, City Clerk
From: Shani Kleinhaus
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 12:48 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Silja Paymer; Tracy Ferea; ; Matthew Dodder; Marchant, John; Sylvia, Brenda; , City Clerk
Subject: April 28 Study Session on the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Attachments: MV Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.pdf
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Mayor Ramos, council members and staff,
GreenspacesMV and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance commend the Mountain View leadership and staff for undertaking this ambitious and forward-thinking effort. The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan represents groundbreaking work; it is among the first nationally to comprehensively address biodiversity at the city scale in an urban-suburban context.
In the attached letter, we identify key areas where additional direction from Council can help ensure the Plan achieves its intended biodiversity outcomes by prioritizing nature. We organized our comments around two core principles:
- City Processes: consistent implementation, accountability, and public engagement. - Nature First: protect, steward, and enhance habitat and the urban forest in support of local flora and fauna.
Please note that almost all of our recommendations included in our letters have been voiced by the public and by members of the PRC as the plan evolved.
Thank you, we appreciate your efforts
Silja Paymer, President
GreenSpacesMV
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
1 SCVBA
GreenSpacesMV Santa Clara Valley
BIRD ALLIANCE
April 25, 2026
To:
Mayor Emily Ramos, Mountain View City Council and City staff Re: April 28 Study Session on the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan GreenspacesMV, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and Green Foothills commend the City for undertaking this ambitious and forward-thinking effort. The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan represents groundbreaking work; it is among the first nationally to comprehensively address biodiversity at the city scale in an urban-suburban context.
However, a substantial portion of the Actions rely on conditional or discretionary language and include terms such as "where feasible," "as appropriate," "encourage," "consider," "explore," or "seek to." This pattern weakens clarity, creates uncertainty in implementation, and risks continuation of "business as usual" practices.
In this letter, we identify key areas where additional direction from Council can help ensure the Plan achieves its intended biodiversity outcomes by prioritizing nature. We organized our comments around two core principles:
• City Processes: consistent implementation, accountability, and public engagement. • Nature First: protect, steward, and enhance habitat and the urban forest in support of local flora and fauna.
1. City processes: consistent and accountable implementation The Plan expresses an intent to integrate biodiversity and the urban forest into City processes; the following addition would clarify how this intent is implemented across City actions and decisions.
1.1. A Word from the City (p.vii)
The Plan expresses an intent to integrate biodiversity and the urban forest into City processes; the following addition to the "Word from the City" section would clearly establish how this intent will be implemented.
Suggested edit
Add:
"While not a standalone regulatory document, the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan shall be implemented through binding mechanisms, including incorporation into City ordinances, development standards, capital project requirements, and project review."
1.2. Chapter 1 - Introduction (pp. 1-11)
Suggested edit:
Add:
"All discretionary projects shall demonstrate consistency with this Plan in environmental review, including evaluation of impacts to biodiversity, urban forest, and habitat connectivity."
1.3. Action 1 (p.94)
This Action identifies a critical opportunity but relies on discretionary language, creating a risk of inconsistent implementation and continued loss of urban forest and habitat.
Suggested edits:
Add:
Replace "seek to strategically include" with "integrate." • Replace "can align" with "should align."
• Ensure biodiversity and urban forest elements are included as standard components of capital projects, not dependent on additional funding.
1.4. Action 20 (p.113)
This Action is critical for translating the Plan into development practice but relies heavily on discretionary language, creating a risk of inconsistent implementation and continued loss of urban forest and habitat.
Suggested edits:
• Ensure the Plan is consistently applied through development review, including private development and redevelopment, with clear requirements for tree retention, replacement, long-term maintenance, and habitat protection.
• Include nesting bird protection standards for all projects involving vegetation removal or ground disturbance.
1.5. Quantitative Targets (p. 122-123)
Suggested edit:
Add:
"To the largest extent possible, align targets with outcome-based metrics, including biodiversity indicators such as M15 and M16, in addition to planting and canopy goals."
1.6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting (p. 129)
Suggested edit:
Add:
"Ensure that monitoring results are used to evaluate progress toward biodiversity targets and inform adaptive management, including regular public reporting and adjustments to management actions as needed."
