STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
BUSINESS
15 SUBJECT: APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and file.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On April 20th, the City removed nine Eucalyptus trees from the Forest Avenue Promenade. This was not a routine decision, nor one made without considerable evidence and significant consideration. It followed a tree failure in March, discovery of previously unknown conditions impacting the remaining trees’ health and root structure, two independent arborist reports, and a clear determination that these trees posed an immediate risk of serious injury or death to workers, residents, and visitors. This report explains what we found, why we acted when we did, and what comes next for the Promenade This is an opportunity to discuss the City staff’s determination to direct the immediate removal of nine (9) Eucalyptus trees and their upcoming replacement on the Forest Avenue Promenade.
DISCUSSION
What follows is an updated version (with additional information and photos) of communication from the City Manager to individuals contacting the City about the removal of nine Eucalyptus trees on the Forest Avenue Promenade. It outlines the situation precedent to the removal, as well as some steps following the removal:
Between Saturday evening and Sunday morning of March 21-22 (2026), a mature Eucalyptus tree fell into the Promenade project’s work area. This tree, which showed no signs of failure, thankfully fell at the most opportune time and in the most advantageous way. It fell in the middle of the night when no workers were present on the site and fell inward – away from neighboring businesses and the pedestrian sidewalk. This tree could have easily failed during the day while either workers were present (on site) or members of the public were walking alongside the project site and injured or killed someone and/or caused damage to neighboring structures. Thankfully, no one was hurt and no properties were damaged. Here is what the fallen tree looked like:
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
The City has a project arborist (from Dudek) who is present regularly at the Promenade site. The arborists’ role, among other things, includes overseeing designated Tree Protection Zones that prohibit mechanized work around the trees. The failed tree in the photo above was behind the fencing in the Zone.
The failure of this tree left sixteen (16) trees in or related to the project area – mostly Eucalyptus, but a few Ficus, too.
The arborist rapidly began a review and analysis of the fallen tree. The reasons for the tree’s failure appear to be:
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
• While the construction of the Project itself had protected all tree roots around the tree via a Tree Protection Zone (w/a snow fence), the removal of the curb and asphalt exposed a root structure that was substandard – including showing evidence of previous damage by other sidewalk projects years ago. • The root structure was impaired by that previous damage, fungal decay (some of the roots were spongy and soft), and a buildup of the soil over time that buried the root flare of the tree (where the root system meets the trunk).
The tree’s failure led the City to ask the arborist to do a new, closer review of the health of each of the eleven (11) trees similarly situated to the fallen tree (i.e., adjacent to a removed curb/sidewalk, with some roots exposed), and each of which were proposed for retention. This additional review included “airspading” of many of the trees’ roots, which enables an arborist to see the root structure without damaging the roots.
Following the air-spading and an analysis of each tree, the arborist’s recommendation to the City was that nine (9) of the eleven (11) similarly-situated trees should be removed – for these reasons, among others:
• Several of the trees were girdled with root guards that are about 20-24” deep and immediately against the trunks – this installation was an unknown condition and would not be recommended today for tree health.
• Several of the trees had impaired root systems squeezed between the two levels of sidewalks (old and new). The buried sidewalk was an unknown condition exposed during the air-spading operation.
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
• Numerous trees had roots pruned for sidewalk repair work in past years – the roots here showed signs of decay.
• There is a noticeable absence of structurally significant roots (over 2” – 3” in diameter) among the trees. • Another tree – one of the largest ones adjacent to Tuvalu Home Store – had much of its root structure sitting on a large base of concrete, leaving few to no roots on the side opposite its lean – where one would expect to see roots to pull against the lean to support the tree. And the tree’s roots were girdled by the roots of the Ficus tree that was planted in close proximity.
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
Seeking a second opinion, the City asked another arborist (from Monarch) to peer-review Dudek’s work and to include the second arborist’s own site inspections of the trees. Monarch concurred with Dudek – that 9 of the 11 should be removed, and that a total of 7 (of the 16) should be retained subject to further monitoring. The City received this second analysis in writing on Monday afternoon, April 20th.
With the second report in hand, the City had to act quickly. The City cannot be in a position of having safety information concerning a tree and not acting on it, especially given the failure of the similarlysituated tree a month previous. The reasons include worker safety, the safety of patrons visiting stores on and around the Promenade while under construction, and for the ultimate users of the Promenade, which is likely to include 100s of people a day.
While safety in general demands it, the City Attorney’s Office had unique and specific concerns with the liability risks of this particular situation. Reducing risk to 0% is an impossibility and the threat of an incident APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
that leads to a lawsuit against the City is always present. However, unique to this situation is whether the City’s insurer1 would even cover the incident in light of the information the City was in receipt of.
Per the General Manager of CIPA, the City’s insurer:
The City was on “Notice” of a dangerous condition when one arborist identified trees should be removed. That notice was further strengthened when two arborists agreed that specific trees should be removed and one tree had already fallen. Failure to remove the trees would have dramatically increased the value of any claim since the City knew of the dangerous condition but did nothing about it. The expectation of any insurance carrier is that immediate action will be taken to eliminate or reduce the exposure of a known hazard. Insurance policies exclude claims that are expected.
Trees falling on people and/or property would have been an expected outcome given the City’s notice of a dangerous condition.
If the City’s insurer were to decline coverage, the City’s potential liability would be enormous.
