Mountain View City Council
June 23, 2026

financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-toplay-limits-and-prohibitions.html Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the recommendation.

PUBLIC NOTICING
Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Christina Gilmore
Intergovernmental Relations Manager
Arn Andrews
Assistant City Manager
Approved by:

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. Iwata Sister City 50th Anniversary Invitation

2. City Council Policy A14 Sister City Activities
794
Attachment 1
795
796

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: SISTERCITYACTIVITIES NO.: A-14
PURPOSE:

Toestablish apolicygoverning theCityofMountainView’s (City’s) responsibilities relatingtosistercityactivities.

POLICY:

1. TheCitysupports thesistercityconceptanditsgoalofstrengthening global understanding between thepeoplesoftheUnitedStatesandothernations.

2. TheCityacknowledges thattheSisterCityAffiliation ofMountainViewnonprofit organization (Affiliation) hasprimaryresponsibility fortheimplementation of sistercityprogramsandeventsinMountainView.

3. TheCitywillsupporttheAffiliationinitssistercityactivitiesasfollows:
a. TheCityManager shalldesignate aCitystaffmembertoserveastheCity’s liaisonregarding sistercityactivities.
b. TheCitystaffliaisonwillassume primaryresponsibility forcoordinating andconducting allactivities andevents (e.g., meetingswithCityofficials, receptions, tours, etc.) forvisitsbycityofficials fromsister cities. Forthese officialevents, theCitymayrequestthattheAffiliation providesomelevel ofsupporttotheCity’sefforts.
c. TheCitystaffliaisonwillactinasupportcapacitytotheAffiliationasit assumes primaryresponsibility fortheplanning andexecution ofactivities andeventsforvisitsofotherdelegations.
d. TheCitywillprovidefilecabinet spaceforstorageofarchival information. e. TheCitywillprovidereasonable postage, facsimile, copyingand/or printingsupportforsistercityeventsinwhichtheCityisparticipating. f. TheCitywillprovidetheuseofavailableCityfacilities (withtheexception oftheCenterforthePerforming Arts) atnocosttotheAffiliationforsister city-relatedactivities.

Attachment 2
797

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: SISTERCITYACTIVITIES NO.: A-14

4. Abudgetrequest shallbesubmitted bytheCitystaffliaisonannuallydetailing proposed sistercity-relatedexpenditures andfundinglevelsfortheupcoming year. ThisbudgetrequestshallbereviewedbytheCityCouncilduringitsannual Citybudgetreviewandadoptionprocess.

5. NoCityfundsshallbedirectlyprovidedtotheAffiliationtosupporttheirgeneral operatingexpenses.

6. Cityfundsshallonlybeexpended withtheapprovaloftheCityManageror his/herdesignee.

7. Cityfundsshallbeexpended onlyforthefollowing sistercity-relatedexpenses:
a. One-halfofthefoodcostsfortheannualsistercitydinner. NoCityfundswill beusedtooffsetthecostofalcoholic beverages, entertainment, equipment rentalorotherexpenses relatedtotheevent.
b. Dues/ membership costsassociated withtheCity’smembership inTown AffiliationAssociations International. Membership/ duescostforthe Affiliationwillbetheresponsibility oftheAffiliation.
c. Citygifts, whichwillbepresented tosistercityrepresentatives (student, businessorgovernment) duringtheirvisittotheCityofMountainView, or presented byrepresentatives ofMountainViewduringtheirtripstosister cities.

Citygiftsandvisitsupportactivitieswillbeprovided tosistercityvisitorsas follows:
1) Anindividual visitingfromasistercity, butnotpartofanyformalor informaldelegationwillreceive: aCitypin; aCityinformation packet; andaninvitationtomeetwiththeCitystaffliaisonand/orMayor. 2) Groups visitingfromasistercity, butnotcitygovernment officersor members ofthevisitingsistercitycommittee willreceive: Citypins; a welcoming gift (tobedetermined bytheCitystaffunderthedirection

798

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: SISTERCITYACTIVITIES NO.: A-14
oftheCityManager); Cityinformation packet; ameetingwiththe Mayororhis/herdesignee; atouroftheCity; andaninformal
receptionsponsored bytheCity.
3) Visitingsistercitycommittee and/orstudentexchange groupswill receive: Citypins, awelcoming gift; Cityinformation packets; a meetingwiththeMayororhis/herdesignee; atouroftheCity; an informalreception sponsored bytheCity; andattendance toanevent oractivity (asdetermined bytheCityManager), withthecosts underwritten bytheCity (e.g., ticketstoaShorelineAmphitheatre event).
4) Visitingrepresentatives fromasistercitygovernment willreceive:

Citypins; awelcoming gift; Cityinformation packets; ameetingwith theMayororhis/herdesignee; attendance toaneventoractivity, with thecostsunderwritten bytheCity; andaluncheonordinnerhostedby theCity.
d. AnyotherexpensesapprovedbytheCityManagerorhis/herdesignee.

8. Asnewsistercityrelationships arerequested, theCityshallcoordinate itseffort withtheAffiliationtoformalize arelationship withanewsistercity. Thenew sistercityrelationship mustbeformalized bytheadoption ofaCityCouncil resolution. Suchresolutions shallidentifytheareasofcommon interestand activitieswhichbothpartieswishtopursuethroughtheirsistercityrelationship e.g., studentexchange program, artisticandculturalexchanges, economic development outreachactivities, sportsteamexchanges, etc.).

Revised: November 12, 1991, Resolution No. 15334
EffectiveDate: August20, 1991, Resolution No. 15307
CNLPOL
A14-601CP

799
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206259, Version: 1
Cuesta Water Main Incident - Emergency Construction Contract Ratification Ratify the award of an on-call emergency services construction contract with West Valley Construction Company, Inc., a California corporation, (Entity No. 351886) to remediate emergency conditions that arose during the Cuesta Water Main Incident, for a total amount not-to-exceed $600,000.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/18/2026
powered by Legistar™800
DATE: June 23, 2026
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: Public Works
TITLE: Cuesta Water Main Incident - Emergency
Construction Contract Ratification

RECOMMENDATION
Ratify the award of an on-call emergency services construction contract with West Valley Construction Company, Inc., a California corporation, (Entity No. 351886) to remediate emergency conditions that arose during the Cuesta Water Main Incident, for a total amount notto-exceed $600,000.

BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2026, the City Council ratified a Proclamation of Local Emergency, after the City Manager issued a Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency on Saturday, April 25, 2026, in response to an emergency incident involving a private contractor hired by the City, concerning a contamination breach with some cement slurry mix coming into contact with a live water main in a neighborhood north of Cuesta Park on April 24, 2026. Staff were able to identify and isolate the water pipelines in several streets where there was possible contamination.

To restore water services to the affected residents, the City had to demonstrate to the State Water Resources Control Board that the water met water quality standards. Staff employed various methods of flushing, but were unsuccessful in meeting testing requirements. City staff then reached out to other water agencies for mutual aid support.

San Jose Water (SJW) offered mutual aid assistance by loaning the City a piece of equipment to perform high-velocity flushing of the pipelines, as well as SJW staff to operate the equipment.

After the high-velocity flushing the City also needed assistance constructing temporary water services and other related pipeline construction work to perform super chlorination (disinfection of the pipelines using high-concentration chlorine) of the affected pipelines. Working with SJW, staff became aware of their on-call construction service provider, West Valley Construction Company, Inc. (West Valley).
801
Cuesta Water Main Incident – Emergency Construction Contract Ratification June 23, 2026

ANALYSIS
Based on SJW’s positive reference on West Valley’s work, staff selected West Valley to assist with pipeline super chlorination and related construction work. Because SJW is a private company, it was necessary for the City contract directly with West Valley.

City Code Section 2.211(d) allows the City to waive the traditional competitive bidding process for public works construction contracts when a public emergency creates conditions that require immediate remediation. In addition, City Code Section 2.2214 allows for noncompetitive procurements when a public emergency will not permit a delay resulting from competitive procurement. Since time was of the essence, the City began meeting with West Valley to plan for the next steps in restoring water service to the affected residents, including the installation of a temporary parallel water pipeline system and temporary decommission of the permanent water pipeline during the super chlorination process. The City awarded an on-call emergency services contract for $600,000 to West Valley to assist staff with water pipeline construction work. The total amount of the services performed by West Valley exceeds the contract limits established by Council Policy A-10 and by the City Code. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Council ratify this contract.

Water service was restored to all homes on May 19, 2026, and West Valley subsequently decommissioned the highline water system. At this time,several punch list and clean-up activities remain for West Valley to complete the required work.

FISCAL IMPACT
The West Valley construction contract is proposed to be funded from the Cuesta Water Incident Emergency account. The appropriation recommendation for the Cuesta Water Incident is included in the Fiscal Year 2026–27 Adopted Budget item presented to Council on June 23, 2026.

With Council’s approval, this contract will be funded as part of the approved budget.

LEVINE ACT
California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more 802
Cuesta Water Main Incident – Emergency Construction Contract Ratification June 23, 2026

information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-toplay-limits-and-prohibitions.html Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Contract or franchise agreement

ALTERNATIVES
Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING
Agenda Posting
Prepared by:

Lisa Au
Assistant Public Works Director
Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director
Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
cc: PWD, APWD-Arango, Au, PCE-Tseng, Shah, SCE-Chang, SMA-Goedicke 803
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 205409, Version: 1
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption
Adopt the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/18/2026
powered by Legistar™804
DATE: June 23, 2026
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
DEPT.: Community Services
TITLE: Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan
Adoption

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2026, the City Council held a Study Session to review the draft Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (Plan) and provide feedback prior to adoption. The Plan updates and expands the City’s 2015 Community Tree Master Plan into a broader framework focused on biodiversity, urban forestry, habitat connectivity, climate resilience, and community well-being.

The Plan was developed with San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) and a cross-departmental City Project Team through a multi-year process that included technical analysis, extensive community engagement, interdepartmental collaboration, and review by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and Environmental Planning Commission (EPC). Public outreach included workshops, multilingual engagement opportunities, pop-up events, surveys, a stakeholder meeting, and neighborhood-based activities.

At the April 28, 2026, Study Session, Council expressed overall support for the Plan and provided feedback related to implementation accountability and staffing; adaptive management and ongoing reporting; integration of Plan concepts into City projects, roadway design, green infrastructure, and budget development processes; expanded use of native planting where feasible; and opportunities to support partnerships, volunteer efforts, and community-based implementation. Council also directed staff to consider input received from community partners and stakeholder organizations.

Staff and SFEI subsequently refined the Plan in response to Council direction and additional stakeholder input. Updates made to the draft Plan are highlighted in yellow throughout Attachment 1 for ease of reference and review.
805
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption
June 23, 2026

DISCUSSION
Implementation and Accountability
The updated Plan strengthens the implementation framework to support long-term coordination, accountability, and adaptive management. Revisions include identifying a designated staff lead to oversee the cross-departmental City Implementation Team and coordinate plan execution, monitoring, and reporting efforts across departments.

Additional revisions expand the existing reporting framework beyond the Parks and Recreation Commission to include annual progress updates to City Council and the public, as well as additional community-facing updates and engagement opportunities. The updated language also strengthens the Plan’s Adaptive Management discussion to support ongoing implementation refinements and responsiveness to evolving funding sources, scientific knowledge, community priorities, and lessons learned over time.

Integration into City Projects, Policies, and Funding
In response to Council feedback, the Plan further clarifies that it is intended to serve as a foundational City policy document that helps guide City decision-making, capital project delivery, and budget development across departments.

The updated Plan also includes language supporting the integration of Plan concepts, guidelines, and associated Guides into future objective development standards, roadway design approaches, green infrastructure strategies, and other implementation tools where feasible and appropriate.

Additional revisions recognize opportunities to incorporate greening, urban forest, and green infrastructure improvements into future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and broader infrastructure investments.

Biodiversity and Urban Forest Enhancements
The updated Plan includes refinements related to native and regionally appropriate planting, including clarification and refinement of the definition of “near-native” species, as well as climate resilience, biodiversity-supportive landscaping, sustainable native plant sourcing practices, and mature tree retention. The revised language recognizes the importance of expanding the use of native and regionally appropriate species where feasible, while balancing urban conditions, site constraints, biodiversity goals, maintenance considerations, and long-term species diversity.

Additional revisions strengthen language related to habitat protection and the protection and retention of existing mature trees, habitat features, and ecological resources where feasible alongside expansion and enhancement efforts.
806
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption
June 23, 2026

Partnerships, Stewardship, and Community Science
The updated Plan reinforces language related to stewardship opportunities, volunteer coordination, community science partnerships, and community-based implementation, including biodiversity monitoring and public engagement where appropriate. As implementation moves forward, staff will also explore future funding opportunities to support these collaborative stewardship efforts.

Staff also considered and incorporated select recommendations from community partners and stakeholder organizations, including GreenSpacesMV, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, Bird Alliance, and other community members, as reflected in the revisions summarized in this section.

Next Steps
Following adoption, staff will begin implementing the Plan by establishing the crossdepartmental City Implementation Team. Early implementation efforts will focus on coordinating across departments, advancing Actions identified as “In Progress” and “Upon Plan Adoption,” integrating Plan concepts into ongoing City projects and programs, establishing baseline metrics and performance indicators, and developing monitoring and reporting procedures to support long-term progress tracking and adaptive management.

As one of the initial implementation efforts, staff will continue working with the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to develop a web-based Tree Selector Tool for Mountain View. Funding for the tool is proposed as part of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget request, which is being considered by Council concurrently with Plan adoption. The tool will help identify appropriate tree species for specific sites based on factors such as site conditions, biodiversity support, climate resilience, and ecosystem service benefits, and is intended to support future City projects, development, and community tree planting efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT
Project 23-37, Biodiversity Strategy, is funded with $1.0 million from the CIP Reserve. No additional appropriation is requested as part of the recommended action to adopt the Plan.

The Plan includes planning-level cost estimates intended to illustrate the scale of long-term investments needed to expand, maintain, and enhance biodiversity and the urban forest throughout the City. Existing funding sources—including the General Fund, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Tree Mitigation Fund, grants, partnerships, and limited reserve funds—support ongoing operations and incremental implementation efforts but are not sufficient to fully achieve all long-term Plan actions and objectives.
807
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption
June 23, 2026

Implementation of the Plan will occur incrementally over time through existing resources, integration with current projects and programs, future budget processes, external funding opportunities, partnerships, and other potential funding sources.

LEVINE ACT
California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information, see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-toplay-limits-and-prohibitions.html Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

CONCLUSION
The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan establishes a comprehensive, long-term framework to guide biodiversity, urban forest, habitat, and climate resilience efforts throughout Mountain View. The Plan reflects extensive community engagement, interdepartmental collaboration, technical analysis, and review by City advisory bodies, and is intended to help guide future City decision-making, projects, policies, and investments.

The updated draft incorporates City Council feedback received during the April 28, 2026, Study Session and strengthens the Plan’s implementation, accountability, monitoring, adaptive management, and community engagement framework. Adoption of the Plan will position the City to advance biodiversity and urban forest goals through coordinated, long-term implementation across City programs, capital projects, partnerships, and community initiatives.

The Plan also builds on Mountain View’s broader sustainability and resilience efforts and positions the City as a regional leader in advancing integrated biodiversity and urban forest planning. As implementation progresses, the Plan may also serve as a model for other agencies and communities seeking integrated approaches to biodiversity, climate resilience, and urban greening.
808
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption
June 23, 2026

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide other feedback for the final Plan.

2. Do not recommend the Plan for adoption.

3. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING
In addition to the standard agenda posting, notice for this meeting was posted to the City website and project website, BiodiversityMV.com. Notice was also provided to stakeholder groups, neighborhood associations, community organizations, and interested parties who participated throughout the planning process.

Prepared by:

Brenda Sylvia
Assistant Community Services Director
Lindsay Wong
Senior Management Analyst
John R. Marchant
Community Services Director
Approved by:

Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager
Attachments: 1. Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (with yellow highlights)

2. Summary of Plan Updates
809

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY AND

URBAN FOREST PLAN
Attachment 1
810

REPORT INFORMATION
City of Mountain View Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. (June 2026 Draft; content revisions made after the April 28, 2026 City Council hearing are highlighted in yellow)

COVER PHOTO CREDITS
TOP: 2025 Earth and Arbor Day celebration, photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

BOTTOM ROW (left to right): Bumble bee visiting Ceanothus, photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. Visitors at Shoreline Park, photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. Acorn Woodpecker, photo by David J. Mauk.

Tree planting at Mountain View 2025 Earth and Arbor Day celebration, photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. Coast Live Oak, photo by Don DeBold, courtesy of CC BY 2.0. 811
Prepared for the City of Mountain View by
San Francisco Estuary Institute Lauren Stoneburner, Environmental Scientist Selena Pang, Environmental Scientist
Sacha Heath, PhD, Senior Ecological Scientist
Ben Satzman, Environmental Analyst
Jennifer Symonds, Environmental Analyst
Vanessa Lee, Associate Environmental Scientist
Helen Casendino, Environmental Analyst
Kara Mirmelstein, Project Manager
Karen Verpeet, Resilient Landscapes Program Managing
Director
with project leadership from
City of Mountain View Community
Services Department
Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director
Lindsay Wong, Senior Management Analyst
and support from
Davey Resource Group, Inc. Michael Cappon, Senior Associate Consultant - Urban Forest Planning
design and production:
ruth askevold and lauren stoneburner (sfei), with kort maeda 812
Acknowledgements
The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan was developed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute in partnership with City of Mountain View staff, with valuable input from community members and stakeholders.

The City is grateful to Canopy for supporting engagement activities and to all those who shared their perspectives through workshops, surveys, and conversations.

The City also extends sincere appreciation to the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Environmental Planning Commission for their guidance and thoughtful review. Their insight helped shape a Vision that reflects the community’s aspirations for the future of its urban nature.

MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Emily Ann Ramos
Vice Mayor Chris Clark
Councilmember Alison Hicks
Councilmember Ellen Kamei
Councilmember John McAlister
Councilmember Lucas Ramirez
Councilmember Pat Showalter

MOUNTAIN VIEW EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Audrey Seymour, Assistant City Manager
Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager
John R. Marchant, Community Services Director

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Joe Mitchner, Chair
Sandy Sommer, Vice Chair
Ronit Bryant
Jonathan Davis
IdaRose Sylvester
Steve Filios (former)

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
William Cranston
Hank Dempsey
Paul Donahue
Jose Gutierrez
Alex Nunez
Tina Pham
Joyce Yin

MOUNTAIN VIEW PROJECT TEAM & PLAN DEVELOPMENT
City Manager’s Office
Danielle Lee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Community Services Department
Tim Youngberg, Parks and Open Space Manager
Russell Hansen, Urban Forest Manager
Maureen Grzan-Pieracci, Recreation Supervisor
Allison Flynn, Executive Assistant

ADDITIONAL SFEI PROJECT SUPPORT
Laura Feinstein, PhD, Resilient Landscapes Program Director Melissa Foley, PhD, Resilient Landscapes Program Science Director & Senior Scientist
Community Development Department
Jeffrey Tsumura, Senior Planner
Public Works Department
Faryal Saiidnia, Senior Project Manager
Raymond Wong, Senior Engineer
Ria Lo, former Transportation Planner

TECHNICAL ADVISORS
Darya Barar, Managing Consulting Urban Forester & Arborist, HortScience|Bartlett Consulting
John Gibbs, Principal Landscape Architect, WRT
813
Table of Contents
A Word from the City vi
Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations viii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Why a Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan? 1

1.2 Planning Process 5

1.3 Biodiversity Ambassadors 6

2. Mountain View Landscape: Past, Present, and Future 12

2.1 History 13

2.2 The City Today 18

2.3 Future Climate Challenges 20

3. Landscape Assessment and Policy Overview 22

3.1 Biodiversity Assessment 23

3.2 Urban Forest Assessment 44

3.3 Policies, Guidance, and Protections 64

4. Community and City Perspectives 74

4.1 Community Engagement 75

4.2 Community Perspectives 78

4.3 City Perspectives 86

5. The Plan: Charting the Path 88

5.1 Components of the Plan 89

5.2 Vision to Action 91

5.3 Metrics and Targets 119

5.4 Implementation Framework 124

5.5 Commitment to Progress 130
Guides & Appendices
Guide A: Urban Landscaping A-1
Guide B: Plant Lists B-1
Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices C-1
Guide D: Monitoring and Targets D-1
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary AA-1
Appendix B: Literature Cited AB-1
814
vi

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
A Word from the City
Mountain View is taking a bold step forward with the adoption of its Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (“the Plan”). This forward-looking blueprint brings together community voices, City staff expertise, and a science-based approach to chart a new path for protecting and enhancing the city’s natural systems in an increasingly urban and climate-impacted environment.

The Plan coordinates the City’s strategy towards advancing both biodiversity and the urban forest.

Mountain View is committed to planting and protecting native trees and vegetation to enhance native biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, and support community health and connections. In partnership with the community, the City will also protect and expand its urban forest to maximize environmental, health, and social benefits for both people and native wildlife. By integrating biodiversity and urban forestry into a single, coordinated framework, Mountain View is modeling environmental leadership grounded in innovation, collaboration, and care for the natural environment.

The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan is intentionally designed to align with and support other City plans and initiatives, including the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, Active Transportation Plan, sustainability and climate efforts, the Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan, and the General Plan.

Together, these efforts advance shared City priorities such as equitable access to green space, urban cooling, habitat connectivity, and healthy, walkable neighborhoods, while ensuring that investments in nature are coordinated across parks, streets, development, and public spaces.

At the heart of the Plan is a unifying Vision, developed through extensive community engagement, interdisciplinary staff collaboration, and alignment with City priorities:

Mountain View is a healthy, connected, and resilient
community where people and nature thrive together.

Native landscaping in Mountain View. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. 815

A WORD FROM THE CITY
vii
This Vision reflects a shared understanding that parks, trails, streets, shorelines, schoolyards, and neighborhoods all contribute to the City’s urban ecosystem. In particular, the Plan complements the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan by reinforcing the role of parks, trails, and open spaces not only as places for recreation and gathering, but also as essential green infrastructure that supports habitat, stormwater management, active transportation, and climate resilience.

To advance the Vision, Chapter 5 outlines the components of the Plan, including its Goals, Objectives, Actions, and Metrics, along with an implementation framework that functions as both a compass and a roadmap. The Plan’s four Goals are:

1. Connect People and Nature

2. Foster Places of Refuge

3. Build Resilience

4. Activate and Collaborate
Together, these Goals will guide Mountain View towards its community vision, through both Cityled initiatives and collaboration with residents, businesses, and industry professionals who shape the city landscape.

The Plan translates these Goals into actionable strategies through specific Objectives and Actions, supported by Metrics and Targets to track progress over time. Four companion technical Guides provide best practices and practical guidance to support City projects, programs, and decision-making.

While the Plan is not a regulatory document, it has the support of Mountain View City Council and should be considered as one of the foundational plans of the City. This Plan and its science-based framework will guide planning, policies, and initiatives in a growing city, where biodiversity and urban forest goals must be balanced alongside housing, infrastructure, fiscal constraints, and staffing capacity. By emphasizing coordination across departments and alignment with other City plans, the Plan seeks to maximize benefits, efficiency, and long-term impact.

Through this Plan, the City of Mountain View commits to a unified and collaborative approach to caring for its urban nature, one that strengthens ecological health, enhances daily life, and supports a more resilient community for current and future generations. 2023 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day Celebration at Rengstorff Park. Photo courtesy of Canopy. 816
ATP: City of Mountain View Active Transportation Plan
Biodiversity: The variety and abundance of biological life (e.g., mammals, pollinators, plants, birds) within a given area; this Plan focuses largely on native species diversity, though genetic, functional, and ecosystem diversity are also important measures in urban areas; biodiversity is used interchangeably with “nature” in the Plan “City”: Referring to the government entity of the City of Mountain View “city”: Referring to a place defined by its municipal boundaries, such as the city of Mountain View
Climate-resilient and regionally- appropriate species: Organisms that are expected to tolerate the region’s current and projected future climate, soils, and other environmental characteristics; may not be native to California; and are not invasive CSD: City of Mountain View’s Community Services Department CTMP: City of Mountain View’s 2015 Community Tree Master Plan, replaced by this document Ecology: A field of science that specializes in organisms and how they interact with their environment and each other Green infrastructure (GI): Greening interventions that mimic natural processes and provide a range of ecological and social benefits within the urban environments, ranging from highly engineered (e.g., bioretention features, green roofs) to more natural, less designed landscape features (e.g., landscaping, park trees)
» Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI): A subset of green infrastructure, such as bioswales and rain gardens, that use the natural process of infiltration and evapotranspiration to capture and manage stormwater Green space: An area of any size with grass, trees, or other vegetation Habitat: The resources and conditions needed to support the survival and reproduction of a species; can include physical qualities such as temperature and water availability, as well as biotic features such as food and nesting materials; the use of the term “habitat” in this Plan does not refer to regulatory definitions of habitat for special status species nor areas that warrant specific level of protections
» Habitat restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of habitat that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed in order to restore its associated functions » Habitat enhancement: Interventions to create specific habitat elements within a highly degraded area to improve specific habitat functions

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Important terms used in the Plan are listed and defined below. In some cases, a term can have many meanings across various contexts (e.g., “nature”), so these definitions also specify their meaning within the context of this Plan.
viii

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
817

GLOSSARY
ix
Heritage Tree: A tree defined by and protected per the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code 32 Article II Sec 32.22-32.39) Land cover: One or more groups or categories used to describe the Earth’s surface; can be used to describe physical conditions, such as land features or habitat type, or types of human use, such as agricultural vs urban; see below for common types of land cover referenced in this Plan:
» Tree canopy cover: The area that is covered by tree branches and leaves, as viewed from above
» Vegetation cover: The area covered by vegetation of all varieties, including grass, shrubs, and trees, unless otherwise specified
» Impervious cover: Area covered by impervious surfaces (surface materials that water cannot penetrate), such as asphalt or roofing
Native species: A given species’ status as being native to (or having a long evolutionary history within) a specific locale; see below:
» Regionally-native species: Species that are native to the San Francisco Bay Area subregion and Central Coast subregion of the California Floristic Province, as determined by Jepson eFlora’s bioregion classification;2
the list of regionally-native species was further
refined and corroborated by considering species native to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion of Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains regions according to the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Database; SelecTree database from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; and Calscape, the California Native Plant Society native plants database1,3-5 » California-native species: All organisms (including plants and animals) that have evolved in and are adapted to California’s physical and biological conditions; tree species were classified as California-native in this Plan using CalScape1 » Near-native species: Species that are native to a nearby, ecologically similar region; near-native species—particularly those closely related to regionally-native species—can be selected for planting to provide specific desired functions, such as climate resilience, pest resistance, urban compatibility, or native biodiversity support » Non-native species: A species that has been introduced, either deliberately or accidentally by human activities, to an area outside of its natural or historic range; also known as an “introduced” or “exotic” species; some non-native species are considered “invasive” only when the species causes harm, such as to the ecosystem or economy, in its new environment
818
Nature: The full suite of elements and processes that make up an ecosystem, including the biological life such as plants, animals, and microorganisms; physical elements such as soils and water; and physical processes such as decomposition and nutrient cycling; used interchangeably with “biodiversity” and also encompasses the urban forest Open space: Land that is intended to be kept in an undeveloped state and/or does not have many buildings (including unvegetated, unbuilt space) “the Plan”: City of Mountain View Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Pollinator: Species that support plant reproduction by carrying pollen between flowers; while bees are the most well-known example, birds, bats, moths, butterflies, wasps, and other insects can serve as pollinators
Public trees: Trees owned or managed by the City of Mountain View, such as trees in parks, on city-owned property, and along streets in public rights-of-way PWD: City of Mountain View’s Public Works Department
Resilience: The ability of a system to continue to provide desired functions over time even when faced with disturbances and stressors; resilient landscaping focuses on a planted area’s ability to both withstand challenges itself, as well as provide important benefits and services that support the community’s resilience to a changing climate, such as shade and stormwater absorption
Riparian: The quality of being connected to or situated on the banks of a waterway such as a river, creek, or stream
SFEI: San Francisco Estuary Institute
Sustainability: Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
Tree Ordinance: City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances, Chapter 32 - Trees, Shrubs and Plants, i.e., “Tree Regulations of the City of Mountain View” » Heritage Tree Ordinance: Chapter 32, Article II - Protection of the Urban Forest (formerly “Preservation of Heritage Trees”)

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
x

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
819

GLOSSARY
xi
Urban ecosystem: A dynamic system made up of the biological, physical, and social components of a city including humans, plants, animals, buildings, transportation systems, and water and energy flows
Urban forest: The entire population of trees (including street trees, backyard trees, and trees in green spaces) across a city, from its densely-developed core to its open spaces Urban greening: Refers generally to the practice of increasing vegetation cover in a city, which could take a variety of forms including planting street trees, installing green infrastructure or green roofs, or creating parks Urban tolerance: The degree of association between a species and the urban environment.

The Plan uses the terms urban sensitive and urban tolerant to indicate species that land at either end of this tolerance gradient
» Urban tolerant: Species with life history traits associated with their increased presence in cities relative to other species (e.g., tendencies toward small body size, greater dispersal ability, weaker territoriality, broader habitat and dietary requirements, larger clutch sizes, and longer lifespans) » Urban sensitive: Species with life history traits associated with their decreased presence in cities relative to other species (e.g., tendencies toward larger body size, lesser dispersal ability, stronger territoriality, more specialized habitat and dietary requirements, smaller clutch sizes, and shorter lifespans) Wildlife: The species in an environment, including plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms; sometimes used interchangeably with “biodiversity” 820
Mountain View 2025 Arbor Day tree planting. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 1 INTRODUCTION
821
Sweat Bee on Seaside Daisy in Mountain View.

Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Why a Biodiversity & Urban
Forest Plan?
The health of cities and their ecology are tightly linked. Designing a city with and around nature fosters greater biodiversity and offers benefits to people. A healthy urban ecosystem—including its urban forest—fosters a diversity of life, from plants and animals to fungi and microorganisms. Its condition depends on the abundance, quality, and connectedness of nature across the city. These features in turn enable healthy ecosystem functions, such as filtering pollutants, facilitating wildlife movement, and promoting human physical and mental health, as well as adapting to and protecting the city from a changing climate.

Mountain View’s urban forest is integral to the urban ecosystem, especially in supporting wildlife, providing shade, filtering air and stormwater, and sequestering carbon. Due to their large size, long lifespans, and many benefits, trees deserve a detailed examination to plan for their health now and into the future. There are important trade-offs to reconcile between managing the landscape for biodiversity and for a healthy, resilient urban forest. Nevertheless, this plan is guided by the underlying goal of supporting a healthy, functioning urban ecosystem that serves both people and biodiversity for generations to come.
822
2 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

HOW DOES THE URBAN ECOSYSTEM BENEFIT
MOUNTAIN VIEW?
Biodiversity and trees have been linked with improved physical and mental health, student performance, city walkability, quality of life, and civic pride and sense of place, among many other benefits.8,9 The reciprocal relationship between nature and the city means that supporting biodiversity and the urban forest in Mountain View will also fortify the community’s health, enjoyment, and resilience.

ARE THERE POTENTIAL TRADE-OFFS TO
INCREASING URBAN BIODIVERSITY AND TREES?
While fostering greater biodiversity and tree canopy provides many community benefits and reflects Mountain View’s collective values, the city will also need to continuously track and manage its potential challenges. Possible tradeoffs to the benefits of increasing urban biodiversity and tree canopy include, for example, negative health impacts (e.g., allergic pollen, insect bites, and disease vectors), human-wildlife conflicts, infrastructure damage and utility and safety conflicts (e.g., limb drops or fallen trees), shifting aesthetic preferences, and green gentrification.9 Thoughtful plant species selection and maintenance can mitigate some of these impacts. Nevertheless, because urban ecosystems are inherently complex and ever-changing, ongoing monitoring, openness to community feedback, and adaptive management will best position the City to anticipate and address emerging challenges.

HOW CAN MOUNTAIN VIEW SUPPORT A
HEALTHY URBAN ECOSYSTEM?
The San Francisco Bay Area is within a global biodiversity hotspot. Mountain View in particular sits in a historically-rich ecological landscape, linking the San Francisco Baylands and the Santa Cruz Mountains. While much of its historical ecosystem has been drastically transformed, giving way to its dense present-day development, the city still pulses with local biodiversity.

Mountain View’s Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (“the Plan”) offers an opportunity to further enrich the city’s urban ecosystem for the benefit of people and nature. This roadmap blends community insights with science-based strategies to support native species, restore critical ecosystem functions, and advance the health and resilience of both the local ecosystem and community.

The City is not alone in these commitments and initiatives. The Plan will allow Mountain View to better support broader state and regional initiatives and commitments, such as California’s 30x30 Initiative, California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, the California Biodiversity Initiative, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the recent Senate Bill 1425 Advancing Climate Resilience through Open Space Updates, and Assembly Bill 1889 Enhancing Wildlife Movement and Connectivity Planning.
823
Western Redbud in Mountain View. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

Managing trade-offs between native
biodiversity and urban forest resilience
There are important considerations and trade-offs to reconcile when planning for both native biodiversity and a resilient urban forest. Many native wildlife rely on native plants, sometimes exclusively. While nonnative trees and shrubs do support urban biodiversity,6 the integration of
native plants will help the city better support more urban sensitive species.

At the same time, urban forests must include species that are native to other regions to thrive. Commonly-cited reasons to plant tree species from other regions of the state, continent, or world include:
• Many planting areas in cities are challenging places for trees to grow. Urban planting areas, such as along streets and sidewalks tend to be space-limited and exposed to environmental stressors that many regionally-native species do not tolerate well, such as hotter temperatures, trampling, altered soils, and modified water sources, such as urban runoff or recycled water.
• Greater tree diversity will foster greater resilience. A lack of tree diversity can leave large portions of the urban forest vulnerable to threats, particularly pests.
• The native ecosystem in Mountain View and the surrounding region has a relatively low diversity of native trees. As few as seven tree species are native to Mountain View proper, and fewer than 30 are native to the broader Santa Clara Valley.7
A much more
diverse range of species is needed to reach the City’s canopy cover goals and provide sufficient benefits for people and wildlife. • Plants native to the Santa Clara Valley (see Guide B: Plant Lists) suit Mountain View’s current climate, but some may struggle to adapt to future climate and environmental changes. Meanwhile, some near-native species (see Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations) can fill similar ecological niches and thrive into the future. Mountain View can prepare its urban forest for a changing climate by planting species that are suited to the expected future climate, as well as continually monitoring its urban forest and adapting its approach in the years to come.

This Plan seeks to balance these trade-offs. The assessments conducted and actions proposed ultimately seek to foster a rich, biodiverse urban forest that flourishes now and into the future. 824

THE ROLE OF THE BIODIVERSITY & URBAN

FOREST PLAN
The Plan solidifies the City’s commitment to fostering a healthier urban ecosystem and forest for its community. Grounded in the community’s shared vision for how nature in Mountain View can thrive in the future, the Plan outlines a science-based roadmap with clear actions and measurable metrics to drive meaningful progress.

While urban forest plans have become a common planning instrument in cities across the United States, this Plan stands apart, integrating its urban forest plan within a strategy to support biodiversity and the urban ecosystem as a whole. Only a handful of other cities across the world have developed plans that focus on biodiversity support (e.g., Toronto Biodiversity Strategy, City of London Biodiversity Action Plan, Vancouver Biodiversity Strategy, and Sydney Urban Ecology Strategic Action Plan). An even smaller number of cities, such as San Francisco, have moved past the planning stage and enacted biodiversity policy. Similar to the approach applied here, these plans rely on science-based analyses to offer a range of recommendations—from governance to implementation—for creating more biodiverse urban ecosystems. In commissioning this Plan, Mountain View recognizes the management of urban biodiversity and the urban forest as inextricably linked.

The clear objectives and metrics in this Plan make biodiversity and urban forest health lasting City priorities. While not a regulatory document, the Plan will be implemented through binding mechanisms, including City ordinances, standards, permitting, and capital project review and requirements. Following through on these commitments will drive the City to deliver tangible improvements in nature access and ecological health.

Balancing biodiversity and urban forest goals
with other City priorities
The Plan aims to enhance Mountain View’s urban ecosystem while balancing competing priorities, such as housing, infrastructure, safety, and public services.

The Mountain View community values a healthy and biodiverse urban ecosystem. Meanwhile, increasing housing supply and strategic development are also critical for improving the city’s affordability and livability. Promoting greater infill and urban density are also important strategies for mitigating urban sprawl and protecting biodiversity in the greater region.

The City will need to identify creative strategies to balance its multiple priorities. This Plan offers strategies to strengthen urban ecological health in tandem with other City objectives.

Landscaping with Santa Barbara daisy in
Mountain View. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.
825

INTRODUCTION
5 1.2 Planning Process
The Plan is grounded in a multi-year process to navigate Mountain View’s urban forest and biodiversity priorities. This shared understanding was developed by integrating perspectives from the community, City staff, and the best-available science to help identify opportunities for improvement that would be actionable and feasible, as well as creative and ambitious.

The Plan incorporates the Mountain View community’s hopes, concerns, and ideas for fostering vibrant nature in the city, collected through a robust public outreach and input process. The expertise of City staff and other experts also shaped the Plan to ensure that recommendations are feasible to implement, and effective in realizing the community’s vision.

The results of science-based technical analyses—grounded in historical ecology data, detailed landscape assessments, and future climate projections—helped prioritize actions that will effectively enhance the health and resilience of the city’s landscape and urban forest.

The Plan distills these diverse perspectives and analyses into a clear roadmap from Vision to Action. The Plan centers the community’s unified Vision for how nature in Mountain View should look, sound, and feel in the future, supported by a specific series of Goals, Objectives, Actions, and Metrics that bring this Vision closer to realization. 2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Farmers’ Market Pop-Up. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI. 826
6 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

1.3 Biodiversity Ambassadors
The concept of “biodiversity” can seem abstract, but actions taken as a result of this Plan will have real benefits for many species in the city. To bring this idea to life, nine “Biodiversity Ambassadors” were chosen for the Plan, representing a diverse group of animal and plant species currently found in Mountain View. Each Ambassador has unique habitat needs, and will respond differently to various landscape improvements. These Biodiversity Ambassadors will pop up throughout the Plan to demonstrate both how a specific proposed action or guideline could meaningfully support the Ambassador species, as well as how the ecological requirements of an Ambassador species could inspire decisions during implementation.

Biodiversity Ambassadors represent a range of habitat types, types of organisms, and life history traits. Each species is associated with at least one of Mountain View’s historical habitat types (see “The Historical Landscape” in 2.1 History). Rather than selecting rare, threatened, or endangered species, all Biodiversity Ambassadors are relatively common in Mountain View today, so that the community can find, observe, and appreciate them.

These ambassador species complement five other special-status species featured in the Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan10 developed for the City of Mountain View, which is discussed in 3.3 Policies, Guidance, and Protections.
2025 Arbor Day Celebration. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 2025 Earth and Arbor Day
Celebration. Photo courtesy
of the City of Mountain View.
827

INTRODUCTION
7 MEET THE BIODIVERSITY AMBASSADORS!
Mountain View’s Biodiversity Ambassadors. Nine Biodiversity Ambassadors showcase a diverse range of animal and plant species currently found in Mountain View, each associated with at least one of Mountain View’s 10 historical habitat types. Included are some of their ecological requirements (Needs) and their benefits to ecosystems, ecological functions, other species, or humans (Benefits).

ACORN WOODPECKER
Melanerpes formicivorus
Acorn Woodpecker. Photo by Laura M, courtesy of CC
BY-SA 4.0.

Historical habitat types: Oak Woodland, Willow
Grove
Needs: Large trees (> 32” diameter at breast
height) for acorn granaries; nest cavities built
in large trees and 0.5 - 3 ft diameter branches, prefer Valley Oak and Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), repeated use over many years; at least
20 oak trees across 15-20 acres (that can span a
variety of urban land uses) increase chances for
new colonies; can tolerate urban landscapes if
oaks are present; foods include acorns, insects,
catkins, sap, and nectar
Benefits: Granary holes with acorns for other
species’ food storage, consumption, and shelter;
oak seed dispersal
Sources: 11-13

CALIFORNIA VOLE
Microtus californicus
California Vole. Photo by Jerry Kirkhart, courtesy of
CC BY 2.0.

Historical habitat types: Wet/Alkali Meadow,
Oak Savanna/Grassland
Needs: Herbaceous layers in wet meadows, salt
marshes, and arid uplands in > 10 acre patches;
individuals may occupy small suitable patches
> 0.5 acres with connectivity between multiple
moist and dry patches; connected perennial
grasslands may offer population refuges during
low population cycles; food items include seeds
and roots of grasses, sedges, and forbs
Benefits: Food source for raptors and mammals;
burrow for other animals; soil formation, aeration, and nutrient mixing Sources: 17, 18
828

HORN-FACED LEAFCUTTER BEE
Megachile fidelis
Horn-faced leafcutter bee. Photo by rojasburke,
courtesy of iNaturalist, CC BY 4.0.

Historical habitat types: Oak Woodland, Oak
Savanna/Grassland, Chaparral
Needs: Pollen from host plant genera Chrysothamnus, Cirsium, Coreopsis, Encelia, Ericameria, Erigeron, Grindelia, Gutierrezia, Haplopappus,
Helenium, Helianthus, Hemizonia, Heterotheca,
Holocarpha, Machaeranthera, Madia, Plectocephalus, Rudbeckia, Senecio, Solidago, Symphyotrichum, Verbesina, and Viguiera; nest substrates include abandoned beetle burrows, hollow stems,
and tree holes with leaf pieces and mud used to
partition broods
Benefits: Pollination
Sources: 15, 16
8 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

PACIFIC CHORUS FROG
Pseudacris sierra
Historical habitat types: Wet/Alkali Meadow,
Oak Savannah/Grasslands, Valley Freshwater
Marsh, Perennial Freshwater Pond
Needs: Ponds, marshes, slow streams, or roadside ditches for breeding and laying eggs; inhabits low-growing plants near or along water, and also
drier grasslands, chaparral, and urban structures;
pervious vegetated corridors (including manicured landscaping), for connectivity through impervious surfaces; food items include ground and flying insects (adults) and algae, bacteria, protozoa, and organic and inorganic debris (tadpoles) Benefits: Mosquito control; food source for
native animals
Sources: 21-24
Pacific Chorus Frog. Photo by Will Brown, courtesy of
CC BY 2.0.

BIODIVERSITY AMBASSADORS (CONTINUED)
829

INTRODUCTION
9 THREESPINE STICKLEBACK
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Three-spined stickleback. Photo by justas, courtesy
of Adobe Stock.

Historical habitat types: Creek
Needs: Shallow vegetated areas over mud or
sand in freshwater, brackish, and saltwater
aquatic environments; food items include worms,
crustaceans, aquatic insect larvae, drowned
aerial insects, and small fish; though anadromous, non-anadromous populations will survive in streams with blocked spawning headwaters
or marine access; tolerates moderate to highly
urbanized San Francisco Estuary streams, high
water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and
low to moderate water pollution
Benefits: Food source for fish-eaters
Sources: 19, 20

SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD
Elgaria multicarinata
Alligator Lizard Southern, By Nathan, Source: Adobe
Historical habitat types: Oak Woodland, Willow
Grove, Chaparral
Needs: Can persist in highly urbanized areas far
from standing water; refuges provided by logs,
rocks, vegetation, human debris; dark moist areas; pervious corridors with these refuges to connect patches through impervious surfaces which are associated with more tail breakages due to
human traffic; food types are primarily insects
and other arthropods, sometimes other lizards;
frequently depredated by outdoor domestic cats
Benefits: Consumption of garden pests; food
source for native snakes and birds
Sources: 25-28
Southern Alligator Lizard. Photo by Jerry Kirkhart,
courtesy of CC BY 2.0.
830
10 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

VALLEY OAK
Quercus lobata
Valley oak. Photo by Bob Dodge, courtesy of CC BY.

Historical habitat types: Oak Woodland, Oak
Savannah
Needs: Sufficient space for root growth; nearby oaks for pollination (< 500 ft); > 30 ft from California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) to
reduce sudden oak death transmission
Benefits: Food and shelter for hundreds of
species of animals (including people!), fungi, and
plants; nutrient cycling, decomposition, erosion
control, and carbon sequestration; shade from
extreme heat; nodes of 20 oak trees or more
confer the most benefits
Sources: 11

BIODIVERSITY AMBASSADORS (CONTINUED)
Historical habitat types: Oak Savanna/Grassland, Tidal Marsh, Willow Grove, Valley Freshwater Marsh Needs: Lowland areas including salt marsh,
roadsides, vacant lots, and alkali flats; host plants
for egg laying and/or larvae food include many
species of Atriplex, and species of the genera
Chenopodium, Batis, Sesuvium, and Suaeda, and
Salicornia
Benefits: Pollination
Sources: 1, 14

WESTERN PYGMY-BLUE BUTTERFLY
Brephidium exilis
Western Pygmy Blue. Photo by Renee Grayson,
courtesy of CC BY 2.0.
831

INTRODUCTION
11 Male Wilson’s Warbler. Photo by Becky Matsubara,
courtesy of CC BY 4.0.

Historical habitat types: Willow Grove
Needs: Insect food and tree cover during migratory stop-over periods (average of 4 days in Santa Clara Valley); forages from urban Valley Oaks disproportionate to its percent canopy cover and
to other urban tree species during spring and
fall migration; also shows a preference for willow
during spring migration; forages at 16-23 ft high
in tree canopy; food items mostly adult and larval
insects and spiders; common window collision
victim during migration but not disproportionate
compared to abundance
Benefits: Insect pest control
Sources: 29-32
WILSON’S WARBLER
Cardellina pusilla
832
2 MOUNTAIN VIEW LANDSCAPE:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Trail along Charleston Retention Basin. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. 833
MOUNTAIN VIEW LANDSCAPE:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
13 2.1 History

THE HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE
This Plan is grounded in an understanding of the historical landscape.33 While the city today is heavily developed, understanding its past, including its native plant communities and the people and wildlife they supported, will help inspire ideas around what is possible for the future.

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Topographic Map from 1897. Courtesy of the National Ocean Service.

U.S. Geological Survey Aerial Photo from 1948. Courtesy of the United States Geological Survey.
834
14 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
Baylands. Along the shoreline,
Tidal Marshes, Tidal Flats, and
Shallow Channels provided vital
resources for fish, shorebirds, and
other wildlife uniquely adapted to
inhabiting the intertidal environment.

Bayland-Upland Transition.

Transitional zones like Wet
Meadows, Willow Groves, and
Valley Freshwater Marshes hosted specialized plant communities adapted to seasonal or yearround flooding and, in the case of Alkali Meadows, saline soils.

Upland. Dense Oak Woodlands,
where oaks and other native trees
intermixed with native grasses,
wildflowers, and shrubs, transitioned into sparser Oak Savanna, where oaks dotted the open grassland. These oaklands were
interspersed with thickets of
shrubby Chaparral on drier sites.

The boundaries between these
habitat types shifted over time, in
part due to both natural disturbances and active management by indigenous tribes.

Prior to Euro-American colonization in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the land now known as the City of Mountain View was an important place of ecological transition between the Bay and the Santa Clara Valley. This gradient fostered a rich diversity of plant and wildlife communities.

This landscape’s indigenous inhabitants, the Olpen Tribe living north of Stevens Creek at the junction between the homelands of the Ramaytush Ohlone and Tamien Nation,34 maintained a tightly interwoven, reciprocal relationship with the land. Through active management and stewardship, traditional cultural practices and lifeways shaped the natural landscape over thousands of years.35-37 Tidal marsh and slough. Photo by SFEI.

California rose, common in Wet Meadow
and Riparian habitats. Photo by Stephanie
Falzone, courtesy of vCC BY 2.0. Oak woodland. Photo by SFEI. 835
UPLAND
Oak Woodland
Oak Savanna
Shrubland

BAYLANDS
Tidal Channel / Open Water
Tidal Marsh
Tidal Flat
Willow Grove
Wet Meadow
Valley Freshwater Marsh
Alkali Meadow
Perennial Freshwater Pond
Channels

BAYLAND-UPLAND TRANSITION
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

HISTORICAL HABITAT

TYPES AND CHANNELS
Historical habitats were
compiled from SFEI’s Western
Santa Clara Valley Historical
Ecology Study33 and represent
average conditions prior to
significant Euro-American
modification (1770s-1850s).
836
16 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

LANDSCAPE CHANGE
Mountain View’s landscape changed dramatically after European arrival in the 18th century, beginning with the establishment of Mission Santa Clara and the displacement of indigenous inhabitants, introduction of invasive species, and extractive land use practices. By the mid-19th century, agriculture and salt production had reshaped the land, followed by rapid urbanization after World War II, ultimately transforming the Santa Clara Valley into the metropolitan landscape it is today.

Comparing historical and modern vegetation mapping reveals how Mountain View’s landscape has changed since Euro-American colonization, showing both what has been lost and what still remains. This analysis helps identify opportunities to restore elements of the historical landscape, where feasible, within today’s urban setting.

Extensive habitat loss. Nearly
90% of Mountain View’s native habitat has been converted to development and associated vegetation. Oak Savanna and Woodland, which once
sprawled across nearly half of
Mountain View’s footprint, has
now been reduced to five acres
of Oak Woodland along Stevens Creek, and other historical habitat types are nearly or completely lost.

Creek and shoreline modification. Historical creeks have been simplified and disconnected from their floodplains, reducing their functions and
biodiversity support. Tidal
habitats are also fragmented
and occupy only a fraction
of their original extent, with
much of their area converted
to salt ponds.

Potential for restoration. Despite
Mountain View’s urbanization, some
areas retain natural features or have
been restored, particularly near the
shoreline and along Stevens Creek.

Other more heavily-modified sites,
such as Permanente Creek, still have
important potential for restoration
and biodiversity support. Furthermore,
there are strategies laid out in this Plan
to apply knowledge of the historical
ecology both to enhance the habitat
quality of open spaces and to enhance
the quality of urban greening and landscaping. These projects can not only support greater native biodiversity, but
also act as a tool to engage the community and connect them to Mountain View’s historical landscape.

Castro and Front Streets ca. 1900.

Courtesy of California Revealed.

Barney Job Ranch ca. 1900.

Courtesy of California Revealed.

Crittenden Ranch ca. 1880.

Photo by W.N. Collom, courtesy
of California Revealed.
837
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
`
MODERN VEGETATION38
AND CHANNELS39
Vegetation mapping only
includes larger (generally
greater than 0.25 to 0.5
acres) tracts of vegetation, so
not all vegetation is mapped.

UPLAND
Oak Woodland
Oak Savanna
Shrubland

INTRODUCED
Urban Vegetation
Agriculture
Developed

BAYLANDS
Tidal Channel / Open Water
Tidal Marsh
Tidal Flat
Willow Grove
Valley Freshwater Marsh
Perennial Freshwater Pond
Channels

BAYLAND-UPLAND TRANSITION

NO LONGER PRESENT

IN MODERN MAPPING
Oak Savanna
Chaparral
Wet Meadow
Alkali Vegetation
838
18 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

2.2 The City Today
Since its incorporation in 1902, the City of Mountain View has grown as a vibrant city of over 82,000 residents.40 Demographically diverse, nearly half of residents speak a language other than English at home, two-fifths are foreign-born, and nearly three-fourths hold a Bachelor’s degree or higher, with a median household income of $179,917.40 Despite overall prosperity, over one in five residents live in poverty, and several census tracts face high housing and transportation vulnerability.41
As a global corporate hub, tens of thousands more commute to Mountain View for work.42 Situated at the heart of Silicon Valley, many leading high-technology corporations or institutes have also chosen Mountain View to house their corporate headquarters or major offices.

Mountain View is positioned at a vital point of regional connection and transition between the baylands and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Characteristic of the ecoregion, Mountain View experiences a Mediterranean climate of hot dry summers and cool moist winters.

Despite its urban character, Mountain View is home to several key natural resources.

Creeks, including Stevens and Permanente, link the landscape from the Santa Cruz Mountains through Mountain View to the Bay, where several shoreline wetland restoration projects are underway. Shoreline Regional Park’s 750 acres offer important wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities, as do other city parks, including Rengstorff Park, Cuesta Park and Annex, Sylvan, and smaller neighborhood parks.

Castro Street Pedestrian mall. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 839
MOUNTAIN VIEW LANDSCAPE:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
19 Playground at Mora Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

Biker on Stevens Creek Trail.

Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI.

Charleston Retention Basin.

Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI.
840
20 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

2.3 Future Climate Challenges
Mountain View is facing growing climate challenges, including more intense drought, heat, wildfire, sea-level rise, and flooding, which threaten ecological resources, public health, and urban infrastructure.43–55
These potential climate-driven changes present serious risks to Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest. Hotter, drier conditions are expected to stress trees and shift species ranges.56 Trees planted today must withstand changes over the coming decades, and proper urban forest planning can prevent growing risks and management costs. Meanwhile, flooding and erosion could degrade creeks, wetlands, and shoreline habitats.51 Socially-vulnerable communities, who often have less access to green space and tree canopy, will bear the brunt of these impacts, highlighting the need for equitable adaptation strategies.57
Investing in Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest will in turn support the city’s climate adaptation. Advancing nature-based solutions, such as planting trees, restoring coastal ecosystems, and installing green stormwater infrastructure, will pay dividends as the climate shifts. By integrating biodiversity and urban greening into climate adaptation efforts, Mountain View can not only safeguard its ecosystems but also strengthen community health and resilience to future climate extremes.

Walking path near Charleston Retention Basin. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. 841
MOUNTAIN VIEW LANDSCAPE:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Castro Street.

Photo courtesy of
the City of Mountain View.

Charleston Park. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI.

Planting Trees in
Historically-Treeless Landscapes
While much of Mountain View’s landscape historically
supported open habitats such as Wet Meadows and
Oak Savannas with few or no trees (see Section 2.1 The
Historical Landscape), the modern urban context brings
different ecological and social needs. Urban forests
provide a variety of benefits that are important for urban biodiversity and public health, factors that were not
present in the pre-urban landscape. The Plan emphasizes the use of native and ecologically-appropriate species
where possible, but strict adherence to historical vegetation patterns would suggest minimal tree cover in large parts of the city. Striking a balance between recognizing historical landscapes, planting native vegetation, and accommodating the needs of present and future urban conditions is a
crucial component
of creating an
effective and
actionable
plan.
842
3 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
Aerial view of Mountain View, California. Photo by Uladzik Kryhin, courtesy of Adobe Stock. 843
What role does the
urban forest play in the
biodiversity assessment?
The urban forest is a vital component of the urban ecosystem, and the methods to assess
biodiversity and the urban
forest overlap. The biodiversity
assessment considers the role
of tree canopy in connecting
the landscape and providing
food and habitat for native
biodiversity. 3.2 Urban Forest
Assessment dives deeper into
examining tree canopy cover,
public trees managed by the
City, and the multi-benefit role
of an urban forest.
2025 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day
Celebration. Photo courtesy of Canopy.

3.1 Biodiversity Assessment

SEVEN LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS OF

URBAN BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT
The Urban Biodiversity Framework, developed by SFEI in Making Nature’s City, distills global biodiversity research into seven essential landscape elements that foster urban biodiversity.58 Each element plays a distinct and complementary role; together, they offer a holistic approach to fostering biodiversity in the city under a changing climate.

The Plan evaluates each element individually, assessing important existing landscape features and identifying opportunities and constraints for enhancing biodiversity support. This section highlights the key findings that will inform the City’s strategy, including the recommendations proposed in the Plan (see

5.2 Vision to Action) and the urban landscaping Zones (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping).

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
23 844
Seven elements of urban biodiversity, which work together to support healthy and biodiverse urban ecosystems.5 The following table outlines the seven landscape elements of the Urban Biodiversity Framework. Measures for assessing the current conditions in Mountain View are listed under each element.

These resulting maps and assessments are informational. Because priority areas for improvement span across both public and private land, collaboration with other agencies and private landowners may be necessary to implement the suggested improvements. 5.2 Vision to Action applies these results to prioritize Actions that the City can take to meaningfully improve its biodiversity support.

Aerial image of Mountain View centered on Stevens Creek. Photo courtesy of Google Earth. 24 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
845
1 PATCHES • consolidated areas of vegetated green space Patch size Patches grouped by size reflecting the expected degree of biodiversity support Patch core area Amount of interior area that is more sheltered from urban influences and disturbances at the patch “edge”
2 CONNECTIONS • features that facilitate the movement of plants and animals between patches Priority for improving connections Areas where addressing barriers to movement could have the greatest impact on improving landscape connections 3 MATRIX QUALITY • levels of biodiversity support between existing patches and corridors Tree canopy and other
vegetation cover
Amount of tree canopy and other vegetation cover (i.e., shrub and herbaceous vegetation, excluding trees) in the urban matrix Priority areas near patches
and creeks
A score indicating priority areas for matrix quality improvements, based on sites that 1) are located near patches and creek corridors and 2) have low total vegetation cover (including trees, shrubs, and grass) 4 NATIVE VEGETATION • plant species that have a long evolutionary history in the local region Proportion of native riparian
vegetation
Amount of native vegetation in the riparian corridor (creekside vegetation), relative to non-native vegetation or unvegetated area Other mapped native vegetation Mapped areas with consolidated tracts of native vegetation Regionally-native trees (public trees only)
Number, species composition, and location of public trees native to the Bay Area (see “regionally-native species” in Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations)
5 HABITAT DIVERSITY • the type, number, and spatial arrangement of habitats Diversity of habitat types Number of different habitat types and amount of area covered by each, relative to historical conditions
6 SPECIAL RESOURCES • features that can provide uniquely important benefits to wildlife Distribution of water resources Mapped wetlands, open water, and creeks Large, regionally-native oak trees
(public trees only)
Number and locations of regionally-native oak trees in the public tree dataset with over 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) 7 MANAGEMENT • practices that affect the quality of the landscape for biodiversity Artificial light at night and
bird safety
Lighting strategies to minimize impacts on wildlife and building and other structure design to minimize bird collisions
Seasonal management activities Seasonal maintenance strategies to minimize negative impacts on wildlife

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
25 846
• Patches in Mountain View are particularly clustered around the Shoreline and Stevens Creek. • Most patches have limited core area. Larger core areas offer more protected habitat for urbansensitive species. • These patches span both public and private ownership, making patch management complex, particularly along the nearly-continuous Stevens Creek corridor. There are key opportunities to enhance and protect habitat through public land acquisition and improved management agreements.

