City Council - Special Meeting

Welcome to the Thursday, May 28th special meeting of the Ojai City Council.

Roll call, please, Mr. Montgomery. Mayor Gilman. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Meng.

Here.

Council Member Rule.

Here.

Council Member Lange is absent. Council Member Whitman. Here.

Thank you. And would you lead us in the pledge, please? Yes.

Welcome all. Please rise. Ready to begin.

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, so we can have an efficient conversation. All right, let's move to the staff report.

Before you 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, 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. Thanks.

So with that, I'll ask James to pull up the slide deck. 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. Support. 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 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 the 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 numbers. 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 gonna have photographs and it's gonna 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 it, these applications, we have a 30-day review period for any applications that come into the city for review for 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 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 breath 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 the 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? Can I just ask, what was the unusual ? 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.

Thank you.

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 Arbus 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 is someone that takes objection to that, there is a 10-day appeal period. The same thing is true if the director denies a true 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 firsthand 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 gonna 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 two trees that are 24 inch box which is a really it's a really small kind of immature tree instead it's saying geez you need what you really need to do is to replace a like for like scenario where you're losing this much of a diameter of a tree you need to replace that in in kind so it's it's less on the number of trees and it's more on the size of the tree per se

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 sort of the code as it exists. We had a lot of suggested edits, this kind of red line version. This looks like some kind of hybrid between the two. In other words, I see some edits are included here some aren't included here not to say they had to be i'm just asking because the diameter part you just talked about i see that that detail in here so what we have here is Tell me if I'm wrong. Is this what you are proposing right now for a conversation that is modified somewhat from the current?

No modification. No modification. This is as is. As is. Perfect. Okay. Great. Thank you. Existing.

Existing.

This is what exists right now. Great. Yeah, this is boots in the street what we're doing right now. Thank you for that. And just to, 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 is that in that conversation, we were also going to get into the meat and potatoes of 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 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 is 225 so you're looking at something that gets it 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 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 replace 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 a menu of options. And then from there, I'm working with staff to sort through what's the best option, given the situation that 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. Processing timelines, as I had said previously, is 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 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 had 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 arborist 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.

Can I just, on that one subject, this is on page 10 of the report here, but it's 4-11-063. 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?

It doesn't... 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 arborists 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. They just... In other words, as Ben pointed out, dueling arborists could also happen in this situation. OK.

Right. And I wouldn't say that each of the tree reports that we have come in, I'm immediately looking at that 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 at that point But I'm not necessarily trying to influence them. I'm saying look at look at it from the standpoint of the tree Don't look at it from from the city's perspective everything the applicants perspective look at it independently Are you looking at you yourself looking at every?

that comes in like that?

For every tree?

Well, that seems impossible, but is that true?

At the end of the day, yes. Okay. Yes, because, yeah, well, I'm charged with doing it. Yes, okay. So 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, these are parameters that we can, 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. I see. And I'm like, well, do we have the conversation of them of us recommending that they do it? We can't require it. So that conversation, you know, five, seven years ago was, Oh sure. Where do you want us to put it? Help us figure out where to, 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, you know, talks about our tree canopy. Can Measure C money be used for enforcement programs as opposed to just capital programs?

I might, you know, I'm not an attorney, but you know, when I read the ballot language, it says code, 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 gonna be times when we can't make sure that, Oh, Yes, those two trees have been planted. There they are. We see them. Okay, great.

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 staff arborists. 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 architects, et cetera.

So we should reconstitute that, actually. But I'm also speaking specifically of just reviewing permits. I was envisioning possibly having 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.

Yeah, 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... But 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. I totally agree with that. 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 I can, are we still going through your? I think I've only got one more slide left.

Yeah, go through and then we'll do some questions and then go to the public, yeah.

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 required and what you know what the rules are but then also to hear and understand what the federal requirements are for checking for birds nests because it's very real you're you're not supposed to if you can avoid tree trimming during the springtime period which is roughly from February through July and give or give or take a little bit you're supposed to avoid that if you can because that's when birds are having nests and babies and so on and so forth Bird's 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. 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 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 you, 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, 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 the balance that we have to strike is you do have a lot of folks with fear 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, OK, 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 really probably more qualified to, to sort through that.

But I would say you don't have to be a biologist.

Well, yeah, the naked eye could 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. One. Anybody. 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 it won't exist, and so therefore, they're not going to submit a permit. Well, that's what they would say.

Maybe.

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

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. That was my question. Yeah, but it's any bird's nest.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, very good question. Thank you.

And 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 us and say, what the hell are we doing?

That's in the current environment, 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 it's 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 there. 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 are doing that type of work in Ohio, 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 when I first got here, there were several that we stopped 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 LA. 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.

I was going to say it relates to the increased code enforcement just on things like blowers and gas-powered tools on the weekends, right? It's the same principle. Right. And related not not in trees, but in water like aqua flow complained, many of the people that are coming there or that are part of this they're not getting any work done there it's all coming from inside and so yeah we have this importation yeah. 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 gonna 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 are 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 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 i i don't know it's going to take us to it 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 i what do we we imagine please yeah i'm glad thank you chief um 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

If you, are you okay taking a break and having the Chief of Police on this subject? Absolutely. You want to take a break first? No, no, I mean, to pause. No, you come, you come. You're just hearing from me.

