To: Board of Supervisors
From: Planning and Building Department
Agenda Section: Departmental
Vote Requirement: 4/5th
SUBJECT:
title
Adoption of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a 45-day Moratorium on Removal of Large Old Redwood Trees Outside of Timberland Production Zone and Agriculture Exclusive Areas in Unincorporated Humboldt County (4/5 Vote Required)
end
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Recommendation
That the Board of Supervisors:
1. Adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Attachment 1) of the County of Humboldt Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on the Acceptance and Issuance of Permits for the Removal of Large Old Redwood Trees, Which Shall Take Immediate Effect (Attachment 1) establishing a 45-day moratorium on the removal of large old redwood trees within the unincorporated areas of Humboldt County, based on the findings set forth in the Interim Urgency Ordinance pursuant to California Government Code (CGC) Sections 25123(d) and 65858(a) (4/5 Vote Required); and
2. Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish the Post-Adoption Summary (Attachment 2) of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption by the Board, and to post in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a certified copy of the full text of the adopted ordinance along with the names of those Supervisors voting for and against the ordinance; and
3. Direct Planning and Building Department staff to bring forward an item, if needed, to extend the moratorium prior to the 45-day expiration date and report on the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance per CGC 65858(d).
Body
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This action supports the following areas of your Board’s Strategic Plan.
Area of Focus: Safe & Healthy Communities
Strategic Plan Category: 1008 - Update General Plan ordinances for quality of environment
DISCUSSION:
Executive Summary:
This item is to fulfill the Board of Supervisors’ Aug. 11, 2026 direction to develop an old-growth tree preservation ordinance that would apply county-wide, and to bring back a moratorium restricting the removal of old-growth redwood trees to be in effect until such an ordinance is in place. The Humboldt County Forestry Review Committee (FRC) discussed approaches and alternatives to establishing an ordinance and moratorium at its meeting of Oct. 19, 2026. The FRC is generally opposed to establishment of a moratorium and would prefer to see an interim ordinance established. Whether moratorium or interim ordinance, the FRC recommends the definition of a protected tree be consistent with the definition of a large old tree in the Forest Practice Rules.
One of the FRC’s concerns with establishing a large old tree preservation ordinance is that it could encourage cutting of trees before the ordinance can take effect. A moratorium is a preemptive measure to prohibit permitting the removal of large redwood trees while the county works on establishing performance standards to protect the environment, the character of the community and the public welfare. The urgency ordinance imposing a moratorium would become effective immediately upon adoption, and the moratorium would have a 45-day effective period, unless extended prior to its expiration.
The ability to require permits and regulate the removal of trees is limited by the Forest Practices Act, Public Resources Code Section 4516.5(d), which states, “Except as provided in subdivision (e), individual counties shall not otherwise regulate the conduct of timber operations, as defined by this chapter, or require the issuance of any permit or license for those operations.” Subdivision (e) allows the Board of Forestry to delegate certain authority to require performance bonds or other surety for protection of roads.
The Forest Practices Act, Public Resources Code Section 4516.5(f) states, “This section does not apply to timber operations on any land area of less than three acres and which is not zoned timberland production.”
Based on the above provisions and related case law, the county may regulate timber operations on lands less than three acres and not zoned TPZ. As part of any preservation ordinance, the county will need to consider specific qualities of trees that would compel the need for protection, and exceptions that would allow for removal of protected trees in certain defined circumstances. Qualities may relate to size, height, age, visual prominence, or other qualities that the community feel contribute to the character and quality of the Humboldt County landscape.
The Aug. 11, 2026 Board direction did not define what is meant by old-growth. In addition, it does not appear that “old-growth” has been specifically or consistently defined either in state regulations or in practice. A “large old tree” is defined in the California Code of Regulations at 14 CCR §§ 1038.1(c)(15) and 1104.1 as a tree “that existed before 1800 AD AND is greater than sixty (60) inches in diameter at stump height for Sierra or Coast Redwoods, and forty-eight (48) inches in diameter at stump height for all other tree species.” (Emphasis added.)