PATCHES | CONSOLIDATED AREAS OF VEGETATED GREEN SPACE
Cuesta Park pollinator habitat. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 26 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
847

PATCHES
Identified consolidated tracts of vegetation > 2 acres using 2017 land cover data59 and landscapemetrics R package60

PATCH SIZE

IMPORTANCE FOR

BIODIVERSITY COUNT
Small patch
> 2 acres
Generally supports
urban-adapted species 33
Local
biodiversity hub
> 10 acres
Generally supports species moderately tolerant
of urban conditions
17 Regional
biodiversity hub
> 130 acres
Generally supports more
urban-sensitive species
requiring large tracts of
consolidated habitat
2 PATCH SIZE
Patches grouped by size reflecting the
expected level of biodiversity support

PATCH CORE AREA
Amount of interior area that
is more sheltered from urban
influences and disturbances
at the patch “edge”
edge
core 30m
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
848
CONNECTIONS | FEATURES THAT FACILITATE THE

MOVEMENT OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS BETWEEN PATCHES
• Streets and highways are generally the greatest barriers to wildlife movement, both fragmenting the landscape and increasing the risk of wildlife vehicle collisions. • Virtually all of the most important sites for improving connections overlap with bikeways and trails, highlighting opportunities to pair biodiversity-support strategies with other City projects, such as roadway and recreation amenity improvements.
• Stevens Creek is both a major landscape connector for people and wildlife and flanked by a major barrier, California State Route 85. This key corridor deserves more detailed assessments to better understand the threats and opportunities for better connections. • Permanente Creek did not emerge as a priority for improving connections in this analysis, likely due to its current condition, being narrower and less vegetated and having fewer surrounding patches than Stevens Creek. However, other regional analyses have demonstrated its importance for urban wildlife support.61
The City has housing and development projects scheduled in some of these high-priority areas. These results are not intended to impede those projects, and in fact, the projects offer an opportunity to apply strategic landscape improvements in tandem with their design and implementation.

Stevens Creek Trail. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 28 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
849

CONNECTIONS
Used Barrier Mapper62 to analyze 2017 land cover,59 impervious surfaces,63 roads,64 bikeways,65 wetlands, and open water39 Existing bikeways
Funded or
planned bikeways
Trails
Creeks
Patches
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

PRIORITY AREAS FOR

IMPROVING CONNECTIONS
Areas where addressing barriers
to movement could have the
greatest impact on improving
landscape connections
HIGH

PRIORITY
850
MATRIX QUALITY | LEVELS OF BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT

BETWEEN EXISTING PATCHES AND CORRIDORS
“Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Google Headquarters in Mountain View providing urban matrix habitat.

Photo by Henry Zbyszynski, courtesy CC BY 2.0.
• Many of the U.S. Census blocks with the most tree canopy and other vegetation cover are in the inner core of residential areas, further from major highways and commercial zones, demonstrating how residential landscaping and street trees can improve the urban matrix for biodiversity. • The urban matrix surrounding some patches have particularly low tree canopy and vegetation cover, resulting in these patches being more isolated and of potentially lower quality for biodiversity.
• Many gaps in tree and vegetation cover are zoned for mixed-use, commercial, and office/industrial land use, particularly in the western and northern portions of the city, highlighting opportunities for tree planting and landscape improvement projects. 30 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
851

TREE CANOPY AND OTHER

VEGETATION COVER
Amount of tree canopy and other
vegetation (i.e. shrub and herbaceous
vegetation, excluding trees) in the
urban matrix

MATRIX QUALITY
Calculated total canopy and vegetation cover using
2022 land cover66 within U.S. census blocks67
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
Grass and low-lying
vegetation cover
Low High
High
Low
Tree canopy cover
Creeks and channels
Patches
852
• Enhancing vegetation in the urban matrix around patches and water features boosts the ecological value of these resources by buffering against urban disturbances and providing key support for urban-sensitive species.
• The largest high-priority zones for matrix quality improvements surround the Shoreline Regional Park, though all patches and creeks are surrounded by areas in need of improved matrix quality. Matrix quality improvements should be compatible with the adjacent habitat resource being supported and abide by the established ecological guidelines in other governing plans and documents.

MATRIX QUALITY (CONTINUED)
Castro Street in Mountain View.

Photo by Eric Fredericks, courtesy of CC BY-SA 2.0.

Permanente Creek by Crittenden School.

Photo by Dicklyon, courtesy of CC BY-SA 4.0.
t Native flowering plants planted around a parking lot in Mountain View. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. 32 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
853
Analyzed matrix quality, using 2017 land cover data,59
around vegetated patches, creeks, and wetlands39
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
Creeks and channels
Patches

PRIORITY AREAS NEAR

PATCHES AND CREEKS
A score indicating priority areas for matrix
quality improvements, based on sites that:
1) are located near patches
and creek corridors and
2) have low total vegetation cover
(including trees, shrubs, and grass)

VERY HIGH

PRIORITY
HIGH

PRIORITY

MATRIX QUALITY
854
NATIVE VEGETATION | PLANT SPECIES THAT HAVE A LONG

EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY IN THE LOCAL REGION
What “native” means and why it matters
Native vegetation includes plant species that evolved in a particular place and are adapted to its climate, geography, and ecosystems. What is considered “native” always depends on the geographic place and scale being considered, such native to a specific site, city, country, or continent.

Plants native to the local region, such as the Santa Clara Valley, are especially important for supporting local wildlife because of their long co-evolutionary relationships. In cities dominated by ornamental landscaping, native plants are foundational to sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions, including by providing quality habitat, food, and healthy soils.58,70–73 At the same time, as climate conditions change, plant palettes should also account for future climate suitability and vulnerability. Incorporating near-native species, or plants native to a broader geography such as northern and coastal California, all of California, or western North America, can improve resilience while also promoting local biodiversity, especially when those plants play similar ecological roles to regionally-native plants.

In practice, plant selection should reflect project goals. Projects that prioritize biodiversity support should consider including a larger proportion of species native to the local Santa Clara Valley (see Guide B: Plant Lists), particularly plants that uniquely support wildlife with specialized habitat requirements. Other projects with other priorities or more challenging growing conditions may benefit from a more diverse mix of plants native to other nearby regions, such as California or western North America. • Stevens Creek has the greatest native vegetation cover among waterways in the city. Permanente Creek and other smaller channels are largely dominated by non-native vegetation or unvegetated cover, limiting their value for supporting biodiversity, according to the best-available data from 2010.
• Larger, consolidated tracts of native vegetation are mostly found near the shoreline, due largely to habitat restoration projects, like at Charleston Retention Basin and Shoreline Park. While not mapped, smaller plots of native landscaping also provide biodiversity support across the city. • Most publicly-owned or -managed trees that are regionally-native are in parks and open spaces, where larger planting areas promote greater tree size, health, and longevity when paired with adequate maintenance. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) stand out as an exception with extensive planting along major roads, such as the Central Expressway. 3.2 Urban Forest Assessment further examines regionally-native public trees.

Green Sweat Bee on Bush Sunflower.

Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI. 34

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
855
Detail of
Oak Woodland
on map
Detail of
Oak Woodland
on map
Mapping of riparian vegetation,68 public trees,69 other tracts of native vegetation38
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

PROPORTION OF NATIVE

RIPARIAN VEGETATION
Amount of native vegetation in
the riparian corridor (creekside
vegetation), relative to non-native
vegetation or unvegetated area
Stevens Creek
Permanente
Creek
Emergent tidal marsh
Willow grove
Shrubland
Oak woodland
Native Non-native Nonvegetated

OTHER MAPPED NATIVE

VEGETATION
Mapped areas with consolidated tracts of
native vegetation (generally >0.25 acres)

REGIONALLY-NATIVE
TREES
(public trees only)
Number, species
composition, and location of
regionally-native public trees
Regionally-native oaks
Coast redwood
Other regionally-native
tree species

NATIVE VEGETATION
856
Habitat diversity fosters greater
biodiversity, creating spaces for more
species with specialized needs.

The California Vole and Western Pygmy-Blue
butterfly are two species that require special
conditions to thrive in Mountain View.

California Voles spend time in wet meadows and
salt marshes. While populations typically require
habitat patches > 10 acres, they may also subsist in
smaller well-connected patches well-stocked with
the grasses, sedges, and forbs they need for food.

Western Pygmy-Blues are the denizens of tidal
marshes, but with the right salt-tolerant plant
species present they can also live along urban
roadsides and in vacant lots. Planting patches of
salt bush (Atriplex) and salt-tolerant forbs like
Chenopodium for egg-laying and larval food might
just elicit a visit. stocked with the grasses, sedges,
and forbs they need for food.

HABITAT DIVERSITY | THE TYPE, NUMBER, AND SPATIAL

ARRANGEMENT OF HABITATS
• Urbanization has led to ecological homogenization. Comparing historical33 and modern38 vegetation maps shows a large decline in native habitat diversity and shows a large decline in the amount and diversity of native habitat in Mountain View.. • Most remaining vegetated tracts are composed of grasslands, which includes turf and non-native grasslands, with very little representation of other native habitat types. • Reintroducing key elements of historical habitats within parks and open spaces can boost urban biodiversity. For example, turf and non-native grasslands can more closely resemble historical Oak Savanna by boosting tree canopy cover above 10%, particularly with oaks and native trees, and stormwater bioretention units could mimic the ecological functions of Wet Meadow or Willow Grove, as at the restored Charleston Retention Basin.

California vole (top) and Western Pygmy-Blue butterfly (bottom). Photos by Jerry Kirkhart and Renee Grayson, respectively, courtesy of CC BY 2.0.
36 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
857

DIVERSITY OF HABITAT TYPES
Number of different habitat types and amount of
area covered by each, relative to historical conditions MODERN

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
37 HABITAT DIVERSITY
858
SPECIAL RESOURCES | FEATURES THAT CAN PROVIDE

UNIQUELY IMPORTANT BENEFITS TO WILDLIFE
“Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Stevens Creek. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI. • Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek remain important for biodiversity, both despite and because of surrounding dense urban development. Restoration efforts like daylighting stream sections, softening channels, planting trees, and building green infrastructure can improve biodiversity and water quality along riparian corridors. • Mountain View’s coastal water bodies (wetlands, lagoons, Shoreline Lake) provide unique habitats and support rich biodiversity. • Large native oaks, especially when clustered, play a vital role in urban biodiversity by enhancing pollination, facilitating wildlife movement, and mimicking oak woodland habitat that supports many native species.

Permanente Creek by Crittenden School.

Photo by Dicklyon, courtesy of CC BY-SA 4.0.
38 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
859
Mapping of water resources39 and
public trees69
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

DISTRIBUTION OF

WATER RESOURCES
Mapped wetlands, open
water, and creeks
Wetland
Open water
Creek
LARGE, REGIONALLYNATIVE OAK TREES
(public trees only)
Number and locations
of regionally-native oak
trees in the public tree
dataset with over 20 inches
diameter at breast height
< 20”
< 30”
< 40”
> 50”
Creeks and channels
Patches

SPECIAL RESOURCES
860
MANAGEMENT | PRACTICES THAT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF

THE LANDSCAPE FOR BIODIVERSITY
“Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 City tree maintenance crew. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. • Timing the planting and maintenance activities of trees, landscaping, and open space around plant growing seasons and the migration and nesting seasons of native and resident wildlife is important for avoiding unintended negative impacts to biodiversity. The “Seasonal Consideration” section below highlights high-level best practices.
• Mountain View faces increasing heat and drought risks that threaten biodiversity and water availability, making it essential to prioritize drought- and salt-tolerant landscaping and tree species, plant native and near-native species where appropriate, expand water conservation efforts, and adapt to changing climate conditions.
• Elements of the built environment, such as artificial light at night (ALAN), highly reflective windows, and road infrastructure, can also pose major threats to wildlife. Strategic design and management of these features can hugely reduce their impact on biodiversity. 40 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
861
Artificial light at night and window collisions
A growing number of resources and measures are being developed that can help Mountain View reduce artificial light at night and bird collision risk. Key interventions include:

Lighting

1. Reducing the total amount and intensity of lighting

2. Replacing blue lights with yellow or amber lights

3. Directing light only where it is needed (e.g., with shielded fixtures) to prevent light pollution in sensitive habitat areas

4. Blocking light emittance from windows by shading or turning off interior lights, especially during peak bird migration (see the following table)
Building & Structure Design

1. Installing low- or non-reflective materials (e.g., building facades or windows) and avoiding transparent barriers (e.g., clear and solid balcony railings), or retrofitting these surfaces with available treatments to improve visibility

2. Monitoring bird strikes to identify high-collision locations and prioritize action
Sources: 74–82
Several Bay Area cities have incorporated bird safety guidance83,84 or regulations and permitting.85–89 In Mountain View, bird safety requirements are included in both the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the East Whisman Precise Plan. “Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Artificial light at night in the San Francisco Bay Area, shown from the International Space Station in
December 2012. Photo courtesy of ESA/NASA.
862

MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)
WET SEASON | Rainy season triggers the start of seed germination and new growth • Plant new plantings at the start of the wet season to take advantage of natural irrigation and plant germination cycle • Remove invasive plants before seed set
• Incorporate the use of pre-emergent treatments (targetting weeds before they emerge) to help reduce pesticide use to avoid polluting runoff
O
N
D J
F
M
A
M
J J
A
S
DRY SEASON | Some plants begin to die, go dormant, and drop seeds, while other summer-blooming species continue to grow • Water trees and landscaping as they establish
• Established drought-tolerant and native plants should no longer need irrigation
• Use organic pest control in safe and recommended doses • Just before the wet season, prepare sites for planting, including soil health amendments, decompacting soil, site clearing, and lawn removal
D
N
O
S
A
J J
M
A
M
F
J

BIRD BREEDING SEASON
• Schedule tree and shrub maintenance between
September and February (outside of breeding season)
when feasible to reduce impacts to nesting birds90
• Provide and maintain bird baths where feasible
• Retain logs/dying trees for cavity-nesting birds
M
A
M
J J
A
O
N
D J
F
S

SEASONAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY
The shaded graphics indicate when to incorporate specific management actions to minimize wildlife disturbance and increase resources for biodiversity. Months shaded in lighter colors indicate the season typically begins mid-month. 42 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
863

BIRD MIGRATION SEASON
• Minimize the area, proportion, and intensity of lit windows and outdoor lighting during migration, especially during peak spring migration in Mountain View (around the third week of April)91
• Provide native plants with seeds and fruits
• If using bird boxes, place them in the fall or winter, before spring breeding begins, perform annual cleaning and maintenance, and consider placing predator guards O
N
D J
F
M
A
M
J J
A
S

MONARCH BUTTERFLY BREEDING AND

MIGRATION SEASON
• Offer native milkweed (where milkweed is suitable) and a diversity of flowering nectar resources
• Avoid maintenance of Monarch habitat, especially mowing and cutting back milkweed • Avoid applying pesticides, herbicides, and chemical treatments to monarch-supporting landscaping O
N
D J
F
M
A
M
J J
A
S

MONARCH BUTTERFLY OVERWINTERING SEASON
• Provide food resources for overwintering birds and insects:
plant native plants that flower or fruit in the winter, such as coffeeberry, manzanita, and toyon; if using bird feeders, clean and maintain them to avoid transmitting disease
• Minimize clearing leaf litter, which supports soil health and insects, an important food source for overwintering birds • Near Monarch Butterfly and bird overwintering sites, consult with an ecologist to advise wildlife-friendly maintenance O
N
D J
F
M
A
M
J J
A
S

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
43 864

3.2 Urban Forest Assessment
The urban forest is a vital part of creating livable cities for both people and nature. Among their many benefits, trees provide cooling shade, infiltrate stormwater, capture pollutants, promote human health, support insects and birds, and enhance beautiful spaces. Effective urban forest management, through species selection, placement, site preparation, and maintenance, fortifies the health, size, and lifespan of city trees, which in turn maximizes their benefits.

To assess the current state of the City of Mountain View’s urban forest, this section examines the following elements of urban forest health, value, and resilience:

TREE CANOPY COVER • the area covered by tree leaves, branches, and stems Mapping tree canopy cover, expressed as the percent of land area covered by trees, across public and private spaces helps identify areas in need of greater tree canopy to allocate resources effectively.

These analyses used a land cover dataset representing conditions in 202266 and a 2021 dataset estimating potential available planting space, which coarsely excludes impervious cover, bare soil, and areas with active uses like fields and utility corridors.92 Because the available planting space assessment does not account for site-specific conditions or land ownership, further local assessments are required to further assess feasibility. The Baylands and Shoreline Park were largely excluded from tree canopy analyses (see “Special Considerations for the Baylands and Shoreline Park” below for more information).

Birds-eye view illustration of the tree canopy cover. Tree canopy cover shown here includes both private and public trees, in a neighborhood of Mountain View.

Tree canopy cover
44 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
865
PUBLIC TREE COMPOSITION • the number, type, and size of trees owned or managed by the City, largely on parks, streets, or City property
The City tracks its public trees, recording each tree’s species, size, and location. The public tree dataset excludes private trees, such as those within schoolyards, residential backyards and commercial landscaping.

This assessment analyzes the composition, distribution, and planting patterns of public trees across the city.

THREATS TO THE URBAN FOREST • critical urban forestry threats and opportunities This section identifies some of the most prominent urban forest stressors that are important to manage and mitigate.

BENEFITS OF TREES • summary of expected benefits from Mountain View’s trees While all trees in the urban forest provide benefits, the quantitative component of this assessment focuses only on public trees due to data availability. Other benefits not quantified are also described. The results provide guidance for how to best manage the urban forest and ensure its long-term viability in the city.

Important differences between public and private trees
Private trees—those on privately-owned and -managed land—contribute uniquely to the urban forest’s diversity and benefits. Within a single city, public and private trees have been found to differ greatly in species richness, size, and abundance.93 Nevertheless, the vast majority of municipal tree inventories, including Mountain View’s, only survey public trees.

Collecting detailed data on private trees is more challenging and costly.

The City manages less than half (roughly two-fifths) of Mountain View’s tree canopy cover, including public trees that are privately-owned and publicly-managed, while the rest is privately managed. This relatively even split between public and private stewardship of the city’s tree canopy underscores the vital role of bolstering both the City’s urban forestry efforts and enhanced community partnership and communication. While the Tree Canopy Assessment examines tree canopy cover found on both private and public land, the Public Tree Assessment and Benefits of Public Trees are only able to evaluate the composition of public trees and the benefits they provide with the available public tree data.

It is valuable for the City to understand the health and composition of its public trees, which the City has the autonomy to manage and plan for future plantings. The City is also committed to supporting the private sphere of its urban forest, such as through tree distribution programs, education, and outreach, as discussed further in 5.2 Vision to Action. Although this Plan is not able to examine private trees with the same level of detail, the health and management of private trees are of great value and interest to the city, as people and biodiversity both benefit greatly from trees on private land.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
45 866

TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
Mountain View and its Neighborhoods
• The City’s canopy cover has increased by nearly two percentage points since the 2013 estimates published in the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan.94 The recent 2022 tree canopy cover estimate is based on the most up-to-date land cover data available.66 2013 2017 2022

17.7% 18.9% 19.5%
Sources: 59,66,94
• As an urbanized city with goals and mandates to further increase density and housing, canopy cover aspirations must remain balanced with other priorities. Aligning tree planting, care, and protection with broader goals will help the city maximize tree health, longevity, and benefits for both nature and the community, while poor coordination risks undermining past and future investments.

Special tree-planting considerations for the
Baylands and Shoreline Park
The Baylands and Shoreline Park have a unique
set of circumstances influencing tree-planting
opportunities and goals:
• The natural shoreline historically had very
few trees (see 2.1 History), so habitat
management goals will often exclude treeplanting.
• Trees often provide critical habitat for sensitive
species, but the Park’s proximity to the shoreline
poses limitations, where trees’ potential to create
perches for predators increases the risks of predation on other vulnerable tidal marsh species.
• The park’s location atop a closed landfill and its use as a golf course also greatly reduce the potential for tree planting.

For these reasons, the Baylands and Shoreline Park have been largely excluded from tree canopy analyses. The City’s Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan provides guidance on how to manage these tradeoffs specific to the shoreline’s natural resources.10 Shoreline
Park. Photo
by Don DeBold,
courtesy of CC BY 2.0.
46 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
867
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
Tree canopy cover

TREE CANOPY COVER
Tree canopy cover within
Mountain View’s core
neighborhoods in 2022 66

TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
868
Comparison of tree canopy cover among the city’s parks, excluding Shoreline Park, listed in descending order of total tree canopy cover by area. Mora, Evandale, Fayette Greenway, and Fayette parks all opened after November 2020. Evelyn and Villa-Chiquita mini parks are not included, as they opened after the Plan was drafted.

Parks
• The city’s 36 parks (excluding school fields) offer strong opportunities to plant trees for shade, recreation, and biodiversity support.
• Parks across the city average 39.1% tree canopy cover, without accounting for their size, ranging greatly from no detectable canopy cover in the recently-opened Fayette Park (opened 2023) to

74.3% canopy cover in Creekside Park.
• Park size, function, and location influence available plantable space. For example, parks with extensive high-use recreational turf or play areas, such as Del Medio Park, may accommodate less tree-planting than more naturalized parks with walking trails, like Cuesta Park and Annex. 48 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
869
Schools
• Trees provide shaded places for children to play and are associated with numerous health benefits and improved student performance, making examining canopy cover on public school grounds essential. As the owner of school campuses, the school district is responsible for the planting and maintenance of trees on school properties and ultimately determines all maintenance and programming on school fields and recreational areas. Nevertheless, the City plays a significant role by maintaining and programming these shared-use spaces. The school district’s Outdoor Learning Project, which aims to expand green spaces and enhance outdoor learning environments across campuses, is expected to move into construction in summer 2026, further underscoring the importance of planning for future canopy needs.
• On average, public schools in Mountain View have 14.4% tree canopy cover, which is 5.1% less than the city average.

Comparison of tree canopy cover among the City’s public school and school field locations. Schools and school fields are listed in descending order of tree canopy cover in acres.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
49 870
Public Property
• City-owned or managed parcels across Mountain View (e.g., civic facilities, trails, and public rights-of-way) offer important opportunities to expand tree canopy, since the City can implement tree planting on these parcels without private property constraints. • Across the city, average tree canopy cover on public property is 19.5%, about 1.7% less than that for private property (21.2%).
• Strategically increasing tree canopy on public parcels with low existing canopy and high available space can enhance ecological connectivity and distribute benefits across all neighborhoods. “Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 View from arborist’s point of view during routine tree maintenance. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 50 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
871

TREE CANOPY COVER AND

AVAILABLE PLANTING SPACE

ON PUBLIC PARCELS
The relationship between existing
canopy cover in 2022 and available
planting space for publicly-owned or
managed parcels throughout the city
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
Available planting
space
Low
(<5%)
High
(>10%)
High
(>40%)
Low
(<20%)
Existing canopy cover
872
Land Use Designations
• The City of Mountain View’s 2030 General Plan maps 24 unique land use designations in five major categories: Residential, Commercial, Office/Industrial, Mixed-Use, and Public/Institutional.
• Residential areas have the highest average tree canopy cover in Mountain View, while Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Office/Industrial fall below the city average.

Volunteers planting a street tree in Mountain View. Photo courtesy of Canopy.

Tree canopy over Mountain View Community Center.

Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

Tree canopy on Google Campus.

Photo by Marcin Wichary, courtesy of CC BY 2.0.
52 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
873

GROUPING
CANOPY
COVER %
LAND
AREA %*

RESIDENTIAL (R)
Low-Density R
Medium-Low Density R
Medium-Density R
Medium-High Density R
High-Low Density R
High-Density R
Mobile Home R

23.7% 55.0%

PUBLIC /

INSTITUTIONAL
Regional Park
Institutional
Parks, Schools, & City
Facilities

20.7% 13.4%

OFFICE / INDUSTRIAL
Office
High-Intensity Office
General Industrial

18.3% 15.2%

MIXED-USE (MU)
Neighborhood MU
General MU
East-Whisman MU
North Bayshore MU
MU Center
MU Center North
Bayshore
Downtown MU
MU Corridor

17.0% 14.2%

COMMERCIAL (C)
General C
Industrial / Regional C
Neighborhood C

9.3% 2.2%
*Excludes Baylands
and Shoreline Park
Mountain View 2030 General Plan Land Use
Designations and associated tree canopy cover and
proportion of the city’s total area by land use group.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
53 874

PUBLIC TREE COMPOSITION
The City keeps a dataset of its publicly-owned and -managed trees to help track, maintain, and strategically enhance its Public Trees. The most recent comprehensive inventory of the city’s public trees was conducted in 201569 and was used to assess the condition of the urban forest in the City’s prior 2015 Community Tree Master Plan.94 Since then, the City has opportunistically updated the dataset as trees are planted, maintained, or removed, but a full inventory has not been repeated, resulting in gaps and inconsistencies that should be considered when interpreting these results.

The Public Tree Asset Dataset (“public tree dataset”) is essential for assessing the composition and health of the public urban forest, providing insights on both current conditions and potential future changes. Records with species-level information were categorized as regionally-native to the Bay Area ecoregion and/or native to California using myriad sources,1,3-5 described further in Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations.

Balancing the legacy of Redwoods in a
changing climate
Coast Redwoods are iconic trees that offer notable
environmental, aesthetic, and cultural benefits. In Mountain View, however, they pose a unique management challenge. While native to the broader Bay Area, redwoods were not a part of the city’s historical landscape (see 2.1 The Historical Landscape). Today, they are the most common public tree in Mountain View, yet they
are poorly suited to urban conditions. Redwoods require heavy irrigation, are sensitive to recycled water and heat stress, and are especially vulnerable to changing climate conditions.

Given these concerns, it is in the best interest of Mountain View’s urban forest not to plant new redwoods. Existing redwoods should be retained as long as their health and structural integrity allow. When removal becomes
necessary, they should be replaced with large-canopy,
climate-resilient species that can provide similar environmental and community benefits, and are better suited to urban and future climate conditions, such as the multiple large-canopied tree species listed in Guide B: Plant Lists. “Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Redwood grove. Photo by Sheila Sund, courtesy of CC BY 2.0. 54 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
875
Species Composition
most common species overall
• Mountain View’s public tree inventory grew by 5.4 percentage points since 2015, increasing from 26,166 to 27,591 trees, and now includes 246 species and cultivars. • The top ten most common species—led by Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) at 9.6%— make up 55.0% of all public trees, with recent shifts in species composition including the addition of Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana) and Red Maple (Acer rubrum). • While the urban forest remains within the minimum recommended diversity limits (no more than 10% per species, 20% per genus, 30% per family),95 Coast Redwood and London Plane Tree (Platanus x acerifolia) are approaching the species threshold.

Table of the top 10 most common public trees in the city.

Common name Scientific name # of individuals % of public trees Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2,655 9.6%
London Plane Tree Platanus x acerifolia 2,509 9.1%
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis 2,195 8.0%
American Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1,474 5.3%
Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 1,465 5.3%
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 1,378 5.0%
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 1,025 3.7%
Callery Pear Pyrus calleryana 907 3.3%
Canary Island Pine Pinus canariensis 782 2.8%
Red Maple Acer rubrum 781 2.8%
Total 15,171
Percent of all public trees 55.0%
Percent of all Trees 55.0%

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
55 876
native species
• Regionally-native and California-native tree species make up 14.7% of all public trees. • Coast Redwood is the only native species among the top ten most common public tree species and represents 74.5% of the regionally-native species in the city. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia; 13.5%) and Valley Oak (Q. lobata; 2.9%) are the second- and third-most common regionally-native public trees, respectively. Sixteen species make up the remaining nine percent of regionally-native public trees, which are found mostly in parks. • Nine regionally-native species promoted in the Updated City Tree List are not recorded in the public tree dataset (see Guide B: Plant Lists).

Percentage of public trees in the city, by native species status. Regionally-native are those native to the San Francisco Bay Area subregion and Central Coast region of the California Floristic Province, as determined by Jepson eFlora’s bioregion classification.2 The list of regionally-native species was further refined and corroborated by considering species native to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion of Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains regions according to the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Database; SelecTree database from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; and Calscape, the California Native Plant Society native plants database.1,3-5
Native status # of trees % of public trees # of species Non-native 23,253 84.3% 207
Regionally-native 3,565 12.9% 19
Other California native 497 1.8% 10
Unknown species
identification
276 1.0% N/A
“Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Oak in Cuesta Annex. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 56 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
877
Common name Scientific name # of public
trees
% of regionallynative public trees% of public
trees
Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2,655 74.5% 9.6%
Coast Live Oak* Quercus agrifolia 482 13.5% 1.7%
Valley Oak* Quercus lobata 104 2.9% 0.4%
California Buckeye* Aesculus californica 73 2.0% 0.3%
Northern California Black
Walnut
Juglans hindsii 62 1.7% 0.2%
Western Redbud* Cercis occidentalis 58 1.6% 0.2%
Western Sycamore* Platanus racemosa 36 1.0% 0.1%
Bay Laurel* Umbellularia californica 25 0.7% 0.1%
Box Elder* Acer negundo 17 0.5% 0.1%
White Alder Alnus rhombifolia 11 0.3% <0.1%
Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 10 0.3% <0.1%
Interior Live Oak* Quercus wislizeni 9 0.3% <0.1%
Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii 6 0.2% <0.1%
Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 0.1% <0.1%
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 3 0.1% <0.1%
Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 3 0.1% <0.1%
Hollyleaf Cherry Prunus ilicifolia 3 0.1% <0.1%
Blue Elderberry Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea 2 0.1% <0.1% Tanoak Notholithocarpus densiflorus 1 0.1% <0.1%
Other regionally-native species in Updated City Tree
List: Blue Oak* (Quercus douglasii), Canyon Live Oak*
(Q. chrysolepis), Oregon Oak* (Q. garryana), Oregon
Ash* (Fraxinus latifolia), Fremont Cottonwood* (Populus fremontii), Red Willow* (Salix laevigata), Shining Willow* (Salix lasiandra), Arroyo Willow* (S. lasiolepis), and Sitka Willow* (S. sitchensis)
0 0% 0%
Total 3,565
Percent of all Public Trees 12.9%
* Species listed in Updated City Tree List in Guide B: Plant Lists Regionally-native tree species in the public tree dataset. Nineteen species in the public tree dataset are regionallynative. Nine species that are both regionally-native and recommended in the Updated City Tree List were not recorded in the public tree dataset (Guide B: Plant Lists).

