Humboldt commission approves two tree-removal permits as county weighs broader protections

The Humboldt County Planning Commission approved two coastal tree-removal permits tied to CAL FIRE structure-protection exemptions Sept. 17, with each decision passing 3-1 while three of the commission’s seven members were absent. Lorna McFarlane voted against both permits; Iver Skavdal, Jerome Qiriazi and Todd Fulton voted in favor, according to the commission’s minutes and action summary.

For the Call project in the Eureka area, the commission approved a coastal development permit and special permit for tree removal associated with two CAL FIRE structure-protection exemptions. The commission modified the staff-recommended conditions to retain protections for trees meeting the state’s definition of large old trees and require the work to follow the CAL FIRE permits under the direction of a licensed registered professional forester. It also found that the decision should not be considered precedent-setting because the application was submitted before county officials began discussing new tree-cutting restrictions.

For the Maples project at 5177 Woodland Way, the commission approved removal of eight redwoods, ranging from 12 to 62 inches in diameter at breast height, under a CAL FIRE exemption covering the area within 150 feet of a structure. The commission removed the condition that would have required retention of tree No. 5, which staff had recommended keeping because it was more than 60 inches in diameter but did not meet the state’s age-and-size criteria for a large old tree. The hearing record identifies the project as a coastal development permit in the Eureka area. (Hearing record)

The decisions came as the county works on a tree-preservation ordinance and a proposed moratorium on cutting large trees. Planning staff told commissioners that the Board of Supervisors had directed development of protections for old-growth and potentially other large trees, and that the moratorium was expected to come before the board Oct. 6. The final language and any board vote were not part of the Sept. 17 hearing record.

The commission’s actions determine how these two applications proceed under the rules in effect at the time of the hearing; they do not resolve the county’s broader tree-preservation debate. The record also does not establish whether either permit will face an appeal or separate California Coastal Commission action.