Our Comment Letters

Re: AB-2254 Coastal resources: monarch butterfly habitat

Dear Senator Becker:

As members of the local community organization, GreenSpaces Mountain View, we urge you to support, and even cosponsor, AB-2254 Coastal resources: monarch butterfly habitat (or other similar bills) and encourage your colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so also. This is important legislation that will benefit from your valuable support. Note that the bill has already passed the State Assembly, with an aye vote from Assemblyperson Berman on record, and it is now scheduled to be heard by the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, which you chair, on June 23rd. The bill, as currently drafted, would require the state to identify monarch butterfly overwintering sites in the coastal zone, develop model protection policies, and require local governments with such sites to adopt enforceable habitat protection measures.

Those who live or have business in our city, including ourselves, care deeply about biodiversity and the welfare of pollinators and related habitat. In fact, our organization founded and continues to maintain an important pollinator habitat here in Cuesta Park. We also support similar efforts in Heritage Park (Soil&Water demonstration garden and a pollinator garden created and managed by Girl Scout Troop 62872) and on private properties throughout town. We are aware of similar efforts taking place in other communities throughout your district as well.

As we’re sure you are aware, pollinators, including monarch butterflies, are essential for environmental health across our biological ecosphere. Essentially all species depend on the viability of this key part of the web of life, as all life is interconnected and interdependent. Beyond their ecological importance, monarch butterflies are among the most beloved and recognizable wildlife species, bringing beauty, wonder, and a visible reminder of our connection to the natural world wherever they occur.

Thank you for considering this request for your support.

Subject: Item 6.1 on the June 23 agenda: Biodiversity and Urban Forest Master Plan

Dear Mayor Ramos and Councilmembers,

Thank you for advancing the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan alongside the recently approved Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Together, these plans position Mountain View as a regional leader in integrating biodiversity and urban forestry into city planning. We particularly commend the inclusion of a Biodiversity Anchor in every park — a significant, forward-looking step recognizing that even small parks can meaningfully contribute to habitat, environmental education, and ecological function. Neither plan requires every plant or tree to be native; biodiversity anchors simply ask that every park include some area supporting local ecological function and the species that evolved here.

The Plan currently includes several sub-definitions under "Native Species," including Regionally-native, California-native, Near-native, and Non-native. To clarify these and ensure biodiversity anchors deliver the ecological benefits envisioned, we recommend: the definition of Native Species should include only Regionally-Native and California Native Species, applied consistently throughout the Plan; the term "Near-Native Species" should be removed or renamed, since it blurs the native/non-native distinction; non-native plants and cultivars offering other benefits should sit in a separate "Beneficial Species" category that doesn't imply native status; and only Regionally-Native Species should be eligible to contribute toward Biodiversity Anchors, since their purpose is supporting the local food webs and ecological relationships that evolved in our region.

We proposed this definition for Biodiversity Anchor: "A designated area managed to support local biodiversity and ecological function through the use of Regionally-Native Species and habitat features that sustain native food webs and provide food, shelter, breeding resources, and ecological connections for native wildlife." We also asked that corresponding changes be made to the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan to keep the two plans consistent.

Re: Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan

Dear Mayor Ramos and City Council members:

This plan has been some time coming, and we thank Staff and others for all their work on it as we approach the finish line. Understanding that this agenda item is intended for plan adoption, our focus is on details we want the City to be mindful of as it puts the plan into play, rather than creating additional work at this stage.

We urge Council to consider parks as part of a network, not just standalone destinations serving only their immediate neighborhood. We'd like to see the plan be stronger on prioritization, budgets, owners, and equity, and we encourage defining a desired ratio of "natural" space to "recreational" space, believing the current balance is heavily tilted toward the latter.

We reiterated our opposition to artificial turf — made from fossil fuels, linked to PFAS "forever chemicals" and increased athlete injury risk, and contaminating the local watershed with microplastics via its potable-water irrigation runoff — and asked that poured-in-place rubber be minimized or eliminated in favor of natural alternatives like Engineered Wood Fiber where feasible.

