Category Archives: urban forest

States Requiring Tree Service Provider Registration

Posted on by

Posted on  by 

Tree Service Providers Licensing is required  in 8 states

  • New Jersey Board of Tree Experts 

Licensing of Tree Care Operators and Tree Care Experts

“Licensing legislation was proposed by industry groups and passed by the New Jersey legislature on January 16, 2010. The legislation is known as the Tree Expert and Tree Care Operators Licensing Act and on April 17, 2017, the Tree Expert and Tree Care Operators Licensing Law’s rules were adopted and promulgated.

The Act creates a licensing program under which individuals may become Licensed Tree Experts (LTEs) or Licensed Tree Care Operators (LTCOs) by passing an examination and demonstrating good moral character. Licensees will be required to complete continuing education requirements, abide by standards of professional conduct and ethics, and adhere to safety standards, as well as industry practice standards. No individual shall represent himself or herself to the public as a licensed tree expert or a licensed tree care operator or use any title, designation, word(s), letter, or abbreviations tending to indicate that such individual is a licensed tree expert or a licensed tree care operator without obtaining licensure as a tree expert by the Board of Tree Experts.”

NJ Arborists ISA -“Every company performing tree work in N.J. must have at least one employee who is licensed. In order to receive a license, people must meet certain minimum qualifications and then pass an exam”

  • Minnesota

University of Minnesota Extension – How to hire a tree care professional  –

Tree Care Industry Association – ‘Most cities in Minnesota require arborists to be licensed by the respective city if the company wishes to perform tree work within the city limits. Many communities require tree care companies working on publicly owned trees to employ ISA Certified arborists and register with the community as a licensed tree care company

  • Burnsville, Minnesota 

TREE CONTRACTOR LICENSING – Issued To Any business that cuts, trims, prunes, removes, sprays or otherwise treats trees or shrubs

Application for Tree Contractor License

Wm Todd Barry, Bakersfild.com 2017  “In California, a state license is required to trim a tree taller than 15 feet, and the contractor is required to cover his crew with workers compensation insurance. If the tree trimmer is not a licensed contractor, the liability for workers’ injuries rests with the homeowner, who is considered to be the “employer.” In most cases, homeowners’ insurance policies do not cover injuries or deaths when unlicensed contractors have been hired. Injured workers and survivors can sue homeowners for damages.”

The risks of hiring an uninsured and unlicensed arborist 

blog.davey.com -“Never assume you’re dealing with a licensed and bonded tree service—always ask! This is crucial, because if you hire a company or individual without these credentials, you could be held liable for any on-the-job injuries or damages to your tree and property. A reliable tree service should have no problem providing you with license and insurance information before taking on a job.”

  • Connecticut

Commercial Arborist License – “An arborist license is required for persons advertising, soliciting or contracting to do arboriculture in Connecticut. As defined in the arborist law, “arboriculture means any work done for hire to improve the condition of fruit, shade, or ornamental trees by feeding or fertilizing, or by pruning, trimming, bracing, treating cavities or other methods of improving tree conditions, or protecting trees from damage from insects or diseases or curing these conditions by spraying or any other method.” The licensed arborist is a supervisory pesticide applicator, with respect to the use of pesticides.  For all intents and purposes “certificate” means “license.”

  • Maine 

Arborist Licensing – “Anyone performing arborist services in Maine must first obtain an arborist license. An arborist license allows an individual to work independently in arboriculture. Candidates for an arborist license must pass a test in either landscape, utility or both categories demonstrating knowledge, skill and capability to safely and professionally provide arborist services to the public.”

“All tree care professionals practicing in Maryland must obtain a license. Without a license, they may not practice or advertise tree care services in the state. To obtain a license, the applicant must possess adequate and related college education plus one year of experience under a LTE or have three years experience under a Licensed Tree Expert (LTE), then have passed an exam and carry adequate amounts of liability and property damage insurance. The license is a two year license renewed in December.”

  • Rhode Island 

Arborist Licensing in Rhode Island 

“Rhode Island requires that all practitioners of arboriculture be licensed. The Urban and Community Forestry Coordinator oversees the licensing and exams for arborists working in RI. This includes all Tree Wardens, as defined in RI General Law § 2-14. In 2019 there were more than 700 arborists licensed in RI.”

