Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Good evening. I am calling the meeting of the Planning Commission of July 15, 2026 to order. Could we have a roll call please, Ida?

I see none.

Do we need a vote on that? Do we have to have a motion and approval, or can we just accept it?

We can just accept it.

Thank you. Public communications. I don't see any cards for public communications Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Is there anyone online, Ida?

No.

OK, then we will move on to the consent calendar. We have the minutes of the July 1 commission meeting. Are there any corrections or changes? Hearing none, could I have a motion please?

Make a motion to accept the minutes

I'll second.

Thank you. Roll call, Ida?

Murphy?

I'm sorry?

Murphy? Yes. Chesley?

Yes.

Reischmitt?

Wait, abstain right because I wasn't here. Abstain.

Reischmitt? Yes Hanson? Hanson. Yes. Stewart?

Yes

OK. Disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts. Brad?

Yes, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Blatz, the attorney who I understand is representing Krotona Institute, which I've spoken with Lucas and Mr. Cardenas about. But brief conversation with Mr. Blatz.

I briefly visited the site.

Katrina? I did not go out to Krotona, but I did go to item number three, the Ventura LLC.

Same with me.

And the same with me. Okay, moving on we will open. The appeal of director decision regarding penalties imposed by the community development director for removing a protected oak without permission. Property owner is Krotona Institute of Theosophy. Is there a staff report on this item?

Yes, thank you Chair and Commissioners. Again this is in a repeat to what you just said that this is an appeal of a director decision regarding penalties imposed by the Community Development Director pursuant to Code Section 4-11.13 which is enforcement Thank you, Mr. Chair. So pursuant to Code Section 411.04, when permits are required the municipal code requires a permit for removal of a protected tree and the approval process is through the director of consideration of a tree permit application, which also requires the submittal of an arborist report. So the applicant in this case is the arborist and he submitted an application with the arborist report requesting approval to remove a protected tree. The arborist included that the tree had a history of limb failure, was in an advanced state of physiological decline and acute structural instability.

Its biological vigor was extremely poor and so on. Just so you know the report is in your packet. The resulting conclusion was that to ensure the safety of nearby residents prevent damage to utility lines and to protect adjacent structures The recommendation was that the tree be removed and that was the only definitive means of eliminating the risk of future failure.

Along with a site visit conducted by staff, it's the department's policy to obtain a peer review when there is a tree permit application requesting removal of a protected tree. So a peer review of the tree and arborist report was solicited by staff. However, the arborist that was solicited to do the report or to do the peer review was not able to evaluate the actual tree as it had been removed when he went out to the site.

The arborist was able however to review the application, the initial arborists report and photographs of the tree before its removal. The arborist conducting the peer review concluded that the tree did not need to be removed and that additional pruning may have been possible, um, to enhance the safety of the tree. A letter including penalty pursuant to 41113 enforcement of the municipal code for tree removal without benefit of permit was mailed to the applicant including that any person who cuts damages or removes a tree in violation of the terms of this chapter is responsible for property restitution and may be required to do any or all of the following.

One, replace the protected tree by the donation of or by replanting two or more of such trees of reasonably equivalent size and value to the tree damaged or removed. The number in size and location of this said equivalent replacement would be determined by the director And number two is pay double the customary tree permit application fee and provide for replacement of the tree that was removed in the amount that is double the value using the appraisal standards of the ISA or other method of valuation acceptable to the director.

So, in this case, the tree permit application is $225, so that would be times two. Reimbursement for the lost valuation of the tree removed by providing payment double the trees ISA appraised value per the harvest report would be 28,412 times 2, 56,824. The letter that was sent to the applicant included numbers one and two. I just want to make sure you're aware of that, where it says that the director can do any or all of the following. It was all. So it was replace the protected tree by donation and then also the fees that I just mentioned.

So pursuant to section 411.7, the appeal process of the code, there's an appeal process that allows any aggrieved party to file an appeal of a director's decision including imposing of the penalty fees. The Planning Commission considers each appeal on its individual merits considering the unique circumstances of the site, the arborist report and the intent of the ordinance.

