Isabella Vanderheiden / Thursday, June 18 @ 2:25 p.m. / Agendizer

The Fate of the Old-Growth Redwood Slated for Removal in Lower Redway May Be Sealed at Tonight’s Planning Commission Meeting

###

PREVIOUSLY: 

• Five Old-Growth Redwoods Were Cut Down in Lower Redway. How Could That Happen?
• SoHum Residents Protest the Removal of a 252-Foot Old-Growth Redwood From a Lower Redway Property
• Lower Redway Old-Growth Redwood Cannot Be Removed Until the Property Owner Secures a Special Permit, County Says

###

UPDATE: The Humboldt County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the special permit at Thursday night’s meeting. The Outpost will publish a full report this afternoon.

###

Following a six-month controversy over the removal of four massive redwoods from a residential property in Lower Redway, the Humboldt County Planning Commission is poised to decide whether the last standing old-growth tree — a 252-foot redwood that arborists have deemed an “immediate hazard due to disease and damage” — should be cut down.

At tonight’s meeting, commissioners will consider a special permit request from the property’s owner, Robert Scarlett, to have the tree removed. Staff is recommending that the commission approve the permit.

As previously reported, several old-growth redwoods were removed from the corner lot at Oakridge Drive and Briceland Road last year after a CalFire forester determined that the trees posed a safety hazard to nearby structures. The action sparked outrage among some neighbors and environmentalists, who gathered in Lower Redway last month to protest the removal of the last remaining old-growth tree.

Protestors argued that the trees should have been protected by the county’s  “Q Zone,” a decades-old ordinance that prohibits the removal of old-growth redwoods near the John B. DeWitt State Natural Reserve in Lower Redway. Under the ordinance, trees exceeding 12 inches in diameter can only be removed “in an emergency” where trees are “threatening people or property.” Under such circumstances, the county requires a special permit. 

Before the trees were removed last year, Scarlett contacted the county to see if he needed a special permit, but was told no permit would be required, since he had already secured a hazard tree exemption from CalFire. 

However, in response to an onslaught of letters accusing the county of violating provisions of the Q Zone, county staff took another look at the California Code of Regulations and discovered a provision that requires timber operations to “conform to the applicable … city or county zoning ordinances within which the notice of exemption is located,” meaning the trees should have been subject to a higher level of scrutiny. 

This finding sparked a debate between CalFire and county staff over jurisdiction in the Q Zone. Ultimately, it was determined that the county had final authority, and staff informed Scarlett that he would need to obtain a special permit to remove the remaining tree.

“In order to approve the Special Permit, the Q-zone restrictions require a finding that the tree is an immediate hazard due to disease and damage,” the staff report states. “Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated that this is the case through the submittal of documentation from multiple experts who are in agreement that the tree is an immediate hazard that should be removed.”

A CalFire professional forester inspected all five old-growth redwoods on the property in October 2025 (that report is linked here) and determined the trees “posed a safety threat.” After four trees were removed, Scarlett had the remaining tree inspected by another professional forester and an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist — those reports are linked here and here — both of whom agreed with the initial assessment.

“After examination of the redwood tree by myself and the arborist, we declare the tree to have significant structural defect and recommend that this tree is a hazard to the landowner, adjacent owners and general public,” Stephen Hohman wrote in his March 24 report.

The staff report acknowledges that old-growth redwoods are “viewed as important to the identity of Redway” and “considered an important contributor to the general welfare of the community.” However, the report contends that tree protections “must be balanced with the risk to private landowners and the public from falling limbs and potentially from the large tree falling onto residences, power lines or the public roadway.”

The staff report takes great care to explain what “imminent” means in the context of hazard trees:

The Planning Commission is likely to receive comment that the tree should not be approved for removal because it is not “in imminent danger of falling and creating an immediate hazard”. This ordinance language must be read in context. Imminent means something is about to happen. Taken literally this would be an event than can be predicted. Trees typically fall with no warning. … When a Certified Arborist and Registered Professional Forester recommend the immediate removal of a tree, that should be understood as the tree being in imminent danger of falling and creating an immediate hazard that qualifies under this ordinance.

With that in mind, staff recommends that the commission grant the special permit to allow for tree removal to move forward quickly. However, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has recommended that, if the permit is approved, the property owner should wait until mid-September to remove the tree to avoid potential noise impacts to nesting marbled murrelets. (Read CDFW’s report here.)

“It is with great hesitation that staff has not included this as a recommended condition of approval,” the staff report states. “Unfortunately, trees often fall without warning.”

Those opposed to tree removal, including members of the Old-Growth Neighborhood Association, are asking that the hearing be postponed, asserting that the public hearing wasn’t properly noticed. (Read their letter here.)

The full agenda and supporting documents can be found below. The Humboldt County Planning Commission will meet tonight at 6 p.m. Want to attend virtually? More information here.

---

Humboldt County Planning Commission

June 18, 2026, 6 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER / SALUTE TO FLAG

B. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

C. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Review and approval of the June 4, 2026, Action Summary.

2. Emerald Dragonfly Farms Conditional Use Permit Modification Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 206-191-019 Record No. PLN-2026-19493 Carlotta area A Modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit for the addition of Cannabis Distribution, Non-Volatile Manufacturing and Non-storefront Resale entitlements to an approved cannabis cultivation project. The approved cultivation operation is for 15,000 square feet of outdoor cultivation with 960 square feet of ancillary propagation.

F. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Robert Scarlett Special Permit Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 077-072-007 Record No.

H. REPORT FROM PLANNER

I. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS

---