 55 28.5(51.9) 4 13.3( 3.8) 4 44.4( 3.8) 2 25.0( 1.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 45 28.1(49.5) 36 18.7(39.6) 9 30.0( 9.9) 1 11.1( 1.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 37 23.1(31.4) 63 32.6(53.4) 9 30.0( 7.6) 3 33.3( 2.5) 6 75.0( 5.1) 118 29.5(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 23) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 47 29.4(29.4) 81 42.0(50.6) 21 70.0(13.1) 7 77.8( 4.4) 4 50.0( 2.5) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 113 70.6(47.1) 112 58.0(46.7) 9 30.0( 3.8) 2 22.2( 0.8) 4 50.0( 1.7) 240 60.0(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 133 83.1(38.7) 165 85.5(48.0) 29 96.7( 8.4) 9 100( 2.6) 8 100( 2.3) 344 86.0(100) RENT 26 16.3(53.1) 22 11.4(44.9) 1 3.3( 2.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 0.6(14.3) 6 3.1(85.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 34 21.3(52.3) 28 14.5(43.1) 2 6.7( 3.1) 1 11.1( 1.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 51 31.9(39.8) 71 36.8(55.5) 4 13.3( 3.1) 2 22.2( 1.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 51 31.9(37.5) 64 33.2(47.1) 13 43.3( 9.6) 1 11.1( 0.7) 7 87.5( 5.1) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9 5.6(23.7) 15 7.8(39.5) 9 30.0(23.7) 5 55.6(13.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 15 9.4(45.5) 15 7.8(45.5) 2 6.7( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 3.0) 33 8.3(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 18 11.3(72.0) 7 3.6(28.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 77 48.1(51.0) 69 35.8(45.7) 4 13.3( 2.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 0.7) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 39 24.4(29.5) 75 38.9(56.8) 10 33.3( 7.6) 3 33.3( 2.3) 5 62.5( 3.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 16 10.0(25.4) 23 11.9(36.5) 16 53.3(25.4) 6 66.7( 9.5) 2 25.0( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 10 6.3(34.5) 19 9.8(65.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 27 16.9(84.4) 5 2.6(15.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 85 53.1(44.7) 99 51.3(52.1) 5 16,7( 2.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 0.5) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 28 17.5(26.9) 56 29.0(53.8) 12 40.0(I I.5) 3 33.3( 2.9) 5 62.5( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 16 10.0(30.2) 17 8.8(32.1) 13 43.3(24.5) 6 66.7(11.3) 1 12.5( 1.9) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 2.5(19.0) 16 8.3(76.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 4.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 11 22 IMPORT7 Require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted 11 :STRONGLY AGREEAGREE €DISAGREE :STRONGLY DISAG'DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 160 40.00 193 48.25 30 7.50 9 2.25 8 2.00 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 84 52.5(40.4) 98 50.8(47.1) 15 50.0( 7.2) 6 66.7( 2.9) 5 62.5( 2.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 46 28.8(43.4) 54 28.0(50.9) 5 16.7( 4.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 12.5( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 24 15.0(39.3) 24 12.4(39.3) 10 33.3(16.4) 3 33.3( 4.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 6 3.8(24.0) 17 8.8(68.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 25.0( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 160 100(40.0) 193 100(48.3) 30 100( 7.5) 9 100( 2.3) 8 100( 2.0) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table I 1 23 FORESTI Overall quality of Tigard's urban forest in the last 10 years 12 'INCREASED :DECREASED -STAYED THE SA1vf DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Row)%_Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Rowe/o Count Col(Row)% Total 73 18.25 166 41.50 117 29.25 44 11.00 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 1.4(33.3) 2 1.2(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 3 4.1(13.0) 8 4.8(34.8) 10 8.5(43.5) 2 4.5( 8.7) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 9 12.3(15.3) 33 19.9(55.9) 12 10.3(20.3) 5 11.4( 8.5) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 20 27.4(18.9) 51 30.7(48.1) 30 25.6(28.3) 5 11.4( 4.7) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 11 15.1(12.1) 42 25.3(46.2) 26 22.2(28.6) 12 27.3(13.2) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 29 39.7(24,6) 30 18.1(25.4) 39 33.3(33.1) 20 45,5(16.9) 118 29.5(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 19 26.0(11.9) 67 40.4(41.9) 62 53.0(38.8) 12 27.3( 7.5) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 54 74.0(22.5) 99 59.6(41.3) 55 47.0(22.9) 32 72.7(13.3) 240 60.0(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 65 89.0(18,9) 146 88.0(42.4) 100 85.5(29.1) 33 75.0( 9.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 5 6.8(10.2) 19 11.4(38.8) 15 12.8(30.6) 10 22.7(20.4) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 4.1(42.9) 1 0.6(14.3) 2 1.7(28.6) 1 2.3(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 13 17.8(20.0) 30 18.1(46.2) 16 13.7(24.6) 6 13.6( 9.2) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 19 26.0(14.8) 60 36.1(46.9) 41 35.0(32.0) 8 18.2( 6.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 28 38.4(20.6) 56 33.7(41.2) 36 30.8(26.5) 16 36.4(11.8) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 8 11.0(21.1) 9 5.4(23.7) 15 12.8(39.5) 6 13.6(15.8) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 5 6.8(15.2) 11 6.6(33.3) 9 7.7(27.3) 8 18.2(24.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 2 2.7( 8.0) 10 6.0(40.0) 8 6.8(32.0) 5 11.4(20.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 23 31.5(152) 72 43.4(47.7) 43 36.8(28.5) 13 29.5( 8.6) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 25 34.2(18.9) 56 33.7(42.4) 37 31.6(28.0) 14 31.8(10.6) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 16 21.9(25.4) 20 12.0(31.7) 21 17.9(33.3) 6 13.6( 9.5) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 7 9.6(24.1) 8 4.8(27.6) 8 6.8(27.6) 6 13.6(20.7) 29 7.3(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 4 5.5(12.5) 12 7.2(37.5) 7 6.0(21.9) 9 20.5(28.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 27 37.0(14.2) 96 57.8(50.5) 54 46.2(28.4) 13 29.5( 6.8) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 25 34.2(24.0) 37 22.3(35.6) 31 26.5(29.8) 11 25.0(10.6) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 12 16.4(22.6) 16 9.6(30.2) 20 17.1(37.7) 5 11.4( 9.4) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 5 6.8(23.8) 5 3.0(23.8) 5 4.3(23.8) 6 13.6(28.6) 21 5.3(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 12 24 FOREST] Overall quality of Tigard's urban forest in the last 10 years 12 ;INCREASED :DECREASED 'STAYED THE SAMDK/NA/REF Total :Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)I/oCount Col(Row)% Total 73 18 25 166 41.50 117 29.25 44 11.00 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 40 54.8(19.2) 89 53.6(42.8) 62 53.0(29.8) 17 38.6( 8.2) 208 52.0(100) PAY 14 19.2(13.2) 44 26.5(41.5) 35 29.9(33.0) 13 29.5(12.3) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 11 15.1(18.0) 23 13.9(37.7) 16 13.7(26.2) 11 25.0(]8.0) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 11.0(32.0) 10 6.0(40.0) 4 3.4(16.0) 3 6.8(12.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 73 100(18.3) 166 100(41.5) 117 100(29.3) 44 100(11.0) 400 100(100) J Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 12 25 FOREST2 Future overall quality of Tigard's urban forest 13 :INCREASE :DECREASE :STAY THE SAME €DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%a Count Col(Row)%.Count Col(Rowp/o Count Col(Row)% Total 1 1 i 28.25 126 31.50 138 34.50 23 5.75 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.8(33.3) 2 1.4(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 4 3.5(17.4) 11 8.7(47.8) 6 4.3(26.1) 2 8.7( 8.7) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 13 11.5(22.0) 21 16.7(35.6) 24 17.4(40.7) 1 4.3( 1.7) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 30 26.5(28.3) 41 32.5(38.7) 32 23.2(30.2) 3 13.0( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 25 22.1(27.5) 30 23.8(33.0) 30 21.7(33.0) 6 26.1( 6.6) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 41 36.3(34.7) 22 17.5(18.6) 44 31.9(37.3) 11 47.8( 9.3) 118 29.5(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 42 37.2(26.3) 50 39.7(31.3) 64 46.4(40.0) 4 17.44 2.5) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 71 62.8(29.6) 76 60.3(31.7) 74 53.6(30.8) 19 82.6( 7.9) 240 60.0(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 99 87.6(28.8) 109 86.5(31.7) 119 86.2(34.6) 17 73.9( 4.9) 344 86.0(100) RENT 12 10.6(24.5) 15 11.9(30.6) 16 11.6(32.7) 6 26.1(12.2) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 1.8(28.6) 2 1.6(28.6) 3 2.2(42.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 24 21.2(36.9) 20 15.9(30.8) 19 13.8(29.2) 2 8.7( 3.1) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 39 34.5(30.5) 40 31.7(31.3) 45 32.6(35.2) 4 17.4( 3.1) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 35 31.0(25.7) 47 37.3(34.6) 47 34.1(34.6) 7 30.4( 5.1) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 6.2(18.4) 11 8.7(28.9) 18 13.0(47.4) 2 8.7( 5.3) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.1(24.2) 8 6.3(24.2) 9 6.5(27.3) 8 34.8(24.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 10 8.8(40.0) 8 6.3(32.0) 6 4.3(24.0) 1 4.3( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 49 43.4(32.5) 46 36.5(30.5) 48 34.8(31.8) 8 34.8( 5.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 35 31.0(26.5) 47 37.3(35.6) 47 34.1(35.6) 3 13.0( 2.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 6.2(11.1) 19 15.1(30.2) 31 22.5(49.2) 6 26.1( 9.5) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 12 10.6(41.4) 6 4.8(20.7) 6 4.3(20.7) 5 21.7(17,2) 29 7.3(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 13 11.5(40.6) 8 6.3(25.0) 9 6.5(28.1) 2 8.7( 6.3) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 56 49.6(29.5) 67 53.2(35.3) 60 43.5(31.6) 7 30.4( 3.7) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 26 23.0(25.0) 30 23.8(28.8) 43 31.2(41.3) 5 21.7( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9 8.0(17.0) 17 13.5(32.1) 21 15.2(39.6) 6 26.1(11.3) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 9 8.0(42.9) 4 3.2(19:0) 5 3.6(23.8) 3 13.0(14.3) 21 5.3(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 13 26 FOREST2 Future overall quality of Tigard's urban forest 13 :INCREASE :DECREASE €STAY THE SAME €DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Rowp/o Count Col(Row)% Total 113 28.25 126 31.50 138 34.50 23 5.75 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLAINT 59 52.2(28.4) 69 54.8(33.2) 69 50.0(33.2) 11 47.8( 5.3) 208 52.0(100) PAY 31 27.4(29.2) 36 28.6(34.0) 32 23.2(30.2) 7 30.4( 6.6) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 15 13.3(24.6) 17 13.5(27.9) 26 18.8(42.6) 3 13.0( 4.9) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 7.1(32.0) 4 3.2(16.0) 11 8.0(44.0) 2 8.7( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 113 100(28.3) 126 100(31.5) 138 100(34.5) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 13 27 FOREST3 Rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard 14 :ONE :THREE :FOUR =FIVE `SIX !SEVEN :EIGHT Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%i Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Total 0.75 14 3.50 11 2.75 61 15.25 48 12.00 96 24.00 119 29.75 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) l 1.0(33.3) 2 1.7(66.7) 25-34 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 2 18.2( 8.7) 3 4.9(13.0) 2 4.2(8.7) 7 7.3(30.4) 7 5.9(30.4) 3544 2 66.7(3.4) 3 21.4(5.1) 3 27.3(5.1) 7 11.5(11.9) 9 18.8(15.3) 12 12.5(20.3) 17 14.3(28.8) 45-54 1 33.3(0.9) 3 21.4(2.8) 4 36.4(3.8) 19 31.1(17.9) 14 29.2(13.2) 24 25.0(22.6) 35 29.4(33.0) 55.64 0 0.0(0.0) 4 28.6(4.4) 0 0.0(0.0) 13 21.3(14.3) 11 22.9(12.1) 29 30.2(31.9) 25 21.0(27.5) 65 and older 0 0.0(0.0) 4 28.6(3.4) 2 18.2( 1.7) 19 31.1(16.1) 12 25.0(10.2) 23 24.0(19.5) 33 27.7(28.0) Total 3 100( 0.8) 14 100(3.5) 11 100(2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12,0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 1 33.3(0.6) 7 50.0(4.4) 8 72.7(5.0) 25 41.0(15.6) 20 41.7(12.5) 45 46.9(28.1) 38 31.9(23.8) FEMALE 2 66.7(0.8) 7 50.0(2.9) 3 27.3( 1.3) 36 59.0(15.0) 28 58.3(11.7) 51 53.1(21.3) 81 68.1(33.8) Total 3 100(0.8) 14 100( 3.5) 11 100(2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12.0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 3 100(0.9) 14 100(4.1) 10 90.9(2.9) 56 91.8(16.3) 40 83.3(11.6) 82 85.4(23.8) 99 83.2(28.8) RENT 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 5 8.2(10.2) 5 10.4(10.2) 11 11.5(22.4) 20 16.8(40,S) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 1 9.1(14.3) 0 0.0(0.0) 3 6.3(42.9) 3 3.1(42.9) 0 0.0(0.0) Total 3 100(0.8) 14 100( 3.5) 11 100( 2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12.0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 1 33.3( 1.5) 1 71( 1.5) I 9.1( 1.5) 13 21.3(20.0) 7 14.6(10.8) 16 16.7(24.6) 19 16.0(29.2) SUPPORT 1 33.3(0.8) 5 35.7(3.9) 4 36.4(3.1) 14 23.0(10.9) 20 41.7(15.6) 29 30.2(22.7) 40 33.6(31.3) OPPOSE 1 33.3(0.7) 5 35.7(3.7) 4 36.4(2.9) 25 41.0(18.4) 15 31.3(1L0) 33 34.4(24.3) 41 34.5(30.1) STRONGLY OPPOSE 0 0.0(0.0) 1 7.1(2.6) I 9.1(2.6) 9 14.8(23.7) 4 8.3(10.5) 6 6.3(15.8) 12 10.1(31.6) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0(0.0) 2 14.3(6.1) t 9.1(3.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 2 4.2(6.1) 12 12.5(36.4) 7 5.9(21.2) Total 3 100(0.8) 14 100( 3.5) 11 100(2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12.0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 1 33.3(4.0) 2 14.3(8.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 4 6.6(16.0) 3 6.3(12.0) 4 4.2(16.0) 8 6.7(32.0) SUPPORT 1 33.3(0.7) 4 29.6(2.6) 4 36.4(2.6) 22 36.1(14.6) 23 47.9(15.2) 41 42.7(27.2) 38 31.9(25.2) OPPOSE 1 33.3(0.8) 4 28.6(3.0) 3 27.3(2.3) 24 39.3(18.2) 12 25.0(9.1) 35 36.5(26.5) 43 36.1(32.6) STRONGLY OPPOSE 0 0.0(0.0) 4 28.6(6.3) 3 27.3(4.8) 11 18.0(17.5) 7 14.6(11.1) 10 10.4(15.9) 17 14.3(27.0) DKINAIREF 0 0.0(0:0) 0 0.0(0.0) 1 9.1(3.4) 0 0.0(0.0) 3 6.3(10.3) 6 6.3(20.7) 13 10.9(44.8) Total 3 100(0.8) 14 100(3.5) 11 100( 2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12.0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 2 66.7(6.3) 2 14.3( 6.3) 0 0.0(0.0) 5 8.2(15.6) 4 8.3(12.5) 4 4.2(12.5) 12 10.1(37.5) SUPPORT 0 0.0(0.0) 3 21.4( 1.6) 5 45.5(2.6) 32 52.5(16.8) 25 52.1(13.2) 56 58.3(29.5) 48 40.3(25.3) OPPOSE 0 0.0(0.0) 5 35.7(4.8) 3 27.3(2.9) 12 19.7(11.5) 13 27.1(12.5) 22 22.9(21.2) 40 33.6(38.5) STRONGLY OPPOSE 1 33.3( 1.9) 3 21.4(5.7) 2 18.2(3.8) 11 18.0(20.8) 5 10.4(9.4) 7 7.3(13.2) 13 10.9(24.5) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0(0.0) I 7.1(4.8) 1 9.1(4.8) 1 1.6(4.8) 1 2.1(4.8) 7 7.3(33.3) 6 5.0(28.6) Total 3 100(0.8) 14 100(3.5) 11 100(2.8) 61 100(15.3) 48 100(12.0) 96 100(24.0) 119 100(29.8) Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 1 33.3(0.5) 7 50.0(3.4) 8 72.7(3.8) 31 50.8(143) 20 41.7(9.6) 52 54.2(25.0) 67 56.3(32.2) PAY 1 33.3(0.9) 1 7.1(0.9) 1 9.1(0.9) 19 31.1(17.9) 19 39.6(17.9) 27 28.1(25.5) 26 21.8(24.5) IF VOUNTEERED-N 1 33.3( 1.6) 5 35.7(8.2) 2 19.2(33) 8 13.1(13.1) 8 16.7(13.1) 15 15.6(24.6) 14 11.8(23.0) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0(0.0) 1 7.1(4.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 3 4.9(12.0) 1 2.1(4.0) 2 2.1(8.0) 12 10.1(48.0) Total 3 100 0.8 14 100 3.5 11 100 2.8 61 100 15.3 48 100(12.0) 96 100 24.0 119 100 29.8 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 14 28 FORESTS 14 :NINE :TEN :DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 19 4.75 24 6.00 5 1.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGIE) 18-24 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 0 0.0(0.0) 2 9.3(8.7) 0 0.0(0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 2 10.5(3.4) 4 16.7(6.8) 0 0.0(0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 3 15.8(2.8) 3 12.5(2.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 5 26.3(5.5) 3 12.5(3.3) 1 20.0( 1.1) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 9 47.4( 7.6) 12 50.0(10.2) 4 90.0(3.4) 118 29.5(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Are you mak or femal MALE 7 36.8(4.4) 9 37.5( 5.6) 0 0.0(0.0) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 12 63.2( 5.0) 15 62.5(6.3) 5 100(2.1) 240 60.0(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home OWN 15 78.9(4.4) 20 93.3(5.8) 5 100( 1.5) 344 86.0(100) RENT 4 2t.1(8.2) 4 16.7( 8.2) 0 0.0(0.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibilit; STRONGLY SUPPOR' 3 15.9(4.6) 4 16.7(6.2) 0 0.0(0.0) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 5 26.3(3.9) 8 33.3(6.3) 2 40.0( 1.6) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 6 31.6(4.4) 5 20.8(3.7) 1 20.0(0.