Bothell council reviews draft Urban Forest Management Plan, staff proposes 2% canopy gain over 20 years

City planners presented a draft Urban Forest Management Plan at Tuesday’s study session and described a multi‑part strategy to preserve mature trees, expand street tree planting, and prioritize canopy benefits for vulnerable neighborhoods.

“Trees provide a multitude of benefits to our community,” senior planner Cameron Colvin told the council, outlining a 2023 canopy assessment showing 44% tree cover inside city limits, 35% in the urban growth area, and a combined 41% overall. Colvin said a comparison with 2015 data shows a net loss of roughly 1.4% canopy cover from 2015 to 2023, concentrated unevenly by neighborhood and with two‑thirds of trees located in regulated critical areas.

Colvin said consultants and staff inventoried more than 15,000 trees in public rights‑of‑way (228 species), ran an equity‑weighted prioritization that combines canopy deficits and heat‑mitigation potential, and identified roughly 15% of the city land area as potentially suitable for new plantings when impervious surface and easements are excluded. The planning commission recommended a 20‑year goal equivalent to an approximate 2% increase in canopy cover, which Colvin described as realistic given Bothell’s housing targets and likely code refinements.

Council members asked about inventory frequency, species diversity, homeowner association (HOA) partnerships, mitigation and fee structures for tree removal, and barriers such as archaeological study requirements on park land. Colvin and deputy director Christian Getz said the street‑tree inventory was grant‑funded and will be updated on a multi‑year cycle; staff also proposed incentives for private‑property planting, streamlined single‑lot tree removal procedures, and targeted outreach with HOAs to address large tract green spaces.

City manager Stanner said staff will return with an adoption resolution in February and begin concurrent code updates (Title 12) in March to implement strategies including a tree manual, species‑selection guidance, and revised permitting. Staff listed implementation items — department leads, estimated cost ranges, and timelines — and flagged potential funding and partnership opportunities with nonprofits and conservation districts.

The study session was purely informational; staff said they expect to return with formal legislation and code amendments later in the year. Council members encouraged staff to include specific details on mitigation fees, archaeology constraints for park plantings, and a public dashboard tracking plantings and canopy progress.