Ojai council holds workshop on draft tree ordinance, experts urge clearer definitions, enforcement and homeowner supports

Mayor Gilman convened a special Ojai City Council workshop on April 7 to gather public and expert input on a draft tree ordinance, emphasizing that no decisions would be made tonight and that the goal was to produce a clearer, enforceable document.

The meeting brought together city staff, arborists and Southern California Edison representatives to address competing priorities: protecting native, heritage trees and canopy cover; ensuring public safety and wildfire risk reduction; and avoiding undue financial burdens on homeowners and ratepayers.

"First and foremost is safety, and then second is affordability," said Ian Anderson of Southern California Edison, describing the utility's vegetation management practice. Anderson told the council SCE must balance wildfire and infrastructure risks with costs passed to ratepayers and that the California Public Utilities Commission can be asked to adjudicate conflicts when local rules appear to create an undue systemwide burden.

Experts at the table and in the audience urged clearer, more precise definitions in the ordinance. Jan Skow, an arborist and longtime contributor to local tree policy discussions, noted that an earlier ordinance defined a "mature tree" at 12 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and that any new draft should state both the measurement convention (4.5 feet above the root crown) and whether "mature" triggers protection or only informs mitigation.

"A mature tree is not the same as a protected tree," Skow said, urging the council to distinguish the two in office language and thresholds.

Panelists suggested a mix of approaches: a species‑based list to automatically protect certain natives (for example valley oaks and, several panelists argued, Southern California black walnut) and a DBH trigger that would require heightened review for very large specimens. Scott Von Tompkinson of PAX Environmental noted that some jurisdictions use size‑based heritage thresholds that can drastically expand the number of protected trees unless paired with funding and staffing for enforcement.

Several arborists and council members voiced concern about the current permit thresholds in the redlined draft. One public attendee, who identified himself as Michael Inaba of a local arborist firm, called a proposed 2‑inch pruning threshold "absurd" and warned that high‑cost arborist reports could discourage homeowners from seeking help.

City staff and experts focused on enforcement options: create or restore a tree committee that would meet by request, require minimum qualifications or certifications for arborist reports, deploy a city reviewer (or contract qualified reviewers) to audit removal recommendations, and improve penalties or mitigation to encourage compliance. The mayor suggested a five‑member tree committee with at least one arborist and non‑professional members to provide balance.

Public commenters repeatedly asked the council to consider affordability measures: waiving fees for wildfire‑safety work, establishing a city tree fund for mitigation and offering nonprofit or city assistance to low‑income homeowners. "There are people who can't afford to do this work," said a resident who urged the council to consider fee waivers and other supports.

Ventura County Assistant Fire Marshal Mike Warford told the council that the county will mail defensible‑space notices on April 20 ahead of a June 1 deadline and encouraged the city to provide clear FAQ materials that explain when permits are (and are not) required for fire‑safety pruning.

The meeting also put utility‑tree issues squarely on the table. SCE and local arborists encouraged coordinated notification and oversight when SCE contractors perform line‑clearance work; residents and some arborists said they have observed inconsistent contractor practices and urged certified‑arborist oversight and improved city inspection authority.

Council members asked staff to synthesize the feedback and return with a revised draft that clarifies definitions, enforcement mechanisms, mitigation/fee structure and options for homeowner assistance. The council did not vote on the ordinance tonight and signaled it would continue public engagement before bringing a final proposal back for formal consideration.