Another question raised by the FRC is whether large old trees are already adequately protected. The prohibition on cutting large old trees except in certain circumstances is contained in 14 CCR § 1038.1(c)(15) which defines when a large old tree would qualify for an exemption from a Timber Harvest Plan and may be harvested. The exemptions include 150-foot thinning for vertical fire safety. Section 1038.1(c)(15) reads as follows:
No large old trees, defined as a tree that existed before 1800 AD and is greater than sixty (60) inches in diameter at stump height for Sierra or Coast Redwoods, and forty-eight (48) inches in diameter at stump height for all other tree species, or Decadent and Deformed Trees with Value to Wildlife shall be harvested unless the following apply:
(A) The tree is not critical for the maintenance of a Late Successional Stand.
(B) A RPF attached to the submitted notice of exemption a written explanation and justification for the harvest of the tree based on the RPF’s finding of any of the following:
1. The tree is a hazard to safety or property.
2. The removal of the tree is necessary for the construction of a building as approved by the appropriate local jurisdiction and shown on the county or city approved site plan, which shall be attached to the submitted notice of exemption.
3. The tree is dead or likely to die within one (1) year of the date of the proposed removal, as determined by an RPF.
(C) An RPF’s written explanation or justification need not be attached to the submitted notice of exemption if an approved Habitat Conservation Plan, Sustained Yield Plan, or Plan addresses large old tree retention for the area in which the large old tree is proposed for removal and the removal is in compliance with the retention standards of that document.
These regulations provide consideration for the protection of large old trees and include reasonable provisions for when to allow removal. The section is written in a way that subsections A through C must all apply in order for the tree to be harvested.
14 CCR § 1104.1(i) addresses less than three-acre conversions and addresses large old trees as follows:
“(i) Large old trees . . . shall not be harvested during Timber Operations pursuant to this section unless done pursuant to the following conditions:
(1) The tree is not critical for the maintenance of a Late Successional Stand.
(2) An RPF attaches to the submitted notice of exemption a certification by the RPF or professionally certified arborist that one or more of the criteria or conditions listed under subsection (A), (B), or (C) are met. Such certification may also be submitted with the annual notification of commencement of Timber Operations required by 14 CCR § 1104.1 <https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-1104.1>(a)(5)(K). The requirements of this paragraph need not be met if an approved management document; including but not limited to a HCP, SYP, NTMP, WFMP, or PTEIR; addresses large old tree retention for the area in which the large old tree(s) are proposed for removal and the removal is in compliance with the retention standards of that document. All trees to be harvested pursuant to this subsection shall be marked by an RPF prior to removal.
(A) The tree(s) is a hazard to safety or property. The hazard shall be identified in writing by an RPF or professionally certified arborist.
(B) The removal of the tree(s) is necessary for the construction of a building as approved by the appropriate county/city permitting process and as shown on the county/city approved site plan, which shall be attached to the notice of exemption.
(C) The tree is dead or is likely to die within the period provided for the completion of conversion exemption activities provided by 14 CCR § 1104.1 <https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-1104.1>(a)(5)(B), or extended by 14 CCR § 1104.1 <https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-1104.1>(a)(14), as determined by an RPF or professionally certified arborist.”
The protection for large old trees in consideration of a less than three-acre conversion is like the protections provided to large old trees related to tree thinning around permitted structures. Part of the FRC’s concern is why regulate something that is already regulated. The FRC’s thinking is that trees of this size are already protected as identified in the Forest Practice Rules sections above. However, the Forest Practices Act only applies to lands that are TPZ and lands that are over three acres in size. A local ordinance would allow the county to protect large old trees on parcels less than three acres in size that are not zoned TPZ. But, the FRC does not believe there are a lot of qualifying trees that remain unprotected (i.e. on parcels not subject to the Forest Practice Act) remaining in Humboldt County.
The first decision point for the Board is whether the provisions contained in the Forest Practice Rules are adequate for protecting large old trees. Protecting trees of a smaller size was discussed by the FRC, and it was the firm opinion of the FRC that second growth trees can grow very fast and basing protection on size alone could have unintended consequences by protecting trees that are not really what would be considered large old trees. If an ordinance is developed with a moratorium, the Forest Practice Rules’ definition of a large old tree provides a well-tested definition.
