Planning Commission approves use permit to remove up to 53 oak trees for proposed Salinas house; conditions require further review before removal

The Monterey County Planning Commission voted 8‑0 on June 25 to approve a use permit allowing the removal of up to 53 protected oak trees and one non‑native Monterey pine to permit future construction of a single‑family dwelling on a forested parcel in the North County Inland Area Plan (HCD file PLN240178, property listed in staff reports as 8730 Eagle Roost Road in Salinas).

Why it matters: the parcel is in a rural density residential zone where native oak and madrone trees are protected; removal of more than three native trees in a 12‑month period requires Planning Commission approval under Title 21. The item prompted extensive commissioner questions about process — specifically whether the commission can evaluate tree removal before a construction permit or final building plans are submitted.

Key facts and findings: staff said the lot is densely forested and located in a State Responsibility Area for wildfire. The application originally proposed removing 67 trees but was reduced in coordination with staff to 53 removals; three of the trees proposed for removal are landmark trees (greater than 24 inches in diameter), identified in the arborist report as being in poor to fair condition. Staff recommended the tree removal as the minimum necessary because the proposed residence is sited within a previously recorded building and leach‑field envelope (final map recorded in 1999) and because fuel‑modification and wildfire risk considerations require vegetation reduction in that envelope. Staff also recommended standard conditions including an indemnification agreement.

Commission concerns and conditions: commissioners repeatedly raised process questions about the so‑called “chicken‑and‑egg” problem — the applicant had not yet filed a construction permit, so several commissioners questioned how the commission could determine the “minimum necessary” trees without seeing finalized building plans. County staff and counsel responded that the commission’s purview includes the footprint and foreseeable development impacts within the recorded building envelope, and that conditions can be strengthened to require that: • tree removals not occur before issuance of the associated construction permits; • supplemental biological (bird/raptor) surveys be completed at the appropriate seasonal window prior to any construction that could affect nesting; and • planning staff must review construction plans for conformance with the approved authorization and retain trees where feasible.

Public comment and applicant response: owner Namnet Singh Sahi told commissioners he had worked with the design team to compact the building footprint and is willing to reduce tree removal where possible; he said he intends to submit construction plans after the use permit decision. Don Chapin, president of the homeowners association and original subdivision developer, said he and the HOA will review plans and work with the owner to preserve additional trees where feasible. Chapin also noted that when the subdivision was originally designed several decades ago plans anticipated tree removal for development and that trees have matured since then.

Environmental and arborist issues: the site’s biology report noted that the timing of the field survey was suboptimal and recommended supplemental spring surveys for nesting birds and raptors; staff explained state law requires additional surveys if construction occurs during the bird‑nesting period and incorporated those requirements into conditions. The arborist identified the three landmark oaks as poor to fair condition and noted one would be affected by a leach field and two by access or landscaping improvements.

Action taken: the commission approved the use permit with added clarifying conditions to ensure tree removals are tied to a subsequently reviewed construction permit and to require replanting and monitoring per county standard language. The motion to approve was made by Commissioner Roberts and seconded by Chair Gonzales; the recorded vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions.

Next steps: the permit authorizes removal of up to 53 protected trees within the recorded envelopes but requires submittal and review of construction permit plans before removal can occur; planning staff will ensure any opportunity to retain trees during construction review is pursued. Replanting and monitoring requirements remain in the conditions; the standard monitoring period in county conditions is one year unless the commission specifies otherwise.