To: Planning Commission
From: Planning and Building Department
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
SUBJECT:
title
Maples Tree Removal Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
Record Number: PLN-2026-19577
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 403-022-041
The project site is located in the Eureka area, on the north side of Woodland Way, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Pigeon Point Road and Woodland Way, on the property known as 5177 Woodland Way.
A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to authorize tree removal associated with a CALFIRE 0 - 150’ Structure Protection Exemption. Eight Redwood trees are proposed to be removed ranging in size between 12” and 62” diameter at breast height (dbh).The parcel is approximately 0.76 acres and developed with a single-family residence. The parcel is served with community water provided by the Humboldt Community Services District and an on-site wastewater treatment system.
end
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission:
1 - Adopt the resolution, (Attachment 1), which does the following:
2 - Finds the project complies with the Humboldt Bay Area Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and
3 - Finds the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land of the CEQA Guidelines, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
4 - Approves the Coastal Development Permit subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment 1A).
Body
DISCUSSION:
Project Location: The project site is located in the Eureka area, on the north side of Woodland Way, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Pigeon Point Road and Woodland Way, on the property known as 5177 Woodland Way.
Present General Plan Land Use Designation: (RR), Density: 1 dwelling per 2.5 acres, Humboldt Bay Area Plan (HBAP), Slope Stability: Low Instability (1).
Present Zoning: Rural Residential Agriculture (RA 2.5) with Streams and Riparian Corridor Protection (R) combining zone.
Environmental Review:
The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land of the CEQA Guidelines.
State Appeal:
The project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Major concerns: Removal of larger redwood trees.
Monitoring Required: None Required.
Executive Summary: A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to authorize tree removal associated with a CALFIRE 0 - 150’ Structure Protection Exemption. Eight Redwood trees are proposed to be removed ranging in size between 12” and 63.4” DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The parcel is approximately 0.76 acres and developed with a single-family residence. The parcel is served with community water provided by the Humboldt Community Services District and an on-site wastewater treatment system.
According to the submitted site map, there are 29 trees greater than 10” in dbh on the property, most of which are redwood trees. The proposal is to remove 8 redwood trees. The tree diameters range in size from 11.8 inches dbh to 63.4 inches dbh. One tree is 40.1” dbh and all others, beside the 63.4” dbh tree, are below 40” dbh. Of note is that the 63.4” dbh tree, referred to as Tree #5 in the submitted materials, is also described as 62.2” dbh in some of the materials. In this staff report it will be referred to as a 63.4” dbh tree.
Over the course of the last few months, largely in response to the removal of some old-growth redwood trees in Redway, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission have heard public opinion about the importance of old-growth redwood trees to the character of the county. At the August 11, 2026 meeting of the Board of Supervisors the Board directed Planning staff to work to develop a tree preservation ordinance that would apply county-wide, and to bring back a moratorium on the removal of old-growth trees that would apply while such an ordinance was being developed. While there is currently no tree preservation ordinance or moratorium, the Planning Commission is tasked with determining if the project and its conditions under which it may be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Large redwood trees are an important and defining characteristic of many areas throughout Humboldt County and the North Coast region. These trees contribute to the scenic character, environmental quality, and general welfare of the community. However, the benefits of preserving large redwoods must be balanced against potential risks to private property owners and the public, including hazards associated with falling limbs or tree failure that could damage residences, power lines, roadways, or other infrastructure.
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 California Code of Regulations 14 CCR § 1038.1(c)(15) under California Forest Practice Rule Title 14, §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.” These rules prohibit the removal of such trees except in certain circumstances.
The applicant has had prepared an age assessment of the 63.4” dbh tree, which documents that the age of the tree is likely 162 years, with an estimated date of establishment of 1864. This would remove the tree from the definition under the Forest Practice Rules of a “large old tree” as it does not meet both the age and size requirements.
