Ojai City Council Special Meeting

Thank you. We have our one agenda item. Anybody object to that? Wonderful. So in general, I think what we'll do is our format will be different than the last item that we had here on this subject. So we'll hear the staff report, questions of staff, just as we normally do, get public comments, and then get into the conversation. But I would love to have it be a little bit more open in the workshop format. So in the midst of the conversation, if there's opportunities where we can hear more from the public, in some ways, I want to open to that. And I hope that you'll also respect that too, you know, so we can have an efficient conversation.

All right, let's move to the staff report.

Before we go further, you were talking earlier about each individual having a little bit more time than what... And

thank you for mentioning that. So we'll have the timer be five minutes. Don't feel obliged to have to use it all, but we want to make sure this is more like a ample conversation. This is meant to be a conversation. We're not deciding anything tonight. We're gathering information and Bringing up points so we can have a better final product at the end. Thank you.

Perfect.

Thanks.

So with that, I'll ask James to pull up the slide deck. Thanks. So this is a part two, I would say, to the conversation that took place in April, where it was really kind of the professionals that sat on stools, really talked intelligently about trees and a lot of really good knowledge and information. Here, we really get into the meat and potatoes of what the ordinance is as it exists today, and then kind of opening up the dialogue and discussion for where there may be holes in that conversation as the ordinance exists today. So, it's really kind of, as the slide deck is showing, process, procedures, and kind of an educational component to that. Next slide, please.

And really what this is meant to do is to kind of set the table for the discussion from an educational standpoint and purpose and process standpoint. So the purpose of the existing ordinance that we have today is to protect, preserve, support, provide, and then there's the climate resiliency aspect to that as well. The protection piece is really tied to oaks and really all varieties of oaks.

Sycamores, all varieties of sycamores, and then heritage and designated mature trees. Heritage is specifically tied to a resolution in 2013 where there was 12 trees that were designated as heritage trees. Went through a process, a formal process, before Historic Preservation Commission and then was deemed appropriate through a resolution by the City Council in 2013.

Preserve is from a community historic, aesthetic, and ecological resource standpoint. is really kind of part of that support or reassurance through our general plan, which is kind of a blueprint, guidelines through the city's actions now and into the future. It also has a tie to the environmental preservation and then the community character, which also feeds into a lot of goals and policy that are driven through the general plan.

Providing, and it's really the standards for pruning, construction within the drip line of the protected trees, and then removal. And then the climate resiliency is really the ordinance supports the City Council's goals of climate resiliency, including education and outreach for the anticipated update. Next slide, please. Protected trees. As I had mentioned before, it is all oak varieties. And I did a quick search on the internet, kind of curious as to the number of oak varieties that exist. Worldwide, I'm finding that there are over 600 varieties. However, if we narrow the scope into just in terms of California or native to North America, I'm seeing right around roughly 90.

In terms of all sycamores, the number is even at a more macro or micro level, which is 10 recognized worldwide. Some of those that you see here are like the London Plain and then the California sycamore as well. There are probably others, but those are the two that stuck out in my mind that I've seen recently in terms of Applications. Heritage trees by City Council resolution. I'd already mentioned that previously, but there's a resolution from 2013 that has established 12 trees for preservation moving forward.

Next slide, please. Now, through our existing ordinance, the question is, when is a tree permit required? Well, it's required for the removal or relocation of an existing mature tree. What's a mature tree? A mature tree is really that tree that is by measurement, by our definition within the tree ordinance, more than 12 inches in diameter. when you measure it at four and a half feet above the root crown. So when you do that, and we have the professionals doing that, when they come forward with their arborist report to identify that, that's when we take a hard look at a proposed removal or even a relocation.

In addition to that, tree permits are required whenever you are working or propose to work within the drip line of an existing mature oak, sycamore, or heritage tree. If you're proposing removal of more than 25% of the canopy within a protected tree, then you are required to get a permit. The interesting thing about that is Every time that I have the conversation with somebody at the counter or on the phone or I'm having a conversation with staff, it is difficult to identify what 25% looks like. It is very subjective.

While the number is objective, that subjectivity exists within what looks like 25%. And really, it's almost like a squint test, if you will. And then lastly, any construction activity within the drip line, not necessarily work, but any construction activity within the drip line, that would then, which are impacting the roots or a canopy itself, that would then require a permit as well.

