Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, welcome everyone to the September 17th regular hearing for the Humboldt County Planning Commission. We'll start with a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, thank you.

There are agendas up by the front door as well as some supplemental information for those in the crowd. And can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Scavdahl?

Here.

Commissioner Curiazzi?

Here.

Commissioner McFarland? Here. Commissioner Fulton?

Here.

Commissioner West, Commissioner O'Neill, and Commissioner Levy are absent. We do have a quorum.

Okay, thank you. Director, do we have any modifications to the agenda tonight?

Two things I'd like to call to your attention. Number one is a supplemental that was given out tonight. This is for item G1, the call structure protection. And then I would also like to call out on the consent calendar. Item E2, the RPCA Solar 5 Conditional Use Permit Extension Modification. It says that's the Alton area. That should be the Blue Lake area. If I could just chime in.

And that's way down five lines below the appropriate caption. So just correcting that fifth line on number two. And that's going to be on page five of the agenda, even though number two starts on page four. You can see it's far down below that title.

Great, thank you. So it sounds like we have a correction to the brief project description for item E2, correcting that it's in the Blue Lake area. Thank you. Okay, so we'll move on to public comment on non-agenda items. For this, the goal of this is to comment on anything that is not on the agenda. If you are in the audience, please raise your hand when an item, oh, I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong spot. Everyone will have three minutes to make a comment. Anyone online, please raise your hand using star nine or raise the hand button. And then noting for those online, there is a lag, so please raise your hand as soon as possible. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to do comment on non-agenda items? Please approach the podium, please. This would be time to do that. Oh, this is the time to comment on non-agenda items.

So I'm one of the property owners of the 19-5-6 plan.

So you're addressing an agenda item that will be later on. So this is just a period to comment on anything that's not on tonight's agenda.

Okay. All right. So, again, it's very difficult to hear what's going on.

Okay, thank you for letting me know. I don't see any hands raised online and no one else is coming to the podium, so we'll close public comment on non-agenda items. And we'll move to consent. So this is item E on the agenda. And again, on consent items, we read through each of the items in consent. If you would like to hear, to make a comment on those items, then please raise your hand when I bring that comment up. For those online, if you would like to have that item pulled from consent, please press star nine or hit the raise your hand button. And please note that items that are pulled from consent, we'll open a hearing on those in the next agenda section F. So for the, going through the consent item, the first is approval of the September 3rd, 2026 action summary. Any commissioners have any comments? And anyone online who would like to discuss that item? And no one in the audience? Okay, so that'll stay on consent. The next item is the RPCA Solar 5 LLC Conditional Use Permit Extension and Modification. Are there any commissioners that would like to see that pulled? And anyone in the audience or online who would like to see the RPCA Solar 5 item pulled? Okay, seeing none, that looks like that will stay in consent as well. And that's all of the consent items. Would someone like to move?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Okay, we have a motion and second. Can we do a voice vote, please? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No abstain. Okay, consent passes. That's great. No items pulled from consent, so we are now jumping to part G in the agenda, and this is public hearings, and we'll do G1. This is the Call Structure Protection Exemption Coastal Development Permit and Special Permit. I'll start with a staff presentation.

Through the chair, I just want to disclose I did do a drive-by of actually both of these properties, items one and two on the agenda tonight. Just did a drive-by for a visual. Didn't even get out of my vehicle.

Great. Thank you for doing that. And good reminder, any other ex parte disclosures? All right. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. Michael Kine, Humboldt County Planning Department, here to present the call tree removal coastal development permit, PLN-2026-19576. This project is located in the Eureka area, east of Eureka, at 4082 Leadhole Road and 4053. with access from Mitchell Road and Myrtle Avenue. I would like to point out that an adjacent parcel to the west is a green diamond property that is zoned timber production zone and these properties are zoned rural residential agriculture. Project details consist of a coastal development permit to authorize tree removal associated with two Cal Fire structure protection exemptions, zero to 150 feet and 150 feet to 300 feet. The zero to 150 foot exemption would include a small portion of tree removal on an adjacent parcel to the main parcel. The trees are mostly redwood, some Doug fir and conifers. According to the submitted information, Redwood trees range in size up to 71.1 inches in diameter at breast height. The parcel is approximately 6.5 acres in size and developed with a single family home, two other residences, and several accessory structures. Per an estimate from the registered professional forester, The project area would see a reduction of tree density from 58 trees to approximately 38 trees per acre. That would account for approximately 80 trees in total taken from a four acre area. And the trees to be removed would be selected based on specific parameters by the logger during the operations. This next slide is a map showing the location of the structures and the areas of tree removal. Here is the main residence. Here are the two other dwellings on the property. And then this is the small protection area on the second parcel. This next map shows the 300 foot, up to 300 foot protection zone. This is the main residents again, and then other residences that would be protected. A third residence down below on a different parcel is also there. California Code states that no old trees defined as a tree that existed before 1800 A.D. and is greater than six inches in diameter at stump height for Sierra or coastal redwoods and 48 inches in diameter at stump height for other species shall be removed or harvested unless the following apply. Exemptions that would apply would not account for this project, so we're not utilizing those. There were several trees that were identified that could be considered being over 226 years old or greater than. 60 inches or greater than 48 if it's not a redwood. These trees were identified in cord with the 40-inch increment order to establish a base age with the growth rings. A total of the five trees reviewed had diameters consisting of 45.2, 65 inches, 71.1, 60 inches, and another at 65 inches. Next few slides show examples of the trees that were considered for review. The image on the right is a tree that was considered to be left due to its age and size. You can see it's marked with an L to leave it. Here is a map that was provided by the agent showing the locations of the large trees that they reviewed. I wanted to point out that Number four was the tree that was going to be left. Tree number two will be removed since it's within 30 feet of the residential structure. While California Code of Regulations allow trees that are older than 226 years or greater or 60 inches at stump height to be removed, As long as they meet both criteria, many members of the public feel that there is an intrinsic ecological and cultural value of the larger trees. The Planning Commission must weigh the concerns and views of the community along with the desires of the landowner and the potential dangers of the trees that may be posed to the residents and the property structures. It is for this reason that Humboldt County Planning Department recommends that all trees in diameter at breast height that are 60 inches or greater shall be protected and retained with the exception of the number two tree due to its location. And condition number two, no more than 25% of all redwood trees between 40 inches and 60 inches shall be removed. Prior to any logging, the tree shall be identified in a site plan given to the planning department for approval. Public comment, the project was noticed in the Eureka Times Standard on September 2nd, 2026. Notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of both parcels. Only one phone call was received by myself regarding this permit. The caller wished to understand the extent of the project, but did not have a comment. Staff recommends approval to this project based on the recommended conditions that address the local concerns and the required findings. And I am available if you have any questions.

That should be fine. Great, thank you. Are there any commissioners with questions for staff?

Yes, on the trees you're calling 60 inches or over that you're retaining or not allowing to be harvested, are those classified as large second growth or old growth?

There technically is not a definition for old growth that's consistent from state regulations or professionally stated, so it's basically our interpretation based on size and intrinsic value.

So those would be large second growth?

So prior, it was probably harvested in the early 50s.

Well, there are some I believe if you look at the age assessment There are a couple at least one that I think is still over a hundred years old.

So there are some but They don't meet They don't meet that state definition so so why if they don't meet the state state definition why the Restriction placed on those trees

Well, that, and that is just the staff's recommendation, but that's coming from a position of, um, what has happened over the last couple of months with the public. There's been a lot of concern raised over removal of large Redwood trees. And as we identified in the staff report, um, we've actually received direction from the board of supervisors to. establish a tree preservation ordinance and implement a moratorium on the removal of large redwood trees. Um, that has not come forward yet. And so in that context, we wanted to make a recommendation that we think sort of still allows for, um, removal of a lot of these trees, but acknowledges what's happening in the background. Um, but you know, we kind of wanted to give a recommendation, have an opportunity to have this discussion. and see what the planning commission ultimately wants to do.

I would be more comfortable with the removal of that restriction. Because based on my training experience, those are not old growth. They don't meet the criteria. Based on my training experience in that area, that is probably some of the county's best growing ground for redwood. So you're going to run into trees that size predominantly through there in areas that haven't been harvested. So I'm not seeing the necessity for that type of restriction.