1.7. Guide D- Monitoring and Targets
Suggested edit:
Add:
"Use existing community science platforms (e.g., eBird, Naturalist) as foundational data sources for tracking biodiversity metrics (including M15 and M16), supplemented by targeted surveys as needed."
2. Nature First: focus on locally-native plantings and habitat Value A biodiversity plan should prioritize nature. A central opportunity in the Plan is to more clearly prioritize Locally native species as the foundation for biodiversity. Without this clarity, implementation risks continuing existing practices that rely heavily on non-native species with limited ecological value.
2.1. Objectives (p.91)
The Plan emphasizes enhancement and expansion, but is less explicit about protecting existing ecological resources.
Suggested edit:
Add:
"Implementation should prioritize the protection of existing habitat, mature trees, and ecological features, in addition to expansion and enhancement efforts."
2.2. Action 5 (p.99)
This Action is important but currently frames plant selection as "native and/or climate-resilient," which may lead to continued reliance on non-native species. The City should avoid a "climate-ready" framework that prioritizes non-native or non-local species, and instead adopt a microclimate-based, Peninsula-native approach that supports both climate resilience and biodiversity.
We suggest adding the following:
• Prioritize locally native species, including in understory layers, as the default approach. • Limit non-native species to clearly defined and justified conditions. • Establish a "locally-native first" standard for City planting. • Ensure the plant selector tool reflects this prioritization.
2.3. Action 11 (pp. 103-104)
We support the development of a comprehensive public tree inventory and proactive maintenance program. However, the Action focuses primarily on asset management and does not sufficiently incorporate biodiversity considerations.
Suggested edits:
Add:
• Include "native status" (locally native, California native, non-native) as a required data field in the tree inventory.
Add native oak trees as a tracked category to support re-oaking efforts.
Establish measurable targets for increasing the proportion of locally native species over time. • Prioritize locally native species in tree replacement and new plantings, unless site constraints are documented
• Where feasible, incorporate understory and habitat complexity into tree planning.
2.4. Action 13 (p.106) - Update the City tree list and Tree Ordinance This Action is important but lacks clarity and does not sufficiently prioritize locally native species, creating a risk that updates to the tree list, planting guidance, and tools will continue to favor non-native species with limited habitat and biodiversity value.
Suggested edits:
Add:
• Prioritize locally native species of trees and shrubs in updates to the City tree list and planting guidance, with limited use of non-local California natives where appropriate. • Ensure the interactive tree selector tool prioritizes and clearly identifies locally native species, and promotes selection of trees that provide habitat and food resources for wildlife. • Update the Tree Ordinance to remove protections for invasive species (per Cal-IPC), while retaining protections for palm species that provide habitat for birds and bats. • Discourage vegetation removal during the nesting season (February-August), unless a qualified biologist confirms that no active nests are present or appropriate buffers are established.
2.5. Guidelines (various: Al. Al.2. Cl. Cooling Zone, etc.) Across the Plan, planting and landscaping guidance allows broad flexibility in species selection, which may weaken biodiversity outcomes.
Suggested edits:
Add:
• Prioritize locally native species as the default across all planting guidelines. • Clarify that non-native species should be used only where site constraints are documented. • Emphasize habitat function and support for wildlife as a primary objective of planting design.
2.6. Protection Before Restoration: Prioritize Existing Habitat The Plan emphasizes enhancement and expansion, but is less explicit about protecting existing ecological resources.
• Riparian and habitat guidelines (Guide B and related sections) Suggested edits:
Emphasize avoidance and protection of existing habitat as a first priority. • Ensure restoration and enhancement do not replace or degrade existing ecological function.
• Re-Oaking Zone
Suggested edits:
Prioritize protection and retention of existing oak trees.
Use new planting to support continuity and long-term habitat function.
3. Additional Comments:
3.1 Action 7(p.100) - Lighting
As written, this Action predetermines the applicability and scope of the future ordinance.
Suggested edit:
Remove:
"The ordinance and associated resources should include lighting requirements for new developments" since it predetermines the applicability and scope of the upcoming regulation. *******
The Plan establishes a strong scientific foundation, reflects clear community values, and positions Mountain View as a regional leader in advancing biodiversity through planning, design, and development.
