City Council - Special Meeting

Welcome to the special city council meeting Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. Roll call, please. Yes, Mayor. Mayor Gilman here. Mayor Prom Mang is absent tonight. We'll move on to council member Rule here. Council member Whitman here. And remotely, Council Member Lang here. Thank you. And would you lead us in the pledge, please? Before that, I'd like to ask city attorney Burgess to Yep. ask Council Member Lang a few questions. Council member Lang, are there any members of the public in your location? No, there aren't. All right. Thank you. Great. Thank you. All right. Pledge, please. Pledge of allegiance. Yep.

Honorable mayor and council. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And approval of the agenda, please. Any changes? No. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Any objections? Okay. All right. Mayor. Yes, please. If I may interrupt. Thank you. Since we do have a remote participant, we must take all. Okay. Roll call, please. Call. Understood. Council member Whitman. Yes. Mayor Gilman. Yes. Council member Rule.

Yes. Council member Lang. Yes. Thank you for that. Um, great. And then we do have one public comment here, please. Larry Stangold. And this is about the close session, correct? Yes. Thank you.

Good evening. Hi. Um, I truly hope that you've all had a nice month. I've been gone, left you alone. Uh, but thank you. Um, I truly hope that our attorneys can win all the lawsuits and can lessen as many of the payments if we don't because that's their goal, right? To win, not to lose, but to cut to lessen our losses. Many of these lawsuits are self-inflicted. I would hope that our city council and city management review the processes. excuse me, and the people and how this all how most of these all came about. And I realize the attorney's job is to protect the city and you, which means us, from litigation and from problems caused by outsiders andor insiders, but the self-inflicted ones are the most egregious. Um, regarding Ohhigh Avenue, um, it would seem to me that the process is either broken, confused, what have you, uh, that this shouldn't happen. And regarding director's exemptions, I would hope that um from now on all director's exemptions are reviewed by city management, uh employees, uh maybe a city councilor somehow and planning prior to being approved because there are downstream consequences for doing a good deed, making things easier. You know, somebody wants to change the paint color, sure, go right ahead. Somebody wants to do this, sure, go right ahead. I understand the need for for director's exemptions. However,

um because of this latest kathuffle, I'm putting it mildly. Um we need to do something to prevent this happening in the future. And there are times when we can, you can do this. And as our leaders, I would hope you do because this can create all sorts of problems as we are now seeing because this expense could just get really bad. And I hope you can come to a successful conclusion. Um, but it's the self-inflicted litigation that problems that concern me. I mean, is it the process? Is it words being said? Is it wrong decisions? Uh, accidents happen, mistakes can be avoided. So, please endeavor to lessen the burden because all this money going to legal fees. No disrespect to our city attorney. I'd rather see it in road services, OT10, whatever. But anything for but legal. And again, that's how you made your living, but not this line. Uh, thank you.

Thank you. Anybody online? No, mayor. No raised hands for participating. All right. We will adjourn to the close session. Thank you. Yeah. One one moment, Mayor. Yep. Let's get back online. Okay, ready.

All right, so coming out of close session um for the first close session item related to the zoning clearance um or exposure to litigation regarding the zoning clearance for a project located at 242 East Ohio Avenue. Provided an update to council regarding this matter. Um, no direction was given or action taken in the closed session, but um, the update that council would like shared is that um, or part of the update was that the applicant has agreed to submit all of the applications required by the municipal co municipal code for use of the arcade plaza at that site. Regarding the second close session and initiation of litigation, um we received direction from city council to work with legal counsel for the 22 intervening um local government agencies involved in the Vasquez Perdomo Vome litigation um and and to participate where possible in this litigation after consultation with that legal team. they are representing the cities that are involved in that case on a proono basis. So any city involvement would also be proono by them. Um and and just as information um this case is currently pending in the federal district court and is related to um immigration and customs enforcement and customs and border patrol activity in southern and south central California. and um the city's involvement would likely be limited to participation on AMA's curier briefs and other other and filing declarations related to the matters involved in the case. That's it.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to move right on to the workshop now. And something that you might have noticed in the agenda is that on special sessions like this, we don't have a public comment period on general items. However, I'm going to read through the what we're going to be doing here tonight and there'll be chance for the audience to participate in every single one of these sections. So, there are ample opportunities to talk about the issue at hand, but we won't have a general public comment section. So, let me talk about what we're doing here tonight and the intention um the goals of this workshop. This came from the council receiving um an edited version of the ordinance which was elaborate and there was a lot to go over and talk about and we decided a workshop like this would be better to hear other voices to look over it in some detail have an ample opportunity for public comment. So that's the intention. That's what we're doing here tonight is we're not making any decisions tonight. We're going to take everyone's feedback um bring that into the document to come back to the council with something that is succinct and clear and that further um this is a chance for experts to talk to each other and I find that to be a really valuable opportunity where a question can get brought up. We can hear from each person different points of view they can ask each other's questions and we get to learn from that. So, the goals for the event would be to receive feedback, as I said, to draft a coherent tree ordinance that the council would then review at a future date, hopefully that's soon, to create a clear uh fact sheet for residents and professionals, to create a landing page on the city website that is with clear information, and as I said, we're just receiving input tonight and and not making any decisions. And then again I'll let's talk about what the form of this conversation will be and that is we have six general items. There should be in your packet there. We're going to talk about each of those items in turn. So within each section there'll be a couple

of questions. I'll just kick it off but hopefully the people are talking about their own pieces. Oh thanks.

Oh wow. Cool. Um, and then after we we exhaust that part of the conversation on that section, I will go to the council and I would ask the council to come up to the to the podium here with any questions for our panelists and then and that will include um council member Lang who's remote here and then there's a chance for the audience to come and we want to have more ample time than we usually have. So, we'll put five minutes on the timer for the council and the audience. We won't use cards this time. I'd like to try that out if that's okay. So when we're on a section and you have a question, I'm just going to ask you guys to, you know, give each other the right away come up and speak on that question. But if you have a question about a future item, I mean a future in our order talk then too, right? So you don't have to say everything you want to say at once. We can just focus on section by section. So I hope that's clear for everybody. Um, yes. Oh, sorry. What?

Almost almost. Now, I just want to say I'm gonna let you read the biographies in detail just to say we have Ian Anderson from Southern California Edison. Mark Crane um is a certified arborist, a longtime Santa Barbara Ventura County area. We have Jan Scow right here um also longtime contributor here and worked on this tree ordinance. And we have Scott Bon Tomkinson from PAX Environmental. Thank you for your time in helping us come up with this thing. I want to clap for these guys. They're like dedicating their time. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Sorry to force enthusiasm. So, let me let's start with this. Um, now I've tried to read everything very very carefully. We have Lucas, Mr. Cyber over there that we can ask factual questions of which might come up. And so talking about some of the first goals. So in general, we have this idea about basically processes and triggers. So based on the current code, what constitutes a mature tree? And that's one of the conversations that we want to have is what do we mean by a mature tree? What do we want to propose to be changed? So feel free anybody wants to talk go ahead and then be succinct if you can and then we'll make space for each other.

The microphone works. That's wonderful. Thanks. So I'm a little late to the game because I've only been here since 2018. I did see an ordinance prior to the current ordinance that had a section about mature trees and it defined them as 12 inches in diameter. That's not in the current ordinance. Um it looks from reading this red line that I did not entirely create. That that's back in there. So a mature tree if it was going by that old definition would be 12 inch diameter. I'm not sure if it's on private land or just public land.

Is that something that does everybody comfortable with that as a designation? A 12 inch diameter means a mature tree and it's at it's at if I understood correctly, it's at four and a half feet from from the ground. Is that the general agreed upon? Well, let's hear it. Mark. Yeah, use your microphone, please.

Okay, you got me now. Okay. Well, you know, I mean, you could argue that one. You could say eight inches uh at at DBH, you know, four 5.5 feet is a mature tree. I mean, it just uh it depends on the tree, too. You know, some trees grow faster than others. So, you know, if it was not a protected tree like an elm or or or willow or tree like that grows so exponentially much faster than a hardwood tree. So, you know, I mean, and it depends where the tree grew. If the tree grew underneath a bunch of other trees, then it grows much slower and it could be have been there for 20, 30 years and finally got to be a 12-in diameter tree. So as a tree that's been there for 20 30 years that's you know only that big is had a mature tree you know so there it's you know kind of uh something to be discussed

right and and I would point out as well that the designation of mature tree is not the same as protected tree it's not does not apply to oaks and sycamores as the current ordinance right so just let's clarify that. So let's say you have some project and you're going to remove mature trees that are not protected. You need not reply you need not respond in the same way by replanting other the same species. Right. That's none of that's in the ordinance. So right. Yeah. Please.

And um yeah, I mean these definition sections I mean they're the purpose of them is to define something that may be contradictory or unclear. So it's it's you know just like the definition of a tree you know what what is a tree exactly versus a shrub. So this is this is something that a lot of municipalities have taken on as soon as you get down in Santa Monica Mountains. You know a toyon is a tree but up here we wouldn't call a toy own a tree. We'd call it a shrub.

So that's what's so important about those definition sections. Just making sure that everyone's literally speaking the same language. I hear what you're saying. So, as far if we were to say we're going to call a mature tree some diameter versus an age or something like that, I I see the simplicity of that. I see the difficulties you're bringing up. It may be too daunting to try to think of all the possibilities. But is there some easy way that we could expand that so that it captures more instances? I'm I'm asking you guys, you know, better. So the other thing I would note is that in the red line which I'm looking at the definition of mature tree basically it's determined by the city council. So it has to be appointed as a mature tree and it does have a 12-in diameter listed here.

It is now right but that's not understood. I mean if that comes into the one that we then that comes before us is that is that reasonable from your perspective? Okay, reasonable enough. Okay, Mr. Cybert's taking notes to you to make sure we get Yeah. Can I just I just wanted to clarify something in

and not to not to be contradictory to what Janet just said in the existing ordinance, it does have a definition for mature tree, which is consistent with what the um proposed concept ordinance that went forward a few months ago um identifies. So it is that 12 in in diameter as measured 4 and 1/2 ft above the root crown. So so there's a definition of a mature tree in the existing ordinance. Mature trees are not protected however in the existing ordinance. So one would wonder why is there a definition? Excellent question.

