Laguna Beach staff say nine Promenade trees should be removed after two arborists find compromised roots; residents push back

City Manager Dave K. told residents on a rapidly called webinar that two consulting arborists concluded several trees along the Promenade/Forest Avenue have insufficient root systems and should be removed, and that city staff plan to remove nine trees identified as hazards.

The announcement followed a March weekend when one eucalyptus fell; staff said Dudek’s project arborist performed air‑spading and root inspection and that Monarch provided an independent peer review that reached the same conclusion. "The conclusion of both the arborists was that the trees in the yellow boxes…should be removed," Dave K. said, adding that the decision reflects concerns for worker safety during construction and future public safety on the Promenade.

Why it matters: staff framed the decision as risk management. Dave K. explained the city participates in a joint insurance pool (SEIPA) and said failure to act on known hazards could jeopardize coverage and expose the city to higher liability costs. He said removal is an administrative staff decision based on two arborist reports rather than a council vote.

What the arborists found: consultants reported multiple problems including 24‑inch‑deep root barriers that prevented normal root spread, trees planted on successive layers of old sidewalks, and signs of fungal damage and girdling roots. The team identified roughly 11 similarly situated trees and recommended nine for removal; trees in other parts of the work area (mostly ficus, several eucalyptus) were recommended to remain.

City response and replacements: staff said the project will replant in the Promenade and has already ordered eucalyptus in larger 48‑inch box sizes; the southern live oak chosen for a central location will arrive in a substantially larger, 120‑inch box. Tom Perez, the city engineer managing the Promenade work, described design changes to improve survival, including Silva cells to provide uncompacted soil volumes, soil amendment or replacement where salinity is high, and an automatic watering system. "We are planting them as directed by our arborist and our landscape architect…and the contract requires a three‑year, 36‑month establishment period," Perez said; staff said the contractor must replace any plant material that dies during that period.

Community reaction: the webinar featured extended public comment. Some residents urged the city to pursue every option to preserve mature trees — asking for local arborists, requests to box and relocate trees, or calls to consult tree‑saving specialists — while others accepted the arborists’ findings and stressed public‑safety and insurance tradeoffs. "We owe it to these trees to try and keep them alive," said Ruben, while others like Adam Schwarner argued the consultants were following standard professional criteria.

Procedure, timing and transparency: several speakers criticized the short notice for the webinar and asked why the condition of the roots was not discovered earlier; staff said some conditions only become visible after excavation and air‑spading and that the city acted after receiving the second opinion that morning. Staff also said the project remains on track for substantial completion toward the end of June and that they will pursue night and weekend work where feasible to keep the schedule.

Requests from residents and staff commitments: residents asked the city to (1) consult a trusted local arborist or a tree‑rescue specialist for an expedited review, (2) pursue larger box sizes where available, and (3) consider more native or salt‑tolerant species in some locations. Staff replied they selected Dudek from the city’s on‑call consultant list, retained Monarch for peer review, will try to source larger specimens where possible, will consider species suited to the shallow water table and salinity, and will post the consultant reports and recording online for public review.

What happens next: staff said they will move forward administratively to remove the nine trees identified by the two arborists but will share the full reports with the public and accept written follow‑up. The city reiterated a commitment to replant trees in improved root zones and to require the contractor to maintain replacements for three years.

Authorities and legal context: a participant referenced Government Code section 835 when raising liability questions; staff discussed insurance pool considerations (SEIPA) as a key factor in the timing of removals.

Notes: All direct quotations and attributions in this article come from the webinar transcript. The city emphasized that the decision is based on consultant findings and described mitigation steps to improve replacement survival.