Bothell planning commission studies urban-forest plan, weighing canopy targets and code changes

The Bothell Planning Commission on Oct. 22 held a study session on an Urban Forest Management Plan that presents baseline canopy data, outreach results and a menu of code and incentive options the city could use to reduce tree loss as development increases.

The plan shows Bothell at about 44% tree canopy inside city limits (41% in the urban growth boundary), summarizes public outreach and modeling from consultants, and offers options ranging from modest steps—clarifying species lists and lowering some parking-lot thresholds—to stronger measures such as a landmark-tree definition and mitigation tied to DBH (diameter at breast height).

Consultant Matt Picone of Greenworks and Planet Geo told commissioners that, using assumptions about mortality, regeneration and continued development, “your canopy is going to decrease in the short term. Period.” He and staff presented scenario modeling over a 25-year horizon (with discussion of aligning targets to 2044 or 2051) showing that restoring or increasing canopy under sustained infill would require substantial planting and/or reductions in loss. The presentation cited a projected annual development-driven loss equal to roughly 3 hectares (about 7.5 acres) per year, an assumed ~1% compounded mortality of existing urban trees, and a modest natural-regeneration gain of about 0.5% per year; the consultants said aggressive scenarios could require on the order of several hundred additional new trees planted per year to change the trend.

The public-outreach summary reported two engagement efforts: a Sept. 22 focus group (14 participants representing developers, environmental groups, arborists and property owners) and a recent open house (about 20 attendees). Common themes included demand for clear, visual guidance for private landowners ("right tree, right place" materials), stronger qualifications and resources for hiring arborists, incentives such as tree-voucher programs or stormwater-fee reductions to encourage private planting and maintenance, and hands-on tree-care workshops.

Commission-level discussion focused on three areas: 1) whether the city should adopt an explicit canopy target and how ambitious it should be; 2) specific code and regulatory levers to reduce tree loss during development; and 3) the city’s enforcement and staffing capacity to implement new requirements. Commissioner Oliver said she favored a more aggressive goal, urging the commission to “be more towards the aggressive, the 4% canopy” increase scenario and to plan for a targeted program to secure funding. Commissioner Robson said he favored a modest 1% annual increase, calling larger targets risky given climate uncertainty and the resources required. Several commissioners said a 1% target is a pragmatic near-term choice while code changes and incentives are phased in.

On code options, staff and consultants described a package of potential changes, many framed as flexible tools rather than immediate mandates: defining ‘‘significant’’ trees (Bothell currently defines significant trees at 8 inches DBH; consultants suggested considering 6 inches), creating a landmark/heritage-tree tier (common regional thresholds were described at about 30–36 inches DBH), tracking/removal permitting for significant trees, and stronger construction-period protections and inspections. Other recommended adjustments include lowering the parking-lot landscape trigger (currently at 20 stalls) to 10 stalls (some jurisdictions use as low as six), increasing required planting frequency (one tree per 10 stalls today, with some cities requiring more), and requiring larger-caliper nursery stock at planting (the current typical standard of 1.5–2 inch caliper could be raised to 3–4 inches to accelerate canopy benefits).

Commissioners raised implementation concerns. Multiple speakers urged that any new permitting or mitigation scheme be paired with clear hazard/nuisance exceptions and a workable enforcement approach. Staff and commissioners noted that much of Bothell’s canopy sits on private property (consultants cited roughly two-thirds of canopy on private land) and that mitigation, fee-in-lieu programs or work-in-lieu on public lands all require additional city management and resources. Commissioner Lehi (transcript) and other commissioners stressed the need to evaluate capacity and costs before adopting enforcement-heavy measures.

On incentives and support, commissioners and consultants discussed low-cost, community-based options to help private owners—tree-voucher or free water-bag programs, partnerships with nurseries to secure larger stock, stormwater-fee credits for reduced impervious area that supports tree planting, and volunteer or nonprofit-assisted planting and maintenance. Commissioners also flagged public land acquisition (for example, preserving large tracts such as the Wayne Golf Course) as a way to secure canopy and access to green space as housing density increases.

Staff told commissioners the draft plan will be revised to reflect the feedback and that a full draft will be circulated ahead of the Nov. 19 meeting; staff and consultants described an ambition to present the plan for Council adoption toward the end of the year. Staff also said supplemental materials—an illustrated “right tree, right place” species list and an installation/maintenance guide—will accompany the plan to support implementation.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Approve minutes of the Oct. 15 meeting. Mover: Commissioner Sills. Second: Commissioner Levers. Outcome: Approved unanimously. (Recorded during roll call/consent portion of meeting.) - Motion: Adjourn the Planning Commission. Mover: Commissioner Beck. Second: Commissioner Robinson. Outcome: Approved; meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

The study session closed with staff noting competing goals—particularly the city’s housing targets—and advising commissioners that the plan is intended to create a toolbox of options. Commissioners requested more detail on implementation costs, enforcement implications and how different code options would affect development feasibility before committing to a numeric canopy target.