No that's that maybe that was the that thanks for the clarification. That's the point you're trying to make is mature and protected is what we're actually more interested in than mature and unprotected. Okay. No, that's good. Okay, that's cool. And if I let me move on then to say what trees are listed as heritage protected. There's three at the moment, I believe, right? We have our two oaks and our sycamore. We have the possibility of more, but we don't have them listed at present. Should any be listed from your guys' perspective? Yeah, city council, that's up to you guys. No, but but I'm asking you because you guys are the experts that we want to we want to ask you your opinion.

Uh yeah, there should be other native trees. You know, the black popppler, which there's very few of those left. Mature black poppplers are native trees here. You know, there's uh native willows. There's, you know, there's other natives that you could, you know, they're more trees that grow in wetter areas along the creeks and areas like that. But, you know, there would be riparian trees, you know. So, uh to have just those three, those are really the three that we most commonly come across anymore because there's not a lot of uh those black uh poppplers left.

But but the designation you're talking about is appointed by the city council. It's not species dependent. Well, I hear what you're saying. So the city council can appoint decide somebody can nominate any tree in ohigh the city council can decide if it's a you know now it's a magically heritage protected tree doesn't matter it has nothing to do with species at all well I hear what you're saying what what I'm hoping is that we that a council this one or any future one would not willy-nilly do it but do ones that make sense for this location

there should be many many more a list of maybe a hundred trees Well, then then I then I have a request. Well, Scott, weigh in. Um, yeah. I mean, many municipalities um and jurisdictions define heritage tree based on size. Um, ohigh does not. It is not dependent on size, not dependent on species. Uh, for example, in Ventura County, you know, as soon as you hit 90 inch circumference, which comes out to something like 29.6 inch diameter breast height, so standard height is four and a half feet to measure a tree. Um, anything over 29 in is a heritage tree.

Um, so by that definition, we should have hundreds if not thousands within the valley that have a much higher level of protection than is currently afforded. So here's my request, I guess. Um, because I'm I'm also looking at our we had our own tree survey from our public works department that I have in front of me that I'm looking at. I'm looking at which trees come up the most in our survey. But um I guess I would ask you to submit a list of trees that you think should be included in that and send them to Lucas and we could look at that then and as a council now something reasonable you know I mean that we could then respond to because that's that's what I'm asking is what makes sense.

So the easiest way to do that yeah I mean in my opinion the most important tree here is valley oaks. They're the biggest. They're native. They're rapidly disappearing. So if we were to if we were to put something in the ordinance that said um any valley oak that's greater than some certain diameter is automatically protected or can you know becomes a heritage tree. That would be a simple way to do it. I don't think any of us are going to go around and find a hundred or 200 trees and say this one should be and give you a list.

I I was meaning I wasn't meaning just size. I was meaning species though. What Mark was saying I'm asking for species. and and again we might not we I would want to come back to you and say hey if there's a hundred species here is it reasonable to have that as a city some compromise but that's that feels like that's a conversation that we should be having um if you agree

yeah I do agree and the one thing like Jam was saying about the caucus loa white oak valley oak you know common names uh those are pretty much an endangered tree if if you look around valley because they grow in the valley where they build and develop. And they love the deep soil. And they are also known as mush oaks by the old-timers because they don't compartmentalized decay like the red oak or white oak. And therefore, they need to be maintained more. You know, cabling, proper pruning, and you know, just because they lose a branch doesn't mean the tree is falling apart and dying. It means that it has to be maintained.

Okay? and they need more maintenance. No, thank you. Yeah,

and speaking to your question on, you know, tree diversity, uh, we we don't have a particularly diverse tree suite that's native to this region. Um, compared to, you know, somewhere in the east where you have dozens dozens of species of of large trees, you know, we have a very limited suite of of large trees um here. And as Mark mentioned, you know, a lot of them are riparian species. Those riparian species are afforded other legal protections um just by way of being in a riparian corridor. There are other protections afforded it. Um one species that currently is not addressed is the Southern California black walnut. Um that has a California rare plant ranking of 4.2. It's considered a species of limited distribution. And this is one of the last real strongholds for that species. Um, if you drive out towards Oak View, you see all those beautiful black walnuts.

Um, and then if you drive up towards Santa Paula, one of the largest extent stands of black walnut left on the planet, right? So, this is one species that I would love to see added to the list. Uh, we don't see a lot of it in the valley, but it is present. That's news to me. So, I'm glad we're here. I mean, I'm glad that I'm getting this information and that we are all getting it. No, thanks for that. Ian, I'm just going to let you I know you have something specific, but jump in whatever you want to and feel free if you have something to say.

Well, I suppose what I would say is um as it relates to the classifications of trees within the city by ordinance, whether they be mature or protected. Uh I think it's important to make a point as to the way that approaches veg management in our cities in Ohigh as well as others. Uh and that is our motivation uh stems from two places. The first and foremost is safety and then second is affordability.

So we are a regulated utility which means we follow uh regulations set forth by the California Public Utilities Commission. Uh and those regulations prioritize human safety and the amelioration, the mitigation of the potential that our lines can spark a wildfire or cause damage or harm. And so when our arborists are out in the community and when they're making decisions about uh how much of a tree to trim or whether to trim, they are making those decisions based on the likelihood that that tree will interfere with a line, which creates uh a safety issue. um and uh the frequency within which we make uh those decisions, the uh schedule within which we do veg management, that's an annual schedule. Um and uh I I suppose what I'd say is so sa safety is the reason we do veg management and affordability is the reason we try to bring efficiency to our veg management program. uh because rateayers like yourselves are the ones who ultimately pay for our veg management. And so the more often we trim trees um the more our rate payers are paying right for that service. And so uh first consideration is safety. Is a tree going to interfere with a line? Is that going to create an unsafe condition? Uh second uh would be affordability which is to say uh how much should we be scaling that tree back or how much should we be trimming that tree uh such that we're not revisiting that same tree over and over and over again in a very short frequency of time which is very expensive for our rateayers.

So this conversation that we're having right now about mature or protected how would that affect what you just said? It wouldn't. Okay. I don't believe that it would. All right. No thanks. No. Thank you. appreciate that. Yeah, please. Okay. Uh, one thing I've worked with Edison over the years and, you know, they got a tough job trying to maintain the trees and also uh, keep people happy and sometimes I've been called in and they back off and we'll do the reduction on the tree because, you know, they're there to get their maximum bang out of what they're doing.

Yeah. you know, makes sense, you know, that they they need and they looking at safety and that's, you know, uh, but, you know, there are trees out there that get pruned by Edison unfortunately that get sunscalded really bad because they take out critical canopy and yeah, had there been a little bit more insight in those situations, we're talking about mature

coast live oaks, corpus lab, and when they get burned, what happens the sap fungus start to get in there and potentially and they start losing large limbs over the years because it's like their skin it can't heal especially if they're older trees so I think that they're in a tough spot but I think we can always all of us can do better and caring for the trees just to say so we're going to have a section just on this in just a second because we do want to talk about it and that's why primarily is here no thanks for that so let me let me switch gears just a little um couple more questions on process and triggers and then I want to hear from the council in the audience. Um so this is a general question. What's the state of our canopy and what needs to be addressed? Anything that you're seeing on our overall canopy that do you see it in decline? Is it thriving? What do we need to look at that?

I see a lot of big old trees falling down and or dying. Um, so my concern is that the the really amazing trees are going away and they're not necessarily being replaced. So I think our canopy cover well I don't think I know our canopy cover is dwindling and they're falling because of age or neglect or what? Age neglect. All the above. All the above. Okay. Um various causes. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Uh to speak on what Jan was just saying, you know, a lot of these old trees and canopy cover are disappearing and I actually saw Jan several weeks ago, maybe several months now. Time goes so fast. And there was a large corkus lobata being removed. You know, I'm talking about a 400y old tree. I just move the microphone closer. Yeah.

Yeah. There was a large uh corkus lobata being removed. I'm talking about a 400-y old tree. And uh I was like uh it's a valley oak and uh I was I went down there to see what was going on. I was up at the park with my grandkids and as a, you know, a citizen, I wasn't there and I didn't have any tree gear on or anything like that. And they had a a branch fail and the young people that were um renting the place uh the owner had gotten a report to condemn this 400-y old tree. And I never did see that report. All I saw was one sentence. So I called the press, news press, and they came out.

This was on Park Road. Yeah. And they shut it down. But they already ruined the tree. Okay. So what he said was the tree was unbalanced in like half a sentence. The most ridiculous statement. And uh those are the trees that need cabling. They're the mush oaks, but they're beautiful and they could be taken care of with proper insight. But it didn't happen. And then the tree was removed completely because of this thing that happened and like like Jam was just saying. So yes, that's been happening and uh we're losing a lot there's huge canopies. Thank you.

If I could actually jump in despite the fact that I'm not a tree expert uh I did just spend some time with some tree experts uh in preparation for this very talk and uh my understanding of tree balance is that um you're really talking about two different considerations. You're talking about uh the aesthetic consideration of it being out of balance. Right? One limb is missing. There's limbs on this side. There aren't limb on limbs on this side. But then there's the physical health of the tree with regard to whether it is out of balance or not physically in terms of its health. And my understanding is that simply because a limb would be removed from a tree wouldn't necessarily mean that a tree itself would be out of balance in terms of its health.

So yeah, there there's some truth to that. So, the biggest concern most people express, which is not generally true, is that if you cut off a big limb on this side, the tree is imbalanced and it's going to fall over in the other side. And that's just not. There are rare occasions where that's true, but in general, it's not. And balance. I think when you're talking about health, you're maybe really talking about safety because the health of the tree is not related to balance. We have reached the limits of my knowledge as it relates to No thanks. Thanks. Anything you want to contribute?

Um, when you see a tree, you have to account for, you know, all the conditions. When you when you just primaacely look at a tree and you see it leaning to one side, you have to analyze, you know, the treere's capacity to mitigate that lean. Trees will create reaction wood. They will buttress themselves, right? So just because a tree may appear unbalanced at first, that's why it's important to have a certified arborist come and make sure that that determination is correct. Okay. Right. And balance isn't the same thing as lean either. So yeah, leaning trees are a little bit different. Got it. Yes. Yeah. One one of the real common things you'll hear is, well, the tree looks so healthy and it fell over.

