HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0121 CC REG ITEM 10BITEM 0 • •
CM' OF MOORPARR. CALIFORMA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT City Council Meeting
CITY OF MOORPARK C S Z 199':F
A, ON:
No. r4l roc? c� ✓�yT7
TO: The Honorable City Council BY.
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services -% 5- 1�,da,n1�
DATE: January 14, 1998 (City Council Meeting of January 21, 1998)
SUBJECT: Consider Elm Tree Study, and Approve the Hazard Rating Scale and
Maintenance Program
Executive Summary
The City Council is being asked to consider and approve an elm tree hazard rating scale and an
annual maintenance program and policy to care for the trees on Cornett and McFadden Avenues.
The implementation of this program can be funded by the current fiscal year budget without an
additional appropriation. The City Council is being asked to consider alternative funding sources
for subsequent years.
Background
In September 1995, the City obtained the services of an arborist, Mr. Paul Rogers, to inspect the
elm trees on Cornett Avenue and McFadden Avenue. Mr. Rogers reported that the trees were
infested with elm leaf beetles, suffered from weak limbs caused by poor past pruning, and also
produce an invasive root system (Attachment A). The concern was that limbs were beginning to
break off presenting a potential hazard to life and property.
After meeting with the affected residents, the Council approved a two - phased plan to remove and
replace the trees; those trees that were found to be the greatest threat were removed in Phase I
(year one) and the remaining trees were to be removed in Phase II (year two). Phase I was
completed in February 1996. In preparation for Phase II, staff sent letters to the affected
residents. Shortly thereafter, the City received several phone calls and a petition objecting to the
planned removal and replacement.
Phase II was postponed while the City again sought the services of Mr. Rogers who verified that
the status of the trees had not changed from his initial report, and he continued to recommend that
the trees be removed (Attachment B). Staff also secured a preliminary second opinion about the
health of the trees from another arborist, Ms. Kay Carlson. Ms. Carlson agreed that the trees
suffered from poor pruning and show some signs of elm leaf beetles; however, she differed with
Mr. Rogers regarding the degree to which the tree suffered from poor health. Ms. Carlson was of
C ADOC SIC OMSER VIELMTREE2. AGD
000020
Elm Tree Study
Page 2
the opinion that the trees were healthy and attractive enough to retain, and with additional
maintenance, they could be viable for a number of years.
Staff proposed, and Council approved, a plan to secure the services of an arborist to perform a
detailed hazard evaluation on each of the remaining eleven elm trees and to develop a long -term
evaluation, monitoring and maintenance program which would include cost estimates. The
Council appropriated $700 to perform the work and staff solicited proposals from qualified
arborists. Ms. Carlson was the low bidder and was therefore selected to perform the work.
Ms. Carlson has completed her evaluation of the eleven elm trees and has provided the City with a
hazard rating scale to track the ongoing health of the trees and developed a maintenance program
to prolong the life of the trees. In her report, titled "Elm Tree Study" (copy of which has been
previously provided to the City Council), Ms. Carlson details the characteristics, health, and the
hazard rating of each tree. The hazard rating is based on three factors: failure potential; size of a
tree's limbs (parts); and target rating (the trees setting or surroundings that would be damaged by
a failure). Each factor has a scale of one through four. The score from each factor is totaled (3
through 12) and the larger the score, the greater the hazard potential of the tree. The existing elm
trees on Cornett and McFadden Avenues were all found to have a hazard rating of seven (7).
Based on risk factors and the economic evaluation of the trees, Ms. Carlson recommends that
when one of these trees reaches a hazard rating of nine (9) or greater and cannot be mitigated to a
level of less than nine, the tree should be considered for removal and replacement.
Additionally, Ms. Carlson's report identifies a recommended maintenance program intended to
abate potential hazards that may result from the trees. The maintenance program includes pruning
practices, cabling, and pest control. Cost estimates have also been provided (see the last page of
Tree Study) to assist the City Council when considering a long -term policy on the retention and
maintenance of the trees. Ms. Carlson estimates that the maintenance program for all eleven trees
for the first year will cost approximately $7,550 and subsequent years will cost approximately
$7,050 (includes arborist's monitoring costs).
Staff concurs with the recommendations outlined in the Study including: the implementation of
the hazard rating scale to monitor and track the trees' health, which includes an annual evaluation
of each tree; and the annual maintenance program of pruning and cabling the trees, and using a
form of pest control (not necessarily the deep root injections identified in the Study) to mitigate
elm leaf beetle. Additionally, staff recommends that the Council indicate its support for the
previously approved policy that directs when a tree is removed, a new tree be replanted by the
City on the property owner's property. The property owner then becomes responsible for all
future maintenance of the tree. This was the process used with the property owners in Phase I.