At a time of accelerating global biodiversity loss,this effort represents a meaningful and hopeful step forward. We hope this Plan establishes a clear and actionable pathway for Mountain View and serves as a model for other cities seeking to integrate biodiversity into urban planning and decision-making.
We thank you for the opportunity to review the plan.
Silja Paymer, President
GreenSpacesMV
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
: City Clerk
From: Serena Myjer
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 6:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Strong Biodiversity and Urban Forest Implementation CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Mayor Ramos and Councilmembers,
My name is Serena, and I am a community member who cares about biodiversity and climate resilience. I am writing regarding the April 28 Study Session on the Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Plan.
Please ensure the plan results in real habitat benefits:
Prioritize locally native trees and shrubs that support pollinators and birds • Plant shade trees to deliver cooling, habitat, and climate benefits • Limit use of pesticides for weed management to promote human, pollinator, and bird health • Use every opportunity to integrate biodiversity and tree canopy into City projects (Public Works, Parks, transportation, etc.), with clear expectations that these projects deliver measurable ecological and canopy benefits • Ensure robust implementation with clear accountability, including regular reporting to the community and City Council on progress toward goals, and adaptation of actions as conditions change. • Focus on habitat enhancement and restoration, not just maintaining existing conditions • Move beyond business-as-usual in how the City designs and manages landscapes and protects trees and canopy.
Mountain View has the opportunity to lead on biodiversity - please ensure this plan is actionable, measurable, and delivers real habitat outcomes.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Serena Myjer
, City Clerk
From: Daniel Shane
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 9:36 AM
To: City Council
Cc: , Community Services Mailbox; Parks and Recreation Commission;, Planning Division; , City Manager
Subject: Fwd: List of Strategies and ideas for integrating nature with development CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear City Council Members,
Mayor Emily Ann Ramos
Vice Mayor Chris Clark
Alison Hicks
Ellen Kamei
John McAlister
Lucas Ramirez
Pat Showalter
I would like to thank you for your verbal acknowledgement at the public hearing on the 555 W Middlefield Road Infill Housing Development of my efforts over the past 5 years to educate and advocate the importance of the following environmental sustainability, climate resiliency, and public health issues facing our communities and our planet earth.
• highway vegetation barriers for the protection of public health and welfare, • the integration of natural urban forest ecosystems with development, • the threat of urban deforestation and its cumulative impacts to public health, environment, and climate in cities throughout the SF Bay Area and beyond.
I hope you will consider the following ideas and strategies that could be incorporated into the draft Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan (Plan). I believe these are practical steps that could be taken to implement a shorter list of prioritized recommendations that can be realistically funded, and achieved in an acceptable time frame.
As you know, the plan is a brilliant assessment by SFEI of the current status of urban forestry ecology and canopy in the city. We now have situational awareness.
But you also know the plan has a very comprehensive universe of recommendations for improvements that are not prioritized nor linked to realistic funding mechanisms and timeframes for accomplishment.
Additionally, there are no assigned roles and responsibilities to implement recommended actions by individual managers or departments.
1 There is no individual assigned as the facilitator to assemble, unify, and reach consensus among a diverse group of stakeholders including the ecologists and scientists, the administrators and department stakeholders, real estate industry and community representatives.
Sincerely,
Daniel Shane
Homeowner, City of Mountain View
Begin forwarded message:
From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Date: April 24, 2026 at 10:42:09 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Gita Dev <[email protected]>, David Crabbe <[email protected]>, Kristin Mercer <[email protected]>, Kenneth Abreu <[email protected]>, Peying Lee <[email protected]>, Jean-Paul Renaud <[email protected]>, Alex Von Feldt <[email protected]>, Tyler Feld <[email protected]> Subject: List of Strategies and ideas for integrating nature with development Hi all,
Please share with Google Group Members.
Here are some practical ideas on how to integrate natural urban forest ecosystems with development.
In order to develop a comprehensive list of ideas for city sustainability programs and initiatives including updates municipal codes and ordinances and developing new objective development and design standards, please provide any feedback, comments and new ideas and strategies.
Hopefully the MVCSP will take command of advocation of ideas and strategies for the integration of natural urban forest ecosystems with development in cities of the SF Bay Area.
I recommend MVCSP develop key strategies for the coexistence of nature and housing and to coordinate this effort with other groups.