You know, you hear that. And in our malaria, you know, we'll get into a tree. It's oak root fungus. And that's kind of it's the main one that will topple the oaks but there are others but that can happen and there's two root systems there's the ones that have the protoplasm the smaller fleet roots the sastlastic and the epoplastic the larger roots and those are the ones that have all the carbon and those are the woodier roots and the anchoring roots and that's what the fungus go after the most because that's the bang for the buck you know they're going after the carbon so you know you can still see a tree that looks oh it looks so healthy and it fell over but you need to do a root crown assessment and re inspection.

So, how I'm assuming that a trained person would know how to mitigate that problem even if it wasn't obvious to the lay person. They see it and say the tree looks healthy. The expert person knows that they're being attacked by by some micro. It's not always at all obvious though. I've seen big healthy trees fall over that roots were completely decayed and it was a perfect beautiful tree a week ago. So, it's not always, but yes, an expert would be more able to detect a potential problem. That's a rabbit hole we don't want to go down. Uhhuh.

But one thing also to remember is I heard somebody say, I think it was this man over here, uh he was asking a question earlier about mentioned a cavity in the tree, right? And so, uh, trees have cavities. You know, sycamores have giant cavities and they're viable trees. You know, we have a guy named Clausmathic who wrote a book, uh, he's a German biomechanist on the body language of trees and they can be hollow in the center up to like 70 to 80% depending on species and lean and variables and like a pipe on end, you know, and still be viable trees.

So, there comes the knowledge of understanding what you're looking at. Well, that actually goes a little bit to the next question in this section and and we're almost near the end of this section, but what constitutes the removal of a tree or a limb? What what's the dangerous kind of threshold that we feel like we would need to act because I'm assuming we try to intervene first? Fear does. Well, no, I I Yes, of course, fear. But what's the what's the reasonable response or the reasonable way to mitigate uh let's say fear with something that is not astronomically expensive but reasonably spent? So, you know, fear is a driving factor. When the neighbor's tree falls over, suddenly you're afraid your tree is going to fall over, too. Yeah.

Um, but safety is the driving issue. And if a tree, so a tree expert can determine to a large extent if a tree is really safe or not, relatively safe. No such thing as a safe tree. They all fall down eventually. Mhm. Um, and the only way to make trees safe completely is to remove them, which we don't really want to do. Sure. But yes, there are removing a tree because it's dangerous. Usually, there's other measures that can be taken to not remove the tree and make it safer, right? Which I know Mark will back me up on that.

Well, I mean that you're really getting to the heart of it. It seems to me by saying that you could say there's no 100% safe tree. There's always some risk. Everybody gets that. But then you would want to say what is the right kind of intervention for a tree that some might say are dangerous. Then you say what's the effort? What makes sense? And at what point do you say it's actually not worth the effort? Because there seems to sometimes be disagreeing opinions among experts about what's worth always. Okay. Uhhuh. Yeah. There always are. And there was a man Alex Shyo in our industry and I met him like 35 years ago. I had the pleasure of meeting him. and do go closer on your

in Arizona. Alex Shyo. Yeah. And anyway, he traveled the world uh dissecting trees, you know, doing forensics on trees and he he brought a lot to our industry as far as knowledge goes. Mhm. And uh I remember at a seminar in Arizona, Alex was there and we were young, so we're all pretty hung over. We trying to pay attention. We're dozing off a bit. But Mhm.

anyway at uh the lunchtime he he he had met a climber and the climber had introduced himself and he said, "What do you do?" He's, "Oh, I'm just a climber." And Alex addressed the whole audience. And he said, "I want you to know that the climbers are the most important people in there because they're touching the trees, okay? They're they're the ones up in the canopy." And so, you know, I'm a hands-on arborist. I have been for years. I climb for many years. And I have four arburs in my company. I've had others come and go and go off on their own. That's what I like to do is teach.

And you know, it's important that you're always learning, right? But if if you don't continue to get knowledge and information about, especially a big 400-y old tree, a protected heritage tree, if you just bring in Joe Schmo and Joe Blow, then I think that's just not appropriate. You know, there needs to be a deep dive here. Uh because there are a lot of intelligent people in the industry out there and everybody has a little bit. You can't go to everybody. So we have to be realistic here. Okay.

Well, let me press you a little. Not I mean I want to get into that because that that tree on park right that you were talking about. Some brought up the question well if you're going to have a heritage tree and it's going to be removed might you have a protocol where you have more than one arborist report to well that that's an idea we can explore. But then you're it seems to me you're suggesting another thing which is You could possibly get any arborist to come and sign anything you would like possibly. So then you then you have to decide though how do you decide quality?

So you have to look at somebody's credentials and their experience. And then you can't really judge their ethics. But I've known arborists who would do whatever somebody wanted them to do. I need this tree removed. Can you get it removed? And they would write a thing that says this is hazardous when it was not hazardous and gets removed. And then the the second half of that is that the city needs to have a qualified person who can make a judgment call in those cases and say, "Wait a minute, this doesn't look right. Why are we going to remove this?" So, so you're you're proposing there's a city person that looks at the arborist evaluations. Well, somebody that is qualified. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh yeah, Jan is spot on because

you know like in Santa Barbara we had a guy named Dan Condan years ago and uh he was from Michigan and Dan was there for many years and brought the the industry up in Santa Barbara. Uh but he was told he needed to be in the office more and he said see you later. I'm done. Because uh he wanted to be out there in the field

and uh so having someone like a Dan Condan, somebody on staff, I know it's cost prohibitive maybe here, but you know, you can bring somebody in to go out and look. Jan's done a great job. Okay. Uh you know, somebody who just is unbiased. You know, they don't have a tree company and they don't have skin in the game as far as you know, what happens to the tree. They're coming in, they're unbiased, and they're going to look at it. Yeah. And that's important to have that after you have a couple arous reports. You know, someone's got to put eyes on boots on the ground. You got to get out there and look at it. See what's going on because there could be something being sold a bill of goods here. Even with two arborists, I've seen it.

I'm just trying to figure out and maybe this will come through some conversation or or drafting an ordinance, but how do we put that into a procedure that makes sense that we can do every time in some way that's expedient, right? Yeah. So what what a lot of municipalities will do is they will require a certain certificate. Um when you're assessing risk uh tree risk assessment is a very controversial and nuanced aspect of arboriculture. Um

there is a rubric which is pretty standardized um and it basically goes into probabilities of a target being hit, a target being your child, your car, your house. Yeah. anything that you know humans value. Um that's when a tree is risky when when when someone's determined that the probability is beyond a threshold um that the owner thinks is safe. Yeah. Or or reasonable.

Um so there is the tree risk assessment qualification provided by ISA the international society of arboriculture and that vets people in their ability to assess uh tree risk. Okay. No, thank you. Um, before I go past it, I did look at the tree canopy and I looked at the current inventory and it looks like I did look at a a number going back to the subject. We looked in 2006 we had an inventory of 3,158 trees and I'm looking at our 44. So, I didn't know if actually and I'm looking at Lindy now. Now, I'm not trying to say we're doing great. No problem. But somehow there's more trees in our inventory than there used to be. So there's

yeah I mean yes there's a reason for that. There's a lot of possible reasons. One reason is a different company did the inventory and they did a more thorough inventory and that's very likely. Okay. Another reason is the inventory the first inventory included trees 8 in or bigger. The second one included all trees. Okay. There's a whole bunch of other reasons. That doesn't mean anything.

Well I'm seeing Lindy shake her head. I guess what I mean is without analyzing the data both sides would we're all just speculating but I guess it's interesting for me to see those numbers. That's that's all. But not to say the the general feeling that some have especially in some neighborhoods is they would love to see it increase. That's a general feel that I do here. You have something there's there's certainly areas throughout the valley that could stand more trees. Um when we're talking about canopy cover I think um thinking about the time period um is important. So what what's our baseline? Are we are we thinking is there more trees now than 1900, 1800, 1500, 1,200? Um it it depends what we're looking at within our base my historical scope. Um

after the Spanish came through and dramatically changed our landscape uh through grazing practices and introductions of invasive species. Um the reliance on coal uh charcoal which was derived from our oaks. Um for example, Isa Vista was at one point created a huge oak grove and the whaling industry came along and the whaling industry required that charcoal in order to render the whale blubber into lamp fuel for European consumers. Um there was a a famous explorer, I can't remember his name, but he one of his quotes is that he could ride from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara and not see the light of day for all the oak leaves.

Oh, interesting. Right. So there's there's an argument that there could have been a lot more trees prior to Spanish influence for sure. Um there's certainly more trees in the valley now than than in the 1800s. Okay. No, I I see your point though. In other words, even if we want to take this as the current baseline now, that's fine with me to say, "Okay, let's have this be the launching point." Yeah. And and remember too that number of trees does not equate to canopy cover. We could have planted 5,000 trees that are this big and they don't do anything for canopy cover.

That's it. No thanks. I appreciate that. Last question on the section. This is kind of a it's basically the current fee schedule and the replacement requirements. Those are in this document to be edited. Is there anything that we need to change or want to change about that? And Lucas, I'm looking to you as well. Um, anything we need to change there or do we feel like that part is working? Okay.

Anybody? So, I think that we need to do a lot more strict requirements on mitigation. I think we need to require planting trees or giving money to the city's tree fund anytime a tree is removed, regardless of why. If it's removed because it's hazardous, it still needs to be replaced. And whether and and you know, there's going to be a lot of blowback from homeowners and stuff who don't want to pay for that, but there's ways around that. It's that's a complicated thing for you guys to figure out. Okay. Yeah. I was just thinking about that on the way over here, kind of brainstorming, you know,

and uh I was thinking like it'd be kind of cool to have a nonprofit where you you prune trees for people that don't have the financial wherewithal, you know, uh to take care of them. There you go. And uh well, maybe there's a Well, you're bringing up an idea, which is an idea. It's something that the city could potentially help with, right? Is help fund an Okay, got it. I I yeah I don't see our current mitigation having any effect. Okay. Zero effect. So are you saying the consequences that are in place are not influencing the behaviors we would like? Yes. Okay. So we need to make there be more teeth or we need to actually enforce the ordinance and enforcing. So enforcement,

you can have the best ordinance on the planet, but if it's not enforced properly, no, understand it does nothing. Okay. Except make people discouraged from doing any tree care at all because the cost to buy in is too high. Okay. No, this is this is what I want to hear. This is good. Okay. I'm just going to pause on this section right now. I want to go first now to the council. So if I we can hold off on the um Southern California Edison just for now because we'll have a whole section just on that. Good. I guess I want Andy or Lesie. Any questions? And then I'll go to Rachel. Yeah, please. And then let's let's have the timer be on the on the council as well as the public after that. Thank you.

