HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0705 CC REG ITEM 11GAGENDA REPORT
C=TY COF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 23, 1995 (Meeting of 7-5-95)
SUBJECT: Consider Design for Parkway and Sidewalk Improvements on
the West Side of Spring Road South of Peach Hill Road
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1995, the City Council considered a report requesting
approval of a project to remove the parkway trees, repair sidewalks
and install a narrow landscaped area adjacent to the block walls on
the west side of Spring Road south of Peach Hill Road. That
request was denied and staff was directed to investigate
alternative parkway designs for this area which would include the
preservation of the existing trees.
DISCUSSION
A. Sidewalk Damage
The removal of the subject trees was initially proposed in
order to effectively deal with damage to sidewalk caused by
tree roots. As you may recall the previous report to the City
Council on this matter discussed the difficulties which arise
when tree wells are placed in a sidewalk area which is only
seven and one-half feet ( 7i' ) wide. Since this matter was last
considered by the City Council uplifting tree roots at one
location in this area caused the sidewalk to "buckle". The
problem sidewalk has been replaced with a temporary asphalt
sidewalk pending a determination on the long term solution of
this problem.
B. Tree Roots
As directed by the City Council, staff met with an arborist at
the site and discussed the feasibility of root pruning the
existing trees to facilitate the removal and replacement of
raised sidewalks in the area. The report from the arborist
(exhibit 1) recommends that we not perform any root pruning on
these trees.
sp-pkwy2
00189
Spring Road Parkway
July 1995
Page 2
C. Park Frontage
It is recommended that the trees and tree wells along the
frontage of Monte Vista Park be removed and replaced with trees
to be planted in the park adjacent to the sidewalk. This
design will allow a tree canopy over the sidewalk from trees
which would be selected and located to not cause sidewalk
damage.
D. Tree Well Grates
One way in which to provide a safe walking surface in this area
while preserving the existing trees , would be through the
installation of tree well grates to "bridge" any problem roots.
The diagram attached as Exhibit 2 illustrates how this could be
accomplished. A copy of a photo from a manufacturers catalog
is also attached as Exhibit 3.
E. Vines and Shrubs
The scope of work could be restricted to the hardscape
improvements required to remove and replace "lifted" sidewalks
and any additional sidewalks required to place the above
described tree well grates. The project scope could also be
expanded to install planter areas adjacent to the block wall.
This would necessitate the removal and replacement of
additional sidewalk required to provide an irrigation system
from either Monte Vista Park or the planter area at the
southwest corner of Peach Hill Road and Spring Road. A diagram
illustrating this design concept is attached as Exhibit 4.
F. Proiect Alternatives
A summary description of three design alternatives for this
project is as follows:
Alternate #1 (project discussed 5-17-95) [see Ex. #5]:
• remove all of the trees;
• remove and replace lifted sidewalks;
• remove a two feet wide strip of sidewalk adjacent to the
block wall;
• install irrigation system to service two feet wide reversed
parkway;
• install shrub, vines and ground cover in new parkway; and,
• plant trees in Monte Vista Park as discussed above.
sp-pkwy2
00190
Spring Road Parkway
July 1995
Page 3
Alternate #2 (see Exhibits 2 & 3):
• remove and replace sidewalks required for the installation
of tree grates;
• remove and replace other lifted sidewalks as required; and,
• install tree grates (2 tree grate at each tree).
Alternate #3 (see Exhibits 4):
• all tasks described in Alternate #2 ... plus:
• remove a two feet wide strip of sidewalk adjacent to the
block wall;
• install irrigation system
reversed parkway planters
trees;
• install sidewalks adjacent
location; and,
to service two feet (21) wide
at locations where there are no
to the block walls at each tree
• install shrub, vines and ground cover in parkway planters.
Alternate #4:
• same as Alternate #3 except that the number of trees and
tree well grates would be reduce to a maximum of six (6).