While the California Code of Regulations allow trees that may be older than 226 years or greater than sixty (60) inches at stump height (diameter at breast height (DBH)) to be removed, the community may feel there is an intrinsic, ecological, or cultural value to larger trees, that are important to setting and character of the community and as such, to the general welfare of the public. The Planning Commission must weigh the concerns and views of the community along with the desires of the landowner and the dangers the trees may pose to the residents and the property on which the trees grow.
The removal of these trees, and in particular the 63.4” tree is described by the applicant as being necessary to provide solar access for solar panels and for a garden, and to provide a safer and more open place for grandchildren to play in the yard. The 63.4” dbh tree is approximately 50 feet from the residence and roughly in the center of the rear yard. This tree, along with the others proposed for removal, has recently been completely limbed and all foliage removed (see Page 5 of Attachment 2B).
Removal of trees under the 0-150 and 150-300 foot structure protection exemption are intended to provide for fire protection and to remove or eliminate the horizontal continuity of tree crowns for the purpose of reducing flammable materials and maintaining a fuelbreak (per California Code of Regulations 14 CCR, Section 1038). It is unclear to what extent the removal of the 63.4” redwood trees on the property would help to reduce the fire hazard, particular as larger redwood trees are often resistant to fire. While landowners may profit from the removal of trees under a structural protection exemption, profit is not intended to be a motivation for removal of trees under such an exemption.
No information has been presented to show that any of the trees proposed for removal have any structural effects or health concerns that would render them a hazard. Additionally, given that the trees have been limbed and foliage removed, there is less impact on solar access and significantly less potential hazard associated with the trees. Removal of redwood trees is not necessarily detrimental to the public welfare, however larger redwood trees are important to the character of the community and in the context of the coastal zone are considered a coastal resource that contributes to the scenic qualities of the region. It could be considered that removal of some of these trees would negatively impact the have an adverse impact on the public welfare. For this reason, staff recommends that the project be approved with the condition that the 63.4” dbh (described as 62.2” dbh in Attachment 2B) be retained.
Biological Resources: The project is not expected to have significant impacts on sensitive species, watercourses, or sensitive habitats. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the parcel does not contain any known species of concern. The project was referred to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in which a referral response requested delaying tree removal until the end of nesting season, which typically wraps up by mid-August. Alternatively, a qualified biologist shall survey for active bird nests no more than seven days prior to tree removal or significant trimming.
Tribal Consultation: The project was referred to the Northwest Information Center, and the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, the Wiyot Tribe, and Blue Lake Rancheria. A referral response from the Northwest Information Center indicated the proposed project has a low potential of impacting any unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore, no further study for archaeological resources is recommended. The standard Inadvertent Discovery Condition is included within the Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Review: The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land of the CEQA Guidelines. The Class 4 exemption applies to public and private alterations in the condition of vegetation that do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Vegetation to be removed poses a threat to private structures.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The project was referred to responsible agencies, and all responding agencies have recommended approval or conditional approval. (Attachment 3)
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission could elect to add or delete conditions of approval. The Planning Commission could deny the permit request if unable to make all of the required findings. The Commission could also choose to allow removal of all of the proposed trees or further limit the removal of the trees.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Site Plan
2. Applicant’s Evidence in Support of the Required Findings
A. Cal Fire Acceptance Letter
B. Age Assessment Of Redwood Tree #5
3. Referral Agency Comments and Recommendations
A. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
APPLICANT, OWNER, AGENT, AND PLANNER INFORMATION:
Applicant
Dale and Jillaine Maples
305 Sonoma St.
Eureka, CA 95501
Owners
Same as Applicant
Agent
Jillian Eymann
2600 Mcdowell Ct.
Arcata, CA 95521
Please get in touch with Michael Kein, Associate Planner, at 707-268-3739 or by email at MKein2@co.humboldt.ca.us <mailto:MKein2@co.humboldt.ca.us>, if you have any questions about the scheduled item.