Next slide, please. Current application process. So, application is submitted. We go through the tree permit process. There are a number of things that we would need in order to do an assessment. Site plan, photographs. Within the arborist report itself, it's going to have photographs and it's going to point to the work that's being done. If it's only trimming or removal of limbs, And then the photographs typically coincide with that. There's a permit fee that's associated with that. That permit fee is a fixed fee of $225.

In certain circumstances, those fees are waived. City review, typically when we're reviewing these applications, we have a 30-day review period for any applications that come in to the City for review from the Community Development Department standpoint. It's a visual assessment, a site visit. We're confirming the tree that's being proposed is at the location and is in fact still there if they're looking to remove and has not been removed at this point. It's simple information that we're looking at. We're not the experts. We're relying on the information that's provided to us and relying on that information that the expert is providing to us.

Next slide, please. There's a two-step process to this. I have CDD and I have Public Works. Community Development Department is CDD. PW is Public Works. If the work that's being proposed is within a private property, that is handled by Community Development. If it is a Tree that's within our public right-of-way, that is handled through Public Works. Both of them have very similar process in terms of review. In fact, they're basically the same. It's the same application. You're just checking the box as to whether or not it's a public, a tree within the public right-of-way, or a tree that's been identified within the private property.

The arborist reports basically, within their information, provide justification for the work, assess tree health, as well as the value. And then they also are required, and it's identified within our ordinance, that whether or not there are active bird nests present within the tree that's receiving the activity, whether it's removal, trimming, they're required to report on that.

And then the federal compliance is a step in the same breadth of the bird nesting presence. Really, it's all trees-related activities must comply with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918, ensuring protection of the nesting birds during the permitted work. That is where the active bird nesting provision that's identified within our code currently is coming from, specifically.

Next slide, please. Now, from a decision-making process, the director is charged with reviewing, assessing, and then providing a decision on the matter. That decision is either approving, approving with conditions, some call it mitigation, I'm not a huge fan of mitigation because that sounds like we're moving into CEQA, which we're not, and then deny. If you outright deny, there is an appeal process. But let's first talk through the decision-making process. So it's the director making a determination If there are a number of trees, more than five, that are being proposed for removal, that decision is basically identified within the code as being forwarded to the Planning Commission for the decision determination. Now, there's also provision in the code that allows for less than five, or an unusual circumstance, to also go to the Planning Commission.

In the seven years that I've been here, that's only happened once. It's highly unusual, but it has happened, right? I'm not going to necessarily name the location, but it was three trees that were slated for removal. Two of them, in a very interesting scenario, didn't necessarily meet the muster for removal. They weren't necessarily providing the full evidence for why they were being removed. So I kicked it to the Planning Commission.

Yeah. Conditions of approval. There's a number of provisions in our code that already allows for standard conditions. In addition to that, a lot of times when there's an arborist report that's being provided, there are also conditions, and it's typically tied to the construction that's being proposed for that particular project. And we take those conditions from the arborist report, review them, analyze them, and typically provide that as a condition of the approval.

Now, I jumped ahead regarding the director's decision. If the decision is to approve and there's someone that takes objection to that, there is a 10-day appeal period. The same thing is true if the director denies a tree permit. There is an appeal period. And both of those, by code, go to Planning Commission. Next slide, please. Permit conditions and mitigation. So tree protections, certified arborists, requirements, replacement requirements, and compliance. So tree protections, and that's really kind of construction related, typically it's construction fencing, work within the drip line of those mature trees, whether they're sycamores or oaks, and then Certified arborists, there's the protected tree work expert first-hand knowledge on appropriate actions.

And really what we're looking for here is we're leaning in on those arborists and trusting what they are providing to us. I will say this, when we're looking at an application and there is cause for concern or question, we, for this last year, In years previous, 24 and back further, we didn't have this option, but this last year, we were employing and using a third-party arborist to come out and provide us with a non-biased, basically, assessment of the arborist that's proposing the work to be done on a tree to make sure that it is actually as it's being advertised.

It's kind of an interesting wrinkle in the equation. Instead of me going out or the director for Public Works going out and assessing it, we are not the experts. I do not consider myself to be a tree expert, but I do lean on the information that's provided by either the arborist that's proposing to do the work or a third-party arborist, as we've been doing previously over this last year.