Um just wanted to thank you all for coming in and for um giving us uh all of this information. So, of course, I'm confused a little bit over mature versus heritage versus protected and how they overlap and how they don't overlap. So, I'm hoping that, you know, definitionally we can kind of take care of that. Um, I mean, I've got notes, but I think a recap would be would be helpful. Um, from what I understand, mature trees require the council does designate it a mature tree, and it's an independ. So, when we went then to we we, you know, went from specific to general and we started talking about species, I thought that that was very very helpful. um you know did not know about the Southern California black walnut you know black poppplers willows all of those. So I think expanding out what we consider to be um protected to being you know a wider swath of trees is is really important. Um uh yes so the state of the canopy you know we did have a tree management plan and I don't know if that if there is

we still do. Yes, we still do. And if that is part of that, but it might be something um to consider. Um didn't never thought about the body language of a tree. I like that. I think that should go into the notes somewhere. Um and let's see. Yeah, I think that those are uh pretty much my comments. Certainly, I was there on Park Street because I got the call from the reporter to come down and take a look at, you know, what was going on. So, I saw limb after limb being chopped off and then we managed to get it stopped, you know, a work a work stop permit, but stopped the permit, but of course it went back. And um as I was talking to actually somebody from your crew um who was giving me a lot of information um you know he he just posited the fact that um yes you can actually get an arborist to sign off on bringing down any tree and that just isn't okay and there needs to be some mechanism whether it's a second arborist or an arborist who's going to uh default to no we don't cut this down we do save it versus you know an arborist who you know defaults to what would you like me to say and and how would you like this to come down so um we've talked about that so that was really very helpful certainly has to happen the second opinion has to be completely impartial with you know you you uh your default mechanism is can we save this tree so uh that's pretty much um all the really comments I have the clarification on mature heritage versus protective and you know rise general to specific so once again I want to thank Thank you very much for all coming and um yeah, it wasn't nice to see that old oak come down. That was

So, can I make a a little bit of a comment on Sure. So, something that is the city attorney in the room? Yeah. Of course.

Hi there, wherever you are. Um so, so there's another issue here that we don't really like to think about, but the city attorneys always think about it quite a bit. Somebody says my tree is dangerous and the city says we can make it less dangerous and then it falls down. So there's a liability issue and that's a nasty little topic but it's also something we have to think about. We absolutely do and when we get into liability and things like that and then we need to talk to our you know insurance the the the organization that you know ensures many m municipalities what are the standards that they have for this and you know how far is their coverage or how far are they willing to stand behind a city's decision I think would be a discussion to have with um with them as well.

Yeah. On that note, what Jam was saying, you know, I'm not into report writing. I don't just not for me, you know, I'd rather be riding my bike like Jam was saying. Cool. Uh, but I did become a court-certified arborist because I saw a fraudulent situation and it pissed me off honestly. Yeah. And the insurance company was working with me until they asked if I was a court-certified expert at that point. They paid out. So all I'm saying is it's important that if you're going to deal with a situation like that, you have a RCA guy in there. Okay. Thank you.

So that would be a sort of um mitigating factor against complete liability. So there are processes in place where you can mitigate your liability if you get the proper uh expert or sign off. This is good. Thank you. And to speak to your your point on on that large oak, um if the ordinance had provisions for heritage trees based on DBH, that would have that could have been a larger trigger which would require additional review. What does DBH? Sorry, diameter at breast height, diameter at standard height.

So that's the the that's how we measure sizes of trees. We we take a a measuring tape at four and a half ft above the ground level. Um depending, you know, there's some factors, you know, if you have a big bulge, you might go a little higher or lower. Um but that's, you know, how we determine how large a tree is. Um and that's kind of the standard uh for thresholds for protection um throughout

all the regions. Um it can have different names. You know, Ventura County goes by circumference. Some places call it diameter at standard height, but diameter of breast height is is kind of the older name that's still used most commonly. So by having a minimum once a tree reaches a minimum size it's instantly a heritage tree that would garner more protection and more oversight and trigger some sort of secondary while not encumbering all of the smaller trees with that same level of review. However, I would point out that that species of tree is already protected and you're saying you would give it an added layer of protection. Well, that's not that's not in the ordinance now. No, it's not. Okay. I know that this is

We're taking notes. So, thank you very much, gentlemen. Much appreciated. You have something? Yeah.

So, um I like the idea of having a staff person who would review uh reports about whether a tree needs to be removed or not. as an alternative uh and something that maybe we consider um you know we set the criteria for a removal for certain classes of trees I'm primarily concerned about sick boards um we set the criteria for who can certify that report what type of certification is required and then and then we have another level a a tree that's reached a certain size that gets that there's a right of review. And my understanding is that the city used to have a a board uh with stakeholders that would review tree decisions and we could potentially you know reform that board so that uh you know and it take time to decide what size of a tree got that automatic you know ability to review by the board. Um, but I think that's one way to approach to make sure that uh trees aren't being removed. I'm also interested because I've done government liability work myself. There's lots of places where uh municipality is immune as long as its decision is based upon scientific record. I don't know if that would apply here, but I'm I'm interested

in what the city attorney, you know, might come back to us with the way to achieve immunity might shape how we um do the process of of potentially saving a tree that's slated for.

Let me don't don't lose your train of thought. to say one thing that is in the in the proposal to bring back is this tree committee meets upon request by the public works director. I'm reading from the past forest management document, but it's being basically brought back the same way. The tree committee has five members appointed by the city council. Ideally, the tree committee should include at least one arborist, one landscape architect, and at least two members who are not tree related professionals. That could all change, of course, but it is on the table and I think it's a really good idea. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Oh, by the way, thanks thank all you guys for for one coming out, but also, you know, spending as much of your careers on

treats. You know, these chairs are really uncomfortable, right? Oh, we're going to get some good bar stools for you guys. Do you have you have one more thing? And then I want to go to Rachel when she's if she has any. A question. Does does any of what um Council Member Whitman just just sort of uh posited exist already? In other words, these layers of review, are there other municipalities that, you know, we could pull from a sort of a a model? It's just a question you guys might

Somebody called me on this the other day and I had to figure out how many city ordinances and county ordinance I've worked with, and I've worked with 25 or so, and they're all different. So, some of them have really stringent review processes. I think thousand oaks may be one of them. Um, some of them are kind of flaky and don't have much of anything. They say you got to do this, but no one cares. So, there are different there are places. There's models models you can look at. I don't love Thousand Oaks because it's really convoluted, but it's a very strict ordinance, but I work with it all the time and it's we can look. Yeah, we want it simple but terribly effective. Yes, that's it. That's how we went.

There's there's a in Ventura County, we have a discretionary versus a ministerial permit. So ministerial permits are easier to get. Um as soon as you have a heritage tree though it's automatically discretionary which is a higher level review. So yes there are devices that that have been used often. Yeah it is planning. Yes. Let me um let me go to Rachel now if I could. Um Rachel, do you have any questions on this section?

Yes. Um well I think it's it's really helpful to hear the distinction distinction between the mature tree and the um protected tree. Uh that is you know making that distinction I think is going to be important as we move forward thinking about this ordinance. um how so I have a question that's that that involves a lot of the concerns that I've heard from people regarding the tree any any talk about trees or tree or about the tree ordinance. One of the concerns that I've heard from people is it's not our trees that are the problem. It's our neighbors trees that are the problem

and and neighbors not having the resources to take care of diseased trees or dead branches. Um pruning the trees have their um their uh canopies going into the other people's yards. So how how I think first of all could you speak to that at all? And secondly, if um when we're looking at the pruning portion of this ordinance, how how would you recommend that we think about that in relation to some of these issues? Okay.

So, that's a really good question. I deal with a lot of legal cases and do a lot of expert witness work. I'm on two cases right now where the neighbor pruned somebody else's tree. I've done one in Ohigh. Um it's pretty common legal issue. The problem that you're defining is it's twofold. One is the neighbor doesn't want to prune their tree and the other is they can't afford to prune their tree. And the affordability thing, you know, that's a really big issue. There's, you know, not everybody, believe it or not, not everybody in Ohio is wealthy. Um

uh shockingly. So, that's something that is going to have to be addressed outside of the ordinance, but maybe by a nonprofit or some kind of a systematic approach where you can create a fund to help people. I don't know. That's I think that's outside of anything that would be in the ordinance though. Just to add to that, which will come up in a minute, but fire safety and hardening in general, there seems to also be an interest in some species, let's say like eucalyptus that are, you know, problematic. And if people have a difficult time removing those that maybe the city would come up with something. Yeah, we can talk for a long time about fire safety. No, for sure. For sure. But not right now. Maybe. Yeah. Rachel, did did that answer your question?

Yeah, actually I had a question too regarding that. So, let's say h how how much does the understory of a eucalyptus or any kind of mature tree, a palm tree, affect that of the oak or of some of the protected trees? Dramatically. Mhm. Say more

with a coast live oak. Um there's a lot of people that would love to have a lush beautiful lawn under the coast live oak and that can often be a death sentence although a very protracted one. Um by having high irrigation demanding plants protected within the drip lines of these species that are adapted for our Mediterranean climate which does not have summer water. Um we dramatically increase the risk of disease. Um, and it it can be a really big problem. So, a lot of municipalities have regulations on what type of landscaping is allowed within the drip line of a protected oak. Mhm.

