Meeting Summary
Present: Gilman, Rule, Whitman, Lang · Absent: Mang
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Closed Session Update
- The City Attorney reported on zoning clearance and litigation exposure for a project at 242 East Ojai Avenue.
- Staff were directed to collaborate with legal counsel regarding the Vasquez-Perdomo v. Nome federal case involving immigration enforcement.
- City participation is expected to be limited to filing amicus curiae briefs and declarations on a pro bono basis.
Tree Ordinance Review Workshop
- Council members and panelists reviewed draft definitions distinguishing between mature, protected, and heritage tree designations.
- Discussions highlighted the need for impartial arborist reviews and stricter mitigation requirements for tree removals.
- Participants debated pruning permit thresholds, canopy removal limits, and the financial burden on private property owners.
- Conflicts between tree protection goals and fire safety regulations were identified, including requests for fee waivers for hazard mitigation.
- Southern California Edison representatives clarified their safety-driven trimming protocols and regulatory constraints under the CPUC.
- The session concluded with a consensus on the need for public education, additional staff resources, and financial assistance programs.
Full summary
Call to Order and Roll Call
- The special City Council meeting was called to order on Tuesday, April 7, 2026. A roll call confirmed the presence of Mayor Gilman, Council Member Rule, Council Member Whitman, and Council Member Lang (remote). Mayor Pro Tem Mang was noted as absent.
Pledge of Allegiance
- The City Attorney confirmed that no members of the public were present at the remote participant's location. The Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of the Agenda
- A motion was made to approve the agenda and was seconded. No objections were raised. A roll call vote was conducted.
- Outcome: Passed.
Public Comment
- Larry Stangold provided comment regarding the upcoming closed session, expressing concern over self-inflicted litigation related to Ojai Avenue and director's exemptions. He urged the Council and city management to review processes to prevent future legal expenses and suggested that director's exemptions be reviewed by city management, employees, and planning prior to approval.
Closed Session Update
- Following the closed session, the City Attorney provided an update regarding zoning clearance and potential litigation exposure for a project at 242 East Ojai Avenue. No direction was given or action taken during the closed session. The update indicated that the City Council had directed staff to work with legal counsel regarding the Vasquez-Perdomo v. Nome litigation, which involves 22 local government agencies. The legal team is representing the cities on a pro bono basis. The case is pending in Federal District Court regarding immigration and customs enforcement activities. City involvement is expected to be limited to participating in amicus curiae briefs and filing declarations.
Workshop: Tree Ordinance Review
- The Council conducted a workshop session to review a draft tree ordinance. The Mayor clarified that no decisions would be made during this session; the goal was to gather feedback to draft a coherent ordinance, create a fact sheet for residents, and develop a city website landing page. The workshop covered six agenda items with input from panelists, Council members, and the public. No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon during the workshop.
Discussion Item 1: Definitions and Triggers (Mature vs. Protected Trees)
- The panel discussed the definition of a "mature tree" versus a "protected" or "heritage" tree. It was noted that the existing ordinance defines a mature tree as having a 12-inch diameter measured 4.5 feet above the root crown, and that "mature" is a distinct designation from "protected." Under current rules, mature trees are not automatically protected. The current ordinance lists three specific heritage trees (two oaks and one sycamore). Panelists suggested that heritage status should not be limited to specific species or individual appointments by the Council. Proposals included defining heritage trees based on size thresholds (e.g., 29.6-inch diameter) or including specific native species such as Valley Oaks, Black Poplars, Willows, and Southern California Black Walnuts.
- A representative from Southern California Edison (SCE) explained that their vegetation management is driven by safety (preventing line interference and wildfire) and affordability for ratepayers. They stated that tree classifications (mature or protected) do not alter their safety-driven trimming protocols. Panelists expressed concern that the city's canopy is dwindling due to the removal of large, old trees. Discussions highlighted that trees can appear healthy while suffering from root decay (e.g., oak root fungus) and that "balance" is often misunderstood by the public.
- Concerns were raised regarding the reliability of arborist reports used to justify tree removal. Panelists suggested implementing a requirement for a second, impartial arborist review or a city-appointed qualified person to evaluate reports before removal is authorized. The concept of a Tree Risk Assessment (TRA) qualification was introduced as a standardized method for evaluating risk. Panelists recommended stricter mitigation requirements, suggesting that any tree removal, even for hazardous reasons, should require replacement planting or a contribution to a city tree fund. The current fee schedule and replacement requirements were noted as potentially ineffective without proper enforcement.