This is unfortunately not a novel situation for the City’s insurance carrier. In previous years, another member agency of the City’s insurance pool had a Eucalyptus tree fall in a city park that tragically killed the mother of the bride of a wedding party celebrating in that park. During the course of that lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorneys put on evidence from a tree pathologist that, among other things, the city should have been aware of root rot and decay issues with the tree. This case was settled for approximately $28 million dollars. While the insurance carrier did cover this incident (but, significantly, note the member agency did not have arborist reports prior to the incident regarding the health of the tree, putting the city on notice of the dangerous condition), that was not the end of the story. In that instance, the insurance carrier thereafter reviewed this member agency’s tree removal policy, formally requested recission of the policy, and even suggested possible removal of the member agency from the insurance pool if changes were not made. This member agreed to the request to ensure continuing insurance coverage.
Accordingly, as it pertains to this situation, even if we assume for the sake of argument the City’s insurer would provide coverage (which is not clearly the case here, as noted above) if the trees were left and caused death or damage, it is very likely that the City’s Tree Removal and Planting Policy for Public Trees would become the subject of review by the City‘s insurer. A similar demand of recission or modification of the City’s policy would likely emerge from that review—resulting in substantially less local control over future tree removals—with the City running the risk of being voted out of its insurance pool if the demand was not met.
In accordance with the City’s Tree Removal and Planting Policy for Public Trees, the Director of Public Works & Utilities is generally charged with overseeing the process for removal of public trees. In this case, following the failure of the tree on March 21-22 in the Promenade project area, the City engaged in an 1 The City is a member of the California Insurance Pool Authority (“CIPA”) with numerous other public agencies in order to reduce the costs of insurance as it is spread out amongst multiple agencies – not just the City.
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
investigation and robust due diligence process to both evaluate the health of the remaining similarly-situated trees and the protection of the public and/or structures in their immediate vicinity. Over the course of the following weeks, this process included, as discussed above, analysis of the tree that originally failed, a soils report, air spading of the similarly-situated trees’ roots, numerous in-person inspections, an arborist report for all of the similarly-situated trees on Lower Forest Avenue, a second opinion in the form of a peer review and independent inspection of all of the similarly-situated trees on Lower Forest Avenue, and numerous consultations with the arborists, City’s insurer, the City’s contractor and consultants for the Promenade, City Engineer, and City Manager and City Attorney’s Offices. Following the receipt of the second arborist report on April 20, the Public Works Director concurred with the results of that report and determined that nine (9) trees along the Promenade meet the criteria in the aforementioned policy under “Exemptions from the Tree Removal Process” to qualify for immediate removal due to imminent risk to public safety that would put the public and/or structures in immediate danger.
As such, the City directed the immediate removal of the nine trees during the evening of April 20th and early morning hours of April 21st, in order to protect the public safety. Two of the eleven were successfully retained, along with the Ficus trees.
The Promenade’s Future Trees. The project will include the replacement of each of the nine trees. Eight older trees should remain in place. There are expected to be up to 33 trees in the Promenade when complete, depending on stock availability. In anticipation of the previously approved project, the City has had nursery stock growing for nearly a year to populate the Promenade. The intended inventory is now this:
• 10 48” box size Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Polyanthemos); • Six 24” box sized Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Polyanthemos); • One 120” box sized Southern Live Oak (our selected tree is about 24-26 feet tall right now, growing near Valley Center, CA – see photo) – we are considering increasing this to four 120” box Southern Live Oaks.
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
The City is attempting to identify sourcing for several more 24” box Eucalyptus to replace the tree that fell in March and the others that were removed in April.
Planting – how will it be different? As noted, the new trees will be largely 24” boxes to 48” boxes (with some 120” boxes) and planted according to modern landscaping standards. Which means not over an old sidewalk, not with a buried root collar, not with a confining root guard, with the right soil, with automatic watering, and with wide spaces (and in some instances, Silva Cells) for roots to stabilize without further compaction of the soil.
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
One factor in our planting approach is that the soils beneath the failed tree showed high levels of salinity.
The planting plan includes soil remediation, saline leaching, and more to ensure that the soil is proper before planting. Regardless, replacement specimens will need to be able to do well in that soil environment.
Tree Summary. In summary, the table below shows how the Project has changed when the City removed the additional nine Eucalyptus:
New v. Old Trees Existing Prior
to Project Initial Plan
Following
Arborists'
Reports
Trees Removed / Failed 6 16
Trees to be Preserved 18 8
New Trees to be Added 12 25
Total = 24 30 33
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
Concluding Thoughts About this Process and Decision. We got the final arborist’s report on Monday afternoon. When we read it, we confirmed that our concerns around these trees were valid, and that these trees truly did pose a clear and immediate threat. Please know that this was a very difficult decision, but one that the City (including the Public Works Direct, the Mayor, the City Manager, and the City Attorney) made because of the immediate need to protect people's lives.
If we'd delayed, we may have had to shut all of Lower Forest Avenue down—stores, restaurants, sidewalks, maybe even a section of Glenneyre and we still would have had to remove the trees. Delaying would have given us more time to talk to the public — but we would have ended up in the same place, with the very real risk of a catastrophic, and potentially fatal, tree failure.
We're likely just as upset as you are to lose these trees. It helps us emotionally to focus on their replacements.
It’s vital to us to replace the lost trees with large, healthy trees —specimen trees—of the right species in the Promenade. And that they be planted well and carefully, and maintained thoughtfully and diligently.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Arborist’s Report (Dudek) (Pgs. 12-111)
2. Arborist’s Report (Monarch) (Pgs. 112-131)
3. Soils Analysis (Pgs. 132-134)
Submitted By: . Approved: .David A Kiff
Dave Kiff, City Manager Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Dave Kiff, City Manager Mark McAvoy, Director of Public Works & Utilities Thomas Perez, City Engineer
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Pat Donegan, Assistant City Attorney