Planning commissioners forward Mountlake Terraceurban forest management plan to city council

Mountlake Terrace, Wash. On Sept. 8, 2025, the Mountlake Terrace Planning Commission voted to forward the city—s first urban forest management plan to the City Council, after a public hearing and a presentation by Patrick Hutchins, the city—s environmental programs manager.

The plan lays out a five- to 10-year framework to steward and expand the city—s tree canopy, citing an inventory of 6,830 publicly managed street trees and estimating the urban forest provides about $2.5 million in annual ecosystem services, roughly $2.2 million of which the presentation attributed to stormwater benefits.

Hutchins said the plan—s five goalsengage, maintain, grow, retain and knoware intended to guide decisions across city departments and highlight partnerships with residents and community groups. He told commissioners the inventory documented roughly 89 genera and about 255 species or cultivars on public property in 2024 and that the plan recommends policies, outreach and technical steps to increase canopy equity and resilience.

"The urban forest management plan is a plan to, well, manage our urban forests," Hutchins said in the presentation. He emphasized trees as infrastructure, saying, "When proactively maintained, these public trees bring long term value and benefits to the community."

Key elements described in the presentation include: - Inventory and value estimates: The 2024 street-tree inventory counted 6,830 public trees; park plantings added about 175 trees in the last year. Hutchins reported a citywide tree equity score of 87 (out of 100) with pockets of lower equity tied to census tracts that show higher concentrations of people of color, lower incomes and higher rates of disability or program need. - Five program goals: Engage (outreach, tree ambassador/community-science groups), Maintain (proactive arborist services and hazard management), Grow (increase canopy by roughly 5 percent over time), Retain (incentives and voluntary mapping to reduce loss on private land) and Know (ongoing data collection and reporting). - Development and permitting rules: The presentation summarized existing Mountlake Terrace Municipal Code provisions that require developers to inventory and retain existing nonhazard trees where possible, define "significant tree" as 6 inches diameter or larger, and require replacement planting when removal occurs (replacement ratios summarized in the plan: 6—— inches = 3 trees; 12—— inches = 5 trees; 24—— inches = 7 trees; 48+ inches = 10 trees) or payment into a tree fund as a fee-in-lieu. Hutchins cited the tree fund and a prior fee-in-lieu use for Sound Transit light-rail work as examples. - Invasive and prohibited species: The plan targets seven invasive tree species and one vine (English ivy) for the prohibited list and recommends training and outreach so landowners and crews can identify and remove those species safely. - Technical standards and capital design: Hutchins noted a mismatch between the city—s standard 5-by-5-foot tree-well and the recommended soil volume for many species; only 22 of 53 recommended street-tree species fit the 5—minimum. The engineering design manual (EDM) is slated for periodic updates to address issues such as tree wells, root barriers, and whether to require suspended-paving systems ("Silva Cells" were discussed as one brand) or alternative root-friendly construction. - Funding and costs: The plan benchmarked Mountlake Terrace—s urban forestry spending at about $108,000 per year and estimated that to reach peer-city averages would raise per-capita spending from roughly $5 currently to about $11—$12 annually. Hutchins said the plan provides a range of implementation scenarios presented at previous briefings, with annual cost options ranging from a minimal increase of about $30,000 to as much as $267,350. He said he would not request a specific budget increase at this stage and intends to refresh budget analysis before approaching the City Council about funding or hiring a city arborist.

Commissioner discussion focused on monitoring, measurement and distribution of benefits. Commissioners asked how tree data are stored and made public; Hutchins said the full inventory is available on the city website and that the city is adding trees and their maintenance status into a planned asset-management/GIS system. Hutchins also explained the tree equity score methodology, which compares existing cover to an idealized habitat capacity by census areas and weights heat exposure and socioeconomic factors to create a priority index.

On enforcement and voluntary approaches, Hutchins described a phased approach: start with outreach, voluntary notification and technical assistance, then consider a tree-removal notification program and, if trends indicate ongoing loss, a phased-in permit requirement. He said the stormwater utility fund is a likely dedicated funding source to help support some urban-forest work because of the direct stormwater benefits trees provide.

Commissioners raised practical design questions: clearing heights above sidewalks (conflicting standards in existing documents state 8 feet in one place and 14 feet in another), whether to require suspended paving or to pursue deeper root barriers and reduced soil compaction, and how best to track new private- property plantings (satellite canopy analysis and voluntary notification or free-tree programs were discussed as options).

The Planning Commission opened and closed the public hearing without public speakers or written testimony. The commission then voted to forward the draft urban forest management plan to the City Council with technical corrections; the motion carried.

Next steps noted in the meeting: the commission—s recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration; staff intends to update cost estimates and examine potential staffing (including a city arborist) before making any budget request. Hutchins and commissioners emphasized ongoing data collection and community outreach as central to implementation.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the Sept. 8 Planning Commission meeting and are identified in the record as noted below.