The appellant and initial arborist have provided justification, which is in your packets. They've documented the chain of events and their stance regarding the proportionality of penalty along with a proposed mitigation alternative, and these are included in your packet. Affirming the Director's decision reinforces the City's commitment to protecting its urban tree canopy and ensuring fair, consistent enforcement of local regulations. This outcome also provides future applicants with clear guidance on the evidentiary standards required to qualify for mitigation exemptions.

Please note that the evidence that's provided in the peer review did not substantiate poor health and reason for removal, nor did staff have an opportunity to inspect the tree. Therefore, the director determined that the penalties detailed in this report are applicable and the exemption which is the basis for the appellant's filed appeal is not applicable. Staff recommends that the Commission continue with conducting the public hearing, receive public testimony, consider the appellant's justification for appeal and adopt a resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to require the penalties specified in the report or alternatively make a motion and vote to revise the penalty and direct staff to return with a revised resolution at a later hearing.

We do have the applicant here, and if you have any questions of me before addressing them.

Apparently not. I

saw a hand. Did you want to go now?

I'll do the same actually. Let's hear from the applicant then.

If I may, I understand. I thought the applicant was actually Kriptonian. It may have been Mr. Millet. I'm Ryan Blads. I am an attorney here in Ojai and a former council member who used to sit at that desk right over there. I am going to go ahead and just start this process a little bit to give you guys an overview and I may clean up some stuff later on if you need me to but also there's a number of the parties involved who are going to have an opportunity to speak and they're free to answer any questions as well. We want to make sure this is transparent and open and clear about what happened because Because there's some context to this that definitely needs to be understood, to know what was going on. First of all, Krotona is a very well-known institution in Ojai and they're very well known great land stewards of the land they have.

They own a very large swath of land in that same area where we're talking about as kind of the front corner where there's some housing. The attempt to take this tree down that there appears to be some contact, they did not try and do anything that was not completely aborbed and did not authorize a tree to be removed without permission. What happened is the permit application was put in, the arborist report was put in And they were communicating with the city waiting to hear back on what was going to happen next. At some point in that process, the contractor Carlos with Tri-Valley who was hired to remove the tree had contacted Mr. Mellet who was the arborist who had done the report and signals got crossed and then somewhere in that communication it came across to Carlos that the permit had been approved and he could go ahead and start the work That was unbeknownst to anybody else.

So nobody authorized him to start it, they didn't know he was going to and Crotona never had any idea. It was only a few days later that they found out the tree had actually been removed so there's a very good faith aspect to this that Krotona was maintaining the entire time and they didn't jump the gun Unfortunately, I have no better way to describe it than signals got crossed and the tree remover thought that the permit was in place and good faith moved forward thinking that he had the authority to go ahead and do that. And later it's been determined that that permit had not been approved as of yet subsequent to that.

The city sends out Mr. Janskow, and he doesn't have an opportunity to review the tree at that point. But his report from that appearance is very short. He essentially starts, and one thing that was missing in the summary you received is he indicates the tree's not there but he immediately makes an accusation that it was probable that another tree was also removed. There's no pictures or other evidence to support this second tree removal, but there is some comments about red bark being on the ground to the west of where the original tree was. You can see this in his report. It's one page and it's only a few lines where he really does any analysis about the tree. Subsequently says I looked at some pictures and pruning could have done it, the tree didn't need to be removed.

Mr. Mella did a very complete and thorough inspection and report of the tree, and it was in very poor condition. We respectfully decline Mr. Scowl's report, and it is absolutely unequivocally denied and not true that there was a second tree that was removed. It makes no sense in the first place that Krotona would be getting an arborist report and a permit for one tree thinking they were secretly going to take out the next tree anyway that's just not what occurred. What did occur is after the first tree was removed it had been chopped and where the wood chipper had spit the red chips out which is a picture that is included and I don't know if you guys have received this and I'm apologize because I got in this late but in Elena who's gonna speak who works for Krotona she has a picture of the actual red bark and you can tell It's not, you can't really tell where the old tree was but long and short of it is that's where they put it in the wood chipper.