And reviewing that information and then coming forward with kind of an assessment of the proposal.

Mr. Seibert, if I could just jump in briefly. On that topic, that is something that I have done in other places where I've worked. We, City of Pacific Grove, we employed a third-party arborist just to review all the tree permits that came in and monitor the work, and that is an option the city certainly has. I will offer a little bit of caution with that. It's not perfect because arborists are both professionals and sometimes you end up in this dueling arborist standoff, but that might be a path that this council wants to go. Of course, there's also a cost with that. However, you are going to be looking at your fee study later this summer, and that's appropriate to have costs associated with the review borne by the applicant.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Within that same thread, a lot of times there's, within the conditions and within the ordinance itself, it has replacement requirements as a standard, either replantings or other mitigation. What's interesting is a lot of times our conditions of approval for a larger project has a two-to-one ratio as a standard procedure and practice.

The code actually identifies within the tree ordinance the replacement in terms of the number of diameter of trees that are being removed. So if there's one large tree, it's not to say, oh, that large tree then has you replace Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I ask you one quick question before you proceed? Sure. So when I look at what's in the staff report, when I look at some of what the codes are included here, the question I have is, last time when we had kind of phase one of the workshop, you might say we had Thank you all for joining us.

No modifications. This is as is? As is. Perfect. Great. Thank you.

Existing.

This is what exists right now. Great. Yeah, this is boots in the street, what we're doing right now. I understand. Thank you for that. Before I jump into the next slide, just to provide additional clarification, that first workshop that we had was really to hear from the experts. The community came in, really provided some great input. The panel that was here provided some really good input and insight to kind of set the stage.

The hope was that in that conversation we were also going to get into the meat and potatoes process, but there was so much information and so much conversation that went around just the I would say the educational piece from the experts, the certified experts standpoint, and now we're looking at what the code allows for currently. And then, obviously, as I go through this slide deck, I'll be also identifying some of the potential loopholes that I'm seeing on the regular. I've already mentioned that to this body. As a workshop here, I'll also be mentioning it again, and then looking for a little bit of guidance and kind of wanting to hear from the community as well. Thank you.

All right, next slide, please. So enforcement and penalties, so unauthorized removal or damage to protected trees. I do say may in all three of these categories, because I think it's important to note that citations are rare, but they do occur from time to time. In terms of violations, may equal misdemeanors. In the time that I've been here, I've had zero misdemeanors that have gone forward, because that typically involves the court system.

But if it does rise to that level, and it's the recommendation from the city attorney, then we could certainly move in that direction. But I would probably want a little bit more guidance before moving in that direction, because it feels pretty heavy-handed, right? And then the compensation piece, we have employed in the past, which typically has double fees. Now, I will mention that the fee itself For these permits, it's 225, so you're looking at something that gets to more like 450.

And then there's also the replacement equivalent in terms of size and even value. Now, that one's a little bit more interesting because there's been some past practices that I've looked at and have employed to a certain degree, or at least threatened to employ. which has a part of the application process shows also the valuation of that tree as it exists today. And some of these mature oaks and sycamores have a high value because they're using an ISA, basically a form where they're running through and then it spits out a number. And when I say they, I mean the certified arborist.

So a mature tree could be upwards of $40,000. And what we're looking for is replacing an equivalent in terms of size and even value. I've looked at and threatened when those situations have come up for that to be the case. And in some circumstances, it gets someone to back away. Next slide, please. Current challenges. There's a number of them that I've seen. So, balancing property rights, obviously there's preservation that is at stake here, but also, there's also this, with every tree that comes forward and a property owner that comes forward, there is typically an educational piece that starts, where we have that conversation with the property owner, the arborists are already The local arborists that are here already are well aware of what our process is here, and they educate the property owners as best they can.

Property owners typically come in, and that conversation starts again. The hope is that they walk away better informed. Sometimes they walk away discouraged. It's not about the process. It's the fact that we're telling them that they have what they consider to be a barrier to what they're wanting to do. So, there's that balancing property rights piece. Consistency in the permit review.