On the Capital Improvement Program, we're concerned that trimming CIP line items could cause previously approved projects to disappear entirely rather than simply being deferred; we asked that unfunded or delayed parks projects be kept visible in a public deferred/unfunded CIP list (with planning area, cost, reason for deferral, and reconsideration conditions) rather than removed from public-facing planning documents. We also asked for reasonable, non-overlit exterior lighting using motion sensors, timers, and directed light ahead of the City's anticipated dark-skies ordinance, and voiced support for the letter submitted by the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and related organizations.

Re: Annual Street Maintenance, Project 24-01 – Various Actions

Dear Mayor Ramos and City Council members:

Mountain View's street network includes over 140 centerline miles and just under 31 million square feet of pavement — not only a maintenance obligation, but one of the City's largest publicly controlled land assets. Each pavement maintenance cycle is an opportunity to ask whether portions of the public right-of-way can be used more effectively for safety, traffic calming, active transportation, shade, green infrastructure, and biodiversity, rather than simply restoring the existing curb-to-curb configuration.

Staff's responses to Council's clarifying questions state that the Vision Zero Plan, precise plans, and Suggested Routes to School are reviewed at the start of design, while the Active Transportation Plan and Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan are only incorporated "as final drafts near completion" — turning those plans into a late-stage consistency check rather than a design input, by which point many low-cost opportunities may already be difficult to incorporate. We pointed to Caltrans' SHOPP pavement review process, where a Complete Streets Team screens paving projects for active transportation and green infrastructure opportunities during project initiation, documenting decisions in a Complete Streets Decision Document that creates accountability if elements are later dropped.

We asked whether the City could bring the ATP, BUFP, Transportation Planning, BPAC, and Safe Routes to School considerations earlier into the pavement management process, and document unaddressed opportunities in something like a Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Opportunity Tracker so they aren't lost. We also asked whether resurfacing projects could apply a proactive safety/standards review (narrower NACTO/Caltrans-recommended lane widths, paint-only or "paint-and-plastic" interim road diets, daylighting and high-visibility crosswalks) and whether excess paved space identified during resurfacing could be preserved — even when full reconstruction requires a separate capital project — for future planted buffers, street trees, curb extensions, or green stormwater infrastructure.

These requests are intended to make the process more efficient, not more burdensome: clearer direction earlier, when alternatives are easier and less costly to evaluate, paired with the City's own plans, which already describe Green Streets as the integration of active transportation, biodiversity, and green infrastructure.

Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,

GreenSpacesMV and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance would like to share our thoughts on the proposed heritage tree mitigation for Public Safety Building (Project 20-49). We believe this project is especially important because the approach it takes on tree selection and biodiversity will set an example for all future development. We appreciate that the updated mitigation plan increased native trees from 9 to 51, and that non-native species are no longer designated "semi-native." However, 67 — more than half — of the 118 mitigation trees are still not native.

Why Regal Prince Oaks? The City proposes 29 non-native Regal Prince Oaks, citing a "City's preference for oaks." Their compact, columnar growth reads more like a hedge than canopy, and canopy cover — not tree count — is the more important metric for shade and biodiversity. We recommend native oaks (e.g. Valley Oaks at the building entrance and over parking lots) or native Toyon if a hedge form is desired, even if that means planting fewer, larger trees, with any that don't fit planted in the surrounding neighborhood instead.

Why only three native species? California has almost 200 native tree species; we asked whether additional natives could be contract-grown for this project rather than limiting selection to what's available in 24-inch box size.

We also raised concerns about the removal/planting timeline — trees on the future parking garage and shooting range site (Phase 3, not yet funded) are slated for removal in Phase 1, and we urged the City to preserve them until that portion of the project actually begins, and to plant mitigation trees not tied to the garage site by the end of Phase 2 rather than waiting on uncertain Phase 3 funding. The proposal also lacks a plan for monitoring tree health and survival and replacing any that die, which is necessary to actually achieve the cited 27.5% canopy cover. Finally, we encouraged native species for the project's other landscaping and understory plantings as well.