For the county, the value of creating an ordinance to protect large old trees is that it would give the county and the public an opportunity to assess, on parcels not subject to the Forest Practice Act, whether a tree is truly hazardous and to set the analysis framework for making that determination.
People may question whether a hazard assessment should be done by a Certified Arborist as they are typically more specifically trained to address hazardous trees. The concern with requiring a Certified Arborist’s input is that they may need to be brought in from out of the area. It would be better not to create an ordinance that requires compliance measures that are not locally available.
Perhaps the more important reason for an ordinance is that if by some chance somebody removes a large old tree, that is then a violation of County Code. This allows the county to take action to address the removal and would serve to discourage others from illegal removal.
If the Board of Supervisors finds that an ordinance protecting large old trees should be adopted then adoption of a moratorium is important to preclude people from taking immediate actions to remove trees that would be protected under a future ordinance.
The FRC’s preference is to pursue an interim ordinance for a period of one year. An interim ordinance would not become effective immediately so it would not provide the same protection as a moratorium.
If the Board decides it is appropriate to pursue an ordinance to protect large old trees then a moratorium is appropriate. While the moratorium is in place, the county can continue to research and establish standards for tree protection to protect the community character and public and welfare. For the purposes of such a moratorium, a “large old redwood tree” would need to be defined by your Board. The draft urgency ordinance attached to this staff report defines a “large old redwood tree” as any coast redwood tree that existed before 1800 AD and is greater than sixty (60) inches in diameter at stump height. The Board may choose to amend this definition for the purposes of this urgency ordinance.
If the Board supports a temporary moratorium on large old redwood tree removal while a draft ordinance is being developed to establish requirements for such removal, the urgency ordinance (Attachment 1) should be adopted. The urgency ordinance would expire 45 days from adoption. The Board should also direct Planning staff to bring back to the Board an extension to the urgency ordinance for a period of up to 10 months and 15 days, prior to its expiration.
In adopting the urgency ordinance, exceptions should still be allowed in order to protect people and property from hazards and to allow for reasonable development and use of property. Staff suggests that exceptions to the moratorium include the following exemptions:
1) Removal of redwood trees within 30 feet of an existing habitable building or within 30 feet of a proposed habitable building for which a building permit has been issued.
2) Removal of redwood trees that are identified as an immediate hazard to life or property, as documented by a report from a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) or Internationally Certified Arborist (ICA), subject to review and approval by the Planning Director.
In addition, as per state law, redwood trees associated with a Cal-Fire Timber Harvest Plan or on land zoned Timberland Production Zone would be exempted from such a moratorium. The Agriculture Exclusive Zone has been included in this exemption as Timber Production is an allowed use in this zone.
Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinances are allowed by California Government Code Sections 25123(d) and 65858 and requires a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the legislative body for adoption. The urgency ordinance must protect the public safety, health, and welfare of the community. The attached ordinance includes the factual evidence supporting the required findings.
Environmental Review
Adoption of this ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Restricting the ability to cut down large old redwood trees will not result in any development, and is protective of the environment, so the ordinance will not have any environmental impacts.
Also, adoption of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA review by Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. This exemption applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protecting the environment. In this case temporarily preventing the permitting of removal of large redwood trees while establishing standards to protect community values and the environment, will ensure that important public resources are not destroyed while the county is actively working to establish a new ordinance which will have standards to protect these resources.
SOURCE OF FUNDING:
The staff costs to prepare this staff report are expected to total approximately $2,500, which will be paid by the General Fund’s contribution to Long Range Planning (Budget Unit 1100-282).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is anticipated to be no significant long-term financial impact from the adoption of the urgency ordinance because it is only allowed to be in place for up to two years, at which time, it will automatically expire.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
Forestry Review Committee
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Board of Supervisors could decide not to approve the urgency ordinance if it believes the limitations are unnecessary to protect public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the Board could choose to direct staff to prepare an Interim Ordinance that would be in effect while a larger and more complete tree preservation ordinance is being developed. The Interim Ordinance would go through the Forestry Review Committee and Planning Commission for further refinement before being presented to the Board for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Post-Adoption Summary
3. Public Comment
PREVIOUS ACTION/REFERRAL:
Meeting of: August 11, 2026
File No.: 26-469