Ojai City Council Special Meeting

Tree Ordinance Workshop

• Council designated the session as a workshop to gather feedback on a draft tree ordinance without making binding decisions.
• Panelists discussed tree definitions, permit thresholds, and enforcement strategies with public works staff.
• Fire safety requirements and utility line clearance conflicts with state regulations were identified as key issues.
• The Council will use the collected input to refine the ordinance draft for future consideration.

Closed Session

• The Council convened to discuss zoning clearance and potential litigation exposure regarding a project at 242 East Ojai Avenue.
• City Attorney provided an update on the Vasquez-Perdomo v. Nome litigation involving twenty-two agencies.
• City involvement is expected to be limited to amicus curiae briefs and declarations.
• No action was taken during the closed session proceedings.

• On Tuesday, April 7, 2026, the City Council held a special meeting. The session included roll call, a pledge of allegiance, approval of the agenda, a closed session update, and a workshop regarding a tree ordinance.

Procedural Business

• Following roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance, a motion was made to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded. The Council voted unanimously to approve the agenda.

Closed Session

• The Council convened a closed session regarding the zoning clearance or exposure to litigation concerning a project at 242 East Ojai Avenue. Following the closed session, City Attorney Burgess provided an update regarding the Vasquez-Perdomo v. Nome litigation. The City received direction to work with legal counsel representing 22 local government agencies involved in the case on a pro bono basis. City involvement was identified as likely limited to amicus curiae briefs and declarations. No action was taken in the closed session.

Workshop on Tree Ordinance

• The remainder of the meeting was designated as a workshop to gather feedback on a draft tree ordinance. Council Member Gilman stated that no decisions would be made during the workshop; the objective was to receive feedback to draft a coherent ordinance for future Council review. Panelists included representatives from Southern California Edison (SCE), certified arborists, and public works staff.
• Key discussion points included:
• Definitions: Participants discussed defining "mature tree," with suggestions ranging from a 12-inch diameter to an 8-inch diameter. Distinctions were made between mature trees, protected trees, and heritage trees. Panelists noted that current protections apply to Valley Oaks and Sycamores, with suggestions to include other native species such as Black Poplar, Willow, and Southern California Black Walnut.
• Canopy Health: Observations were made regarding the state of the urban canopy, with concerns raised about the loss of large, old trees. Specific mention was made of a 400-year-old oak on Park Road that was removed. Discussions included the need for proper maintenance, risk assessment, and the role of certified arborists in determining tree health and safety.
• Permits and Removal: The threshold for requiring a permit to remove branches was discussed, with reference to a proposed reduction from 4 inches to 2 inches. Participants noted the high cost of arborist reports and mitigation requirements. Suggestions were made to implement a second opinion process or a city review of arborist reports to ensure impartiality.
• Fire Safety: Mike Warford, Assistant Fire Marshal, outlined wildfire defensible space requirements, including clearance near structures and vegetation management within 100 feet of homes. He requested clarifying language in the ordinance regarding fire clearance permits.
• Utility Line Clearance: Ian Anderson, representing Southern California Edison, explained that vegetation management is driven by safety and affordability for ratepayers. SCE stated that trimming is performed to ensure lines are clear of interference, noting that aesthetic trimming is not a priority. Discussions addressed the conflict between utility regulations (CPUC) and local ordinances, specifically regarding the burden on ratepayers if local standards exceed utility safety needs. SCE noted they would challenge local ordinances that impose undue burdens through the CPUC rulemaking process.
• Enforcement and Staffing: The feasibility of enforcement was discussed, with comments noting that ordinances are ineffective without compliance. Suggestions were made for increased public education, potential fee waivers for fire safety-related removals, and the revival of a Tree Committee to review tree removal decisions.

Public Comment

• Members of the public provided comments during the workshop. Larry Stangold commented on the costs of litigation and the need for review of directors' exemptions. Michael Inaba discussed concerns regarding the drafting process of the ordinance and the standard for branch removal permits. Other commenters raised issues regarding fire safety, HOA responsibilities for tree maintenance, and the need for financial assistance or fee waivers for homeowners.

Outcomes

• The meeting concluded without any votes or actions taken on the tree ordinance. The Council indicated that the feedback gathered during the workshop would be used to refine the ordinance draft for future consideration.