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 2 10.5(5.3) 3 12.5( 7.9) 0 0.0(0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 3 15.8( 9.1) 4 16.7(12.1) 2 40.0( 6.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR1 5.3(4.0) 2 8.3(8.0) 0 0.0(0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 9 47.4(6.0) 6 25.0(4.0) 3 60.0(2.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 3 15.8(2.3) 6 25.0(4.5) 1 20.0(0.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 21.1(6.3) 7 29.2(11.1) 0 0.0(0.0) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 2 10.5(6.9) 3 12.5(10.3) 1 20.0(3.4) 29 7.3(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR 0 0.0(0.0) 3 12.5(9.4) 0 0.0(0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 10 52.6(5.3) 8 33.3(4.2) 3 60.0( 1.6) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 2 10.5( 1.9) 6 25.0(5.8) 1 20.0( 1.0) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 5 26.3(9.4) 6 25.0(11.3) 0 0.0(0.0) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 10.5(9.5) 1 4.2(4.8) 1 20.0(4.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 19 100(4.8) 24 100(6.0) 5 100( 1.3) 400 100(100) Would you prefer vola PLANT 11 57.9(5.3) 10 41.7(4.8) 1 20.0(0.5) 208 52.0(100) PAY 3 15.8(2.8) 8 33.3( 7.5) 1 20.0(0.9) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 3 15.8(4.9) 5 20.8(8.2) 0 0.0(0.0) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 10.5(8.0) 1 4.2(4.0) 3 60.0(12.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 19 100 4.8 24 100(6.0) 5 1001 400 100(100 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 14 29 TAXI Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City 15 =STRONGLY SUPPO SUPPORT =OPPOSE 'STRONGLY OPPOS€DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 65 16.25 128 32.00 136 34.00 38 9.50 33 8.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.8(33.3) 2 1.5(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 2 3.1( 8.7) 9 7.0(39.1) 8 5.9(34.8) 1 2.6( 4.3) 3 9.1(13.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 17 26.2(28.8) 20 15.6(33.9) 14 10.3(23.7) 6 15.8(10.2) 2 6.1( 3.4) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 20 30.8(18.9) 35 27.3(33.0) 37 27.2(34.9) 10 26.3( 9.4) 4 12.1( 3.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 10 15.4(11.0) 28 21.9(30.8) 33 24.3(36.3) 11 28.9(12.1) 9 27.3( 9.9) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 16 24.6(13.6) 35 27.3(29.7) 42 30.9(35.6) 10 26.3( 8.5) 15 45.5(12.7) 118 29.5(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 18 27.7(11.3) 51 39.8(31.9) 58 42.6(36.3) 18 47.4(11.3) 15 45.5( 9.4) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 47 72.3(19.6) 77 60.2(32.1) 78 57.4(32.5) 20 52.6( 8.3) 18 54.5( 7.5) 240 60.0(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 53 81.5(15.4) 111 86.7(32.3) 120 88.2(34.9) 34 89.5( 9.9) 26 78.8( 7.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 11 16.9(22.4) 14 10.9(28.6) 13 9.6(26.5) 4 10.5( 8.2) 7 21.2(14.3) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.5(14.3) 3 2.3(42.9) 3 2.2(42.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 11 16.9(44.0) 6 4.7(24.0) 4 2.9(16.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 12.1(16.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 34 52.3(22.5) 72 56.3(47.7) 33 24.3(21.9) 1 2.6( 0.7) 11 33.3( 7.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 10 15.4( 7.6) 37 28.9(28.0) 71 52.2(53.8) 6 15.8( 4.5) 8 24.2( 6.1) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 10.8(11.1) 9 7.0(14.3) 16 11.8(25.4) 29 76.3(46.0) 2 6.1( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 3 4.6(10.3) 4 3.1(13.8) 12 8.8(41.4) 2 5.3( 6.9) 8 24.2(27.6) 29 7.3(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 10 15.4(31.3) 7 5.5(21.9) 10 7.4(31.3) 1 2.6( 3.1) 4 12.1(12.5) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 30 46.2(15.8) 80 62.5(42.1) 65 47.8(34.2) 5 13.2( 2.6) 10 30.3( 5.3) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 12 18.5(11.5) 28 21.9(26.9) 46 33.8(44.2) 9 23.7( 8.7) 9 27.3( 8.7) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 12 18.5(22.6) 7 5.5(13:2) 10 7.4(18.9) 21 55.3(39.6) 3 9.1( 5.7) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.5( 4.8) 6 4.7(28.6) " 5 3.7(23.8) 2 5.3( 9.5) 7 21.2(33.3) 21 5.3(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 400 100(100) Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 30 46.2(14.4) 65 50.8(31.3) 73 53.7(35.1) 21 55.3(10.1) 19 57.6( 9.1) 208 52.0(100) PAY 27 41.5(25.5) 35 27.3(33.0) 32 23.5(30.2) 5 13.2( 4.7) 7 21.2( 6.6) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 6 9.2( 9.8) 19 14.8(31.1) 22 16.2(36.1) 9 23.7(14.8) 5 15.2( 8.2) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 3.1( 8.0) 9 7.0(36.0) 9 6.6(36.0) 3 7.9(12.0) 2 6.1( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 65 100(16.3) 128 100(32.0) 136 100(34.0) 38 100( 9.5) 33 100( 8.3) 1 400 100 100 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 15 30 TAX2 Additional funding to fund a City street tree program 16 =STRONGLY SUPPCkSUPPORT :OPPOSE _STRONGLY OPPOS DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%I Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)I/o Total 25 6.25 151 37.75 132 33.00 63 15.75 29 7.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.8(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 6.9(66.7) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 0 0.0( 0.0) 12 7.9(52.2) 7 5.3(30.4) 3 4.8(13.0) 1 3.4( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 4 16.0( 6.8) 25 16.6(42.4) 20 15.2(33.9) 10 15.9(16.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 4 16.0( 3.8) 47 31.1(44.3) 35 26.5(33.0) 16 25.4(15.1) 4 13.8( 3.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 10 40.0(11.0) 35 23.2(38.5) 26 19.7(28.6) 16 25.4(17.6) 4 13.8( 4.4) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 7 28.0( 5.9) 32 21.2(27.1) 43 32.6(36.4) 18 28.6(15.3) 18 62.1(15.3) 118 29.5(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33.0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 7.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 6 24.0( 3.8) 55 36.4(34.4) 56 42.4(35.0) 33 52.4(20.6) 10 34.5( 6.3) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 19 76.0( 7.9) 96 63.6(40.0) 76 57.6(31.7) 30 47.6(12.5) 19 65.5( 7.9) 240 60.0(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33.0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 7.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 20 80.0( 5.8) 128 84.8(37.2) 117 88.6(34.0) 58 92.1(16.9) 21 72.4( 6.1) 344 86.0(100) RENT 5 20.0(10.2) 20 13.2(40.8) 13 9.8(26.5) 4 6.3( 8.2) 7 24.1(14.3) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 2.0(42.9) 2 1.5(28.6) 1 1.6(14.3) 1 3.4(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33.0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 7.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 11 44.0(16.9) 34 22.5(52.3) 10 7.6(15.4) 7 11.1(10.8) 3 10.3( 4.6) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 6 24.0( 4.7) 72 47.7(56.3) 37 28.0(28.9) 9 14.3( 7.0) 4 13.8( 3.1) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 4 16.0( 2.9) 33 21.9(24.3) 71 53.8(52.2) 16 25.4(11.8) 12 41,4( 8.8) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.7( 2.6) 6 4.5(15.8) 29 46.0(76.3) 2 6.9( 5.3) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 4 16.0(12.1) 11 7.3(33.3) 8 6.1(24.2) 2 3.2( 6.1) 8 27.6(24.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33.0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 7.3) 400 100(100) Additional fending to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 20 80.0(62.5) 8 5.3(25.0) 2 1.5( 6.3) 1 1.6( 3.1) 1 3.4( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 3 12.0( 1.6) 124 82.1(65.3) 47 35.6(24.7) 9 14.3( 4.7) 7 241( 3.7) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 0 0.0( 0.0) 12 7.9(11.5) 71 53.8(68.3) 11 17.5(10.6) 10 34.5( 9.6) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 1.3( 3.8) 9 6.8(17.0) 40 63.5(75.5) 2 6,9( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 8.0( 9.5) 5 3.3(23.8) 3 2.3(14.3) 2 3.2( 9.5) 9 31.0(42.9) 21 5.3(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33,0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 73) 400 100(100) Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 4 16.0( 1.9) 74 49.0(35.6) 83 62.9(39.9) 35 55.6(16.8) 12 41.4( 5.8) 208 52.0(100) PAY 14 56.0(13.2) 56 37.1(52.8) 24 18.2(22.6) 6 9.5( 5.7) 6 20.7( 5.7) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 4 16.0( 6.6) 15 9.9(24.6) 20 15.2(32.8) 17 27.0(27.9) 5 17.2( 8.2) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 12.0(12.0) 6 4.0(24.0) 5 3.8(20.0) 5 7.9(20.0) 6 20.7(24.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 25 100( 6.3) 151 100(37.8) 132 100(33.0) 63 100(15.8) 29 100( 7.3) 1 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 16 31 TAX3 Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program 17 :STRONGLY SUPPO_SUPPORT :OPPOSE =STRONGLY OPPOSDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 32 8.00 190 47.50 104 26.00 53 13.25 21 5.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.5(33.3) 2 1:9(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 1 3.1( 4.3) 15 7.9(65.2) 2 1.9( 8.7) 4 7.5(17.4) 1 4.8( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 7 21.9(11.9) 27 14.2(45.8) 17 16.3(28.8) 6 11.3(10.2) 2 9.5( 3.4) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 7 21.9( 6.6) 57 30.0(53.8) 29 27.9(27.4) 10 18.9( 9.4) 3 14.3( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 9 28.1( 9.9) 48 25.3(52.7) 16 15.4(17.6) 16 30.2(17.6) 2 9.5( 2.2) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 8 25.0( 6.8) 42 22.1(35.6) 38 36.5(32.2) 17 32.1(14.4) 13 61.9(11.0) 118 29.5(100) Total 32 100( 8.0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 9 28.1( 5.6) 67 35.3(41.9) 46 44.2(28.8) 27 50.9(16.9) 11 52.4( 6.9) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 23 71.9( 9.6) 123 64.7(51.3) 58 55.8(24.2) 26 49.1(10.8) 10 47.6( 4.2) 240 60.0(100) Total 32 100( 8.0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 23 71.9( 6.7) 165 86.8(48.0) 90 86.5(26.2) 49 92.5(14.2) 17 81.0( 4.9) 344 86.0(100) RENT 8 25.0(16.3) 22 11.6(44.9) 12 11.5(24.5) 4 7.5( 8.2) 3 14.3( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 3.1(14.3) 3 1.6(42.9) 2 1.9(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.8(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 32 100( 8.0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 10 31.3(15.4) 30 15.8(46.2) 12 11.5(18.5) 12 22.6(18.5) 1 4.8( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 7 21.9( 5.5) 80 42.1(62.5) 28 26.9(21.9) 7 13.2( 5.5) 6 28.6( 4.7) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 10 31.3( 7.4) 65 34.2(47.8) 46 44.2(33.8) 10 18.9( 7.4) 5 23.8( 3.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 1 3.1( 2.6) 5 2.6(13.2) 9 8.7(23.7) 21 39.6(55.3) 2 9.5( 5.3) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 4 12.5(12.1) 10 5.3(30.3) 9 8.7(27.3) 3 5,7( 9.1) 7 33.3(21.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 32 100( 8.0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 20 62.5(80.0) 3 1.6(12.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 9.5( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 8 25.0( 5.3) 124 65.3(82.1) 12 11.5( 7.9) 2 3.8( 1.3) 5 23.8( 3.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 2 6.3( 1.5) 47 24.7(35.6) 71 68.3(53.8) 9 17.0( 6.8) 3 14.3( 2.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 1 3.1( 1.6) 9 4.7(14.3) 11 10.6(17.5) 40 75.5(63.5) 2 9.5( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 1 3.1( 3.4) 7 3.7(24.1) 10 9.6(34.5) 2 3.8( 6.9) 9 42.9(31.0) 29 7.3(100) Total 32 100( 8,0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 400 100(100) Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 8 25.0( 3.8) 95 50.0(45.7) 70 67.3(33.7) 29 54.7(13.9) 6 28.6( 2.9) 208 52.0(100) PAY 17 53.1(16.0) 66 34.7(62.3) 12 11.5(11.3) 2 3.8( 1.9) 9 42.9( 8.5) I06 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 4 12.5( 6.6) 18 9.5(29.5) 15 14.4(24.6) 18 34.0(29.5) 6 28.6( 9.8) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 9.4(12.0) 11 5.8(44.0) 7 6.7(28.0) 4 7.5(16.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 32 100( 8.0) 190 100(47.5) 104 100(26.0) 53 100(13.3) 21 100( 5.3) 1 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 17 32 TAY4 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City? 18 PLANT SPAY IF VOUNTEERED-'DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)/o Count Col(Row)% Total 208 52.00 106 26.50 61 15.25 25 6.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 0.5(33.3) 1 0.9(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.0(33.3) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 12 5.8(52.2) 9 8.5(39.1) 2 3.3( 8,7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 35 16.8(59.3) 17 16.0(28.8) 5 8.2( 8.5) 2 8.0( 3.4) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 60 28.8(56.6) 29 27.4(27.4) 15 24.6(14.2) 2 8.0( 1.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 46 22.1(50.5) 16 15.1(17.6) 22 36.1(24.2) 7 28.0( 7.7) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 54 26.0(45.8) 34 32.1(28.8) 17 27.9(14.4) 13 52.0(11.0) 118 29.5(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 88 42.3(55.0) 39 36.8(24.4) 27 44.3(16.9) 6 24.0( 3.8) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 120 57.7(50.0) 67 63.2(27.9) 34 55.7(14.2) 19 76.0( 7.9) 240 60.0(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 178 85.6(51.7) 90 84.9(26.2) 54 88.5(15.7) 22 88.0( 6.4) 344 86.0(100) RENT 27 13.0(55.1) 13 12.3(26.5) 7 11.5(14.3) 2 8.0( 4.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 1.4(42.9) 3 2.8(42.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.0(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 30 14.4(46.2) 27 25.5(41.5) 6 9.8( 9.2) 2 8.0( 3.1) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 65 31.3(50.8) 35 33.0(27.3) 19 31.1(14.8) 9 36.0( 7.0) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 73 35.1(53.7) 32 30.2(23.5) 22 36.1(16.2) 9 36.0( 6.6) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 21 10.1(55.3) 5 4.7(13.2) 9 14.8(23.7) 3 12.0( 7.9) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 19 9.1(57.6) 7 6.6(21.2) 5 8.2(15.2) 2 8.0( 6.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 4 1.9(16.0) 14 13.2(56.0) 4 6.6(16.0) 3 12.0(12.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 74 35.6(49.0) 56 52.8(37.1) 15 24.6( 9.9) 6 24.0( 4.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 83 39.9(62.9) 24 22.6(18.2) 20 32.8(15.2) 5 20.0( 3.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 35 16.8(55.6) 6 5.7( 9.5) 17 27.9(27.0) 5 20.0( 7.9) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 12 5.8(41.4) 6 5.7(20.7) 5 8.2(17.2) 6 24.0(20.7) 29 7.3(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 8 3.8(25.0) 17 16.0(53.1) 4 6.6(12.5) 3 12.0( 9.4) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 95 45.7(50.0) 66 62.3(34.7) 18 29.5( 9.5) 11 44.0( 5.8) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 70 33.7(67.3) 12 11.3(11.5) 15 24.6(14.4) 7 28.0( 6.7) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 29 13.9(54.7) 2 1,9( 3.8) 18 29.5(34.0) 4 16.0( 7.5) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 6 2.9(28.6) 9 8.5(42.9) 6 9.8(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 208 100(52.0) 106 100(26.5) 61 100(15.3) 25 100( 6.3) 1 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 18 33 CHOICEI First choice of where the city should plant more trees 19 :ALONG STREETS IN PEOPLE'S YARD IN COMMERCIAL 4IN PARKS =NEAR STREAMS A'DK/NA/REF Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 99 24.75 10 2.50 51 12.75 79 19.75 129 32.25 32 5.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 1.0(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 2.0(33.3) 1 1.3(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25-34 7 7.1(30.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 3.9( 8.7) 6 7.6(26.1) 8 6.2(34.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 35-44 17 17.2(28.8) 2 20.0( 3.4) 12 23.5(20.3) 12 15.2(20.3) 14 10.9(23.7) 2 6.3( 3.4) 45-54 40 40.4(37.7) 1 10.0( 0.9) 9 17.6( 8.5) 17 21.5(16.0) 32 24.8(30.2) 7 21.9( 6.6) 55-64 17 17.2(18.7) 3 30.0( 3.3) 14 27.5(15.4) 11 13.9(12.1) 37 28.7(40.7) 9 28.1( 9.9) 65 and older 17 17.2(14.4) 4 40.0( 3.4) 13 25.5(11.0) 32 40.5(27.1) 38 29.5(32.2) 14 43.8(11.9) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 33 33.3(20.6) 3 30.0( 1.9) 20 39.2(12.5) 29 36.7(18.1) 60 46.5(37.5) 15 46.9( 9.4) FEMALE 66 66.7(27.5) 7 70.0( 2.9) 31 60.8(12.9) 50 63.3(20.8) 69 53.5(28.8) 17 53.1( 7.1) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Do you own your Lome,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 89 89.9(25.9) 8 80.0( 2.3) 39 76.5(11.3) 68 86.1(19.8) 111 86.0(32.3) 29 90.6( 8.4) RENT 9 9.1(18.4) 2 20.0( 4.1) 11 21.6(22.4) 10 12.7(20.4) 15 11.6(30.6) 2 6.3( 4.1) DK/NA/REF 1 1.0(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 2.0(14.3) 1 1.3(14.3) 3 2.3(42.9) 1 3.1(14.3) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 21 21.2(32.3) 4 40.0( 6.2) 12 23.5(18.5) 11 13.9(16.9) 11 8.5(16.9) 6 18.8( 9.2) SUPPORT 40 40.4(31.3) 4 40.0( 3.1) 15 29.4(11.7) 25 31.6(19.5) 37 28.7(28.9) 7 21.9( 5.5) OPPOSE 30 30.3(22.