Groups such as the Sierra Club, Grassroots Ecology, CANOPY and other active stakeholder environmental organizations may be able to share additional resources for this effort. Intergroup project coordinators and facilitators may be needed to orchestrate an effort of this magnitude.
Unfortunately, the City of Mountain View's Draft Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan (draft plan) may not have specific recommendations for potential administrative actions that 2 could be taken to implement measures that may better protect, preserve, and restore remnant urban forest ecosystems and protective tree barriers on private land that may be planned or proposed for development. I believe this to be a major shortcoming of the draft plan.
The plan does point out that about 90 percent of natural remnant urban forests are located on private land. My confusion is how the city can ignore the 90 percent in the draft plan.
There is no question it will be difficult and challenging to achieve greater integration of nature with development but there is no argument that we can do much better than the status quo and witness our trees and urban forests disappear.
The current draft plan focuses on the planting of street trees and increasing overall tree canopy citywide.
Although these new plantings serve an important role in achieving the plan objectives they have no complex ecosystem that normally takes many decades, if at all, to evolve and adapt to its surroundings and climate conditions.
These plantings simply cannot mimic natural forest ecosystems (see my note) that may be threatened by development.
Developers and their consultants rarely consider environmental stewardship in their early project planning and designs. We need to change this dynamic through education, standards, regulations, and enforcement.
Typically relying on voluntary compliance is effective for only a few and is too risky since important urban natural resources, such as tracts of urban forestry, are irreplaceable once the land is developed.
Some of these strategies may already be practiced in our cities. This is meant to be a comprehensive list of potential ideas and strategies located in one place for all to use, to amend, to correct, and to expand upon.
It is a starting point for making a substantial impact to protecting, restoring, and enhancing our urban environment, climate, health, and quality of life that is slowly being chipped away by ill-conceived urban land use planning and development practices by some, but not all, and forces outside our communities.
We must also recognize those who are striving to be good environmental stewards while also serving the public needs for affordable housing.
Here is the initial comprehensive list of ideas and strategies to address threats of urban deforestation and the integration of natural urban forest ecosystem with development.
Urban Land Use Standards and Practices:
* Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions:
* Canopy Retention Targets: Establish minimum canopy cover requirements based on zoning districts.
* "Tree Protection Zones" (TPZs): Require that development plans identify and protect specific, high-quality, or mature trees (e.g., trees with a diameter of 6 inches or more). * Cluster Development: Offer zoning incentives to cluster buildings on a smaller portion of the site, leaving the remaining area as a dedicated, protected natural space. * Overlay Zones: Apply stricter tree protection rules in specific areas with high ecological or aesthetic value.
Site Design Standards & Regulations:
* Mitigation Hierarchy: Mandate that applicants follow a strict hierarchy: first, avoid removing trees; second, minimizeimpact; third, restore impacted areas; and finally, as a last resort, offset through in-lieu fees or replanting. * Site Plan Requirements: Mandate an ISA-certified arborist report in the initial planning phase to identify trees suitable for retention, rather than treating tree protection as an afterthought.
* Maximum Impervious Surface Ratios: Limit the amount of land that can be paved, which indirectly protects forest soil and root systems.
Incentives for Developers and Property Owners ("Carrots"):
* Density Bonuses: Allow increased building density for preserving a higher percentage of existing mature trees.
* Reduced Setbacks/Parking Requirements: Offer flexibility in site layout (e.g., reducing parking minimums) if developers retain existing, significant trees. * Expedited Permitting: Create faster approval processes for designs that meet or exceed, for instance, 50% canopy retention goals.
* Fee Reductions: Lower impact fees for projects with minimal tree disturbance. * Full or partial conversion of turf grass lawns to native plant and pollinator gardens. Santa Clara County has a landscape rebate program that pays up to $3,000 for residential and $100,000 for commercial properties.
Cities could implement a similar rebate program for planting native plant and tree species under a city-approved native landscape plan.
Enforcement and Maintenance:
* Performance Bonds: Require developers to post bonds ensuring the survival of retained trees during construction, with funds forfeited if trees die due to negligence. * Protection Standards: Define mandatory tree protection during construction, such as fencing, root protection zones, and prohibiting construction parking under canopy driplines.