I am doing that, and so I want to make sure that's okay. 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. So, unfortunately, Assistant Fire Marshal Mike Warford 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 port beam on our oak tree in the back that keeps it from going on the road.

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, and 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.

And I just, again, public safety, just kind of, 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 is it 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 was wrote that's down continuing density so when i was sitting between the prevention officers the continuities strong right if i move sneeze whatever it's going to bump those guys but the less density you have between the trees which takes away your shade and your privacy is going to allow for embers not to go crown to crown to crown that kind of makes sense as we're thinking about fire safety it's not removing the tree completely it's removing that density so there's a little bit more room so it's not going house to house or tree to tree 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 OHI website related to like 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 Ohio would be interested in. You know, looking at ordinance 411-04 A2 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 six feet or one 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 structure.

Just say that one more time, just slower, one more time.

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. It's not going to require you within five feet to take your trees out, but they are talking about maybe moving that three feet to five to ten feet from the rough line. And so there could be a change with that. As it stands right now, it's three feet. It could get extended more five to ten feet. Remove all tree litter and eels from the roof and gutters. That's a common practice that should be happening. It's just maintenance of your trees, making sure the embers won't catch in there. All trees hanging over roadways and driveways shall have a minimum of three feet, six inches vertical clearance for fire engine access.

That's a common thing that we kind of find is an issue sometimes based on the tree maintenance.

And so, honestly, some of the firefighters, when they're doing their inspections, will trim those trees automatically just to make sure the fire engine can get in there. We're not ripping off light bars and any of the equipment on the fire trucks.

All trees along fire access roads should be limbed up off the ground and shall not impede the width of the road.

That's another thing, 10 feet from each side is what we require for FHRP. All trees should have any deadwood or branches removed within 100 feet of the 100-foot zone. And so no different than weed whipping your grass, as we call it, the rake and remove. It's still fuel that you're leaving there, even though it's not four feet high. It's four feet on the ground. So that's density. We call it duff. It's all that stuff that's going to continue to help fire growth. Some of the misconceptions that he highlighted in red was zone zero will not require the removal of trees within five feet of structures. So that is false. That's not happening. The current FHRP program requires removal of trees due to size. That is false as well. The FHRP program requires removal of certain hazardous trees. That is also a fault. So those can be sent to us as a hazard tree, and then we can send it to the city for an appraisal or a look at, but we does not require them to remove the hazard tree if it's within the FHRP zone.

This is good information.

Yeah. And I can share this with Ben so he can see all the bullet points. But I think when we just kind of go back to the totality of public safety, whether it's the health of the tree, it's the surface ladder crown fuel, it's the density, it's the continuity of trees, so how many trees are in a row. And then in between those trees, what the density look like when you just do a simple example. If this was an ember and I was sitting right there, it's going to land in my lap. If I'm not sitting there, it might land in something that's not going to be flammable and get caught. Does that make sense?

Any questions? Because the county, we know we heard them having some deliberations about pushing back on the state zone zero requests and all that kind of stuff. So the impression that I was having was it felt like it was in flux a little. So when people were coming to me personally and saying, am I supposed to cut down all the trees that are next to my house, I always said, don't do anything yet.

And even when the zone zero goes into effect, we were already told, that is not, it's a false advertisement that's going on. Your tree does not have to be removed. You will have to meet some of these parameters of whether it's three, five, ten feet away from the roof lines, whether the height of it, you're limbing it up, but not taking the complete tree down. I understand. Please. Yeah.

I'm a wildfire inspector. I'm going to do wildfire protection. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Like Chief just said, if the all-new construction has to comply, plants The tough part's gonna be the existing homes throughout the county. The tough part's gonna be the existing homes throughout the county and enforcing zone zero when it's finally set in stone. Right now, it's being watered down just a little bit. So like Chief said, three feet from a roof or an eave projection is the number. It may go to five feet. Ten feet is from a chimney or a stovepipe. That's already set in stone also. Nothing's going to happen overnight when Zone Zero gets put into place because it's going to be about a three-year phase-out. So we do have some time to work with our residents. 2029 is going to be the time when we would hope for full compliance, if that's even possible. Right. And that's the small stuff, the branches, the vents, the screens, et cetera. The larger stuff, gates, fences, decks, pergolas, et cetera, that's a five-year phase-out. That's going to be more costly, especially for HOA properties. They have a budget they need to work on. Yeah. There's a lot of pushback now because of that. They want to know what to present and what to say. We don't have a solid answer. So hopefully by the end of July, the Board of Forestry, hopefully we'll get some more information over to us.

Yes, please.

So right now, FIRE is going out and doing the weed evasion stuff right now. When you're going out there, are you also having that conversation in terms of the Zone Zero stuff for those that you're trying to get those properties that are out of compliance getting into compliance?

Yeah, absolutely. During our fire hazard reduction program, which starts Monday, June 1st, we'll be sweeping the county. We'll meet with homeowners if they're out, you know, meeting us in the driveway or stopping our trucks, driving by. And like you said, it's a big deal. They think we're there to tell them to remove their trees, but it's more of a create that defensible space, trim back the branches, get all the dead and dying stuff out of the way in the immediate five-foot zone. And we're there to work with them. If they need an extension, we're there for them. But zone zero, that's a three-year phase out, not in place yet. So when they hear that, it calms them down a bit.