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
57 878
invasive species
• Invasive species make up 9.1% of Mountain View’s public trees, with 21 species totaling 2,512 individuals identified by the California Invasive Plant Council. • Five species are rated as a “Moderate” risk of invasiveness due to their ecological impacts and spread potential, accounting for 12.4% of all invasive individuals.

Complete table of invasive tree species in the public tree dataset. Includes invasive ratings—ranging from lowest (Limited) to highest (High)—and plants at high risk for becoming invasive (Watch) as determined by the California Invasive Plant Council.96 Common name Scientific name Invasive rating # of trees % of invasive individuals
Callery Pear Pyrus calleryana Watch 907 36.1%
Cherry Plum Prunus cerasifera Limited 414 16.5%
Peruvian Peppertree Schinus molle Limited 208 8.3%
Mexican Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta Moderate 161 6.4% Glossy Privet Ligustrum lucidum Limited 118 4.7%
Mayten Maytenus boaria Watch 115 4.6%
Chinese Tallow Triadica sebifera Moderate 95 3.8%
Common Olive Olea europaea Limited 84 3.3%
Silk Oak Grevillea robusta Watch 74 3.0%
Canary Island Date
Palm
Phoenix canariensis Limited 65 2.6%
Blue Gum Eucalyptus globulus Limited 64 2.5%
Australian BlackwoodAcacia melanoxylon Limited 41 1.6% Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Limited 33 1.3%
Cootamundra
Wattle
Acacia baileyana Watch 31 1.2%
Victorian Box Pittosporum undulatum Watch 23 0.9%
Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Moderate 23 0.9%
Brazilian Pepper Tree Schinus terebinthifolius Moderate 19 0.8% River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Limited 17 0.7%
Common Fig Ficus carica Limited 13 0.5%
Total 2,512
Percentage of public tree dataset 9.1%
58 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
879
Size Class Distribution
all public trees
• Maintaining trees of all ages is vital to sustaining a healthy, resilient urban forest.

Older trees provide immediate benefits, while younger trees will grow to provide canopy cover in the future. Without enough younger trees to replace aging ones, dramatic canopy losses can occur suddenly when many older trees decline and are removed within a short period.
• Tree size, measured as diameter at breast height (DBH), was used as a proxy for age.

Trees missing DBH records (4,215 trees) were excluded.
• Relative to recommended standards, the overall size distribution of Mountain View’s public trees is relatively on target.
97 Though largely on track, public trees skew slightly
smaller, and therefore younger, than the ideal, with over half of trees under 8 inches in DBH. With care and protection, these younger trees prepare the city for a larger urban forest in the future.
• Meanwhile, the proportion of larger trees (over 24 inches in DBH), whose larger canopies provide greater cooling, health, and biodiversity benefits, is slightly below the ideal target. The City should continue prioritizing the protection of its larger public trees, which offer greater environmental benefits and are not easily replaced.

Distribution of public tree sizes, grouped into 4-inch intervals, compared to a commonly-referenced target size distribution (overlaid as a generalized reference line), which recommends that 40% of trees should have DBH values less than 8 inches, 30% between 8-16 inches, 20% between 16-24 inches, and 10% larger than 24 inches.97

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
59 880
size by native status
• Native and non-native trees differ in size distribution. Only ~3% of all small public trees (≤8” DBH) are native, while native species are more common among trees over 24” DBH, indicating an aging native tree population. • Planting more native trees where appropriate and monitoring the native-to-nonnative ratio can help the city sustain its native tree presence and local biodiversity and avoid unintentional long-term replacement by non-native species.

Distribution of public tree sizes, grouped into 4-inch intervals, according to their native status: regionally-native, other California-native, and non-native. This distribution is compared to a commonly-referenced target size distribution, overlaid as the dashed generalized reference line.97
60 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
881

THREATS TO THE URBAN FOREST
Many urban and environmental stressors can cause widespread decline in the urban forest’s health, value, and resilience. This section examines some of the most prominent threats. These stressors are likely to intensify and interact over time, magnifying their impact into the future. This assessment highlights the urgent need for proactive, well-funded urban forest management to protect tree health and preserve their benefits for current and future generations.

Various pathogens and pests pose some of the biggest threats to the health and sustainability of the urban forest, with the risk of outbreaks growing as the climate continues to change.

Sudden Oak Death (SOD), caused by Phytophthora ramorum, has caused widespread oak mortality in the Bay Area. Among the many oak and plant species that are susceptible, Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Black Oak (Q. kelloggii) are particularly vulnerable.

Bark beetles, including Dendroctonus species, continue to pose a significant threat to trees in the region, particularly during periods of drought, affecting conifer species such as Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Coulter Pine (Coulter pine).

Invasive Shot Hole Borer (ISHB; Euwallacea spp.), recently found near San Jose, is an emerging threat to the city’s urban forest and the surrounding Bay Area. California-native trees, such as Box Elder (Acer negundo) and Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and other common ornamental species are susceptible.

Climate change introduces both acute (e.g., storms, heatwaves) and chronic (e.g., drought) stressors that can weaken trees and make them more vulnerable to pests and disease.

Recent major storms have strained the city’s tree maintenance budget, diverting resources from proactive tree care. Upfront investment is needed to recover from the City’s maintenance backlog and establish a proactive maintenance cycle to ensure the city’s public trees are healthier, longer-living, and better able to withstand future storm events.

Development is a city priority, but planning development without sufficient planting space or tree protections can also contribute to declining tree health, greater tree removal, and reduced opportunities to expand the urban forest. Development standards, such as minimum tree cover requirements, minimum soil volumes, and structural soil provisions, can help the City meet its goals in both building more housing and advancing the health and growth of the urban forest.

Reactive tree care and infrequent monitoring increase risk of disease and tree mortality, leading to higher maintenance costs, more removals, and greater safety liabilities over time.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
61 882

BENEFITS OF TREES
Proper management of Mountain View’s urban forest is vital because of the immense and diverse value its public trees bring the community. This assessment describes some of the many benefits and services that Mountain View’s urban forest provides, in addition to biodiversity support. The list of benefits highlighted here is not exhaustive, but underscores the far-reaching importance of trees in the city.

While all urban trees provide benefits, this assessment was able to quantify a subset of benefits provided by public trees (City-owned or -managed), using the i-Tree Eco tool98 to analyze the city’s public tree dataset. These value estimates are based on public tree species and size records and may be undervalued—with over 15% of tree records missing tree species or size data. Conservative assumptions were used to avoid over-estimating the benefits provided. Improved data quality and more frequent updates will increase accuracy in the future.

A range of other benefits is also listed to demonstrate that trees provide much more value than can be easily quantified using readily-available tools. Details about these benefits are supported by well-vetted research.

Quantified Benefits of Mountain View’s Public Trees
estimated using the i-Tree Eco tool
REPLACEMENT VALUE • the likely cumulative cost of replacing (replanting) each tree with one of the same size and health
$83.7M
($3K per tree)
HOW TO IMPROVE REPLACEMENT VALUE: Frequent and prudent maintenance can increase tree value and benefits, improve tree health and longevity, and reduce maintenance, removal, and replacement costs.

CARBON STORAGE • carbon stored in the tree’s woody matter (e.g., trunk, branches, and roots) 9,323 tons
($4.03M)
CARBON SEQUESTRATION • carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere and converted to biomass
342 tons
($148K) per year
HOW TO IMPROVE CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND STORAGE: Older and large trees tend to sequester and store more carbon. Planting more trees and promoting tree health, size and growing space, protection, and longevity will keep more carbon stored in the city’s urban forest.

AVOIDED RUNOFF • stormwater runoff that trees slow, absorb, and filter 1.96M gal ($17.5K) per year
HOW TO IMPROVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Planting more trees, especially evergreen trees and those with large, dense canopies, around paved and flood-prone areas can help intercept rainfall and infiltrate stormwater runoff, especially when paired with other forms of green stormwater infrastructure.

OXYGEN PRODUCTION • amount of oxygen trees produce each year 912 tons per year 62 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
883
Other Benefits of Mountain View’s Public Trees

HUMAN HEALTH, WELLBEING, AND RECREATION
Trees improve air quality by filtering pollutants linked to cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases;99,100 a 10% increase in canopy cover is associated with a 10% reduction in asthma.101 Tree-lined neighborhoods support walkability and physical activity, leading to lower obesity and improved health;101,102 a 10% increase in canopy cover is linked to a 55% rise in recreational walking.103 Exposure to urban trees enhances mental wellbeing, reducing stress, depression, and anxiety, and is linked to fewer antidepressant prescriptions.104-107

HEAT MITIGATION & BUILDING ENERGY USE
Urban trees cool cities—especially when canopy cover exceeds 30–40%—by providing shade and improving outdoor thermal comfort, as well as reducing building energy use.108-111 Urban forest cooling helps prevent heat-related injury,100 especially during intensifying climate change-driven heatwaves.112 CHILDREN’S ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Tree canopy on school grounds may boost academic performance, especially for students in underserved communities.113-114

TRAFFIC CALMING AND SAFETY
Street trees can slow traffic and improve safety by visually narrowing roadways, enhancing drivers’ perception of spatial boundaries, and reducing crashes and injury severity.102,115-117

ECONOMY, SAFETY, AND MORE
Trees increase property values, business appeal, and public safety, while also reducing crime and extending pavement life—benefits that highlight the broad value of the city’s urban forest.118-123 “Lighter Than Air” by Ian Abbott, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 2025 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day. Photo courtesy of Canopy.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
63 884

3.3 Policies, Guidance, and Protections
A number of existing policies and resources protect and enhance the natural components of Mountain View’s urban ecosystem. Both regional and local guidelines have played an important role in shaping how the city grows while preserving vital green space, habitat, and tree canopy. This section highlights key policies, guidance, and protections that support Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest. Due to the large number of documents discussed, this section refers to the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan, rather than “the Plan.” “Water, Treated” by Ian Abbott, CC BY 4.0 2025 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day. Photo courtesy of Canopy. 64 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
885

REGIONAL GUIDANCE
The following policies and documents guide, shape, and facilitate conservation of natural resources and urban environments in the region.

Conservation and Natural Resources
• Conservation Lands Network 2.0124 (CLN) is a science-based regional conservation plan developed by the Bay Area Open Space Council (now Together Bay Area). Its primary purpose is to guide conservation investments and land use planning by public agencies, land trusts, and local governments. Its analyses and target-setting previously focused outside of dense urban environments, but the upcoming CLN 3.0 will offer new strategies for the Bay Area’s urban realm. The CLN Explorer Reporting Tool identifies the Mountain View shoreline’s important role in supporting broad, regional habitat connectivity and conservation success. Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek are identified as Priority 2 conservation stream targets, and Stevens Creek is predicted to have particularly high species richness according to the recent CLN Connecting Urban Biodiversity analysis.61
• Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan,
125 with an update anticipated for 2025, is a 50-year
regional plan to protect 18 species and their associated habitats. The plan identifies County priorities for management and monitoring of these species. Although the City of Mountain View is not within the plan’s primary area, its shoreline lies partly within the plan’s conservation zone for the Western Burrowing Owl, where the plan notes “Moderate-High” potential to increase the nesting population in the shoreline area, and identifies Shoreline Park as a site of high regional importance for the species. The Western Burrowing Owl is temporarily protected as a candidate species for protection under the California Endangered Species Act; protections will become permanent if it is selected. • The Santa Clara County Climate Collaborative (SC4) Strategic Plan126 sets out a plan whereby its group of diverse stakeholders will build a county-wide network, attract regional funding, and build political will and capacity to combat climate change and protect people and the environment. Four major impact areas are identified: empower communities to build resilience to climate change, achieve net zero emissions, prepare communities for extreme heat and impaired air quality, and eliminate risk from flooding and rising seas. The SC4 includes dozens of regional organizations and public agencies, including the City of Mountain View.
• Historical Vegetation And Drainage Patterns Of Western Santa Clara Valley33 is a technical memorandum describing the historical ecological landscape of the western Santa Clara Valley, including Mountain View situated within the Lower Peninsula Watershed Management Area. The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan uses this report to assess landscape change in Mountain View (see 2.1 History). • With regard to stormwater, the City of Mountain View is a participating municipality in the Water Resources Protection Collaborative, which adopted Valley Water’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resource in Santa Clara County in 2007.127 This resource guides land use in and around stream resources, through various

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
65 886
recommendations and requirements, which are incorporated into various City ordinances and processes. The document is referenced in Guide A: Urban Landscaping. The City of Mountain View is also a participating member in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), and green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) efforts in the city are guided by SCVURPPP’s 2019 Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan.
128
• San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas129 is a report proposing a science-based framework of 30 Operational Landscape Units (OLU) for cross-jurisdictional management and climate resilience and adaptation planning along Bay Area shorelines. Mountain View’s shoreline falls within the Stevens OLU, which also includes Moffett Federal Airfield and Mountain View’s neighboring cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale. The shared historical conditions and modern challenges within the Stevens OLU present opportunities for cooperation and collaboration between Mountain View and its neighbors. The San Francisco Baylands Resilience Metrics Mapbook130 offers further insight into Stevens OLU, and the forthcoming Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan will provide further guidance on required shoreline planning in Mountain View.

Urban Environments
• Urban Ecological Planning Guide for Santa Clara Valley12 is a planning and design guide to support urban biodiversity planning across the Santa Clara Valley. The guide is relevant to Mountain View’s site-scale and city-scale strategies for habitat creation, connectivity, and resilient, multifunctional green spaces. The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan’s Native Plant List provided in Guide B: Plant Lists was derived from this earlier document. • Re-Oaking Silicon Valley11 highlights strategies and potential benefits of reintroducing native oak habitats to Silicon Valley. The report combines historical and urban ecological research and landscape design guidance, identifying strategies for creating, expanding, and supporting sustainable, healthy urban oak populations. Several strategies related to site selection, appropriate species choice, and long-term stewardship have been incorporated into Guide A: Urban Landscaping of the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan. Oaks in the region are further protected by State laws and County guidance. The County of Santa Clara has recently proposed an amendment on an oak removal ordinance. While this would be enforced only in unincorporated areas of the County, it would strengthen protections for oaks in the region and could serve as a model for the City.
• Santa Clara County is producing a Santa Clara County Urban Forest Master Plan to navigate development and stewardship of trees and green space across the county. The County plan will identify urban forest priorities, challenges, and strategies to address county-level priorities. Its analysis will include Mountain View, and the development of this county-wide resource will offer Mountain View important regional context and funding partnership opportunities, as the City implements the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan. The City is involved in the development of the Santa Clara County Urban Forest Master Plan, including through participation in the Santa Clara County Urban Forestry Alliance (a work group of the Santa Clara County Climate Collaborative). 66 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
887

CITY PLANS AND POLICIES
The City has a longstanding commitment to its urban forest, dating back to its first tree care ordinances in the 1960s. Below is an overview of existing plans and policies that influence its biodiversity and urban forest in the city, and their relationship to the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan.

General Plan
Mountain View’s 2030 General Plan131 provides Goals and Policies to guide overall changes in the city to achieve its long-term vision, propagating to regulations such as zoning.

The General Plan recognizes the importance of native species and protection of the city’s sensitive habitat areas, particularly along the shoreline and local creeks, and in the North Bayshore Change Area. It calls for preserving habitat and species as part of an integrated watershed management approach, integration of green infrastructure including green roofs, native landscaping, green street design (such as bioswales and bioretention). The General Plan highlights major policies relating to trees, gardens, and landscaping in Mountain View, including the Heritage Tree Ordinance (see below).
mandated updates: Two recent California Senate bills will require open space and wildlife planning updates in the near future:
• SB 1425 Advancing Climate Resilience through Open Space Updates requires that general plan elements provide for equitable open space access from a social, economic, and racial equity perspective; climate resilience and other open space benefits; and rewilding opportunities to preserve and enhance natural ecosystems and coordinate mitigation of development impacts. Changes related to SB 1425 are required by January 1, 2026. • AB 1889 Enhancing Wildlife Movement and Connectivity Planning calls for a wildlife connectivity element, and requires that the conservation element consider the impact of development on habitat connections, including identifying connections, permeability, and natural landscapes. AB 1889 importantly recognizes the link between human-dominated environments, climate change, ecosystem resilience, and the public interest, and requires the incorporation of wildlife-friendly measures into standards, policies, and zoning.

Changes related to AB 1889 will be required as of Mountain View’s next General Plan update.
relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: Many elements of the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan directly support the General Plan’s Goals and Policies on Water, Wastewater and Stormwater; Climate Change; Green Building; Species and Habitat; Watershed and Floodplain Management; Integrated Pest Management; Streetscapes and Public Spaces; Sustainable Building Design and Development, and Park and Open Space.

Goals and policies for the North Bayshore Change Area—particularly those around sustainability and wildlife friendly development—are also in line with the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan. The Vision, Goals, and Objectives of the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan align with the anticipated General Plan Updates; the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan will particularly support the updates through the analyses in 3.1 Biodiversity Assessment and many of its Actions and Metrics in Chapter 5 The Plan: Charting the Path.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
67 888
Urban Forest Guidance
The City of Mountain View Community Tree Master Plan 2015 (CTMP) is superseded by the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan. The CTMP was adopted in 2015.94 The CTMP provides a comprehensive 10-year strategy through 2025 to guide preservation, management, and expansion of Mountain View’s “community trees”, i.e., publicly-managed trees on streets, in parks, and at City facilities. The CTMP provides context and builds on Mountain View’s prior urban forestry milestones, including its Tree Ordinance, the City’s first Urban Forestry Management Plan (2007), and the City’s induction into National Arbor Day Foundation’s Tree City USA program (2001). The document also outlines specific objectives for sustainability, species diversity, and increased canopy, with a canopy cover goal of 22.7% by 2030 and other benchmarks for progress.
relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan replaces the CTMP, providing an updated vision and plan for nature in Mountain View that addresses the urban forest in the context of overall biodiversity and urban ecology as a way to meet community needs and priorities. 5.3 Metrics and Targets revisits certain quantitative urban forest benchmarks set by the 2015 CTMP, and provides status updates on these goals.

Ordinances (see Mountain View City Code)
Tree regulations: Tree protections are conferred by the City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances, Chapter 32 - Trees, Shrubs and Plants (“Tree Ordinance”). Article I of the Tree Ordinance provides authority to Parks and Recreation (Sec. 32.3) to plan for, plant, and protect street trees and shrubs. Article I also prevents the City from trimming or removing plants on private property (with specific exceptions), and describes the process for issuing notice to private property owners if such work is planned (Sec. 32.13). Sec. 3.2.14-16 addresses liability, watering responsibilities, and the process for plants that become a public nuisance. Article II - Protection of the Urban Forest (“Heritage Tree Ordinance”) aims to protect valuable trees in Mountain View.

The Heritage Tree Ordinance defines Heritage Trees by size (trunk circumference), with special protections for Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) trees as well as trees declared to be of special value by resolution of City Council.

Other biodiversity-relevant regulations: Mountain View’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 41 Park Land Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof) provides for a land requirement (Sec. 41.5) of three acres of parks and recreational facilities for each one thousand residents.

Table 41.11 defines maintained natural habitat space in the context of privately-owned publicly-accessible (POPA) open space credits. In the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 Zoning), Article X Parking and Loading includes landscaping requirements for parking and loading areas (Sec. 36.32.80.f). Article XI Landscaping sets forth objectives of City landscaping regulations, including aesthetics and land use compatibility, as well as water conservation and public wellbeing. Removal of healthy trees is discouraged (Sec. 36.34.25), and the chapter defers to Chapter 32 regarding Heritage Trees.
relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan aligns with the Mountain View City Code, and ordinance amendments can further facilitate its implementation.
68 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
889
Local Wildlife
Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan10 (SWMP)provides a comprehensive framework for managing and enhancing biodiversity within the 750-acre shoreline area of Mountain View and ecologically important sites outside of Shoreline but within the North Bayshore area. The plan outlines adaptive management strategies to support special status species and nesting birds, while supporting compatible public use and infrastructure for the closed landfill and other utilities.
relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: This document defers to the SWMP within its planning area, and aligns with the City’s Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. Its detailed, habitat-specific recommendations complement the Actions in 5.2 Vision to Action and Guide A: Urban Landscaping offered in the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan.
2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan132 outlines a long-term strategy by the City of Mountain View to protect and sustain the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) population at Shoreline. The Western Burrowing Owl (A. c. hypugaea), which resides at Shoreline at Mountain View and other portions of Santa Clara County, is a special-status species. This plan replaced the City’s 1998 Burrowing Owl Management Plan and establishes a structured, holistic approach to owl conservation within a multi-use park setting. The plan provides targeted, species-specific guidance that complements the City’s broader biodiversity goals, particularly in protecting at-risk terrestrial species and managing grassland ecosystems. relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: This document defers to the Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. The City has made important progress since its inception, and the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan encourages continued, similar efforts.

Burrowing Owl. Photo by Alan Schmierer, courtesy of CC0.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
69 890
Schoolyard Greening
In 2023, Mountain View Whisman School District passed the Climate Change and Green Schoolyard Board Resolution 05-012623, a green schoolyards and climate change adaptation initiative. A series of preliminary schoolyard designs have been presented to the board, and are undergoing review.
relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: This document commends Mountain View Whisman School District for prioritizing climate resilience and greening, and has identified schoolyards as part of its Native Planting Strategy Zone (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping).
2025 Benjamin Bubb Elementary School planting. Photo courtesy of Canopy. 70 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
891
Precise Plans
Mountain View has 25 areas defined by Precise Plans. The purpose of Precise Plan designation is to ensure coordinated public and private improvements in certain areas of the city. Precise Plans are provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 11. Many Precise Plans include an overview of local ecological resources within the designated area, and landscaping guidelines that include biodiversity and urban forest elements. Development review in Precise Plan areas is guided by the details of the applicable Precise Plan, making these documents highly influential in particular areas of the city.

The North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP), most recently updated in 2021, guides the sustainable development of the North Bayshore area, with an emphasis on creating a vibrant mixed-use district that is also ecologically sensitive.133 The NBPP outlines strategies for integrating high-density residential and commercial development with habitat preservation and public space enhancement. It includes a place-specific plant palette and street tree list, making it a valuable resource for site-appropriate landscape design. The accompanying Environmental Impact Report, including Appendix A: Biological Resources, informs sensitive habitat considerations and species protection strategies. Other recent Precise Plans of note include the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) and El Camino Real Precise Plan (ECRPP), both updated in 2024.134,135 From the perspective of the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan, the DPP is notable for its emphasis on greenery in urban public space, and green setbacks and buffers.

The ECRPP is notable for its emphasis on green infrastructure and urban tree canopy. relationship to the biodiversity & urban forest plan: Guide A: Urban Landscaping references the NBPP and is based on many of the same principles. The level of guidance produced for NBPP was popular in the Mountain View community, and may be used as a model in developing further resources. Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices refers to both the DPP and the ECRPP as models for standardizing policies and practices across the city and in future Precise Plans.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
Cover of North Bayshore Precise Plan. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
71 892
Synergistic Local Plans and Guidance
While the following City documents do not primarily focus on biodiversity and the urban forest, they align or intersect with the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan in some areas. These synergistic plans and guidance provide useful context for other initiatives in Mountain View that may overlap, be carried out by the same staff, or offer funding partnership opportunities as the City implements the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan.

Sustainability planning and strategy: The Mountain View Environmental Sustainability Task Force Final Report 2017-2018 136 (ESTF-2) recommends community-wide actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by California law, and includes recommendations to City Council to support enhanced urban infrastructure sustainability. Recommendations address transportation, buildings and land use, circular economy and waste, outreach, regional collaboration, and legislative advocacy, and measurement and metrics. Between 2008 and 2022, the City’s Office of Sustainability produced four three-year Sustainability Action Plans (SAPs) identifying various focus areas (policies, programs, and projects) for City action towards sustainability.137-140 In 2019 the City produced the City of Mountain View Sustainability Program, which built on the process to identify priority strategies: reducing the volume of traffic, adopting cleaner vehicles and fuels, and adopting building decarbonization strategies that focus on electrification. The document also identifies actions that may be taken by the City, in partnership with the community, with regional partnerships, and looking to future growth.

Parks and open space planning: Parks and open spaces are critical to supporting Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest. The Community Services Department is leading the development of Mountain View’s new Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (PRSP) which is slated to be adopted in spring 2026. The plan is the next phase in park planning for the City, following its 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan 141 which envisions an abundant, accessible, and connected network of parks and open space for Mountain View, strengthened by regional open space resources and welcoming of community involvement. The Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan seeks to support parks and open space through Actions 4, 10, 15 and 21 (see 5.2 Vision to Action).

Active Transportation Plan: The Public Works Department is leading the development of Mountain View’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which combines the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan142 and Bicycle Transportation Plan.
143 The forthcoming ATP will hold many synergies with the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan, which considers active transportation corridors a priority within the Heat Mitigation Strategy Zone (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping), incorporates corridors in its connectivity analyses (see 3.1 Urban Biodiversity Assessment), and identifies Actions 1, 10, and 16 related to transportation corridors (see 5.2 Vision to Action).

City-issued or City-endorsed guidance/regulations documents: In addition to those listed above, the City of Mountain View has created or adopted the following resources which will inform, support, and influence implementation of the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan:
• Tree Technical Manual (see Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices for a detailed review)
72 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
893
• 2003 Integrated Pest Management Plan and IPM Policy144 • Shoreline Sea Level Rise Study Update (2021)48
• Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations (Mountain View City Code Chapter 36, Article XI, Division 3)

CONCLUSION
Together, these plans and policies reflect Mountain View’s ongoing efforts to foster a resilient and thriving urban ecosystem. Changes to these plans and policies may better allow Mountain View to achieve the visions set forth in the General Plan, the community’s vision for biodiversity and the urban forest, and improvements to City processes–particularly regarding the Tree Ordinance and/or Zoning Ordinance. (See Actions 4 and 13 in 5.2 Vision to Action.) The prior 2015 Community Tree Master Plan’s benchmarks remain a valuable resource developing monitoring and metrics for the city’s urban forest (see 5.3 Metrics and Targets). Local plans, precise plans, and synergistic plans such as the Active Transportation Plan should also consider Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan recommendations.

Prioritizing biodiversity and the health of the urban forest through the Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan is the next step in Mountain View’s history of robust environmental initiatives, and adjusting some of its policies will allow the City to build on the strong foundation provided by these existing documents. Engagement with the public and continued thoughtful approaches to planning will be key to maximizing benefits for both people and nature, as the city moves forward.

Green infrastructure feature at Pyramid Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

AND POLICY OVERVIEW
73 894
4 COMMUNITY AND CITY

PERSPECTIVES
2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Youth and Families Workshop. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 895

4.1 Community Engagement
The project team sought community input through a robust seven-month outreach process that included a series of public events, a dedicated project webpage, and a community survey. Opportunities to give feedback were advertised on the City’s website, through flyers and mailing lists, and at community events and programs.

Photos from Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan public workshops. Photos courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
75 896
6 WORKSHOPS WITH 242 ATTENDANCES
JULY - NOVEMBER 2024
5 COMMUNITY

WORKSHOPS
General public (virtual and
in-person sessions)*
Youth and families**
Teens
Mandarin and Spanish
language workshops*/**
General public (virtual and
in-person sessions)*/**

KEY TOPICS
• Project overview/updates and key
terminology.
• Invitation to share visions for nature and
its amenities in Mountain View; invitation
to identify/discuss particular areas of
the city that embody the vision, or need
improvement. Identification of priorities in
the face of potential tradeoffs.
• Live polls, group discussions, questionnaires,
poster board voting activities.
• Later workshops shared preliminary data
from previous workshops.
1 STAKEHOLDER

WORKSHOP
Practitioners and city partners
sent invitations; also open to
general public with an emphasis on community experts

KEY TOPICS
• Overview of project and biodiversity
principles underlying the Plan.
• Focused discussions organized by topic
(Designing and Planting Around the Built
Environment; Incorporating Habitat for
Biodiversity into Transportation and Transit;
Protecting Spaces for Nature), synthesis,
and recommendations from each discussion
group.

Photos of Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan workshops. Photos courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 76 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
This section details the number and types of public engagement efforts conducted to collect input for the development of the Plan. It includes the key topics covered by each engagement activity and number of participants or interactions. * interpreter services available
**translated materials provided
897
TOTAL: 1,388 EVENT ATTENDANCES

OR INTERACTIONS
3 POP-UP EVENTS WITH
475 INTERACTIONS
APRIL 2023 - OCTOBER 2024
3 POP-UPS
Mountain View Earth Day
Celebration
Mountain View Farmers Market**
Mountain View Senior Center*/**

KEY TOPICS
• Project overview
• Invitation to share thoughts/visions of nature in Mountain View, select priority issues, select priority benefits of nature and trees.
• Staff generally available to answer questions.

