Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest and Beach Commission: city exceeds first-year target in three-year tree catch-up plan
Summary
City staff reported removal of priority dead and very poor trees ahead of the first-year goal and heavier-than-expected stump grinding, while commissioners and members of the public pressed for clearer tracking and stronger enforcement around private removals.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea staff told the Forest and Beach Commission that the city exceeded its first-year target under a three-year catch-up plan for deferred tree maintenance.
The staff report said contractors and city crews removed 147 trees classified as dead or “very poor” against a first-year target of 128 and ground about 386 stumps so far this fiscal year. Staff said those totals surpass the plan’s original targets and reflected a push to prioritize large-diameter, higher-risk removals.
“It’s not just deferred maintenance — the inventory ages and things change,” Tom (city staff) said as he reviewed the monthly numbers. Justin (city staff) said the city prioritized the largest, dead trees first to reduce the chance of the largest failures. Justin and Tom described a mix of contractor work and city crew labor that produced the reported totals.
Resident Melanie raised specific public concerns during public appearances about recent tree removals, pointing to an oak posted for removal at the northeast corner of Fraser Way and Camino Real and to three large cypress removed at a house on Camino Real southwest of 13th Street. “That oak looks perfectly fine,” Melanie said, asking staff to investigate whether removal postings were justified.
Tom and Justin said city biologists re-survey each tree before removal and that some trees marked in the inventory two years ago have since changed condition; they said staff would remove posted signs or delay removals when a recent on-site check showed a tree no longer matched the earlier condition.
The forester’s report also summarized spatial workload and permit activity: staff took in 35 permits and issued 19 in the prior month; of issued permits, 17 were prunings and 19 removals with 22 trees required for replanting. Staff said planting remains low relative to removals and that watering and maintenance capacity constrain planting rates.
Commissioners and staff discussed data-entry work to keep the TreeKeeper inventory current. Commissioners urged clearer, standardized condition categories and asked staff to post definitions publicly; staff said much of the historical inventory is accurate but that regular re-surveying or improved field-to-database entry would help (contractor data and recent stump maps exist but still require manual updates). Staff said they are exploring options to collect data in the field in near real time and to fill funded-but-vacant positions that would handle data entry.
Commissioners noted that current removal totals reflect both previously-identified deferred removals and more recent failures (storms, beetle activity) that emerged after the inventory. Staff said the program began with the biggest-diameter dead trees (48-inch, 36-inch classes) to reduce near-term risk and that removal costs per tree should decline as the program moves to smaller-diameter removals.
The session closed with commissioners praising staff progress and urging continued emphasis on replanting and maintenance funding to restore the urban canopy over time.