Just to add on to that conversation, for a number of years, we had been working kind of in partnership, kind of behind the scenes, sending out letters as well. This last year, it was kind of advised for us to kind of take a step back so that you could work to educate not only the residents that were doing the weed abatement, but also you were kind of doing a dual purpose of educating them on the weed. on the zone zero stuff as well. So we've kind of taken a step back in terms of sending our letters out because it was, I think it was confusing the conversation.

As far as, say that one more time.

We were, we mean the city, we're sending out letters to the individuals that we had cited or identified that had basically tall weeds. We were typically hitting the vacant properties throughout the city.

I understand. So essentially you were sending your own fire hazard reduction notice.

Yeah, we were basically taking your letter and modifying it slightly and then sending it out.

So that confused some of the residents.

It was confusing the community is what we kept finding.

We'll continue to educate and enforce while we're out there.

So you're not aware that we were sending a letter? I don't know who I was talking to before, but... Mike Warford, I believe, brought it up.

He's our assistant fire marshal. Yeah, I just...

I wanted clarification. To follow up on something that... Oh, sorry, Chief.

No, go ahead. That notice comes, and the first place to go to is the fire station. And they go, what is this? And if it's not within our FHRP... And it says the city of Ojai. They're like, why is the city of Ojai? But they're probably saying this is the fire department. So that's probably where the confusion and... Yeah.

My question is following up on what I thought Ms. Rule was saying is, are you seeing cities, if they're working on a tree ordinance in general, not related just to fire, but everything we're talking about tonight, are they writing it with adapting these rules? Are you seeing that? Because that's what I'm hearing as a proposal here, our possibility tonight is, would we include these parameters in our general tree ordinance now?

What I've experienced is they just send them our way. Okay. If those questions come across the front counter, building and safety, planning department, they'll email fire. I see.

Okay. You guys get to be the bad guys. Yes, sir.

Okay, I think that's sort of a discussion to have, how much the city takes responsibility for that. Because for you guys, I assume it's somewhat reactive. In other words, not reactive, but people have to come to you, as opposed to trying to get the population to understand all of the ramifications around fire hardening, of which this is one. So I think we can have a discussion about that. I did just want to read something that the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection put out about their April 12th meeting, where the pushback seems to be working in that they describe, as they're working through this, a flexible approach that empowers homeowners and local governments to take action with the phased-in implementation program. But as you've pointed out, it's not, as we've heard, trees gotta come down, this kind of thing. It really is about maintenance, And so I was somewhat heartened to hear that, that they understand the one fits all approach. And it may not be absolutely necessary if you have these guidelines that are broader.

Yeah, the way you described it tonight is that would be much more possible for a homeowner to want to do. Yeah.

But I think the education part's important, too. If it's a cypress tree or a pine tree and it's more flammable, if they have the opportunity to get rid of that tree or limit up significantly, it's going to help protect their house because we know those things are ember catchers, for sure.

I can't imagine that this idea around trees and fire isn't a primary thing that the public needs to understand and come to grips with themselves about... You know what they're willing to do for their you know with their very beloved trees I think that's something that every homeowner has to grapple with and and really come to a conclusion You know and and so the city I think has a I don't look at it as the fire department's obligation to you know put this idea out in the city of Ojai. I look at it as the city's obligation in a way to ask people to deal with that question.

Understood. So I have a kind of a basic question along that defensible space and the three or five foot zone because I have a lot of And they will grow close to the eaves of the house. But it's all the stuff that I have been under the assumption that doesn't... I can trim that back to five feet without violating, without needing a permit because the diameter of anything that I'm cutting is less than an inch usually. I haven't looked to see this, but is our ordinance kicks in at four inches?

It's two inch in diameter.

Okay. I mean, I think...

Here it says four.

The one I was looking at here is four.

Yeah. I mean, that's what I had in my mind. But even that, that's a minority of, I think, what the typical person is going to deal with. So, you know, I think we should be able to harmonize you know, and potentially exempt zone zero requirements with, you know, with some, with some specifications so that we're not, we know we're not doing damage to the trees, but my impression, and this may just be my house and my oak trees, but There's very little of it that is like close to the eaves that would really even get to that two inch factor. And then, you know, and I've removed trees that were.

Yeah, I want to correct my statement. It is four inches. I'm seeing that in 4-11.04.

Maybe a win, and I'm just talking, would be getting rid of the fees but still allowing that permitting process so you have eyes on it and people aren't taking advantage of using the fire terminology. But I don't know what Lucas' staff is able to do all that to. But I think that's a good middle ground. Hey, we're not going to give you a fee, but you don't have to go for it. Right.

And write the rules such that you're exempt, but somehow make sure you're not using the exemption to go beyond the zero zone and do things that you should have to have a permit for.

If I might add to what you're saying. So part, I agree with what was just said that you have some exemptions there. And then on the other side, like when you talk about a Cypress, right? And you say, oh, this would, it would benefit you to remove the Cypress. But the owner will say, I don't have $10,000 to do that. So what came out in the workshop last time among the few things, one was possibly some financial assistance. We haven't figured that out yet. Is it a zero interest loan? Whatever. But we help homeowners do that who can't. and that benefits everybody, so I see that as something we're gonna have to grapple with, too, is how do we help a homeowner help themselves if they can't, and all of us.

Maybe employing the crew and nonprofits that wanna do stuff voluntarily, too, is another, especially since you guys have such an awesome group up here. No, that's true.