The wood chippers spit them out and on the other side of the road somehow Mr. Scowl believed that that was evidence to support a second tree being removed but that never occurred what it looks like is upon his inspection and seeing the trees not there and then jumping to a conclusion that a second tree had been removed that his impression of the situation was already tainted and that he did not seem supportive of doing a thorough analysis of what he could With the respect being shown that yes, the tree could not be there to be reviewed anymore. But his very short very minimal analysis is contradictory to the very thorough and extensive analysis that Mr. Mellet did who's also a well-known arborist and has a very great reputation in the city of Ojai as well.

So we want to make sure that mistake happened but the conclusion that occurred after it and the accusation of a second tree don't seemingly fit the $57,000 penalty that's here. And it's still unclear after a conversation earlier about whether that's the limit on the fine or they were looking at another tree and that would be doubled. That was confusing as well. We are asking for the commission to overturn the determination from what the planning director did and look at this as a viable PERT permit that should have been approved pursuant to a solid arborist report.

and pay the fine, and really nothing else should be done after that. But I've spoken to Krotona and other mitigation efforts if they needed to provide them they'd be willing to consider that whether we can figure that out today or that's something that would require a subsequent meeting with staff or to come up with a solution of planting some saplings and seeing them through maturity. They're willing to do things like that but a $57,000 fine in relationship to this one is punishing the innocent party because Crotona had no intent, they did absolutely nothing wrong. They unfortunately were the victims of somebody misinterpreting what it meant to have a permit that had been approved and was ready to go.

And there's clearly no evidence to support a real conclusion that there was a second tree that was removed, and it just didn't exist. So the The the actual report when you dig into Mr. Miller's report, there's a number of very concerning things. There's wires running through the tree. The tree overhangs an area where children are playing it's very diseased. You can see in the pictures that are included their bark missing I've done a lot of these tree situations and Ojai and I'm not an arborist but my layman's opinion is that That tree did not look like it was in very good shape and it was a danger. This is somebody who's also had two city tree limbs fall on my house before so I'm always a little more skeptical but they do fall down, they do cause problems and it is very dangerous.

Once the Krotona had a report from their arborist saying this tree's a danger They were antsy to get a permit done because they were concerned about liability and what could possibly happen if something happened between them knowing it's an issue, and the families that live there who are very concerned about it. But they never ever wanted to move forward or intended to move forward without a permit being processed and approved, and they were under the complete belief that their arborist report And that his determination was more than sufficient, that the permit would ultimately be approved. They were just waiting and patiently waiting and contacting the city and following up. The timeline on all this isn't very much. The permit application went in on April 8th and it was May 7th by the time when Mr.

Scout came out. It was only, we're not I don't know the exact date of when the tree was actually removed but it was not that much before that. But it wasn't immediately after the permit was pulled it was after the city had requested additional information and that was I believe when Carlos had communicated back with Mr. Mellot's office or whatever that Crossing the wires, signals got crossed part happened was something that oh they just got like the final information they needed so they could do whatever's next. That to him sounded like the permit had been approved. So the context of all this is important because to Krotona who's a non-profit religious organization that's been organized in Ohio for over 100 years does not have the financial capability to take a hit for $60,000.

It's not realistic it's going to really send them in a tailspin but that being said they have a lot of land and they're willing to try and do something to fix this problem while they're also willing to say look we understand that things got screwed up and the permit wasn't done yet but we did not know anything about this and we definitely didn't intend to do this and the last thing we'd want to do is try and Get a city tree removed without all the proper permissions because Krotona as many of us know are not stupid. They know how the city is about trees, the last thing they wanted to do was cause any problems and had they been aware that Carlos was going to come out and take that tree out and the permit wasn't ready, they would have jumped in front of it and stopped it in a second had they known.