Um and to speak on uh council person's mention on the threshold for pruning. Um while I love the idea of reducing the size necessary to uh currently you need to prune a 4-in branch, you need a permit. And under the new redline version, that would drop down to two inches, which very much will discourage people from getting treework if they can't afford it. An arborist report can cost anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollar just for the report. And that's before Mark even gets called.

And then Mark comes out and he's not making nearly as much money as he probably should be. And it's going to cost a few thousand more. I mean, he's not driving a Porsche over here. So, so I agree with you totally. Reducing the size required for removing a limb to two inches is way off the board. That's That's absurd. Okay. Okay. Oh, yeah, sure. Um, are you done, Rachel? Okay, for now.

Yes. Thank you very much. So, um, when you talk about pruning, it's going to be important to focus on, are we talking about aesthetic pruning, are we talking about safety pruning, what's the purpose of the pruning? Um, because a lot of the problems that I see is people go into an oak tree and and they want to the aesthetic to be different. And as has been discussed before, you end up, you know, removing the canopy that's protecting the tree. And so, um, that so the purpose of the pr pruning is important and we probably need a lot of education in the community about the right way to treat trees. And then the only other thing I'll say is I have a general understanding that even though the tree trunk may be 100% on your property, as soon as you

you draw the invisible property line, the part that's hanging over the other person's property, there's Yes. So, so the the legal precedent now is it used to be that you could cut anything at your property line and that was just fine. And now there's legal precedent that you can't do unreasonable damage to your neighbor's tree and that's why I'm in court all the time. Oh, okay. Um Okay. Yeah. The other thing you said, what was the other thing you said? I said we need to we need to So,

yeah. So, about how much a tree gets pruned, I know this is a concern of yours because what happened with your neighbors, the ordinance is going to try to tighten that up to 10% of the canopy. It's currently 25% of the canopy. So, that doesn't mean a damn thing if there's no enforcement, right? But it's going in the right direction. So somebody couldn't just totally gut their tree and get away with it unless nobody ever caught them, which you know, you caught your neighbor. But what I'm hearing though, you do say that there's a staff person that is somehow involved in this. Maybe that staff person is also helping with enforcement. Just say we got to move on to more subjects, but give us a conclusion. Yeah, real quick conclusion on that. Yeah.

Uh pruning is the worst thing you can do to a tree and can be the best thing you can do for a tree. So just remember that. Okay. Pruning is bad for trees in general. Okay. So, here's what I want to do. Um, anybody public would like to come up and talk about those subjects? So, Southern California Edison, we're going to talk about right after this. So, hold off on that. But, anything that you've heard so far that you want to bring in a comment, please come up. Yes. Yeah. Come. Good evening everybody. Thank you guys for being here. I've had the pleasure of working with three out of the four here and I also work with Kristen. So, you're here on her behalf tonight. So, it's great.

Um, rather than speaking to specifics on this ordinance, I just kind of wanted to encapsulate what I experience as the public works director, um, Lucas handles the trees in the in on private property and I manage the trees in the public right ofway in city parks and a lot of Edison um, tree permits come to me. So, um, as we can acknowledge here, there's many stakeholders here, and I think we can all acknowledge that this ordinance may need a little bit more massaging to get everybody's um, weigh in and buy in on this. Um, we have a multitude of motivations and goals and, um, you know, cost always comes into play. not as much as for the city, the public trees as it does for private trees, although we try to be very mindful of how much we're spending. And we already get second opinions. I've got a couple of people up here on this panel who have given me second opinions. Um, so we're always mindful, especially a a heritage/mature slashprotected tree. We're paying very close attention to that. We, you all know about the tree at Sarasota. Um, that was a huge effort and Mark took it down. Scott gave me a multi multitude of of uh assessments on that tree as did Kristen. So, we worked with a whole team and I'm not thinking that that's always a possibility for private property owners. It's cost prohibitive. It's not cheap to do tree work. It's not tree um you know, it's not inexpensive to get arborist reports and then multiple arborist reports and then tree trimmers out. It's very very expensive. So, um, and then the other thing I'd like to talk about is the multiple opinions. It's, you know, there's a lot of science that goes into arborist work. There's also a lot of opinion. And so, I think that's what for me is important on getting a variety of opinions. So, and what we're trying to do is get to a consensus. And that's what we finally

got to at the Sarah tree. We got to a consensus, many arborist consensus that said this is not a good tree to that was after after several efforts to save it. two two efforts. Yes. Okay. So, there was a lot of effort that went into saving that tree.

So, um and then I think something else we need to talk about and I I don't want to spend a whole lot of time. I wanted to just sort of talk generally and then we have to find a balance. We have to find a balance that works for everybody. Um we for property owners again we've got two tracks here. We've got private trees and public trees. And so striking a balance on cost um desire of the city of course and property owners needs come into play. Um the other thing that I think that's very important in adopting a new ordinance is we we're looking for compliance with the ordinance and if we don't get that we need to be able to enforce it.

So this makes no difference what we write down on paper if we can't get compliance and we can't enforce it. That's the fifth time I've heard that tonight and we are taking that really seriously and it's true. I think it's true. I think that we could all agree on that. Well, no, don't leave yet. So, I just I want to clarify. So, you were saying there's there's a a prohibitive cost, right, for the private land owner that the city was able to take on. So, if we decide this is a big priority for us, we're going to have to think about how to work with somebody on their private property potentially and possibly help them. Absolutely. Okay. I mean, I think we I think we adopt an ordinance and and and we say you have to do this. People can't afford to buy groceries. Sometimes certainly trees are at the very bottom of their priority list.

Now, Dennis, the ju excuse me, just one more. We spent over $25,000 on the tree at Sarasota, right? Still couldn't save it. There's a lot of property owners who can't afford that, of course. So, you spent $25,000 on that tree before you cut it down? No. Okay. I was including the the ticket. I was gonna say you got taken to the Yeah. No. No. No. Thanks. So, anyways, no. I appreciate it. Anybody else? Please come up real quick and just tell us who you are. Uh, my name is Mike Warford. I'm the assistant fire marshal of Ventur County Fire Department. I oversee our wildfire preparedness division. So,

thank you so much. Defensible space inspections, vegetation complaints, real estate, uh, wildfire disclosure inspections, all that kind of good stuff. We're actively doing

all of that stuff every day. Um, our notices for the June 1st deadline are are going to be mailed out April 20th. So, you're going to have people actively So, there's a common misconception out there that we want people to cut trees down. We do not, but we do have, you know, specific requirements for trees that are within 100 feet of structure. And so if you have branches that are within, you know, three feet of the roof and eaves, we want those trimmed back 10 feet off the chimney. And then generally any tree within 100t of the the home, we want those limbmed up off the ground.

Uh so that fire on the ground doesn't transmit up into the tree. So if yeah, including us in this process is huge. Um we appreciate you having us to this meeting tonight, but yeah, um any FAQ um sheet you can come up with to put clarifying language in there for for folk when they need a permit. Do they need a permit for fire clearance? As far as I understand it, for the most part, you can deadwood trees without a permit. You can cut branches. Yeah, it's kind of it's it's across the board in the county. We So we deal with the county and the in the unincorporated areas, the city of Thousand Oak, the city of Seini, Camaro, you guys, you know, so

they're they're kind of varying across the board. So, it's hard to keep up with all of that. Can I ask Lucas, uh, if somebody wanted to is a permit required to do basically a fire maintenance piece like that still? Depends. It depends on the size of the limbs. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, any kind of clarifying language that you can put in there and we we're more than happy. Uh there's a county like FAQ thing. Yeah, I was gonna ask that question. The county did something. I thought they did.

Yeah, it needs a little bit of updating, but it goes over like we get dragged into like neighbor disputes, you know, if they don't get what they want from the city or other entity, they come to the fire department, they say it's a fire hazard, so then we end up coming out doing an assessment. We're not tree experts either. We usually default to if a city has an arborist or someone else like that to you know unless it's clearly dead and there's surrounding you know it's all the foliage is dead and everything like that then in certain instances we support removing it but generally

so I've been working with fire ordinances for many many years and what you said is reasonable and I tell people all the time to do this to get yourself in fire compliance And most, you know, there's a big huge pine tree in town that's hanging over a big apartment building. It's got needles on the roof about this thick. And it's like, you know, those are real fire hazards. And the work in that case, the tree has to be removed. I'm not ever going to tell anybody exactly where it is, but it's like, wow. At least we probably wouldn't remove it. I mean

I mean well it's like if if you actually made it safe you would literally be cutting one half of the canopy off which it's a it's a pine tree so that's not okay. So anyway but that's an extreme example but 10 feet from the chimney I usually tell people a minimum of six feet off the roof and three feet from the edges and remove all the ladder fuel up to 10 or 12 feet. So yeah, and there's a lot of trees in town where the whole structures are covered by canopy. So well, we don't expect folks to trim, you know, we we try to get them to give us as much clearance as possible. It's not only uh the wildfire danger, but if we have a structure fire there, right,

and our guys need to get on the roof to ventilate, they need room to operate up on the right. So yeah, it it's all those things. But so just wait till the state law hits the books. We're all looking at we're all so looking into that. So the state bring that up. The state board of forestry is reconvening on April 23rd. Okay. We've had lots of discussions with them over the last year. They they're not going to make people cut down trees within 5t of the house. They may make them limit up. There's discussion right now 5 to 10 feet above the roof, but they're not going to make So if it's if I I'm hearing you it's an invitation from you that we would work with you on what we produce and and look Yes, definitely. I'll give you my information when we leave. Yes. Thank

Thank you. If I if I may, while we're here Oh, I'm not trying to keep you here, man. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Uh but while while we're while we're talking about clearances um and I know we're going to get to thece piece of this, but in the same way that uh the fire marshall is looking at clearances as it relates to structures um we're looking at clearances as it relates to our infrastructure, right? And the way that we look at clearances is uh in a number of factors, but in part um and to a large degree the the extent to which an area is determined to be a high fire risk area, right? And so for a high fire risk area, ideally we'd like to see about 10 feet of clearance between our lines and the risk of something getting into our lines right now. That may not always be possible or, you know, uh or that might not always be achievable, but that's what we want to see. So I just want I I would urge everyone in this room to to consider uh think in your head of a tree next to a line and think of 10 feet of space and think of what that is and what that means. And as from a safety perspective, that's that's what we're shooting for.