And we did, we also discussed potentially putting ember screens. You know, so, which is outside of, you know, a tree ordinance, but it does fit in with what can the city do to enable this, you know, I mean, the trees are one part of it, but there's other, you know, then we have to go to the fences and the decks and... And I think we have to rate...

the trees and prioritize if we've got limited funds and we prioritize the trees that are creating the most danger which You guys can, you know, weigh in on this. Certainly, cypresses are bad news. But it could be maybe there's a level of pines are pretty prevalent in Ohio. And I just assume that those are really scary. And the big palms. Yeah, they end up having just a whole bunch of dead, and especially the ones that are, you know, 40 feet up in the air, and you'd need a lift box to get up and take that stuff.

But your principle I like a lot, which is we can't do everything we want to do, so we have to figure out what's the best thing to do. I totally agree with that.

I just want to remember this has been the 100 foot zone.

Anything outside of the 100 foot zone, you know, we could leave alone.

Right. You know, potentially it's phased in. Like I don't see, I see this as multi-year, and years one and two you do this, and years three and four you try to do that.

I think we pick a number that we allocate to each year and then we prioritize, like a CIP, and we're just, as opposed to trying to do it all at once, which would be cost-prohibitive.

Although I would take it the other way. I would say we prioritize, and then we figure out how much a priority it is in the budget, and budget accordingly, rather than deciding we had a certain amount of money to spend.

I would just approach it that way, because I think it's... Should we tell Ben to... We just let them. Pencil into the budget, the idea that we're going to have a fund that is going to go towards removal of the most hazardous.

I think so. And I think it's every year, actually.

What's interesting is right now there's a placeholder. There's not a dollar amount, but there's nothing explicit for fire mitigation yet. We know that there will be. It's not there right this minute, as you know. So it's ripe for conversation there.

And I would say that as the Zone Zero implementation and all of that gets finalized and we can ask our city attorney about this, I foresee us having to abide by that, whatever that might be, because that puts us at terrible risk if we say, I mean, we can't carve out what we can't carve out, right? So that might be creative thinking from our city attorney or

So I could just jump in on that. We actually, sorry, Council Member Rule didn't step on you, but on the June 23rd meeting, and you do have a working agenda document, we do have that on the discussion section. So we're planning on having that brought before you guys.

But it feels a lot like, in some sense, you have a really robust climate tech proposal where you see all the items and it's tiered over some time. Maybe there's a priority tier.

Yeah.

This has been very useful. I wanted to mention one thing. Please go. Chief brought up the crew out of Ojai, and they're outstanding. Right.

They're always looking for work.

Yeah.

One thing I've realized when we're out doing home assessments or a simple inspection for someone as we're driving through or walking by, they say, well, I'd like to cut back my trees and rake and remove, but it's costly to go. you know, take it to the dump. They have to pay to get it dumped and it won't fit in their trash bins. So maybe, I don't know if it's already implemented, but if the city has a chipper day once a month, get a free chipper out there. People will haul their stuff out to the side of the road and you'll start clearing out the neighborhoods. It's an incentive.

Yeah, you can also do it like it. Yeah, it is. It'd be great. That's a great idea.

The crew doesn't climb trees though, unfortunately.

you know they just got started oh well then great i think they got two guys yeah yeah yeah super that's their expansion i love it yeah we do those all over the county so and coordinate one of those through okay fire safe council or the fire department oh great

So on that same general topic, I had a conversation with Carla from the chamber two or three months ago. And she said that we don't have a contractor. that will do the zero zone work. She went to all of the different tree services, said it's not lucrative enough to do that work. So we might look at, with Measure C money, again, looking at trying to stimulate some local businesses to do, some very specific Zone Zero tasks, and I thought about that, including that screen, Ember screen idea that Councilmember Rules brought up. That sounds wonderful.

We can find people who would take that on, I believe, who would take on these jobs that the larger tree services perhaps don't see themselves as fitting in exactly. I don't see that we couldn't find someone or a group of people that would take that project on.

This is pretty exciting. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Are you guys going to stick around for a little bit? Thank you for everything that you do.

Thank you, guys. Fire season's here. We had one in May, so it's time to get prepared.

Simi Valley. Understood. Tell you what.

Thanks. If you guys are OK, we'll do some public comments. Yeah. And then I only have one card, but I expect more people want to speak. But Bill, please come up. Thank you.