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 13 25.5( 9.6) 30 38.0(22.1) 52 40.3(38.2) 11 34.4( 8.1) STRONGLY OPPOSE 5 5.1(13.2) 1 10.0( 2.6) 4 7.8(10.5) 7 8.9(18.4) 16 12.4(42.1) 5 15.6(13.2) DK/NA/REF 3 3.0( 9.1) 1 10.0( 3.0) 7 13.7(21.2) 6 7.6(18.2) 13 10.1(39.4) 3 9.4( 9.1) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 7 7.1(28.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 4 7.8(16.0) 6 7.6(24.0) 6 4.7(24.0) 1 3.1( 4.0) SUPPORT 57 57.6(37.7) 4 40.0( 2.6) 22 43.1(14.6) 18 22.8(11.9) 44 34.1(29.1) 6 18.8( 4.0) OPPOSE 20 20.2(15.2) 2 20.0( 1.5) 15 29.4(11.4) 33 41.8(25.0) 50 38.8(37.9) 12. 37.5( 9.1) STRONGLY OPPOSE 10 10.1(15.9) 2 20.0( 3.2) 3 5.9( 4.8) 14 17.7(22.2) 22 17.1(34.9) 12 37.5(19,0) DK/NA/REF 5 5.1(17.2) 1 10.0( 3.4) 7 13.7(24.1) 8 10.1(27.6) 7 5.4(24.1) 1 3.1( 3.4) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 7 7.1(21.9) 1 10.0( 3.1) 6 11.8(18.8) 9 11.4(28.1) 7 5.4(21.9) 2 6.3( 6.3) SUPPORT 65 65.7(34.2) 3 30.0( 1.6) 26 51.0(13.7) 31 39.2(16.3) 58 45.0(30.5) 7 21.9( 3.7) OPPOSE 17 17.2(16.3) 2 20.0( 1.9) 12 23.5(11.5) 23 29.1(22.1) 41 31.8(39.4) 9 28.1( 8.7) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 7.1(13.2) 3 30.0( 5.7) 5 9.8( 9.4) 11 13.9(20.8) 15 11.6(28.3) 12 37.5(22.6) DK/NA/REF 3 3.0(14.3) 1 10.0( 4.8) 2 3.9( 9.5) 5 6.3(23.8) 8 6.2(38.1) 2 6.3( 9.5) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 19 34 CHOICE] 19 Total _ Count Col(Row)% Total 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 3 0.8(100) 25-34 23 5.8(100) 35-44 59 14.8(100) 45-54 106 26.5(100) 55-64 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 118 29.5(100) Total 400 100(100) Are you male or ferns MALE 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 240 60.0(100) Total 400 100(100) Do you own your hon OWN 344 86.0(100) RENT 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 7 1.8(100) Total 400 100(100) Transfer responsibilil STRONGLY SUPPOR 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 33 8.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 132 33.0(100) STRONGLYOPPOSE 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 29 7.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 21 5.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 19 35 CHOICEI First choice of where the city should plant more trees 19 ;ALONG STREETS UN PEOPLE'S YARgIN COMMERCIAL AIN PARKS 'NEAR STREAMS A DK/NA/REF Count Col(Row)%`Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%2 Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)% Total 99 24.75 10 2.50 51 12.75 79 19.75 129 32.25 32 8.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 47 47.5(22.6) 4 40.0( 1.9) 27 52.9(13.0) 37 46.8(17.8) 73 56.6(35.1) 20 62.5( 9.6) PAY 31 31.3(29.2) 3 30.0( 2.8) 11 21.6(10.4) 26 32.9(24.5) 31 24.0(29.2) 4 12.5( 3.8) IF VOUNTEERED-N 14 14.1(23.0) 2 20.0( 3.3) 10 19.6(16.4) 11 13.9(18.0) 16 12.4(26.2) 8 25.0(13.1) DK/NAIREF 7 7.1(28.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 3 5.9(12.0) 5 6.3(20.0) 9 7.0(36.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) Total 99 100(24.8) 10 100( 2.5) 51 100(12.8) 79 100(19.8) 129 100(32.3) 32 100( 8.0) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 19 36 CHOICEI 19 Total Count Col(Row)% Total 400 100.00 Would you prefer vob PLANT 208 52.0(100) PAY 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 25 6.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 19 37 CHOICE2 Your opinion about trees. 20 :PRESERVE AS MAl WHEN TREES ARE€PRESERVE LARGE ALLOW INDIVIDUA(IF VOLUNTEERE13DK/NA/REF Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 128 32.00 129 32.25 60 15.00 71 17.75 1 0.25 11 2.75 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 0.8(33.3) 1 0.8(33.3) 1 1.7(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25-34 6 4.7(26.1) 9 7.0(39.1) 4 6.7(17.4) 4 5.6(17.4) 0 0,0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 35-44 17 13.3(28.8) 22 17.1(37.3) 9 15.0(15.3) 11 15.5(18.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 45-54 29 22.7(27.4) 42 32.6(39.6) 21 35.0(19.8) 11 15.5(10.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 27.3( 2.8) 55-64 34 26.6(37.4) 22 17.1(24.2) 13 21.7(14.3) 20 28.2(22.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 18.2( 2.2) 65 and older 41 32.0(34.7) 33 25.6(28.0) 12 20.0(10.2) 25 35.2(21.2) 1 100( 0.8) 6 54.5( 5.1) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 46 35.9(28.8) 42 32.6(26.3) 19 31.7(11.9) 47 66.2(29.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 6 54.5( 3.8) FEMALE 82 64.1(34.2) 87 67.4(36.3) 41 68.3(17.1) 24 33.8(10.0) 1 100( 0.4) 5 45.5( 2.1) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 101 78.9(29.4) 111 86.0(32.3) 52 86.7(15.1) 69 97.2(20.1) 1 100( 0.3) 10 90.9( 2.9) RENT 24 18.8(49.0) 17 13.2(34.7) 6 10.0(12.2) 1 1.4( 2.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 2.0) DK/NA/REF 3 2,3(42.9) 1 0.8(14.3) 2 3.3(28.6) 1 1.4(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Transfer responsibility for maintaining sheet trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 20 15.6(30.8) 24 18.6(36.9) 9 15.0(13.8) 11 15.5(16.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 1.5) SUPPORT 32 25.0(25.0) 51 39.5(39.8) 25 41.7(19.5) 17 23.9(13.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 27.3( 2.3) OPPOSE 51 39.8(37.5) 39 30.2(28.7) 17 28.3(12.5) 23 32.4(16.9) 1 100(0.7) 5 45.5( 3.7) STRONGLY OPPOSE 10 7.8(26.3) 6 4.7(15.8) 4 6.7(10.5) 17 23.9(44.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 2.6) DK/NA/REF 15 11.7(45.5) 9 7.0(27.3) 5 8.3(15.2) 3 4.2( 9.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 3.0) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 10.9(56.0) 4 3.1(16.0) 5 8.3(20.0) 2 2.8( 8.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) SUPPORT 49 38.3(32.5) 58 45.0(38.4) 26 43.3(17.2) 16 22.5(10.6) 1 100( 0.7) 1 9.1( 0.7) OPPOSE 33 25.8(25.0) 48 37.2(36.4) 17 28.3(12.9) 28 39.4(21.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 6 54.5( 4.5) STRONGLY OPPOSE 18 14.1(28.6) 14 10.9(22.2) 6 10.0( 9.5) 23 32.4(36.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 18.2( 3.2) DK/NA/REF 14 10.9(48.3) 5 3.9(17.2) 6 10.0(20.7) 2 2.8( 6.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 18.2( 6.9) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 23 18.0(71.9) 6 4.7(18.8) 2 3.3( 6.3) 1 1.4( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) SUPPORT 61 47.7(32.1) 74 57.4(38.9) 34 56.7(17.9) 16 22.5( 8.4) 1 100( 0.5) 4 36.4( 2.1) OPPOSE 26 20.3(25.0) 34 26.4(32.7) 15 25.0(14.4) 25 35.2(24.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 36.4( 3.8) STRONGLY OPPOSE 12 9.4(22.6) 10 7.8(18.9) 5 8.3( 9.4) 24 33.8(45.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 18.2( 3.8) DK/NA/REF 6 4.7(28.6) 5 3.9(23.8) 4 6.7(19.0) 5 7.0(23.8) 0 0,0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 4.8) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 20 38 CHOICE2 20 Total Count Col(Row)% Total 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 3 0.8(100) 25-34 23 5.8(100) 35-44 59 14.8(100) 45-54 106 26.5(100) 55-64 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 118 29.5(100) Total 400 100(100) Are you male or fema MALE 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 240 60.0(100) Total 400 100(100) Do you own your hoe OWN 344 86.0(100) RENT 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 7 1.8(100) Total 400 100(100) Transfer responsibiiil STRONGLY SUPPOR 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 33 8.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 29 7.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Additional funding to STRONGLY SUPPOR 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 21 5.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 20 39 CHOICE2 Your opinion about trees. 20 :PRESERVE AS MA>W1iEN TREES AREPRESERVE LARGE-ALLOW INDP✓IDU (IF VOLUNTEEREL DK/NA/REF Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)%!Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)0/61 Count Col(Row)%_Count Col(Row)'/o Total 128 32.00 129 32.25 60 15.00 71 17.75 1 0.25 II 2.75 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 59 46.1(28.4) 73 56.6(35.1) 29 48.3(13.9) 38 53.5(18.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 9 81.8( 4.3) PAY 40 31.3(37.7) 33 25.6(31.1) 17 28.3(16.0) 15 21.1(14.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 0.9) IF VOUNTEERED-N 20 15.6(32.8) 17 13.2(27.9) 7 11.7(11.5) 16 22.5(26.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 1.6) DK/NA/REF 9 7.0(36.0) 6 4.7(24.0) 7 11.7(28.0) 2 2.8( 8.0) 1 100( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) Total 128 100(32.0) 129 100(32.3) 60 100(15.0) 71 100(17.8) 1 100( 0.3) 11 100( 2.8) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 20 40 CHOICE2 20 Total Count Col(Row)% Total 400 100.00 Would you prefer vot PLANT 208 52.0(100) PAY 106 26.5(100) IFVOUNTEERED-N 61 15,3(100) DK/NA/REF 25 6.3(100) Total 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 20 41 HAZARD City would become involved in disputes between neighbors 21 -STRONGLY SUPPOISUPPORT ;OPPOSE ;STRONGLY OPPOS DIUNA/REF Total Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 54 13.50 185 46.25 101 25.25 49 12.25 11 2.75 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.6(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0,0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 3 5.6(13.0) 11 5.9(47.8) 6 5.9(26.1) 3 6.1(13.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 10 18.5(16.9) 27 14.6(45.8) 11 10.9(18.6) 9 18.4(15.3) 2 18.2( 3.4) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 14 25.9(13.2) 49 26.5(46.2) 29 28.7(27.4) 12 24.5(11.3) 2 18.2( 1.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 10 18.5(11.0) 44 23.8(48.4) 24 23.8(26.4) 10 20.4(11.0) 3 27,3( 3.3) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 17 31.5(14.4) 51 27.6(43.2) 31 30.7(26.3) 15 30.6(12.7) 4 36,4( 3.4) 118 29.5(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 18 33.3(11.3) 70 37.8(43.8) 42 41.6(26.3) 27 55.1(16.9) 3 27.3( 1.9) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 36 66.7(15.0) 115 62.2(47.9) 59 58.4(24.6) 22 44.9( 9.2) 8 72.7( 3.3) 240 60.0(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 41 75.9(11.9) 157 84.9(45.6) 91 90.1(26.5) 46 93.9(13,4) 9 81.8( 2.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 10 18.5(20.4) 25 13.5(51.0) 10 9.9(20.4) 2 4.1( 4.1) 2 18.2( 4.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 5.6(42.9) 3 1.6(42.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 2.0(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 26 48.1(40.0) 21 11.4(32.3) 13 12.9(20.0) 4 8.2( 6.2) 1 9.1( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 14 25.9(10.9) 67 36.2(52.3) 34 33.7(26.6) 8 16.3( 6.3) 5 45.5( 3.9) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 8 14.8( 5.9) 66 35.7(48.5) 44 43.6(32.4) 16 32.7(11.8) 2 18.2( 1.5) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 3 5.6( 7.9) 14 7.6(36.8) 3 3.0( 7.9) 17 34.7(44.7) 1 9.1( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 3 5.6( 9.1) 17 9.2(51.5) 7 6.9(21.2) 4 8.2(12.1) 2 18.2( 6.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 9 16.7(36.0) 10 5.4(40.0) 5 5.0(20.0) 0 0,0( 0.0) 1 9.1( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 25 46.3(16.6) 83 44.9(55.0) 31 30.7(20.5) 6 12.2( 4.0) 6 54.5( 4.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 8 14.8( 6.1) 58 31.4(43.9) 48 47.5(36.4) 17 34.7(12.9) 1 9.1( 0.8) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 7 13.0(11.1) 19 10.3(30.2) 11 10.9(17.5) 24 49.0(38.1) 2 18.2( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 5 9.3(17.2) 15 8.1(51.7) 6 5.9(20.7) 2 4.1( 6.9) 1 9.1( 3.4) 29 7.3(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 12 22.2(37.5) 11 5.9(34.4) 6 5.9(18.8) 2 4.1( 6.3) 1 9,1( 33) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 22 40.7(11.6) 110 59.5(57.9) 43 42.6(22.6) 8 16.3( 4.2) 7 63.6( 3.7) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 9 16.7( 8.7) 43 23.2(41.3) 36 35.6(34.6) 15 30.6(14.4) 1 9.1( 1.0) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 10 18.5(18.9) 11 5.9(20.8) 11 10.9(20.8) 21 42.9(39.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.9( 4.8) 10 5.4(47.6) 5 5.0(23.8) 3 6.1(14.3) 2 18.2( 9.5) 21 5.3(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 21 42 HAZARD City would become involved in disputes between neighbors 21 'STRONGLY SUPPOSUPPORT ;OPPOSE 'STRONGLY OPPOS'DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%i Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)%-Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 54 13.50 185 46.25 101 25.25 49 12.25 II 2.75 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 23 42.6(11.1) 87 47.0(41.8) 62 61.4(29.8) 29 59.2(13.9) 7 63.6( 3.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 22 40.7(20.8) 58 31.4(54.7) 16 15.8(15.1) 7 14.3( 6.6) 3 27.3( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 6 11.1( 9.8) 27 14.6(44.3) 16 15.8(26.2) 12 24.5(19.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 5.6(12.0) 13 7.0(52.0) 7 6.9(28.0) 1 2.0( 4.0) 1 9.1( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 54 100(13.5) 185 100(46.3) 101 100(25.3) 49 100(12.3) 11 100( 2.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 21 43 REGI Tree removal regulations during property development 22 STRONGLYSUPPOSUPPORT OPPOSE :STRONGLY OPPOSDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)O/ol Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 59 14.75 168 42.00 99 24.75 32 8.00 42 10.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 0.6(33.3) 2 2.0(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 1 1.7( 4.3) 10 6.0(43.5) 8 8.1(34.8) 1 3.1( 4.3) 3 7.1(13.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 10 16.9(16.9) 27 16.1(45.8) 13 13.1(22.0) 6 18.8(10.2) 3 7.1( 5.1) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 14 23.7(13.2) 50 29.8(47.2) 29 29.3(27.4) 4 12.5( 3.8) 9 21.4( 8.5) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 18 30.5(19.8) 39 23.2(42.9) 17 17.2(18.7) 8 25.0( 8.8) 9 21.4( 9.9) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 16 27.1(13.6) 41 24.4(34.7) 30 30.3(25.4) 13 40.6(11.0) 18 42.9(15.3) 118 29.5(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 19 32.2(11.9) 60 35.7(37.5) 49 49.5(30.6) 19 59.4(11.9) 13 31.0( 8.1) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 40 67.8(16.7) 108 64.3(45.0) 50 50.5(20.8) 13 40.6( 5.4) 29 69.0(12.1) 240 60.0(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rest(RENT) OWN 49 83.1(14.2) 144 85.7(41.9) 85 85.9(24.7) 30 93.8( 8.7) 36 85.7(10.5) 344 86.0(100) RENT 9 15.3(18.4) 21 12.5(42.9) 12 12.1(24.5) 2 6.3( 4.1) 5 11.9(10.2) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.7(14.3) 3 1.8(42.9) 2 2.0(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 2.4(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 23.7(21.5) 28 16.7(43.1) 13 13.1(20.0) 6 18.8( 9.2) 4 9.5( 6.2) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 16 27.1(12.5) 60 35.7(46.9) 31 31.3(24.2) 6 18.8( 4.7) 15 35.7(11.7) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 22 37.3(16.2) 56 33.3(41.2) 44 44.4(32.4) 2 6.3( 1.5) 12 28.6( 8.8) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 3 5.1( 7.9) 7 4.2(18.4) 7 7.1(18.4) 15 46.9(39.5) 6 14.3(15.8) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 4 6.8(12.1) 17 10.1(51.5) 4 4.0(12.1) 3 9.4( 9.1) 5 11.9(15.2) 33 8.3(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 23.7(56.0) 6 3.6(24.0) 1 1.0( 4.0) 2 6.3( 8.0) 2 4.8( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 23 39.0(15.2) 78 46.4(51.7) 35 35.4(23.2) 5 15.6( 3.3) 10 23.8( 6.6) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 13 22,0( 9.8) 53 31.5(40.2) 44 44.4(33.3) 4 12.5( 3.0) 18 42.9(13.6) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 6 10.2( 9.5) 17 10.1(27.0) 11 11.1(17.5) 20 62.5(31.7) 9 21.4(14.3) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 3 5.1(10.3) 14 8.3(48.3) 8 8.1(27.6) 1 3.1( 3.4) 3 7.1(10.3) 29 7.3(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(117AX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 16 27.1(50.0) 7 4.2(21.9) 6 6.1(18.8) 2 6.3( 6.3) 1 2.4( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 31 52.5(16.3) 105 62.5(55.3) 36 36.4(18.9) 5 15.6( 2.6) 13 31.0( 6.8) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 6 10.2( 5.8) 36 21.4(34.6) 41 41.4(39.4) 6 18.8( 5.8) 15 35.7(14.4) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 6 10.2(11.3) 11 6.5(20.8) 9 9.1(17.0) 19 59.4(35.8) 8 19.0(15.1) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0( 0.0) 9 5.4(42.9) 7 7.1(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 11.9(23.