Let me Yeah. Do you have your hand up? Yes. Come. And then Renee, after that. Yes. I I would like the city to consider waving all fees related to fire removal, fire safety, firewise because I just received a letter from the fair plan lately fair. Um that we can get discounts if we do certain things and those require some of them require fees. So, if the city would eliminate not not eliminate, wave fees for a year or two so that everybody could get get it done, at least it's something. I know it's not going to help anybody because I spent

5,000 on a tree that now now is no longer there. Um, but that is something. And the city did wave it on the second. Many many municipalities do have provisions uh that wave fees when there's a conflict. So the forest the the fire regulations, the insurance regulations, these are often in direct conflict with local tree protection ordinances and that's been recognized in other municipalities and they do wave those fees because we are we are the main stakeholder. I mean you're a stakeholder because you're trying to save your other people. You guys make a living that's great but at the end of the day we're the stakeholder at least on the public level.

No thank that's good. No thank you Renee. And then yes, come back. There's too much to talk about. We're not going to get through it, but it's fun. Now, of course, I could have guessed, too. Yes, please.

Uh, I'm really glad you're all here. We're having this discussion. I've had many concerns uh for several years. Um, and in fact, I've sent several emails to Mike Warford trying to get clarification on what the firesafe standard standards are and what can be enforced. Um, and I've had uh difficulty accepting that the the new fire maps put what is it 60% of Ohigh is in a very high fire hazard area. 60% of OHigh in a very high fire hazard area and it doesn't seem like the city has done very much to put together the safety element of our general plan etc etc and I have been pushing for these things for many months so that by way of background one of the reasons I'm most concerned and I'm beginning to realize why this bothers me so much is I live with a oak tree that is about 10 feet from my house. Diameter I don't know what that is. Uh big huge cavity at the base of it on the bottom. Big mark on the other side. Girdled roots because they put in drainage and they cut off the root problems. Arborous said arborist report said you need to remove this tree as soon as you have the ability financially to do so. As soon as you have the financial ability to do so has uh falls on my homeowners association. my homeowners association and and I hired and had a private arborist put a report together for the homeowners

association and said please take this ser seriously with the ruler in showing the cavity on one side and the decay etc and nothing is being done. We're watching it. We're watching this tree. It's 10 ft from my home with diameter oak tree and all the branches are growing toward the sun which is right next to my property. So, it's growing over my property and being trimmed back on the other side because they want it to fall a certain direction. This tree, by the way, is in the uh roadway where people get in and out of our community during a fire emergency. So, I want you to know that there are real fire safety issues where people aren't doing things and I also know as a matter of fact that and I've been told by um another HOA person who was on the board, you know, we've just decided as a board that we don't want to pay the permit fees and the mitigation fees to get dangerous trees removed. we wait for them to fall and then we don't have to pay any of those fees. So, I'm just letting you know that I've kind of had it up to here with rules and regulations that prevent people from doing the right thing. I'm I've been looking for a while and I found the city of Bleton and I'd like to give this to Bethany Burgess says the city of Bleton has a fivepage okay

report um on their native tree protection and they just passed another ordinance that's five pages four pages long that's puts their planning commission in direct review responsibility for their tree maintenance management planning process. They meet as a planning commission and then they close that meeting and then they meet as a tree committee and uh management committee tree and and and so it's the planning commission's responsibility. And the last thing I just want to say and I'll close with this is that from this ordinance and I really liked it because it gives the planning or the community development director such as Lucas. It says the planning director may authorize the removal of protected trees under one or more of the following conditions. To protect public safety, to pro protect the integrity of the existing structure or roadway, to avoid or minimize the spread of disease or if another native treere's health is at risk. To avoid or minimize the spread of non-native invasive species to reduce fuel loads.

I just want to Okay, please. management. Thank you.

We will read that carefully. Thank you very much. Lindy, you wanted to come up. Oh, I thought you had your hand. Yes. Come, please. Thanks, Renee.

Yeah, tell us who you are. My name is Oscar Duran and I'm a arborist here in in the valley. Thank you.

Um, something that I'd like to bring up that I feel would really help the everything that's we're talking about today is actually informing homeowners because they're the ones that make the ultimate decision, whether it be a right or wrong answer. And I feel by pushing and getting that information out to homeowners and being well informed, I think that's really going to help out on the what obviously they do to their trees and maybe who they hire. I think just that little bit of information, get it in to the Ohigh Valley into homeowners and and people that own trees. Um that's I feel like that will make a big difference. If I could ask you, so having it, even if we had a great website with all that information, that's not enough. We've got to actually get out to the

whole you have to be proactive, I would say, aggressively. Yeah. Push and and inform the the Ohigh Valley on what is a tree ordinance. Mhm. Uh just simple info like the the 20% canopy, the the the diameter, uh uh the breast height, like what does that all that general information that I feel anybody who owns a tree should know. Okay. And it's it's uh a lack of of of knowledge that's contributes to to the poor practices that um are damaging the trees here. No, I appreciate that.

And it's u it should really be pushed and I I guarantee it's not going to fix the problem, but you'll see uh you'll see a difference for sure when the public gets informed. Thank you. I appreciate that. I 100% agree with that sentiment. Um by enabling the general population to understand these regulations, it can also really help out the city and enforcement. Mhm. So, not only would that campaign help, you know, potentially get us better trees, it would also help us find where these infractions are happening and potentially stop them.

I'm hearing that over and over again. Okay, let's move. We're going to switch gears unless somebody's online that Okay, let's let's talk aboutce because that's an important thing. There's many important things, but that's one. So, here's the question, Ian, I guess, for you. What are the responsibilities and limits of utility companies for the trees? You already began to talk about that, but so say one more time. You're looking for this clearance around utility lines, but say more. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh, so we're looking for clearance around utility lines. We're looking for uh different levels of clearance around utility lines as it relates to the extent of or the amount of electricity that's flowing through those utility lines. Uh we're encouraging safety, right? So this is what we're looking at. Um, whence sends a veg management crew out to uh do veg management around one of our lines, um, I guess I'm just kind of hearkening back to what I was saying before. Those veg management crews uh are not um, uh, they are insured. uh they are insured to an extent to which not only are they insured in terms of uh their work on the tree, but they're insured in terms of their own health because they're working in a in a condition that is inherently unsafe, right? They're working in a condition with lines, with uh electricity. And so, um really I'm I'm bringing this conversation back to those cornerstones of safety and affordability. uh we need to be managing uh the trees within our service territory to the extent that they could interfere with our lines creating an unsafe condition first and then second is in terms of affordability right we need to be managing those trees in a manner in which uh we are not placing an undue burden on our rateayers and so with regard to the city's ordinance right um let's say the city were to pass an ordinance that uh was um uh overly burdensome on our rateayers as a class with regard to mandated actions on a utility likece. Um in the ordinance I I do believe I recall there being uh a line about trimming for example whole trees instead of just part of trees, right?

Um so we are going to trim the part of the tree that is at risk of interfering with our line which is at risk of causing a safety issue. We are not going to take into account the aesthetic value of maintaining a treere's uh we t we talked about balance earlier right if that balance is an aesthetic one that is not something that we are motivated by that's not something that we are going to take a look at we're not going to consider um I would even go so far as to say that um as regards uh human safety that we're going to consider uh that risk and mitigating that risk to be more important than the health of the tree itself. Um, so that's that's what I would say.

No, that's important to hear.

So, I have a comment on that. I I told, like I said, I've worked with Edison before on L clearance. I know I know the constraints that you guys have. The complaint comes from, you know, when you prune this side of the tree and the other side's not in the lines and the tree looks stupid. And so, number one, it's not very much necessarily about health. It is about appearance, which I don't think you guys really care about, and I don't blame you. But the third thing that I do see sometimes is that you guys create a situation where there's a tree with big long limbs that have been forced to grow this way because the top is constantly cut off and you're creating a hazardous situation. I'm really surprised you've never been sued for that because those big long limbs that hang out, it's not all the time everywhere, but it happens. So that's the only of those three things, that's the only one that I really think matters.

I just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying like a limb that's underneath the the line so it's allowed to grow? Right. So So this quarter of the tree is pruned off and it's and it's or or maybe the whole tree is is kept at a certain height. That's actually more common. And then there's branches going sideways and the tree can't grow up. It's going to push those hormones out to the other branches. So those those branches will grow long and heavy. Again, it's not everywhere all the time, but it happens. So, and yeah. Well, I guess I would I would respond to that by asking another question. Um, which is um

in the circumstance that you're describing, a tree is growing directly underneath one of our lines. So, we have to cut off the top of it, which is what has forced it to branch out, right? To seek that sunlight, to seek that sustenance, uh, because we cut the top off of a tree. Um, so I guess my question to you would be, is there, and I I apologize for not knowing this, but is there a a way to determine necessarily if we do cut the top off a tree, as a matter of fact, uh, limbs will grow in this direction or that direction that that that will that will get into our lines?

Well, it's fairly Yeah, I think it's a pretty much a general rule. If you keep the top of the tree cut off, which you have to do that, it's going to grow somewhere unless it dies. So that Yeah, that's so as a matter of right. So as a matter of public policy, um as soon as that branch, we're going to cut that top off of that tree, right? If it's if it's directly underneath our lines and it's going to grow into it, we're going to cut the top off that tree. Um, as soon as that branch starts growing in a way that looks like it is also going to start interfering with our lines, that would be the trigger at which we would come out and

Yeah, it's not it's not that it's it's not that that branch is going to interfere with your lines. So, there's a basic solution to this, which isn't your problem at all. It's called the right tree in the right place. In other words, don't plant damn eucalyptus trees under high voltage lines. Yeah, we prefer that you not plant I and I want to be very clear about this. We would prefer that you not plant eucalyptus trees ever. ever. So I mean Ian, if I could ask you the um the if I understand correctly, if there was some lines and there's a tree and you guys are cutting that part of the tree, right, that would interfere with the lines. A common complaint is it's lopsided, right? You don't, as far as I understand, you actually don't even have the right to go and trim the other side, right?

