Mountlake Terrace planning panel reviews draft urban-forest plan, hears costs and next steps

MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, Wash. — The Mountlake Terrace Planning Commission on July 14 reviewed a draft Urban Forest Management Plan that recommends a five-part strategy to protect and expand the city’s tree canopy and outlined budget options to implement the plan.

"We manage almost 7,000 trees, which is actually about a thousand more than we anticipated," said Patrick Hutchins, the city’s environmental programs manager, who presented the plan and the underlying data to the commission. Hutchins said an urban tree‑canopy assessment found about 32 percent of Mountlake Terrace is covered by trees and estimated the canopy delivers roughly $2.5 million a year in environmental benefits across the city.

The plan sets a numeric target and a framework. "We would like to expand our canopy from 32% cover to 37% by 2050," Hutchins said. Commissioners and staff discussed where to focus new plantings, how to retain mature trees and how to measure progress.

Why it matters

The plan frames the urban forest as green infrastructure that reduces stormwater runoff, cools pavement and provides public‑health and property‑value benefits. Hutchins cited an inventory of city‑managed trees — conducted by field crews — and a satellite‑based canopy assessment that together showed a large existing canopy but also opportunities to diversify species and increase tree size and health.

Key findings and targets

- Current canopy: about 32% citywide (combined private and public canopy); city‑managed inventory counts nearly 7,000 trees and reports 98% of those trees are alive, Hutchins said. - Tree condition: about 73% of city‑managed trees are rated in good or excellent condition; plan analysis shows many trees could improve a quality class with active maintenance. - Ecosystem services: city‑managed trees were estimated to provide about $121,800 per year in measured services (including roughly $18,000 in carbon benefits, $69,000 in air‑quality services and $34,100 in stormwater benefits) and to divert about 1.2 million gallons of stormwater annually; broader citywide estimates rise into the millions, Hutchins said. - Planting target: to reach the 37% canopy goal by 2050, the plan calls for planting about 137 trees per year (the plan counts trees planted on public and private lands as part of progress tracking).

Draft goals and strategies

The plan organizes work around five goals: engage (community outreach and stewardship), maintain (proactive tree care), grow (planting and recruitment), retain (protecting existing trees) and know (data and monitoring). Hutchins said the plan recommends continuing volunteer programs such as the Trees for Terrace distribution and local stewardship efforts, improving pruning cycles, expanding staff training and updating inventory and canopy data regularly.

Pests, invasive species and equity

Hutchins and commissioners also discussed threats to the canopy, including pests seen locally (Douglas‑fir beetle and other borers) and pests not yet present but moving north, such as emerald ash borer. The presentation cited common invasive plants in Mountlake Terrace (English holly, English ivy, Tree‑of‑Heaven and Himalayan blackberry) and volunteer removal efforts.

The plan includes a tree‑equity analysis to prioritize planting in neighborhoods with relatively low canopy and greater social vulnerability. Hutchins said the city’s overall tree‑equity score is about 87, and commissioners pressed staff for more detail on how the score is calculated and how large parks and institutional open space affect census‑tract results.

Budget and staffing options presented

Hutchins presented four progressively larger budget options, from modest outreach and contract support to a comprehensive program with staff arborist capacity and private‑property permitting. The figures presented by Hutchins at the meeting were:

- Option 1 (minimal expansion): roughly $30,000 a year, using nonprofits or consultants for outreach and a small increase to on‑call tree services; no new city staff. - Option 2 (partial planting and seasonal capacity): about $132,350 a year; funds 69 trees per year, increased on‑call removal/pruning funds, and a seasonal intern or laborer for summer watering and maintenance. - Option 3 (performance management): about $206,550 a year; funds the plan’s recommended 137 trees per year, an on‑call or part‑time arborist (more hours than Option 2) and additional outreach and training to upskill city maintenance staff. - Option 4 (full program with private‑property permitting): about $267,350 a year; includes Option 3 plus administrative capacity to track private‑property removals and enforce replacement requirements.

Hutchins said grant funding from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ urban and community forestry program had funded the planning work and that several implementation items could be partially grant‑eligible. Commissioners and staff noted existing fee‑in‑lieu tools and Sound Transit replacement funds already used for replanting after light‑rail construction.

Discussion and next steps

Commissioners asked detailed questions about how the tree‑equity map treats large parks and school parcels, how to prioritize distributed canopy versus concentrated park plantings, the potential for canopy requirements in future street or parking‑lot development standards, and whether to pursue a private‑property tree permit. Hutchins and Park and Street staff said parts of the plan will need closer coordination with engineering, development code changes and the city’s stormwater program.

Commissioner Betcher (first reference as Commissioner Betcher) asked whether the plan addresses invasive‑species control; Hutchins said volunteer programs such as the city’s "Ivy League" work parties have removed large volumes of English ivy and blackberry in parks and that insect pest management would need specialized contractors and monitoring.

Director’s report and related items

The commission also heard a director’s report noting that staff will bring an update on the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance and associated best‑available‑science study at the next meeting, plus a flood‑plain and housing action‑plan update. Director Christie said staff hired a consultant to do the best available science study tied to the critical‑areas update.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes from June 23, 2025 (agenda item 3): declared accepted as presented by Chair Bautista; no roll‑call tally recorded in the transcript.

What was not decided

No formal action was taken to adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan, to change code, or to authorize budgeted staff or permit programs. Hutchins said staff will return with additional detail as implementation proposals and cost estimates are refined and as the commission and council consider priorities.

Where to read the plan or follow up

Hutchins asked commissioners and community members to review and share the draft plan; staff said they will follow up on requests for more detailed equity‑map methods, planting priorities for development areas, and budget comparisons that weigh the cost of action against the likely costs of inaction. The plan and related materials were presented as part of the July 14 agenda packet and will be available through the city’s planning staff.