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 22 44 REGI Tree removal regulations during property development 22 STRONGLY SUPPOISUPPORT ;OPPOSE €STRONGLYOPPOSDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%l Count Col(Row)0/o€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowp/o Total 59 14.75 168 42.00 99 24.75 32 8.00 42 10.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 28 47.5(13.5) 90 53.6(43.3) 58 58.6(27.9) 12 37.5( 5.8) 20 47.6( 9.6) 208 52.0(100) PAY 22 37.3(20.8) 53 31.5(50.0) 19 19.2(17.9) 5 15.6( 4.7) 7 16.7( 6.6) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 6 10.2( 9.8) 21 12.5(34.4) 12 12.1(19.7) 13 40.6(21.3) 9 21.4(14.8) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 5.1(12.0) 4 2.4(16.0) 10 10.1(40.0) 2 6.3( 8.0) 6 14.3(24.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 59 100(14.8) 168 100(42.0) 99 100(24.8) 32 100( 8.0) 42 100(10.5) 1 400 100(100 Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 22 45 REG2 City required preservation of existing large trees 23 :YES €NO sIF VOLUNTEEREWDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%=Count Col(Row)%j Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)/o Count Col(Row)% Total 264 66.00 97 24.25 14 3.50 25 6.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 3 1.1(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 17 6.4(73.9) 3 3.1(13.0) 1 7.1( 4.3) 2 8.0( 8.7) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 41 15.5(69.5) 17 17.5(28.8) 1 7.1( 1.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 71 26.9(67.0) 24 24.7(22.6) 3 21.4( 2.8) 8 32.0( 7.5) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 57 21.6(62.6) 25 25.8(27.5) 6 42.9( 6.6) 3 12.0( 3.3) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 75 28.4(63.6) 28 28.9(23.7) 3 21.4( 2.5) 12 48.0(10.2) 118 29.5(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 93 35.2(58.1) 54 55.7(33.8) 5 35.7( 3.1) 8 32.0( 5.0) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 171 64.8(71.3) 43 44.3(17.9) 9 64.3( 3.8) 17 68.0( 7.1) 240 60.0(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 218 82.6(63.4) 92 94.8(26.7) 12 85.7( 3.5) 22 88.0( 6.4) 344 86.0(100) RENT 40 15.2(81.6) 4 4.1( 8.2) 2 14.3( 4.1) 3 12.0( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 6 2.3(85.7) 1 1.0(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAX1) STRONGLY SUPPOR 47 17.8(72.3) 14 14.4(21.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 16.0( 6.2) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 93 35.2(72.7) 21 21.6(16.4) 6 42.9( 4.7) 8 32.0( 6.3) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 92 34.8(67.6) 34 35.1(25.0) 3 21.4( 2.2) 7 28.0( 5.1) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 11 4.2(28.9) 21 21.6(55.3) 3 21.4( 7.9) 3 12.0( 7.9) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 21 8.0(63.6) 7 7.2(21.2) 2 14.3( 6.1) 3 12.0( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 21 8.0(84.0) 3 3.1(12.0) 1 7.1( 4.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 122 46.2(80.8) 18 18.6(11.9) 6 42.9( 4.0) 5 20.0( 3.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 79 29.9(59.8) 39 40.2(29.5) 4 28.6( 3.0) 10 40.0( 7.6) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 25 9.5(39.7) 30 30.9(47.6) 3 21.4( 4.8) 5 20.0( 7.9) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 17 6.4(58.6) 7 7.2(24.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 20.0(17.2) 29 7.3(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 29 11.0(90.6) 2 2.1( 6.3) 1 7.1( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 154 58.3(81.1) 23 23.7(12.1) 7 50.0( 3.7) 6 24.0( 3.2) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 55 20.8(52.9) 37 38.1(35.6) 3 21.4( 2.9) 9 36.0( 8.7) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 17 6.4(32.1) 28 28.9(52.8) 2 14.3( 3.8) 6 24.0(11.3) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 9 3.4(42.9) 7 7.2(33.3) 1 7.1( 4.8) 4 16.0(19.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 23 46 REG2 City required preservation of existing large trees 23 :YES =N0 IF VOLUNTEERED:DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%s Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 264 66.00 97 24.25 14 3.50 25 6.25 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 138 52.3(66.3) 57 58.8(27.4) 6 42.9( 2.9) 7 28.0( 3.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 81 30.7(76.4) 18 18.6(17.0) 2 14.3( 1.9) 5 20.0( 4.7) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 31 11.7(50.8) 19 19.6(31.1) 5 35.7( 8.2) 6 24.0( 9.8) 61 15.3(100) DKINAIREF 14 5.3(56.0) 3 3.1(12.0) 1 7.1( 4.0) 7 28.0(28.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 264 100(66.0) 97 100(24.3) 14 100( 3.5) 25 100( 6.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 23 47 REG3 Allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? 24 =YES €NO 'IF VOLUNTEERED=DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%s Count Col(Row)%i Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 80 20.00 293 73.25 17 4.25 10 2.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 2 2.5(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 5.9(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 6 7.5(26.1) 16 5.5(69.6) 1 5.9( 4.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 13 16.3(22.0) 41 14.0(69.5) 4 23.5( 6.8) 1 10.0( 1.7) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 21 26.3(19.8) 82 28.0(77.4) 2 11.8( 1.9) 1 10.0( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 16 20.0(17.6) 70 23.9(76.9) 3 17.6( 3.3) 2 20.0( 2.2) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 22 27.5(18.6) 84 28.7(71.2) 6 35.3( 5.1) 6 60.0( 5.1) 118 29.5(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 48 60.0(30.0) 103 35.2(64.4) 6 35.3( 3.8) 3 30,0( 1.9) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 32 40.0(13.3) 190 64.8(79.2) 11 64.7( 4.6) 7 70.0( 2.9) 240 60.0(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 75 93.8(21.8) 250 85.3(72.7) 10 58.8( 2.9) 9 90.0( 2.6) 344 86.0(100) RENT 5 6.3(10.2) 38 13.0(77.6) 5 29.4(10.2) 1 10.0( 2.0) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 1.7(71.4) 2 11.8(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAX1) STRONGLY SUPPOR 10 12.5(15.4) 51 17.4(78.5) 3 17.6( 4.6) 1 10.0( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 23 28.8(18.0) 97 33.1(75.8) 7 41.2( 5.5) 1 10.0( 0.8) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 25 31.3(18.4) 103 35.2(75.7) 3 17.6( 2.2) 5 50.0( 3.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 17 21.3(44.7) 20 6.8(52.6) 1 5.9( 2.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 5 6.3(15.2) 22 7.5(66.7) 3 17.6( 9.1) 3 30.0( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 0 0.0( 0.0) 22 7.5(88:0) 1 5.9( 4.0) 2 20.0( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 14 17.5( 9.3) 130 44.4(86.1) 7 41.2( 4.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 35 43.8(26.5) 88 30.0(66.7) 5 29.4( 3.8) 4 40.0( 3.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 28 35.0(44.4) 32 10.9(50.8) 1 5.9( 1.6) 2 20.0( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 3 3.8(10.3) 21 7.2(72.4) 3 17.6(10.3) 2 20.0( 6.9) 29 7.3(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 0 0.0( 0.0) 30 10.2(93.8) 1 5.9( 3.1) 1 10.0( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 18 22.5( 9.5) 161 54.9(84.7) 8 47.1( 4.2) 3 30.0( 1.6) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 33 41.3(31.7) 63 21.5(60.6) 5 29.4( 4.8) 3 30.0( 2.9) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 25 31.3(47.2) 26 8.9(49.1) 1 5.9( 1.9) 1 10.0( 19) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 4 5.0(19.0) 13 4.4(61.9) 2 11.8( 9.5) 2 20.0( 9.5) 21 5.3(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 24 49 REG3 Allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? 24 ;YES `NO -IF VOLUNTEEREDDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)I/o Count Col(Row)%`Count Col(Row)%_Count Col(Rowe/o Count Col(Row)% Total 80 20.00 293 73.25 17 4.25 10 2.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 48 60.0(23.1) 143 48.8(68.8) 11 64,7( 5.3) 6 60.0( 2.9) 208 52.0(100) PAY 12 15.0(11.3) 90 30.7(84.9) 1 5,9( 0.9) 3 30.0( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) 1F VOUNTEERED-N 14 17.5(23.0) 44 15.0(72.1) 3 17.6( 4.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 6 7.5(24.0) 16 5.5(64.0) 2 11.8( 8.0) 1 10.0( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 80 100(20.0) 293 100(73.3) 17 100( 4.3) 10 100( 2.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 24 51 REG4 Focus of new tree protection measures 25 NATURAL AREAS=ORNAMENTAL TR)BOTH :SOMETHING ELSE sDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%`Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 149 37.25 11 2.75 192 48.00 25 6.25 23 5.75 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 2 1.3(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.0(33.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 8 5.4(34.8) 1 9.1( 4:3) 13 6.8(56.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 4.3( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 19 12.8(32.2) 2 18.2( 3.4) 32 16.7(54.2) 6 24.0(10.2) 0 0.0( 0.0) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 42 28.2(39.6) 2 18.2( 1.9) 55 28.6(51.9) 3 12.0( 2.8) 4 17.4( 3.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 34 22.8(37.4) 1 9.1( 1.1) 47 24.5(51.6) 6 24.0( 6.6) 3 13.0( 3.3) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 44 29.5(37.3) 5 45.5( 4.2) 45 23.4(38.1) 9 36.0( 7.6) 15 65.2(12.7) 118 29.5(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 63 42.3(39.4) 5 45.5( 3.1) 68 35.4(42.5) 15 60.0( 9.4) 9 39.1( 5.6) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 86 57.7(35.8) 6 54.5( 2.5) 124 64.6(51.7) 10 40.0( 4.2) 14 60.9( 5.8) 240 60.0(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 127 85.2(36.9) 10 90.9( 2.9) 163 84.9(47.4) 23 92.0( 6.7) 21 91.3( 6.1) 344 86.0(100) RENT 17 11.4(34.7) 1 9.1( 2.0) 27 14.1(55.1) 2 8,0( 4.1) 2 8.7( 4.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 5 3.4(71.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 1.0(28.6) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 26 17.4(40.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 33 17.2(50.8) 3 12.0( 4.6) 3 13.0( 4.6) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 37 24.8(28.9) 5 45.5( 3.9) 76 39.6(59.4) 4 16.0( 3.1) 6 26.1( 4.7) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 65 43.6(47.8) 3 27.3( 2.2) 51 26.6(37.5) 10 40.0( 7.4) 7 30.4( 5.1) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 13 8.7(34.2) 1 9.1( 2.6) 14 7.3(36.8) 7 28.0(18.4) 3 13.0( 7.9) 38 9.5(10()) DK/NA/REF 8 5.4(24.2) 2 18.2( 6.1) 18 9.4(54.5) 1 4.0( 3.0) 4 17.4(12.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 4 2.7(16.0) 1 9.1( 4.0) 17 8.9(68.0) 1 4.0( 4.0) 2 8.7( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 44 29.5(29.1) 7 63.6( 4.6) 89 46.4(58.9) 6 24.0( 4.0) 5 21.7( 3.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 64 43.0(48.5) 1 9.1( 0.8) 54 28.1(40.9) 7 28.0( 5.3) 6 26.1( 4.5) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 25 16.8(39.7) 1 9.1( 1.6) 20 10.4(31.7) 9 36.0(14.3) 8 34.8(12.7) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 12 8.1(41.4) 1 9.1( 3.4) 12 6.3(41.4) 2 8.0( 6.9) 2 8.7( 6.9) 29 7.3(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 9 6.0(28.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 19 9.9(59.4) 3 12.0( 9.4) 1 4.3( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 68 45.6(35.8) 6 54.5( 3.2) 104 54.2(54.7) 5 20.0( 2.6) 7 30.4( 3.7) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 45 30.2(43.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 46 24.0(44.2) 8 32.0( 7.7) 5 21.7( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 21 14.1(39.6) 1 9.1( 1.9) 18 9.4(34.0) 8 32.0(15.1) 5 21.7( 9.4) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 6 4.0(28.6) 4 36.4(19.0) 5 2.6(23.8) 1 4.0( 4.8) 5 21.7(23.8) 21 5.3(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 25 52 REG4 Focus of new tree protection measures 25 €NATURAL AREAS:ORNAMENTAL TRI BOTH =SOMETHING ELSEDI{/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%`Count Col(Row)%j Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowe/o Total 149 37.25 11 2.75 192 48.00 25 6.25 23 5.75 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 78 52.3(37.5) 4 36.4( 1.9) 93 48.4(44.7) 17 68.0( 8.2) 16 69.6( 7.7) 208 52.0(100) PAY 41 27.5(38.7) 3 27.3( 2.8) 57 29.7(53.8) 3 12.0( 2.8) 2 8.7( 1.9) 106 26.5(100) 1F VOUNTEERED-N 19 12.8(31.1) 2 18.2( 3.3) 33 17.2(54.1) 3 12.0( 4.9) 4 17.4( 6.6) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 11 7.4(44.0) 2 18.2( 8.0) 9 4.7(36.0) 2 8.0( 8.0) 1 4.3( 4.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 149 100(37.3) 11 100( 2.8) 192 100(48.0) 25 100( 6.3) 23 100( 5.8) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 25 53 REG5 Protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? 26 €STRONGLYSUPPOSUPPORT :OPPOSE _STRONGLYOPPOSDK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)%:Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%;Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowe/o Total 78 19.50 224 56.00 60 15.00 20 5.00 18 4.50 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 1.3(100) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0;0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 2 2.6( 8.7) 16 7.1(69.6) 5 8.3(21.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 12 15.4(20.3) 33 14.7(55.9) 9 15.0(15.3) 2 10.0( 3.4) 3 16.7( 5.1) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 20 25.6(18.9) 59 26.3(55.7) 17 28.3(16.0) 4 20.0( 3.8) 6 33.3( 5.7) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 21 26.9(23.1) 49 21.9(53.8) 14 23.3(15.4) 4 20.0( 4.4) 3 16.7( 3.3) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 23 29.5(19.5) 64 28.6(54.2) 15 25.0(12.7) 10 50.0( 8.5) 6 33.3( 5.1) 118 29.5(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 13 16.7( 8.1) 93 41.5(58.1) 30 50.0(18.8) 14 70.0( 8.8) 10 55.6( 6.3) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 65 83.3(27.1) 131 58.5(54.6) 30 50.0(12.5) 6 30.0( 2.5) 8 44.4( 3.3) 240 60.0(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 63 80.8(18.3) 190 84.8(55.2) 57 95.0(16.6) 20 100( 5.8) 14 77.8( 4.1) 344 86.0(100) RENT 14 17.9(28.6) 29 12.9(59.2) 3 5.0( 6.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 16.7( 6.1) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 1 1.3(14.3) 5 2.2(71.4) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 5.6(14.3) 7 1.8(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 25 32.1(38.5) 29 12.9(44.6) 6 10.0( 9.2) 2 10.0( 3.1) 3 16.7( 4.6) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 18 23.1(14.1) 87 38.8(68.0) 16 26.7(12.5) 2 10.0( 1.6) 5 27.8( 3.9) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 21 26.9(15.4) 78 34.8(57.4) 26 43.3(19.1) 5 25.0( 3.7) 6 33.3( 4.4) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 5 6.4(13.2) 15 6.7(39.5) 8 13.3(21.1) 9 45.0(23.7) 1 5.6( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 9 11.5(27.3) 15 6.7(45.5) 4 6.7(12.1) 2 10.0( 6.1) 3 16.7( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 16 20.5(64.0) 4 1.8(16.0) 3 5.0(12.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11.1( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 34 43.6(22.5) 103 46.0(68.2) 12 20.0( 7.9) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11.1( 1.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 14 17.9(10.6) 79 35.3(59.8) 26 43.3(19.7) 6 30.0( 4.5) 7 38.9( 5.3) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 8 10.3(12.7) 24 10.7(38.1) 15 25.0(23.8) 14 70.0(22.2) 2 11.1( 3.2) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 6 7.7(20.7) 14 6.3(48.3) 4 6.7(13.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 27.8(17.2) 29 7.3(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 21 26.9(65.6) 9 4.0(28.1) 1 1.7( 3.1) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 5.6( 3.1) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 35 44.9(18.4) 131 58.5(68.9) 16 26.7( 8.4) 2 10.0( 1.1) 6 33.3( 3.2) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 8 10.3( 7.7) 58 25.9(55.8) 28 46.7(26.9) 5 25.0( 4.8) 5 27.8( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 12 15.4(22.6) 15 6.7(28.3) 11 18.3(20.8) 13 65.0(24.5) 2 11.1( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 2 2.6( 9.5) 11 4.9(52.4) 4 6.7(19.