* Long-Term Covenants: Use conservation easements or deed restrictions to ensure the protection of the forest after the development is completed.
These mechanisms are most effective when supported by comprehensive city-wide tree inventories and urban forest master plans.
4 Preserving natural urban forests on private lands enhances sustainability and resilience by mitigating the urban heat island effect, reducing stormwater runoff, and improving air quality.
These green spaces conserve biodiversity, provide essential habitat, and lower energy demands for cooling.
Protecting these areas on private property improves local air quality, reduces noise pollution, and enhances social cohesion.
Please call me if you wish to get further clarification of my advocacy idea.
Daniel Shane
(650)269-7551
My note:
Definition of Ecosystem
In simple terms, an ecosystem is a complex biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.
Examples of urban ecosystems are the existing natural remnant urban forests, tree buffers and barriers, and their understory plant communities.
Most of these natural communities are undeveloped open spaces located on private lands and may be endangered by housing development.
These ecosystems are not impacted or are minimally impacted by human disturbances and have evolved to be sustainable and resilient to human disturbances and climate changes in an urban area.
Ecosystems are complex webs of life that consist of many different animal and plant species and important soil, including the microorganisms and fungi, water, and air elements that combine to create a unique natural environment with each element playing a vital role in the ecological health of the environment.
Complex ecosystems cannot be mimicked by planting street trees or artificial landscaping within housing developments. The action of planting trees is not accompanied by a complex ecosystem.
Natural urban forest ecosystems have evolved over many years to contribute to nutrient cycling, energy flow, and ecosystem stability. It has been acknowledged by ecologists that natural urban forest ecosystems and biodiversity are critical in sustaining a healthy regional ecosystem that includes already protected nature preserves and parks.
These protected areas are not sufficient to meet the biological requirements such as food sources and habitat for native animal species, nor the propagation of the bio-genetic codes needed for the survival of many native plant species.
Functional ecosystems on private lands are crucial habitat for hundreds of species and filter the drinking water that percolates to our underground aquifers that we blend with water supply from the Sierra Nevada Mtns and serve as our emergency supply.
Rainfall that percolates through natural topsoil also serves to recharge our streams and rivers. These woodland areas provide local climate control (moderate weather extremes), shade and cooling to counter urban heat island effects.
Many of our remnant urban forests serve as ecological corridors that connect fragmented habitat patches, allowing wildlife to move between them. They facilitate species migration, dispersal, genetic exchange, and daily foraging, serving as vital lifelines that enhance biodiversity resilience against climate change and human-induced habitat loss.
Additionally, highway vegetation barriers are associated with natural remnant urban forests on private lands that serve a crucial public health function as they reduce noise levels, filter hazardous particulate matter, and absorb toxic volatile organic vapors from tailpipe emissions.
This unique capability of tree canopy foliage with dense understory to protect near-road residents from exposures to vehicle emissions cannot be duplicated by solid building structures or newly planted tree landscapes. 6 From: Daniel Shane
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 9:36 AM
To:
Cc: , Community.Services Mailbox; Parks and Recreation Commission; , Planning Division; , Subject: Fwd: List of Strategies and ideas for integrating nature with development CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear City Council Members,
Mayor Emily Ann Ramos
Vice Mayor Chris Clark
Alison Hicks
Ellen Kamei
John McAlister
Lucas Ramirez
Pat Showalter
I would like to thank you for your verbal acknowledgement at the public hearing on the 555 W Middlefield Road Infill Housing Development of my efforts over the past 5 years to educate and advocate the importance of the following environmental sustainability, climate resiliency, and public health issues facing our communities and our planet earth.
• highway vegetation barriers for the protection of public health and welfare, • the integration of natural urban forest ecosystems with development, • the threat of urban deforestation and its cumulative impacts to public health, environment, and climate in cities throughout the SF Bay Area and beyond.
I hope you will consider the following ideas and strategies that could be incorporated into the draft Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan (Plan). I believe these are practical steps that could be taken to implement a shorter list of prioritized recommendations that can be realistically funded, and achieved in an acceptable time frame.
As you know, the plan is a brilliant assessment by SFEI of the current status of urban forestry ecology and canopy in the city. We now have situational awareness.