Subject: CTC Agenda Item 5.2 — Middlefield Road Complete Streets Project

Dear Council Transportation Committee Members,

We appreciate staff's work securing funding for Middlefield Road as a Complete Streets project and bringing forward a road diet traffic study in response to community and BPAC interest. Our main concern is not simply whether a road diet is chosen — it's whether Mountain View's project development process supports lane reallocations early enough to deliver safer bikeways and sidewalks, safer intersections, better transit integration, more shade and landscaping, green stormwater infrastructure, and streets that stay usable in hotter temperatures.

The road diet question was foreseeable earlier in the process, but the non-road-diet concept appears to have advanced further while the road diet traffic analysis was still underway, and staff raised concern that incorporating a road diet at this stage may require redesign or affect the schedule. Because Middlefield is currently a resurfacing project, we see it as a good opportunity for a phased delivery model: establish safer street geometry now through striping, lane narrowing, and quick-build materials (with stronger protection than plastic flex posts), while planning permanent Green Complete Streets reconstruction as a specific later ATP/CIP project.

We asked the Committee to recommend that Council direct staff to: confirm the actual OBAG 3 timing/funding/delivery constraints with MTC, VTA, and Caltrans rather than assuming grant timing forecloses redesign; evaluate a Middlefield road diet as part of the current resurfacing project using striping, lane narrowing, and modular curb separation; create a Green Complete Streets screening checklist for future resurfacing and capital projects; improve project sequencing so traffic analysis informs conceptual design rather than arriving after a preferred design has narrowed the options; and add a linked Quick-Build Program and Green Complete Streets Program to the Active Transportation Plan, with a publicly tracked, funded follow-up list that includes at minimum California Street, Moffett Boulevard, and Middlefield Road Green Complete Streets projects.

Middlefield Road is exactly the kind of corridor where Mountain View's Complete Streets, urban forest, biodiversity, safety, transit, housing, and climate goals should come together — but only if the project development process gives those outcomes a real chance to shape the design.

Re: Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Study Session

Dear Mayor Ramos and City Council Members,

We are submitting this letter after discussions with members from the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP), GreenSpacesMV, Canopy, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition local team for Mountain View.

The Mountain View Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (BUFP) contains a strong vision for biodiversity, urban canopy, climate resilience, and ecological health. However, many proposed actions remain broad and aspirational, relying on policy direction and high-level goals without sufficiently clear implementation, accountability mechanisms, operational standards, and integration into transportation, stormwater, parks, and public realm project delivery. One example: Action 17 sets measurable shade canopy targets for parking lots, but not for sidewalks, bikeways, transit stops, or other public spaces where people actually spend time outdoors. These concerns were previously raised in our November 2025 comment letter and remain largely unresolved.

We identified eight recommended updates to BUFP Section 5.2: Vision to Action, and specifically encourage Council to prioritize three: Action 1 (Green Infrastructure Integration in Transportation Projects), Action 17 (Shade Integration and Thermal Comfort), and Action 26 (Standard Details and Specifications Update). Together these would better integrate urban canopy, green infrastructure, shade, and thermal comfort into transportation and public realm project delivery, enabling long-term implementation of Green Complete Streets and climate resilience goals the Council and community have prioritized since 2020.

We noted this approach is not novel — peer cities including East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, San Jose, Fremont, and Emeryville have already incorporated stronger implementation-oriented policies, reporting, and standards into their own Urban Forest and Active Transportation Plans, with detailed examples included in an appendix to this letter.

We also referred Council to the joint comment letter submitted by GreenSpacesMV and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (April 25, 2026), which includes additional recommendations on biodiversity, habitat connectivity, ecology, and conservation. The full letter, including detailed appendices with proposed action-by-action revisions and peer city examples, is available in the attached PDF.