There's a little bit of flexibility in terms of how either myself or even Lindy, as a public works director, reviews either trees that are in the public right-of-way or on private property. For instance, when I'm reviewing private property, a lot of times the code doesn't say, you shall do this. It's giving you like a menu of options. And then from there, I'm working with staff to sort through what's the best option, right, given the situation that's at hand.

I would say most are sliced very similar, but not each one is exactly the same. Public awareness, ordinance digestion. There's an opportunity, I think, with this workshop and kind of what we're doing moving forward with potential revisions to this, to educate the community. But also to provide an opportunity to educate those that are working, that are out there actually doing the work to the trees, right?

Processing timelines, as I had said previously, it's a 30-day review. We rarely go out that far, but I will say there are times when we're looking for additional information that takes that process out beyond the 30 days. It's rare, but it does happen. And then managing the development of demand, preserving the tree canopy. That was discussed during the first workshop, where we've been seeing a decline with the trees being removed and not necessarily being replaced, which I'll talk about, I think, in the next slide or the slide thereafter. And then the hazardous tree, that is also one of the current challenges that I am seeing that continues to reoccur.

We'll talk about that, I think, in the next slide. Next slide, please. So clarification of the ordinance language and thresholds. Really what I'm teasing towards is there's a number of definitions or lack of definitions that are where there are terms within the ordinance itself that lack a definition to go along with it. I'll just give you a couple. In our ordinance, we have certified tree professional. I don't know what that is.

A hazardous tree. I don't know what that is. A tree worker. What is that? I mean, there's some of these where you're like, oh, it's common sense. Is it? Because when we start having those conversations about what that person is or what their role and responsibility is, a dangerous condition. What is that? Right? So there's things that I'm, as a director, I'm constantly having to kind of sort through. It would be nice if I had some clarification on some of these pieces moving forward.

The review of mitigation and replacement standards, as I'd mentioned, there was a number of them in the previous two or three slides that talked about how far we can go in terms of conditions of approval. Those are typically tied to an ARBORS report that has those conditions tied into it. Are they going far enough? And I think really what it boils down to is who's monitoring that? Is it the arborist that has been charged with the project? Because if you read the code, the code actually says that the arborist that provides the report isn't also to be doing the work, because that sounds like a double standard, basically. So instead, is it a third party that comes out and does it? Is it this certified tree professional that comes out? Are we then trusting—see what I'm getting at here?

Are we now trusting the tree worker in terms of how we're looking at this? These are the things that I've been wrestling with for the last seven years. So it's been an ongoing issue.

On that one subject, this is on page 10 of the report here, but it's 411-063. The arborist who prepares the report shall not participate in or profit from the removal, destruction, or relocation of the tree. How often do you run into that where the arborist giving you the report also is being hired for the job

potentially? Well, they can't. Yeah, they don't. Yeah, that's the thing. So they know that going into it. I haven't had that I haven't been aware of that situation taking place.

Because I'm thinking of in the tree workshop before where we heard the anecdote of you can have the arborist kind of say what you want them to say or need them to say. We heard that comment. I'm not saying that's the truth, but that kind of thing would not be because they're getting paid to do anything with the tree. In other words, as Ben pointed out, dueling arborists could also happen in that situation. Andrew

Whitman Right. And I wouldn't say that each of the tree reports that we have come in, I'm immediately looking at and basically providing a red flag for it. But there are situations where I look at it, and I am not a professional, but I look at it, and I go out to the site, and I'm like, this feels like a really healthy tree. Why are we looking at this? Why are we looking at removal of this tree? So then I employ our third-party arborist, right, who goes out and does their own assessment, provides us with a report, them going out and doing it.

And at that point, I feel more comfortable, because I'm looking at it from the standpoint of they're not being influenced by the applicant or the property owner at that point. But I'm not necessarily trying to influence them. I'm saying look at it from the standpoint of the tree. Don't look at it from the city's perspective or from the applicant's perspective. Look at it independently. Are you

looking at, you yourself, looking at every project that comes in like that?

For every tree? Well,

that seems impossible, but is that true?

