The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0521 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPOR&M op M000pAM CALIFaoRNU CITY OF MOORPARK city coancll Meeting of 199—Z AC'ITON: TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services DATE: May 12, 1997 (CC Meeting of May 21) SUBJECT: Consider Removal of Elm Trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue The City Council is being asked to confirm its prior action to proceed with the removal of the elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue. The trees have been recently inspected and have been found to still be infested with elm leaf beetles. The City is being advised to remove the trees. In September of 1995, the City obtained the services of an arborist to inspect the elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue. The arborist 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 the 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. 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 means that the residents will be responsible for all future maintenance of the trees. The City Council approved the removal and replanting plan as outlined above. The first phase was completed in February 1996. In preparation for proceeding with Phase 11, staff sent letters to the affected residents (Attachment B). Shortly thereafter, the City received a several phone calls and the attached petition (Attachment C) objecting to the planned removal. As a result, Phase II was postponed. Staff again obtained the services of the same arborist 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). Additionally, staff 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 detaches and damage a car or other property. C ADOCS \COMSER V\ELMTREES.AGD Elm Tree Removal Page 2 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. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the removal of the remaining elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue and proceed with the previously planned replacement program. C:\DOCSICOMSERVIELMTREES.AGD ASSOCIATES Chris Adams Director of Community Services 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 46C � Seplember 15, 1995 RE: ELM TREES ON CORNETT & MCFADDEN STREETS Dear Chris: A It was a pleasure meeting you and Allen Waiter yesterday and to have an opportunity to look at your elm tree problems. Based upon my inspection of these trees, I offer the following report. All of these trees are infected with the elm ;eaf beetle. I have enclosed some details on the nature of this beetle and the problems caused by it. Please note that it is not related to the bark beetle which can cause the deadly dutch elm disease. Basically, this beetle and its larvae eat and skeletonize the foliage of several elm tree species. While the foliage may turn brown and drop, elm trees rarely would die from this defoliation. The problem here is that the trees have several months of poor appearance which, when added to their deciduous period, results in only 3 or 4 months of adequate greenness or landscape contribution. As noted in the literature, the beetle can be controlled but not eradicated. Should control be an option, the best approach is by the banding method as outlined. My best guess is that it would cost about $20.00 per tree with repeat applications needed should rain occur. Even then, expect some leaf discolor as this approach only will help reduce the insect population. Collectively these trees contribute to these neighborhoods. However, individually they are all poor trees as they have been poorly pruned by pollarding many years ago. because of that practice most all of the trees have a lot of dead branch areas, especially where new larger limbs have emerged. As such, this produces substantial breakage unless the trees are pruned continually as is being done by the City - a very costly endeavor. in addition to the beetle problem, the short period of their greenness, their poor appearance and hazard of breakage, these trees have very invasive roots and many are growing under power lines. In view of these problems, the City of Moorpark should consider their removal. This removal could be done over time along with re- planting other trees as there are many areas in which to plant. Hopefully I have addressed your tree concerns here. Should you have any questions on this matter please give me a call. MEMBER: American Society of Consulting Arborists #231 Sincerely, fb)�a 0 '�RbTs Paul A. Rogers Consulting Arborist OQOWG City of Moorpark ' 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: CORNETT & WFADDEN ELM TREES Dear Alan: April 24, 1997 AtV.C-C aXYIV'e'A 1"-) Having looked at these elm trees again with you yesterday, I wish to submit the following comments. As we discussed, the situation here has not changed since my inspection and report of September 15, 1995 (copy attached). While the leaf beetles are not causing any problems now, I did find evidence that they are present and will soon start their tree defoliation process. While I understand the residents desire to save these trees, it should be fully understood that the beetle situation, past poor pruning practices, weak limb attachments and ,jpvasive root problems are still very much evident. These conditions will still cause extensive periods of tree defoliation and continued chances of limb breakage. The beetle infestation can be reduced by the banding process and to some degree the chances of breakage can be lessened by the general thinning out process which you have performed in past years. However, these are costly endeavors that must be continued over the years and they will not eliminate the tree problems. Per'laps if it is not palatable to take all of these trees out now, some interplanting can oc: - now with the intent of removing these elm trees as the new trees enlarge. As a final comment Alan, it is interesting to note that the City of Ojai has similar elm tree problems and they are currently removing trees along with the planting of new ones over time. Please call me if you wish to discuss this further Sincerely, ?IXQ Q "5 Paul A. Rogers Consulting Arborist MEMBER: American Society of Consulting Arborists #231 PAR /kr Kilt! kMW4 C RECEIVED April 17, 1997 MAY 6 W Residents of McFadden Ave. and Cornett Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 City of Moorpark Mr. Allen M. Walter, Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Regarding Proposed Elm Tree Removal on McFadden and Cornett: We want to keep our Elm trees. Name Acidness Date zb 7 .11, tin A 'In-- i- - ("I 0 G' a MR>0"ARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 't 425, 39 37 7 _ -son 00MMIN Phase H of the Cl-..-%- of Moorpark- 7s elm tree removal project will beein within -'() days. The Cite will be removing the larae beetle infested elm trees currently within the City's right -of -way. A replacement tree will be replanted in the area of your property, approximately ten feet east or west of the street curb. This places the tree on private property and future maintenance of the tree will be the responsibility of the property oumer once the tree becomes established (90 days). The propem• o�-.mer may select the tree species. A tree selection is attached. If no tree species is selected the Croy N% ill select the tree species. The location of the new tree is the property owner's choice. Plew note: The new tree cannot be planted at the same location as the elm, because the extensive root system will prevents proper growth. Prior to the day the new trees are to be p1mud, the City will provide you with a marking dt.-Ace for you to use to indicate where you would like your tree planted. If you have any questions, please call me at the City of Moorpark at 529 -6864, ext. 426. ur help in this matter is greatly appreciated. szncerrly, Allen M. Walter Supervisor of Mal ntesaoce and Operations PATRICK HUN-=-.c; BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS 7EASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK 4!ayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmerntw C )u