Thanks for having this workshop. I really like what I'm hearing in terms of the direction that we're going. I want to sort of maybe backfill and extend a little bit the themes that I've already heard. I'm an economist. You all know that. And so I think it's very important that the incentives be right for what we're trying to achieve. And it's important also to be very explicit. And I hope this ordinance is very explicit about living in a fire ecology. And climate resiliency needs to include the resiliency in terms of fire ecology. And we've already heard about the fact we don't want to disincentivize. We don't want to penalize people for doing the things to reduce fire risk. And we have, unfortunately, had some problems with that in the past. For example, the reason we made a change in 2018 to say that it wasn't just all mature trees that required mitigation, but only the ones that were specified council resolution, is a prior community development director, not you, Lucas, had told someone who wanted to remove a really large Mexican fan palm with a huge palm frond thing that was almost too high to trim, and they wanted to take it down, and the community development director said, well, because it's so large, you're going to have to spend thousands of dollars on top of the removal cost and mitigation to replace it because of the diameter of that fire risk tree. Well, that's obviously not the direction we want to go. And so that's why we actually made that change to try to be a little bit more specified about what the mature tree and under council direction for the designation. We all remember that visual. I think we all have that visual, for example, of the crowns on very high palm trees during the Eaton fire, all being on fire in high wind conditions and blowing embers all into the neighborhood. outside the reach of the hydrant because of lower hydrant pressure of any of the fire trucks, hoses. So we don't want that. And so I really like what I'm hearing. But I want to make a couple points about that. I really like the idea of setting up some sort of positive and financial incentive for removing fire risk trees. I really also want to point out, however, that we might want to also include standards. for public benefit for private property owners that are allowing these palm fronds to get too thick. I mean, that is a public safety risk to letting these palm fronds on these Mexican van palms from getting too thick, too large, and constantly in place. But let's also be honest with ourselves. What's one of the major violators of good management in terms of fire risk? County parks. Have you gone along the bike trail and seen the lack of palm frond removal, the piles of palm fronds at county parks along the bikeway just leave there? And I wonder if there's a way of including in the ordinance some specific communication. You can't tell county what to do, but maybe some kind of specific communication to county saying, hey, we've identified this risk. This is your responsibility. Could you please address this? What is the largest violator of removing tree canopy in recent years? County parks, what happened in Sewell Park. So again, I think communication, perhaps some sort of structured communication to other agencies would be appropriate. I remember when I was on council, we would try to be talking about, with Edison, you know, with hazardous trees in the right of way that they wanted to remove. It was actually about the same cost to do the trimming as a removal on a fire risk tree, like a long needle pine or a palm tree or something. Oh, but the city of Ojai is going to be on our case if we remove it. We have to trim it. We'd like to remove it, but we can't because the city of Ojai is going to complain. We need to clarify our communication with these other agencies, I think. You know, yes, that's a tree that we, you know, want to preserve, but that's a tree we just as soon see removed. And oh, by the way, yeah, we want to replace it with something that's compatible with the right of way to restore our canopy. So I think we need to really think through some of these details in order to absolutely enhance our fire resiliency. And so I just wanted to make a few of those comments. Thank you.

I appreciate it.

There's no more cards, unless there are. Mayor, we have some Zoom attendees, but no raised hands. Come up, sir. Zoom attendees, if you'd like to raise your hand, now is the time. Thanks. Let us know who you are.

Good evening. My name is Bill Mellett. I'm a resident here in the Valley. I've been in the landscape industry for 50 years, believe it or not. Landscape architect, landscape contractor, licensed landscape contractor, certified arborist. I do a lot of reports as an arborist in the county of Ventura. So there's a few things I just want to talk to you about. We have to be careful about unintended consequences of increasing how stringent the tree protection ordinance is. I think sometimes we're looking for a solution to a problem that may not exist or be smaller than we think it is. As a landscape architect, contractor, And arborists, I very rarely run into a homeowner or client that wants a tree out because they want the tree out. There's always a reason. I don't know if I've ever had a client just say, I don't like trees. I don't want this tree. They're scared of the tree, potential hazard. It may be conflicting with structure. So I don't think we have a problem with our urban canopy disappearing. From what I've seen, 40 years working in Ojai, Our canopy doesn't seem to be decreasing. You know, and I'm in the business of saving trees and planting trees and specifying trees. So it's in my best interest to have more trees. So some of the things I might say may seem counter to that. I don't like making money from writing tree reports for people who are scared a tree is going to fall down. And everybody has a different level of risk aversion. So it's very tough for an arborist to come out and make an opinion on whether that tree is safe or not safe. I, as an arborist, having been doing it for many years, 25 years, having been looking at trees for 50 years probably, I make an assessment. It's my best opinion. And it's an opinion whether that tree is a risk. And I talk a lot of people down from that risk. But it's tough when someone says, hey, my kids play under this tree every day. And I'm scared a limb's going to fall. Even as a professional, I can't tell them 100% that limb's not coming down. I can make a pretty good assessment, and I'm pretty good at it now from doing it for so many years. So one thing I'm a little worried about is this thought of having a outside consultant for the city reviewing career reports, because it is an opinion. And that person who's reviewing has not went to the site and talked to the homeowner. So it's tough for them to make the same assessment that the arborist did that visited the site. So we have to be aware of that, especially when it's a single consultant. We're going to disagree on something. becoming a problem. We don't want to . One of the things I do run into, another comment I get from people, is I don't want to plant any additional oaks because I know there's going to be a permit required every time I need to prune or have it removed in the future if I want to do new construction. I think there's a lot of nuance that gets overseen, and we need to be aware of that. I deal with the fire department a lot as a landscape architect doing mitigation plans. I think the fire department's great. We've had numerous team calls. Thank you.

I basically agree with you.

Let me go to the next person if I can. But you've highlighted the challenge and the nuance. I really appreciate that. Thanks.

I just want to clarify real quick. When there is a third party, when we hire a third party to evaluate a tree, they certainly do a site visit.

Yeah. And typically they're asking for permission for the property, especially if the tree is within like it's if it's in the front yard, then there's not a need to have that conversation. But a lot of times the trees in the backyard, you can't you can see it, but you can't do your full assessment.

Right. So when you were speaking about, you were basically saying a conversation with the homeowner is not what happens, but a site visit does happen, but the conversation with the owner might not happen in that site visit. Yeah.