So that's the current situation we're at. We're open to ideas on how to fix this but we want to make it very clear, we believe Mr. Mellot's report should stand on its own as a solid absolutely correct indication of the tree needed to be removed they went through the proper permitting process they were not trying to jump the gun signals got crossed and Unfortunately what is not their fault, they are now dealing with the responsibility of. But as you know the fine associated with this is very extensive so we're hopeful that we can find a solution that works for everybody but isn't as punishing as would be the same penalty had they done it in the darkness of night and pretended not to tell anybody. That should not be handled the same way as somebody who is in good faith in the middle of a process and in good faith Their arborist and their contractor believed he was able and legally able to take the tree out.

With that, I'll leave it to the rest of our guests unless there are any questions.

Thank you Mr. Blatz. Does that conclude?

Good evening. I'm Bill Mellott. I am the arborist who wrote the report I'd just like to give you a little timeline on what happened with this situation. I was contacted by Carlos Garcia, the tree service, Tri-Valley Tree Service because he wanted to get a permit to remove or evaluate a tree on the Krotona property so he contacted me. I came out. I did my observation of the tree Did a full report on it. The tree, in my opinion, was a hazardous tree. It had multiple previous branch failures, large ones. In fact, in one of those photos you can see a large branch in the top of the tree sitting there waiting to fall off.

The property owners came to me and said they were concerned about the tree that young children played in that area and there were small bikes and stuff around there So I did my report and submitted it to the city on April 7th. On April 8th, I followed up with the contractor and told him the permit had been submitted and currently was being processed. On April 21st we reached out to the planning department to request status of the processing and heard back from them on the 30th, where they requested the precise location of the tree. So they hadn't went out and looked at it yet. That's over two weeks, almost three weeks later. May 1st, two days later, we gave them the location of the tree. And then on May 4th, the planning staff transmitted a written confirmation acknowledging the receipt of the localization data Then on May 20th, we reached out to the city again requesting the status of the permit.

On that day they got back to us with a written response saying that the applicant was in violation and would be issued premature tree removal. So there was a long time frame there. And during that period, Carlos reached out to us numerous times saying is that permit approved yet? And then this is where the unfortunate part came in. He reached out to my office staff and said was the permit approved? And they said no but the application has been submitted.

Somehow he thought she said yes. He said, can I come over and get it? She gave him the application. He thought that was the permit. And he proceeded to cut the tree down. There was a communication thing there, his English skills are not as well unfortunately. That's where the real problem came from that transfer of the application in him thinking that was the approved permit he went out and cut the tree down then he called me back I got this I said hey you cut that tree down Without the permit, he said no I had the permit. I said that wasn't the permit, that was the application and I said well we can come out and determine from looking at the trunk that the tree was in bad condition. Unfortunately they grinded the trunk so there was no evidence left for Jan Scow or anyone to look at At least have some idea of what that tree looked like, except from my report in the photos.

So that's kind of the timeline of everything and what happened. I think it's unfortunate. The applicant was everybody was just waiting for that permit and it was just a misunderstanding that it got cut down.

Thank you Mr. Malik. Do you have any questions for the arborist? Yes.

In your evaluation or valuation Can you explain how that's done and Because in my mind it seems like a hazardous tree would have zero value So looking at attachment B 7 of 7 is your valuation. Can you explain how that's done? And why it wouldn't be 0 if it was hazardous

so Sometimes, that's a great question. That we value the tree kind of there's a formula that we just plug the numbers into and give it a percentage rating on all these things and the size and the condition and location and it comes out but yes the tree really does have Very minimal value going forward. And just to let you know, I write hundreds of reports a year and I've written thousands of reports over the years. I've been in this business for a long time so I'm very confident that tree was in decline and not a realistic tree to save unfortunately. I'm in the business of saving trees when we can we do

OK, so when you say like I'm just curious because it's a big number.

The values always come out really high on those. It's just unfortunately that I don't really agree with the way that ISA form works but that's what we're given and that's what we have to.

So for condition rating for health you said 40%. You gave it a number, and that was just your discretion.

Right.

You could have said 20. I could

have said 20, yes.

Could have said 0%. OK. But you thought maybe there's some life in it or?

Yeah, there is some life in it.

All right. I'm just trying to clarify how that's done.

Thank you. I have a quick question with what happens? I've been around in some areas where the hazard is so great, you have to rope off the area and so forth.