At the end of the day, yes, because I'm charged with doing it. The reason why I'm very well versed in this code section is because on the regular we're going back and we're saying, hey, because of this tree, this situation, the arborist is identifying this. These are the parameters that we can move forward on. This is where we're kind of silent. Hey, this is one of those where they're identifying it as a hazardous tree. It no longer has a fee attached to it, and there's no replacement requirement. And I'm like, well, do we have a conversation of them, of us recommending that they do it? We can't require it. So that conversation five, seven years ago was, oh, sure. Where do you want us to put it?

Help us figure out where to put it. I'm like, great. Conversation recently, and I think I've already talked to the council about this, but it's also for the public here, that's not happening anymore. There's more of an interest in removal with no replacement. So then that gets to the point of, and the concern that has been raised and was certainly discussed at the last workshop, which is the loss of canopy.

If I could just jump in on that one. So that's kind of part of what we're aiming for with this. It's twofold, bringing forward a new ordinance, having an education component for the tree services and the tree businesses, having the council, as part of the budget process, allocate more funding for code enforcement so that we can comprehensively follow up on every single permit and make sure that the mitigation actually took place. Because you're right.

It's not happening in the degree that we would want it to just by bandwidth right now. And then again, going back to the question you just posed to the Community Development Director, is it appropriate for the director to be doing that? I would argue that it might be a better use of resources if we had a contract arborist doing this and not the director himself.

I have a question along those lines. So I know Measure C It talks about our tree canopy. Can Measure C money be used for enforcement programs as opposed to just capital?

I'm not an attorney, but when I read the ballot language, it says code enforcement, and so we are coming to you this year with your Measure C money, with a proposed, I think we're asking for $250,000 from Measure C funds. I think you could argue it could be more. I think it's a very important part of what we're trying to do here. And that's the only way that we really are going to be able to ensure compliance. People know that we don't have the bandwidth, right? So there are going to be times when we can't make sure that, oh, yes, those two trees have been planted. There they are. We see them.

Just to support that, I thought one of the takeaways that I wrote down from the workshop was something like either more contracted, you know, code enforcement arborists or a staff arborist, or in other words, enhancing staff capacity.

Yes. Yes. However the council wants to do it. Okay.

Yeah, great.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I am not the professional on these arborist reports, right? So I don't consider myself. In terms of reviewing it and analyzing it, absolutely. I have lots of experience and lots of exposure to that.

And if I could just beat this to death, I mean, you could also have a panel of arborists, right? You don't have to just have one arborist. It could be, you know, to ensure some

Yeah, the workshop was pretty clear, I felt like, when I heard that the reactivation of the tree committee made a lot of sense.

And that has, I mean, at least as in the forest management plan, that was made up of arborists, but also some community members, not arborists, landscape architect, etc. So we should reconstitute

that. But I'm also speaking specifically of just reviewing permits. I was envisioning possibly having, you know, a pool of city arborists that we're able to draw from so that it's not the same person or firm reviewing every single permit. I don't think that's appropriate either because then there's going to be this assumption that, oh, this person is biased.

And I don't think it's an either or. I think we're considering both.

This is all for discussion. So whatever you guys want to do, these are options.

And my thought along that issue was You know, that maybe you've got to

kind of,

that certain factors cause you to go to the review process, you know, the third party review. Other factors allow it to move forward as long as it's got some fundamental, based on the circumstances of that tree or the project. Right. Right.

including potentially a complaint. Anyway, that's to be determined, but I kind of agree. I do have a big old question, but are we still going through your PowerPoint? I think I've only

got one more slide. Yeah, go through and then we'll do some questions

and then go to the public. So, public education and outreach. I think this is leading into the next slide, but it's a city to teach and for those that are coming into the city to do work to learn in terms of what our process is and what those components look like. So, next slide, please.

So this is something that I'm just going to jump in here. This is something that I implemented in a prior city, and we were successful with this. There was a lot of grumbling when we implemented it, but we required all tree services doing business within the city to annually come in prior to the business license renewal time period in order to hear a presentation from the Community Development Department on the tree ordinance and what Thank you very much.

Birds' nests, by design, are a very hard spot. If you've ever seen a hummingbird's nest, I mean, they're crazy small and they blend in, and that's just one example. But most bird nests are hard to find because they're trying not to be seen. There's no great definition on what the education is in order to look or to know for these. You just have to do it, you know, and you have to do it with earnest, you have to do it with binoculars, you have to be able to climb up. And the law states that if you do encounter an active bird's nest, you are supposed to cease all activity until, you know, the babies have hatched and fledged and it's no longer an active nest. It's very clear. And this is one of the big things we're trying to focus on because we just don't see that happening now.