Okay. It's not 100% from the, yeah. I would say it's probably in the 80 to 90% range, but there's definitely ones that they, when we have the third party go out, that they're not having that conversation, especially if it's in the front yard.

Okay, so you're saying that 80% to 90% of there is a conversation with the homeowner?

Yeah, because they've got to get permission to.

Yeah, I just wanted to be really clear that the homeowner is also really aware of what's going on. You know, we had that situation on Park Avenue where the homeowner, didn't live there it was a renter so and it was it was difficult to get a hold of the homeowner but we got permission you got permission from the renter anyway I just wanted to clarify whether or not you know the renter and the person living in that space is part of the conversation because they should be part of the conversation

The homeowner was part of the conversation with the arborist who wrote the report. Oh, yeah. And neighbors on both sides were part of a conversation with the arborist who wrote the report. Right, but I think my point was... But people who made comments about that did not have conversations with the arborist.

Right. I think because the homeowner was in a different area code and it was not possible to get a hold of them at that particular time. Anyway. That's not overbeliever money. Yeah, yeah. We don't need to talk about PARC, but I just wanted to.

Thank you, sir. Who else would like to come up and speak? Now's your chance. Come on. It's okay if you don't want to. We'll keep going. Okay. Yeah, okay.

You're good.

Rene Roth I appreciate you having this discussion I appreciate the fire department being here and explaining the standards I do believe that those standards need to at least be referenced in the tree report I also think What Mr. Weirich mentioned, the public right-of-way and the public parks, there needs to be somebody who's in contact with and managing that process at the city level. And maybe that's public works. Most likely it's public works. I think that's an important closing the loop on how you're going to be managing that public versus private relationship. I am a tree lover and advocate, and I have looked at Santa Barbara's tree site and they have a great resource and it's called you know how to take care of your trees or something and it's a book that was done maybe eight years ago it's not out of date it's still up to date but an educational material for homeowners about how to take care of your trees and If an arborist does identify that a tree is going to need constant maintenance in order to protect your home from fire hazards and keep reducing it, once you reduce a tree and limbs close to the house, the tree is going to grow some more and it's going to grow more and it's going to grow closer and You're going to be in a constant battle. So I think the idea of the city saying, we understand. We don't want to impose additional costs or fees for that maintenance part. But you want to be able to acknowledge that that is a challenge. And you want them to be able to talk about it, get a permit, and give them the permit to remove the tree. It should be easier to remove a tree that's going to be you're constantly fighting with. or the wrong tree in the wrong place, that kind of stuff. It should be easy. It should be spelled out that these fire hazard trees should be easy to remove. And I know Mr. Whitman in the past has actually asked for a list of trees that I think would help homeowners. And I know the fire department has a list of high fire hazard trees. Let's get that list in the tree maintenance book or some way to get it in front of people so that we all know that Italian cypress trees are dangerous. They're also very costly to remove. The other thing I really liked hearing was the vegetation clearance and the vegetation management incentives and chippers and chipping program. I know that is something that the crew does, they're very good at doing. and offering certain days where chippers or dumpsters, and I know I sent this information from Berkeley. Berkeley does this. They have a chipper program. They drop chippers in certain neighborhoods. They pay for the chippers, the chipping and the dumpsters to be picked up and cleaned up on a regular basis. So I think you're heading in the right direction. I think Measure C and fire mitigation money is all right there. In terms of code enforcement, I really don't think the idea of having trees more than four inches or less than four inches should require the permit. I was really shocked to see that you were going to start requiring more and more permits for every little branch that needs to be cut on the red line version. And I was really opposed to that. I don't think people want to be tightly regulated. They want good guidance and good regulations and good arborists who can help them manage what they have and learn how to take better care of the trees and the tree canopies and encouraging what trees need to be placed where. And this is my latest bugaboo. I think it would be very good to have tree planting guidelines that would say a 30-foot tree, you has to be planted, you know, 15 feet from your house plus an additional 10 feet to provide the 10 foot of clearance. I think a lot of people, including Ojai Trees people, they've come and they've put trees that are way too close to the homes, and then the homeowner is left with all the maintenance work to clean it up. I know people have said the utilities are...

Thank you. That actually came from the workshop last time very much. Loud and clear. The right tree in the right place. Would anybody else like to speak out there? Yes, come. Hi.

Michael Inaba. Hi. And I wanted to come up and say thank you for tonight's meeting because this, to me, looks like great progress from two months ago. Really an about face, giving the opportunity for people to speak up. And I wanted to acknowledge that we're living in an increasingly complicated world. We're talking about a tree ordinance and finding out we can't separate it from home hardening and fire safety and community resilience. It also affects stormwater, public works. It affects so many aspects. And so one of the things that came up, well, many, many things that came up highlight to me that there's a need for open communication even within council staff, certainly with the local arborists. I know for a fact that some of the things said tonight aren't really substantial. I know for a fact today a tree permit was approved with bird nests cited in the report because I wrote it. And so the opportunity is to bring everything together and say we can work as a team and we're stronger as a team. What happened that got everything derailed initially was somebody was working without a team. and so bringing it back together so we can all communicate and share the information that's missing, that will make a stronger tree ordinance and a stronger, more resilient community, so thank you.

