Cotati council approves tree-removal permit for Eucalyptus Glen subdivision with transplanting, replanting and mitigation conditions

The Cotati City Council on March 24 approved a tree removal permit that clears volunteer oaks to allow development of the previously approved Eucalyptus Glen subdivision on the west side of Lund Hill Lane.

Senior Planner JP Harris told the council the 1.6-acre site was subdivided decades ago into eight lots (four proposed duplex parcels and four single-family lots) and that many trees on the site are volunteer oaks that established after earlier grading. He said the project can use either the original planned unit development or the underlying R-? zoning with ministerial design review for duplexes and accessory dwelling units, and that state law permits ADUs and prevents the city from counting them toward density. Harris said staff reviewed the project under CEQA tiering and an infill exemption and recommended a tree-mitigation approach that included a fee payment; staff cited a mitigation figure of $18,340 (staff calculation presented as $131 per tree for 140 trees) to address trees that would not be planted on-site.

Neighbors and environmental commenters pressed city staff and the developer for alternatives to removal. Adjoining property owner Mark Battaglia cited a tree inventory he found online showing 69 trees and questioned why many were marked for removal. Vanessa Atching Davenport, an adjacent property owner and land-use attorney, said the site supports a wildlife corridor and asked the council to consider topography and seasonal streams when evaluating impacts. Cliff Davenport and other residents raised concerns about loss of screening (visual and acoustic), local biodiversity and the loss of mature eucalyptus that form a border with open lands.

Developer representative Brian Flayhaven said the subdivision was approved more than 35 years ago and the project team has reviewed environmental constraints and design options. "We have no desire to take out a tree that doesn't need to go," he said, adding that delivering middle‑income housing requires clearing trees that fall in building footprints.

Council members focused on two mitigation paths: (1) salvaging and transplanting any oaks that could survive removal and transplant, and (2) requiring a mix of on‑site replanting in the hatched preservation strip where feasible rather than relying solely on in‑lieu fees. Staff said the hatched preservation area likely retains about 35–40 trees and that some eucalyptus in that strip were not included in the removal request and would require a separate application if the owner later seeks their removal.

Vice Mayor Harvey moved the resolution approving the tree removal permit and specified conditions: attempt to transplant oak trees where arborist review shows survival is likely; require replanting within the hatched preservation area if additional trees are proposed for removal there (rather than permitting full in‑lieu fee payment for those removals whenever feasible); and provide adjacent property owners access to additional tree mitigation funds beyond the standard two‑trees‑per‑year program so they can request city‑funded plantings on their property. A councilmember seconded the motion. The council approved the resolution on a roll‑call vote (Savage: aye; Vice Mayor Harvey: yes; Mayor Mary Lemus: yes), with two council members absent.

The resolution ties any authorized oak removals to subsequent development approvals (grading or building permits) and requires conditions intended to reduce the visual and ecological impacts on neighboring properties. Staff said mitigation funds also support city restoration and park plantings and that transplanted oaks would be subject to arborist evaluation and a condition to identify viable recipients and planting locations.

Next steps: staff will finalize permit paperwork and draft the specific mitigation, transplant and mitigation‑fund access language required by the motion and return documentation as part of the building/permit intake process so that no tree can be removed independent of development permits. The public hearing was closed at the council's vote.