Yes.

And generally safety issues trump Anything in public sphere. So what does it take if you really find a dangerous situation, you know for it to take urgent action?

Sometimes if I feel that the tree is imminent danger of falling over like if it's the middle of the winter and I'm seeing evidence we'll go to the city County wherever and let them know that we think this tree needs immediate attention And sometimes a hazard tree, we don't know when they're going to fall over. They could fall over that day. They could fall over a year from now. But in my opinion it's going to fail in some short-term thing or shed a branch. This one had a history of shedding branches.

Were there power lines involved? Or is it mostly just height? So power lines themselves were involved with this. That seemed to indicate a significant

risk. When

did the Tri-Valley Tree Service, do you know when they collected what they thought the submission which they thought was the permit from your

office? I believe that was somewhere around, I don't have the exact date but I think it was somewhere around the 15th of May or something like that.

Okay and then just to follow up on on that there's no like there isn't necessarily a formal process to submit for a tree that you know is in a quite dire or like emergency kind of status it's more just like you try to go to them directly and be like hey guys we got to really watch out but there isn't Is there a protocol that you've ever known about to submit

for that? If I may, and I was thinking about this with Commissioner Hanson's remarks. There is a provision in the municipal code for urgent circumstances that describes process to follow. It's in subsection 11.10 in that chapter.

Are you aware of that subsection?

I'm not off the top of my head. We've just, if I felt it was necessary we'd just take it right to them right away. I mean we submit as quick as we can but we let them know.

Do you regard it now as a situation that was an emergency?

All hazard trees are an emergency, but the time frame again is it's really hard to say.

At what point would you go to this other process to deal with an emergency?

If I thought it was going to be a whole tree failure if I saw that there was lifting of the root system or something like that or if there was a branch that was Had a crack in it that looked imminent, and or weather was on the way. But I knew it was going to trigger something like that failure. Those are things.

This situation didn't spark that concern? No. OK. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Mellon?

Yes, I think maybe just to like, I think maybe what Katrina's question was about. So it's not your assessment necessarily that the tree was going to fall down tomorrow but it was definitely a tree that was in decline and was based on this context, the electric lines being near homes, that it was more advisable to remove it than for it to remain.

There was no alternate really viable means of saving that tree. It's what you would call it in a decline spiral, not likely to recover, likely to cause damage or harm to somebody, more likely to do that than not.

Right. OK.

Yeah. Is there any other person from Krotona that needs to speak? Yes.

Yeah, and I have a few questions if no one else wants to come up.

I may have to remove the box. It's too short and you won't see me. Good evening commissioners and city staff.

Could you please give us your name? My

name is Elena

Delval Santos.

Yes, okay. I am the resident head of Krotona and I don't know is there a time limit for me to speak? Okay because otherwise I would have my colleague read the rest of it. It's short. I shortened it. Honorable commissioners thank you for having us tonight and allowing us to give our side to show our thoughts regarding the denial of our appeal. This is, of course, difficult for us.

The removal of the tree prematurely was certainly unintentional as you already have heard. It happened without our knowledge For years the tree was dropping limbs and our residents were concerned that their children may or they themselves or cars going by could suffer from the limb failure. But we took the conservative approach, thinking that if we supported the tree with its basic needs and observe, give it a little time maybe it could still make it. You never know.

But when in the spring another large branch fell and narrowly missed the resident who was living in the house where the tree, in the lot where the tree stood. It became suddenly a serious public safety concern and a liability issue. We did not rush to take it down. We wanted to make sure we did it right and to comply with the city ordinance, we hired an arborist who submitted the report.

He paid for the permit on our behalf and we waited. We waited weeks to hear back from the city about our application. Never at any time did we suggest we should go ahead and cut it Had we intended to remove the tree without a permit, we would not have incurred the considerable expense and time of getting one. We would've just gone ahead and done it but we didn't want to do it that way. We wanted to do it the right way.