Oh, no. We we we will trim we will trim a tree to the ext I'm sorry. I don't mean to sound like a broken record. I I I apologize. We will trim a tree to the extent that it poses a safety risk that it's going to interfere with our lines. That is the consideration. I mean, I understand your motivation. I was saying right now you're not even really allowed to go to the other side on the property and trim the other side. No. Right. No, we're not going to do that. It's outside of their easement. So, yeah. Right. Outside of your easement up there. So, yeah. People are confused when they see Edison personnel coming onto their property without any notice because they don't need any notice because it's their easement.

Understood. It's not really your fault. In other words, I mean, I hear I I see where you are. I get it totally. I'm just pointing out something that I've seen and that I've heard. Well, and I'm and I'm just trying to be honest, right? I'm trying to be honest. I'm trying to represent honestly and earnestly the company's motivations and the reason why the company will or will not take certain actions. Um, and then allow, you know, which allows you guys to make whatever decisions are going to be best. Well, then then I want to, that's where I kind of want to go is or ask a question of the panel. Is there something that can be done to mitigate this problem that is possible? This is where local ordinance can really play. Same way um when we don't have largecale statewide ordinances or even you know very comprehensive countywide ordinance. Okay.

Um when there's a conflict between a private corporation whose only goal is profit, they are a publicly traded company. The only goal for that company is profit. um they have a lot of other responsibilities associated with that. But if a if a municipality if a culture values certain things like having aesthetically pleasing trees or healthy trees, then this is where ordinance can really have an effect.

Um I totally understand Edison not wanting to do extra work. I mean it that makes sense. I don't want to pay more for my electricity bill. But there is at some level a responsibility in caring for a tree responsibly. Um Edison is not a tree trimming company. They hire subcontractors. The subcontractors have varying skill levels and varying levels of oversight. Um within the city limits, they're required to have a certified arborist on site while the tree is being trimmed. And that rarely occurs. So, just to say, if we were to create an ordinance that did those things you're talking about, then Ian, I'm hearing you say it would translate into a more costly effort that would translate into higher energy bills for for our

Well, if it was statewide, it would I mean, it's not like you're not going to raise our Well, what I'm local, not just your local, but Well, I I think what I'm saying is um would we comply? Yeah. Right. Right. the the answer to that I believe would be no, right? Um and I know that's also a difficult thing for for municipalities to um to get behind or to to fully comprehend, right? That simply because you pass an ordinance,

uh it doesn't mean necessarily that we are going to comply with that. because we're regulated by the CPU. Um the way that we operate in your city in Thousand Oaks, in Ventura, in you know, all the way up to Fresno, down to the border with San Diego, um every single city's laws and and permits and ordinances are all subject to CPU review to the extent that we believe that it would place an undue burden on our rateayers. So if the city were in a if the city were to pass an an ordinance that we believed would place an undue burden on our rate pairs with regard to our veg management practices, then what would happen is we would basically file a complaint, right? A complaint to the CPU and then the CPU has a rulemaking process. They have um it's an adjudicative hearing process. It's it's essentially a it's basically like a judge um who would uh look at all of this and make a determination as to whether they agree or disagree with our assertion that it does or does not place that undue burden on our rateayers and then they would basically say if it does that we do not have to comply with it.

Yeah. And we should go about our business anyways. Or if it doesn't then we should comply with it and now all of a sudden it's a precedent that every other city's going to start implementing. Right. Right. Right. No, that's helpful. And so then, but just now, Scott, I'm making an assumption here, but if it is true that if a certified arborist is supposed to be on site at the job and you're you're you suggested they're not always there, that is something that we could help with or we could request that in some enforced way. I'm I'm I don't know what the truth is.

Yes, absolutely. Having an inspector come out and stopping work if there's not a certified professional on site that can give the oversight necessary, that would be a step. And toce credit, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, um, but you do require that your contractors abide by best management practices and ANC standards. Oh, certainly.

There there shouldn't be a situation when an Edison contractor is leaving a potentially unsafe condition by unbalancing a tree to the point where it risks failure. they would likely in the the circumstance where they had to do that major of a pruning that it could unbalance the the tree they would potentially do additional corrective pruning on the other side of the tree rather than paying the extra money to have the tree completely removed. So there are situations when they may do a little more to avoid further liability down the road. Um that being said, you know, they're not always doing things to the standard that they set. I see a lot of stub cuts, flush cuts, and these lead ultimately to the decay and decline in our trees. So, by following those best management practices and by having inspectors make sure that those best management practices are followed, that is the best way that we can prevent any undue harm to our trees as a result of routine maintenance. Thank you, Mark. You going to say something or no?

I wish Cal Jones was here. Well, I know there's a lot there's a lot we want to do. No, but anything else? No, you've made yourself fairly clear, so I appreciate and thank you. Um, yeah. Let's go to the council. Yeah. And then we'll go to the public, please.

So, what you're saying is is that the company is not uh required to adhere to local ordinances. Um, and if because you have an obligation not to increase unduly rateayers. Um, and and you you compile all of this because Fresno has something and you know, ohigh has something and so and and so you you basically put all of those in the same bundle and you say if we did this for all of these places, it would be an unfair burden on the rateayer. Is that how that works?

That's I mean that's certainly the legal calculus is is if we if we were to like let's let's say let's say that you guys passed this ordinance that said that we had to trim the entirety of the tree, right? We don't just have to trim, you know, regardless of the health of the tree. For aesthetic value, for you believe that for aesthetic value, we should be required rateayers should be required to spend the money to make sure the trees in Ohigh look nice, right? What what what we would not let this hypothetical. I'm not trying to suggest that that's what your ordinance is designed to do. Um,

we would challenge that, right? We would challenge that. And the reason we would challenge that would be because we would suggest that not only would this place an undue burden on our rateayers service territorywide to make sure that the trees look nice and ohigh, we uh we would challenge that on that on that assertion, but also because of the presidential value um that would uh take place that that could be derived if we were not to challenge it.

Right. Ex pretty much exactly what you're saying. So then I guess the the the uh point here is differentiating between an aesthetic and a and a a safety. So if you prune a tree and you don't have an arborist there and your guys are, you know, they're in and they're out because that's what they have to be. Um so so there's there's the other side of that which is it's it's not a question of aesthetic it's a question of health whether it's uh health and sa safety for you know for people um either now or you know sometime in the not tooistant future because limbs are you know growing the wrong way or something like that. So what I understand is but there is a necessity for you to follow best practices. So that's something that's that you know you can't go to the to the CPU and say well you know we're not going to do best practices because it's it doesn't you know it would affect the rateayers unduly. You can't do that. You're

Yeah. So we we follow best practices uh with regard to vegetation management um to the extent to which they do not interfere with our ability to maintain the safety of our infrastructure. So, um I guess what I'm I'm trying to be very clear about that, right? That that there's um that we've talked about how multiple arborists can look at something a different way. Yeah.

Right. Our our arborists look at trees from the perspective of the risk that those trees pose to our infrastructure and then they work to ameliate that risk. they are not considering um all of the the factors that you guys are talking about here, right? And and more than that, not only are they not considering them, I'm telling you that we can't uh collectively as a society, collectively as rateayers within Southern California Edison service territory, we cannot collectively absorb the costs that would be required for Edison to begin considering these factors. Right. So the city will have to take responsibility for that in one way or another.

It wouldn't be us if we want it to be taken or if we want it and and to and to that point um I I would I to that point what I would suggest is um what what would you suggest that would be really helpful? Well, I mean what you know what I would suggest as a matter of policy as you're uh moving forward with this draft ordinance that has the potential to shift the financial burden for the maintenance uh in different circumstances.

Um I would urge the city to look at both ends um in terms of uh barrier to entry and in terms of and this is me speaking as a policy professional. This is I I would say this with regard to really any policy that you're looking to implement. Um I would look at both the barrier to entry and I would also look at the oversight mechanism. So if the barrier to entry is you need like you can't just have any arborist willy-nilly saying yeah take that tree down or yeah you know that one that needs to go right. Well what is the barrier to entry? Uh perhaps the barrier to entry is I heard uh talk of a courtappointed arborist. Well what standards do courts use to determine whether an arborist is qualified to speak in court? I would suggest that whatever standards courts use to to make that determination could be a similar standard that the city could bring to bear in deciding whether an arborist opinion is worthy of consideration.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think I think that there are standards that arborists have. Um so I I think that's a good idea and I think that that those standards already exist. I'm not sure what they are but I think I've heard that they do exist. Yeah. I guess I'm saying is that between the two of them right if you if you if you create a lot of Hold on. Hold on Jan. Please go.

Well, I'm just saying if if you create a barrier to entry in terms of who can actually uh as an arborist speak to the city and make recommendations to do X or Y and then you create your oversight panel that can look at that and make determinations and provide uh an appeals process and provide a public process for you know deciding whether the city should or should not take an action. What you've done there at at the front end and at the back end is you've basically created um uh you know an over you've created a a transparency mechanism um which will inherently reduce the volume of these considerations

um and that I would argue that's probably something you need to do in order to facilitate this if you were to consider taking on the financial burden yourselves as taxpayers. And then can you do you have one more? Um, I just wanted to to say um in in uh the right tree, right place kind of idea might also apply to PE replacement trees. So, if we're going to replace trees underneath lines, perhaps we should be replacing trees that uh you know are suited to be in that in that place or not place them there at all. Either way, but yeah. So, one of the um one of

one of the I don't want to take it too much. No, it's okay. Uh one of the things that I'd worked on prior to working for Edison was the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. Uh uh where essentially you had a a consortium of solar and wind energy providers that wanted to build massive solar and wind farms in the Mojave Desert within the Joshua Trees range, right? Well, what does that do? You've got to I mean, you've got to take the Joshua tree, take it uh in in state languages, kill, right? You've got to kill the Joshua tree. Um well, the only way that um that was going to be tenable for uh well these communities, the environmental contingent um was uh if we got basically the solar and wind companies who were agreeing to take these trees to replant them. But where do you replant them?

And and the answer to that question became 50 miles north. Why? Because the trees range over 50 years to 100 years is expected to shift north, right? because of of climate change, because of weather patterns, the actual optimal range of the Joshua tree in 50 to 100 years from now is actually not going to be where it is currently. Um, are you saying that to say that the right tree in the right place is something we should be thinking about in a more holistic way? In a more holistic way. Um, and and I would argue in a longer term fashion. Um, yeah. Yeah, that's that's what I'd say.