COMMUNITY SURVEY** WITH 547 RESPONSES
OCTOBER 14, 2024 - DECEMBER 17, 2024

KEY TOPICS
• Refer to Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary for a list of survey questions and the responses.

PROJECT WEBPAGE WITH 124 ENTRIES
MAY 2024 - APRIL 2025

KEY TOPICS
• The virtual comment box was open to any ideas and questions from the public.

Responses to commonly asked questions were posted on the webpage.

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
77 898
78 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

4.2 Community Perspectives
This section highlights responses to a selection of questions asked during the community engagement process. These responses helped guide the project team in understanding community priorities and concerns regarding Mountain View’s biodiversity and the urban forest. Refer to Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary for summarized responses to all public survey questions and recommendations developed by stakeholder teams at the project’s Stakeholder Workshop.

ENVISIONING NATURE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Throughout the engagement process, community members were asked for input on how they envision nature in Mountain View. To illustrate this, the following word cloud shows the most common words and phrases written in response to the public survey. Respondents indicated a vision for nature in Mountain View that is primarily green, diverse, native, peaceful, and clean. Trees play an important role, and respondents also envision an abundant, natural, beautiful, lush, and healthy environment.

USE THREE WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT YOU HOPE NATURE WILL
LOOK LIKE IN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW IN THE FUTURE. HOW SHOULD IT LOOK OR SOUND? WHAT SHOULD IT FEEL LIKE?
Word cloud highlighting the most common words used to describe how the community envisions nature in Mountain View. The larger the word appears, the more frequently it occured in responses.

4.2 Community Perspectives
This section highlights responses to a selection of questions asked during the community engagement process. These responses helped guide the project team in understanding community priorities and concerns regarding Mountain View’s biodiversity and the urban forest. Refer to Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary for summarized responses to all public survey questions and recommendations developed by stakeholder teams at the project’s Stakeholder Workshop.

ENVISIONING NATURE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Throughout the engagement process, community members were asked for input on how they envision nature in Mountain View. To illustrate this, the following word cloud shows the most common words and phrases written in response to the public survey. Respondents indicated a vision for nature in Mountain View that is primarily green, diverse, native, peaceful, and clean. Trees play an important role, and respondents also envision an abundant, natural, beautiful, lush, and healthy environment.

USE THREE WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT YOU HOPE NATURE WILL
LOOK LIKE IN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW IN THE FUTURE. HOW SHOULD IT LOOK OR SOUND? WHAT SHOULD IT FEEL LIKE?
Word cloud highlighting the most common words used to describe how the community envisions nature in Mountain View. The larger the word appears, the more frequently it occured in responses. 899
Where public survey respondents think trees and nature are most needed in Mountain View.

IN WHICH TYPES OF AREAS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW DO
YOU THINK TREES AND NATURE ARE MOST NEEDED?

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
79 URBAN SPACES IN NEED OF TREES

AND NATURE
The community was also asked to identify types of urban spaces that could use more trees and nature. Community gathering spaces, including parks and schools, were selected as most in need of more trees and nature. Pedestrian and vehicle transportation corridors (e.g., local roadways, trails, sidewalks) were also selected as priorities for improvement.

Respondents identified lower relative need for greening around buildings or other large infrastructure (e.g., parking lots and highways).

URBAN SPACES IN NEED OF TREES

AND NATURE
The community was also asked to identify types of urban spaces that could use more trees and nature. Community gathering spaces, including parks and schools, were selected as most in need of more trees and nature. Pedestrian and vehicle transportation corridors (e.g., local roadways, trails, sidewalks) were also selected as priorities for improvement.

Respondents identified lower relative need for greening around buildings or other large infrastructure (e.g., parking lots and highways).
900
80 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Mandarin-translated workshop. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

WEIGHING THE BENEFITS AND

CHALLENGES OF URBAN NATURE
Two important survey questions sought to understand the value Mountain View’s community places on the primary benefits and challenges of integrating nature in urban spaces.

Overall, respondents’ interest in the benefits of nature outweigh their concerns about the challenges it may present, indicating that the Mountain View community recognizes the value of biodiversity and the urban forest, despite potential tradeoffs.

Benefits of greatest importance to respondents (i.e., “very important”) included improvements to environmental quality (e.g., air and water quality, human health) and climate benefits (e.g., shade, resilience and climate adaptation). Many respondents also place value on habitat (food and shelter) for native wildlife, along with community-centered benefits, such as streetscape improvements for pedestrian mobility and public transit. Respondents also expressed interest in green spaces that are beautiful, promote outdoor recreation, and are implemented with equitable access in mind.

Key challenges identified included traffic hazards related to visibility and damage to utility infrastructure.

WEIGHING THE BENEFITS AND

CHALLENGES OF URBAN NATURE
Two important survey questions sought to understand the value Mountain View’s community places on the primary benefits and challenges of integrating nature in urban spaces.

Overall, respondents’ interest in the benefits of nature outweigh their concerns about the challenges it may present, indicating that the Mountain View community recognizes the value of biodiversity and the urban forest, despite potential tradeoffs.

Benefits of greatest importance to respondents (i.e., “very important”) included improvements to environmental quality (e.g., air and water quality, human health) and climate benefits (e.g., shade, resilience and climate adaptation). Many respondents also place value on habitat (food and shelter) for native wildlife, along with community-centered benefits, such as streetscape improvements for pedestrian mobility and public transit. Respondents also expressed interest in green spaces that are beautiful, promote outdoor recreation, and are implemented with equitable access in mind.

Key challenges identified included traffic hazards related to visibility and damage to utility infrastructure.
901

HOW IMPORTANT ARE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING
BENEFITS OR CHALLENGES TO YOU?

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
81 Topics of most and least concern to respondents of the public survey. The survey asked two parallel questions, one asking respondents to rank the priority of each benefit from nature, and the the other asking about challenges. Respondents were asked to consider trees and nature in all areas including parks, commercial areas, along streets, and on residential properties. Overall, participants ranked the benefits (shown in blue text) of nature as more important than the challenges (shown in gray text).

Topics of most and least concern to respondents of the public survey. The survey asked two parallel questions, one asking respondents to rank the priority of each benefit from nature, and the the other asking about challenges. Respondents were asked to consider trees and nature in all areas including parks, commercial areas, along streets, and on residential properties. Overall, participants ranked the benefits (shown in blue text) of nature as more important than the challenges (shown in gray text). 902
82 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST THREATS TO NATURE IN
MOUNTAIN VIEW?

COMMUNITY-REPORTED

THREATS TO NATURE
Community perspectives on threats to nature were a priority consideration in the creation of this Plan. Lived experience brings a wealth of knowledge, and Mountain View’s community members observe various natural spaces on a daily basis, with a closeness that allows them to identify important patterns and threats. Development emerged as the most frequent top-ranked threat to nature, with climate-related threats (climate change, drought, heat waves) also falling high on the list of threats. Traffic, air quality, and population increase are considered to be lesser threats to nature in Mountain View. Threats of least concern to respondents were water quality and inland/coastal flooding.

Responses to the public survey about which threats to Mountain View are of most concern to respondents. Respondents ranked each of the nine options. Threats listed at the top are ranked as bigger threats. Bars in the darkest red represent the percent of respondents who ranked that threat first.

WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST THREATS TO NATURE IN
MOUNTAIN VIEW?

COMMUNITY-REPORTED

THREATS TO NATURE
Community perspectives on threats to nature were a priority consideration in the creation of this Plan. Lived experience brings a wealth of knowledge, and Mountain View’s community members observe various natural spaces on a daily basis, with a closeness that allows them to identify important patterns and threats. Development emerged as the most frequent top-ranked threat to nature, with climate-related threats (climate change, drought, heat waves) also falling high on the list of threats. Traffic, air quality, and population increase are considered to be lesser threats to nature in Mountain View. Threats of least concern to respondents were water quality and inland/coastal flooding.

Responses to the public survey about which threats to Mountain View are of most concern to respondents. Respondents ranked each of the nine options. Threats listed at the top are ranked as bigger threats. Bars in the darkest red represent the percent of respondents who ranked that threat first. 903

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
83 MOST DISCUSSED BENEFITS, VALUES, AND AMENITIES

ACROSS PUBLIC EVENTS
Community members who attended public events were encouraged to share their hopes for the future of Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest via discussion groups, live polls, comment boxes, poster pinning, and other activities. The following figure summarizes the most-frequently discussed benefits, values, and amenities across written responses.

Community participants highlighted the importance of wildlife support, climate resilience and adaptation, and the related issue of urban shade and cooling. Respondents also expressed a desire for streetscape improvements, and equitable green space access was frequently mentioned.

BENEFITS, VALUES, AND AMENITIES DISCUSSED IN

COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES
Summary of themes included in open-form responses to prompts during the community engagement process about the community’s hopes for the future of biodiversity and the urban forest in Mountain View.

This figure groups each respondents’ written responses thematically, capturing how many written responses were associated with each theme.

MOST DISCUSSED BENEFITS, VALUES, AND AMENITIES

ACROSS PUBLIC EVENTS
Community members who attended public events were encouraged to share their hopes for the future of Mountain View’s biodiversity and urban forest via discussion groups, live polls, comment boxes, poster pinning, and other activities. The following figure summarizes the most-frequently discussed benefits, values, and amenities across written responses.

Community participants highlighted the importance of wildlife support, climate resilience and adaptation, and the related issue of urban shade and cooling. Respondents also expressed a desire for streetscape improvements, and equitable green space access was frequently mentioned.

BENEFITS, VALUES, AND AMENITIES DISCUSSED IN

COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES
Summary of themes included in open-form responses to prompts during the community engagement process about the community’s hopes for the future of biodiversity and the urban forest in Mountain View.

This figure groups each respondents’ written responses thematically, capturing how many written responses were associated with each theme.
904
84 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Stakeholder Workshop. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

PLACES WHERE NATURE AND TREES NEED

MORE SUPPORT
Throughout the public engagement process, community members were asked to identify where nature and trees need more support in the city. The following map presents the combined results, summarizing how many of these points fall within various types of city locations (parks, schools, public parcels, and U.S. Census blocks).

The parks that received the highest number of votes included Shoreline Park, Cuesta Park and Annex, and Rengstorff Park. The schools that received the highest number of votes included Stevenson-Theuerkauf School and Mountain View High School. Publicly-owned parcels (other than parks) with the most votes were properties in the Mountain View Civic Center Plaza area, a southern portion of the Stevens Creek Trail, Los Altos School District’s tenth school site, and a complex of Google-leased properties near the shoreline.

PLACES WHERE NATURE AND TREES NEED

MORE SUPPORT
Throughout the public engagement process, community members were asked to identify where nature and trees need more support in the city. The following map presents the combined results, summarizing how many of these points fall within various types of city locations (parks, schools, public parcels, and U.S. Census blocks).

The parks that received the highest number of votes included Shoreline Park, Cuesta Park and Annex, and Rengstorff Park. The schools that received the highest number of votes included Stevenson-Theuerkauf School and Mountain View High School. Publicly-owned parcels (other than parks) with the most votes were properties in the Mountain View Civic Center Plaza area, a southern portion of the Stevens Creek Trail, Los Altos School District’s tenth school site, and a complex of Google-leased properties near the shoreline. 905

WHERE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW DO YOU THINK
TREES AND NATURE ARE MOST NEEDED?

AREAS IDENTIFIED

BY THE COMMUNITY

AS NEEDING MORE

TREES AND NATURE
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
Locations where
individual pins
were placed by
respondents
Parks
Schools
Other public parcels
Other census blocks
Areas where 3 or more pins
were placed by respondents

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
85 906
86 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

4.3 City Perspectives
The Plan’s objectives, actions, and metrics incorporate community visions and scientific recommendations, reflected through a lens of what is feasible by the City. City engagement for the Plan was supported primarily by the City Project Team including staff and leadership from the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and the City’s Sustainability and Resiliency team (City Manager’s Office). These City staff collaborated in several major meetings and workshops to ensure that the Plan, in particular the actions and metrics, reflects department expertise, deep knowledge of City operations, and program-level experience. Actions and metrics for the Plan were designed to be carried out by City departments and staff, and therefore their contributions to these pieces of the Plan have been invaluable.

CITY FOREST OPERATIONS
The City’s Urban Forest Manager was actively involved throughout the development of this Plan and assisted in identifying strengths, challenges, and opportunities to grow, maintain, and protect Mountain View’s urban forest. Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices includes a detailed review of City forestry operations. Current challenges to City forestry operations are driven by several related needs. • There is a general need to prioritize hiring, training, and retaining staff to support City urban forestry operations, including outreach, education and enforcement. • There is also a need for City-wide urban forestry planning tools, including a climate-resilient plant palette, planting plan, and regular updates to the City’s existing public tree asset dataset.
• Regarding tree removals, City staff identified an overall need to simplify the Heritage Tree permit process, improve enforcement around post-removal permits and replanting, and standardize reporting from arborists to support the permit process. These changes would facilitate objective evaluation and decision-making around proposed removals.
• Regarding development, the City identified the need for development codes and standards to better support trees, as City staff navigate maintaining plantable space in the midst of increasing redevelopment and housing needs and requirements. • To help address threats to the urban forest, the City identified a need for a proactive and climate-minded pest management and monitoring program, especially to address the current threat of an Invasive Shot Hole Borer (ISHB) outbreak. • Improvements to operations such as software improvements, increased inspections of tree-planting and maintenance contractors, and improved protocols for debris disposal were also highlighted.

4.3 City Perspectives
The Plan’s objectives, actions, and metrics incorporate community visions and scientific recommendations, reflected through a lens of what is feasible by the City. City engagement for the Plan was supported primarily by the City Project Team including staff and leadership from the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and the City’s Sustainability and Resiliency team (City Manager’s Office). These City staff collaborated in several major meetings and workshops to ensure that the Plan, in particular the actions and metrics, reflects department expertise, deep knowledge of City operations, and program-level experience. Actions and metrics for the Plan were designed to be carried out by City departments and staff, and therefore their contributions to these pieces of the Plan have been invaluable.

CITY FOREST OPERATIONS
The City’s Urban Forest Manager was actively involved throughout the development of this Plan and assisted in identifying strengths, challenges, and opportunities to grow, maintain, and protect Mountain View’s urban forest. Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices includes a detailed review of City forestry operations. Current challenges to City forestry operations are driven by several related needs. • There is a general need to prioritize hiring, training, and retaining staff to support City urban forestry operations, including outreach, education and enforcement. • There is also a need for City-wide urban forestry planning tools, including a climate-resilient plant palette, planting plan, and regular updates to the City’s existing public tree asset dataset.
• Regarding tree removals, City staff identified an overall need to simplify the Heritage Tree permit process, improve enforcement around post-removal permits and replanting, and standardize reporting from arborists to support the permit process. These changes would facilitate objective evaluation and decision-making around proposed removals.
• Regarding development, the City identified the need for development codes and standards to better support trees, as City staff navigate maintaining plantable space in the midst of increasing redevelopment and housing needs and requirements. • To help address threats to the urban forest, the City identified a need for a proactive and climate-minded pest management and monitoring program, especially to address the current threat of an Invasive Shot Hole Borer (ISHB) outbreak. • Improvements to operations such as software improvements, increased inspections of tree-planting and maintenance contractors, and improved protocols for debris disposal were also highlighted.
907

COMMUNITY AND CITY PERSPECTIVES
87 • Staff identified a need for expanded engagement within the community to increase knowledge, stewardship, and understanding of City forestry processes. There is also a need for increased inter-departmental engagement, to improve coordination. and guidance.
• Staff identified the need for the City to increase funding to support a more proactive life-cycle maintenance program for the urban forest, including trees located in public rights-of-way.
• Staff noted that trees are the only infrastructure asset that increases in value over time and are not easily replaced; this is a rationale for prioritizing trees in Mountain View. • Staff noted a need to identify a better tracking system for replacement trees, to ensure young replacement trees are protected and retained while they mature to Heritage Tree size.

Routine tree pruning of City-managed trees. Photo courtesy of City of Mountain View. • Staff identified a need for expanded engagement within the community to increase knowledge, stewardship, and understanding of City forestry processes. There is also a need for increased inter-departmental engagement, to improve coordination. and guidance.
• Staff identified the need for the City to increase funding to support a more proactive life-cycle maintenance program for the urban forest, including trees located in public rights-of-way.
• Staff noted that trees are the only infrastructure asset that increases in value over time and are not easily replaced; this is a rationale for prioritizing trees in Mountain View. • Staff noted a need to identify a better tracking system for replacement trees, to ensure young replacement trees are protected and retained while they mature to Heritage Tree size.

Routine tree pruning of City-managed trees. Photo courtesy of City of Mountain View. 908
Shoreline Park. Photo by Ian Abbott, courtesy of CC BY 4.0. 5THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE PATH
909

5.1 Components of the Plan
This Plan lays out a roadmap towards the Vision of a healthier, more resilient and biodiverse Mountain View. The Goals, Objectives, and Actions provide the tools to navigate the path, while Metrics and Targets ensure steady, measurable progress. Together, each component plays a vital role in charting the path from vision to action.

Vision and Goals: rooted in community. The Vision for biodiversity and the urban forest reflects the community’s shared values and ideals, distilled from the project’s community engagement. Goals are long-term strategies to realize the Vision. The Vision and Goals will align City departments around clear priorities and steer decisions towards Actions that best serve nature and the community.

Objectives: blending community input and science-based strategies. Objectives apply science-based guidance and community priorities to translate the high-level Vision and Goals into specific, measurable, and practical commitments that guide the City’s implementation.
2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan Farmers’ Market pop-up poster activity.

Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
89 910
Actions: charting the City’s path forward. The City will implement Actions to achieve the Plan’s Objectives. Future City planning, policies, ordinances, standards, and capital improvement projects should demonstrate their alignment with these Actions.

While these Actions may engage with other external groups, the City will drive their implementation. Each Action designates a responsible City department(s), representing the City departments that make up this Plan’s City Project Team. The level of priority assigned to each Action will support decision-making around how to allocate resources and sequence efforts.

The project team collaborated closely with City staff to blend science, community aspirations, feasibility considerations, and prior City commitments from the prior 2015 Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP) to generate the highest-priority Actions that are within reach and will generate meaningful impact for biodiversity, the urban forest, and other community needs.

Metrics and Targets: tracking progress. If the Vision represents the North Star—the ultimate destination the community aspires to reach—and the Goals, Objectives, and Actions represent the compass and tools needed to get there, Metrics are the odometer measuring progress, and Targets set quantitative milestones along the way. Metrics and Targets are equally critical to the Plan’s success, establishing a system for transparency and accountability, as well as recognizing accomplishments and fostering learning.

SHORT-TERM PRIORITY ACTIONS • urgent; strong public support or high visibility; immediate impact and return on investment
In Progress:
short-term priority Actions that are
already in progress and will be expanded
upon or refined as part of implementation
Upon Plan Adoption:
short-term priority Actions prioritized for
implementation beginning immediately
upon Plan adoption
MEDIUM-TERM PRIORITY ACTIONS • less time-sensitive; dependent on resources, coordination, preparations, and/or other preceding actions LONG-TERM PRIORITY ACTIONS • valuable, future-oriented actions that require substantial coordination and lead time and are not time-sensitive; may be dependent on or complementary to other efforts
1 2
3 Urban Forest Planning and Management Icons
In 5.2 Vision to Action and 5.3 Metrics and Targets, tree icons are used to highlight Actions and Metrics that relate to urban forest planning and management for use by the City’s Urban Forestry Division. 90 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
911
Implementation Framework: planning for coordinated progress. The Implementation Framework outlines clear roles and pathways for prioritizing and funding implementation and monitoring progress, ensuring that the City is prepared to implement the Plan and evolve alongside community needs and new information.

Guides: resources for implementation. The body of this Plan, which outlines the path from the Vision to implementation and evaluation, is supplemented by Guides, providing a wealth of additional information and technical findings to support the City’s immediate next steps and decision-making.

Guide A: Urban Landscaping translates the Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Actions of the Plan into practical landscaping design guidance. These guidelines are organized around five urban landscaping Zones that prioritize where in the city each of the landscaping strategies will likely have the greatest impact on biodiversity and community well-being. Some of the Actions introduced in the Plan are linked to the Zones and landscaping guidelines.

Guide B: Plant Lists provides two plant lists:
• The Native Plant List includes plant species native to the Santa Clara Valley floor that the City or residents can incorporate into projects or gardens.
• The updated City Tree List includes 62 tree species suitable for planting as street trees (among other less-constrained site types) and an additional 22 species suitable for parks and open space.

Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices contains a detailed review and recommendations for urban forestry operations, guidelines, and pest management strategy.

Guide D: Monitoring and Targets offers resources and approaches for developing a monitoring protocol to track Metrics and setting Targets.

5.2 Vision to Action
This section details the Plan’s Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Actions, summarized as a table on the following page and subsequently detailed further. The City can work towards realizing the community’s shared Vision by prioritizing four strategic long-term Goals, which are supported by measurable Objectives and concrete Actions.

California Flannelbush.

Photo courtesy of the
City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
91 912
VISION
Mountain View is a healthy, connected, and resilient community where people and nature thrive together.

GOAL OBJECTVE ACTION
1 Connect
People
and Nature
1A. Support a network of
connected green space
across the city

1. Strategically integrate green features in active transportation improvement project design to both increase ecological value and achieve other City priorities.

2. Continue to review land management agreements and explore opportunities to enhance restoration and maintenance of high-value ecological areas along third-party creeks.
1B. Foster a cultural shift
that spotlights biodiversity
and integrates it into Mountain View’s sense of place

3. Promote biodiversity-themed installations and educational content. 2 Foster Places
of Refuge
2A. Foster a healthier built
environment for nature
and people

4. When reviewing or updating existing City landscaping and planting guidelines, implement design standards for city parks, facilities, and streetscapes where feasible.

5. Further develop native and climate-resilient planting guidance to support proper installation, maintenance, and sourcing of native plant materials.

6. Implement planting projects according to urban landscaping Zones indicated in Guide A: Urban Landscaping.

7. Develop and adopt a dark skies ordinance.

8. Further advance strategies that support bird-friendly standards and reduce collision risk.

9. Support coexistence between people and wildlife in Mountain View by using approaches that prevent conflicts before they happen, such as protecting natural habitats, reducing wildlife attractants in unsafe areas, and creating spaces where people can enjoy wildlife safely. 2B: Balance opportunities
for community enjoyment
of nature with the needs
of native species

10. Maximize biodiversity support within city parks and trail corridors while continuing to meet community needs.
92 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
913

GOAL OBJECTVE ACTION
3 Build
Resilience
3A. Grow, protect, and
care for a resilient urban
forest, continuing progress
towards the goal of 22.7%
canopy cover by 2030

11. Expedite developing a public tree monitoring and maintenance plan.

12. Plant an additional 1,575 public trees by 2030.

13. Update the City tree list and Tree Ordinance to increase urban forest health, species diversity, and age diversity.

14. Explore and expand opportunities to repurpose public tree materials and green waste.
3B. Support quality
habitat that sustains a
diversity of life

15. Establish priority areas and goals for habitat restoration of large open spaces.

16. Identify and pursue opportunities to enhance and expand existing vegetated patches providing habitat, particularly for native species that are less tolerant of urban disturbances.
3C. Use greening
opportunities to adapt to
future climate conditions

17. Prioritize shade tree planting in the Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, to protect against heat and improve walkability.
4 Activate
and
Collaborate
4A. Activate and
collaborate with the
community

18. Enhance residential and privately-managed tree support. Conduct City-led outreach and partner locally to activate the community in supporting biodiversity and the urban forest in neighborhoods across the city.

19. Build partnerships and programs that enable the community to access and contribute to data about trees and nature in the city. 4B. Activate and
collaborate with design
practitioners and large
landowners

20. Conduct a biodiversity- and urban forest-focused review of City development processes to clarify various City department expectations and requirements.
4C. Enhance
collaboration across
City departments to
optimize implementation
of the Plan through
City programs, projects,
operations, and
maintenance

21. Develop and implement staff training for biodiversity-friendly landscape installation and maintenance.

22. Establish an internal system across City departments for a) data collection and Target-setting, and b) regularly revisiting the Plan to maintain steady progress towards the Vision and Goals.

23. Incorporate recommendations and guidelines from this Plan when developing new, or substantially updating existing, Precise Plans. 4D. Coordinate with
other agencies to identify
opportunities for aligning
visions and collaborating
on initiatives that enhance
shared natural resources

24. Explore collaborations with local and regional public/agency partners to identify potential opportunities to support biodiversity together.`

25. Continue to explore and apply for intergovernmental programs and networks to elevate Mountain View’s leadership and recognition on a national and international platform.

Downtown Mountain View. Photo
courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
93 914
Objective 1A: Support a network of connected green space across the city Action 1. Strategically integrate green features in active transportation improvement project design to both
increase ecological value and achieve other City priorities.

Align transportation improvement projects with the Plan’s goals and guidelines to generate multiple benefits, including supporting biodiversity, pedestrian and bike safety, recreation, and public health.

Use Guide A: Urban Landscaping (Ecological Enhancement Zone and Cooling Zone) as a resource, verified with site-scale information, to enhance high-priority active transportation corridors (e.g., streetscapes, bikeways, walking paths) with habitat elements that support biodiversity. Undertake feasibility studies and integrate biodiversity and urban forest elements as standard components of capital improvement projects to reduce dependence on additional funding where possible.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Public Works Department Support: Community Services Department
Visitors at Shoreline Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

GOAL 1:

CONNECT PEOPLE

AND NATURE
Landscape connections are vital for both human wellbeing and biodiversity. The Mountain View community wants abundant access to biodiversity to foster cultural and physical connections to nature; biodiversity also relies on a rich and connected network of habitat to move across and thrive within the city. 94 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
915
Action 2. Continue to review land management agreements and explore opportunities to enhance restoration and maintenance of high-value ecological areas along third-party creeks.

Promote consistent, proactive ecological management of Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) creeks—namely Permanente, Stevens, Hale, and Adobe creeks—by aligning agency stewardship responsibilities with restoration and enhancement goals. This coordination will enable the City to leverage its financial resources where they can have the greatest impact for residents, biodiversity, and interagency collaboration. • Identify parcels of high value to biodiversity along Valley Water creeks, using local expertise and the analyses included in this Plan.
• Conduct a review of land ownership and existing management agreements along Valley Water creeks, in collaboration with relevant agencies including Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
• Explore opportunities for updating agreements (if possible) to enhance stewardship to maximize creeks’ benefit for people and nature.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works Department
Pacific Chorus Frogs need
pervious connectivity
Frogs are associated with waterways,
ponds, and wetlands. As they should;
these habitats are required for
frogs to lay their eggs. Connecting
aquatic areas with pervious surfaces
of many kinds—even manicured
landscaping and grass—improves the
urban environment for chorus frogs
who need to move safely through
the landscape.

Pacific Chorus Frog. Photo by Will Brown, courtesy of CC BY 2.0.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
95 916
Objective 1B: Foster a cultural shift that spotlights biodiversity and integrates it into Mountain View’s sense of place
Action 3. Promote biodiversity-themed
installations and educational content.

Incorporate the topics of biodiversity and local ecology into Public Art installations and interpretive content where appropriate, with input from the Visual Arts Committee. • Consider adding a biodiversity element to the City’s Public Art program. • Create educational signage highlighting the native historical habitat types discussed in this Plan.

Materials should also build public awareness of other biodiversity-supporting features and projects, such as bird-safe windows, pollinator gardens, “messy” landscapes, and “dark skies.” • Co-develop projects with community groups and representatives, hire local talent, and activate students and volunteers to elevate local voices, values, and stories. Collaborate with the Multicultural Engagement Program and their leadership program to encourage diverse participation.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Economic Development Division Support: Public Works Department, Community Development Department, Community Services Department
Urban creeks support
“city slicker” fish.

Threespine Sticklebacks appear to
adjust to city life, tolerating even
the more heavily urbanized streams
around the San Francisco Estuary.

Even so, these fish will benefit
from coordinated restoration and
enhancement along Mountain
View’s creeks, where they seek out
insects, worms, and crustaceans
among vegetated stream bottoms.

Three-Spined Stickleback. Photo by justas, Courtesy of Adobe Stock.

GOAL 1:CONNECT PEOPLE AND NATURE, CONTINUED
96 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
917
Monarch butterfly nectaring from its milkweed host plant.

Photo by David J. Mauk.

GOAL 2:

FOSTER PLACES OF
REFUGE
The city can create healthy and safe spaces for people and nature both in open spaces and in the built environment.

Urban-sensitive native species and the community rely on green space for refuge from urban life. Balancing these needs requires carefully managing tradeoffs (see Ecology for Health:

Design Guidance for Fostering Human Health and Biodiversity in Cities).8 Each green space will have a unique set of priority uses, but in every case, there are strategies to promote human recreation, wellbeing, and a sense of immersion in nature while maximizing biodiversity protection and support. Where the city is more densely developed, wildlife-friendly design and landscaping strategies can boost not only native biodiversity, but also community health for city residents and visitors.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
97 918
GOAL 2: FOSTER PLACES OF REFUGE, CONTINUED
Valley Oaks need more space, but
provide many benefits for animals
and humans.

Valley Oaks require more space and grow
more slowly than the more common live
oaks, but their shading and wildlife benefits
are plenty. Planting sites with sufficient
space for root growth—like schoolyards and
parks—should give them a better chance of
success, and planting them within 500 ft
of other Valley Oaks can assist pollination
and the production of acorns that wildlife
depend on.