We would also like to say that we feel the penalty is very excessive for us The tree had already been deemed to be unsalvageable by a certified arborist. In fact, in such cases the Ojai Municipal Code would even allow the permit fee to be waived with no mitigation required. Of course the tree was removed and we deeply regret that the city staff could not inspect it anymore when they came.

However this occurred without our knowledge, our authorization or any intent on our part to bypass the permit requirement. I would like to call your attention to the document that I just submitted today. On page two of that document, I have photos. that I more recently received from the residents who have children nearby. They just wanted to show the kind of danger that the tree limbs falling was presenting to them. You'll see on the left a figure one, fallen branches in the middle of the street and another branch that had been pulled to the side.

There were several branch failures, some very large big limbs and some smaller ones. Smaller ones maybe not too bad but when you get a limb that's big it becomes very scary and sometimes they couldn't even move it because well the cars needed to pass but they were too heavy to be moved We had to get a tractor once to push that big branch out of the way because no one could move it.

We wanted to respond to the observations of the peer review arborist, Jan Skow. And again I would like to call your attention to page three of this document where there's another photo. Certified Arborist Melitz careful investigation revealed that pruning was no longer a viable option for the tree. He had a lot of time to study the tree. In contrast, Mr. Scow's opinion based on looking at the few photos alone and I'm very sorry he didn't have a chance to inspect the tree as extensively but he had to make an opinion based on very few photos alone And his opinion was that it may still have been possible to do further pruning to enhance the safety of the tree.

In figure two, on page three of the document in front of you, you will see the tree. It shows that there are very few limbs left on that leaning tree. The tree leans over the street and there were very few limbs left. You might even see that the limb that is most to the right, that leans most on top of the street, would have been the one likely he would want to remove. And how many branches would be left from the photo? You can see really this tree was very much deteriorated It had already been irreversibly weakened by so many lost limbs over the years and by excessive pruning, by Edison for years because of the electrical wires that were above it. So very frequently Edison will come they will start cutting and the tree gets hurt it suffers Well, Mr.

Scow admitted that there was no way for him to make a definitive assessment since the tree was gone. Understandable. However, that doesn't make his opinion carry much weight at least in our view. Mr. Scow also noted or insinuated that there was another tree that was removed He said there is probable evidence that a second oak was removed and that was an incorrect assumption.

There was no other tree that was removed. There is mulch shown on figure three on page four of your document. There is some red mulch there that is fresh which we believe is what Mr. Scow may have seen And it came from the wood chipping and shaving of the subject tree, there was no other tree. These were just residues from the removal of the first tree. You will see that it's a very tight space there. There's not even any overhead room where a large tree or another mature tree could have stood. There was no space there, so it's very unlikely that Mr. Scowl's opinion could be relied on.

Especially considering that he did not see either trees that he insinuated, well the second tree that he insinuated we removed. I would like to point to the fact that Krotona is very committed to tree preservation. We regard all of our mature trees as living treasures They are beloved elders that have watched over the property for many generations. We've been here more than 100 years. Our trees, sometimes 50 to 100 years old, suffered a lot during the drought and of course there's disease but every loss of a tree is deeply felt by our community The prohibitive cost of tree removal is another reason for our efforts at preservation.

We are a charitable, religious and educational nonprofit. We have very limited funds and so removal of any type of tree has always been avoided unless they have fallen or present a serious hazard. We take stewardship of the land seriously, in line with our philosophy of working with nature and being a sanctuary for native flora and fauna. We therefore request the commissioners for leniency.

We believe that we acted responsibly and that we are without any fault. Krotona should not have to pay the penalty for an honest misunderstanding that we had no part of. It might be also added that we never know if the longer processing time that the city now takes to act on a hazardous tree removal permit could have contributed to the confusion or misunderstanding of the tree cutter.

To summarize, for more than 100 years, Krotona has been a responsible, respectful and valued member of the community. We work diligently and at significant financial expense for a small non-profit to contribute to the beauty of Ojai by preserving and maintaining one of the largest open spaces within city limits. For the benefit of the community, our visitors, and future generations We would like to see that the city could partner with us rather than punishing us for a mistake that we did not want to happen.