Trees sometimes grow slowly. The only other thing um that that I was wondering in order to make sort of this a possibility is and and Lindy might have the answer to this is the coordination of the line clearance um you know with the city so that the city knows whenever line clearance is going on and you know it's it would be impossible for us to monitor that or to be transparent about it if we didn't know about it. So I believe they're notified. Yeah. Okay. Good. That's that would be it. Thank you Andy. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Thank you for your Thank you. Thank you.

Just a quick comment and this is more on my personal experience on my own property and other people coming to me and asking me about what's going on on their property. And that is when what I've experienced, what they've experienced is the contractor shows up, not an arborist, and that there is something that doesn't seem right about what they're now going to do. It's been my experience that if you communicate with the right person at Edison, there's usually some type of better resolution. In other words, you get some type of response. So, um, I just wanted to add that for anybody who's listening. And

if you get on that red list, they're going to give you lots of extra attention. That's for sure. Well, you know, I think what I tell people is you can always ask, you know, whether is there the whether there's another way or a better way to do that. And if if you talk to somebody the right person, then you might um get a more uh favorable approach to your trees.

So uh what I will say is that um the regulations have a range, right? Uh state regulations, local regulations, most of them have a range, right? A range within which we can act, right? And within that range um is the flexibility that allows for partnership betweence and the city right. So if we uh legally are able to trim your trees up to 12 feet of clearance right from our lines um and the minimum statutory uh limit to which we can do that would be 4 feet right if the if the if the maximum is 12 feet and the minimum is 4 feet then what I'd say is in between 4t and 12 feet is where we're working with you I mean that's where we're working with you that's where we're saying okay we we're not going to cut we're not going to trim to the 4oot statuto minimum because if we do that then we're going to be out here in you know a month two months as soon as an inch of growth happens. I mean we can get fined right we get fined by the CPU when um we are not um adequately managing vegetation that creates risk right uh again hitting our rateayers. So, um, you know what I mean? So, so, so, yes, even though in an ideal world, we would only trim four feet back. Well, I mean, how how far should we be trimming back in order to limit the impact on our rate payers while maintaining safety, right? Where is the where's the line between those two considerations?

The advice is I'm hearing is if you are the the homeowner and is there that you're encouraging, hey, talk to us. Let's come up with some Yes. Um, and and be kind. Um, and be sure. So, Let's get that. No, that's fair. Uh I I actually have here in the audience I have Max Green um who is uh my backup. Um and I say my backup, but he's actually the subject matter expert. Please the super short version because we're running out of time. Um

I I just wanted to I mean I appreciate everybody being here. I appreciate all these ars input for it. I've been an arborist for 25 years and doing utility line clearance for 25 years. Um we trim over 1.6 million trees in our territory. every year. So, logistically to go around and make everybody's tree look really nice, basically be their landscapers, is not logistically possible. But to your point, Kristen works with Lindy all the time. She's the artist that works for me, the specialist in this area. And if anybody has any questions or any input on how they want their trees to look once they're trimmed, usually when that happens, it's a tree that we're trimming for the first time and you're not what we're going to take, how much clearance we're going to take. And to his point, after the Senate Bill 11 was passed, after the Thomas fire, 12 feet is that's optimal for us. We know we can't come in and just take a 12ft swap. No, it would really off. But you meet us in the middle of that 4 foot requirement by Cal Fire, which is bare minimum. Like you said, once we trim it, it's already growing out of compliance the day we leave. six to eight feet on an on a slow growing tree. We're fine with you can bring Kristen in very everybody. That's what they mean by just asking the tree trimmers there, the contractors, which to his point is right. We the oversight on them is uh quite a bit, but things can happen. They're out in an area working where they don't there's not a lot of public eyes on them and they'll make those stub cuts and things like that. So, anytime you have a complaint and you you call Kristen, um she's going to take care of it.

Okay. And we're here to work with you, but to his point, the 4 foot rule is not that is we can't adhere. Thanks. Thank you. And as someone who complains to Edison, I do agree Kristen is wonderful and they do listen. Yeah, they really are. They really do care. I'd like to apologize for not being Kristen personally. I I I I do I do wish she was here. Um let me go to Rachel though and see if Rachel has any questions, please. Nope. The other council members answered all my questions or asked all my questions. Okay, let me go to the audience. Anybody from the public want to speak on this subject? Mike. Yes.

Michaela, liberal arburist. Hi.

Hi. I'm hearing unfortunately that this is a lot of confusion, right? There's a lot of fingerpointing and perceived grievances. And this uh proposed ordinance started off with five minutes talking about mature trees which was a surprise to the author because he wasn't aware of 87 the ordinance 870 that removed protections for mature trees under the opaces of protecting the urban forest in Ohio. So let's back it up a little bit. Um, somebody said it's absurd that 2 inch would be a standard in the ordinance, but it's in the red line before the city council.

Can I just ask you, are are you thinking about thece piece right now? No, no, no. Oh, okay. This is the whole thing up to this point. Okay. So, the the red line, which is what we're talking about tonight, right, which I hate that language. It's really offensive, but if two's is an absurd standard, Mr. SC, are you leaving? Well, please don't wait. Mike, my my interest right now, my Jan, please. I got it. My interest tonight is we're not accepting any version right now. We're getting feedback on everything. That's why I'm giving feedback, sir. Fair enough. But I'm what I'm not interested in is anybody attacking each other at all.

I'm not trying to attack. I'm trying to point out content. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm all ears. Let's hear. Okay. So if it is absurd that 2 in is the standard, why is that in the red line presented to council? That is absurd. We've taken one person's mistake and multiplied it into five people's jurisdiction. They have to now review that hear it's absurd and wonder why did you stick this in front of me in the first place? Okay, that to me is absurd. That's irresponsible. I heard somebody say a lot of education would be needed in the community. Councilman. Uhhuh.

Um, you decided to not allow me to participate in this panel by excluding me, not answering questions about content, format, substance, benue. Are you talking to me? Yes, sir. Oh, when did I I I stopped you from being on the panel? Well, I asked what was the content so I can prepare to be, you know, adequately prepared for speaking to the public. Sorry, I thought I I didn't receive any response. Not from the planners, not from the manager, not from you, sir. I thought that um excluded. So, I'm trying to answer your question. U there was request of you to say, "Oh, you're not going to be on the panel. We really want you to be on the panel." And I didn't see any email from you related to that. So, you wanted to weigh in on

I have I have the evidence here that you received that email. Oh, no, no, I get that. But I'm saying if you couldn't decide how you wanted it to go, then you didn't want to be on it. No, I only wanted to know the format so I could prepare. You did to be to do my own factchecking before I show up. Sorry. Okay. My apologies. So, this process we are wave fees. Um I'm sorry. A lot of education would be needed in the community. But the process for revising the ordinance was specifically drafted without any collaboration on purpose. That's what we're doing here now. But my point is this already got presented to the council. Oh, no, no, but we stopped it to say we need this kind of conversation. How did it take two years to get to this point?

Different question for me. Okay. All right. Um, wave fees for a year or two, Mr. Stungle. Great idea. We have to acknowledge our collaboration with County Fire. We We have a three-year period to transition into standard 515. This is a burden on homeowners who are already struggling to pay their basic bills. Yeah. And we're proposing to put more restrictions on homeowners with permit fees and and crazy ideas. I think we're hearing good feedback to say we have to respond with that in ways that we could help them. Okay. Yeah, good enough. Um

Okay. And then um somebody saidce requires uh you know um requires uh certified arborists on their maintenance crews, right? And that's not always followed. We as a city have regulations that aren't always followed. And so pointing fingers is not the is not the solution. finding a solution collaboratively for sure is the route forward.

Just I'm sorry if I misrepresent I'm not interested in pointing any fingers at anybody. I'm interested in saying all right we all are interested in the health of our town. So let's hear from everybody's point of view and come up with something that really does feel like a consensus. So blame is not not worth our time really for my my I agree. Okay. So we're on the same page. Yeah. Okay.

So why wasn't this done collaboratively when it took two years? Well, I can't answer for the past. I can only answer for the present, which was when we saw the redline version at that meeting. My thought was, oh, there's too much to talk about here. I'm not an expert. I need to hear from experts and I want to have this be the beginning of a public conversation where we get feedback. That's what this is. Perfect. Okay. So, thank you. One more one more point.

Um, the idea of an unfair burden on the rateayer, I totally agree. Um, Edison is in the line safety business, right? That is their business and it is something that um arborists are here to serve that need. When Edison does have to do something major to a tree, there are ways to mediate, mitigate, I should say.

Sure. Thank you. No, sorry for any misunderstanding. So, it sounds like we're actually in more agreement than I thought, which I have. Okay. Um, we literally have three minutes. So, that means we we'll have to circle back and decide did we get enough to draft something here. We'll I'll work with Lucas and all that and uh we'll see. Do we have enough to go forward? Do we need to have another one? We could we don't have to talk about that right now, but there was we covered two of six areas more or less, although we touched on a committee. And yeah, I I was just going to ask in the last two and a half minutes if each of you would give your one big takeaway. Oh, good. That you know you you got to give us. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, absolutely. Um, thank you.

Thanks. My my big takeaway um in reviewing you know a dozen more than a dozen ordinances around the region is you know we we view our urban canopies our urban forests as community resources yet the burden is on the private individual for most of that. So if we're going to view something as a public resource we should probably prioritize it with some public funding. Okay. Anything? No. Okay. All right. Yeah. Safety and affordability.

Safety and then affordability. Well, I would like it seemed to me there was several things I learned about species that I was not aware of that are, you know, in some jeopardy that you guys will give us some more species that we could look at carefully. We looked at when some permits will be triggered and then I heard a lot from that I've learned from Southern California, but I'm hearing a lot of we need possibly some staff, some more enforcement that comes out and some financial help for for our residents. That's what I'm thinking about. Yeah. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.

Wow, this is a lot. And I realize we only got through half, but thanks guys. Appreciate you being here. Maybe this is only part one.