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 4 22.2(19.0) 21 5.3(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 26 54 REG5 Protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? 26 STRONGLY SUPPOISUPPORT ;OPPOSE ;STRONGLY OPPO DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Rowe/o Total 78 19.50 224 56.00 60 15.00 20 5.00 18 4.50 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 31 39.7(14.9) 117 52.2(56.3) 34 56.7(16.3) 15 75.0( 7.2) 11 61.1( 5.3) 208 52.0(100) PAY 31 39.7(29.2) 62 27.7(58.5) 11 18.3(10.4) 1 5.0( 0.9) 1 5.6( 0.9) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 11 14.1(18.0) 31 13.8(50.8) 11 18.3(18.0) 4 20.0( 6.6) 4 22.2( 6.6) 61 15.3(100) DKINA/REF 5 6.4(20.0) 14 6.3(56.0) 4 6.7(16.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11,1( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 78 100(19.5) 224 100(56.0) 60 100(15.0) 20 100( 5.0) 18 100( 4.5) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 26 55 R«6 larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. 27 =LARGE GROVES €INDIVIDUAL TREE€IF VOLUNTEERED=IF VOLUNTEERED=DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)%€Count Col(Row)%1 Count Col(Row)%•Count Col(Row)%'Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 221 55.25 113 28.25 31 7.75 18 450 17 4.25 400 100.00 Age Group(AGE) 18-24 1 0.5(33.3) 2 1.8(66.7) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 0.8(100) 25-34 19 8.6(82.6) 2 1.8( 8.7) 1 3.2( 4.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 1 5,9( 4.3) 23 5.8(100) 35-44 33 14.9(55.9) 19 16.8(32.2) 5 16.1( 8.5) 1 5.6( 1.7) 1 5.9( 1.7) 59 14.8(100) 45-54 67 30.3(63.2) 23 20.4(21.7) 9 29.0( 8.5) 4 22.2( 3.8) 3 17.6( 2.8) 106 26.5(100) 55-64 55 24.9(60.4) 24 21.2(26.4) 6 19.4( 6.6) 4 22.2( 4.4) 2 11.8( 2.2) 91 22.8(100) 65 and older 46 20.8(39.0) 43 38.1(36.4) 10 32.3( 8.5) 9 50.0( 7.6) 10 58.8( 8.5) 118 29.5(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Are you male or female(GENDER) MALE 84 38.0(52.5) 42 37.2(26.3) 11 35.5( 6.9) 15 83.3( 9.4) 8 47.1( 5.0) 160 40.0(100) FEMALE 137 62.0(57.1) 71 62.8(29.6) 20 64.5( 8.3) 3 16.7( 1.3) 9 52.9( 3.8) 240 60.0(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Do you own your home,or do you rent(RENT) OWN 193 87.3(56.1) 95 84.1(27.6) 25 80.6( 7.3) 18 100( 5.2) 13 76.5( 3.8) 344 86.0(100) RENT 25 11.3(51.0) 15 13.3(30.6) 5 16.1(10.2) 0 0,0( 0.0) 4 23.5( 8.2) 49 12.3(100) DK/NA/REF 3 1.4(42.9) 3 2.7(42.9) 1 3.2(14.3) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 7 1.8(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Transfer responsibility for maintaining street trees to City(TAXI) STRONGLY SUPPOR 31 14.0(47.7) 24 21.2(36.9) 8 25.8(12.3) 1 5.6( 1.5) 1 5.9( 1.5) 65 16.3(100) SUPPORT 67 30.3(52.3) 43 38.1(33.6) 7 22.6( 5.5) 4 22.2( 3.1) 7 41.2( 5.5) 128 32.0(100) OPPOSE 80 36.2(58.8) 34 30.1(25.0) 11 35.5( 8.1) 6 33.3( 4.4) 5 29.4( 3.7) 136 34.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 23 10.4(60.5) 8 7.1(21.1) 2 6.5( 5.3) 4 22.2(10.5) 1 5.9( 2.6) 38 9.5(100) DK/NA/REF 20 9.0(60.6) 4 3.5(12.1) 3 9.7( 9.1) 3 16.7( 9.1) 3 17.6( 9.1) 33 8.3(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to fund a City street tree program(TAX2) STRONGLY SUPPOR 14 6.3(56.0) 5 4.4(20.0) 4 12.9(16.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11.8( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) SUPPORT 81 36.7(53.6) 50 44.2(33.1) 16 51.6(10.6) 2 11.1( 1.3) 2 11.8( 1.3) 151 37.8(100) OPPOSE 74 33.5(56.1) 38 33.6(28.8) 8 25.8( 6.1) 8 44.4( 6.1) 4 23.5( 3.0) 132 33.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 17.2(60.3) 10 8.8(15.9) 3 9.7( 4.8) 8 44,4(12.7) 4 23.5( 6.3) 63 15.8(100) DK/NA/REF 14 6.3(48.3) 10 8.8(34.5) 0 0.0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 5 29.4(17.2) 29 7.3(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Additional funding to tree planting and maintenance program(TAX3) STRONGLY SUPPOR 17 7.7(53.1) 7 6.2(21.9) 6 19.4(18.8) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11.8( 6.3) 32 8.0(100) SUPPORT 107 48.4(56.3) 61 54.0(32.1) 15 48.4( 7.9) 2 11.1( 1.1) 5 29.4( 2.6) 190 47.5(100) OPPOSE 58 26.2(55.8) 26 23.0(25.0) 7 22.6( 6.7) 8 44.4( 7.7) 5 29.4( 4.8) 104 26.0(100) STRONGLY OPPOSE 31 14.0(58.5) 9 8.0(17.0) 3 9.7( 5.7) 8 44.4(15.1) 2 11.8( 3.8) 53 13.3(100) DK/NA/REF 8 3.6(38.1) 10 8.8(47.6) 0 0,0( 0.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 3 17.6(14.3) 21 5.3(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 27 56 REG6 larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. 27 :LARGE GROVES :INDIVIDUAL TREE€IF VOLUNTEEREDIIF VOLUNTEERED:DK/NA/REF Total Count Col(Row)/o Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)/o Count Col(Row)% Count Col(Row)% Total 221 55.25 113 28.25 31 7.75 18 4.50 17 4.25 400 100.00 Would you prefer volunteering or paying a fee to the City?(TAX4) PLANT 122 55.2(58.7) 54 47.8(26.0) 16 51.6( 7.7) 11 61.1( 5.3) 5 29.4( 2.4) 208 52.0(100) PAY 60 27.1(56.6) 32 28.3(30.2) 7 22.6( 6.6) 2 11.1( 1.9) 5 29.4( 4.7) 106 26.5(100) IF VOUNTEERED-N 27 12.2(44.3) 19 16.8(31.1) 5 16.1( 8.2) 5 27.8( 8.2) 5 29.4( 8.2) 61 15.3(100) DK/NA/REF 12 5.4(48.0) 8 7.1(32.0) 3 9.7(12.0) 0 0.0( 0.0) 2 11.8( 8.0) 25 6.3(100) Total 221 100(55.3) 113 100(28.3) 31 100( 7.8) 18 100( 4.5) 17 100( 4.3) 400 100(100) Steve Johnson&Associates Tigard Tree Survey,2008 Table 27 Open-Ended Response: Collapsed Categories Tigard Urban Forestry Survey December 2008 - - -- _ _--- No Action/Less Programs 11% Development-related Regulation 1 % Better Maintenance 52V Planting 52% Preservation 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% These five categories have been collapsed from the original fourteen. 198 total responses.Some responses contain multiple categories,generating a total percentage of 151%. Source:Open-ended responses inside the Topline section,where respondents give narrative answers to one of the questions. City of Tigard 2008 Urban Forestry Survey,Steve Johnson&Associates,Topline Frequencies. Question 4 Forests:What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?Open Ended Exact Response. File Location: I:\CURPLN\Todd\Urban Forestry Master Plan\Consultant for Survey Open-Ended Response:All Categories Tigard Urban Forestry Survey December 2008 Emphasize Downtown Trees No Action/Other 11,10 Development-related Regulation 15% Highway 99 Street Trees 30 Create Tree Plan(Comp. Plan/UFMP) 41; Improper Maintenance % Increase Parking Lot Tree Quantity 1% Emphasize Large Tree Rretention 3 Emphasize special areas(riparian,parks,screening... % Emphasize Street Tree(health and quantity) Emphasize Maintenance(including leaf removal) 4 % Emphasize Post-removal replanting replanting Increase Quantity 79'0 Halt Removal/Preservation 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Categories generated from response content. 198 total responses.Some responses contain multiple categories,generating a total percentage of 151%. Source:Open-ended responses inside the Topline section,where respondents give narrative answers to one of the questions. City of Tigard 2008 Urban Forestry Survey,Steve Johnson&Associates,Topline Frequencies.Question 4 Forests:What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?Open Ended Exact Response. File Location: I:\CURPLNNodd\Urban Forestry Master Plan\Consultant for SurveX ewY�i,en�mx.comae b m.. �v.sama.nr.0 r.rmw v.nYwtvb.wXne Ne.Mnbb.9WY.xYWeb.YmleYw v.a ®aem.x,.renm. 91 Ob tr.Y b an eewn vinh rem en... rnnneuxneeer.Y.nYn. 93 MW.wn[nuaurunu. nmml.nn. mreWre. m Gn Nem Jlenn.mamm Wevau.Y.vwxaY'vYMrYmol.wmnlre.TM re.lbn YntM VMIrw.L 99 Cerelvoa mrXWe eNueual.ovrnmWe.W ImeYrY- bre W tied.con W.a.YtlYtrA. Mw el.h m.bw tlw mah.n.en >d Tlw muabemmb.PWmv Ne,YM von W mwMNem. >d irxmere ere WWmYenmabven Ib Lbtbeennmen.MnW.hYM Mau W. b YmW renmvb.LLw.xmvM m.3cX.mm�Mal von PYnM699 west Ter mount w.n uMtMweemxuNh.v.n W M amraw NemrmwYeMeme. .[r,e bMvrunw. aer.mWeb Im.rerembuu 11W1M.r59.M en mmmnaa wew.W.l.b.W Yeuel Nn rNb.m bn+.xWree.Xm.ah Amer.Mwv.ban xNW m..m. lm PWnmw.YNem.v.,un Yerem..M onea.a bnMtrY ab rannabrv. bond Wm mwveYXNw bXae.v,m. m.vmlre e.enne.aae.. Pw W br cone�aur..v.n w.o W Nnv e,mnn ON nxX m e,ewm n.rren tM Nw v.n M nn.ne tlem. m wY.Y mevnn.N m N..rn Nn w an eiYPv Mm.x,tler nula b rr W rr W rcY enle.JanaF wM n are mrcC+bre rmn w.M. lss im n.+rwmn.,aen7m,YmrovewY.naawxw.n.mmYmnww. m.nwmmlrebtr.... u as me.W amaenea b. nmeMmuY e.Wl U2 lunnem nvre. u3 Pemm.mwYm.m.9.Xm.mabe.wrennwlmr nrrra,ammo.nn.wmria.e....r.mnolY.11snw.Ynm.Im�.N m.n a..eeln...rr� 13,pvwmvenmubvWttvan XYm x ew.eN I NIM N.vre eYe nw rmX wm.um.n I w.xe,.w mmr vb.x ee wmmmnln, 1M Mme aYM1rnX.e.rbtW tr,n Ym rot mnmMmmr.Mwmvaear.rb.e.ew�o. Yrunu Ytle eee.na nrmwx Yerea.W wbromebuveN. meobmtr.e. nareb�mrre.e.o.n.mnlXim3X.mm.ofmw..ra mwrw abbelY.Y.mnu,oboewrm.trwmn.r.bY.umbre xm eMeerre.ennx..tr..mW mbbb.one. U9 I.eub 19i.m w w,a m...e ae.nm u.Xuarn. 133 Ilerer X.eM W W treem3re.Xmorabre X.vrbb..TbroN uv..nrree YnMvon MtlTevlmemfi YX4 a,XXe_IY.rm W.. 133 Marti Wn.rm.WNYa.ra Mmv.ea 133 M.InraF..Werev.a 13,Pmn rme.Unmrbbb ve Now Wn.W m Meem b r.eYY6 135 WeemnMre wY.ubmnYmnnmmm,N m.d+. WXen,Wsvb bw e.mn.mu9m Me MNrb v.ex Xr.a vlw. 13T,eeYYrnYrv� W m In o W Yt wu A ewnrmn TInrE. mxaem re.Xb vbmmm.eb..roremm.bareNrembe.Xnm im Imowre.bn99. U3 Mam.mme.mravreY v.nam..m nWnaYuwbeenudlewuYm YNYIwu.n wme v.n weemm�m.amemneunn..rb Nnmu.n meMems Mm Y.ra.x ew wn.M Ye.eYoxmYnvhw Wrmn 1m M xurerlY N colo W e Mx vm con ek. w 3m. comm.veXWmvWnm.vervm nbm Ynawme.u.ro.m.XXerrnmNw eowrrmemnm9r. 1m P,nMre. Nn bb Y FMIN Nr Nn N xembrlre am u ee hN tr.0 1m xm mom.a+*m.wr.mown.+.nuw mm n.m..n vxrm mer.tree.,anewena Mn mwe b ee.m code Nw bbr.r nehe.x.nm rem a...Yemba x bw x mm.mea b.m,mn.r.m.b N..m m xe wM.m r bni me xe..r bw In ew w.a x,m.mn.,.m ane N.r MM mX e.trm..ne I emr,Me m..i em.w w,mew.X Y m.n.n core v.m ub.. mamoXY.eeen.me. nnobmw nmm rm.. non WwNYvaufene YEem.Nn WY.rb ee wxw Mw.mrnbre.TeaY.ouvrreYev.vY.ePorr Y.rn pXWe,mn MXmwmlm.lmmrbn.ra laN. 353 Mm.,ee mwY. ss.wnm.mn.v.nm W m.me.n rm,emw.mam.n..aw...M.n n W.M.I u.en sn.wm.m.n w,.eumu v...mm.n enn.. w m..�nm9mn.oeeww. sss wwnn W 9..lnn....me eYmn�we. ss�r...a.m v:mne ww mem W mmm,m.nn_ ssa x.eos v.mnew.nubn9n. sss.x.mn.amlw.nxv...unrce,mw.lww..mww.eum.xnnwtm,o.a leery.. uo ew,wwe- us mmawmew.an.nem..mn n..n 9o- Pnm,..xae mama W nllw m w... Nmr M W oM n.ee.mb.IMYmen monose n vlmmW Wm mm�on bum T.bNn ewe4 Nn.n unl.mYmnnn W anwn..W Iv...Ymull..lws Y.n Ilmwb.netlnlrm.neur wi tbon xmrrl Wmmne.x.ae m 4 mon orm.me. �I n.wa�l me.,nlu..v..binn,am.11mm.Iwwtln'Ianxnealmw bea..mmam.m. 9mx wmm.m.n u W wnwa enaom.nn w I.mwnlmlme..n.m.. w xr.m.n W vw mn ene w,.. 1A r .mo nmrnee+n.Y W vw..nub elm.Wrm m.Me m Holme e.aa. bmr m W plNn pr r.el.Mly.6b,.pmtMu T enol mon. /m dlrnln a W awm W wirr al m.mi xM wwno,mwmewm W wen 9�h mx.ebem,W wwolm.vw. sT 9.w Cu9Nmlmnx. T O,Nru m.m btli W.me mwln IMm. >b.xe..olmmr Ls xo rol nn men.mmon Wn W.Wnumn Mem. W IJJA m.veemwun.emNonw bxm ubvnel oen. >v.mne...m�mammm.m..m,x.lu mnahem.newmnan.. L.Genn mvunmmlb Wnh.M mr.mner�t us wbnanmem..aw nm..v.mm�.n.n..m..lmn..a,�.m.mm�b...an M.w.nw.n eo.nmbw,ne.bem. us wnp,.mw,uwllm. I mlro Wnwmb�lm,..eum men. ]Y II.n Nnmm W,lem.r.mawmvn N.v om weam.N.T.✓.e.m.we min W< �xMemtremanmwn.nemr..mnm,.A,m ev Imwme,.awwen.mnae..m..W wn.mnm.me,.mw..e.me mm.e.m.nn. n Iw.rmwm.vw. mwmmewn. mn.n,a wn nemn.9..nb.wle n.n comm.el nm.w.m m h. sss xnonm.Wmm.n. s9s l epee eor mn xu.®m bbun we.e.ne amm.e wmn weme.l m W Iw.mn.b..W.m w.+,.. 199 bm.eWi Wm owe m b.xmNnrmt,.xn.wnaw.we 199 Imn'ttw.nut Wre ubetlWmm�nunee.M mm wvv.nmane.e4w bmv x.A.nlr. an ibl o-.mw.n.a.e Im mbmrma nm,.a Wm. As B.w,m,muw�m. m bm.m...ne mon m. rn.exnm.mn W vu ace.bv«I.ea mmnmwn.m.*e.m,w.w,e.,r.w,.mwemw wn.x.mm Mem.W.nr xewemm me W b.m w...,.ewn.a me mm.Wm.m,..m..n.� m9 mmwW.e.m m.nm.n..e.nlem.nn. mx owmm mm.vw. Ax wv wmw,.w.n.. as xml�.. xn m ORH dplD D llmtlD Dr.a...9CMtl <m Hrtin.tl.TM u.nntln am men ew ax<w mmn M.Drtr souk rnuM ae.Heen.re Yee..eme w tM ednln bea rMn raMr. .Tlw wamvWnmenbwmnmW.rmxn tlnm.OonrM1m HimrmmmnnNmatren MHnou vx vw.iammW Wm W iM1M tltrtlra. fi•<tl m.e.mxm W.nuemen.QHW exbA.tlun uv JIw.N.w.Me.tluv areuW. e webmmw,b..e,wm.W wmwr.n m.... amt n...+m mm k.a:DenT Hn ae.n mm.m.e.< eMr mm tr wenw.wtrn aw w awn mmm.rwa e..wmmmr aw Hxwa ebn n.e mMn H..w ew trYin e®e..w eu.Wbe Hrtn Wawa trOrY.onf br W vr.M1`wtl Mb Mm u.mvwexamY Me m w W K.LUYu.nnwa.b< reme...MW n...nmW. Y Nv uan.�amYeb htMomermmounvxmn Nvn+M vbnmmvtivmmleeY nook. ])&mmvw MawYuv ue m.w wtl mutr. L Mn'IromvHxv.TM.+tl uew b.awnvM...b<.,ve NonNvmeewn mmurw H.avHui un utran wrMm.M. w Nw�wu Oo.waa b0.4m w M.ova+mh v wa .nm.n wmsv.m. m W.�w vr,e.ww e.nn nxen.n.m.er H..,..eev,a Hx vm,. mnw Mm .nie rnw N Ta.a.bo w exrz m Nm,.mwwmm.rmm xnee.T,.mew<m. m trn.,o�m.mxn w W mammv.a a.,.a w Wma.w.x..rrtmm.n rmxHm erwin anm. s wnemm�nwnaexnimN. n itr.mwatrxwe..w. HmmW 17 as awemwa.mamw. Y Tn..m,trnn�n,. vNmwwmH..mn ebmmW.e.m. fiT cvw. n Prem 47 n Tn.,,mwa mH wemn e.a ew m.amtrHxr..mem.mn. tlam Hmn m.nm W vmomm..aawaxlvenwW m.vv.u.M be..ue rM HuwiN.�mW eeeex Ntlw em Wmawn.M awYNamwmeu on�.nmv.tle.a. xm wM1W o.eex<m<muxm m... K D w mon- ueN.u.Nxrt Hxn.n•btelvwntl N[eMw.Nu.u.rmn..b.n moiatl b...mMxn.uoxYMaM.tlxnnenn.nwuk.betrmeamabmtMNine eeew.amYvanimw,m<bW Wmbbl ueu Trw mmktruwmavtl nxinlmmana ixaMw.¢ Y avev trbua Wmnus a9 emmaum mie. Y fiukmaNUMu. aW a Nxebwn mnw•ebn.Wbmwu euY er M1mmu uw.Mubun uwwu.Mubvw.oxnerMnvm.ebn.emn axmmer.MnY..v....WMmn VxtlN b®Iv etrnrtrb...ar M1 b wln mb xm m Nahtlu.hd mwuMrbNn w. wnm.mere.n.M e.mamnnare.banw xnn b.anm.H wwa e.mert e.n.rmH m Mn�mr.mm.Pmmnma e.W N.rebwnw Wn. �emmmer w.mm..,.n W.m..n bne nema...hemm� 59 Ntl.wvmew.wrtl Hn xne. PruWu mam.NUWa M.M.trm.NueW euur. MUN rMm. mwau.XN v.... Y ImW Mwn.NmYeepaxbNrWvw.W.iwamm.NUN.W m..HwnM mwbwwwY Mn.trvrmmmwev. Y Pm aumin m.u.tbumx.baeenmw.iM tlwutl M.ronwvroae.nm.n. Y TMwmmNmmeavunmwmm�Hmuk mn N.eeab.a Dent em Hxm tlur.M nr.wn. Y wnemW NdCm.mN.en mue mubrbm Wm�rN.Ib.nn.MmnmYn- 61 PmtrW tlu mrmun Y TMnmemtr�,.wH.mwmam name..xmc...snmrwrmmmn.H Y Wm mm.v.n 4 W.alwa N trmH botlwx.m•tr m mmn. trim-ww�n mIm tron.bn Hr mnu•bi M luv.win ea.va uwN. fl IemrmWuw�u.ImW M.m.lax<bwivw en lnrM.m.. i.PneANlma mere mmbnmm.rnTNemnmeWn.r<n..amery mwm.ndenmtlwr b...meb.pN.Irw u.minm Mm v.ev mrviwtlmbm.MUNp. )5 XmtrMYumonwmervuMnawwan.bwn. n an ert am mem.iNa.m.br.<tew W.Ytrmnwnwm.nb nx v.e. n x...rtrm.u,w�wWm<an Wb M.nn. w NnNxN.Nnae<Me.n�wmH.n.m wYNmae..n.Mm.bw.cam n.mnaamw Mn ena Mmme,wYNo. wN..nmemwmwm. .bn e.mx.xem m.e..er b...tries. Y Ttr.mwa M..mm.bw.MnmW.wmw... �.:.n=xMt 'O r'.aa+ Observations Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Preservation Halt Removal/Preservation 1 1 Planting lincrease Quantity 1 1 Emphasize Post-removal replanting Planting Implanting1 r Main Find out what they want here and place in maintenance or planting or Emphasize Street Tree(health and other category. quantity) Find out what they want here and place in maintenance or planting or Emphasize special areas(riparian, other category- parks,screening etc.) Preservation Emphasize Large Tree Rretention Planting Increase Parking Lot Tree Quantity Better Maintenan ' Improper Maintenance Find out what they want planning for and place in maintenance or planting or other category. Create Tree Plan(Comp.Plan/UFMP) Planting Highway 99 Street Trees Development-related Regulation Development-related Regulation 1 1 No Action/Less Programs No Action/Other Planting Emphasize Downtown Trees 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 NONE i FT 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 77,777 ... - � � Emma 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 17 7-7 77,777' 77- 1 1 1 1 1 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 .MV*" ` � it r��.d4 i. "�F s 1'°�' .,� +f t y,[ 3 ��C�'��C� 5+?rY' �' Y. "✓ .. y ,MySC ti f h ;kyf�':S F n 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1. 1 :ro. ��G� s- s Z3Y'cY,.: .``'r,,yp .