Commissioner, I don't know. Did you have a comment, Scott? Go ahead.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. This is coming to us because it's in the coastal zone.

yes it requires a coastal development permit additionally if this was not in the coastal zone it may actually come in front of becoming in front of you because it would require special permit for timber production in a residential zone so this particular permit is in the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit if it was outside of the coastal zone there still would be some zone districts where such a plan would potentially have to, well, would require discretionary permit, which might need to come in from the Planning Commission.

In some zone district, but there can also be other areas of the county currently where people can get these CAL FIRE exemption permits. to remove trees and they wouldn't be coming before the Planning Commission, is that correct? That is correct. Thank you.

And just to clarify from the staff report, there's no mitigation associated with any of the removal?

Correct, there was no mitigation requested by DFW or any of the agencies.

Okay, thank you. So we'll move to public comment. So at this time, we'll take public comment on item G1. And those in the audience, you can approach the podium. Those online, go ahead and raise your hand now and I'll get to you once comments in the room are taken. Go ahead. Thank you. Are you the applicant? Are you the applicant?

I'm one of the applicants. It's a peculiar situation. I'm actually the owner of tree number one that's on this map. So the majority of the plan is on my neighbor's property. His name is Lewis Call. I'm Lampe. So tree number one is the tree that's 71 inches in diameter. And because of that size and these proposed regulations, they're telling me that I can't remove it. So I have four other trees that stand close by this tree that it's okay to remove. They're not over 60 inches. So these trees were left on this fence line when my father removed most of the trees from this parcel, or actually from this area, not from the parcel. And as the years have gone by, they have grown and grown and grown, and essentially I get no sun on my house from about mid-December to mid-April, give or take. Absolutely no sun at all. So as time goes by, it's getting worse and worse and worse. It's almost a total blackout. So that's why I want these five trees removed is so I can get some sun on the property. Now my parcel is about five and a half acres and it adjoins the Cull property and I have lots of trees that are huge. They're very large and I'm sure they're old growth trees but I'm not talking about those trees. I'm just talking about this one particular tree. And I had no idea that I would meet the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission and who knows who because of this one tree. But here I am. So this tree was left by my father because it's on a fence line and as he removed trees to create pasture for livestock and for gardens and for fruit trees, he just left these trees because in 1947 and 1957, these were small, very small trees and they were not in the way of the pasture because they were on the fence line. So they were left, but now there's 11 trees that are over 100 feet tall and completely block out the sun. And so I'm not sure what I could do to convince the commission to let me remove the tree, but that's what I would like to do. And I'm not trying to make money on this. And I didn't move here from Los Angeles last summer. So I've been on this property since 1993 continuously. Actually, I was born on this property in 1949. So I know this tree well. If the council is dead set on opposing removal of this tree, there's two other trees that are next to this tree that equally block out the sun that could be removed and that would be a sort of a trade-off situation. I would prefer to have this big tree removed, because it's really the source of the problem. It is so gigantic that it's unbelievable. But if some sort of a compromise could, if we could come to some sort of compromise, that would be something that would be a win for everybody. So I would just like to put that out there. The other conditions that I thought were kind of outsized and was a burden to small property owners is the conditions about having a gravel road come in and put down gravel and a gravel surface to remove the trees on. Big timber companies are not, are not even doing that as far as I can tell. I live adjacent to the McKay track. All of their roads are dirt. There's no gravel roads except the one main road. And it seems that the small parcel owners are being overburdened by these sorts of regulations. Even large private property owners can overcome the financial expense of this sort of regulation, but mom and pop property owners or people with four and five acres can't, they can't overcome that kind of financial burden. I mean, log prices are very low right now, lower than I've ever seen them. And so, like I say, I'm not in it to make money, I'm just in it to get some sunshine. Okay, well thank you for listening to what I have to say and I could go on but that's really the gist of what I got to say, thanks.

Thank you. And then yeah, please stick around in case we have questions.

Lewis called the adjacent parcel and what Larry just said is, we basically want to remove these trees because they're they're these huge things that that at some point will fall down and most likely fall on our on our house uh and they're just you know this this is a as we said this is a really prime growing site and these things really grow well and uh uh so so this really needs to be done really needs to be done and so Uh, I, I found in the past that just having a few trees done is, is, uh, cost more than having a lot done. So, um, so we, but, but we want to have the trees cleared for that and sunlight. Uh, and then to have like, like Larry said, having like, like to rock the roads. It seems excessive and kind of arbitrary. I mean, so far, we haven't cut anything and we're into this project for about $6,000. Just a second, what Larry said, if it doesn't, it can't really show good cause to have to do all these things for what amounts to not many trees, that would be helpful. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience would like to comment? Yep.

Hi, I'm Dale Maples. I'm actually a little further down, but I'd like to speak to this one as well. I'm actually the hill over on Pigeon Point Road. But I think Mr. Fulton spoke to that we already have criteria in place for these tree removals, 60 inches and older than 1800. And so I would just encourage you to abide by the codes and ordinances that are already in place. That's it, thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Lucas Titus, unit forester for the Humboldt Del Norte unit. And I just want to emphasize again, or not again, what Commissioner Fulton has said about site one, site two growing ground. And if we're going to start putting diameter restrictions on tree removal in certain areas, we need to get our ordinances in place. And we have a forestry advisory commission, I believe. For the county of Humboldt, I am encouraged that we bring that to the commission and talk about it with registered professional foresters and make sure the county's not practicing forestry without a license, make sure we're going through the right pathways and follow some of the state guidance as that is already set in place with the 1800 AD and the size limitations. So please consider those things moving forward.

Hey guys, Steven Holman, RPF. So just putting these projects together.

Can you speak into the mic a bit closer, please?

Thank you. I'm the one that put the projects together, got approved by CAL FIRE, and just doing our standard process of running through the Coastal Commission. This area is kind of on the outer end of it, right next to a bunch of clear cuts from Green Diamond, just like these guys were talking about already. They're slipped right to the ground, right next to the call property here right now. These trees, for the majority, are 70 years old. They're 60 inches diameter and 45 inches diameter. They're 65 to 79. So they're pretty young trees, fast-growing ground. And the smaller ones that we're projecting to leaving, 40 inches and greater, give it 10 years, and they're going to be quite large already too. So, yeah, we end up starting doing something like this. I know we're in the coastal zone, I know the coastal, I've dealt with many harvest plans where I've actually been out in the field with the Coastal Commission, walking through it, actually with John here too in the past on tribal land. And we've agreed to harvest methods, we've agreed to the limits of cut and that's probably fine. Reminder that the 150 to 300, There, that already has a restriction. We can't clear cut it. We can't do shelter removal. We're basically just thinning that stand out. And our QMD, basically the sizes we have to leave are greater than when we entered the stand. So we're thinning from below coming through there. But we have some trees to take out on that area. The area is right around the houses. That's another thing. And thank you guys for us. We just did a sidebar right before we showed up and the tree number two is being removed. That's within 30 feet of a structure. As you know, we have, Cal Fire has zone zero coming through pretty soon. No woody plants within five feet. Zone one. That's a 30-foot area. All the bushes are 18 inches. Everything has to be pruned up. We don't want large trees next to these houses. We want them spaced apart. It's preferred to have small trees. We're always looking for ones that are small trees. If they're going to hit the house, we want to pull back a little bit more. We'll still have trees out there. We can have trees out to 150 feet tall as long as they're not going to crush the houses. That's perfectly fine. We're thinking about just spacing about through the stand. That's about it. I'll take questions if you guys got some, because I don't think anybody else is willing to talk.

Thank you. We usually just do questions to the applicant. I appreciate that offer. Anyone else in the audience like to make a comment? Okay, it looks like we have one comment online. Phone number ending in 3053. You can hit star six, I believe, to unmute. There you go. Go ahead.

Good afternoon or evening. Thomas Mulder here. I want to confirm you can hear me there in the chamber.

We can hear you, yes. If you can speak as close into your phone mic as possible, that'd be appreciated.

Can you hear me better now?

Yep, thank you.