Valley Oak. Photo by Bob Dodge, courtesy of CC BY 2.0.

Objective 2A: Foster a healthier built environment for nature and people Action 4. When reviewing or updating existing City
landscaping and planting guidelines, implement design
standards for city parks, facilities, and streetscapes where feasible.

Develop guidelines and standards for both the engineered and natural elements of planting areas and their surroundings, such as the planting area size, soil treatments, and stormwater management.

Refer to existing best management practices and industry standards, including Guide A: Urban Landscaping.
• Revise City permitting processes, ordinances, and long-term planning to align with commitments and guidelines presented in both this Plan and the Active Transportation Plan (see also Action 20 and Action 23).
• Identify and reconcile conflicts in existing standards and ordinances. • Pair opportunities to support human health with biodiversity goals in landscape design guidelines.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest, Parks and Open Space)
Support: Community Development Department, Public Works Department (Design and Construction)
98 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
919
Action 5. Further develop native and climate-resilient
planting guidance to support proper installation,
maintenance, and sourcing of native plant materials.

Develop a more extensive plant palette of regionally-native, California-native, other near-native, and climate-resilient plants, paired with a plant selector tool to facilitate implementation. Prioritize native plants where appropriate based on site conditions, biodiversity goals, and urban forest resilience. See “Managing trade-offs between native biodiversity and urban forest resilience,” “Planting Trees in Historically-Treeless Landscapes,” and “What ‘native’ means and why it matters” in sections 1.1, 2.3, and 3.1, respectively, for more information on balancing native plant selection with climate resilience and other planting goals. • Develop guidelines for sustainable native plant sourcing practices, such as guidance to avoid introducing pests and support native plant genetic diversity. • Develop guidance and species selection criteria to incorporate more native and/or climate-resilient plants into synergistic projects, such as stormwater management or street and safety improvement projects. • Develop and implement an interactive web-based plant selector tool that incorporates planting lists and guidelines. The interactive, functional tool would help project managers select plants and develop plant palettes that are appropriate for their specific site and desired project outcomes (including guidance for applying these principles in green stormwater infrastructure projects). (Action 13 describes uses of the tool for tree selection specifically.) • A subset of materials should be developed for distribution to residents and local developers to educate and align landscaping goals and standards, as discussed further in Action 18. • Develop biodiversity-supportive guidelines and design standards, and native planting/replacement incentive programs. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and other existing lists can serve as resources.96 Priority Short-term priority (upon Plan adoption)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest, Parks and Open Space
Left and right: 2025 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day celebration. Photos courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
99 920
GOAL 2: FOSTER PLACES OF REFUGE, CONTINUED
Action 7. Develop and adopt a dark skies ordinance.

Adopt a dark skies ordinance to reduce the impacts of artificial light on wildlife. • Explore model ordinances, resources, and programs.145, 146 • Upon adopting the ordinance, provide design guidance for residents and developers as needed or requested. The ordinance and associated resources should include lighting requirements for new developments (Action 20).

Priority Short-term priority (in progress)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Development Department (Planning) Make the city safer for migrating birds.

Long-distance migratory birds like Wilson’s Warblers
migrate through west coast cities in huge numbers in
the spring and fall as they travel between wintering
and breeding grounds. While landing in cities during
nighttime breaks in migration or voraciously foraging
on insects and spiders in city trees to refuel, they can collide with lit or highly reflective windows. Designing and retrofitting buildings to be safer for birds will help Wilson’s Warbler. Photo by Becky Matsubara, Wilson’s Warblers safely reach their destination. courtesy of CC BY 4.0.

Action 6. Implement planting projects according to urban landscaping Zones indicated in Guide A: Urban Landscaping.

Implement native and biodiversity-supporting landscaping within the Ecological Enhancement Zone discussed in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, using relevant City guidelines and standards (Action 4), and native plant resources (Action 5) as they are developed and revised. At sites where multiple priorities or Zones overlap, design projects for multiple objectives.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works Department
100

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
921
Action 8. Further advance strategies that support birdfriendly standards and reduce collision risk.

Continue to evaluate options for incorporating bird-safe guidance and measures into building design and retrofit of City facilities and private development. Closely align this work with Action 7.

Leverage existing models and templates:
• Use the City’s existing bird safety measures in both the North Bayshore Precise Planw and the East Whisman Precise Plan as a guide for City-wide design standards to minimize collision risk and reduce mortality throughout Mountain View. American Bird Conservancy resources147 may also be used as a guide.
• Model strategies on regional efforts made over the last decade and update to incorporate the most recent science-based guidance.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department, Community Development Department (Planning)
Action 9. Support coexistence between people and wildlife in Mountain View by using approaches that prevent
conflicts before they happen, such as protecting natural habitats, reducing wildlife attractants in unsafe areas, and creating spaces where people can enjoy wildlife safely.

Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) can occur when wild animals and humans interact in unwanted or unsafe ways. Leverage existing educational resources, toolkits, laws, and regulations to proactively reduce risk of human-wildlife conflicts in the city.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Santa Clara County, and several conservation NGOs have developed materials, laws, or regulations to address HWC and increase people’s awareness and appreciation for wildlife species in their environment.148,149 • Incorporate measures for proactively reducing HWC into City-led outreach (Action 18) and through inter-agency coordination (Action 24) alongside efforts to support biodiversity in the city.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
101
922
Short description. Photo by XYZ, courtesy of XYZ.

Objective 2B: Balance opportunities for community enjoyment of nature with the needs of native species
Action 10. Maximize biodiversity support within city parks and trail corridors while continuing to meet community needs.

Capitalize on any opportunity, large or small, to integrate biodiversity-friendly design. • In high-activity recreational spaces, such as sports fields and play areas, implement biodiversity-friendly lighting (aligned with Action 7) and incorporate native landscaping around the perimeter or in underutilized spaces.8
• Incorporate native landscaping in low-intensity recreational spaces. Design landscaping to support ecological functioning by building plant palettes that resemble the local historical ecology, pairing species that historically co-occurred, as demonstrated in the Native Plant List (see Guide B: Plant Lists). Where feasible, enhance and protect special resources with high-value for native wildlife, such as natural water features (e.g., creeks, ponds, or wetlands), snags (standing dead or dying trees), and brush or rock piles.
• Add design elements to promote respite, enjoyment, and awareness of nature, such as benches and signage.
• Incorporate habitat enhancement and restoration goals into trail and recreational facility improvement projects. Maintain trails to prevent damage to sensitive surrounding habitats. Successful practices from existing trails (e.g., Stevens Creek Trail) may be used as a model.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works Department
GOAL 2: FOSTER PLACES OF REFUGE, CONTINUED
Children playing in Rengstorff Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 102

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
923
Native landscaping in Mountain View. Photo by Shira Bezalel, SFEI.

Objective 3A: Grow, protect, and care for a resilient urban forest, continuing progress towards the goal of 22.7% canopy cover by 2030 Action 11. Expedite developing a public tree
monitoring and maintenance plan.

Establish a public tree inventory schedule and standardized system. • Conduct a new public tree inventory.
• Repeat the inventory every five years.
• Acquire access to an effective tree asset management software, and establish data management protocols and staff and contractor training to ensure standardized data collection, storage, and management.
• Expand and standardize the information collected, to include tree species, diameter at breast height, height, and planting site stocking status. Consider tracking new fields to align with International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices, including tree condition and maintenance.

GOAL 3:

BUILD RESILIENCE
A healthy and resilient urban ecosystem can safeguard both the community and biodiversity from growing climate and environmental threats such as extreme heat, intensifying storms and flooding, urban forest pest invasions, and prolonged droughts. Strategically monitoring and enhancing the quality of natural resources in the city will better enable biodiversity, the urban forest, and climate-vulnerable communities to withstand these growing challenges and adapt over time.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
103
924
Action 11. (continued)
Update the City’s regular maintenance and monitoring practices. • Establish a proactive tree care schedule.
• Revisit every public tree for scheduled inspection and maintenance every five years, and no less frequently than every seven years, through a rotating block grid pruning schedule. This is carried over from the prior 2015 CTMP.
• Establish a three-year maintenance cycle for specific fast-growing tree species. • Require a three- to five-year warranty on trees planted by contractors to ensure that establishment care and maintenance are built into planting contracts. • Establish a monitoring plan for routine public tree data updates and urban forest management assessments.
• Keep the public tree asset dataset up-to-date by conducting standard tree monitoring during regularly-scheduled tree care operations.
• Standardize the public tree dataset and monitoring protocols in alignment with the public tree inventory protocol.
• Annually analyze the public tree asset dataset to assess the urban forest condition. Use these results to prioritize tree care, update planting plans, and assess species’ performance in a changing climate as a guide for future plantings, as well as for requesting and allocating financial resources for urban forestry.

Priority Short-term priority (in progress)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department GOAL 3: BUILD RESILIENCE, CONTINUED
Routine public tree maintenance operations. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 104

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
925
Planting oaks with
Acorn Woodpeckers
in mind.

The chances of Acorn
Woodpeckers setting up a
city colony can be helped
along by urban forest planning. Colonies need at least 20 oak trees spread across
15-20 acres. Enhancing
habitat patches that already
have oaks by planting more
oaks nearby might just do
the trick.

Acorn Woodpecker. Photo by David J. Mauk.

Action 12. Plant an additional 1,575
public trees by 2030.

The City has added 1,425 public trees since 2015, marking 47.5% progress towards its prior 2015 CTMP goal of planting 3,000 public trees between 2015 and 2030. The City should plant an additional 1,575 public trees, to reach a total of 29,166 public trees, by 2030. • Plant approximately 315 trees per year between 2026 and 2030. • Plant trees with larger canopies at maturity to maximize the amount of canopy cover provided by each individual tree where possible and appropriate. • Consider a “No Net Loss” policy of replacing public trees, mirroring changes to the Tree Ordinance (Action 13).

Action 18 addresses support for privately managed trees.

Priority Short-term priority (in progress)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest, Parks and Open Space)
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
105
926
Action 13. Update the City tree list and Tree Ordinance to increase urban forest health, species diversity, and age diversity.

Diversify public tree plantings, reducing reliance on common street tree choices. • Aim to increase species diversity of trees planted. In particular, reduce reliance on over-represented tree species in new tree plantings, particularly London Plane Tree and Chinese Pistache, and do not plant Coast Redwood; see “Public Tree Assessment” and “Balancing the Legacy of Redwoods in a Changing Climate” in 3.2 Urban Forest Assessment.
• Aim to increase the proportion of trees planted that are regionally- or California-native, particularly to address gaps in the age diversity of native public trees (see 3.2 Urban Forest Assessment). • Develop and implement an interactive web-based plant selector tool (see Action 5) to select appropriate trees based on criteria such as tree form, area requirements, biodiversity support, known challenges and maintenance issues, and ecosystem services. The tool will update and replace the City tree list (Guide B:

Plant Lists) and should be updated regularly based on monitoring, staff experience, and expert guidance.

Update the Tree Ordinance as follows, and in accordance with other best practices:
• Update the definition of Heritage Tree to improve clarity and protect the most valuable trees. • Explore revisions to the Tree Ordinance to remove Heritage Tree protections for invasive species (as classified by Cal-IPC for Northern California) and palm species. • Simplify permit requirements in cases of public urgency such as invasive pests, diseases, species, or other irreversible conditions.
• Update Heritage Tree Removal findings to better align with City review processes and criteria. • Improve development processes (see Action 20) to better support tree planting and protection, such as:
• Set objective development standards for tree planting and preservation, accounting for different development types and zoning designations.
• Designate development standards or required public improvements that may be waived or reduced if the proposed development promotes Heritage Tree preservation. • Clarify alternative mitigations for Heritage tree removals, and align them with the goals of this Plan.

Designate mitigation trees with protected status regardless of size. • Clarify processes and requirements for Street Tree and Heritage Tree replacements. • Consider implementing a “No Net Loss” policy (see Guide C: Urban Forest Policies and Practices).

The Tree Ordinance, planting guidance, and related implementation tools should prioritize the protection of existing mature trees, habitat features, and ecological resources, alongside new plantings and enhancement.

Priority Short-term priority (upon Plan adoption)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest, Parks and Open Space)
GOAL 3: BUILD RESILIENCE, CONTINUED
106

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
927
Action 14. Explore and expand opportunities to
repurpose public tree materials and green waste.

The CSD Urban Forestry Division should continue to explore opportunities to repurpose organic materials from tree care and removals in alignment with SB 1383 requirements. Continue to reuse wood chips and logs in parks. Evaluate new options such as investing in a wood mill saw, partnering with vendors to create furniture or other products, and improving coordination on mulch and compost procurement to support waste diversion targets. Continue to support opportunities for compost and mulch giveaways to residents to support the City’s efforts to comply with SB 1383 implementation.

Priority Short-term priority (in progress)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest) Support: Sustainability and Solid Waste
Objective 3B: Support quality habitat that sustains a diversity of life Action 15. Establish priority areas and goals for
habitat restoration of large open spaces.

Set habitat restoration Targets (see Guide D: Monitoring and Targets) that increase Mountain View’s overall habitat diversity and representation of historical habitat types. These targets may leverage or tie in with synergistic programs such as those for floodplain management. • Applying the findings in the Habitat Diversity discussion in 3.1 Biodiversity Assessment, identify sites that may present opportunities to restore or enhance currently-underrepresented historical habitat types, such as Wet Meadow, Alkali Meadow, and Oak Woodland or Savanna; undertake feasibility assessments as appropriate. • Where full habitat restoration is not feasible, design plant palettes that use a suite of species from historical habitat types (start with the Native Plant List found in Guide B: Plant Lists), and develop interpretive signage to educate the community (Action 3).

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department (Urban Forest, Parks and Open Space)
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
107
928
Action 16. Identify and pursue opportunities to enhance and expand existing vegetated patches providing
habitat, particularly for native species that are
less tolerant of urban disturbances.

Referring to the Ecological Enhancement Zone in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, explore creative opportunities to expand existing vegetated patches, reduce patch “edge” effects, fill gaps between neighboring patches, and establish new green spaces, especially those greater than two acres in size (i.e., “patches”). Vegetated patches will contribute to biodiversity support regardless of whether they occur on private or public lands–or a single patch can span both.

Take an inventory of patch areas that fall on or near land currently owned or managed by the City or other government agencies. On this publicly-managed land:
• Identify appropriate sites adjacent to patches where impervious cover can be replaced with softscape to expand the patch size and buffer patch core areas. • Within and surrounding existing patches, implement wildlife-friendly maintenance practices (see Action 21), and enhance vegetation quality where possible. • Provide special resources where appropriate. For example, snags (standing dead or dying trees), dead tree limbs, and tree cavities provide particularly high habitat value for wildlife, as does restoring creek and wetland floodplains (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping).

In addition, assess and pursue opportunities for private land acquisition to:
• Expand or connect existing vegetated patches; and
• Pursue opportunities to create new vegetated patches.

Priority Long-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works Department
GOAL 3: BUILD RESILIENCE, CONTINUED
108

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
929
Objective 3C: Use greening opportunities to adapt to future climate conditions
Action 17. Prioritize shade tree planting in the Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, to
protect against heat and improve walkability.

Trees in the public realm will play an important role in protecting the community from intensifying extreme heat events, while also providing benefits to people and nature year round. • Plant shade trees (trees with larger canopies at maturity) in areas with high heat risk, and near community resources, such as active transportation infrastructure, community facilities, and access routes to cooling centers and other emergency resources, as noted in the Cooling Zone guidance (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping). High-priority planting locations can be prioritized using the following concurrent assessment and planning efforts:
• A climate vulnerability assessment is underway (to be completed FY25-26), led by the City Manager’s Office Resilience and Sustainability team. The work will map 1) where the extreme heat hotspots are in greater granularity than this Plan, and 2) the facilities where people can go during a heat emergency.
• The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan’s (PRSP) planning area-based equity framework will inform prioritization of urban cooling, shade, and green infrastructure investments in areas experiencing higher heat exposure and lower access to parks, tree canopy, and other green amenities. PRSP Action item 2.1.1 also references this Plan’s Action 17, reinforcing coordination between the two plans to advance equitable access to shade, cooling, and biodiversity benefits citywide.
• Align tree plantings for urban cooling with biodiversity support functions, such as improving landscape connectivity for wildlife movement, and other City goals, such as walkability, traffic calming, and public safety.
• Establish 40% canopy cover for parking lots at 15-20 years after construction. Trees should shade at least 40% of the paved areas as measured at 20-year maturity, based on the tree species and mid-summer sun angle conditions. The parking lot shade goal is carried over from the prior 2015 CTMP. Establish a shade goal for active transportation corridors. • Plant trees with larger canopies at maturity, and provide adequate planting conditions (e.g., soil volume, structure, and suspended pavement) to promote tree longevity and growth to their full size potential.
• Consider adding language to manage the common conflicts between tree-planting and solar panels. • Ensure appropriate spacing between shade trees to allow adequate shade tree canopy at maturity per the standards and guidance developed through Action 4.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: City Manager’s Office (Sustainability and Resiliency) THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
109
930
GOAL 4:

ACTIVATE AND

COLLABORATE WITH

THE COMMUNITY
The community, City, and the region are ready to support biodiversity and the urban forest together. A coordinated and collaborative effort will pull together diverse stakeholders across and outside of the city. The City can facilitate this Goal by engaging residents and practitioners, and by coordinating across City departments and with external agencies and regional efforts.
110

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
Objective 4A: Activate and collaborate with the community Action 18. Enhance residential and privately-managed tree support. Conduct City-led outreach and partner locally
to activate the community in supporting biodiversity and the urban forest in neighborhoods across the city.

Expand outreach, educational guidance, and incentives for tree planting and care, native landscaping, and habitat enhancement and restoration. • Continue promoting tree planting on private property, especially in higher-density and underserved neighborhoods.

Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan workshop in 2024. Courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 931
Action 18. (continued)
• Conduct City-led outreach for residents across the city. Topics would include lawn replacement, impervious surface removal, residential landscaping for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife, expanded native tree giveaways, tree care and tree pest management, wildlife best practices, and others (see Guide A: Urban Landscaping).
• Develop a platform and outreach program to encourage property owners to share information about trees on their properties. This will allow the City to better track Mountain View’s privately maintained trees (see Metric M25 in 5.3 Metrics and Targets) and understand how to better support this large component of the urban forest.

Strengthen partnerships, such as with local non-profit organizations, community-based groups, owners/managers of large properties, nurseries, landscapers, contractors, and schools, to support City initiatives and goals for promoting biodiversity and the urban forest, especially on private land. • Work with community-based partners to support outreach; education; engagement; and distributing, planting, maintaining, and tracking trees or biodiversity-supporting plants. Encourage programming that supports multiple community objectives, such as education, supporting atrisk youth, and workforce development. Potential approaches includes implementing an Adopta-Tree program for city trees or recognizing schools, businesses, and neighborhood organizations for implementing biodiversity and native-friendly landscaping. The City’s current partnership with Canopy may be used as a model for organizational partnerships. • Continuing to partner with other private forest stakeholders, such as large property owners/ managers and industry professionals (e.g., nurseries, landscapers, and contractors), will allow the City to forge deeper working relationships and understanding of Mountain View’s privately managed trees, and those responsible for caring for them. • Promote engagement with existing native landscaping certification programs, such as National Wildlife Federation Certified Wildlife Habitat, Xerces Society Pollinator Habitat Pledge, Monarch Watch Monarch Waystations, or North American Butterfly Association Certified Butterfly Gardens.v Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department, City Manger’s Office Photos from 2025 Mountain View Earth and Arbor Day celebration. Photos courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
111
932
Action 19. Build partnerships and programs that
enable the community to access and contribute
to data about trees and nature in the city.

Investigate ways to engage the community in new or existing data collection efforts, such as:
• Collaborate with existing organizations and programs (e.g., Grassroots Ecology’s Shoreline City Nature Challenge Bioblitz) to expand the annual City Nature Challenge bioblitz to the whole city.
• Explore opportunities to foster community participation in an inventory of privately-managed trees (see Action 18).
• Consider how data collected through the City Nature Challenge or other community science or bioblitz events can support tracking the Plan’s proposed Metrics, such as Metric M15 and Metric M16, in 5.3 Metrics and Targets.
• Strengthen partnerships with schools, community-based organizations, and academic institutions to both provide student education opportunities and generate data and insights about the city’s urban forest and ecology.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Home gardens can
support native bees.

The Horn-Faced Leafcutter
Bee eats pollen from a
variety of native plants that
can be grown in gardens.

Socially solitary, they nest in
wood holes, plant stems, and
other substrates. Gardens
will not only support
leafcutters with nourishing
pollen, but also the leaves
they cut and place within
their nests.

GOAL 4: ACTIVATE AND COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY, CONTINUED 112

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
Horn-Faced Leafcutter Bee. Photo by iNaturalist user rojasburke, courtesy of CC BY 4.0.
933
Objective 4B: Activate and collaborate with design practitioners and large landowners
Action 20. Conduct a biodiversity- and urban forestfocused review of City development processes to clarify various City department expectations and requirements.

Development and redevelopment create large-scale opportunities to transform the built environment to better support biodiversity and trees. City guidance, standards, and other resources should clearly communicate the expectations of the City’s various Departments, requirements, and enforcement practices. A review of these resources, coordinated across City departments, will improve communication with developers and the public, and identify opportunities to support the Plan’s Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Metrics.
• Review the General Plan, Code of Ordinances, and capital project requirements to identify opportunities to codify Plan commitments, such as pursuing canopy cover or landscaped area targets. Use Plan resources to develop objective standards, roadway design approaches, green infrastructure strategies, and other tools for development and public improvements. • Review the development permitting process and opportunities to promote long-term tree retention at new developments. • Clarify expectations around development agreements. For example, a post-planting monitoring requirement would ensure trees and landscaping receive proper care, and that trees are not removed.
• Prevent urban forest losses at the city scale. For example, establish a greater replanting requirement for any planted trees that are removed or die before the end of a development agreement. Establish a penalty system for failure to report. • Refer to Action 13 for updating Heritage Tree protection and replacement policy in the Tree Ordinance.
• Conduct outreach to industry organizations and large landowners to find creative solutions (see Action 18). One existing initiative to model off of is the City’s current support for the school district’s “Greening Initiative” project through purchasing trees and irrigation supplies. • Implement any changes in coordination with updated guidelines and standards (Action 4). • Identify opportunities to enhance the ecological value of landscaped spaces, such as side and rear yards, by encouraging plantings from Guide B: Plant Lists and future updated resources.

Priority Medium-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Community Development Department,
City Attorney’s Office
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
113
934
Objective 4C: Enhance collaboration across City departments to optimize implementation of the Plan through City programs, projects, operations, and maintenance
Action 21. Develop and implement staff training for biodiversityfriendly landscape installation and maintenance.

As the City updates landscaping standards and guidelines and installs biodiversity-friendly landscaping, staff will also need to be trained to implement the new standards and maintain the updated landscaping.
• Develop training and informational materials for maintaining a more diverse and native plant palette and minimizing human-wildlife conflicts and pest species. Keep the training content and concepts up to date as new standards are applied.
• Maintain an adequate level of maintenance staff to maintain the City’s facility, park, and roadway median landscaping. • Where needed, seek training materials and support from Bay-Friendly Landscaping and the California Native Plant Society.
• Collaborate and exchange resources and feedback between the Community Services Department Parks staff and Public Works staff to align project designs with maintenance staff training and resources. Inter-departmental coordination should be conducted within budget, staffing, and/or schedule constraints.

Priority Short-term priority (in progress)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works
Keeping it “messy” for lizards.

In addition to vegetation, Southern Alligator
Lizards need logs and rocks for refuge and will
benefit from landscaped areas and corridors
where these types of debris are maintained.

Tail breakages were found to be more common
for this species in areas with more impervious
surface cover—probably because of more
human traffic and a lack of hiding places. Before
tossing that log in the chipper, consider leaving
it for a lizard! Southern Alligator Lizard. Photo by
Jerry Kirkhart, courtesy of CC BY 2.0.

GOAL 4: ACTIVATE AND COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY, CONTINUED 114

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
935
Action 22. Establish an internal system across City
departments for a) data collection and Target-setting,
and b) regularly revisiting the Plan to maintain
steady progress towards the Vision and Goals.

Conduct a cross-departmental review of Targets and associated Metrics identified in the TargetSetting Worksheet (see Guide D: Monitoring and Targets). • Collaborate to set Target values, prioritizing those associated with the Recommended Metrics and considering the Supplemental Metrics where appropriate. • Establish an internal system for data collection, tracking, and reporting on the Metrics and progress toward Targets (see below).

Conduct annual, cross-departmental check-ins to maintain the Plan and ensure its continued implementation. Inter-departmental coordination should be conducted within budget, staffing, and/or schedule constraints. The goal of these communications is to:
• Track and review progress towards the Goals of the Plan, including reporting the status of Actions completed, currently underway, and not yet initiated. • Regularly measure and report progress towards Targets. Develop and implement a monitoring and data-tracking system to collect updates on each of the Plan’s Metrics (see 5.3 Metrics and Targets and Guide D: Monitoring and Targets).
• Update the Plan in 2035: Update the Biodiversity, Urban Forest, and Community Perspectives assessments and the Plan’s Actions; make appropriate updates to the Goals, Objectives, Metrics, and Targets to better serve the City and community. • Review and discuss existing opportunities, needs, challenges, and conflicts for City departments to align their strategies, guidelines, practices, and policies. • Set goals for the upcoming year. Identify priority next steps and specify a task lead for each (see “Leadership and Responsibilities” in 5.4 Implementation Framework). • Provide an annual summary of implementation progress, supported by Targets and Metrics, to the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, and the public, with additional community-facing updates or engagement opportunities to share progress (see “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting” in 5.4 Implementation Framework).

Priority Short-term priority (upon Plan adoption)
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
115
936
Action 23. Incorporate recommendations and guidelines
from this Plan when developing new, or substantially
updating existing, Precise Plans.

When the City develops new or updates existing Precise Plans, develop procedural mechanisms to ensure that recommendations in this Plan and the associated Guides are consulted. • Identify opportunities to support the Objectives and other Actions promoted in the Plan, such as tree-planting (Action 12 and Action 18), shade requirements (Action 17), development and roadway standards (Action 20), and active transportation corridor improvements (Action 1 and Action 17).
• Incorporate guidelines and best practices presented in Guide A: Urban Landscaping and Guide C:

Urban Forest Policies and Practices. Overlay the Precise Plan district with the zones outlined in Guide A: Urban Landscaping to assess which guidelines are most relevant in the district. • Refer to the Guide B: Plant Lists or any updated plant selection tools developed through Action 5 when developing neighborhood plant palettes.

Use the maps in Guide A: Urban Landscaping to inform decisions about development densities, intensities and character.
• Develop high-level goals policies consistent with this Plan that can further support future decision-making regarding the City’s streets, open spaces and private properties.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Development Department (Planning) Support: Community Services Department
GOAL 4: ACTIVATE AND COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY, CONTINUED 116

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Farmers’ Market pop-up. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI. 937
Objective 4D: Coordinate with other agencies to identify opportunities for aligning visions and collaborating on initiatives that enhance shared natural resources
Action 24. Explore collaborations with local and
regional public/agency partners to identify potential
opportunities to support biodiversity together.

Frequently communicate biodiversity and urban forest management Goals, Objectives, and Actions with Mountain View’s partners, with the aim of maximizing benefits on a larger scale. • Coordinate and seek opportunities to align priorities and initiatives with other government entities that manage land in Mountain View, such as Valley Water and SFPUC, as well as other major private utility providers, such as PG&E, beyond updating access agreements described in Action 2. • Potential collaborating activities include pooling data, information, and funding; identifying strategies for managing shared resources (e.g., creeks or shoreline habitat) or adapting to shared challenges (e.g., climate change, sea-level rise, or pest management); partnering on implementation projects; and establishing MOUs and other agreements. • Continue to participate in, or identify and join, existing regional networks, forums, or working groups, such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Forest Alliance and the Santa Clara County Climate Collaborative.

Priority Short-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: Community Services Department Support: Public Works Department
South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project sign naming a broad suite of public, private, and NGO partners.

Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
117
938
Action 25. Continue to explore and apply for
intergovernmental programs and networks to
elevate Mountain View’s leadership and recognition
on a national and international platform.

Mountain View’s bold commitments and resulting initiatives to strategically support its urban biodiversity and forest as a cohesive urban ecosystem sets the City apart as a leader and model for others to follow. Joining national and global networks and programs alongside other cities can yield numerous benefits, including gaining access to resources and forums for exchanging knowledge, staying aligned with the most up-to-date science and best practices, and offering a platform for Mountain View to share its accomplishments and lessons learned.

Mountain View has taken the Mayor’s Monarch Pledge since 2021 and joined Tree City USA in 2001. Similar programs and recognitions can elevate Mountain View’s profile on national and international stage, such as joining the Biophilic Cities network or seeking the Tree City USA Community with Growth Award.

Priority Long-term priority
Responsible department(s) Lead: City Manager’s Office
GOAL 4: ACTIVATE AND COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY, CONTINUED City of Mountain View staff and Canopy staff partner to host the city’s 2025 Earth and Arbor Day Celebration.

Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.
118

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
939
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
119

5.3 Metrics and Targets
It is important to use Metrics and quantitative Targets to track progress towards Objectives outlined in 5.2 Vision to Action. Metrics and Targets will enable the City to track progress and adapt to evolving challenges. These Metrics and Targets are for tracking progress toward this Plan’s Goals and Objectives; they are different from the formal performance/workload measures that the City reports annually.