�a .'rit:- `; ;,is1rv1. b,N+,MIN AN 84 95 86 97 89 89 90 91 92 48 94 95 96 97 98 77777777 7"T 7- i 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 109 110 111 112 113 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 I 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 s �, rV g 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 een 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 77 w 1 1 1 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 U2 183 184 185 186 187 168 A MR Emma L 1 1 MPTISM 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 299 200 201 202 203 77,IR MINE Percent Categorical 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 umericTot Response Total 1 1 36 18% 21% 1 1 1 1 1 54 27% 52% 29 15% i 1 93 47% 52% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3% 1 1% 10 5% 0 0% 7 4% 1 31 16% 16% 1 22 11% 11% 11 6% 151% 151% Urban Forestry Master Plan Survey 1.First,what about the trees on your street? Response Response Percent Count Very Satisfied E-7] 9.5% 4 Satisfied 54.8% 23 Dissatisfied 0 19.0% 8 Very Dissatisfied 0 11.9% 5 Don't Know ® 4.8% 2 answered question 42 skipped question 1 2.Second,what about trees in your neighborhoods Response Response Percent Count Very Satisfied 0 11.9% 5 Satisfied 57.1% 24 Dissatisfied 0 16.7% 7 Very Dissatisfied 11.9% 5 Don't Know ❑ 2.4% 1 Y answered question 42 skipped question 1 3.What about trees in the city as a whole? Response Response Percent Count � w1 Very Satisfied 0 ffw 4 Sa ft 18 "16Dissatisfied 21.4% 9 Very Dissatisfied 0 14.3° 6 Don't Know "ts.sir. answered question 42 skipped question 1 4.Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve its appearance and environmental quality? - Response Response Percent Count Yes 55.8% 24 No r 37.2% 16 Don't Know FEW 7.0% 3 MERIN= answered question 43 Ali ji skipped question 0 u 1 5.Trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree 73.2% 30 Agree 24.4% 10 Disagree ❑ 2.4% 1 Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0 Don't Know 0.0% 0 9 answered question 41 i OWL skipped question 2 6.It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree 68.3% 28 Agree 0 22.0% 9 Disagree 7.3% 3 Strongly Disagree ❑ 2.4% 1 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 41 skipped question 2 7.Trees contribute to the value of residential property., Response Response mmmffAmmPercent Count Strongly Agree 65.0% 26 Agree MEN= 25.0% 10 Disagree 7.5% 3 Strongly Disagree 8 2.5% 1 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 40 skipped question 3 r 8.Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree 43.9% 18 Agree 36.6% 15 Disagree 0 9.8% 4 Strongly Disagree ® 2.4% 1 Don't Know 7.3% 3 answered question 41 �llgl�pl�1�'1µlr'l � 9 r.illili'�III�WiWO u� �f skipped question 2 9,More street trees would be good for the City. i�V'���'„�i �j. ) - ,7 5 Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree 56.1% 23 Agree 24.4% 10 Disagree 14.6% 6 Strongly Disagree 2.4% 1 Don't Know 2.4% 1 ' i answered question 41 g € skipped question 2 10.It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree 36.6%1W 15 Agree 41.5% 4U 17 Disagree 17.1% 7 Strongly Disagree 0 4.9% 2 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 41 skipped question 2 11.The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on sites that are being developed. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Agree -' . 61.0% 25 Agree 0 22.0% 9 Disagree 0 9.8% 4 Strongly Disagree 7.3% 3 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 41 skipped question 2 12.Do you think the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased,decreased or stayed the same in the last 10 years? Response Response Percent Count Increased 17.1% 7 Decreased 53.7% 22 Stayed the Same 14.6% 6 Don't Know 0 14.6% 6 o answered question 41 �, skipped question 2 13.In the future,do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to increase,decrease,or stay the same? Response Response Percent Count Increased 0 17.1% 7 Decreased 56.1% 23 Stayed the Same 0 9.8% 4 Don't Know 0 17.1% 7 answered question 41 skipped question 2 14.On a scale of 1-10,where one is poor and 10 is excellent,how would you rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard? Response Response Percent Count 1 0.0% 0 2 4.9% 2 3 ❑ 2.4% 1 4 9.8% 4 5 4.9% 2 6 12.2% 5 7 j 34.1% 14 8 26.8% 11 9 ❑ 2.4% 1 10 ❑ 2.4% 1 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 41 skipped question 2 15.If you gave a rating of less than 8,what could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? Response Count 25 answered question 25 skipped question 18 16.A program that transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City.Currently,property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their property. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Support 26.8% 11 Support rl 19.5% 8 Oppose 34.1% 14 Strongly Oppose 9.8% 4 Don't Know 9.8% 4 answered question 41 skipped question 2 17.Additional funding from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a City street tree program. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Support 25.0% 10 Support 32.5% 13 Oppose 25.0% 10 Strongly Oppose 0 7.5% 3 Don't Know 10.0% 4 answered question 40 skipped question 3 18.Additional funding from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Support 26.8% 11 Support 31.7% 13 Oppose 22.0% 9 Strongly Oppose 0 12.2% 5 Don't Know 7.3% 3 answered question 41 skipped question 2 119.Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City to do this?Even if you are not a property owner,which would you prefer? T MIIM- Response Response Percent Count Plant 58.5% 24 Pay 0 19.5% 8 Neither 0 9.8% 4 Don't Know 5 p l answered questionW41 skipped question 2 20.Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant more trees? Response Response Percent Count Along Streets 22.0% 9 In People's Yards 7.3% 3 In Commercial And Industrial Areas 29.3% 12 In Parks ❑ 2.4% 1 Near Streams And Natural 34.1% 14 Forested Areas Don't Know 4.9% 2 answered question 41 skipped question 2 21.Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about trees. Response Response Percent Count Preserve As Many Trees As 43.9% 18 Possible When Trees Are Removed, Replace 29.3% 12 Them Preserve Large Or Unique Trees 0 9.8% 4 Allow Individuals To Remove Trees O 17.1% 7 If They Wish To None Of These Statements 0.0% 0 Don't Know 0.0% 0 answered question 41 skipped question 2 22.Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees? -s OMMAl Response Response Percent Count Strongly Support - 26.8% 11 Support 46.3% 19 Oppose 17.1% of 7 PP �^ Strongly Oppose 8 4.9% � , 2 Don't Know 4.90/( answered question 41 A 1111111 Sam M MON NO skipped question 2 23.Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits? Response Response Percent Count IN Strongly Support 48.8% 20 Support 24.4% Oppose 9.8% 4` 9 StronY Pp I Oppose a., 12.2% Don't Know 4.9% 2 j6 answered question 41 skipped question 2 24.If you had the opportunity to develop your property,would you be in favor of City tree regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting afterwards? Response Response Percent Count Yes 75.6% 31 No 0 19.5% 8 Don't Know 4.9% 2 answered question 41 skipped question 2 25.Shuld the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? Response Response Percent Count Yes 0 14.6% 6 No 80.5% 33 Don't Know F-1 4.9% 2 answered question 41 skipped question 2 26.If the City were to enact new tree protection measures,would you like to see them focused on natural areas,ornamental landscape trees,both types equally,or on something else. Response Response Percent Count Natural Areas 41.5% 17 Ornamental Trees F7 4.9% 2 Both 1 1 48.8% 20 Something Else ❑ 2.4% 1 Don't Know ❑ 2.4% 1 answered question 41 skipped question 2 Page 12 27.Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose city regulations that would provide some level of protection for large,healthy trees on developed private property?This would apply to all current private property. Response Response Percent Count Strongly Support 39.0% 16 Support 39.0% 16 Oppose 2.4% 1 Strongly Oppose 17.1% 7 Don't Know �; 2.4% 7M y I 21 answered question IMPM41 IoM. ._ r_ skipped question 2 28.If the city were to enact new tree protection measures,where would you prefer to see them focused:on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. Response Response Percent Count 's 56.1% 23 Individual Trees of Significant Size 14.6% 6 Don't Know 29.3% 12 answered question 41 ..x � 2 29.Name a City that you would consider as a model for having good trees and forests. mile, 4MUAW-U11% IWO- *4-t- nff wiF Irl I" Response Count 30 answered question 30 ENV - skipped question 13 Page 13 30.Are you a resident of Tigard? �W x Response Response Percent Count Yes 97.4% 38 No © 2.6% 1 answered question 39 skipped question 4 31. In what age group are you? Response Response Percent Count Age 18-24 0.0% 0 Age 25-34 7.5% 3 Age 35-44 20.0% 8 Age 45-54 32.5% 13 Age 55-64 22.5% 9 Age 65 and Older 17.5% 7 answered question 40 ,:. ME ''�. ISI iksS�' skipped question 3 32.Are you male or female? I MW Ww9 Response Response Percent Count Mats 60.5% 23 i Female 39.5% 15 answered question 38 � ., ` e srk; i a skipped question 5 33.Do you own your home or rent? Response Response Percent Count Own i 97.5% 39 Rent ❑ 2.5% 1 answered question 40 skipped question 3 Page 15 Comment Summary Page 1 of 1 • <<Back to Summary Name a City that you would consider as a model for having good trees and forests. # Response Date Response Text 1. 1/20/2009 6:21:00 PM Bellview Washington 2. 1/20/2009 11:14:00 PM Portland Oregon 3. 1/21/2009 3:20:00 PM ? 4. 1/21/2009 7:38:00 PM Santa Barbara, CA 5. 1/23/2009 12:03:00 AMna 6. 1/23/2009 8:17:00 PM Lake Oswego 7. 1/23/2009 8:46:00 PM I honestly don't know enough about the character of any specific city to make a statement. 8. 1/23/2009 9:56:00 PM Lake Oswego 9. 1/25/2009 6:36:00 PM Lake Oswego 10.1/26/2009 5:39:00 PM EUGENE 11.1/28/2009 9:01:00 PM newberg 12.1/28/2009 9:59:00 PM Portland: Irvington area, Ladd's Addition, Mt Tabor 13.1/29/2009 9:45:00 PM Lake Oswego, OR Tigard in its current setting and under its current regulatory structure is in exemplary standing.There is no legal right for the City to impose 14.2/2/2009 9:56:00 PM regulation of existing trees within PRIVATE property unless the City is willing to fully compensate the property owner for the total value, including but not limited to,the reduced use of said PRIVATE property. 15.2/4/2009 6:15:00 AM Lake Oswego 16.2/5/2009 8:39:00 PM tigard 17.2/6/2009 5:45:00 AM Some aspects of programs in Chicago&Cook County, IL; Atlanta, GA 18.2/6/2009 10:47:00 PM Lake Oswego 19.2/6/2009 1]:10:00 PM Lake Oswego 20.2/6/2009 11:22:00 PM NW Portland 21.2/7/2009 1:18:00 AM Portland 22.2/7/2009 2:08:00 AM Wilsonville, Lake Oswego 23.2/7/2009 5:01:00 PM Charlotte,North Carolina 24.2/8/2009 7:47:00 PM Unsure. With regard to previous questions the city and owners need to work together. I need help controlling my larger trees. 25.2/8/2009 11:19:00 PM ?? 26.2/9/2009 8:23:00 PM Teal Blvd. Beaverton 27.2/10/2009 8:52:00 PM Thats strange to ask in a survey. 28.2/18/2009 3:00:00 AM McMinnVille 29.2/23/2009 3:49:00 AM Portland 30.2/26/2009 6:26:00 AM Tigard file://CADocuments and Settings\marissa\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Directory 1 for R... 3/6/2009 Comment Summary Pagel of 3 <<Back to Summary If you gave a rating of less than 8,what could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? # Response Date Response Text 1. 1/20/2009 12:25:00 AMMore trees along 99W Put sidewalks next to streets and get rid of that pointless strip that causes the overuse of chemicals to maintain and cannot fit a tree 2. 1/21/2009 3:15:00 PM anyway. Then require all new homes to plant trees in front to shade streets like the nicer neighborhoods in Portland. Do not allow trees, such as pin oaks, that lose their leaves late and reseed everywhere. Shading surface areas will help with the heating of runoff. Trees have been removed to make way for new construction. Replacement trees that have been planted are so small that it will take at least 25 years before they amount to much.That is too much time to pass. We can't make them grow faster. Builders need to incorporate existing trees into their designs and work around them. I live in a 3. 1/22/2009 11:57:00 PM manufactured home park(on Beef Bend Road)where we do not have much choice. However I see plenty of space cleared, Fischer Road between Highway 99 and 131 st as an example, where pretty much all the trees were removed to make way for new housing. Seems a better plan could have been made there to keep some of those trees.To lose those towering beauties was a great loss both visually and environmentally. And we are Tree City USA? 4. 1/23/2009 8:06:00 PM Public education for homeowners on how to properly prune and maintain their trees 5. 1/23/2009 8:14:00 PM More trees in the downtown core and new developments As I don't know the current policy, I don't know what policy is in effect at the current time.Trees that front the streets, however, need to be watched as to health, proper pruning and safety both on the street and along sidewalks. Since some of this is dealing with private property, owners should be given guidance with regard to what can keep their 6. 1/23/2009 8:41:00 PM trees healthy if not in good shape. Since money may be an issue in some cases, perhaps some trade of service for assistance from an arborist could be instituted. If there is a department that takes care of city owned trees, maybe there could be assistance through.that, even offering some training to homeowners. Some trees overhang sidewalks at head level. Some are surrounding power lines. Some just need a "little bit of care"to be safe and health. Require development to include planter strips. Underground power/cable lines along major streets (particularly on south side of streets, where a larger tree can provide shade to the paved area). 7. 1/23/2009 9:52:00 PM Specify a canopy cover for parking lots -enforce it Enforce tree requirements in developments after developer leaves-provide a listing of these by subdivision name Identify and save (with some city cost) 10 key groves of native trees -ash, oak, pine, etc. 8. 1/25/2009 6:32:00 PM More trees along 99W, Durham Road, Tigard H.S., etc. 9. 1/26/2009 5:33:00 PM EDUCATE AND MAINTAIN HEALTHY TREES Require developers to save more trees instead of clearcutting. Check back after developments are completed to make sure the trees that were file://C:\Documents and Settings\marissa\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for R... 3/6/2009 Comment Summary Page 2 of 3 • supposed to be saved are still there. I know they aren't in Elkhorn.The 10.1/29/2009 9:41:00 PM city needs to replant all the dying arborvitae around the water tank on 125th Ave. and Bull Mt. Rd. Water them and prune them--years ago there was a watering system there. That area looks terrible. 11.2/3/2009 2:12:00 AM Not sure how to improve the overall health of trees. We should be planting new trees in areas to replace damaged/down trees. 12.2/3/2009 3:44:00 PM Urban forests should be maintained. (fallen trees, downed branches removed) and diseased trees removed/treated Trees should be planted or maintained in areas which are good for the neighborhood, not convenient to the developers. Trees should be 13.2/4/2009 6:09:00 AM planted in median along 99W. This would reduce visible pollution and improve the look of Tigard's main thoroughfare.This one road alone impresses the character of Tigard upon the multitudes who pass through. The lack of trees gives an overall negative view of the city. Reduce infrastructure& planning requirements and or provide economic incentives to development to preserve trees and create room 14.2/6/2009 5:27:00 AM to plant new trees, ie. reduce street width and widen planting strips. Consider a frontage foot tax or other funding mechanism to pay for tree maintenance on public property, ROW etc. Consider leveraging manpower and equipment in DPW to facilitate maintenance. More trees. Require that developers plant more trees on any new house lot that are species that will grow up to be tall. Require that developers 15.2/6/2009 10:44:00 PM leave enough room for trees to grow up to be large. Require that developers leave existing trees on lots to the maximum extent. Trees are better than houses. Tigard needs lots and lots more trees. Tigard needs fewer houses, not more. I think the biggest defecit of trees in Tigard are in parking lots and 16.2/6/2009 11:07:00 PM some of the major roads. Durham Road and 99W both could use more trees. 17.2/7/2009 1:14:00 AM Reduce haphazard tree removal; emphasis preservation and planting of native trees. Trees are important for stormwater management. This survey doesn't ask any questions about the public's awareness of the benefits of trees for pollution reduction, habitat, reduction of runoff, energy savings. 18.2/7/2009 2:06:00 AM Washington Square could use a 1000 more trees in their parking lot. Durham Road has a lot of bare dirt where trees should be planted. 99W is a asphalt eyesore that could be improved greatly by planting a lot of trees. The main thing is to protect and enhance existing stands of trees. Many trees in areas not to be developed are old but there are few new trees coming because of invasive species, especially ivy and blackberry that 19.2/7/2009 4:57:00 PM prevent seedlings from getting a start. We need to restore the health of the stands of trees. While planting isolated trees along the street is desirable, it is not as important as preserving larger stands of trees remaining in the city especially in important habitat, like along Fanno Creek. 