Kortona therefore respectfully requests the commissioners to take into consideration all the facts in this case, absolve Krotona of any fault in this matter and exercise discretion to waive the penalty on Krotona. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you Elena. I am now going to open the public

hearing.

Can you save them for our discussion? OK. You have another person, OK.

My name is Maria Parison. I have been a resident and a volunteer worker for Krotona for 22 years, and I'm currently—and actually from the beginning—have been the secretary of our board of trustees. I appreciate the need for the opportunity Offering a little bit more context to the discussion, one of the criteria for making this judgment about our situation was our history of stewardship.

So I have just a little to contribute about that. First of all, the Krotona Institute is in full agreement with the city of Ojai's initiative for tree protection. Our mission both as a corporation and as a residential community appreciates the vision, the plan and its timely implementation. Cretona's way of life is centered in the need for harmony among ourselves and with nature.

All our relations, all our educational services reflect however imperfectly that ideal of mutual respect cooperation and collaboration. Wise stewardship requires no less Crotona has for decades regularly consulted with arborists. Many of our trees were planted over 50, some over 100 years ago or they were allowed to grow naturally too near residences and campus buildings.

Disease, drought Electric lines and underground obstacles have made survival difficult across our 115 acres for many trees, but especially for the oaks. We're learning, trying to apply best practices for sustainability. Grotona's land supports a wide range of wildlife and is an important corridor for their movement. We've been in conversation with the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy about establishing a substantial conservation easement.

They have also officially recognized Krotona for integrating native plantings into our public gardens, and we've called on them regularly for help with ferner planting. Two local and regional companies also working with non-profits have helped us with these projects. Land contouring has already also begun to increase rainwater catchment, nourishing nearby trees while also helping us to conserve groundwater.

Several months ago, Chan Skow helped with the evaluation of over a dozen trees we had concerns about during preparation for the summer fire season. We followed through on all his suggestions, recommended pruning, preventative pruning. The Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council has identified and mapped priority trees for removal. We've supported the 2027 grant applications also of others who we hope can help nonprofits with affordable assistance.

One aspect of the city's response to this Oaks removal before permit approval concerned me An important element of the permitting process for tree removal is the city staff site visit. Staff provide, according to your documents, provide the city with a layman's view to supplement the arborist's findings and recommendations. In this case Despite the concern for safety clearly conveyed in Bill Millett's report, weeks went by without a staff site visit.

In fact it was never scheduled at least to our knowledge. Instead after a lengthy delay without any contact of Crotona from the city Arborist Jan Ska was called in for another opinion his view Minimizing any safety risk was quoted as most significant in the conclusion of the administrative report. The misunderstanding leading to the removal of a dying tree before permitting is, of course, unfortunate but the penalty proposed for removal is questionable perhaps unwarranted The financial penalty of imposed will seriously delay Cretona's efforts to provide the support we need for the overall health and safety of the diverse trees and the greater oak woodland under our care.

We ask the Commission respectively, respectfully, to accept our appeal for exemption. Thank you.

Is there anyone else from Krotona that wants to speak? Okay.

Hello, my name is Liz. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I'm a resident at Krotona and my mother has been a resident there for 22 years and is who was living in the home with a tree growing in front of her home. And I wrote a whole thing that mostly was covered, so she happened to be walking under that tree just moments, just minutes before that huge branch fell and it was enough to crush a car. So she Terribly frightened by that and my children who live right near that tree also constantly pass under and all the elders who are always driving underneath.

I love that tree. My mom's lived there since I was a teenager, and of course we wanted to save it so it wasn't something that any of us would have chosen to pursue unless there was serious danger to our residents. So I just wanted to speak to that. Thank you.

I think we've got everyone right. OK at this time I'm going to open the public hearing and the first card is from Bill Miley.

Hello. I want to support the appellant in their request for a reversal of the Planning Director's verdict of guilty, of removing an oak tree without a permit. Here is my thinking. I used the dates for this presentation that I got from Mr. Mellon. There appears to be good intent by Krotona on doing the proper city ordinance procedures There could be a critical question about response time by city staff concerning the urgency of the matter.