Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0618 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM 9- 8- CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK My of Moo>tPARK, C,,V TORM city council Pvie-�t,r of 199 7 TO: The Honorable City Council ACTION: 4 *— FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services - --� DATE: June 5, 1997 (CC Meeting of June 18) SUBJECT: Consider Action Regarding Elm Trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue Executive Summary The City Council is being asked to consider a course of action to address the condition of the remaining elm trees on Cornett and McFadden Avenues. Council consideration of this matter was postponed on May 21 when a staff sought input from a second arborist. The Council now has two varying recommendations on a course of action to consider. The two arborists, from whom staff consulted with have different perspectives on the level of risks that the trees present and the recommended steps to be taken to mitigate that risk. Background In September of 1995, the City obtained the services of an arborist (Mr. Rogers) to inspect the elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue. Mr. Rogers' reported the infestation of elm leaf beetles, along with poor past pruning, weak limbs, and invasive roots (Attachment A). After meeting with the residents on the affected streets, staff returned to the City Council seeking direction to move forward with plans to perform removal work in two phases: those trees deemed most severe were to be removed first and the remaining trees would be removed the following year. The trees are located on City right -of -way and therefore the responsibility of the City. Staff proposed that the City purchase replacement trees and replant them outside of the right -of -way to remain consistent with City practices in newer neighborhoods, which meant that the residents would be responsible for all future maintenance of the trees. The City Council approved the removal and replanting plan as outlined above The first phase of this effort was completed in February 1996. In preparation for proceeding with Phase II, staff sent letters to the affected residents (Attachment B). Shortly thereafter, the City received several phone calls and the attached petition (Attachment C) objecting to the planned removal. As a result, Phase I1 was postponed Staff again obtained the services of Mr. Rogers who verified that the status of the trees has not changed over the past two years, he also continues to recommend their removal (Attachment D). OW060 Elm Tree Removal Page 2 In his opinion, the condition of the trees presents a risk that should be addressed by the City. Mr. Rogers has since stated, that if the City chooses not to remove the trees at this time, that at minimum, it should adopt a policy that outlines steps the City will take to mitigate potential hazards and under which conditions the trees will be removed in the future. Staff also conferred with the City Attorney about any possible liability on the part of the City in the event one of the trees or tree limbs detach and damage a car or other property. It is the City Attorney's opinion that even if the City were to obtain a written statement from the property owners indicating that they will defend the City in any lawsuit resulting from damage caused by the trees: 1) if they are unable to pay legal fees or damages the City would still be responsible for all associated costs [personal property insurance will most likely not cover the trees because of the known infestation and therefore, the Council can assume that property owners will not have the financial means to defend the City] and 2) the property owners cannot preempt the rights of others; e.g., visitors whose property may be damaged, to sue the City. In conclusion, there would be very little, if any, protection for the City from lawsuits resulting from property damage caused by the elm trees. Just prior to the City Council's May 21 meeting, staff sought a second opinion regarding a recommended a course of action from another arborist, Ms. Carlson. Ms. Carlson agreed that the trees suffer from poor pruning and show signs of elm leaf beatles. However, she differs with Mr. Rogers regarding the degree to which the trees are damaged or weakened and on a proposed course of action. Ms. Carlson believes that the trees are still healthy and attractive and that it may be two or three years before the first trees need to be removed. She recommends that the City consider implementing an annual evaluation and monitoring program. Such a program would include the use of a hazard rating scale to rate the condition of trees each year. Once a tree's condition rating reached a predetermined level that the City had agreed was an unacceptable risk, the City's policy would be to remove and replace the tree. As long as the trees remained in place, the City would continue to perform aggressive tree maintenance including trimming and applications of pesticides. The implementation of this type of program would require ongoing costs for the life of the trees. In summary, the two options which have been presented to the City are: 1) remove the trees now and 2) develop and implement a tree evaluation, monitoring, and long -term maintenance program. Prior to making a final decision, staff recommends that the City Council obtain the services of an arborist to perform a detailed evaluation on each of the remaining elm trees on Cornett and McFadden. The previous tree evaluation services received provided an overall evaluation of the trees to determine the presence of elm leaf beetles and whether or not the trees' health had been compromised. The evaluation staff is proposing would rate the trees individually and provide the Council with a written documentation on the condition of each one. ()061 Elm Tree Removal Page 3 In addition, staff recommends that the arborist be asked to provide a recommendation for the short -term maintenance or removal of the trees including a cost estimate to implement the recommended action, and provide long -term, ongoing evaluation and monitoring program recommendation that would include annual hazard evaluations and aggressive mitigation maintenance to preserve the trees (also including costs estimates for implementation of the program). With this information, the Council and staff will have a better understanding of the condition of each tree and how much future potential life the trees have. In addition, the information would outline for the Council what ongoing work would be necessary under recommendation 2, given the condition of the trees, and its estimated cost. The Council will then be in a position to weigh the benefits and costs of option 1 against option 2. The cost to perform the aforementioned work is approximately $700. If the Council proceeds with staff's recommendation to contract with an arborist, there is a current unexpended balance available in the Community Services Department budget line item for Citywide tree maintenance (AD 84 -2) of approximately $7,000 which can be used for this purpose. Recommendation Staff recommends the that the City Council. Direct staff to secure the services of an arborist to perform a detailed hazard evaluation on each of the remaining 11 elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue (using a standardized hazard rating scale) and develop a long- term evaluation, monitoring, and maintenance program (including cost estimates); 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with an arborist for the aforementioned scope of work at a cost not to exceed $700; and 3. Direct staff to report back to the Council with the arborist's findings and a recommendation for consideration and approval. C ADOCSTOMSER VIELMTREE3. AUI ) X062