Re: Parks and Rec Strategic Plan Draft Comments

Dear City Staff,

GreenSpacesMV is a volunteer organization consisting primarily of Mountain View residents. We have seen a genuine effort to incorporate community feedback with each new iteration of this plan, especially in elevating the importance of green and natural spaces. Before adoption, we feel there are still a few areas where it can be strengthened.

We want to ensure councilmembers are aware of the current inequity of park distribution — several planning areas in northern and western Mountain View are significantly underserved (p. 91), and residents there have raised this issue in every feedback cycle without it being addressed. We support the PRC's amendment to prioritize expansion of parks and open space in underserved areas.

We support Councilmember Hicks' suggestion that the park design section include examples of "natural parks" where natural spaces are the main attraction rather than being placed at the borders around man-made amenities. Relatedly, we urge the plan to commit to not using artificial turf or poured-in-place rubber, which release toxic chemicals and heavy metals, create urban heat islands, eliminate habitat, and increase sports injuries — we suggest a pilot PIP-free park or playground.

We support the PRC's amendment to pursue a citywide strategy of incremental improvements across all parks, including expanded native planting and increased tree canopy, and we'd like the plan to explicitly prioritize locally native species. We also flagged the city's practice of removing all dropped leaf litter and using pest/weed chemicals not thoroughly tested for children's long-term health, both of which interrupt the insect food web parks depend on.

The plan should more clearly recognize parks as part of a connected habitat network via creeks, trails, and street tree networks, and should identify where dark areas — such as along creek corridors and habitat areas — should be preserved for wildlife.

Finally, we reiterated a longstanding concern about the plan's preference for shade structures over trees: trees provide air filtration, oxygen, carbon sequestration, stormwater benefits, and habitat that a shade structure cannot, and community feedback (pp. 187, 202) clearly shows residents prefer trees. We proposed revised wording prioritizing heritage and newly planted trees over shade structures in high-use areas, and asked why skate parks and adult fitness areas are listed as priority amenities despite ranking lowest in community surveys, while walking paths, trees, and benches — top community priorities — are not.

Subject: Comments on Draft Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Update

Dear Chair Davis and Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission,

On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and GreenSpacesMV, thank you to staff for the thoughtful work reflected in the Draft Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. We especially appreciate the Plan's recognition that parks are not only recreational spaces but also important ecological assets, and its elevation of biodiversity to a core goal of the parks system.

To help ensure these commitments translate into meaningful outcomes, we offered several suggestions: more clearly call for locally native planting in park design and renovation; recognize parks as part of a connected habitat network via green corridors such as creeks, trails, and street tree networks; include guidance on protecting and managing habitat areas within parks so they function ecologically while coexisting with recreation (buffers, signage, seasonal protections); recognize that some areas of parks should remain unlit to reduce impacts on wildlife; establish a clear annual public reporting process before the Commission, transmitted to Council; pursue a citywide strategy of incremental improvements across all parks each year rather than only prioritized parks; and recognize tree canopy as essential ecological infrastructure, not just an amenity.

With stronger language on locally native planting, regular public reporting, and clear integration of biodiversity expertise, the Plan can become an effective tool for strengthening both recreation and ecological health in Mountain View.

Re: Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (Draft)

Dear City Council Members,

Mountain View’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (BUFP) is a landmark opportunity to weave nature, climate, and livability into a unified citywide framework. We are happy with the plan’s direction and acknowledge the significant work by staff, the consultant team, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Environmental Planning Commission, and community members. We strongly urge the City to clarify and enhance the BUFP around four themes.

1. Implementation and Accountability. The Draft BUFP lacks a clear implementation roadmap — actions are largely conceptual, without defined timelines, funding sources, or accountability mechanisms. We urge the City to create a dedicated Biodiversity & Urban Forest CIP line item, update Standard Construction Details to operationalize the BUFP's goals, adopt a companion Implementation Strategy reviewed by Council, assign clear ownership and resources per action, and publish a public tracking dashboard.