You're welcome, thanks. Is there anybody online? No, Mayor. Okay. I guess one question, not a question, but it's what's the next step so that we've got lot of great ideas I see the couple of pieces that I was looking at were things like we talked about the finance piece we talked about the idea of altering the fee study to incentivize in the directions we were liking possibly there's we enhance our staff capability either through a higher or more contractors and then there's a almost like a a collapsing of the fire requirements and what we're intending to do, what that would look like. That just sounds like a lot of work. So I'm asking, what's the method by which we would then take all of those requests, put them into one document that we can then review and look at? I mean, it sounds like a tremendous amount of work, but I'm looking at the staff here.

Can I jump in? Yeah. I'm envisioning a three-step process. Okay. okay and the first step would be a concept review of everything that we've talked about including in a new ordinance or in a new city program or a new city fund or a new city action and council and the community would review it's basically going to kind of summarize where we've been on this little journey this is what we've heard that you know just from looking at the head nods this is what we think you want to do From that, we would then come back at a separate meeting with the first read of an ordinance. Of course, during the first read, that's an opportunity to amend, change, or throw out. And then, assuming that the first read goes the way you want it, we'd come back with the second read. So three steps. And probably over the summer, I think, is when we would want to do this.

I totally hear what you're saying. I was saying that just to get to the first step of your plan would sound like a lot of work.

I think the concept review is a great one because I think it takes everything that we've heard so far, right? And it takes it kind of at the 20,000-foot level. These are the things that we're thinking. Maybe it has bullet points attached to it. And then from that... I'm not sure that it necessarily likens itself to a first reading, but maybe what it does is it creates the opportunity for a further discussion through like a term sheet.

Yeah, we would want to distill from the concept review what could come back as a first read, but we definitely would not come back with a first read of an ordinance. These are topics we talked about. Yeah. And some would actually, to your point, Mayor, some things would go in the ordinance and some things would not. Some are budgetary matters. Some are you're looking for a new program or a fund. That type of thing. I understand.

So I have just a few things I want to add. I didn't interrupt with some of my thoughts about things I'd like to see in the ordinance. So I want to respond to the idea that we're too aggressive about maybe a tree removal decision. My biggest concern is that we have people doing tree work who don't know what the hell they're doing when they're working on a tree. They'll come and top a tree. So, and I've had the personal experience and I've heard this from other people that there's a work truck without a single marking on it. And you go and try to talk to the workers and they don't speak a word of English. And so a couple of things I'd like to see, I understand, and maybe the county fire officers can confirm this, but if you're working on, if you're doing tree work, there's a whole bunch of state regulations that are already in place that require you to have that type of identification on your truck. But I'd like to have that in our ordinance that you've got. sign clearly marked you got a license number you got a phone number that you can contact and along those lines I'd also like to see us require a homeowner present when the tree works being done because as councilmember rule I've had that experience more than once where you're you're you're you're concerned about what's happening And maybe there's a really good explanation for what's happening, but there's nobody you can talk to who can explain it to you. And we can limit that to maybe certain types of circumstances where they have to be present, but somebody responsible has to be present other than that contractor that you may not be able to communicate with.

Or reachable, right? Or reachable, yeah.

That's something we can require. You know, that could be a condition that they are available.

I acknowledge tree work is going to be going on during this time period. I will be reachable via this telephone number that the operator has with them. And for that matter, just to jump in on what you said, we could require as part of the city business license requirement not only the annual education, but we can require that you must put your business license number clearly identified on your vehicle, or have it somehow readily displayed, just like when you walk into a restaurant and you need a health permit.

If you see that and you know this person has been through the education program, you don't have as much concern, but in the last, I've lived on a street with more than its fair share of oak trees for the last 36 years, can't tell you how many trees have just been butchered you know that that lion's mane thing in a lot of it is you know homeowners who don't really understand they're used to a certain kind of tree and then they want to make their their oak tree look more like this other kind of tree that's just completely bad for the health of that tree Let's see. So for last week's item on the broadband, I was kind of surprised to see that there's a lot of concern about microtrenching and how it impacts oak trees. And I don't know the answer to that. I'd like to have our experts look at that and what are safe practices in terms of where you can microtrench And we discussed the work in the drip line, and I didn't see it, and maybe I haven't looked at the ordinance close enough, but I know that it's a big problem where people come in and put in non-permeable surfaces within the drip line of an oak tree, and I don't know if we regulate that at all, and maybe that needs to be in you know, building standards, but that's a great way to kill an oak tree is to pour a huge patio in its strip line. We already talked about having the review process be situational. so that the level of review or the opportunity to review really depended on the type of project that was being proposed. The slide that Lucas showed that had the enforcement and the word may, So as it's presented, it's completely discretionary. And what I'd like to see us do is, if we can, and I don't know what the factors are, but to have factors for, you know, the violation that causes you to think about whether you're going to, you know, how far you're going to take your enforcement, whether that's, you know, a warning, a fine, or actually, you know, a prosecution. And I know I can think of at least one factor, and that's what's your history of prior violations? So, you know, like on our... our transient Airbnb regulation, the fines go up if you have more than one violation.

Yeah, you're speaking to SDRs.

