Ojai City Council workshop reviews tree-permit rules, enforcement and ties to fire safety

The Ojai City Council convened a May 28 special workshop to review the city’s existing tree ordinance, clarify when permits are required, and consider steps to better coordinate tree permitting with fire‑safety rules.

Community Development Director Lucas opened the presentation by saying the ordinance’s stated purpose is “to protect, preserve, support” the urban canopy and to advance the council’s climate‑resiliency goals. He described the ordinance’s protected-tree list as focused on oak and sycamore varieties and noted a 2013 council resolution that designated 12 heritage trees for special protection. Lucas said a tree permit is required to remove or relocate a “mature tree” (defined in the code as more than 12 inches in diameter measured 4½ feet above the root crown), for construction within a protected tree’s drip line, or when more than 25% of a tree’s canopy would be removed.

Lucas also explained the application process: applicants submit a site plan, photographs and a certified arborist report; the city’s visual review period is typically 30 days; and the permit fee is a fixed $225 (fees can be waived in certain circumstances). He noted that where more than five trees are proposed for removal, or in unusual cases, the director may forward decisions to the Planning Commission, and that director decisions are subject to a 10‑day appeal period.

On mitigation and replacement, staff said the ordinance ties replacement to diameter/size rather than a simple count of replacement trees and that the city has recently used third‑party arborists when staff or councilmembers have concerns about an applicant’s report.

The staff presentation also flagged enforcement options and valuation: citations are rare, misdemeanors would require a city‑attorney recommendation, and arborist valuation models (ISA-based) can produce high dollar values for mature trees — staff cited mature‑tree valuations in the tens of thousands of dollars as an example.

Council members and staff repeatedly raised gaps in code language and administration. Lucas identified multiple undefined or unclear terms in the ordinance — including “certified tree professional,” “hazardous tree” and “tree worker” — that create inconsistent outcomes in permit reviews. He described the 25% canopy threshold as often subjective in practice and said monitoring mitigation (to confirm replanting or required work actually occurs) is currently constrained by city staffing.

Fire officials joined the workshop to explain how defensible‑space standards intersect with tree permitting. A fire prevention officer summarized fire‑hazard priorities for vegetation: “All trees within 100 feet of a structure shall be limbed up six feet or one‑third of the height, whichever is less,” and added that branches should generally be trimmed back three feet from roofs and eaves to reduce ember ignition risk. Fire staff cautioned that state ‘Zone 0’ guidance is still being finalized and stressed the importance of phased implementation and homeowner education; council members heard that a complete phase‑in could stretch over multiple years rather than take effect immediately.

Council and staff discussed operational options: requiring annual education for tree‑service businesses tied to business‑license renewal, a tiered review process that triggers third‑party arborist reviews for flagged projects (complaints, large removals, or other risk factors), and directing Measure C funds toward enforcement or a dedicated tree‑mitigation fund. Lucas said staff plans a concept review over the summer followed by draft ordinance language and formal readings later in the process.

Public commenters supported several practical measures: Bill Melik, a resident who identified himself as a landscape architect and certified arborist, urged caution about unintended consequences and stressed that outside reviewers must visit sites to make fair assessments. Renee Roth urged easier, clearer pathways for property owners to remove repeatedly hazardous trees and recommended accessible education materials and planting guidance. Multiple residents proposed chipper days, targeted subsidies or low‑interest assistance for homeowners who cannot afford large removals, and a public “right tree, right place” planting guide.

The workshop ended with staff proposing a three‑step process (concept review, draft/term sheet, ordinance readings) and council agreement to return with materials this summer. No vote or ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; staff said they will prepare a concept packet for further council direction.

Next steps: staff will assemble a concept document for council review this summer, clarify ambiguous ordinance definitions, work with fire staff to align defensible‑space guidance with permit exemptions where appropriate, and return with draft ordinance language for formal consideration.