Definitions of Metric and Target. Selecting Metrics and establishing Targets will help the City monitor progress in accomplishing Objectives.

METRIC • A quantifiable measure intended to convey information about the City’s progress in reaching a stated Objective
TARGET • Numeric goalposts to achieve within a specific timeframe (see Guide D:

Monitoring and Targets for additional guidance on Targets)

METRICS
Below is a series of recommended Metrics to evaluate progress in achieving the biodiversity and urban forest Objectives outlined in the Plan. These Metrics blend local insights from the Mountain View community and City staff with international research and standards for tracking urban biodiversity performance, including from Making Nature’s City, the City Biodiversity Index (also known as the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity), the IUCN Urban Nature Index, and Biophilic Cities.58,150-152 Aligning the City’s Metrics with these international standards will elevate the City of Mountain View as a trailblazer, applying the most up-to-date science, setting benchmarks for cross-city comparisons, and preparing the City to join global networks that prioritize urban ecosystem health.

The Plan highlights two groups of Metrics:
• Recommended Metrics are those that the City can begin tracking immediately, using information already collected through regular City operations. These Metrics can be used to standardize consistent annual tracking as needed, though the relevance and utility of each Metric may vary over time as City priorities and initiatives evolve. • Supplemental Metrics for further consideration would require data the City does not currently collect. While resource constraints may limit feasibility, the City can refer to this supplemental list to measure additional dimensions of success as priorities or capacity allow.
940

OBJECTIVES
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 4D

RECOMMENDED METRICS
Recommended, ready-to-use Metrics linked with the Objectives for which they track progress M1. Tree canopy cover across the city (as percent of total area, excluding the Baylands)
M2. Proportion of public trees that are regionally- and California-native
Number of projects (or acres of project area) incorporating enhancements for native species habitat (e.g., native pollinator gardens, bat boxes, ponds, bioswales) in the urban matrix (M3) and specifically integrated into capital projects (M4)
Acres of landscaping converted from unprogrammed and underutilized turf (M5) or impervious surface (M6) to ecologically-functioning landscaping (e.g., native plants, green stormwater infrastructure, cooling, permeable surfaces)
Number of trees planted on City-managed lands (M7) and
for new developments (M8), distinguishing between new and mitigation trees
M9. Average interval (years) between checkups (including a health assessment and upkeep activities such as pruning) on trees maintained by the City
M10. Percent or number of parks and community facilities that implement biodiversity-themed installations, including signage and art associated with physical landscaping
M11. Number of external stakeholders partnering with the City to implement biodiversity activities, projects, and programs Number of attendees (M12) and volunteer or participant hours (M13) during City-sponsored or -partnered biodiversity and urban forest events and programs
M14. Number of trees distributed through Arbor Day Tree Giveaway or other City-sponsored or -partnered events and programs

SUPPLEMENTAL METRICS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Additional Metrics that the City can consider evaluating to measure progress towards Plan Objectives; would require additional data collection and tracking, beyond current City activities M15. Number of native vascular plant, bird, and arthropoda species
Estimating the number of native vascular plant, bird, and arthropoda species in the city, measured through standardized, repeated surveys, will allow the City to track change in native species richness—an important measure of biodiversity—over time (see Guide D: Monitoring and Targets). capital
120

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
941

OBJECTIVES
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 4D

RECOMMENDED METRICS
Recommended, ready-to-use Metrics linked with the Objectives for which they track progress M16. Percentage of native bird species in built-upb areas or within project site
This metric compares the number of native bird species found in an area of interest to the city-wide total, indicating how well the urban matrix supports native birds beyond parks and open spaces. This metric focuses on birds because of the availability and reliability of data153,154 and the relative ease of monitoring.e.g.,155 This metric can also be applied to other taxa (e.g., native vascular plants or arthropods). Pre- and post-project data can particularly demonstrate a project’s impact on urban biodiversity.

How the Metric is calculated: (Number of native bird species in built-up areas/project site) ÷ (Total number of native bird species in the city) × 100% M17. Percent of newly installed (within 3 years) public trees that are in good condition
Tracking tree condition (including lack of disease, canopy health, and structural issues) during regularly-scheduled tree monitoring visits can inform future tree planting decisions, maintenance needs, and site condition requirements.

M18. Acres restored for native species habitat and protected from human disturbance
M19. Linear footage ratio of nature-based vs engineered banks for freshwater streams
Number of properties with existing/updated wildlife-friendly lighting (M20), and number of structures with existing/updated bird-safe design (M21), e.g., on City-owned properties, new developments, or encouraged on private properties through ordinances
M22. Linear footage of trail extensions, improvements, or new trails amidst natural features
M23. Number of hours or FTE positions City staff work on biodiversity-related tasks, including training, to manage landscapes for supporting biodiversity.

M24. Number of acres enhanced for biodiversity during
City-sponsored or -partnered events and programs
M25. Number of privately-managed trees tracked through data submitted by private community members (e.g., by community members and large landowners)
a A large group of species that includes insects, spiders, and crustaceans. Though cities are often most interested in monitoring bee and butterfly pollinators, the Plan purposefully uses this grouping to include other groups of ecological importance as predators (e.g., spiders) and in healthy soils (e.g., millipedes).
b Terminology retained from the City Biodiversity Index, “built-up” areas refer to the most-developed or highly urbanized areas within cities, excluding parks and open space

SUPPLEMENTAL METRICS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION (CONTINUED) THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
121
942
Habitat restoration project at Shoreline Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 122

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

TARGETS
While Metrics are the method for measuring progress, Targets represent the milestones.

Setting evidence-based, quantitative targets for improving biodiversity and urban forest health will motivate the City to make measurable progress towards its Objectives in a discrete timeline. Assigning quantitative targets requires deep consideration to balance what is needed to meet the community’s goals with what is feasible to achieve in a given timeframe, which will make for an important immediate next step to follow this Plan, as recommended in Action 22 (see 5.2 Vision to Action). To support implementing this Action, Guide D: Monitoring and Targets also recommends a target-setting framework and worksheet for the City to use to determine Targets that align with the Objectives and Metrics.

Targets in the Prior 2015 Community Forest Master Plan
This Plan replaces the prior 2015 City of Mountain View Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP),156 which originally set quantitative urban forest targets one decade ago. The following table lists these targets and reports progress toward their achievement. 943
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
123
Quantitative urban forest targets from the prior 2015 CTMP and 2025 progress updates. 2015 CTMP QUANTITATIVE TARGET 2025 PROGRESS
Increase canopy by five percentage points
from 17.7% to an overall canopy cover of

22.7% by 2030.

19.5% city-wide canopy cover in 2022 (a 1.8 percentage point increase), or roughly one third of the way towards meeting the target in seven years.

Plant 11,000 new trees over the next 15 years:

Plant 300 new public trees per year until
between 2015 and 2025, or a total of
3,000 new public trees.

Annual planting data has not been formally tracked, but 1,425 additional public trees were reported in the tree asset dataset between 2015 and 2024, amounting to 158 public trees planted on average per year between 2016 and 2024, or roughly half of the target pace set in 2015.

This target is carried forward in Action 12.

Facilitate the planting of 535 new trees per
year on private property until 2030.

Annual tree distribution data has not been formally tracked long-term, but roughly 370 trees in total were distributed to private residents in 2024, including Arbor Day tree giveaways and street tree planting. Recent annual Arbor Day tree giveaways amounts have increased steadily, at roughly:
• 280 trees in 2024
• 220-230 trees in 2023
• 200 trees in 2022
This target is carried forward in Action 18.

Increase the tree stocking level of the public
tree resource from 82% to 91% by 2030. This
requires planting an additional 3,000 new
public trees over the next 15 years, in addition
to replacing trees that are removed due to
failure.

Public tree stocking level is not able to be tracked and compared to 2015 levels using the public tree asset dataset due to formerly inconsistent data collection methods. A comprehensive repeat of the public tree inventory is needed to gauge the status of tree stocking levels.

Mitigation for tree removal should include
calculation of the canopy being removed and a
plan to mitigate that loss at a 2:1 ratio.

No known data tracking this target.

Establish a goal of 40% canopy cover of parking areas at 15-20 years after construction.

Trees should shade at least 40% of the paved
parking areas as measured at 20 year maturity, based on the tree species and mid-summer sun angle conditions.

Data are not available to track progress towards this target. As of 2015, zoning ordinance SEC. 36.32.80. “Development standards for off-street parking” sets tree-planting standards, but do not set enforceable canopy cover targets. In addition, El Camino Real Precise Plan and East Whisman Precise Plan have set 50% canopy cover goals over surface parking lots.

This target is carried forward in Action 17.
944
124

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

5.4 Implementation Framework
The Plan provides a long-term, aspirational vision for protecting, enhancing, and managing the City’s natural systems. Implementation of this Plan will be carried out through a coordinated and adaptive approach that allows the City to respond to new information, opportunities, and community needs over time. This Implementation Framework outlines how the City will organize responsibilities, prioritize actions, pursue funding, and monitor progress to support ongoing advancement toward the Plan’s goals.

LEADERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Successful implementation of the Plan will require a coordinated City-wide effort. To support this, the City will establish a cross-departmental Implementation Team responsible for advancing Plan Actions and maintaining steady progress toward the Vision and Goals. The City Implementation Team will include staff from the departments and divisions involved in development of the Plan, including Community Services, Public Works, Community Development, Sustainability, and others. A designated staff lead will oversee the team and coordinate plan execution, monitoring, and reporting activities to support continuity, accountability, and effective collaboration across departments.

Core Responsibilities. The City Implementation Team will:
• Coordinate the initiation and advancement of Actions across departments • Align departmental work plans and the recommended sequencing of action items with Council Strategic Priorities and goals
• Review Actions for feasibility, resource needs, and opportunities for alignment with ongoing City projects • Support the updates and/or development of ordinances, policies, objective standards, roadway design approaches, green infrastructure strategies, and technical resources that implement the Plan’s direction
• Monitor progress using planned Metrics and maintain internal accountability • Prepare updates for City leadership, Boards and Commissions, and the public • Determine roles and actions of committees, commissions, and other advisory bodies to involve or consult
• Recommend adjustments to implementation strategies based on progress, challenges, or emerging opportunities
To further support the Implementation Team and designated lead staff, the City will continue to evaluate staffing and resource needs, which may include additional staff support and/ or consultant assistance to advance specific Actions and initiatives. These resources may support technical analysis, grant pursuits, specialized project implementation, volunteer coordination, community engagement and partnership, interdepartmental coordination, and collaboration with regional agencies (see Action 24).
945
Stevens Creek Trail. Photo courtesy
of the City of Mountain View.

THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
125

PRIORITIES AND INITIAL STEPS
The Plan identifies Actions with short-term, medium-term, and long-term priority levels (see 5.1 Components of the Plan) to guide sequencing.

These priorities provide general direction but remain flexible, recognizing that implementation will depend on staffing, funding, feasibility, and alignment with other City initiatives.

Short-term Priorities. Several short term-priority actions are already in progress and will be expanded upon or refined as part of implementation. Additionally, in response to strong community support, the City will prioritize Action 5 (developing recommended plant palettes), Action 13 (updating the Heritage Tree Ordinance), and Action 22 (setting Targets and collecting data to track Metrics) for implementation beginning immediately upon Plan adoption.

Medium- and Long-term Priorities. Medium and long term-priority action items will be reviewed by the City Implementation Team and incorporated into implementation work plans based on:
• Assigned priority level
• Feasibility and timing considerations
• Estimated costs and funding availability
• Required staff capacity and technical expertise
• Opportunities to align with capital projects, development activity, green infrastructure investments, or partner initiatives • Partnerships or collaborations that may support implementation • Anticipated environmental, community, or operational benefits Existing and future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects may provide opportunities to incorporate greening, urban forest, and green infrastructure improvements as part of the broader City investments and infrastructure projects. The City may accelerate or defer certain actions as needed to account for staffing, funding cycles, regulatory changes, or opportunities to integrate work with other planned City projects. 946
Routine maintenance of bioretention system at Pyramid Park. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View. 126

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

COSTS AND FUNDING
The adoption of this Plan does not constitute any budget appropriations. Actions with associated costs and funding needs will advance based on the availability of resources and direction from City leadership.

Funding Approach. For Actions with no current funding allocated, the City Implementation Team will administer the following:
• Submit budget adjustment requests through the City’s annual budget development process • Identify and pursue external funding opportunities, such as State and Federal grants, regional programs, philanthropic sources, private partnerships, and other opportunities described in the Plan • Explore and/or leverage partnerships with institutions, nonprofits, community-based organizations, and regional agencies where mutual benefits exist
• Consider phased approaches or pilot projects to manage costs or strengthen future funding eligibility • Evaluate opportunities to integrate Actions into planned capital projects or routine maintenance work Preliminary cost estimates in the following table are intended to guide work planning and budget development. Actual costs and funding strategies will be refined as specific actions advance. 947
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
127

ACTION PRIORITY
* in progress
** upon Plan
adoption
COST
staff time only Ø
under $250k $
$250k to $1M $$
over $1M $$$
CURRENT PHASE: ACTIONS ALREADY IN PROGRESS OR BEGINNING UPON PLAN

ADOPTION

7. Develop and adopt a dark skies ordinance. Short-term * $

11. Expedite the development of a monitoring and maintenance plan for public trees.

Short-term * $$

12. Plant an additional 1,575 public trees by 2030. Short-term * $$$

14. Explore and expand opportunities to repurpose public tree materials and green waste.

Short-term * $$

21. Develop and implement staff training for biodiversity-friendly landscape installation and maintenance.

Short-term * $

5. Further develop native and climate-resilient planting guidance to support proper installation, maintenance, and sourcing of native plant materials.

Short-term ** $

13. Update the City tree list and Tree Ordinance to increase urban forest health, species diversity, and age diversity.

Short-term ** $$

22. Establish an internal system across City departments for a) data collection and Target-setting, and b) regularly revisiting the Plan to maintain steady progress towards the Vision and Goals.

Short-term ** $
FUTURE PHASE: TIMING TO BE PLANNED BY CITY IMPLEMENTATION TEAM

3. Promote biodiversity-themed installations and educational content. Short-term $

4. When reviewing or updating existing City landscaping and planting guidelines, implement design standards for city parks, facilities, and streetscapes where feasible.

Short-term $

10. Maximize biodiversity support within city parks and trail corridors while continuing to meet community needs.

Short-term $$$

15. Establish priority areas and goals for habitat restoration of large open spaces.

Short-term $$$

17. Prioritize shade tree planting in the Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A:

Urban Landscaping, to protect against heat and improve walkability.

Short-term $$$
Plan Actions sorted by phase, priority, and preliminary cost estimate. 948
128

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN

ACTION PRIORITY
* in progress
** upon Plan
adoption
COST
staff time only Ø
under $250k $
$250k to $1M $$
over $1M $$$
FUTURE PHASE: TIMING TO BE PLANNED BY CITY IMPLEMENTATION TEAM (CONTINUED)

18. Enhance residential and privately-managed tree support. Conduct Cityled outreach and partner locally to activate the community in supporting biodiversity and the urban forest in neighborhoods across the city.

Short-term $

23. Incorporate recommendations and guidelines from this Plan when developing new, or substantially updating existing, Precise Plans.Short-term $

24. Explore collaborations with local and regional public/agency partners to identify potential opportunities to support biodiversity together.

Short-term $

1. Strategically integrate green features in active transportation improvement project design to both increase ecological value and achieve other City priorities.

Medium-term $$

2. Continue to review land management agreements and explore opportunities to enhance restoration and maintenance of high-value ecological areas along third-party creeks.

Medium-term $

6. Implement planting projects according to urban landscaping Zones indicated in Guide A: Urban Landscaping.Medium-term $$$

8. Further advance strategies that support bird-friendly standards and reduce collision risk.

Medium-term $

9. Support coexistence between people and wildlife in Mountain View by using approaches that prevent conflicts before they happen, such as protecting natural habitats, reducing wildlife attractants in unsafe areas, and creating spaces where people can enjoy wildlife safely.

Medium-term $

19. Build partnerships and programs that enable the community to access and contribute to data about trees and nature in the city.

Medium-term $

20. Conduct a biodiversity- and urban forest-focused review of City development processes to clarify various City department expectations and requirements.

Medium-term $

16. Identify and pursue opportunities to enhance and expand existing vegetated patches providing habitat, particularly for native species that are less tolerant of urban disturbances.

Long-term $$$

25. Continue to explore and apply for intergovernmental programs and networks to elevate Mountain View’s leadership and recognition on a national and international platform.

Long-term Ø
949
THE PLAN:

CHARTING THE FUTURE
129

MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND REPORTING
A structured approach to monitoring and reporting will allow the City to track progress, evaluate outcomes, and refine implementation strategies over time. As a foundational City policy document, this Plan will guide City decision-making, capital project delivery, and budget development across departments.

Data Collection and Metrics. As outlined in Action 22, the City Implementation Team will initiate an internal process to collect the data necessary to track Recommended Metrics, as well as Supplemental Metrics where feasible, and set Targets using the Target-Setting Worksheet (see Guide D: Monitoring and Targets). The City Implementation Team will include a designated staff lead to coordinate monitoring efforts, ensure continuity, and support collaboration across departments.

Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring efforts will focus on:
• Measuring progress made toward Plan Objectives and Targets across all departments • Evaluating resource needs, staffing capacity considerations, and other barriers or challenges that may require adjustment to more efficiently and effectively meet Plan Objectives and Targets • Identifying opportunities for adaptive management or process improvements • Evaluating how Plan commitments and guidance are being incorporated into City projects, programs, and budget development processes
Reporting. The City Implementation Team will determine appropriate methods and frequency for reporting progress. This will include:
• Regular updates including annual progress reporting to City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and other governing bodies (see Action 22); periodic community updates or engagement opportunities, including a check-in at the first year of implementation, to share progress • Integration with existing climate, sustainability, or environmental reporting • Public dashboard and/or summary materials for community outreach Reporting will emphasize transparency, clarity, and accountability while remaining flexible to evolving communication needs.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Because the Plan is intended as a guiding document, implementation will be adaptive and responsive as conditions, funding opportunities, regulatory requirements, scientific knowledge, and community priorities evolve over time. The City Implementation Team will periodically review overall progress toward the Vision and Goals, assess the effectiveness of completed Actions, and recommend refinements or updates to priorities and approaches as needed.

Implementation will also include identifying partnerships and funding opportunities that support volunteer, stewardship, and community-based efforts.

Adaptive management ensures that the City can adjust course and make informed, timely adjustments that support long-term success. This includes incorporating feedback from City Council, advisory bodies, and the community to continuously refine implementation. 950
Coast live oak. Photo by Don DeBold,
courtesy of CC BY 2.0.

5.5 Commitment to Progress
This Plan marks a pivotal step in articulating the community’s Vision for a greener, healthier, and more biodiverse and resilient future and drawing a roadmap toward realizing the Goals and Objectives to get there. It sets a clear direction for implementation and measuring success along the way, ensuring that the City has the information and tools necessary to create real change.

By applying 5.4 Implementation Framework, the City will lead the next steps, following through on these commitments and adjusting where needed. Resources and recommendations provided in the Guides appended to the Plan, such as the urban landscaping guidance and plant lists, can be applied to projects immediately. The Plan’s Actions also offer tools to incorporate into municipal processes, such as planning, zoning, ordinance updates, and permitting, over the next few years. Transparency and accountability will define the Plan’s success, and will require investment in tracking and reporting the recommended Metrics.

The City can guard against loss of momentum and institutional knowledge from staff turnover by formalizing a process for revisiting the Plan and reporting on progress. To ensure progress, departments responsible for each action should revisit commitments annually and publicly report progress, such as through the City website or reports to City Council. 951
The City should also commit to a more comprehensive assessment and formal update in five years to celebrate success, adapt to lessons learned, identify new opportunities, and reorganize priorities.

Sustained progress will require investment, both in staff resources and funding. Some recommendations will require additional resources and approval from City Council or leadership. There are also opportunities to align with external funding sources, regional initiatives, and state priorities to support this work. Santa Clara County’s Urban Forest Master Plan may be a key source of external support, identifying regional urban forest needs and unlocking greater funding opportunities. Other funding opportunities to support the Plan could focus on urban greening, habitat restoration, transportation, stormwater, and climate adaptation, and should be explored.

The adoption of this Plan begins the City’s paradigm shift towards managing its urban landscape as a cohesive ecosystem, in which people and organisms of all kinds can thrive. With the practical tools offered in this Plan and a commitment to invest in its implementation, combined with the community’s passion to learn, collaborate, and take action, Mountain View has the power to bring its vision for a healthy, connected, and resilient urban ecosystem to life. 952
953

GUIDES & APPENDICES
954
A-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
GUIDE A: URBAN

LANDSCAPING
This Guide translates the Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Actions of the Mountain View Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (“the Plan”) into practical guidelines for landscape site design across the city. These guidelines are meant to serve as a reference resource containing general best practices and are not meant to be prescriptive. It may be used by the City, practitioners, and community members. Within the City, these guidelines apply to all project types, including new and existing development, public facilities, rights-of-way, and parks and open spaces.

Urban landscapes face unique challenges and opportunities for advancing local biodiversity and climate resilience. Individual sites with limited planting space must balance multiple competing demands—accommodating various land uses and infrastructure (such as transportation, recreation, and habitat creation), while delivering multiple ecosystem services, including urban runoff management, pollutant capture, and urban cooling. The close proximity of built and natural systems adds further complexity, often creating conflicts that limit planting opportunities. Balancing these demands requires thoughtful design. These guidelines offer strategies to navigate these complexities to offer biodiversity and community benefits.

These guidelines include a map and overview of five Zones, which identify priority areas where landscaping strategies can generate the greatest impact for biodiversity and community well-being. Each Zone includes a set of landscaping guidelines applicable across different site types in the city. The maps in this guide are intended to provide an initial review of the zones in the City, and are not intended to be enforceable on their own. The City will conduct updates of the maps and additional policy development prior to using the maps.

Landscaping Guidelines by Zone
The landscaping guidelines presented here are organized into five Zones, to maximize impact for biodiversity and the community. These guidelines and zones were guided by the Plan’s vision for ecological health and resilience, abundant access to nature, and fostering greater native biodiversity. Each Zone was mapped using results from 3.1 Biodiversity Assessment. The results were summarized by city blocks or smaller (developed using a combination of public rights-of-way, U.S. Census blocks, land use and zoning designations, and street intersections) to delineate practical boundaries (“segments”) for implementation.

While these guidelines are tied to each Zone, these practices will likely generate benefits for biodiversity and the community wherever they are implemented in the city. The Zones simply serve as a framework for prioritizing resources and identifying opportunities for the highest impact. As a result, the Zones are highly generalized, and the guidelines must be considered alongside site conditions and project goals.

The Zones exclude Shoreline Regional Park and active wetland restoration sites, which have existing guidelines through management or restoration plans, including the recently-completed Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan.10 955
A. Ecological
Enhancement Zone
B. Water Resource
Enhancement Zone
C. Greening Zone
D. Re-Oaking Zone
E. Cooling Zone
Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
Map of all five urban
landscaping zones, including
their areas of overlap.

URBAN LANDSCAPING ZONES
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
956
A-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
A. Ecological Enhancement Zone
The Ecological Enhancement Zone highlights areas of Mountain View where native landscaping and wildlife-friendly management strategies are an especially high priority for supporting species that are more urban-sensitive and rely on consolidated habitat patches, special resources, and intact landscape connection. Guide B: Plant Lists, which provides a curated list of plants native to the Santa Clara Valley and an updated City tree list including California native trees, can support plant selection in this zone.

This Zone targets creating and enhancing the quality of vegetation—especially native vegetation—in and around these important ecological resources. Targeting native planting in parks and schools is not only practical—because these sites offer relatively larger areas of open space—but also encourages interaction between people and native biodiversity in places where people spend time outside.

Targeted benefits: new and enhanced native habitat; attractive to more urban-sensitive wildlife; controlled invasive species; well-maintained planting; native species where people spend time
Landscaping guidelines to prioritize in the Ecological Enhancement Zone:

A1: Prioritize native habitat creation or enhancement
A2: Align with regional and local wildlife conservation efforts A3: Control invasive species
A4: Provide maintenance and visual sense of care
957
The Ecological
Enhancement Zone was
created using patches,
barriers to movement,
and matrix quality near
patches and creeks from
the Patches, Connections,
and Matrix Quality
assessments of 3.1
Biodiversity Assessment.

The resulting map includes
segments within or near
barriers to movement,
those where improving
matrix quality is important,
and parks and schools.

Ecological
Enhancement Zone
Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
0 0.51
Miles
N
A. ECOLOGICAL

ENHANCEMENT ZONE
958
A-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
GUIDELINE A1: PRIORITIZE NATIVE HABITAT

CREATION OR ENHANCEMENT
Guideline A1.1: Create a native planting design for project sites, prioritizing species that—individually or together—provide especially high biodiversity support • Prioritize native, biodiversity-supporting plants: Incorporate a variety of native species with staggered bloom times and fruiting periods, offer both herbaceous and woody cover for shelter, and include multiple planting layers (e.g., groundcover, shrubs, and canopy trees) to support a wide range of species, such as pollinators, birds, and mammals. • Create a diversity of microhabitats within a site: Design to include horizontal and vertical diversity and complexity within habitat patches (e.g., a variety of vertical canopy heights overlapping within a single area as well as clusters of shrubs and/or trees interspersed horizontally with gaps of lower herbaceous vegetation between them) to accommodate different species’ needs.
• Incorporate native species that require special care where feasible: Where site conditions and management practices allow, consider incorporating native species that require special care, such as annuals and low-disturbance-tolerant plants, that offer high ecological value and support local wildlife.
• Enhance planting for multiple benefits: Design habitat plantings to also provide aesthetic value, recreational enjoyment, and mental and physical human health benefits.8 Where appropriate, select plantings that maintain sightlines while limiting physical access into native habitat areas. Incorporate varied vegetation layers and diverse habitat types, which has been linked to mental health benefits.) • Use low-water, drought-tolerant, and climate-resilient species and consider recycled water and other site compatibility requirements. See Guideline C5.

Guideline A1.2: Place habitat-enhancing landscaping along slow streets and active transportation corridors to improve connectivity
• Establish continuous tree canopy cover, prioritizing native tree species, along active transportation corridors: Plant trees strategically in accordance with best practices, such as those in Caltrans Design Information Bulletins (DIB), Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and U.S. EPA Green Streets Handbook,157–160 especially along lower-speed, local streets and active transportation corridors, to improve traffic safety, such as to provide traffic calming, reduced vehicle speeds, and bike and pedestrian safety. Tree-planting along local streets can also encourage canopy-dwelling birds, mammals, and invertebrates to move safely between patches. 959
A-6
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING
• Install landscaping features, especially with native vegetation, for multiple benefits: Following best practices from the same design resources listed above, enhance landscape strips, medians, curb extensions, bioretentions, and other small planting features, prioritizing native vegetation. Sidewalk and roadway improvements can not only support movement, foraging, and cover for pollinators, ground-dwelling and lower-canopy birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, but also provide similar benefits as street trees for improving road safety.
• Maintain trees and landscaping according to safety standards: Regularly inspect and maintain tree and landscaping vegetation to ensure visibility of roads, crossings, traffic signals, signs, and other safety features remain clear. • Evaluate surrounding habitat to inform site design: Evaluate vegetation and habitat surrounding sites to guide plant selection that promotes plant cross-pollination and facilitates wildlife movement across the landscape. Also see oak planting guidance in D. Re-Oaking Zone.

Guideline A1.3: Design safe street crossings
• Conduct wildlife road crossing risk assessments to identify key threats posed to wildlife by roads and evaluate opportunities to mitigate those threats, such as through roadway improvements or improving safe crossings, particularly through strategies that benefit both people and wildlife. Define the assessment goals, and collect existing data and potentially conduct field surveys to identify risk hotspots and key contributing risk factors.
• Create safe, visible, low-speed traffic crossings to support the safe movement of humans and wildlife. • Select appropriate plants within sight triangles at intersections to prevent obstructing drivers’ views, while also supporting pollinator and bird movement above traffic to help minimize roadkill.
• Design planting plans near sensitive habitats based on the needs of target species to support their habitat requirements and guide safe crossings between patches. • Use barriers, fencing, or other deterrents to protect sensitive habitat from disturbances and to also discourage ground-dwelling animals from attempting unsafe crossings. 960
A-7

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
Guideline A1.4: Evaluate and treat reflective surfaces and artificial lighting adjacent to plantings
• Install bird-safe design in high-priority locations: Bird collision risk is heightened in areas where plantings are reflected in untreated, highly reflective surfaces. Coordinate with building managers and developers to reduce reflectivity of structures near planting areas where feasible. • Install wildlife-friendly light fixtures: Use lower-intensity lighting and replace blue lights with warmer yellow or amber alternatives that are less disruptive to wildlife. Direct light only where needed, such as by utilizing shielded fixtures, to prevent unnecessary light spillover into planted areas.

Guideline A1.5: Preserve and protect interior habitat areas in large planting areas • Preserve interior habitat areas: In large planting areas, maintain a protected interior habitat area by limiting pruning and mowing. Allow natural materials such as leaf litter, fallen branches, and fruits to accumulate, as they improve soil quality and provide habitat (e.g., cover and food) for urban wildlife. • Deter intrusion into interior habitat areas: Use dense, low-growing plants along walkway edges to discourage dogs and people from entering interior habitat areas.