Yeah, SDRs. Thank you. And let's see. I do have a certain amount of concern about getting up into the, I understand the idea of getting up into the canopy for fire protection on trees in general, but I have a certain amount of concern about how healthy that is for an oak tree because I've heard it actually there were a couple of the arborists at the last workshop that said don't mess with the canopy they know what they need you know they they grow purposefully to shield the bark of the tree and You know, my personal philosophy is to do nothing to an oak tree unless I have to. So, you know... I know I'm not suggesting that I don't want to, you know, work with the regulations, but I want to understand better when we talk, because the flip side of, of, of what the chief was talking about is, is the idea I hear, you know, repeatedly is that oak trees are this, uh, screening device that is kind of perfect for homes because when you're talking about an Embercast, The oak tree is really great at deadening. It's not likely to catch fire in an ember cast. Completely different than, I fully support the idea that you gotta remove the fuel ladder that might bring a fire up into the tree, but I'd wanna take a very careful look at the idea of thinning out the canopy of an oak tree for fire resistance and whether that was the best strategy. And those are the last of my thoughts. Okay.

If I could just sort of add on to that. So I took this Smart Strategies for Fire-Safe Living from the Santa Barbara Master Gardeners, and they talked about the crowns of oaks and, in fact, that it's kind of this – indigenous knowledge or whatever that they have their own ecosystem up there and that they can stop certain types of wind they can change the direction of ember casting but they have to be very well managed in order to do that and It's just anecdotal evidence to this point, although firefighters know that they're not as ignitable as other trees. So what they did let me know was that that the Santa Barbara Regional Wildlife Mitigation Program planted 260, they're trying to do a study around this, right? So they planted 216 coast live oak saplings on a hot, sunny slope, and they're trying to figure out how this actually works. And I think that that's the only study that's going on because they're trying to get more than just anecdotal evidence. And they're figuring out, do they actually stop know embers from spreading do they stabilize slopes you know what do they do how does it affect fires and I think that they're also doing that in Malibu Canyon or something so there are these research efforts that are going on but one thing that they also said and it was very poignant is like anything alive will burn Anything alive will burn in a particular kind of fire. It doesn't, it can be, you know, what are the succulents that are on the side of the road? Ice plants. Anything will burn. And these were people speaking from experience in fires. If it gets hot enough, anything will burn. And so, you know, relying upon oaks to stop, you know, the flow of embers. might work to a certain point, but it's not going to work past another point. And they were just, they pointed that out. But meanwhile, they are doing these studies to find out where that sort of limiting factor is. And I thought that was really interesting. And we should stay on top of that as well, just as we move through fire hardening. I appreciate that.

Yeah, I know that there's somebody at UCSB, our research professor, who's putting a whole bunch of work into, this is more of the Oakland forest as a positive towards preventing wildfire. And then the other thing, I'll just comment. What I hear all the time is, Oak trees don't catch houses on fire. Houses catch oak trees on fire.

I have this beautiful jasmine that's all over my house. It's just a huge piece of jasmine that's 50 years old that blooms amazingly on this arch. And I keep saying this is the last year I'm going to be able to have that. It's not. I know. I know. But it's, to me, you got to do what you got to do, right?

We'll keep watching the studies. That sounds promising. Yeah. Yeah. So do you have anything you want to add? So do you feel like you have your task ahead of you?

Ben says yes, so I say yes, too. No, this is great.

I think we got some really good feedback, and I think you're planning on coming this summer, like maybe July, August time frame, come back, do the concept review, get your direction, and then maybe move forward with the first read after that. And in between now and then, we might send you some space on the comments we've heard, material, videos, papers, whatever, that are consistent with what you've talked about.

I think in addition to that, I think in the first workshop we talked about kind of having a landing page. Hold on one second, fellas. And some information.

Guys, we can't hear when you guys are talking. Thanks.

So that, and this is just all, and then I'll be done here. Yeah. So that it starts the conversation for an area by which, if you're looking for information, it starts to live there, and we do kind of that research dump and start kind of building it from the ground up. I love it.

I have to say I love the kind of holistic thinking that happened here where we say we're talking about the budget and FHIR and everything about our ordinance. So I love that we're thinking in all those dimensions. That seems exactly right.

And I want to say thank you to FHIR for coming up here. Thank you, guys. It was very helpful. Super great. I think I look forward to working with you guys, so that's great.

Okay. I just have one quick housekeeping item once you're finished with the workshop. Is it OK to go real quick? Of course. OK. This coming Monday, June 2, we have a Finance and Budget Committee meeting that is at 2 o'clock. We also have plans for a special city council meeting that same day. I would like to propose, if the council is acceptable to doing this, to start that meeting at 6 p.m. and not 5 p.m. The school district has notified us that they're not going to be prepared to do their workforce housing presentation on that meeting. They would like to come back at a different meeting in June, and I'm waiting to hear back from them when that may be. We would like to proceed with the special meeting on June 2nd because we have a pool item, we have a Serrazotti playground RFP item, and then we have a closed session from follow-up from last meeting as well, if that's acceptable. So what we'd like to do is start the meeting at 6 o'clock. We don't think it's going to take more than a couple hours to make it through those two items, and then go into a closed session at 8 o'clock, roughly, if that's acceptable to the council.

I prefer it that way.

Okay. I wrongly assumed we were starting at six on the second anyway. Well, there you go. Okay, so good.

So that sounds like that works for the council. We'll just proceed. Okay, I'm seeing head nods. We're good? Okay, thank you. Thanks, guys. We can get food? Yes. All right, meeting adjourned. Thank you.