Sorry, I took my air pod off. Sorry if I'm a little winded. I'm cutting out of a log deck firewood that I've decked up from two years ago after sustainably harvesting two years ago. Full disclosure, I do manage timber property in a sustainable way that I plan to manage and cut with my great-grandchildren someday. But the way I keep hearing the county try to overreach and over-regulate, I'm seriously getting the sign from the county that maybe I should pull out of my NTMP and clear-cut every single stick that I have because it seems like the county is trying to get into practice of regulating force. And yes, I understand this is residential, but I personally feel I respect everyone in the planning department, but I feel with overreach, that's my personal opinion, I feel that the county could be opening itself up to liability if one of these trees that the commission tries to say you can't cut, falls and names or hurt someone. And it's second growth, it's not old growth timber. So I do have an LTO so I could be perceived bias or because I've sold timber in the past could be perceived bias or because I fed myself as a teenager cutting firewood, I could be perceived bias. But I really am gonna ask you to try to back off trying to regulate timber. There is the Forestry Practices Act and I do respect that book and I do manage forest properly, but the sign the county is trying to say, I mean, hearing the applicant speak, their father left that tree. Maybe their father should have cut every single tree off because something they left for their 50 years down the road to be harvested later. You guys are saying no. So it kind of makes me sick to my stomach a little bit. Maybe I'm perceived biased, but thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Okay, not seeing any other comments. We'll close public comment at this time and bring it back to commission for discussion.

Go ahead.

I just do have a few other comments in regards to, you'd mentioned that the condition of a gravel road That's not necessary. Forest practice rules have a one or time exemption. Um, they shouldn't be have to put a gravel road in to get a tree out. It doesn't make any sense. Um, there's restrictions time of the year when they can and can't do that. Um, maybe they won't be able to get things done in time to start this winter, but it'd be nice to have everything in place so they could do it in spring. Um, It brings to mind that there's a lot of these plantations throughout the county that grandfathers and great-grandfathers left behind for their children to thrive off of. And if we're going to regulate the size of these trees because they've grown so well, I would call that an amazing return on your investment. And now you're going to, it seems like we're... I don't want to use the term punish, but punishing people so they can't harvest their trees when they've had a huge return on their investment. Their ancestors set that up for their families to harvest when it comes time to go to fruition. And in areas like Cummings and Elk River and the McKay Track, these are all incredibly good redwood growing ground. And if I left a stand of trees now, are you saying that by the time my children get old enough to cut them and they're 70 years old, they've now exceeded the limit on size because my investment has gone so well? That makes no sense. And I hope you do make money off these trees. That's the whole point. That was the reason these trees were saved, is for ancestors down the line to make some money. They shouldn't be restricted by that. I understand the restrictions on old growth and, you know, murrelet habitat and stuff like that. These don't fit. They may fit the size requirement, but they're not the right trees. And I think there's, I don't want to, I hate using the term overreach. I just think it's unnecessary conditions to be placed on this permit.

Commissioner Scavedale.

Yeah, I just want to clarify what I see is, I guess it's condition eight and nine. As I read that, it's saying the applicant basically just has to rock the access road to 50 feet back from the pavement. And in my drive-by, my observation is there's already a rocked driveway onto the property that is likely gonna be used by the timber operator. I think it's probably a fairly standard condition here. Maybe the wording isn't perfect for the applicant, but I just want to clarify. All we're asking is for where the trucks are going to access the paved road, that that be rocked back 50 feet.

Correct.

And if that already exists, the applicant can probably explain that. Right.

If that is correct, and so if that already exists, then they're already complying with that condition of approval.

Yeah. Okay. So we're not talking about rocking all the way back into the timber harvest operation or any of that, just the access onto lentil road, I think is correct.

That's a standard condition on County roads, um, to protect the County road.

Okay. Thank you. Then, and now I'm left a little bit still confused about the difference between what the applicant or the applicant's agent is asking for. and the conditions that are placed in here. Has the applicant accepted the conditions one and two as they're written in? Condition one is all trees 60 inches in diameter shall be protected and retained, and condition two is no more than 25% of redwood trees between 40 and 60 inches shall be removed. Is the applicant asking for relief from that, Where are we on that?

They never requested relief from it. It was a suggestion that the planning department had for the commission to make.

So, yeah, the applicant is requesting, you're hearing, you heard them, they are asking for relief from both condition one and two. And as Michael stated during the presentation, we wanted to modify condition one slightly to allow removal of tree two because that is within the 30-foot area. where under the CAL FIRE rules they want to have essentially no fuel. But you're hearing that they are objecting to conditions one and two. And so what the applicants want is approval of this coastal development permit without those conditions.

Okay, then if I continue. Thank you. By definition, tree number four Is that the only tree that meets the definition of old growth by the current state regulation or do none of them meet that definition.

Tree. You are correct. Tree for. That's right.

That was the one they were planning on leaving.

And one of the things that we struggled with as staff is that. There is no definition that we can find of old growth that's common throughout all of the regulatory agencies. But what the forest practice rules refer to is a large old tree. And that's where tree number four meets those requirements, which is it's old enough and it has the size to qualify. All of the others may have the size to qualify the others that are on this map, but they were measured and determined to be not old enough to meet that test as a large old tree. That's not necessarily to say that that's old growth. Right, okay.

And then I'm sorry to clarify, tree number four had a large hole in the center, so they couldn't get an exact estimate on the date or age of the tree, so they erred on the side of caution. That's why they're leaving it.

So they're proposing to leave that. They are proposing to leave it, yes. OK, so then under condition number two, we say no more than 25% of redwood trees. If we didn't have that condition, I don't know how many trees it was the applicant proposing to remove. I think there were a number per acre. So maybe it was something that sticks in my head of like 80 trees. in total?

Correct. It was an estimate estimated at 80 trees would be removed total, but that would be selected by the logger at the time. Um, but the math would have to be done before they cut.

So yeah, to, to clarify, and that's, it was probably a little confusing is that to measure, you know, we asked for an assessment of the larger trees and all of the trees that would be removed here and what they did rather than go out and measure every single tree within this for a plus acre area is they took a small area about 300 feet in length, measured all of the trees in that area, and then basically said if we extrapolate that to the larger area, that's probably what's happening in the stand. And the forester could probably talk a little bit more about this, but my understanding from that assessment is that they actually are probably Proposing to remove no more than 25% of the trees in that 40 to 60 inch diameter area, but we wanted to make that more clear in order to Essentially have the Planning Commission feel that they could make the finding Which is a finding for this permit that this isn't going to be detrimental to the public welfare I don't want to understate the concern that

I guess that you expressed about the public's response about old growth trees that we heard when we were dealing with the Q zone in Redway, which was a specific zone overlay agreed on by and set up in the neighborhood to protect old growth Redwood trees. I have to tell you when I drive out to Mitchell Heights, which I did today, it's not Redway and it has been logged a number of times. And a lot of these property owners out there are removing trees. And they're not old growth redwood trees. It's just a completely different habitat than the area that we reviewed in Redway. So I'm a little concerned that we're overstepping a bit from our past experience in Redway. bringing that on top of this area now redwood trees are still logged in Humboldt County every day it's a big part of our local economy and so redwood trees are being removed every day and of all various diameters commercially and I know that's not what we're talking about here and I hope we're not getting into the when we talk about what we're thinking about doing in Humboldt County on properties that were not stepping into commercial properties as well. But it's part of Humboldt. Logging is a part of Humboldt County. And harvesting trees is also part of Humboldt County. And that side is not really presented in the staff report. I felt it leaned a little hard in one direction, in my opinion. That's all I have. Thank you.

I'm very much struggling with this, and I wish that we had more commissioners here to give the item due diligence, because I also feel like the personal bias or fundamental understanding of the issues, we have multiple commissioners because we all have different understandings, and so I think it's really unfortunate that this came forward when we don't have people who have that expertise. I am really struggling because you are fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood when you take out that number of trees. And we've had other permits come to us where that has been a major pushback, whether it's a lot division that fundamentally changes the character because people want larger lots or whatever. I also, there's no mitigation required with any of the tree removal, which Sure, we can argue that there might not be a listed species under CEQA law, but there are other species that obviously use it. But then I also understand we're in a timber harvest production zone. No, I'm sorry. What were the zonings?

It's rural residential agriculture. It's adjacent to a TPZ. Adjacent. Thank you.

Yeah. And I struggle, but then I sympathize with the applicant, because you have a large tree that's blocking your sunlight, affects your quality of life. But we tell people, sorry, your neighbor gets to build their two-story house. It's going to block your light. I'm really struggling and I actually appreciated the way the staff report was written because I felt like one of the heartbeat of this county is not just our trees, it's the environmental protections. We're one of the last stand holds in California that does this. Look at Ventura, look at LA. This is what we don't want to become. So I appreciate the extra... due diligence that was given to the environmental side in the staff report. I am disappointed that the Coastal Commission didn't respond to your request for comment. I'm also disappointed in CDFW's minimal response. So I don't know that I have like a final stance, but I'm really struggling with this one.

