The Humboldt County Planning Commission on Sept. 17 approved a coastal development permit allowing the removal of eight redwood trees at 5177 Woodland Way, changing the proposal from the continuance recorded nearly a month earlier by the county’s Zoning Administrator. The commission approved the permit 3-1. The Aug. 20 Zoning Administrator minutes say the project involves a 0-to-150-foot Cal Fire structure-protection exemption on a 0.76-acre residential parcel, with trees proposed for removal ranging from 12 to 40 inches in diameter at breast height; the Sept. 17 presentation described the proposed trees as ranging from 12 to 63.4 inches.
Planning staff had recommended retaining tree No. 5, which the commission record describes as about 162 years old and just under 64 inches in diameter. The commission instead revised the condition so the permit would prohibit removal of trees meeting the state’s definition of “large old trees,” while requiring the work to follow Cal Fire permits and be conducted under the supervision of a registered professional forester. The commission then approved the Maples permit after removing the condition specifically requiring tree No. 5 to be retained. The Planning Commission meeting record records the vote as three in favor and one opposed.
The dissent came from Commissioner McFarlane, who cited the limited attendance and broader policy concerns, according to the meeting record. The commission’s findings also noted that the application had been submitted before discussion of a proposed county tree-preservation ordinance and large-tree removal moratorium. Commissioners said the action should not be treated as precedent for those future rules.
During the hearing, county staff said the Board of Supervisors had directed staff to develop a tree-preservation ordinance focused primarily on old-growth and other large trees. Staff also said a proposed moratorium on cutting large trees was expected to go before the board on Oct. 6. The meeting record does not establish the merits of competing claims about the trees’ environmental value, safety risks or wildfire benefits, and the county’s final written permit conditions and any appeal implications were not included in the materials reviewed for this draft.