But you also know the plan has a very comprehensive universe of recommendations for improvements that are not prioritized nor linked to realistic funding mechanisms and timeframes for accomplishment.
Additionally, there are no assigned roles and responsibilities to implement recommended actions by individual managers or departments.
1 There is no individual assigned as the facilitator to assemble, unify, and reach consensus among a diverse group of stakeholders including the ecologists and scientists, the administrators and department stakeholders, real estate industry and community representatives.
Sincerely,
Daniel Shane
Homeowner, City of Mountain View
Begin forwarded message:
From: Daniel Shane
Date: April 24, 2026 at 10:42:09 PM PDT
To:
Cc: Gita Dev David Crabbe , Kristin Mercer Kenneth Abreu Peying Lee, Jean-Paul Renaud, Tyler Feld
Subject: List of Strategies and ideas for integrating nature with development Hi all,
Please share with Google Group Members.
Here are some practical ideas on how to integrate natural urban forest ecosystems with development.
In order to develop a comprehensive list of ideas for city sustainability programs and initiatives including updates municipal codes and ordinances and developing new objective development and design standards, please provide any feedback, comments and new ideas and strategies.
Hopefully the MVCSP will take command of advocation of ideas and strategies for the integration of natural urban forest ecosystems with development in cities of the SF Bay Area.
Irecommend MVCSP develop key strategies for the coexistence of nature and housing and to coordinate this effort with other groups.
Groups such as the Sierra Club, Grassroots Ecology, CANOPY and other active stakeholder environmental organizations may be able to share additional resources for this effort. Intergroup project coordinators and facilitators may be needed to orchestrate an effort of this magnitude.
Unfortunately, the City of Mountain View's Draft Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan (draft plan) may not have specific recommendations for potential administrative actions that could be taken to implement measures that may better protect, preserve, and restore remnant urban forest ecosystems and protective tree barriers on private land that may be planned or proposed for development. I believe this to be a major shortcoming of the draft plan.
The plan does point out that about 90 percent of natural remnant urban forests are located on private land. My confusion is how the city can ignore the 90 percent in the draft plan.
There is no question it will be difficult and challenging to achieve greater integration of nature with development but there is no argument that we can do much better than the status quo and witness our trees and urban forests disappear.
The current draft plan focuses on the planting of street trees and increasing overall tree canopy citywide.
Although these new plantings serve an important role in achieving the plan objectives they have no complex ecosystem that normally takes many decades, if at all, to evolve and adapt to its surroundings and climate conditions.
These plantings simply cannot mimic natural forest ecosystems (see my note) that may be threatened by development.
Developers and their consultants rarely consider environmental stewardship in their early project planning and designs. We need to change this dynamic through education, standards, regulations, and enforcement.
Typically relying on voluntary compliance is effective for only a few and is too risky since important urban natural resources, such as tracts of urban forestry, are irreplaceable once the land is developed.
Some of these strategies may already be practiced in our cities. This is meant to be a comprehensive list of potential ideas and strategies located in one place for all to use, to amend, to correct, and to expand upon.
It is a starting point for making a substantial impact to protecting, restoring, and enhancing our urban environment, climate, health, and quality of life that is slowly being chipped away by ill-conceived urban land use planning and development practices by some, but not all, and forces outside our communities.
We must also recognize those who are striving to be good environmental stewards while also serving the public needs for affordable housing.
Here is the initial comprehensive list of ideas and strategies to address threats of urban deforestation and the integration of natural urban forest ecosystem with development.
Urban Land Use Standards and Practices:
* Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions:
* Canopy Retention Targets: Establish minimum canopy cover requirements based on zoning districts.
* "Tree Protection Zones" (TPZs): Require that development plans identify and protect specific, high-quality, or mature trees (e.g., trees with a diameter of 6 inches or more). * Cluster Development: Offer zoning incentives to cluster buildings on a smaller portion of the site, leaving the remaining area as a dedicated, protected natural space. * Overlay Zones: Apply stricter tree protection rules in specific areas with high ecological or aesthetic value.
Site Design Standards & Regulations:
* Mitigation Hierarchy: Mandate that applicants follow a strict hierarchy: first, avoid removing trees; second, minimizeimpact; third, restore impacted areas; and finally, as a last resort, offset through in-lieu fees or replanting. * Site Plan Requirements: Mandate an ISA-certified arborist report in the initial planning phase to identify trees suitable for retention, rather than treating tree protection as an afterthought.