I have a couple of questions to staff. So residential ag, what are the, I guess it's complicated because we're in the coastal zone, but is a residence able to clear cut their property? I guess, yeah, are they able to clear cut their property?

No. THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE WOULD NOT BE ZONED TO ALLOW THAT.

IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TIMBER PRODUCTION? SO THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO CLEAR CUT IN ORDER TO WHAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT THEIR RESIDENTS?

IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE ZONING. potentially under the forest practice rules, if they went through a timber harvest plan or something, that might take away some of the county's discretion here. But on smaller residential parcels, when they're zoned residential, that would not be a principally allowed use. Potentially, coming through a discretionary permit, the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors could authorize such an action. But it wouldn't necessarily be something that they could just do by following the CAL FIRE rules.

That makes sense. And so presumably, addressing Commissioner Fulton's point of potentially leaving some income for future generations, that would need to go through a timber harvest plan. And that would be the appropriate path to take for that. Is that right?

A timber harvest plan is a commercial, you know, it is a plan for commercial, uh, logging. Right. And I think one of the things that, that is important to acknowledge here is that the 100, you know, these structural fire protection exemptions exempt them from having to go through that process to protect structures from fire, the fire danger. It's not, the intent is not to allow them to commercially, you know, harvest Now, it doesn't prevent them from a profit, but that's not the intent of those exceptions.

So it's just because of the proximity to the structures? Correct. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm also in a similar boat as Commissioner McFarland, struggling a little bit. I think it does make me nervous to... start going into the forest practice rules realm of specifying specific diameters. At the same time, I guess my feeling is these residences are in a forested area and the intent, my assumption here is the intent is to maintain that character of people who moved into a forested area for a reason. And so I think kind of I'm interpreting staff as trying to start taking steps towards capturing that as well as capture the guidance from the Board of Supervisors on taking a broader county-wide look at what our priorities are for retaining the beautiful forests that we have. I think I am leaning a bit more towards IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO FILL THESE TREES BECAUSE OF, AGAIN, IT'S NOT A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN AND THESE ARE WITHIN STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. But yeah, I'm not quite 100% decided yet. So I'm curious of the Commissioner McFarland.

I think that's another thing that I struggle with. And working for a public agency, I understand a lot of these rules. And I see them come into play. And sometimes these. pseudo-arbitrary regulations are created. First of all, we don't really have a lot of wildfires here by our bay. So that's case one, we're in a low-fire zone. Case two is throughout the state, we have documented evidence of wildfires coming through and completely bypassing houses that are surrounded by trees, taking out structures that had more clearance because whether or not a structure's gonna catch on fire is more than a function of the location or the proximity of vegetation. It can play a role, but it's a function of the wind. It's a function of other, I mean, you take out trees and they come back with vegetation that has higher oil, it's going to burn faster, spread faster. So, I mean, I think I really struggle with, with changing the character of a neighborhood based on, on some of these regulations. So I don't have my mind made up, but I, yeah.

Can I try to speak to that? Cause it's unfortunate that you didn't get out there, but this project is not going to change the character of this neighborhood. It's, It's Mitchell Heights. It's some of the parcels, the one next door where the first gentleman spoke. It's fairly open, as he described it. It's basically like pasture with trees around the perimeter. This other parcel that's next door, when I drove up Lentil Road, I first drove past it, couldn't see a single structure. It's dense with trees. Then you go farther up the road, the next one, It looks like a resident that could be in a city somewhere. It's got a front yard, no trees, and a clear backyard. It's sort of a mixed nature out there. I say it's sort of a mixed nature out there. I was trying to determine if I was on the road and they cut these trees down, these trees that are being proposed, if you would be able to even tell from Lentil road, if driving by, if you could tell they were logging in board on that piece of property. And I think if you didn't know that the trucks were coming out of there, I'm sure you'd hear the saws and this and that, but I don't know if there's a visual site around this property where you get a visual on this tree removal. It's kind of interesting. I don't think, I don't think there is. When I looked at it, I was trying to imagine, okay, where are the trees? You can't see in from the road 50 feet. It's a redwood forest with brush and trees in there. I couldn't see the houses.

Well, it'd be a 25% less dense redwood forest.

And where they're logging, I don't think that's proposed on the roadside there, but I don't know, but you're right. 25%.

Yes.

Yeah. Or 75% still there.

Commissioner Fulton.

Yes. I have a quick question for applicant call.

Yep.

Yes. You're the proposal. And I understand this is an approximate 25% harvest of your trees. Is that correct?

Yes.

What's their plan for the other 75%?

Leave them there.

Leave them there. Do you have plans on handing that property down to family?

Uh, it's already, it's already in the living trust. Yep. Yeah. When we bought this thing, it had a vandalized shack on it, but it had seven acres of redwood trees.

Do you pay a tax on those trees?

No.

I mean, do you pay land taxes on your property, property taxes?

Absolutely, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I have no intent of turning it into anything but forested land. But it's also, when you look at these trees, they go... And there's this one big clump, and these things are over 100 feet tall. And they're looking like right down on our house. And they're growing off an old stump, an old growth stump. It makes it structurally very weak. And someday they're going to fall down. So those things have to go. We topped them once, just trying to lower the load down. No, I have no, I've lived in LA, I have no desire to turn this into LA. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, Todd, yeah.

Thank you. I do have one other question to staff. Could I put you on the spot and kind of maybe summarize the direction that the Board of Supervisors provided you?

Yeah, they directed that we begin work on a tree preservation ordinance to protect primarily old growth but other large trees as well. That's still to be defined. They also instructed us to come back with a moratorium, not allowing large trees to be cut. That's going to the board on October 6th. And so part of your task is to define large. Yeah. And that we you know one of the things the board was concerned about is that that can't isn't something that you can go and hide in a closet and and prepare something like that. You've got to involve foresters got to involve CAL FIRE got to involve the forest review committee got to involve you know interested landowners. because there's a lot of things going on here. Obviously this may be somewhat of a unique circumstance that hasn't been captured as part of the discussion yet where you've got second growth trees growing extremely fast, starting to perhaps even appear to be on the verge of being something that people appreciate as large, large trees. None of that's been worked out. So what we were trying to do here, and I think that Michael and Cliff did a good job of trying to explain this, is at least have the commission start to struggle with this, because this is coming. This isn't a one-off where we pulled a wild hare out of someplace and decided that we were going to harass these property owners. That's not our objective at all. what we were trying to do was really start a meaningful conversation that is going to be going on for a while.

I'd appreciate that.

Commissioner McFarland?

You said it's going to the board October 6th? That's a draft or what is?

No, that's the moratorium.

No cutting. And then?

Until the ordinance is adopted.

Gotcha. See, and that makes me struggle with it even more because it feels like we're trying to slip this in ahead of a major county decision, which pros and cons, right? Like, you know, it's the same reason you try to get a house loan. Before interest rates go up, you try to get the best deal. So I guess that just made me struggle more.

I think this has been in the process long enough that I wouldn't suspect the property owners of that.

I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT, YES, THIS PROJECT AND THE OTHER ONE THAT WILL BE HEARD WERE APPLIED FOR PRIOR TO THE SITUATION WITH DREADWAY.

OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. AND I THINK THE OTHER ASPECT THAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS, AS YOU POINTED OUT, DIRECTOR FORD, IF A TREE STARTS TO GET TO THE SIZE WHERE MAYBE IT BECOMES THIS REALLY APPRECIATED LARGE GROWTH TREE, IT'S NOT OLD GROWTH, BUT IT'S LARGE GROWTH, And I understand the Commissioner Fulton, your argument of like, well, this was passed down as generation to be income making intended to be harvested. And then I go back to an analogous situation. If I put up, I don't own land of any size, but if I own five acres and I decided to put in a giant pond and create wetlands, those will in perpetuity be regulated as protected wetlands. So even though I created this, you know, thing for myself, there is a point where it becomes a public protection asset. So I think that's also where I struggle.

That's your phone.

no no disrespect intended but that's apples to oranges you're not going to make much money off of a pond trees were set aside to create income for families and i'm not saying that's this situation that's just but i also feel that even though this ordinance is coming down the road and this moratorium is coming around the corner it shouldn't be a topic of conversation for this because it's like preparing for something that hasn't happened yet um I, I'm for this project with the modifications that we have discussed. I think it's, it's a fair thing to do, but that's, that's my take on it.

Can you clarify those modifications?

The modifications, the removal of conditions one and two.

That's what you suggested? Removal of one and two?

