What is Amendment 102?

Amendment 102 of the comprehensive plan restores the city’s ability to require simple site plan adjustments so developers can preserve mature (2-foot diameter) trees: authority the city had up until 2023. It also closes three other loopholes in the 2023 tree ordinance which have fueled tree loss:

‍

1. Adds flexibility to tree protection areas, instead of current rigid requirements
2. Removes a minimum building width requirement
3. Removes vague language that justifies tree removal: “retaining walls” and “improvements”

‍

Why do we need it?

• Since 2023, Seattle has lost over 4,700 trees on private land
• Most of these were large and healthy
• The removal rate has doubled in the past year
• Frontline communities are hit hardest, with already low canopy and higher climate risks

Without Amendment 102, the city has no effective way to stop preventable tree removals during construction. Every month of delay means hundreds more trees gone for good. 

‍

Won’t this slow down or block new housing?

There is no scenario where the number or size of housing would be reduced under Amendment 102. Amendment 102 only protects Tier 2 trees (2-ft diameter). If a developer cannot build their proposed housing while saving a tree, it may be removed. 

‍

Between 2016 and 2021, when SDCI had this authority, Seattle built 63,000 homes. Housing growth continued, and trees were better protected.

‍

Does keeping trees make building housing more expensive?

Independent review says no. In 2022, the Seattle Hearing Examiner dismissed claims from the developer lobby (MBAKS) that tree protections add costs or delays, calling those arguments “speculative.”

‍

Do other cities do this?

Yes — and it works. New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia all have departments that routinely require early design adjustments to save mature trees without sacrificing housing.

‍

Seattle is an outlier in not having this authority in place.

‍

Why should SDCI be in charge of this?

SDCI already oversees development projects, enforces the tree code, reviews designs and interacts with developers. They’re best positioned to require site design adjustments early in the process.

‍

Establishing a new urban forestry office to take on this authority could take years, and Seattle doesn’t have that kind of time. Seattle is losing over 300 trees every month. SDCI is ready to act now.

‍

Does it hurt equity?

There is nothing in Amendment 102 that limits the number or size of housing built by developers. 

‍

Amendment 102 is about equity: low-canopy areas (think: Rainier Valley) are the hardest hit by tree loss. Their residents are least able to afford the impacts of heat, flooding, and pollution. Protecting trees in these neighborhoods is a win for environmental justice.

‍

The Urban Forestry Commission says we should wait. Why act now?

We can’t afford to. By the end of this year, Seattle will lose another 1,200 private property trees.

Amendment 102 is a fix to stop removals now, by restoring a tool SDCI already used for years. It’s not a substitute for a long-term plan; it’s a safeguard until one is in place. Waiting means accepting unnecessary canopy loss in the middle of a climate crisis.