Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cotati council approves tree-removal permit with transplanting and on-site mitigation conditions for Eucalyptus Glen subdivision
Summary
After months of community discussion, the Cotati City Council approved a tree-removal permit for an eight‑lot subdivision on Lund Hill Lane, requiring attempted oak transplanting where feasible, replanting in the adjacent buffer area if more trees are removed, and an $18,340 fee-based mitigation calculation for off-site planting.
The Cotati City Council on March 24 approved a tree-removal permit that clears the way for development of an eight‑lot subdivision on the west side of Lund Hill Lane, but attached conditions meant to preserve neighborhood screening and compensate for canopy loss.
Senior planner JP Harris told the council the property—originally approved in 1990 as a planned unit development and recently resold—contains mostly volunteer oaks that are relatively small. Staff said state exemptions allow ministerial approval of duplexes and accessory dwelling units on the lots but that council approval is required to remove any oak tree. Harris recommended mitigation that included a payment to the city’s tree mitigation fund calculated as $131 per “tree unit” for a notional 140 tree units, totaling $18,340.
Neighbors and adjacent property owners urged stronger on-site protections. Mark Battaglia, whose property adjoins the site, and others said the existing perimeter trees, including eucalyptus and mature oaks, form a wildlife and noise buffer that should be preserved or augmented. Several speakers urged transplanting of larger oaks, on-site replanting in the hatched buffer area and clearer commitments about where mitigation money would be spent.
The developer’s representative, Brian Flayhaven, said the project has been intended for development for decades, that many trees are volunteer sprouts, and that the team does not want to remove trees unnecessarily but needs to clear particular footprints in order to build the housing units.
Council considered multiple options, including conditioning the project to offer trees for transplant, requiring replanting in the hatched buffer area when further removals are requested, and granting adjacent property owners access to additional mitigation planting beyond the city’s standard two‑trees‑per‑year program. Council also asked staff to work with an arborist to identify candidates for transplant.
Councilmember Savage moved approval with conditions that require attempting oak transplanting where feasible, replanting to preserve the hatched buffer area when additional removals are proposed, and ensuring adjacent owners may access increased mitigation funds. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote, 3–0 (one member absent).
The permit does not authorize contractors to immediately cut trees; Harris said any removal must be tied to subsequent grading or building permits and that staff will add conditions about transplant evaluation and where replanting should occur. The council directed staff to return any detailed planting plans or additional removal requests for review.
The council’s action leaves open opportunities for additional conditions when building or grading permits are filed, and staff said they will include specific arborist recommendations and replanting locations in future submittals.
The council closed the public hearing and briefly recessed before reconvening for a joint special meeting with the Community Police Advisory Committee.