I didn't say that yet. I just asked questions about one. Okay. Sorry. Yeah, I do. I do share some concern about this. It seems like we're caught in a tough spot here. Whatever we decide to do is going to be pointed at as somewhat precedent setting towards whatever this future ordinance might be, which bothers me. So the staff's already come out with some recommendations in trying to align with maybe what an ordinance is gonna be in the future, but we don't have that ordinance yet. We haven't had any public hearings on that ordinance. And Board of Supervisors hasn't decided on that ordinance. But we're gonna hold some property owners maybe accountable to whatever this future ordinance might be. That doesn't seem quite fair. And then when you tell me they were in line already going through this permit process when all this other brouhaha happened that caused us to think we need to have other ordinances to regulate this. And now they're caught up in that. That doesn't seem very fair either. So that's kind of where I am.

Can we tackle conditions eight and nine first? Maybe get that out of the way through. Are commissioners okay with how the gravel conditions are written? And do we feel like that satisfies the applicant's concerns around that? And this is with respect to the gravel road.

I mean, the gravel is the least of my concern. I think that, as Commissioner Skabdall stated, if that road might even already exist. So that's the least of my concern.

I think the applicant would probably put that on the logger to go in and get an encroachment permit and to make sure that there's safe ingress and egress for the equipment and the trucks that are coming in and off of that road and that they're not making a mess tracking dirt down the road. So I think that's the intent of those conditions and that the logger and the county public works staff would figure that out.

I think that's fair. The intent of this condition is so that vehicles aren't pulling out onto the road with huge chunks of mud. And so the gravel allows some time to get that, at least some of the mud off. You have seen this condition before probably 700 times.

Okay, yeah, so it sounds like we're okay with leaving that in as is and just letting the note the applicant that that doesn't involve building a large gravel road on your property. So I think maybe with that is someone willing to entertain a motion trying to address items, conditions one and two.

If I could, I think Commissioner Scavdahl made some maybe salient points that you may want to add into the findings that the applicant had already applied for this tree removal, the Coastal Development Permit prior to there being any thought of there being a moratorium and a... ordinance restricting the removal of larger trees and and then that would allow you to go where you want to go with conditions one and two I mean the motion would be simple

Would adding that help in any future argument about this being precedent setting or, you know?

That's where, yeah, what we're working towards is because I think that one of the struggles here is that this, it's an issue of equity. And since this wasn't a matter of a property owner trying to skate in under the adoption of the moratorium, this was really somebody who was working towards this long before the thought of that was put into place, that it does make a difference. And so that you could even add into the findings that it is acknowledged that for this reason this action is being taken and should not be considered precedent setting because it needed to be considered at a different time under a different set of standards.

I would also propose that we change condition number one to be the applicant shall not remove any old growth trees as defined by the state regulation.

Change to or add to?

Commissioner Fulton, help me with this. I thought, and I think the forester said that, that there's a stipulation or something in the Forestry Practice Act. I don't know what I'm talking about here, so help me out here. That a tree's over a certain age and a certain diameter of breast height are considered old-growth trees? Is that correct or not correct?

If I could. There's no definition of old growth. It's large old trees. However, the applicants have already done that assessment. And that's why tree number four, they couldn't conclude that it didn't meet that requirement. So they're proposing to keep that. So based on that assessment, they're not asking to remove any trees that would qualify under the state rules as large old trees. So they're not asking to do that.

Right. And so all I'm asking is, since they're not asking to do that and since we don't want them to remove large old trees, they condition one say they're not going to remove any large old trees. Is that fair enough?

That's so saying that leaves tree wine is the only one that's in the gray area, right?

Cause it needs qualification one but not qualification to no, none of the trees other than tree for potentially,

would meet those requirements so so what this would allow them to do is remove all of those trees that they're right but i'm saying if we go with that suggestion tree one's the only one that like tree one tree four people no but tree one is 71 inches correct not old right so i'm saying it's kind of in the gray area it meets the it doesn't it's not before 1800 right but it does meet the so it's large but it's not

so the thing is under the state rules it has to meet both right it has to meet both to to qualify as as a large old tree and so tree number one only meets one of those tests right i feel like like you're saying by the word gray area are you referring can you speak into the mic yeah

are you referring to what you anticipate this moratorium will encompass?

No, no, I'm getting, I'm getting more at the, the trees are defined by meeting two criteria. Most trees don't meet two. Therefore they're, it's cut and dry. This tree meets one, but not the other. So technically it's not. However, there could be a moment in time where California changes that date 1800 to shift that forward. Right? So, um,

I think I see what you're saying. However, all of the trees on this map that was submitted as supplemental potentially meet one, but not both of those criterias. So the 71 inches, the size limit is 60. And then again, also having to meet the other criteria. All of those trees shown on here, which are five, with them keeping one of the five, are over 60 inches in diameter.

I, I just struggled to cause like 1800, like who made up that?

That's the, so that's basically pre-European contact out here. So the trees haven't been harvested before that day.

I feel like we're ready for a motion, attempted emotion.

someone willing to take a stab at it has the chair ever made a motion i'm i'm happy to try to take a stab at it i think commissioner scabdall's working on his uh wordage over there

Yeah. So I make a motion that we approve this project with some modifications to, um, to the attachment one, a, the conditions of approval. Um, and I got through condition. So, so we're going to, we're going to note that the applicant has, uh, made this application well in advance of August 11th, thank you. That'll be in the findings. Okay, in the findings. Condition number one, I want to amend to that all trees meeting the definition of large old trees by the state regulation shall be protected and retained. Commission, condition number two, I'm not sure. I think we're at the removal is limited to 25% of the trees on the property.

Already. That's my understanding. That's the goal anyway. So you could leave that in just at 25% or you could remove the condition entirely.

I'd just as soon remove the condition, but if the rest of the commission wants to make sure that it's 25%, we can leave 25%. But I think we just removed condition two. That's my motion.

So we have, I guess my first question is, you stated we were going to, In the findings, we'll say the applicant had already applied, but then previously, Director Ford, you had elaborated with some language that was very clear about this isn't precedent setting because it was analyzed at a different time, a different, like, are we going to make all that?

Maybe what you're asking for is a friendly amendment to the motion to add all that finding language.

To make that abundantly clear. Yes. And then... I don't understand if our goal is to keep it at 25% density reduction, why would we remove two?

Because that's what they're proposing.

That's the project.

But they could amend the project, right?

If you want to stay with the 25%, then you could simply leave not more than 25% of all redwood trees shall be removed, period, and remove everything else.

I think the forester described it as a density of trees per acre or something like that. Right. Is that the better way to go? So... I don't have the numbers in my head, but I remember the Forester's report, and they were talking about going from this density to another density. That's fine. It's great space. And I think that's how we somewhat ended up at 25%. But I just as soon removed that number, and we're basically going with the plan as submitted by the Forester, approved by CAL FIRE. with these conditions. That's the motion.

One thing I might add is regarding condition number two, where that's coming from is the tree age assessment that they submitted. And that is where it identifies the potential tree density and the sizes that they're going to retain. And so what I might offer is you might make a condition that they comply with what's proposed in that age assessment that is included as attachment.

Yeah, I could go more with that because if we go with the complete removal, we make the assumption that their sample was representative of the entire property, which it might be or it could be radically different when they actually get out there.

So that's the age assessment was attachment 2D? No, it's further down, sorry. It is. Oh, that was just for those five trees.

It is, yeah, condition 2D, or attachment 2D, right.

Sorry, I just need to look at that one more time.

No, that's okay. And I intentionally haven't asked for a second yet.

Thank you.

I appreciate you taking a stab at it.

I don't know that that actually defines the

So the last paragraph under the executive summary. In the staff report? No, in the attachment 2D. OK.

Yeah, so it says there's 58 trees per acre currently expected reduced to 38 trees per acre post-harvest. So that's the plan.

Yeah, and I'm saying put bounds on your plan. This says it's expected. There's some wiggle. All I'm asking is to put some limits, put some constraints on the proposed plan.

So what would you say? Since it's expected, are you okay with it being considered to say, okay, we're going to have 35 trees per acre?

I like what Cliff said two minutes ago. Can you say that again?

I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT CONDITION TWO COULD MAYBE MAKE REFERENCE TO THEM HAVING TO COMPLY WITH THE TREE, THE PROPOSAL IN THE AGE ASSESSMENT FOR THE OVERALL TREE REMOVAL. SO I WAS REFERRING TO THIS TABLE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT IS INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THIS APPLICATION, BUT THAT'S NOT really the project description that is in front of the commission. And so it would be, I think, important to make that a condition that they comply with that limitation that's in the age assessment.