  • Louisiana 

Louisiana Horticulture Commission

Arborist license – Authorizes the holder to make recommendations or execute tree surgery type work including tree removal, pruning, trimming, cabling, fertilization and cavity work. Licensees must enter into a written contract with property owners specifying work to be done and sum to be paid. Property owners should ask to see a current copy of the arborist’s certificate of insurance.

“Anyone doing tree work in Louisiana is required to obtain a license through the LDAF,” Strain said. “Hiring only licensed-professional arborists protects you, the homeowner, since licensed arborists are not only trained to properly execute tree work, but they must also maintain liability insurance.

  • General comment

Stumped About Whether Your Tree Removal Pros Need a License – Amber Guetebier, Jan 9, 2022

Look for Proper Certification:

“Tree removal is a specialized service and can be dangerous work, so it’s wise to find a tree removal service with proper training. To determine qualifications, look for a tree service that holds an accredited certification from an industry-wide organization. The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) offer certification in arboriculture. You can also search their database for certified arborists and verify their qualifications.Any reputable tree removal company will have at least one certified arborist on staff. Look for tree removal safety standards, such as a Certified Tree Care Safety Professional (CTSP) as well. In addition, tree removal companies should follow the proper tree removal guidelines as established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).”

 

Types of Insurance Coverage:

“There are different types of insurance coverage that a contractor may carry. When you contact their insurance company, clarify the specifics.

  • Liability insurance ensures that the company will pay for damages to your home or possessions.
  • Worker’s compensation insurance holds the company responsible, not you, if an employee is injured while working on the job. Not only does this protect you, hiring a contractor with its employee’s best interest in mind means they are more likely to follow safety guidelines.

Being bonded essentially means that whomever you hire has a line of credit in place that will guarantee that any work contracted will be completed or, if they are unable to perform the work, the bond issuer will reimburse you. Being bonded also means the company complies with permit regulations required to complete the job.”

IS Your Service Provider a Licensed, Bonder and Insured Tree Service provider?

“Insurance requirements will also vary from state to state. For example, in Minnesota, any business performing work on a tree over 12 feet tall must have workman’s compensation insurance. In Massachusetts, a landscaper’s insurance covers only 10 feet above the ground and is different from policies that specifically cover tree work.

Although every state has different requirements for licensed tree contractors, just as with any kind of service on your property, hiring a licensed, bonded contractor will protect you—and them—from potential injury or property damages.”

  • Spokane, Washington – “Under Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) Section 10.25.010, a Commercial Tree Service License is required for any person or entity retained or hired to perform work on street trees in the City of Spokane Right-of-Way (ROW) or on public trees as defined in SMC 12.02.952.”

Commercial Tree Service License Application 

Urge the Seattle City Council at Tues. March 29th meeting to pass CB 120207 to regulate tree service providers

Posted on by

URGE THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS COUNCIL Council Bill 120207 

THIS TUES MARCH 29th

Dear TreePAC supporters,
Last Wednesday, the Seattle City Council Land Use Committee passed a key component in our effort to update Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. All 5 committee members voted to forward Council bill 120207 – An ordinance relatng to land use and urban forestry adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement“ to the full City Council for a vote on Tuesday, March 29 starting at 2 PM.
This ordinance update is needed to help stop illegal tree removal in the city and to ensure that Tree Care Providers are knowledgeable of the existing tree code and regulations. If operating out of compliance, they will face fines for violations and after 2 violations are prohibited from working in the city for a year. The companies must be registered also as contractors with the state, carry adequate insurance and have workers compensation for their employees in case they are injured on the job.
Click on the link above to send a pre-written e-mail that you can edit.