You see tree trimming all year round. And I'm not saying that there are times when you need to do it, of course. But I highly, highly doubt, and this is just my own spot-checking of talking to Operators, when they're out there, have you checked for a bird's nest? Oh, yes. Okay. Well, I, you know, I come by here a lot. I think I've seen one over in this corner. Did you see that? Oh, yes.

No, I, no, it's right there. So, it's just, but we want to take it very seriously. This is a federal law that's been in place since around the turn of the 19th century, right, excuse me, the 20th century. So, it's there for good reason, and we do have a lot of migratory birds coming through Ojai. It's one of the things that makes us very special here, and it's very important that we try to preserve this. So, you know, the balance that we have to strike is you do have a lot of folks with fear factors, fire factors, and so on and so forth. And this has to be balanced with this. So it's important to bring in these services and explain this rule. They have to have somebody on their team who knows how to do this.

And I'd say the muster would have to be our director or our third party arborist would have to feel comfortable that, okay, yes, I think that you know what you're doing. And so this is what we required. I did it elsewhere, it does work, there's a lot of grumbling with it, but at least you have some satisfaction that, okay, they're taking things seriously, they know the rules, and so on and so forth.

And if I could lean in on that just a little bit more, even a biologist, a biologist is probably even more qualified to sort through that.

But

I would say you don't have

to be a biologist.

Well, yeah, the naked eye can typically pick it out. Very interesting enough, Out of all the applications that we've reviewed, and there's like in between 50 and 60 that we see every year, anyone want to take a guess on how many have identified that there are nesting birds? Just take a guess. Anybody. What was the answer? What was the guess? Yeah, zero. Apparently we have zero birds that nest in

the trees that are proposed to have. Well, I would guess the argument would be that they've checked already for a nest and they've determined that one exists, and so therefore they're not going to submit a permit. Well, that's

what they would

say.

Maybe. I just, I thought that, that statistic is just a very interesting piece of... Well, it just seems statistically impossible. I

do have a question about the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918. Is it only migratory birds that we are trying to protect?

No, that's just the title of the act, but it's any bird's nest. Very good

question. When I saw that, my thought was we should Adopt as much of the federal rules that we like as we can because it's only a matter of time before somebody identifies those and say, what the hell are we doing protecting birds? In the current administrative environment, they're getting rid of every regulation they can, so we should regulate it locally. And I think we should.

Consolidate as much of the state and federal regulation into our city regulations. So that's one place where somebody can see. I mean, incorporate by reference where appropriate, but put all the language in there, too, when that's

appropriate. Yes.

That's good.

Lucas, I don't have any more on this slide.

Next slide. I think we're I think that's the end. Yep.

And that's kind of pages five going into six of the staff report. Those bullets are kind of, they go, it's what that slide essentially said is this would be an annual training proposal for all the people who do work here. That's just what's

proposed, right.

Now I get it.

And obviously that you're going to continue to have services come in that don't have a business license and try to do work, and that's a separate code enforcement action. But if you were doing that type of work in Ojai, you must have a business

license.

The interesting thing about the conversation with the education piece is that there have been a number of occasions on the weekends. It's very interesting how tree workers tend to love to work on a Saturday. And we've had, when I first got here, there were several that we stopped, right, and put an end to a lot of that that's going on. That was the first piece. And the vast majority, we found, were in L.A. So they were coming from out of town.

Found that the only way that they would be able to do work was on a Saturday. So it was a very interesting eye-opening experience when we started doing the enforcement on the weekends.

And related, not in trees, but in water, like Aquaflo complained, many of the people that are coming there, or that are a part of this, they're not getting any work done there. It's all coming from inside. And so yeah, we have this importation situation. Yeah. Yeah,

so I think all of this is great and I see a way forward with, you know, amending and modifying and working to make the pre-ordinance more to what we want it to be. But for me, and I see Chief Cleary sitting there, there is the tension of, you know, the state laws and, you know, And we're going to have to deal with that. I think the most recent discussion or process went out April 26th, updated kinds of, there was a meeting that sort of tried to update this. So, to me, that is where the real tension in this lies.