Yeah. So we just say that the tree density reduction complies with the limits proposed in the age assessment at time of application.

I'm not a forester, but I don't think it's an exact science, so I'm a little concerned.

That's why we're asking for it, because it's not an exact science.

I'm really feeling that you're dabbling in areas that we don't have expertise for. These plans have been reviewed and looked at by registered professional foresters. in an attempt to be probably a very minimal footprint on this property in their tree removal. I think we're getting way too far in the weeds on telling somebody that they can do 25% of their trees, but the other 75% of the trees on your property, redwood trees, be specific, have to stay. I think we're pushing our government involvement a little too much. I understand not wanting to change the neighborhood, and I'm in agreement with you, I don't think we should be allowed to clear cut it, so on, so on, so forth, but we're getting a little too far in the weeds.

And I agree with you, especially the part where we don't know what we're talking about. So help me, when this is done, and Um, who comes out? Does, does Cal fire come out or who, or the forester comes out or who comes out at the end of the project?

Yeah, we did what we said we were going to do. The forester will monitor the project. His name is on the dotted line. Okay. And, um, Cal fire has the completion report to do at the end. Okay.

Can I ask a question? If the entire property was within 300 feet of the existing structures, then potentially that property, through working with CAL FIRE, could remove all of those trees, is that correct?

No, because within those areas, they're not allowed to clear cut. They have to keep a certain density. And I don't know what the requirements are. I'm not a tree exporter or a forester. But they do have to retain a lot of that. What they're allowed to do under that exemption is essentially to clear fuel and remove the horizontal you know canopy that is you know on the property without actually removing all of the trees that wouldn't be allowed and that's all taken care of through cal fire through the forest practice act that is correct these conditions that are placed here before us are above and beyond the rules that are already in place for them

So do you want to take a stab one more time Commissioner Scabell at summarizing.

Yeah. Condition two I think we're saying that all work will be consistent with the permits issued by CAL FIRE and and under the under the review and approval of the licensed forester.

Maybe would you feel comfortable if I asked staff to summarize the motion before us, before I ask for a second? Is that?

Yes. So here's what I understand, we're gonna modify the findings and we're gonna identify that the application was submitted before there was a discussion of a new ordinance, before a discussion of a moratorium occurred, that this, because of that, this is not precedent setting. The conditions of approval, condition number one is gonna be modified to indicate that there will not be removal of any large old trees as defined in the forest practice rules. And then condition number two is gonna be modified to say that all work shall be consistent with the permits issued by CAL FIRE and under the supervision of the registered professional forester. Do I have a second?

I would second that.

Is there any further discussion? While we digest this. Can I have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Scavdahl?

Yes.

Commissioner Curiazzi?

Yes.

Commissioner McFarland?

I don't think my vote matters. I think to what you said, Commissioner Scavedal, like we are kind of out of our wheelhouse and I'm so disappointed that this item is here with so few other commissioners given the potential contention. So I'm just gonna, for that reason alone, I'm either, you can record me as a no or an abstain, but I just think this deserved the full attention of the commission.

Is that no or abstain?

Recommend it being a no.

Then it's a no.

Commissioner Fulton?

Yes.

Three, two, one.

Okay. I think that was a good discussion. I appreciate staff bringing that and note the frustration, Commissioner McFarland, and I do agree with some of it.

I just want to say to the property owners, I appreciate your willingness to work with the county on all this, and I hope that you are able to enjoy your property. This was nothing personal. I just think this is a much larger issue that our county is dealing with, and you just happened to be in the fire, for lack of a better word. But you got your permit, so it doesn't matter.

OK, we are about halfway through. I think the next item probably is a similar topic. Maybe we've hashed out most of our challenges. Do we want to try to tackle it, or do you want a break? All right, we'll do a five minute break. We'll be back in five minutes. Okay, we are back and we are addressing the second item on our hearing agenda item G2, Maples Tree Removal Coastal Development Permit. And staff has a presentation.

Good evening again, commissioners. Michael Kine with Humboldt County Planning. I'm here to do the presentation for Maples Tree Removal, PLN number 20269577. This project is outside of the Eureka area off of Pigeon Point Road, off of the Pigeon Point Road area at 5177 Woodland Way. This property is zoned rural residential agriculture. The project consists of a coastal development project or permit to authorize the tree removal associated with the Cal Fire structure protection exemption of zero to 150 feet. Eight redwood trees are proposed to be removed ranging in size from 12 inches to 63.4 inches in diameter at breast height. The parcel is approximately .76 acres and developed with a single family residence. under Title 14 of the California Code Regulations, 1038.6. The structure protection and fuel treatments covers fuel hazard reductions within 150 feet of a legally permitted structure. The subsection mandates strict timelines and death restrictions of slash disposal and secondary hazard materials. Here is a simple site map of the trees being removed. The Xs are the ones that will be removed. The green circles are trees that are being retained. As we discussed in a prior project, California code regulations state that no old trees defined as existing before 1800 and are greater than 60 inches in diameter. At stump height for Sierra and coastal redwoods are 48 inches in diameter. Stump height for other species shall be removed unless certain conditions apply. In this case, none do. But no trees considered for removal meet both requirements under the current state regulations. There is one tree, this is the largest tree that is currently standing. It is 162 years old and has a diameter of just under 64 inches. Again, while California Code regulations allow trees that may be older than 226 years and greater than 60 inches at stump height to be removed, it is important to consider the intrinsic ecological and cultural values of larger trees. It is the Planning Commission's obligation to weigh the concerns and views of the community against the dangers of these trees that may be posed to residents or property. It was for that reason that the county planning department had recommends that tree number five, which is greater than 60 inches in diameter, but less than 226 years old, be retained and not removed. However, based on past discussions, the commission may want to consider not having this item as a condition. Public comment, this project was noticed in the Eureka Times Standard on September 2nd, and the notices were sent out to property owners within 300 feet of the parcel lines. And staff recommends approval for this project with the condition that tree number five not be removed. And if you have any questions, please ask.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have questions for staff?

Tree number five, was that the one that was topped in detail? Yes. So it would probably be an improvement to the neighborhood to remove that one? Very possible.

All of them have been limbed. Yes.

Subjective improvement.

Is tree number five is the one with two tops? That doesn't happen naturally, does it? That's like from a break or?

It can commonly come from a break depending on some trees are cloned to do that depending on the age of the tree. Interesting.

Okay, if there are no other questions, we'll bring this to public comment. Is there anyone, I'll go, we'll take public comment in the room first. If there's anyone online that would like to comment on this item, we're on item G2, please raise your hand, but I'll go to the audience first.

Sure, if I could, it's normally the applicant.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Is the applicant in the room and would they like to make a comment?