The Seattle Department of Transportation has required such registration for nine years for contractors working on street trees. Spokane Washington also requires registration for all Tree Service Providers working on public trees.
Eight states require similar registration of Tree Service Providers doing work on both public and private property – California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Seattle needs to follow suit.
We need your help to ensure this bill passes the full City Council on Tuesday and is signed by Mayor Bruce Harrell. Please send the e-mail letter linked below with any added personal comments and stories of why this legislation is needed to the City Council and Mayor. Thanks for your help.
You can also help by calling Council members offices and urging they pass this much needed legislation. You can see their contact information here.
If you want to testify for the bill, you can sign up starting 2 hours before the 2 PM meeting time on Tuesday March 29th.  Public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. It will probably be limited to 1 minute.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may sign up to address the Council for up to 2 minutes on matters on this agenda; total time allotted to public comment at this meeting is 20 minutes. Register online to speak during the Public Comment period at the 2:00 p.m. City Council meeting at http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment. Online registration to speak at the City Council meeting will begin two hours before the 2:00 p.m. meeting start time, and registration will end at the conclusion of the Public Comment period during the meeting. Speakers must be registered in order to be recognized by the Chair
Thanks for your help!
Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC.
Donations are welcome to help us continue our efforts. Thank-you.

Send an e-mail regarding the SEPA Analysis of Seattle’s draft Tree Protection Ordinance

Posted on by
The Seattle Department  of Construction and Inspections (SDCI)  issued a Determination of Non-Significance for their draft Tree Protection Ordinance update.
We are not impressed with their SEPA checklist evaluation that removing big trees and then planting little trees is a possible way to increase tree canopy.
They set a date to comment on the SEPA document and then said the comment period was extended for a month and then said that the date you can appeal the DNS is based on the first comment period, not the extended one. Many people, including us, thought once they heard the comment period was being extended thought they had more time to respond.
AN appeal to SDCI Director Torgelson, said sorry for the confusion but the appeal date stays the same. Seems SDCI really doesn’t care that they presented a contradictory commenting process that confused people and disengaged people from the process. Frustrating – yes.
Despite this, let’s move on – send in your comments  as soon as you can.
Here is some information to help:
 Washington State Dept. of Ecology -SEPA Review for Non-project proposals
Here is a  list of possible issues to cite in your comments. Problems with SDCI’s DNS – SEPA process:
  • does not credibly explain how removing large older trees and replacing them with small new trees can increase canopy.
  • does not discuss potential loss of tree groves and associated loss of bird habitat by not including street trees in definition of a grove
  • does not discuss impact of not including industrial zone or downtown areas which are high areas of urban heat island impact
  • does not mention that 2022 urban canopy results are being evaluated right now and will soon be available to compare tree loss with 2016 canopy study
  • does not discuss negative impact of reducing data tracking lost by excluding trees 6-12″DBH trees from developer site plans
  • Resolution 31902 asked to require replacement of 6″ DBH and larger trees. SEPA does not discuss numbers or percentage of trees that would cover at 6’DBH and larger versus those 12″ DBH and larger It’s 18% at 12″ BH versus 45% at 6 inches
  • does not discuss or define what normal and routine pruning is and its impact on tree canopy
  • does not discuss problems and costs with city entering data from site plans into Accela database versus requiring developers to enter data via Excel spreadsheets as Portland, Oregon does. Accompanying documents claim it is hugely expensive to process tree permits without discussing what costs are elsewhere for other cities
  •  Does not note that many other cities locally require permits to remove 6″ DBH trees.
  • does not mention or provide evaluation of data collected from last several years on tree retention, tree loss and replacement and entered into Seattle Accela database system
  • does not evaluate current or proposed ordinance’s impact on reaching 2037 30% tree canopy cover or aspirational 40% in current comprehensive plan.
  • Does not note there is no plan on how to reach 30% canopy goal by 2037 in place
  • removes black cottonwood, bitter cherry, and Lombardy popular, from tree grove protection but does not discuss how this will impact canopy goals or wildlife.
  • Does not discuss impact removing trees during bird’s nesting season
  •  does not mention or evaluate impact of up zoning in Seattle for light rail as present and future plans will affect tree loss retention
  • does not evaluate pacific flyways for migrating birds or other habitat or trailways for wildlife that are affected by tree loss
  • item 7 does not mention preparation of comprehensive plan and possible middle housing legislation which would severely impact tree canopy.
  • item 11 says there is no specific proposal site or development proposal. Should state history of development in Seattle and expected growth of housing and other development as it impacts tree loss and replacement
  • Study cited on “DBH Distribution in America’s Urban Forests: An Overview of Structural Integrity{” noted in its text that it included no cities in the Pacific Northwest footnote page 19
  • table on page 19 and reference to number of trees affected by proposals does not include total number of trees in city The estimate of 175,000 trees -for single family, multiple family and commercial does not really match up with statement on OSE website and Seattle’s Forest Ecosystem Values, which says Seattle has 4.35 million trees and treelike shrubs. Some 60% of Seattle’s tree canopy is currently in single family zones.
  • Does not mention 2 statistically valid polls each of whom with over 600 respondents,  showing strong support for updating Seattle Tree Ordinance while citing their input from 29 listening session participants (8 of whom were from the building community and 2 additional homeowners who were architects)   and feedback from 6 representatives of BIPOC and low-income groups.
Pick and choose from the above. Feel free to write in your own words what to send in.
Note as above that they did not adequately analyze many issues and possible impacts of the draft ordinance
Urge they do an Environmental Impact Statement for the draft ordance.to better research and explain the impacts.
Send comments to gordon.clowers@seattle.gov as soon as you can for the DNS on the SEPA
Steve Zemke
Chair – Tree PAC
Help us move this effort forward.      Donate here      thank you

