Ojai planning panel reduces penalty for Cortona Institute after disputed oak removal

The Ojai Planning Commission on July 15 modified a director’s enforcement decision against the Cortona Institute for removing a protected oak tree without an issued permit, adopting a resolution that doubles the permit application fee and requires planting two 24‑inch box oak trees rather than imposing the appraisal‑based fine.

Staff had urged the commission to uphold the community development director’s penalties under Ojai Municipal Code section 4‑11.13 after a city peer review concluded staff could not verify the health of the removed tree because the trunk had been ground away before inspection. The director’s letter described remedies including replacement trees and payment equal to double the tree’s ISA appraised value. The appraisal cited in staff materials put the tree’s valuation at about $28,412 and the doubled penalty at $56,824.

The appellant’s attorney, Ryan Blatz, told commissioners the removal resulted from a contractor misunderstanding: the contractor believed an application transmittal from the arborist was the approved permit. “Signals got crossed and the tree remover thought the permit had been approved,” Blatz said, urging the commission to distinguish bad‑faith violators from a party that had followed permitting steps and lacked intent to bypass rules.

Certified arborist Bill Mellett, who prepared the applicant’s report, testified that he inspected the tree and concluded it was hazardous and in decline. “The tree, in my opinion, was a hazardous tree,” Mellett told the commission, recounting prior limb failures and a timeline showing he submitted a report and permit application in early April and followed up with the contractor and city staff. Cortona representatives and nearby residents described large limb failures near where children play and said they had waited weeks for a city response before the contractor mistakenly removed the tree.

Commissioners pressed staff and witnesses on several technical points: how ISA appraisal values are calculated, whether a hazardous tree can retain appraisable value, the circumstances that trigger an emergency removal process, and the city’s reason for soliciting a peer review. Staff explained the city’s 30‑day review window for applications and said peer review is solicited when evidence shows the tree may not be plainly dead; they also confirmed the city pays for peer reviews. Staff noted they had not previously processed a removal‑without‑permit enforcement case in recent years.

After extended discussion weighing Cortona’s history of stewardship against the fact that the tree was removed before a permit issued, commissioners coalesced around a compromise: uphold the director’s authority to require remedy but tailor the penalty to the circumstances. The commission’s final motion—moved by the chair and seconded by another commissioner—directed staff to return a resolution that replaces the appraisal‑based fine with a requirement that the applicant plant two 24‑inch box oak trees (species to be specified by the arborist) and pay the permit application fee doubled. On roll call the motion passed 4–1 (Murphy, Chesley, Hanson and Stewart in favor; Reichmidt opposed).

Commissioners said the resolution reflects both that an unpermitted removal occurred and that the Cortona Institute presented credible evidence of safety concerns and lack of intent. Staff will draft the definitive resolution and work with the applicant on planting locations, tree species selection and any monitoring or irrigation requirements. The commission did not impose the doubled ISA appraisal amount in the adopted compromise.

The commission also highlighted broader policy questions raised by the case: whether the city’s peer review process and 30‑day review timelines create incentives for rushed or mistaken removals in time‑sensitive hazardous‑tree situations, and whether additional contractor education or a certified vendor list might reduce such misunderstandings. Several commissioners urged staff to return with options for prioritizing hazardous‑tree applications or clarifying emergency procedures.

Next steps: staff will prepare a formal resolution consistent with the commission’s direction and return the matter for final action. The adopted compromise resolves the immediate appeal but leaves open the commission’s longer‑term policy review of tree enforcement practice.