I'm Dale Maples, my wife and I purchased the property at 5177 Woodland Way. I feel like we just had this conversation. And it was a good conversation. So I appreciate your struggle with that for sure. I'm a native of Humboldt County and a lover of redwoods and we're moving out to Pigeon Point Way because we like the atmosphere out there. We've lived at 305 Sonoma in Eureka for nearly 30 years, it's a 125 year old house It's a labor of love and I've labored on it. But we have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy making it also an energy efficient home. This is an interesting story about this house. It is three quarters of an acre. This house burned all but the garage three years ago. Parcel's right next door to my daughter who lives at the top of Woodland Way. And my wife and I, our house is too large. Most of our kids are grown and so we wanted to downsize and As I'm looking into retirement, I want a home that's not going to be as costly to maintain, both physically and monetarily. And so we've been looking at downsides for quite a while. And so when this house burned, regrettably, a person died in this fire that I went to high school with. So it's kind of sad. We didn't buy them. We did not buy the property. at that time, three years ago, a couple from the Bay area bought this property and, um, they were looking to relocate to Humboldt County to be near their children. And, um, I'm just giving you the background of this, of this property. And, um, so, uh, they got, they, they were in their seventies and they wanted to do it all themselves. Great old couple. I got to know him a little bit cause they were always out there and we were out there visiting our daughter and grandchildren quite a bit. And so, um, They were doing it all themselves. And I would talk to him a little bit about our desire to have a smaller home. And, um, they got tired of the whole thing and they decided they want to buy a house in town. It was already done. So they told my daughter that they were going to sell this house. And my daughter called me and said, dad, you need to call these people right now. So we called them and we bought the property the next week. And, uh, we stopped the building process and, um, had a lot of things redesigned to make it a very low footprint house. That's important to us. I'm a plumbing contractor and we put in a lot of things that require natural gas. Even so, I took all the natural gas piping out of the house because we want it to be all electric. and be as small footprint as possible. We changed all the appliances to high-efficiency appliances and had the roof a little bit redesigned so that it could hold solar panels. We've had the solar panels all installed. I'm not required to put solar panels in on a remodel by California energy code. It doesn't apply. But we want them in because we want to be able to live that way. And so we did that, and they're all in. I have two storage batteries to store as much energy as possible. My son-in-law is a lineman for PG&E, but I don't care. I still don't want to buy electricity from him. And so that's kind of the story about that house. So we restart, and there was a substantial environmental cleanup on this house of hazardous material too, which has been done and I ultimately paid for. So there's been some cost that we have elected to incur to make this house a small footprint as possible including We're not taking away any land from the environment. This already had a house on it So that was important to us as well so the tree removal is about some safety issues with the house and The tree in question dropped a pretty large branch last year, about six inches in diameter, that would have been probably lethal. And it's way within 100 feet of the house. I think it's only about 30 feet from the house. So there's safety issues with that. And this tree posed the greatest threat to sunlight on the solar panels. So that's one of the reasons why we did that as well in applying for this. The map on this... on this parcel, there's a lot more redwood trees on that map than is shown in that parcel. I counted them this morning and anything that's 10 feet or six inches in diameter and larger, there's a count of 54 redwood trees on this three quarter acre parcel. We just want to take eight. And I appreciate your dialogue and I appreciate your struggle with it as well. So if you have any questions, I'll be in the audience. Thanks a lot.

Thank you for the comment. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to make comment on this? You have three minutes. Yep, please approach the podium.

Uh, yeah, a lot of this stuff's already been said, so I feel like I'm just repeating, but anyway, thank you commissioners and for your time and all that. Mark para home and associates. Um, I've been out on, on Dale's property and all that. Um, hopefully what I'll give you, it's already been stated, but, um, it'll be food for thought for future discussions, particularly in one October six comes up, I guess. Um, I'm just going to run down the list, and I'm not great at public speaking. CAL FIRE regulations, the 60-inch rule for this project does not apply to tree number five, which states a tree greater than 60 inches and established prior to 1800. Tree number five does not meet both criteria. Something to consider in the future though is when you guys come up with a definition of large old trees. I don't believe anything has come up in the discussion in regards to ESHA. ESHA Determination of the Coastal Act and the Humboldt Bay Local Coastal Plan. The tree may only be designated ESHA if it provides rare unique habitat values, exhibits old growth characteristics, support special status species or is essential to the viability of a mapped or known Esha area. Tree five is second growth redwood. It's not mapped as Esha, no documented. It's not documented as habitat for special status species, not part of a designated Esha buffer. Tree five does not meet Esha criteria. Back to the Coastal Act under a scenic resource value. The Coastal Act requires protection of public scenic views and natural landforms. Tree 5 is located in a private parcel. It's not within a mapped scenic corridor. Does not define or obstruct a public view. Tree 5 is not designated a scenic resource. So the... Coastal Act 3251 does not apply to Tree 5. I don't know how well this would work in. I also put down CEQA applicability for... not allowing Tree 5 to be harvested. It's still a Class 5 exemption, which allows minor vegetation removal unless the tree is a designated scenic resource, part of ESHA, or would remove or cause significant environmental damage. Tree 5 does not meet any of those triggers. Humboldt County may regulate, okay, I'm done. Anyway, I respectfully request the commission to remove condition of approval item one and allow tree five to be removed under this coastal development permit. Sorry, I went over.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to make a comment?

Hey, guys.

I'm Steven Holman, forester for this project here.

Very similar to the last project we just discussed earlier. And hopefully we can just move forward like this. These land owners like earlier, they were not aware of such a thing as this coming down. This was basically just a shock to them. And yeah, it's cost them quite a bit of money and they're not making any money off this. This is just for their benefit for themselves. They're basically making their property fire safe for now. We have a discussion a little bit concerning fire safety. Humboldt County, just along the coast, we only have a fire season for about two to three months tops. But we do have fires here locally. And they do come through these outer areas from time to time. So this is a real thing. This is something for their safety. If these trees catch fire, they come down to the houses. And we don't want that to happen. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in the audience? OK. I see one hand on line raised, phone number ending in 3053. Go ahead.

Good evening again. Thomas Mulder here. I just want to confirm you can hear me there in the chambers?

We can. Thank you.

This is interesting. The fall is very similar to the last one. I would say that moratorium that you guys are speaking of that's coming before the Board of Supervisors is yet to be approved. You have to remember it's a contentious item. I don't believe it's a unanimous vote. You've got to remember one of the supervisors only has a couple more months, and then you'll have a new supervisor in the 5th District, which will be the swing vote, so you don't know which way that's going to go. So I wouldn't go all in on this moratorium. Also, just really, really look at things from a different perspective. Uh, it might be splitting hairs, but some people would argue that the County cannot regulate someone to cut down their tree and utilize it for their own purposes. They could cut this tree down and mill it up, put it on their house, make benches or playgrounds out of it. It's argument. Everyone has a different perspective. The only reason this permit is needed is to be able to barter, sell or trade it. Um, So just food for thought. I mean, I'm not an attorney, not a lawyer, not giving legal advice, but different perspectives people have that, you know, one can do whatever they want with their own trees as long as they don't bid, barter, or trade. I believe there's somewhere in the Forestry Practices Act that's when the trigger comes into effect if you don't have the right permits. As someone that likes to be able to harvest trees sustainably, bid, barter, or trade, and... I like to teach my children, my two grandsons about forestry management. And, you know, one day I'll have great grandchildren that are also going to be able to learn about that. but if Humboldt County keeps going down the way they're going, I mean, I'm looking on that Ridge about five miles off, completely clear cut. They might already see the writing on the wall and that might be the way to manage Humboldt property in Humboldt County. If they continue to try to over-regulate might be more like some tracks of land in Oregon where you just clear cut it and come through about every 50 to 70 years and just continually clear cut it. I'll be actively watching. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. If there's anyone else on the line that would like to speak, please raise your hand. Not seeing any, we'll come back to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Fulton.

Yeah, same issues as the last. I believe we can probably remove number one, condition number one. although I'm not gonna bring this up now but I'll just bring it up for food for thought because this is gonna be coming down the road another contentious thing is item number four your timeline there severely restricts operational timelines especially during our summer months but that's not for this one but something to think about going down the road further you're limiting like taking three months of harvest season But I'm in favor of this project with the removal of condition one.

To your comment on item four, I get your point about reducing harvest season, but those work windows are established under multiple state statutes, and all state agencies have to comply with those. So all public projects that your taxpayer dollars pay for already comply with those. So it's just a matter of... you know, applying the same rules that technically we already follow because we all hopefully pay taxes. But side comment, just saying. Anyway, we'll get back to the permit. Is tree number five, because it's double-topped, is it considered hazardous?

There's no information that's been presented to us that it is hazardous. So at this point I would say no based on the information that we have.

I support the project with the removal of condition number one.

I do feel like consistency with the last vote would lean towards removing that condition as well. It is interesting to, for me, particularly in this area while wildfire risk is certainly a risk even on the coast here. I think we're using this wildfire buffer for more preference reasons than necessarily wildfire. But with that said, I think I'm okay with removing condition one as well. And I guess also I would advocate for having the same addition as we had last time where kind of avoiding the mistaking this as setting a precedent if other commissioners are okay with that.

So modifying the findings to include the same, no, yeah. I guess I'd like to hear from staff. This permit was also in the queue early.

Yes, they had applied prior to the, yeah. Thank you. Prior to the other situation.

I'm tempted to ask for a motion.

I WOULD SO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION WITH THE REMOVAL OF CONDITION ONE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT THIS WAS NOT TO BE SET AS PRECEDENTS AND THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS SET WELL BEFORE THE DISCUSSION.

CLARIFICATION. I KNOW THIS IS WHAT YOU MEANT, BUT YOU SAID ACCEPT. IT'S APPROVED.

YES, APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

Any further discussion? Can I have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Fulton.

Yes.

Commissioner McFarland.

For the same reasons as our previous application, no.

Commissioner Scavdahl.

Yes.

Commissioner Curiazzi.

Yes.

Motion passes three to one.