20.2/8/2009 7:43:00 PM I think there are too many fir trees and not enough other types of trees in key areas.There also appear to be too many trees spaced too far apart. I just think it would benefit to plant trees in a scenic manner(tall file://C:\Documents and Settings\marissa\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for R... 3/6/2009 Comment Summary Page 3 of 3 trees in back, smaller in front) and a wider variety of types of trees. 21.2/8/2009 11:13:00 PM Remove the ivy and require land owners to do so. Careful consideration and appropriate requirements should be part of Tigard planning of residential and commercial development and 22.2/17/2009 7:36:00 PM changes to existing development wherever possible. The goal should be to have streets that are lined with carefully chosen trees, chosen for size, flowering, length of life, natilve whenever possible, with overall aesthetics in mind. I think there are too many in some areas that can cause SERIOUS 23.2/18/2009 2:58:00 AM damage to houses. But in Downtown areas it does add beauty. Just wish I had more control over my neighbors trees. If a strong wind storm hits, it will most likely damage my house. 24.2/23/2009 3:42:00 AM require developers to save more of the existing trees. Three things interest me in this region: Green Job creation, respiratory health and healthy migratory song bird populations.The trees here seem a little neglected,therefore easy to cut when they appear to be a nuisance. This is particularly true with stands of historic trees where certain birds rely on them heavily. We should forget about developing the hell out of this area and, instead attend to filling the abandoned 25.2/26/2009 6:19:00 AM buildings, foster green sustainable concepts, from landscaping to community gardening and new green job creations. Anyone who lives close to Hwy 217 should find trees to be a very, very important filter from respiratory illnesses. The global warming that has so far killed half of our Pacific Northwest trees is for sure going to take it's toll on this region. It's not hard to do the math from here and take a different approach to our future. l file://C:\Documents and Settings\marissa\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for R... 3/6/2009 ii Urban • This survey will be incorporated as a section of the Urban Forestry Master Plan and allow for a more detailed understanding of how to manage our urban forest in a way that better meets the needs o . Survey questions build upon, and help to clarify, past survey results and input received through t e c_rprehensive planning process. i�c MSG V% vv%c_ Ow.J fiJV"'`r+v,".`r im - We'd like to begin by asking about your level of satisfaction with the QUANTITY AND QUALITY of trees in the following locations. First, what about the trees on your street? OVery Satisfied OSatisfied ODissatisfied OVery Dissatisfied Don't Know Second, what about trees in your neighborhood? OVery Satisfied OSatisfied ODissatisfied OVery Dissatisfied Don't Know What about trees in the city as a whole? OVery Satisfied OSatisfied ODissatisfied OVery Dissatisfied Don't Know i Page 1 V J r Urban • Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve its appearance and environmental quality? Yes ONo ODon't Know The following are statements people have made about trees. For each one, please tell us if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. Trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. Strongly Agree OAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home. ,eFStrongly Agree OAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know Tre es contribute to the value of residential property. strongly Agree 0 Agree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know Page 2 i Urban Forestry Master Plan Survey Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. gStrongly Agree ddOAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know More street trees would be good for the City. Jerstrongly Agree OAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. (� Strongly Agree OAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on sites that are being developed. rongly Agree OAgree ODisagree OStrongly Disagree ODon't Know All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in parks, along stre is in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. —7Tn i SI S t- _ ��� r� — ,t�. �� l � Lp,�+-, v V— —f aA-c►' ru v� OV a - i L.a► 5 L�,�-�e v. 4✓1,-f, IAV`7c��"S t-ke- 6o'r1h c d 6 t<- o,-�-d yr ci`-I', -to CdvcA)-E lid owWs Z`kA-Y" i'vt? - w✓as v! J rtvrh i S 1rtlnl� OaL, Pale 3 V • , 1 Urban Do you think the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10 years? 0 Increased 0 Decreased 0 Stayed the Same ZrDon't Know In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to increase, decrease, or stay the same? 0 Increased 0 Decreased 0 Stayed the Same l/1 Don't Know On a scale of 1-10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent , how would you rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard? 01 05 09 02 06 010 0 3 0 7 eCl Don't Know 04 08 If you gave a rating of less than 8, what could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? �( fVG'S A wfi Vu � �vo-�t�S' Zvi c..,�wlyw,� ES ►Vh Funding J Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose the following changes to the City's tree related programs and funding structure: Page 4 Urban • A program that transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City. Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their property. �I v U-),% "1 , ��� �2 OStrongly Support L (J e rr (g /� f co I Gf'C� ra-4 '�,val D r I In VGc t l v e ✓l- M - O Support inn 5-f;ze�r OOppose VIV V- 0 -0 Strongly Oppose V) Don't Know Additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City kt street tree program. '� 5�� /1/ltiSaL'L ! 'I" ,'c Lv�- r �wK-t'17� �i I'C�S •Cv�.d df'�uv_ OStrongly Support 1 GGG�wupport TO CREATE/NCD CONSERVE OXYGEN: vel`c IQ a v�orjz .0(1414A. ti Rant Trees use ANISOIL f/1 O Oppose �isingG10 10,� 0'v1 I&SSUse AMSOIL as a tool for I d o,� -,� Z,i /o o O Strongly Oppose Zephyr Moore,AMSOIL Dealer 503 6412798 -�'b � (oF-h�In, c.�►t�`�S O Don't Know 13665 SW IarCh PI 19 Beaverton OR 97005 0V-V%So 7-0 Zo1731-7 Additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces. OStrongly Support OSupport OOppose OStrongly Oppose `Q Don't Know Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City to do this? Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer? OPlant OPay ONeither Don't Know Page 5 Urban • Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant more trees? 0 Along Streets n People's Yards 0 In Commercial And Industrial Areas 0 In Parks 0 Near Streams And Natural Forested Areas 0 Don't Know Which,of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about trees. reserve As Many Trees As Possible �P��hen Trees Are Removed, Replace Them Preserve Large Or Unique Trees 0 Allow Individuals To Remove Trees If They Wish To 0 None Of These Statements 0 Don't Know Hazardlirees. Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a potentially hazardous tree, the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees? 0 Strongly Support 0 Support 0 Oppose 0 Strongly Oppose Don't Know /v ' ■ I u JatjCjnS- Page 6 Urban Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits? OStrongly Support OSupport OOppose �0 Strongly Oppose (\/J Don't Know If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of City tree regulations that etc aired preservation of existing large trees and landscapin or tree planting afterwards? ,S�r OYes o ✓2�t-rn 1 ONo ODon't Know Shuld the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? OYes r ,)3'*`N o ODon't Know If the City were to enact new tree protection measures, would you like to see them focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something else. Natural Areas OOrnamental Trees OBoth OSomething Else ODon't Know Page 7 Urban • restry Master Plan Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? This would apply to all current private property. 0 Strongly Support upport 0 Oppose 0 Strongly Oppose 0 Don't Know If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. arge Groves 0 Individual Trees of Significant Size 0 Don't Know Name a City that you would consider as a model for having , y g good trees and forests. • . Are you a resident of Tigard? 0 Yes ja-�No In what age group are you? 0 Age 18-24 0 Age 25-34 0 Age 35-44 0 Age 45-54 �ge 55-64 !!!0 Age 65 and Older Fade 8 Urban • • A. re yo.`u:male or:ferrlale? : Male OFemale Do you own your°h®me:or rent? -Rent n -rW7� Page 9 p�/ �� a �l � final Page 1 of 6 final Metadata also available as Metadata: . Identification Information . Data Quality— Information . Spatial Data Organization=Information . SSpatialReference_Information . Entity——and_Attribute Information . Distribution_Information . Metadata Reference Information Identification_Information: Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Metro Data Resource Center Publication—Date: January 1, 2008 Title: final Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data Online—Linkage: \\C00858\C$\projects\tigard\1996_methods\08final\final.shp Description: Abstract: This data represents tree canopy as it existed in 1996 for the City of Tigard. It was extracted using object base classification methods from 1996 digital orthophotographs by the Metro Data Resource Center. Purpose: The purpose of this data is to give the City of tigard an understanding of the tree canopy as it existed in 1996 and to allow direct comparison with data extracted at later dates Time_Period_of Content: Time_Period_Information: Single—Date/Time: Calendar—Date: 1996 Currentness—Reference: ground condition Status: Progress: Complete Maintenance_and Update—Frequency: None planned Spatial_Domain: Bounding_Coordinates: West Bounding_Coordinate: -122.849712 East_Bounding Coordinate: -122.740207 North_Bounding Coordinate: 45.464127 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 45.3 87841 Keywords: Theme: mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\Metrol996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 final Page 2 of 6 Theme_Keyword Thesaurus: none Theme_Keyword. Trees Theme_Keyword: landcover Theme_Keyword: tigard Theme_Keyword: metro Theme_Keyword. orthophoto Temporal: Temporal_Keyword: 1996 Access_Constraints: Contact John Floyde at the City of Tigard Use—Constraints: Contact John Floyde at the City of Tigard Point_of Contact: Contact_In Contact—Person_Primary: Contact—Person: Justin C. Houk Contact Organization: Metro Data Resource Center Contact—Position: Senior GIS Analyst Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 600 NE Grand Ave City: Portland State—or— or_Province: Oregon Postal—Code: 97232 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 503-797-1669 Contact_Facsimile—Telephone: 503-797-1909 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: houk@metro.dst.or.us Data Set_Credit: Metro Data Resource Center Native—Data_Set_Environment: Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.2.0.1324 Data_Qual ity_Information: Lineage: Source_Information: Source—Citation: Citation_Information: Title: Metro 1996 2 foot pixel Color Othrophotographs Source_Time Period_of Content: Time_Period'_Information: Single—Date/Time: Calendar Date: 1996 Source—Currentness—Reference: publication date Process Step: Process—Description: Training polygons were created for landcover classes using 1996 orthophotographs. These classes where large wood(trees), medium wood (shrubs and small trees), grass, and built/scarifies areas. Process Date: 10/19/2007 Process Contact: mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\Metro1996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 final Page 3 of 6 Contact In Contact—Person_Primary: Contact—Person: Justin C. Houk Contact Organization: Metro Data Resource Center Contact_Position: Senior GIS Analysts Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 600 NE Grand Ave City: Portland State—or_Province: Oregon Postal—Code: 97232 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 503-797-1669 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 503-797-1909 Contact—Electronic—Mail—Address: houk@metro.dst.or.us Process_Step: Process—Description: Multiple feature exctractions where perfomed using the training polygons from orhtophotographs taken in 1996. Many adjustments where made to the training polygons to increase the accuracy and completness of the results. Process_Step: Process—Description: The feature extraction software Feature Analyst from Visual Learning Sytems was Put through a calibation process to decide what settings performed best. A manhattan 7 input representaion was chosen to learn fron the training polygons. The Data was processed at the native resolution of 2 feet per pixel. a Filter of 1000 sqr feet was used. A histogram strech was applied to each image Process Date: 10/19/2007 Process_Step: Process—Description: All Tiles Where run through the first classification pass that utilized the methods developed in the pilot area. The tree class was extraced from each tile since this was the only desired class. Process Date: 10/19/2007 Process_Step: Process—Description: All Tiles where evaluated for quality by trained staff. Those that did not meat accuracy requirements where placed in one of two groups. The first group consisted of tiles that had grassy areas misclassified as trees. The second group consisted of tiles that had grass misclassified as trees and some built or paved areas misclassified as trees. Process_Step: Process_Description: Tiles with only only grass confusion where put through a clutter pass that only cleaned out that specific issue. The results where then evaluated a second time and all tiles where found to be adequate. Process_Step: Process—Description: Tiles with Grass ansd Building confusion where put through 2 clutter removal passes and all where found to meet expectations Process_Step: mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\Metrol996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 final Page 4 of 6 Process—Description: The polygons that represented the trees for each tile where run through a smoothing process to remove unneeded vertices. Process_Step: Process—Description: Tiles where unioned together with each other and polygons for each section. The data was desolved on the section names Process_Step: Process—Description: Water areas where erased out using the RLIS lite water polygons Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: Direct_Spatial—Reference—Method: Vector Point_and_Vector_Object In SDTS_Terms_Description: SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: G-polygon Point and Vector—Object—Count: 30 Spatial_Reference_Information: Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: Planar: Map_Projection: Map_Projection Name: Lambert Conformal Conic Lambert—Conformal_Conic: Standard_Parallel: 44.333333 Standard_Parallel: 46.000000 Longitude_of Central Meridian: -120.500000 Latitude_of Projection_Origin: 43.666667 False_Easting: 8202099.737533 False_Northing: 0.000000 Planar_Coordinate_Information: Planar Coordinate_Encoding_Method: coordinate pair Coordinate Representation: Abscissa_Resolution: 0.000000 Ordinate_Resolution: 0.000000 Planar_Distance_Units: international feet Geodetic—Model: Horizontal_Datum_Name: D_North_American_1983_HARN Ellipsoid Name: Geodetic Reference System 80 Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Denominator of Flattening Ratio: 298.257222 Entity_and Attribute_Information: Detailed_Description: Entity Type: mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\Metro1996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 final Page 5 of 6 Entity_Type Label. final Attribute: Attribute_Label: FID Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number. Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI Attribute—Domain—Values: Unrepresentable_Domain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Attribute: Attribute—Label: Shape Attribute_Defrnition: Feature geometry. Attribute_De finition_Source: ESRI Attribute_Domain_Values: Unrepresentable_Domain: Coordinates defining the features. Attribute: Attribute_Label: SECTION Attribute_Definition: Township and Range Section Number Attribute_Domain_Values: Codeset_Domain: Codeset Name: Sectionsd Distribution_Information: Resource—Description: Downloadable Data Standard_Order_Process: Digital Form: Digital_Transfer_Information: Transfer Size: 31.942 Metadata_Reference_Information: Metadata_Date: 20080219 Metadata_Contact: Contact_In formation: Contact—Organization—Primary: Contact_Organization: Metro Data Resource Center Contact_Person: Justin C. Houk Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 600 NE Grand Ave City: Portland State_or_Province: Oregon Postal_Code: 97232 Country: USA Contact_VoiceTelephone: 503-797-1669 Metadata_Standard_Name_FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998 Metadata_Time_Convention: local time Metadata Extensions: mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\Metrol996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 final Page 6 of 6 Online— t<http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.ht nl> Profile Name: ESRI Metadata Profile Generated by mp version 2.8.6 on Tue Feb 19 15:57:13 2008 mhtml:file://I:\LRPLN\Tree Board\Inventory Update\MetroI996_draft\final.mht 3/16/2009 June 2008 Canopy Cover Analysis Protocol Citywide Canopy Cover 1. Calculate area of June 2008 City Limits in acres (7556) 2. Clip tool on 1996 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits (CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008) a. Calculate area in acres (1952.75) 3. Clip tool on 2007 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits (CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008) a. Calculate area in acres (1852.69) 4. Query CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008 for acres: a. Less than 0.5 (366.55) b. 0.5 to 0.99 (135.76) c. 1.0 to 1.99 (159.25) d. 2.0 to 4.99 (190.86) e. 5.0 or more (1100.33) 5. Query CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 a. Less than 0.5 (584.30) b. 0.5 to 0.99 (167.25) c. 1.0 to 1.99 (177.88) d. 2.0 to 4.99 (157.00) e. 5.0 or more (766.26) Buildable Lands Inventory 1. Clip tool on BLI_2008janl with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (BLI_2008jan1_TIG) a. Calculate area in acres (528.75) 2. Clip tool on BLI1996 with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (BLI1996_TIG) a. Calculate area in acres (1423.32) 3. Intersect tool with BLI_2006janl_TIG and CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008 (BLI_1996_intersect) a. Calculate area in acres (646.52) 4. Intersect tool with BLI_2008jan1_TIG and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 a. Calculate area in acres (226.26) Tigard Urban Renewal District 1. Calculate area of Tigard Urban Renewal District in acres (191) 2. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and CanopyCover_1996 Tig_June2008 (TURD-1996—intersect) a. Calculate area in acres (19.67) 3. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (TURD-2007—intersect) a. Calculate area in acres(18.41) Tigard Zoninp,Districts 1. Dissolve tool on Zoning_Tig_June2008 based on"Type"Field (Zoning_Tig June2008 dissolve) a. Calculate area of Tigard Zoning Districts i. Commercial (799.9 acres) ii. Industrial (862.55 acres) iii. Mixed Use (700.24 acres) iv. Residential (5191.71 acres) 2. Intersect tool with Zoning_Tig_June2008_dissolve and CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008 (Zoning 1996_intersect) a. Calculate area of Zoning 1996_intersect i. Commercial (88.13 acres) ii. Industrial (139.81 acres) iii. Mixed Use (150.3 acres) iv. Residential (1574.42 acres) 3. Intersect tool with Zoning_Tig_June2008_dissolve and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (Zoning2007_intersect) a. Calculate area of Zoning2007_intersect i. Commercial (80.52 acres) ii. Industrial (137.58 acres) iii. Mixed Use (99.79 acres) iv. Residential (1534.72 acres) Property Ownership 1. Query Washington County taxlot data(May 13, 2008) for publicly owned property within city limits (PublicProperty_May2008_Tig) and calculate area a. City Ownership (235 properties, 388.41 acres) b. Other Public Ownership (79 properties, 431.65 acres) 2. Calculate area of remaining taxlots to derive private ownership a. Private Ownership(15,880 properties, 5,447.64 acres) 3. Intersect tool with PublicProperty_May2008_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (PublicProperty2007_intersect) a. Calculate area of PublicProperty2007_intersect canopy cover in acres i. City Ownership(179.18) ii. Other Public Ownership (105.1) 4. Subtract PublicProperty2007_intersect acres from CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 acres to calculate canopy cover in private ownership (1568.41) Significant Habitat Areas 1. Clip tool on sig_hab_areas with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (Habitat TIG) a. Calculate area of Habitat TIG in acres i. Highest value habitat (590.51) ii. Moderate value habitat(374.88) iii. Lower value habitat(447.84) 2. Intersect tool with Habitat_TIG and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (Habitat intersect2007) a. Calculate area of Habitat intersect2007 in acres i. Highest value habitat(267.84) ii. Moderate value habitat(193.28) iii. Lower value habitat(234.96) Sensitive Lands 1. Clip tool on Tigard Local Wetland Inventory with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (LWI_Tig) a. Calculate area of LWI_Tig in acres(290.91) 2. Clip tool on CWS Vegetated Corridor Buffer with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (CWS_Tig) a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig in acres (704.78) 3. Clip tool on FEMA 100-yr Floodplain with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (FEMA_Tig) a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig in acres(592.6) 4. Clip tool on Metro 25%or Greater Slopes with June 2008 Tigard City Limits (Slope_Tig) a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig in acres (195.51) 5. Intersect tool with LWI_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (L WI_Tig_intersect2007) a. Calculate area of LWI_Tig_intersect2007 in acres (116.01) 6. Intersect tool with CWS_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (C W S_Ti g_intersect20 07) a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig_intersect2007 in acres (302.85) 7. Intersect tool with FEMA_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (FEMA Tig_intersect2007) a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig_intersect2007 in acres (188.05) 8. Intersect tool with Slope_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (S lope_Tig_intersect2007) a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig_intersect2007 in acres (129.64) Random Subdivision 1. Queried Subdivisions approved in 1996/97 [(Subdiv1996_97 (18 total)] a. Calculate area of Subdiv1996_97 in acres (72.76) 2. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 (Subdiv_intersect2007) a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersect2007 in acres (12.49) 3. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008 (Subdiv intersect1996) a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersect1996 in acres (18.32) 1996 Classification Reference Trees Other Classified Total Z Trees S3 10 63 Other 8 129 137 m u Reference Total 61 139 200 Overall Accuracy The overal accuracy is the probability that any random point will be correct 91.0% Producers Accuracy Producers accuracy is the percentage of the class that we are confident that we mapped Trees 87% Other 93% Users Accuracy Users accruacy is the probability of a given map feature being found on the ground Trees 84% Other 94% Kappa(KHAT) Kappa is a measure of how the classified data fit the reference data. 1 is a perfect fit. 0.79 2007 Classification Reference Trees Other Classified Total c Trees S1 6 57 Other 12 131 143 Ci Reference Total 63 137 200 Overall Accuracy 91.0% Producers Accuracy Trees 81% Other 96% Users Accuracy Trees 89% Other 92% Kappa(KHAT) 0.79 J Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 2007) located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits City Limits, June 2008 7556 acres 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of June 2008 June 2008 Acres City Limits Acres City Limits Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52% 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of 1996 1996 2007 2007 Canopy Canopy Canopy Canopy Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters Cover Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.30 31.54% 7231 93.86% 0.5 to .99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14% 1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70% 2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 1 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67% 5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 1 41.36% 48 1 0.62% Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres 1996 2007 Acres Percent Acres Percent !canopy Cover-of Urban Renewal Zone 19.67 10.30% 18.41 9.64% i Within June 2008 City Limits Jan 1, 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) 528.75 acres BLI 1996 1423.32 acres Canopy Cover Year BLI Acres Acres Percent 1996 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 2007 528.75 226.26 42.79% 1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover within 1996 BLI within 1996 BLI Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 1996 BLI 1423.32 1 646.52 45.42% 495.24 1 34.79% City Limits, June 2008 7556 acres May 13, 2008 Taxlots 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Ownership Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.137 Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12% Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.10 24.35% Private 1 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 1 26.630/c Total 1 16,194 1 7,556.00 1 1,852.69 1 24.52% I Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage Percent of 2007 Citywide Habitat Class Tigard Acres Percent Canopy Cover Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46% Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43% Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68% Total 1413.23 696.08 49.25% 37.57% i, 1 Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres 1996 Canopy Coverage 1952.75 acres Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage 1996 Canopy Coverage Percent Change 1996 Type Ti and Acres Percent Citywide Percent Acres Percent Citywide Percent to 2007 Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30% CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.40% 17.83% -6.43% FEMA 100-yr Floodplain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.15% 213.17 35.97% 10.92% -4.24% Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 66.64% 6.67% -0.33% Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 46.96% 42.89% -5.66% Subdivisions Approved in 1996/97 Canopyoverage 1996 2007 Number Total Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Change 1996-2007 18 1 72.76 18.32 1 25.18% 12.49 17.17% 31.82% City Limits, June 2008 7556 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Change 1996 Zoninq 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent to 2007 Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95% Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26% Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21% Residential 5192 1574.42 1 30.32% 1 1534.72 1 29.56% -0.760Yo Total 7556 1 1952.66 1 25.84% 1 1852.61 1 24.52% 1 1 -1.32% Todd Prager From: Bart Johnson [bartj@uoregon.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:01 AM To: Todd Prager Cc: David Hulse Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Pre-settlement Tree Coverage in Tigard OR] Todd, I'll see if I can be helpful here. I don't know the specifications (to the degree they exist) for FFHCBu. You could likely find out from Jimmy Kagan, who worked extensively on developing the 1851 veg data. Jimmy Kagan<jkaganAtnc.org> My guess is that there was a wide range of how many trees were present areas placed in this category. To my mind, if I heard "a few scattered trees surviving" I'd think of something equivalent to a savanna density (5-25 trees/acre or so), and your estimate of 10% cover seems reasonable since forest trees tend to have relatively narrow canopies. The issue of whether a forest should be called "100%" canopy cover needs some thought. Certainly if you're in a high-flying airplane a forest it may look like close to 100% cover, but even then there are gaps typically present. Furthermore,percent cover in this regard is usually measured from under the canopy, and any light that comes through gaps in the foliage reduces percent cover. So in the National Vegetation Classification System, forests are plant communities with 60-100%tree canopy cover. My personal recommendation would be to call a forest "closed canopy" and explain 60-100% canopy cover as the range within it when measure from below. This issue is always a challenge when trying to compare canopy cover measured from below with canopy cover estimated from above. Let me know if I can be of further help. And if you talk to Jimmy, I'd be interested to get copied on what he has to say. Bart P.S. I can open the PDF but the "trees" files comes across as a ".xlsx" file (perhaps a newer version than I have on my Mac). David Hulse wrote: Todd, I'm forwarding your question to my colleague Bart Johnson. He's the local knowledge on such questions. Hope that helps, Dave -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Pre-settlement Tree Coverage in Tigard OR Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:24:55 -0800 From: Todd Prager<todd(a,tigard-or.gov> To: 'David Hulse' <dhulse(a,uoregon.edu> i References: <2F54990EA51E3E4889D8910C463DEFF515F4EA6EIE(atigmail.ci.tigard.or.us> <48A46A5D.8000209a,uoregon.edu> Hi David, I have a couple of questions on the pre-settlement vegetation data that the City of Tigard is using to construct a forest history section of it Urban Forestry Master Plan. I have attached a map that shows the forest types with an overlay of Tigard's current city limits (in red). I also attached a corresponding spreadsheet that describes what those forest types are. It appears that the City of Tigard was comprised mostly of closed canopy upland and lowland forests with the exception of a large swath of FFHCBu(burned upland forest). The description of this forest type says it is burned FFHC with a few scattered trees surviving. Do you have a rough percent canopy cover I could use for the FFHCBu forest type. Should I assume 0% coverage, 10% coverage...? For the other forest types I was planning on stating that the canopy coverage was likely close to 100%. I know speaking about canopy greatly simplifies the forest types, but the public really understands the concept of canopy, so it will be useful data to present this data when compared to the % canopy we have today. Thank you for your help, Todd Prager Associate Planner/Arborist City of Tigard (503) 718-2700 From: David Hulse fmailto:dhulseaa,uore og n.edul Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:25 AM To: Todd Prager Subject: Re: Pre-settlement Tree Coverage in Tigard OR Hi Todd, If you go to: hqp://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/access.html 2 then look to the left of the page, you'll see options for downloading both spatial data and metadata for same for a file called: Presettlement Veg. These data pertain to the entire Willamette River Basin, but as such, cover the entire Tigard area. In addition to these,the digital version of a printed publication(now unavailable in hard copy) titled "The Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas" is also available for downloading at http://www.fsl.orst.edu/t)nwerc/wrb/Atlas web compressed/PDFtoc.html See especially Chapter 4,the section on Presettlement Vegetation and Chapter 7, the section on same. That should answer your questions. regards, Dave ------------- David W. Hulse Philip H. Knight Professor Dept. of Landscape Architecture Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon Eugene, OR. 97403-5234 USA (541) 346-3672 dhulsena uore og n.edu Todd Prager wrote: Dear Mr. Hulse, Do you have any historical information or data on the pre-settlement canopy coverage and tree species composition in Tigard. I have had discussions with various individuals who claim that Tigard naturally had very low coverage due to its location in the Tualatin basin. I am surprised at these assertions due to my observations of thick stands of Doug.-firs, cedars, bigleaf maples, 3 alders, etc. growing in undisturbed locations. It is important for Tigard to have good baseline data as we begin our Urban Forest Master Plan process so we know where we have been, and where we are going. Our current canopy coverage is roughly 25% citywide. If you could point me in the direction of some good references/resources for this info., I would really appreciate it. Sincerely, Todd Prager City of Tigard Associate Planner/Arborist 503 718-2700 Bart Johnson, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Landscape Architecture 5234 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-5234 tel. 541-346-3688 4