- Council Member Rule requested clarification on the overlap between mature, heritage, and protected designations and emphasized the need for an impartial review mechanism to prevent the removal of significant trees based on biased reports. Council Member Whitman proposed establishing a staff position or reforming a Tree Committee to review removal reports for specific tree classes, noting that municipalities often have immunity when decisions are based on scientific records. Council Member Lang raised the issue of neighbor disputes regarding overhanging branches and the financial inability of some residents to maintain trees, asking for recommendations on how the ordinance could address pruning and neighbor relations. Panelists reiterated that affordability issues regarding tree maintenance may require solutions outside the ordinance, such as nonprofit assistance or city-funded programs, and confirmed that legal precedents exist regarding neighbor pruning disputes.
Discussion Item 2: Pruning Standards, Enforcement, and Costs
- Discussion focused on the proposed reduction of the pruning permit threshold from four-inch branches to two-inch branches. Panelists and public commenters expressed concern that lowering the threshold would discourage necessary tree work due to the high cost of arborist reports and labor. The distinction between aesthetic pruning and safety pruning was emphasized, with warnings that improper pruning can damage tree health. Legal precedents regarding property lines and neighbor disputes were noted, specifically that unreasonable damage to a neighbor's tree is prohibited. The proposed ordinance tightening canopy removal limits from 25% to 10% was discussed, with the caveat that enforcement mechanisms are critical for compliance. The Public Works Director highlighted the financial burden on private property owners compared to the city's ability to fund extensive tree care, citing a specific case where over $25,000 was spent attempting to save a tree that ultimately could not be saved.
Discussion Item 3: Fire Safety and Wildfire Preparedness
- The Assistant Fire Marshal presented requirements for defensible space, including trimming branches within three feet of roofs and eaves, maintaining ten feet of clearance from chimneys, and limbing up trees within 100 feet of structures to prevent fire transmission. It was noted that deadwood removal generally does not require a permit, though clarification on permit requirements for fire clearance was requested. A conflict was identified between tree protection ordinances and fire safety regulations. Public commenters requested a waiver of city fees for fire-related tree removal to assist homeowners facing financial hardship. Concerns were raised regarding Homeowners Associations (HOAs) delaying the removal of hazardous trees to avoid permit and mitigation fees. A comparison was made to the City of Buellton's ordinance, which grants the Planning Director authority to authorize tree removal for public safety, disease control, and fuel load reduction.
Discussion Item 4: Utility Line Clearance and Southern California Edison (SCE) Responsibilities
- Representatives from SCE outlined their mandate to maintain safety around utility lines, prioritizing infrastructure safety and ratepayer affordability over tree aesthetics. SCE stated they trim only the portions of trees that pose a risk to lines and do not trim the opposite side of a tree for aesthetic balance, as this falls outside their easement. Discussion addressed the "right tree in the right place" concept, with SCE expressing a preference against planting eucalyptus trees near lines. It was explained that SCE is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and may challenge local ordinances that they believe place an undue financial burden on ratepayers. Panelists suggested that local ordinances could require certified arborists to be present during utility trimming to ensure adherence to best management practices and prevent improper cuts (e.g., stub cuts) that harm tree health. SCE representatives indicated that while they have standards, oversight of subcontractors can be inconsistent, and they encouraged homeowners to communicate directly with SCE specialists to resolve concerns.
Discussion Item 5: Public Education and Process Feedback
- An arborist emphasized the need for proactive public education regarding tree ordinances, including canopy limits and diameter measurements, to improve homeowner decision-making and enforcement. Public commenters criticized the lack of collaboration in the ordinance drafting process and the inclusion of the two-inch pruning standard in the redline version presented to the Council. Concerns were raised regarding the two-year timeline for the process and the burden of fees on homeowners. The discussion concluded with panelists summarizing key takeaways: the need to treat urban forests as community resources supported by public funding, and the necessity of balancing safety with affordability.
Closing Remarks
- Weston Montgomery provided closing remarks summarizing key takeaways from the discussion, including the identification of species in jeopardy, permit triggers, insights from Southern California Edison, and the expressed need for additional staff, enforcement, and financial assistance for residents. No action was taken.