* Maximum Impervious Surface Ratios: Limit the amount of land that can be paved, which indirectly protects forest soil and root systems.
Incentives for Developers and Property Owners ("Carrots"):
* Density Bonuses: Allow increased building density for preserving a higher percentage of existing mature trees.
* Reduced Setbacks/Parking Requirements: Offer flexibility in site layout (e.g., reducing parking minimums) if developers retain existing, significant trees. * Expedited Permitting: Create faster approval processes for designs that meet or exceed, for instance, 50% canopy retention goals.
* Fee Reductions: Lower impact fees for projects with minimal tree disturbance. * Full or partial conversion of turf grass lawns to native plant and pollinator gardens. Santa Clara County has a landscape rebate program that pays up to $3,000 for residential and $100,000 for commercial properties.
Cities could implement a similar rebate program for planting native plant and tree species under a city-approved native landscape plan.
Enforcement and Maintenance:
* Performance Bonds: Require developers to post bonds ensuring the survival of retained trees during construction, with funds forfeited if trees die due to negligence. * Protection Standards: Define mandatory tree protection during construction, such as fencing, root protection zones, and prohibiting construction parking under canopy driplines.
* Long-Term Covenants: Use conservation easements or deed restrictions to ensure the protection of the forest after the development is completed.
These mechanisms are most effective when supported by comprehensive city-wide tree inventories and urban forest master plans.
4 Preserving natural urban forests on private lands enhances sustainability and resilience by mitigating the urban heat island effect, reducing stormwater runoff, and improving air quality.
These green spaces conserve biodiversity, provide essential habitat, and lower energy demands for cooling.
Protecting these areas on private property improves local air quality, reduces noise pollution, and enhances social cohesion.
Please call me if you wish to get further clarification of my advocacy idea.
Daniel Shane
My note:
Definition of Ecosystem
In simple terms, an ecosystem is a complex biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.
Examples of urban ecosystems are the existing natural remnant urban forests, tree buffers and barriers, and their understory plant communities.
Most of these natural communities are undeveloped open spaces located on private lands and may be endangered by housing development.
These ecosystems are not impacted or are minimally impacted by human disturbances and have evolved to be sustainable and resilient to human disturbances and climate changes in an urban area.
Ecosystems are complex webs of life that consist of many different animal and plant species and important soil, including the microorganisms and fungi, water, and air elements that combine to create a unique natural environment with each element playing a vital role in the ecological health of the environment.
Complex ecosystems cannot be mimicked by planting street trees or artificial landscaping within housing developments. The action of planting trees is not accompanied by a complex ecosystem.
Natural urban forest ecosystems have evolved over many years to contribute to nutrient cycling, energy flow, and ecosystem stability. It has been acknowledged by ecologists that natural urban forest ecosystems and biodiversity are critical in sustaining a healthy regional ecosystem that includes already protected nature preserves and parks.
These protected areas are not sufficient to meet the biological requirements such as food sources and habitat for native animal species, nor the propagation of the bio-genetic codes needed for the survival of many native plant species.
Functional ecosystems on private lands are crucial habitat for hundreds of species and filter the drinking water that percolates to our underground aquifers that we blend with water supply from the Sierra Nevada Mtns and serve as our emergency supply.
Rainfall that percolates through natural topsoil also serves to recharge our streams and rivers. These woodland areas provide local climate control (moderate weather extremes), shade and cooling to counter urban heat island effects.
Many of our remnant urban forests serve as ecological corridors that connect fragmented habitat patches, allowing wildlife to move between them. They facilitate species migration, dispersal, genetic exchange, and daily foraging, serving as vital lifelines that enhance biodiversity resilience against climate change and human-induced habitat loss.
Additionally, highway vegetation barriers are associated with natural remnant urban forests on private lands that serve a crucial public health function as they reduce noise levels, filter hazardous particulate matter, and absorb toxic volatile organic vapors from tailpipe emissions.
This unique capability of tree canopy foliage with dense understory to protect near-road residents from exposures to vehicle emissions cannot be duplicated by solid building structures or newly planted tree landscapes. 6