Forest and Beach Commission reviews tree‑removal catch‑up plan, inventory gaps and wildfire inspections

The Forest and Beach Commission reviewed a year‑end Forrester’s report in May that staff said shows progress on a multi‑year catch‑up plan to address deferred tree maintenance while also identifying gaps in the city’s tree inventory and data reporting.

Justin, the city’s forester, and Tom, a staff member, told the commission they aimed to prioritize the largest and most hazardous trees first and to “get the worst 128 trees” in the first year of a three‑year plan. Staff reported removing 147 dead or very poor trees and grinding 386 stumps so far in the fiscal year, figures staff presented to show work completed against the catch‑up target. Tom emphasized that some trees included in the original inventory have since changed condition (for example, trees listed as ‘‘very poor’’ that later displayed viable canopy), and that staff review each tree before removal.

The discussion covered several operational points. Staff described active contracts and recent work: Community Tree Service completed stump grinding and fuel‑management work in Upper Forest Hill Park; West Coast Arborist removed 24 trees last month and is working under task orders to remove additional stumps north of Ocean Avenue; and city crews removed 13 trees, planted three and pruned 40 in a recent interval. Commissioners and staff noted that pruning rates are high while plantings have lagged, in part because of staffing constraints and post‑removal watering needs.

Staff and commissioners debated data accuracy and workflow in TreeKeeper, the city’s tree‑inventory system. Justin and Tom said much of the historical inventory was prepared earlier and that the data become less current over time unless crews and contractors update records in the field. Commissioners recommended standardizing condition definitions (good/fair/poor/dead) and adding risk metrics; staff said they will provide existing condition definitions and look at ways to harmonize reporting. Several commissioners asked whether contractors or additional temporary help could enter data; staff cautioned that union position rules affect how funded but unfilled roles can be handled and said they are working with human resources on hiring.

Commissioners also discussed wildfire planning and inspections. Staff noted that the City is coordinating with Monterey Fire and the county on the California Wildfire Protection Act and related Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) topics. A Monterey County official will conduct a grid‑based summer inspection program across the city; staff said mailers have been sent and that the inspections are intended to advise property owners about required risk‑reduction measures rather than to require wholesale tree removals. Commissioners asked staff to invite the fire inspector or an appropriate Monterey Fire representative to a future meeting to explain inspection procedures and the municipal implications of recently adopted maps and rules.

Other operational items raised: staff will continue to reconcile tree and stump records (some task orders include both tree removal and stump grinding), refine annual goals, and advance a public‑facing project dashboard. Commissioners asked staff to bring a fines/bonding proposal for development‑related tree protections (Ken and staff said they will present proposals about fines or bonding in a forthcoming agenda item). Ending: Commissioners thanked staff for the report and asked for a more complete data package in the next meeting, including clarified definitions and a pathway for more timely TreeKeeper updates.