G. Fiscal Impact
1. Project Cost Estimate -- A comparison of the costs for
the above described design Alternatives using contract
services for all work, is attached as Exhibit 6. A summary
of that chart is as follows:
• Alternate #1: $12,390
• Alternate #2: $14,200
• Alternate #3: $16,940
• Alternate #4: $14,760
A second chart showing estimated reduced costs by using
City field personnel to perform some of the work, is
attached as Exhibit 7. A summary of those reduced costs is
as follows:
• Alternate #1: $ 6,560 \
• Alternate #2: $10,220 > Does not include labor
• Alternate #3: $10,640 /
• Alternate #4: $ 8,550 /
2. Maintenance Costs -- A summary of
maintenance cost for the exiting
described design alternatives is as
• Existing
Trees
$750
• Alternate
#1:
$580
• Alternate
#2:
$750
• Alternate
#3:
$1,330
• Alternate
#4:
$900
sp-pkwy2
the estimated annual
trees and the above
follows:
001,91
Spring Road Parkway
July 1995
Page 4
3. Budget -- A summary of the funding source:
for this project, utilizing total contract
defined in Exhibit 6, is as follows:
Alternate
Gas Tax ($)
AD84-2 ($)
Total ($)
#1
8,680
3,710
12,390
#2
14,200
0
14,200
#3
16,340
600
16,940
#4
12,440
2,320
14,760
A summary of
Budget requirements
for this project
utilizing
some support
by City crews, as defined
in Exhibit 7, is as
follows:
Alternate
Gas Tax ($)
AD84-2 ($) Total ($)
#1
1,850
3,710
6,560
#2
10,220
0
10,220
#3
10,040
600
10,640
#4
8,320
2,320
10,640
CONCLUSIONS
1. Given the minimal width of the sidewalk in question, it is the
opinion of staff that the most cost effective long term
solution to this problem is the removal of the trees. It is
the recommendation of staff, therefore, that the City Council
select Alternate #1.
2. The installation of tree well grates in this area is not
recommended for the following reasons:
• this design is untried in this City,
• the long term effectiveness of these devices are unknown,
• the cost estimates set forth in this report are not based
on experience and, therefore, could be lower than final
actual costs,
• the preparation of a design and the administration of a
construction project will require a significant amount of
staff time.
3. Uplifted sidewalks are a liability problem which require an
effective long-term solution.
4. Due to the limited number of f ield personnel, it is recommended
that all work required for this project be performed by
contract services as generally described in Exhibit 6.
sp-pkwy2
00192
Spring Road Parkway
July 1995
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call Vote)
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Select Design Alternate #1 and direct staff to proceed with
project implementation using contract services as defined in
Exhibit 6.
2. Approve an appropriation of funds and a budget amendment for
the subject project as follows:
• 003-142-903-0280: $9,000
• 023-400-903-0280: $4,000
$13,000
sp-pkwy2
00193
Ly
'ES
Ken Gilbert
Director of Public Works
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: S. SPRING STREET EUCALYPTUS TREES
Dear Ken:
May 25, 1995
RECEIVED
26
City Of Moorpark
Public Works Department
Having inspected these trees with you yesterday, I wish to offer the following comments.
It is my view that you should not attempt to root prune these trees to accommodate the
repair of the sidewalk. These are quite large trunked trees which are very tall. Since the
offending roots are large buttress or anchor roots which are located quite close to the tree
trunk, their severance will undermine the stability of these trees. Additionally, such root
loss would also imperil the health of the trees.
Your idea of a thin metal cover in place of the sidewalk is a good one, as it will eliminate
any large root cutting and allow for better water infiltration.
Hopefully this addresses these tree concerns. Please give me a call if there are any
questions.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Rogers
Consulting Arborist
MEMBER: American Society
of Consulting Arborists #231
PAR/kr
00194
ENVIRONMENTAL —LANDSCAPE CONSULTANTS P.O. BOX 861, OJAI, CA 93024 (805) 646-5025
(or
(�b -- C-lvo C, ve � e-,w6vmQ a ver,
r
i
TR E E GRATES - Pedestrian Proof ®�i
TtVA\W1Z 3
IAN
r
IOQfympi s`_one of the most popular designs on the
West oast and is widely used in a number of major
citi It is available as a square or round grate and
or without lightwells. The standard tree opening
16 and maybe special ordered or later expanded
Part #
Shape
Size
Lt. Wells'/a Sect.
M3602
square
36"
N/A
N/A
M3603
round
36"
N/A
N/A
M4202
square
42"
N/A
N/A
M4203
round
42"
N/A
N/A
M4803
round
48"
N/A
N/A
M4804
square
48"
N/A
N/A
M4808
square
48"
X
N/A
M4809
round
48"
X
N/A
to 19" or 24". Quarter sections require supportive
frames which maybe ordered from Ironsmith. Designed
with maximum slot openings of only 1/4", Olympian
is recommended for areas that receive heavy ped-
estrian traffic.
00196
Part #
Shape
Size
Lt. Wells'/a Sect.
M6006
square
60"
N/A
N/A
M6007
round
60"
N/A
N/A
M6015
round
60"
X
N/A
M6016
square
60"
X
N/A
M7201
round
72"
N/A
X
M7202
square
72"
N/A
X
M7203
round
72"
X
X
M7204
square
72"
X
X
IROMSMITH IMC6--��