Everything that we've heard makes perfect sense, but we're going to run up against a wall. We haven't yet, because the state hasn't yet figured out how to implement, but they're getting closer, and so I'd like to hear. That, to me, is the pivotal point here. We can't have a tree ordinance that is not in compliance with state law as much as we would like to. And I know that things are happening around, you know, one fits all laws.

But the way it stands, one does fit all across the board. There aren't carve-outs that I understand are possible. So, for me, that's the real question on how we deal with that tension. Would this be a good time to hear from the Chief? I don't know. It's going to take us into a different realm outside of our codes, but to me, that's the pivotal question that everything else can be worked through with good sense.

Understood. What do we imagine? Yeah, I'm glad. Thank you, Chief. We thought that there might be a whole separate arena like this that's just fire. That's totally possible, and obviously we can do that, but are you okay taking a break and having the Chief of Police on this subject? Yeah. Do you want to take a break first? No, no, I mean to pause. No, you come, you come.

I am doing that, and so I want to make sure that's... No, I think we need to. We need to. All

right. Well, thank you guys for having me. I think I've been talking a while. Unfortunately, Assistant Fire Marshal Mike Orford had a family emergency, so I have two prevention officers here with me that showed up to kind of support me. But he gave us some pretty good bullet points, and just listening to the conversation, I was thinking of a few things. So, just, these are factual things, but... In November 2025, there was an oak tree that had poor health in King Gillette Ranch outside of Calabasas that fell and killed an eight-year-old child. And so as we're looking at some of these ordinance, I do think that something should be in there that relates to how we check the health of the trees and make sure that they are—you guys aren't going to be liable for anything that happens.

There's a giant lawsuit that's occurring right now in King Gillette Ranch with this tree and some documentation that it was an unhealthy tree. And even at Fire Station 21, we have a giant ...on our oak tree in the back that keeps it from going on the roof.

I could just jump in real quick on that topic. One, you know, definitionally, I know we have a problem with the current ordinance, but there is an ISA rating. An arborist can do a hazardous tree assessment. It's also a little bit subjective, but at least you have something where somebody has looked at it. Sometimes they have to do drilling. Sometimes they have to do assessments of the roots. But something like that might help us in that area. Sorry, Chief. Thank you.

Believe me, trees are important, but when we look at trees from the public safety fire perspective, there's a couple things we look at. Surface, ladder, and crown fuel. And so, it's the maintenance of what, the leaf litters, the brush around the trees, does that brush allow any embers to go, like we call ladder fuel, so lower branches and then get in the crowns. I wrote that down, continuing density, so when I was sitting between the prevention officers, the continuities, Thank you very much.

Some of the stuff that Mike suggested we talk about is, one, just making sure once this is all accomplished and we're done with these meetings that there's maybe a better FAQ sheet on the Ojai website related to bullet points on tree ordinances and fire safety and what's expected and what's going to be part of permitting.

That's a goal, for sure.

I'm very interested in working with the Fire Department on that, as long as we work hand-in-hand. And the Resource Management Agency has some of that stuff, you know, FAQs on the county website. And even looking at some of the things that they're doing right now when it's related to fire clearance is removing, like, the permit and the fee cost. Maybe not remove the permit, so it still allows Lucas to have eyes on stuff, and maybe the fees, if it's related to fire safety, would be something that the City of Ojai would be interested in. You know, looking at Ordinance 411-04A2 and B3.

But here's some of the big things for the Fire Hazard Reduction Program. So all trees within 100 feet of structure shall be limbed up 6 feet or 1 third of the height of wherever, whichever is less. That's already in the FHRP policy, which is being implemented with anybody in the WUI or 100 feet of So all trees within 100 feet of the structure shall be limbed up six feet or a third of the height, whichever is less. And so when we talk about, again, surface ladder crowns, it's removing, we call it lollipopping. It's getting rid of that stuff that's going to allow any ground fire to get into the crowns of the trees.

All tree branches should be trimmed back three feet from the roof and the eaves. That already exists, but if you think about what's in the ordinance for four-inch diameter, you might have to go get a permit and pay for fees to get that fire safety stuff done around your house. Now we're looking at the Zone Zero stuff that we're talking about that just came out.