Send a Be My Valentine E-Mail to State Senators- Add urban and community forestry amendments to E2Shb 1099

Posted on by

Dear Friends of Tree PAC

E2SHB 1099 is in the WA State Senate Housing and Land Use Committee. The bill would add a climate resiliency element that cities and counties need to consider when they update their Comprehensive Plans under the state’s Growth Management Act. They are considering amendments to the bill in Executive Session on Thursday before it is voted on in Committee.

Please help strengthen the bill by sending the Washington State Senators a Valentine Day email urging that they adopt the purposed urban forest amendments below.

 

We have a pre-written e-mail you can quickly sent them. Feel free to add your own comments.

Here are our proposed amendments we are asking for:

In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 14 – Add underlined words – “A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation, airports, public utilities, public facilities, urban and community forests, and other land uses.”
In Sec. 4 (1) – Page 7 line 22 – Insert following sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forestry canopy cover and its preservation and enhancement to mitigate heat impacts and associated health impacts on humans and the natural environment,”
In Sec. 4 (9) (b) (i) (A) – Page 17 line 30 – Add following words (bolded only to designate they are new words to add to current new sentence in bill) to the following – “Identify, protect, and enhance urban and community forests and other natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for plant and animal diversity, safe passage and species migration; and”

Thanks for your help!

Steve Zemke

TreePAC – Chair

www.TreePAC.org

Contributions to support TreePAC are always welcome. Click here to donate.

Add two Arborist Positions to Seattle City Budget for SDCI

Posted on by

Councilmember Dan Strauss proposed doubling the number of arborists in  Seattle’s  Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) from two to four to increase tree protection and enforcement now.

From Dan Strauss’s newsletter:

“Tree Protection Staff: As we await a new, stronger tree protection ordinance, I am proposing to hire two additional arborists in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to immediately enhance the City’s ability to enforce the tree code and review permit applications to ensure compliance with tree protections. While the bigger changes we need will come with a new ordinance, we can start by adequately enforcing the laws we currently have.”

Unfortunately, the Nov 10th City Council Budget reconciliation proposal did not include this amendment.

On Tuesday, November 9th, Budget Chair Councilmember Mosqueda released her Initial Balancing Package. You can watch the high-level overview for the public here. If you would like to address the council to provide feedback on the balancing package, the next public hearing will be on November 18th at 9:30 AM.
 Public Hearing Thursday Nov 18, 2021  9:30 AM 
Each Budget Committee Meeting allows space for public comment at the beginning of each meeting. To provide public comment, you must register ahead of time. Signup opens 2 hours in advance of the meeting.

Please sign up to testify and/or send an e-mail to the Seattle City Council  urging they add 2 arborist positions to SDCI’s budget now to help protect more existing trees. Send e-mails to council@seattle.gov 

Funding keeps getting put off until later as trees keep getting cut down now across the city. Twelve years without adequately responding to tree loss and updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance continues to be delayed by the Council and Mayor. The Climate Crisis is now, and tree equity is a matter of climate justice and public health now.

Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC
www.TreePAC.org

Comments by Maria Batayola, Beacon Hill Council Chair, on NPI/TreePAC Tree Poll

Posted on by

 

 

Maria Batayola

Beacon Hill Council Chair

Sept 15, 2021

“The loss of exceptional and other trees is tremendous blow to our (beloved Seattle) and in particular our beloved Beacon Hill majority people of color, immigrants and refugees community.  We adopted El Centro De La Raza’s Air and Noise Pollution Community Action Plan that calls us to “plant trees”. But what is the use of planting trees to increase our canopy, if the current trees, especially exceptional ones, are cut down willy-nilly.  We need the trees for our health to filtrate the air and noise pollution.  This is an environmental, health, and climate injustice issue. We need to stop, think and do what is right for our beloved city of Seattle.”

Comments by Tina Cohen Certified Arborist on the NPI/Tree PAC Tree Poll

Posted on by

Tina Cohen, Certified Arborist Northwest Arborvitae Seattle WA 

 I’m Tina Cohen and I’m a retired Certified Arborist. In my career I worked with both developers and tree preservationists.  

 I’ve been very discouraged by the cognitive dissonance of climate change and continued tree removal. If asked, most people will tell you they love trees and then add: BUT if they’re in the way or messy or remotely a hazard, then they should be cut down. Developers would tell me how much they love trees and at the same time they would remove all of them for a project.  

 Our existing large trees are a cheap and effective way to combat localized climate change. Besides providing obvious shade, they sequester carbon and help prevent erosion and flooding. UW’s Kathy Wolf and USDA Forest Service have done endless studies proving the value of trees.  Large trees provide more benefits than small trees. The Seattle Municipal Code should reflect this and only allow removals if a tree is a hazard under existing conditions (not future development). 

 I urge the City to follow their existing code and in addition:  

  • During development permitting, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, SDCI, must require design modifications to allow adequate root and canopy space for saved trees. This is already allowed in the Directors Rule. Otherwise the trees will not survive long term. 
  • The Seattle Department of Transportation currently requires credentials for arborists working on Right of Way trees. The City should adopt the same.  
  • Replacement trees should be required if there’s adequate space for the roots and canopy at maturity (50 years). Otherwise change the design or add trees elsewhere.  
  • I agree with the Urban Forestry Commission that Seattle needs a central tree portal or department for permits and inspections. Currently it’s spread among several departments.  
  • We can have development AND trees, however McMansions and other projects that cover an entire lot are not compatible with tree retention. The Code should be changed to require more open space (less lot coverage) to allow for large trees.  

 In conclusion, our elected officials have long delayed the update to Seattle’s Tree Ordinance, and SDCI fails to enforce our existing code. We need to change this before every tree is cut. 

 Tina Cohen, ISA Certified Arborist #PN0245A 

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified 

Member American Society of Consulting Arborists 

Registered Consulting Arborist #473, retired 

Statement by Josh Morris of Seattle Audubon on NPI/Tree PAC Tree Protection Poll

Posted on by

Statement: July 2021 Tree Protection Polling Results by Josh Morris of Seattle Audubon

Sept. 15, 2021 

Seattle Audubon is a 105-year-old environmental nonprofit that advocates and organizes for cites where people and birds thrive. Since neither people nor birds can thrive without a healthy, growing, and well-distributed urban forest, protecting Seattle’s trees is important to realizing our mission.  

Trees, especially big mature trees, are icons of the Pacific Northwest. Many people love our trees and want to protect them at a greater level than we currently do. We see that clearly from the overwhelming support for improved tree protection, planting, and funding among participants in Northwest Progressive Institute’s July 2021 poll. 

The results show more than 80% of respondents in support of maximizing tree retention during planning and development, and in support of focusing urban forestry investments in low-income and historically redlined neighborhoods. The first is needed to slow the threat of indiscriminate tree loss, and the latter is needed to address a glaring environmental injustice.  