Okay, moving on to our last item in our public hearings is G3. This is the proposed amendments to commercial cannabis indoor cultivation standards. And staff presentation, please.

Thank you, members of the commission. I'm Cliff Johnson with the Planning and Building Department. I'm just going to wait for the presentation to pop up on the screen. There it is. So this is a proposed ordinance amendment, and we are proposing that this would apply only in the inland area to make a minor amendment to the indoor cultivation provisions that would only apply in the AE, AG, FR, and U zones, and it would remove what is currently a prohibition on having that cultivation on located in buildings that were constructed after January 1st 2016. So just real briefly this is what the cultivation provisions are currently where indoor cultivation is allowed in the C3 And the industrial zones, there are different permit tiers for cultivation sizes, but there's really no specific square footage limit. You just have to go through different permit tiers. In the C2, it is only allowed as part of a micro business and limited to 2,500 square feet. And then in the AE, AG, FR, which is forestry, recreation, and the U zones, The limitation is 5,000 square feet and only in a building in existence before January 1st, 2016. And so that's the proposed amendment is to remove that last bullet point there. And then basically this is what that ordinance would look like striking through that limitation. So these are the existing standards that apply to INDOOR CULTIVATION AND THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY. THAT'S THAT THIS WOULD NEED TO BE LOCATED ON A CATEGORY FOUR ROAD OR SOMETHING THAT SERVES THE SAME PRACTICAL EFFECT. WOULD NEED TO BE SERVED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY. PRIME SOILS AND TIMBERLAND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CONVERTED. WATER SOURCE WOULD NEED TO BE NONDIVERSIONARY. IT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR LOCATED ON A SLOPE THAT IS LESS THAN 15%. AND THERE'S A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MAX FOR INDOOR CULTIVATION. AND IT WOULD ONLY be allowed on a parcel that is five acres or more. And so that's roughly 2% at the small size of five acres where you would essentially qualify, you'd be limited to 2% of the land area. And all of the biological resource protections of the ordinance would still apply. Um, we did send this out for referrals to a pretty wide, uh, group and we received written comments from just to the McKinleyville community services district who raised a concern about low water pressure in the Dallas Prairie area, which is really the, probably the only area of McKinleyville that would, um, uh, support indoor in the agricultural areas, uh, zoning, I should say. Um, and because it isn't a, because McKinleyville is a community plan area, any permit for indoor cultivation that would have to go through a conditional use permit. And so we figured that that sort of concern could get flushed out through that discretionary permit process. Garberville Fire Protection District wanted to just ensure that the emergency access and fire safe requirements are met and those would be required as part of any building permit that would get issued. And then we did have a meeting with the Humboldt County Farm Bureau. We discussed the project and there was some conversation there, but we have not received any written comments. So we have prepared an addendum to the EIR that was prepared for and certified for the cannabis ordinance. This is not allowing any new uses. It's just simply allowing that use to happen in a new building that also otherwise would be able to be permitted if it wasn't for cannabis. So there is that addendum that's attached to the staff report for consideration. And the findings for approving an ordinance amendment are that it has to be in the public interest, consistent with the general plan, and does not reduce the residential density below that utilized by the state for compliance with housing element law. And we do believe it's in the public interest because it would allow economic opportunities. It's consistent with the general plan because this would be allowing an agricultural product on agricultural land. And obviously, it would not be reducing the residential density. And so with that, our recommendation is that you adopt the resolution that finds that it's consistent with the general plan and in the public interest and recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance amendment. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Fulton.

I do have a couple questions, and I apologize for my ignorance. I'm still educating myself in this ordinance. It's pretty lengthy. So this is allowing structures to be utilized that were constructed after 2016. Is that correct?

Correct. That is what this would do, yes. Permitted structures? They would need to obtain a permit. So whether they were constructed without a permit, or are proposed currently. Either way, they would have to get a permit.

So they would have to go through the permit process and the inspection process in regards to the electrical stuff like that within the grow itself, is that correct?

Correct, and they would have to comply with some of the commercial standards of the building code.

That's my only question, thank you.

Mr. Scarville.

Just curious, what prompted this change? Is this just cleanup, or is there actually a demand out there for some expansion in the indoor?

There has been some interest. There's been a little bit of interest, and it is a pretty minor change. And so in trying to open that up in And interestingly enough, some of those areas that seem to be highly suited to this, which are right off of good roads, have access to PG and E and maybe even community water, but are agriculturally zones right now, they would only be able to do this in an existing building that was before 2016. So, right.

So last meeting, for example, we had a project on highway 36, just outside of Alton. Um, Those types of locations. Those types of locations. He wasn't actually asking for it at that time.

Although that property is actually industrial zoned. Oh, it's already industrial zoned. Theoretically, if that was agricultural zoned.

Correct. Or the project farther out in Carlotta that's on the old mill site. Correct.

Noteworthy, though, is that... Anything that's in a community plan area that's called out in the ordinance may have to go through a discretionary process. So in Carlotta.

Still would, right?

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

To clarify that this doesn't allow, this has nothing to do with new construction. It's only in existing buildings, right?

This would potentially allow for new construction as well.

Okay. With the absence of a square footage requirement on C3, could that potentially result in development of very large buildings?

Well, so the absence of a limit there is already in the code. This isn't proposing to change that at all. So the C3... could potentially allow for large buildings to be used for indoor cultivation. But that would be a discretionary permit that would come in front of the Planning Commission. And that's the current ordinance.

And then, sorry, I lost it and just got it back. Can you provide a little insight on what the reason was for prohibiting newer buildings?

You know, when we redid the ordinance in 2.0, it was in 2018, we're still in the midst of feeling the effects of the grain rush. And so we didn't want to encourage people to go out and build buildings to cultivate cannabis. And so that really is the reason for the limitation. So there are opportunities to do indoor cultivation now. And you can build new buildings now in commercial zones, industrial zones, and do indoor cultivation now. We're not seeing a huge rush to do indoor cultivation. So the thing that was the fear is that everybody would want to come and do indoor cultivation. It has not materialized.

With any other questions? We'll go to public comments. For those online, we're on item G3, modifications to the indoor cannabis ordinance. If you want to make a comment, please raise your hand, but I'll go to the audience first. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Seeing none, is there anyone online that would like to comment on this? Seeing no hands raised, I'll go back to the commission for discussion.

This one seems relatively minor. Fine with me.

I don't have anything to add.

I have one other question. I didn't take the time to look up where you zones are throughout the county but could we potentially see the development of large, you know, industrial metal sheds and very rural areas.

I mean, U zones are kind of throughout the county. I don't think you would see that. I mean, the limit is 5,000 square feet and on parcels that are at least five acres or larger. And so I don't think you're going to see that.

You would like to entertain a motion or do you have a comment?

Yeah, I just could this have a significant impact in locations such as the Inglewood location, the Eel River sawmills, locations like that?

No, I don't believe so.

The Eel River sawmills, which is just south of Rio Del.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's actually an industrial zone, I believe. And so that's already something that would potentially allow indoor cultivation. This change wouldn't affect that.

If there's no more discussion, I'll make a motion to approve item G3 as proposed.

I'll second.

I know how you like to support the cannabis industry, so I just wanted to hear your second. It's here and among us. Yes.

Any other discussion? Let's do a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Scavdahl.

Yes.

Commissioner McFarland. Yes. Commissioner Fulton.

Yes.

Commissioner Curiazzi.

Yes.

Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, that takes us through our public hearings. Now we're on to item H, report from planner.

I don't really have anything to add tonight. We've been pretty busy working on the Humboldt Bay Area plan and addressing some of the other things that the commission has seen.

So I'll leave it at that. Can you remind us again when we expect to see the Humboldt Bay Area plan? October...

Is it October 15th? Yes. This 15th. Because the first is the first meeting in October.

Great. Thank you. Any planning commission items? Commissioner Fulton.

I was just inquiring about the low-impact camping ordinance. Is that going to be coming back around pretty soon?

We're going to bring that back, obviously. We're really working on how best to present options to the commission. And it'll probably be something along the lines of using AB 518 as kind of the skeleton. and then bring in alternatives for some of the things that are unique to Humboldt County or we thought were important environmental protections and things that kind of a checklist the commission can choose to accept, reject, whatever.

Thank you.

um i'll remind you that unfortunately i cannot be at the next meeting october 1st okay there are no other items we are adjourned the next meeting will be october 1st 2026 at six o'clock are you not going to be here on the first either

That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.