C:\DOCS\COMSERV\ELMTREE2.AGD
0000211
Elm Tree Study
Page 3
The trees in Phase II are currently maintained by the City; they are within the public right -of -way.
Current maintenance efforts include pruning by a contract tree trimmer, as needed (usually once a
year), at a cost of approximately $1,500 annually. The funding source used to fund City
maintained trees (outside of parks) is the City's Lighting and Landscape Assessment District (AD
84 -2). If the Council elects to approve the maintenance program outlined in the study, the City
can accommodate the additional cost ($7,550 less $1,500 = $6,050) in the current year's budget,
with no additional appropriation, by deferring an equal amount of other citywide tree
maintenance, and pending any unforseen events this Winter. However, thereafter additional funds
will need to be allocated in future years. Funding options include: increasing the AD 84 -2
Citywide tree maintenance budget; absorbing the additional cost in the AD 84 -2 budget with no
increase and reduce tree maintenance in other areas of the City; using Gas Tax Funds; or
appropriating General Fund monies for the additional maintenance.
In addition to the aforementioned funding sources, staff recommends that the City Council
consider the option of having the affected property owners pay the costs associated with the
higher level of maintenance outlined in the Study (Zone of Benefit); the Assessment District
would continue to pay for the annual tree trimming at a cost of $1,500. The City would need to
collect $5,550 annually from the property owners collectively. The Council would then need to
consider whether to assess only those properties that have the elm trees or assess all of the
property owners on Cornett and McFadden Avenues, since there is a benefit to the whole
neighborhood. A two - tiered assessment could be developed that assess property owners with elm
trees at a higher level than those without the affected trees.
The method used to collect the funds for this option would be similar to the process put in place
to collect park maintenance funds for Campesina Park. With Campesina Park, the City prepared
and distributed a Ballot to the affected residents, consistent with Proposition 218, to determine
whether or not the property owners were in support of the payment or assessment to fund future
City costs associated with the maintenance of the proposed park. The cost to prepare the Ballot
was approximately $1,000.
If approved, the annual assessment to the eleven property owners on Cornett and McFadden
Avenues would be approximately $550 each. Under this option, when a tree is removed,
consistent with the program outlined in the Study, it will be replaced with a tree planted on the
owner's property. Responsibility to maintain the tree will fall to the property owner, thereby
eliminating the need to continue to assess the owner for maintenance costs. If the City Council is
interested in pursuing this option, staff suggests that the level of interest on the part of the
affected property owners be determined informally. This way, the City is not spending funds on a
Ballot effort that may not have a chance of succeeding.
C ADOCS \COMSERV\ELMTREE2.AGD
OOOOZZ
Elm Tree Study
Page 4
If the Council does not wish to pursue the option of asking the property owners to pay for the
higher level of maintenance, staff would then recommend against the other funding option
identified above, and advise that the City continue with the existing level of maintenance ($1,500)
but include an annual evaluation of each tree ($550 for all eleven trees); no cabling or pest control
will be performed. When a tree reaches a hazard rating of nine, staff will be directed to remove
and replace the tree, as was the case with Phase I.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Adopt the use of the hazard rating scale contained in the Study for future
evaluation of the elm trees on Cornett and McFadden Avenues;
2. Direct staff to determine the level of interest on the part of the affected property
owners regarding a Ballot to assess them for future maintenance costs; and report
back to the City Council with the results on March 4, 1998.
C:\DOCS \COMSERV\ELMTREE2.AGD
000023
Y
Director of Community Services
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
September 15, 1995
RE: ELM TREES ON CORNETT & MCFADDEN STREETS
Dear Chris:
It was a pleasure meeting you and Allen Waiter yesterday and to have an opportunity to
look at your elm tree problems. Based upoii my inspection of these trees, I offer the
following report.
All of these trees are infected with the elm Leaf 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 alid 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,
-R� (3 'RbqAS
Paul A. Rogers
Consulting Arborist
M
Y
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: CORNETT & McFADDEN ELM TREES
Dear Alan:
April 24, 1997
A+Eachyw+ C)
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 I jmb attachments andavasive
root problems are still very much evident. These conditions will still cause extertsive
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.
Perhaps if it is not palatable to take all of these trees out now, some interplanting can
occur 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,
Paul A. Rogers
Consulting Arborist
MEMBER: American Society
of Consulting Arborists #231
PAR /kr
rK it 11 � K.. -
00 () ()2Z5