Mountlake Terrace unveils first urban forest management plan; council to consider adoption next week

Mountlake Terrace city staff and consultants presented the city’s first Urban Forest Management Plan on Sept. 11 and asked the City Council to schedule a public hearing and adoption vote next week. The plan, funded initially by a Washington Department of Natural Resources grant, lays out goals, metrics and potential implementation approaches including a phased tree-removal permitting system, community-led stewardship and staffing needs.

Why it matters: Mountlake Terrace’s urban forest — street trees, park trees and private canopy — provides measurable environmental and economic benefits, the consultants said. The UFMP frames trees as infrastructure that affects stormwater, air quality, heat mitigation and community health, and it identifies funding and staffing gaps the city must address to preserve and expand canopy.

Planet Geo consultant Matt Irmson told the council the 2024 street-tree inventory identified 6,830 publicly managed trees and a citywide canopy of 32 percent; the inventory covers only publicly managed street trees and not private yards or some natural areas. The inventory shows 73 percent of recorded street trees are in good or excellent condition, about 70 percent are smaller than 12 inches in diameter, and roughly 40 percent of the street-tree population is dominated by maple and cedar species, increasing vulnerability to pests and climate stress. Irmson said the citywide canopy — public and private combined — provides an estimated $2.5 million each year in environmental benefits; the publicly managed street-tree inventory contributes roughly $121,000 annually.

The plan organizes work into five goals — Engage, Maintain, Grow, Retain and Know — with specific actions under each. Highlights include a recommended pruning cycle (trees over 6 inches in diameter on a seven-year maintenance cycle; smaller trees on a three-year cycle), a proposed “tree ambassador” volunteer program, a recommendation to plant at least 137 trees per year to reach a 4.5 percent canopy increase by 2050, and a phased approach to tree protection that begins with voluntary notification and could move to permitting if needed.

Council members pressed staff and consultants on enforcement, equity and costs. Council member Salmore asked why developers often remove mature trees during demolition; Environmental Programs Manager Patrick Hutchins said the city currently applies protections for trees over a certain diameter, and developers sometimes remove trees because of access, safety or utility relocation needs. Hutchins noted a fee-in-lieu option exists that directs money into the city’s tree fund for planting or program support. Council member Page asked about the tree-equity score and long-range targets; Irmson said Mountlake Terrace’s tree-equity score is 87/100 and recommended focusing on equitable maintenance and targeted planting rather than pursuing a single numeric “perfect” target. Council member Murray asked how the plan accounts for climate change; Irmson described using climate-analog tools and “right tree, right place” recommendations to prioritize species resilient to future conditions and to emphasize water-efficient landscaping and irrigation for survivability.

Staff noted the UFMP is not tied to an immediate budget appropriation tonight; Hutchins said the city will return later this year or early next year with a proposed budget amendment to fund initial implementation. Hutchins also identified potential funding sources that could be used to support plan implementation, including the city’s stormwater fund (noting trees provide measurable stormwater benefits) and the existing tree fund supplied by fee-in-lieu payments from development. The plan’s authors and staff emphasized the need to build community stewardship to increase capacity given current budget constraints: the city’s current urban forestry operating budget is roughly $108,000 (about $5.07 per resident), below peer and state averages.

Public commenters who helped shape or endorsed the plan included long-time residents Susan Kuhn and Audrey Meyer, who described community volunteer engagement during the grant project and urged council to adopt and fund the plan. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission already reviewed the plan and provided input, staff said.

Next steps: staff asked council to schedule a public hearing and consider adoption at the Sept. 18 meeting; staff said they will return with a budget request after refining cost estimates.

Implementation caveats: the plan includes many steps that require additional funding, staff capacity (potentially an arborist or expanded environmental staff) and partnerships. Hutchins and Irmson emphasized a phased approach that begins with outreach and voluntary steps, then moves to regulatory tools only if community support and staff capacity justify them.

For residents: the UFMP document and engagement materials were developed with DNR funding and community surveys; staff encouraged continued public engagement and said more detailed budget requests will come to council before major expenditure decisions.