These results come as we increasingly recognize trees as important community assets whose benefits extend well beyond the parcels in which they are rooted. They promote good health and well-being. They bring bird song into our neighborhoods. They keep us cool in the heat and help prevent flooding. Trees are essential. And they are threatened in great numbers across Seattle from weak policy and weaker action.  

Despite more than a decade of promises, Seattle leaders have failed to improve tree protections. Seattle can densify, prevent sprawl, protect more trees, and plant more new ones. We just have to plan for it. Washington, D.C., for example, continues to increase both population density and tree canopy cover through strong tree protections, dedicated funding, and coordinated urban forestry management. We can learn for their example. We can and should do better by our urban forest and for the communities, present and future, that depend on it. 

Seattle Audubon hopes these poll results encourage City leaders to act and hold each other accountable for adopting improved tree protections without further delay. 

 Please send questions to Joshua Morris, urban conservation manager: joshm@seattleaudubon.org 

 

Comments by Steve Zemke – Tree PAC Chair on NPI/Tree PAC Seattle Tree Poll

Posted on by

Press Conference – Seattle City Poll shows strong support for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance

Statement by Steve Zemke – Chair TreePAC

Results released today of a Poll done by Change Research in July for the Northwest Progressive Institute included questions regarding increasing protection for trees in Seattle. The responses showed strong support for updating Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance. TreePAC and other community groups and citizens have been urging Seattle mayors and City Council members for 12 years to update the ordinance. Their repeated delays and reluctance to act is strange considering the polls strong support for increasing tree protection.  The polling firm Change Research noted the strong support.

Steve Zemke, Chair of Tree PAC and a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for 6 years, said the response confirmed strong public support for action now. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission has been advocating for the city to act since it was formed in 2009.

Steve Zemke said. “The Mayor and Seattle City Council should take heart in these poll results and move forward quickly to update and strengthen protections for trees and Seattle’s urban forest. The public wants action now after 12 years of delay by city officials.”

The poll focused on issues repeatedly raised by members of the public and the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and incorporated in the 2019 Seattle City Council Resolution 31902 – A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover.

The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission even produced in 2018 a draft updated Tree and Urban Forestry Protection Ordinance for the Seattle City Council and Mayor to consider but that was ignored by the City. Over a thousand e-mails were sent to city officials by citizens urging action. An on-line petition signed by over 5270 people also was sent to the city urging action.

Zemke noted, “With increasing climate impacts affecting citizens in the city, officials need to act now to stop the unnecessary loss of exiting trees and plant more trees in those areas with low tree canopy. To do otherwise is to ignore both science and the health and welfare of Seattle residents. With better planning, Seattle can continue to add needed housing that is affordable while also maintaining and growing its tree canopy. It is not an either/or situation. We can and must do both.”

Jessica Dixon, Plant Amnesty Board member, at NPI/TreePAC press conference on Seattle Tree Poll

Posted on by

Tree Pac Poll Release Comments
By Jessica Dixon
Plant Amnesty Board Member
9/15/21
The 2016 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment estimated that the total number of trees 30”
in diameter and greater, or what the city defines as exceptional trees at just over 6,000
trees remaining in the city. These are the trees that do the heavy lifting when it comes
to carbon sequestration, intercepting stormwater and mitigating the heat island effect.
Incredibly, 5 years later, Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) is
just beginning to track the steady loss of these trees due to development. It is clear
that the prevailing approach to building on a site in Seattle continues; developers
ignore the existing trees as they develop their building plans and then scrape the site of
all the trees and understory as they build. Unlike many cities, including Portland,
Seattle, does not require tree removal permits or fee-in lieu payment for trees removed!
The latest proposal for the Talaris property, where in order to shoe horn 55 Single
Family lots onto this site by removing 155 exceptional trees, is business as usual!
The imperative of responding to climate change makes it clear that we cannot afford to
continue business as usual. We cannot afford to loose any more of our exceptional
trees, and we are here today to make the point that people in Seattle overwhelmingly
support stronger protections for our mature trees and our urban forest. We need
our city leaders to advance urban planning, public investment and city codes that allow
for and encourage more creative housing solutions and that plan for and protect our
vital urban forest.