2. Nature as Core Infrastructure. The BUFP should center nature itself, not only nature's services to people — "Connect Nature to Nature" should be reflected explicitly, distinct from "Connect People and Nature." We recommend a multi-year operations and maintenance funding pipeline, a cross-functional Biodiversity and Urban Forest Implementation Team, and a dedicated program funded through a recurring CIP line item, starting at 3% of the Public Works capital budget and rising to 5–10% over the next decade.

3. Biodiversity as the Foundation of Forest Health. A resilient urban forest depends on diversity of species, structure, and age. We recommend native diversity targets of 50% for public trees and 100% for shrubs and groundcover, functional and regional diversity, multi-species corridor palettes instead of one-species-per-street patterns, regular canopy health monitoring, and including private trees in citywide tree data and planning.

4. Prioritization, Integration, and Partnerships. We recommend clear prioritization criteria and scoring, strengthened Heritage Tree Ordinance protections with careful scrutiny of any proposal to shift removal authority away from the PRC, incorporation of the Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan and Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan by reference, reinstating a City Biologist role, and expanded incentives for property owners to replace lawns with native trees, plants, and pollinator gardens. GreenSpacesMV stands ready to help activate neighborhoods through our connections with residents and neighborhood associations.

Re: 5.1 Heritage Tree Removal Application Appeal – 151 Calderon Avenue

Dear Parks and Recreation Commission members:

GreenSpacesMV appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Heritage Tree Removal Application Appeal for 151 Calderon Avenue. We feel very strongly that all trees (including heritage trees) in Mountain View should be protected as much as possible — we need an increase in our overall tree canopy, not a decrease. We acknowledge the pressure the City is under to provide more housing, but we must be aware of our priorities, especially when they conflict. We feel strongly that approving this removal would be an outrageous application of City priorities, and that the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan will fail if we do not keep its principles in practice even ahead of its adoption.

The location for the proposed ADUs is simply inappropriate, given they would sit under or near existing transmission lines and very close to both Stevens Creek and the Stevens Creek Trail, both of which require special attention for potential environmental impacts. As it is now, that area has been used by tenants as a small park — residents walk, bike, play with their kids, have picnics, and walk their pets there.

We also note that the ADU site plans were not included in the PRC packet, making it difficult for commissioners to evaluate the footprint, and we asked whether the developer is obligated to remit the full estimated in-lieu fee (>$183K) or only the replacement cost of saplings.

We also agree with and support points made in the letter to the Commission from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

Re: Public Comment on Agenda Item 3.2 – 2400-2700 E. Charleston Road Permit Extension Request (PL-2022-145)

Dear Zoning Administrator,

The undersigned organizations appreciate the inclusion of an oak grove in the plans for 2400-2700 E. Charleston Road, and encourage the City of Mountain View to strengthen project conditions to better reflect the City’s commitments to biodiversity, climate resilience, and sustainable landscaping.

The Draft Findings Report (PL-10770, pp. 1–2) does not consider several environmental priorities and instead relies solely on design and procedural findings: there is no reference to Mountain View’s Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest planning efforts, the City’s Monarch Pledge is not addressed, and there are no conditions promoting native plantings, pollinator species, or tree canopy expansion.

Given the project’s large site area (more than 10 acres), extensive surface parking, and proposed landscape improvements, we requested the following conditions: a minimum of 75% native trees and landscaping; exclusive use of the North Bayshore Native Plant Palette; prioritizing native oak planting (Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata) for biodiversity and shade; replacing or supplementing built shade structures with tree canopy where feasible; integrating monarch and pollinator habitat, including narrowleaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis); and a clear maintenance and irrigation plan for establishment-phase survival.

Thank you for considering these suggestions. This project presents a valuable opportunity to reinforce Mountain View’s leadership in climate-conscious, nature-forward development.