GUIDELINE A2: ALIGN WITH REGIONAL AND

LOCAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION EFFORTS
• Consult historical ecology and local conservation efforts: When planning landscape improvements, consider whether the plant palette can incorporate or mimic elements of historical habitat types once found at the site or in Mountain View. Also consult with nearby open space, habitat restoration, and species conservation projects to identify strategies for the planting areas to support target species recovery or ecosystem functioning.
• Reference and incorporate other applicable conservation guidance: Ensure planting and design strategies are aligned with local and regional wildlife protection efforts, including but not limited to:
• Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan10
• North Bayshore Precise Plan133
• Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan132
• Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan125 (specifically the extended permit area for Western Burrowing Owl conservation)
961
A-8
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING
GUIDELINE A3: CONTROL INVASIVE SPECIES
• Focus invasive species control efforts in vegetated patches: Prioritize invasive species removal in vegetated patches as shown in the “Patches” in 3.1 Biodiversity Assessment, prioritizing larger patches and sensitive or restored habitats for treatment. • Align with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan144: Incorporate existing best practices to control invasive plants, weeds, and invertebrate pests.

GUIDELINE A4: PROVIDE MAINTENANCE

AND VISUAL SENSE OF CARE
Guideline A4.1: Manage edges of planting areas to provide visual sense of care • Consider plant size and spacing at maturity in the design phase: Visual sense of care is defined as how well-maintained and intentionally-designed a landscape appears to observers. During the design phase, consider the mature size of plantings and avoid placing plants, such as spreading groundcovers, too close to edges of planting areas, as this will increase maintenance costs (frequent pruning or mowing) and can negatively impact healthy plant success.
• Maintain edges of planting areas: Prune or mow plantings at the edges of entrances, major roads, primary walkways, local landmarks, and building foundations to ensure a neat appearance or to reinforce that a naturalistic design is intentional and cared for. • Clear debris from edges of core patches as needed: If fallen leaves, branches, and other plant debris are left in core patches to provide habitat (see Guideline A1), remove from edges of planting areas to support a maintained and cared-for appearance. 962
A-9

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
B. Water Resource Enhancement Zone
Urban water resources are especially vital habitats for urban biodiversity. They face particular risk from urban runoff, which can contain pollutants such as pesticides, trash, and nutrients. Due to these risks, planting and management strategies that promote water absorption and reduce pollutants should be prioritized along riparian corridors and wetland boundaries.

The Water Resource Enhancement Zone highlights areas in the city where water quality management and riparian habitat enhancement is a high priority to support aquatic resource health. This zone is a subset of the Ecological Enhancement Zone, and its guidelines should be applied in addition to those of the larger zone.

Targeted benefits: improved water quality; recharged groundwater; increased native planting; controlled invasive species Landscaping guidelines to prioritize in this zone:

B1: Prioritize planting and protection of native riparian vegetation B2: Promote water quality improvement and soil infiltration B3: Control invasive vegetation and limit pesticide and herbicide use B4: Align with riparian setbacks and regulatory requirements 963
Water Resource
Enhancement Zone
The Water Resource
Enhancement Zone was
created using a map of
Mountain View’s water
resources,39 and a buffer of
100 meters161 around each
resource. The resulting map
includes segments where
over 20% of the area is
within the buffer. This zone
is a subset of the Ecological
Enhancement Zone.

Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
B. WATER RESOURCE

ENHANCEMENT ZONE
964
A-11

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
GUIDELINE B1: PRIORITIZE PLANTING AND

PROTECTION OF NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION
• Plant native riparian species where appropriate: Use native riparian species native to the Santa Clara Valley (see Curated List of Santa Clara Valley Native Plants in Guide B: Plant Lists), selected based on appropriate site assessments (e.g., groundwater table and soil conditions), to restore riparian habitat and support local hydrological systems. • Design for multi-layered habitat in riparian plantings: Use plant layering—including understory, midstory, and overstory riparian plants (see “Curated List of Santa Clara Valley Native Plants” in Guide B: Plant Lists)—to provide a variety of nesting, foraging, and roosting locations for riparian wildlife.

GUIDELINE B2: PROMOTE WATER QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT AND SOIL INFILTRATION
• Site green stormwater infrastructure features to improve water quality: In addition to siting GSI closer to the runoff source (see Guideline B4), some forms of GSI are well-suited near riparian areas. Create vegetated riparian buffers between urban development and riparian corridors—such as vegetated swales and filter strips—to filter pollutants, trap sediment, and reduce erosion. Expand the use of permeable surfaces and vegetated GSI to promote ground infiltration, enhance groundwater recharge, and support the removal of pollutants from urban runoff. Evergreen trees offer greater stormwater treatment benefits than deciduous trees in the Bay Area, so consider this tradeoff with other desired project outcomes.
• Design plantings to improve soil conditions: Where appropriate, select nitrogen-fixing or deep-rooted plants to reduce soil compaction and erosion, and to further support the removal of pollutants from urban runoff before it reaches sensitive riparian habitats.

GUIDELINE B3: CONTROL INVASIVE VEGETATION

AND LIMIT PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDE USE
• Control invasive species: Prioritize the removal of invasive species along streambanks and adjacent riparian areas and wetlands to protect native ecosystems. • Avoid toxic chemical treatments: Reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides by selecting pest-resistant plant species, applying proper maintenance practices, and using physical, biological, and other non-chemical control methods to reduce pollutants in urban runoff and downstream waters. See Guideline A3 for additional guidance.
• Seek expert guidance: Recommendations for invasive vegetation removal should be prepared by, or reviewed by, a qualified ecologist and pest control advisor (PCA). 965
A-12
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING
GUIDELINE B4: ALIGN WITH RIPARIAN SETBACKS

AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Reference and incorporate riparian and wetland protection regulations: Ensure planting and design strategies are aligned with local and regional water and habitat protection goals, including but not limited to the Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams adopted by City of Mountain View, and specific permitting requirements and regulations from the City, Valley Water, and other relevant entities around landscaping adjacent to riparian areas. 966
A-13

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
C. Greening Zone
While native vegetation plays the most significant role in supporting biodiversity in the city, non-native (and non-invasive) plants also provide multiple benefits such as stormwater management, human health support, and cooling, while providing resources to more urban-adapted species. Using native plants in the Greening Zone and across Mountain View is strongly encouraged, but sites farther from important ecological resources with little existing vegetation would benefit from greater greening overall. This more flexible approach may be needed in the most sparsely-vegetated areas of Mountain View, to favor plants that accommodate common urban site constraints like high impervious surface, greater levels of pollutants, and more disturbed and compacted soil.

The Greening Zone highlights areas in the city where increasing overall vegetative cover is the primary goal.

Targeted benefits: increased green cover; new and enhanced stepping stone habitat for wildlife; expanded soil volume; improved soil quality; vegetated green infrastructure; increased recycled water use Landscaping guidelines to prioritize in this zone:

C1: Quickly establish green cover using urban-resilient plants C2: Consider opportunities to create small habitat enhancements even in small areas
C3: Improve soil quality and expand soil volume wherever feasible C4: Incorporate vegetated green stormwater infrastructure C5: Provide irrigation using recycled water where possible 967
C. GREENING ZONE
The Greening Zone was
created using vegetation
cover (including trees,
shrubs, and grass). The
resulting map includes
segments whose vegetation
cover falls below the
city average.59 The
Greening Zone excludes
segments that are already
included in the Ecological
Enhancement Zone.

Greening Zone
Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
0 0.51
Miles
N
968
A-15

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
GUIDELINE C1: QUICKLY ESTABLISH GREEN

COVER USING URBAN-RESILIENT PLANTS
• Prioritize hardy and disturbance-tolerant plants: Select plants with a proven track record of success under challenging urban site conditions—such as limited soil volume, soil compaction, frequent and high-volume winter runoff, non-point source pollution, and urban heat (see guidelines in E. Cooling Zone).
• Prioritize medium- to fast-growing plants: Select faster-growing plant species that can quickly establish vegetation cover, improve soils, and control invasive species in challenging urban site conditions. Their early growth can also mitigate urban heat, retain moisture, and create more favourable conditions for slower-growing, native plants to establish. • Design plantings to improve soil conditions: Where appropriate, include nitrogen-fixing or deep-rooting plants that can gradually improve soil nutrient content and soil structure over time.
• Use low-water-use, drought-tolerant plants to reduce irrigation demand. • Use climate-resilient species: Prioritize native plant species adapted to local and future climate conditions.
• Select salt and salt spray tolerant species closer to the shoreline. • Consider recycled water compatibility: For plants that will require ongoing irrigation, even in areas currently irrigated with potable water, select species that are compatible with recycled water as the City expands its use of recycled water (also see Guideline B5).

GUIDELINE C2: CONSIDER OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE

HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS EVEN IN SMALL AREAS
• Incorporate native, wildlife-supportive plants: Prioritize native species that provide foraging and refuge opportunities for urban-adapted wildlife with smaller space requirements (e.g., insect pollinators) or during highly mobile life stages (e.g., migratory birds). Also consider non-native (and non-invasive) species that are urban resilient and known to support urban wildlife.
• Create “stepping stones” of vegetation: Enhance connectivity in areas where physical connectivity is challenging by establishing small, distributed tracts of vegetation within appropriate range distances of target wildlife species.58 These “stepping stones” support urban biodiversity while also contributing to increased nature contact, reduced urban heat, and enhanced mental wellbeing.

GUIDELINE C3: IMPROVE SOIL QUALITY AND

EXPAND SOIL VOLUME WHEREVER FEASIBLE
Guideline C3.1 Improve soil quality
• Pre-installation testing and preparation: Before planting, conduct pre-installation testing of in-situ soils to assess soil structure, drainage capacity, nutrient content, and over969 A-16
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING
all health. This step will help determine whether soil amendments or imported fill soil are needed to support successful plant establishment.
• Tailor amendments to plant species needs: Any soil improvement measures should be based on test results and aligned with the specific requirements of the selected plant palette. • Post-installation soil protection: After soil preparation and planting, protect soil structure by applying mulch (avoiding areas immediately surrounding tree trunks and stems of smaller plants). In areas with heavy foot traffic, consider using appropriate fencing to prevent trampling and other damage.

Guideline C3.2 Expand soil volume in limited-size planters wherever feasible • Plan for plant maturity: Evaluate the mature size and root zone needs of trees and understory plants when designing planters, and expand soil volume accordingly to support healthy long-term growth. If adjusting the soil volume is not feasible, select plant species appropriate for the existing soil volume. • Incorporate continuous or connected soil systems in paved environments: Prioritize the creation of continuous planting strips or interconnected soil volumes using strategies such as soil cells or structural soil. These systems allow for root expansion, water infiltration, and oxygen exchange, which are especially critical for tree health and longevity.

GUIDELINE C4: INCORPORATE VEGETATED

GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
• Create green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) features with multiple benefits: Site GSI features—such as green roofs, bioswales, rain gardens, and bioretention areas—strategically throughout the city, prioritizing upland and higher elevation areas, to capture, slow, and treat runoff closer to its source. This decentralized approach supports infiltration and evapotranspiration before runoff concentrates, while also reducing pollutant loads downstream (see guidelines in B. Water Resource Enhancement Zone). When integrated with wildlife-supporting, multi-layered planting, GSI can enhance urban biodiversity (see Guideline A1) and contribute to urban cooling (see guidelines in E. Cooling Zone).

GUIDELINE C5: PROVIDE IRRIGATION USING

RECYCLED WATER WHERE POSSIBLE
• Select appropriate plants: Choose plant species that are tolerant of the elevated salt content and nutrient levels found in recycled water. • Use recycled water: Where a connection to a recycled water system exists, prioritize its use for landscape irrigation. In areas without access to recycled water, incorporate onsite water harvesting per the City’s standards. Note that all North Bayshore buildings connected to the recycled water system are required to use it for landscape irrigation49,133. • All irrigation practices should align with the Mountain View Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations162 and Recycled Water Ordinance163. 970
A-17

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
D. Re-Oaking Zone
Native oaks (Quercus spp.; see “Curated List of Santa Clara Valley Native Plants” in Guide B: Plant Lists) play an outsized role in the region both ecologically and culturally, historically and today. Native oaks support an especially wide range of native wildlife, with many native species having specialized relationships with native oaks. The biodiversity support that oaks provide can be maximized by creating “nodes” of oak trees, where a minimum of 20 regionally-native oak trees are planted within a 1,000-foot diameter area11.

The Re-Oaking Zone highlights areas of the city that already have a concentration of regionally-native oak trees, where additional oak plantings could feasibly establish new oak nodes, or enhance existing ones.

Targeted benefits: New and expanded oak node habitat; healthy oak trees; increased food source and habitat for oak-associated wildlife
Landscaping guidelines to prioritize in this zone:

D1: Analyze re-oaking locations
D2: Carefully source native oak species to promote genetic diversity D3: Plan maintenance for oaks and oak woodland
971
The Re-Oaking Zone highlights reoaking opportunities based on “nodes” of publicly-managed oaks in Mountain View.

Circles identify clusters of at least 10
native oak trees within 500 feet of each
other.69 These zones do not account for
private trees, so there may be additional
re-oaking nodes when accounting for
oaks occurring on private land.

Furthermore, land uses may be intensifying
within some of the highlighted areas, such
as along Moffett Boulevard, Downtown,
along Whisman/Central Expressway, near
Calderon Avenue and Evelyn Avenue, and
near California Street & Escuela Avenue.

Re-Oaking Zone
Nodes of > 10
native oaks
Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
D. RE-OAKING ZONE
972
A-19

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
GUIDELINE D1: ANALYZE RE-OAKING LOCATIONS
Guideline D1.1: Create or expand existing oak habitat
• Cluster oak plantings: Where possible, cluster new oak plantings around existing large oak trees, which provide a natural seed source (acorns) to support regeneration, especially when site conditions are favorable for seedling establishment. Increased acorn production from clustered oaks supports urban wildlife, such as the Acorn Woodpecker, California Ground Squirrel, California Scrub Jay, and other animals that rely on multiple oaks in close proximity for foraging and movement11. • Mimic historical oak habitats: Plant oaks with associated understory vegetation to enhance the habitat structure and ecological functions of the Oak Woodland and Oak Savanna ecosystems. (See “Curated List of Santa Clara Valley Native Plants” in Guide B: Plant Lists to select plants historically associated with Oak Woodland and Oak Savanna.) Cluster oaks of the same species to support cross-pollination and avoid hybridization between different oak species11. • Promote oak age diversity: Within these oak clusters, evaluate the diversity of their size, age, and health. Tree age diversity not only creates greater diversity of habitat for biodiversity, but also ensures continuous habitat is provided as older trees age and die.

Guideline D1.2: Confirm site suitability for oak planting • Conduct a site assessment to evaluate:
• Soil conditions (preferably well-drained with a low water table; Coast Live Oak, Q. agrifolia, is not suitable for areas with high water table) • Water availability and irrigation requirements
• Sun exposure and canopy competition
• Coastal exposure, avoiding areas with regular salt spray, high soil salinity, or high sea-level rise risk
• Surrounding land use and planting compatibility
• Ensure sufficient growing space: Allow ample room for each oak’s canopy and root system to mature. Avoid planting near buildings, utilities, other infrastructure such as sidewalks/curbs, or densely-vegetated areas that could limit long-term growth or cause infrastructure conflicts.
• Avoid disease risks: Reduce the risk of spreading Sudden Oak Death, a disease caused by the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Plant oaks a minimum of 30 feet away from California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica), increase spacing to 50 feet in areas that are downhill, downwind, or particularly favorable to P. ramorum spore production, and limit the abundance of Bay Laurels, keeping them primarily within riparian zones.11
973
A-20
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING
GUIDELINE D2: CAREFULLY SOURCE NATIVE OAK

SPECIES TO PROMOTE GENETIC DIVERSITY
• Develop a process to vet plant materials and sources: Prioritize the use of high-quality, regionally-sourced genetic stock for re-oaking efforts when available to preserve regionally-adapted genetic diversity and support local habitat. • Make arrangements for plant stock at design phase: Ensure that the plant stock planned at the project design phase is available during the plant purchase and project construction phase by contracting directly with nurseries to pre-order critical plant stock, especially for large projects.

GUIDELINE D3: PLAN MAINTENANCE

FOR OAKS AND OAK WOODLAND
• Improve oak habitat quality through management: Preserve leaf litter, dead tree limbs and cavities, tree stumps and snags (standing dead trees), and fallen limbs where they do not pose a risk to public safety or compromise the visual sense of care. Oak trees generate large amounts of leaf litter, which enriches soil organic matter beneath the canopy and creates islands of fertility compared to surrounding open areas. The dense canopy provides shelter for birds, dead limbs offer nesting cavities and habitat for arboreal ants, and downed branches and leaf litter serve as cover for small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.11 Also see Guideline A4 for additional maintenance recommendations. 974
E. Cooling Zone
Urban trees, vegetation, and green spaces play a critical role in supporting cooling, both in their immediate vicinity and collectively across the city. Cooling can be maximized by increasing tree canopy and vegetation and reducing impervious cover. Importantly, extending the lifespan of trees, such as through proactive management, providing adequate growing conditions, and protections from removal, will maximize each trees’ ability to contribute to a cooler city.

The Cooling Zone highlights areas of the city where guidelines can be applied to reduce human health risks from extreme heat and improve outdoor mobility along existing or planned bike lanes where cooling is especially vital.

Targeted benefits: Natural cooling; improved ground shading; reduced heat absorption of buildings and pavement; building heat insulation
Landscaping guidelines to prioritize in this zone:

E1: Strategically expand and preserve tree canopy for urban cooling E2: Maximize use of plant, building, and paving materials that limit heat gain E3: Integrate vegetative roofs and vertical structures for cooling and other environmental benefits A-21

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
975
The Cooling Zone was
created using spatial data
layers for heat severity,164
and existing and planned
bike lanes in Mountain
View.65 The resulting
map includes existing
and planned bike lanes as
well as segments with at
least 80.0% of their area
characterized by heat
severity scores of three
or higher, where a score
of five represents areas
experiencing the greatest
heat severity in the city.

E. COOLING ZONE
Cooling Zone
Shoreline Wildlife
Management Plan
Area
Wetland
Restoration Area
Creeks and
channels
0 0.51
Miles
N
976
GUIDELINE E1: STRATEGICALLY EXPAND AND

PRESERVE TREE CANOPY FOR URBAN COOLING
• Continuous canopy: Plant a diverse mix of evergreen and deciduous tree species based on site conditions and the surrounding landscape context. In human-centered areas such as sidewalks, plazas, parks, and building facades, prioritize deciduous species with broad, continuous canopies to maximize shade over paved surfaces during hot summer months, while allowing sunlight to reach these areas in the winter. • South-facing and west-facing building facades and outdoor spaces: Prioritize deciduous shade trees in these areas to provide cooling summer shade while allowing winter sunlight to reach buildings and outdoor spaces (see tradeoffs with evergreen trees in Guideline C2). This approach also supports building energy efficiency by reducing cooling and heating demands seasonally. In Mountain View, south-facing areas receive consistent sunlight year-round, while west-facing areas experience intense afternoon sun during the summer.
• Wind-exposed areas: Use evergreen trees to buffer against prevailing winter winds, based on site-specific conditions.
• Sufficient planting volume for tree health: Design tree planting areas to provide adequate soil volume for trees based on species and site conditions. Mature trees would require greater rooting volume, but ensure sufficient space for root expansion as trees grow. Adequate soil volume also promotes the longevity and canopy development of trees, so that each tree delivers the greatest amount of shade and cooling benefits over time. In addition, expanded soil volume also enhances infiltration and contributes to urban cooling. Also see soil management strategies in Guideline C3. • Use structural soil and other planting systems to address compaction: Where planting space is constrained by hard paving, heavy foot traffic, or other site conditions, consider using structural soil which typically includes coarse aggregates and low-silt soil. This mixture provides structural support while maintaining soil porosity, which is essential for air and water movement in the root zone and supports healthy root growth for urban trees. Other planting systems may include soil cells, suspended pavement systems, or shared root zones to increase rooting capacity.

GUIDELINE E2: MAXIMIZE USE OF PLANT, BUILDING,

AND PAVING MATERIALS THAT LIMIT HEAT GAIN
Guideline E2.1: Enhance planting areas for ground cooling • Increase natural surface cover: In low foot-traffic areas, use native grasses or other low-growing herbaceous plants to help retain soil moisture and reduce surface temperatures. • Minimize non-functional turf (decorative turf) wherever possible: Turfgrass, especially when frequently mowed, has high water demand during the warm season and offers A-23

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
977
limited cooling benefits, such as soil moisture retention or ground shading. Prioritize planting alternatives that offer greater cooling benefits, such as mowable native grasses and unmowed groundcovers.
• Multi-layered planting for cooling and habitat: Incorporate diverse planting layers— groundcovers, understory, midstory, and canopy vegetation—wherever feasible to improve ground-level shading. This approach has the additional benefit of supporting a greater diversity of nesting species (from ground-level to tree canopies), and overall human well-being. Also see Guideline A1 for additional multi-layered planting guidance.

Guideline E2.2: Use high solar reflectance materials while also minimizing glare • Minimize heat absorption: Select paving and building materials with high solar reflectance, such as light-colored pavers and concrete, to minimize heat absorption and mitigate urban heat buildup.
• Minimize excessive glare: Light-colored materials that reduce heat absorption can also cause excessive glare, which can increase heat in the ambient environment and cause visual discomfort. Apply textures or a matte finish to these light-colored materials.

GUIDELINE E3: INTEGRATE VEGETATIVE ROOFS

AND VERTICAL STRUCTURES FOR COOLING

AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
• Build and promote green structures: Implement vegetative roofs and vertical structures where feasible, considering cost and structural capacity. Explore options based on project priorities:
• Common vegetative roof types include:
• Green roofs: Highly vegetated planting systems that reduce urban heat, manage stormwater, improve building insulation, and enhance biodiversity support —ideal for urban cooling.
• Extensive green roofs (shallow and light weight): soil depth equal to or less than six inches on roofs that have limited load capacity. Grasses, sedums, and other herbs are often planted.
• Intensive green roofs (deeper and heavier): soil depth more than six inches to support multi-layered planting, such as groundcovers, shrubs, and small trees.

Offers greater shading, thermal insulation, and habitat value but requires higher construction cost and maintenance. • Brown roofs: Designed with natural substrates to mimic wildlife habitats. Different from green roofs, they may include bare ground, leaf litter, logs, stones, and selective planting to create additional habitat for wildlife.

A-24
GUIDE A: URBAN LANDSCAPING 978
• Blue roofs: Engineered for stormwater detention (commonly designed for 2-4 inches of ponding depth). They are often combined with vegetation or integrated into green roofs to slow runoff and ease pressure on drainage systems. • Common vegetative vertical structure types:
• Green facades: Vines and climbing plants grow up a structure or trellis, rooted in the ground or containers.
• Living walls: Plants are rooted in a modular panel or other systems attached to the wall. Compared to green facades, living walls can require significantly more maintenance, often requiring irrigation or recirculating water systems. Plants are under more stress than in-ground plants due to little or no soil volume, rendering them more susceptible to heat and wind.
• Manage conflicts between tree-planting and solar panels: Discourage tree-planting near photovoltaic (solar panel) structures, such as rooftop and ground-mounted systems, to prevent shading or debris accumulation that reduces solar power generation and tree root interference with underground utilities. Low-growing, shallow-rooted, and shade-tolerant understory plants, such as grasses and sedum, can be planted as groundcover beneath the panels.
• Consider hybrid solutions: Solar-integrated green roofs maximize benefits for cooling, energy efficiency, biodiversity support, and stormwater management.

A-25

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
979
980
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS
This Guide provides two plant lists: 1) Santa Clara Valley native plants associated with Mountain View’s historical ecology, and 2) an updated City Tree List, which identifies trees suited for streets, parks, and open space and highlights species native to California. Both lists may be used by the City, practitioners, and community members as a reference to select plants and urban-adapted tree species for projects throughout Mountain View.

These plant lists can support expanding the use of native and regionally appropriate species where feasible, while recognizing that successful urban forest management also requires consideration of climate resilience, site constraints, habitat value, ecological and biodiversity functions, maintenance needs, and long-term species diversity.

These lists are a first step toward developing an interactive Tree Selector tool and more comprehensive planting guidance, as recommended in Action 13 and Action 5 in the 5.2 Vision to Action. These recommended plants should be used in conjunction with the urban landscaping guidelines provided in Guide A: Urban Landscaping.

Native leafcutter bee in Mountain View. Photo by Lauren Stoneburner, SFEI.

B-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
981
Curated List of Santa Clara
Valley Native Plants
The table below includes a curated list of plants native to the Santa Clara Valley which may be used to integrate elements of Mountain View’s historical plant communities into restoration and enhancement of public and private green spaces (see 2.1 History). The list includes plants from different structural groups in each of the major canopy layers: The overstory (trees), the midstory (shrubs and vines) and the understory (herbaceous forbs and grasses). When planning a project, practitioners may first consider selecting and combining plants from one of the historical habitat types and then selecting species from the different structural groups, as appropriate.

This list is not exhaustive; species were selected to represent a diversity of structures and canopy heights, bloom times, taxonomy, likely nursery availability, and benefits to biodiversity (i.e., sources of nectar, berries, plant matter, and shelter). This list is a modified version of the list published originally in SFEI’s Urban Ecological Planning Guide for Santa Clara Valley12 (see Appendix of that document for sources and selection methodology). It was crosschecked with the plant palette developed for urban landscapes in the City of Mountain View’s North Bayshore Precise Plan,165 and against an internal resource that SFEI is developing to assess plant maintenance requirements.

Finally, scientific names were updated using a combination of databases that regularly update and resolve conflicts in plant taxonomic nomenclature.2,166,167 B-2
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 982
Curated list of plants native to the Santa Clara Valley floor, their structural type, and association with major historical habitat types in Mountain View. Plants in this list have been vetted to include a diversity of taxonomic groups, bloom times, canopy layers, and structures. These species are expected to succeed in an urban environ- ment, but because their tolerance to urban conditions varies, a site assessment is required prior to planting. The list is non-exhaustive, but provides a first step in the development of a city-wide plant palette or plant selector tool (see Action 5 in 5.2 Vision to Action). This is a modified version of the plant lists in the Urban Ecological Planning Guide for Santa Clara Valley.12
Scientific Name Common Name Major historical habitat types in Mountain View Oak woodland, Oak
savanna/
Grassland a
Riparian
Forest and
Scrub b
Wet
Meadow
Alkali
Meadow
Overstory: Trees *
Acer negundo Box Elder
Aesculus californica California Buckeye
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore
Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus kelloggii California Black Oak
Quercus lobata Valley Oak
Salix laevigata Red Willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow
Umbellularia californica c California Bay Laurel
Midstory: Woody Shrubs and Vines
Artemisia californica California Sage
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush
Cornus sericea Red Osier Dogwood
Corylus cornuta var. californica d Hazelnut
Diplacus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower
Frangula californica Coffeeberry
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Lupinus albifrons Silver Lupine
Morella californica Pacific Wax Myrtle
Rosa californica California Rose
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue Elderberry
Solanum umbelliferum Blue Witch
Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberry
Vitis californica California Grape
B-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
983
Scientific Name Common Name Major historical habitat types in Mountain View Oak woodland, Oak
savanna/
Grassland a
Riparian
Forest and
Scrub b
Wet
Meadow
Alkali
Meadow
Understory: Herbaceous Forbs and Grasses
Achillea millefolium Yarrow
Agrostis pallens Diego Bent Grass
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf Milkweed
Baccharis glutinosa e March Baccaris
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat t
Clarkia purpurea f Purple Clarkia
Clematis ligusticifolia Virgin’s Bower
Cyperus eragrostis Tall Flatsedge
Danthonia californica California Oatgrass
Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis Pacific Hairgrass Distichlis spicata Salt Grass
Elymus glaucus Blue Wild Rye
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy
Festuca rubra Red Fescue
Frankenia salina Alkali Health
Hordeum depressum e Alkali Barley
Juncus patens Common Rush
Leymus triticoides Beardless Wild Rye
Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine
Mimulus guttatus Seed Monkeyflower
Nassella pulchra Purple Needle Grass
Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue Eyes
Rubus ursinus California Blackberry
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-Eyed Grass
Symphyotrichum chilense California Aster
* Avoid planting tall trees near tidal marsh (within ~ 200 ft.;168 Western Burrowing Owl habitat,132 or Wet and Alkali Meadows due to concern of creating additional raptor perches for species using those habitats that historically have lacked trees. a The three listed oak species are the most common native oaks to the Santa Clara Valley floor. Additional regionally-native species include Blue Oak (Q. douglasii) and two species more closely associated with higher elevations of the foothills and coast ranges Interior Live Oak (Q. wislizeni) and Canyon Live Oak (Q. chrysolepis). Other California native oaks are listed in the Updated City Tree List b
Includes species associated with the historical Willow Grove habitat type in Mountain View c
Do not plant within 50 ft of oaks as precaution for Sudden Oak Death d
Plant upslope of immediate riparian area
e
Nursery availability may be limited
f
Annual species are difficult to maintain in urban environments where there’s limited maintenance, but could be used as suggested in Landscaping Guideline A1.1 Incorporate native species that require special care where feasible.

B-4
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 984
Updated City Tree List
Updated from the prior 2015 Community Tree Master Plan156 tree list, prepared by Davey Resource Group with support from SFEI
This Updated City Tree List is an informational resource designed to support appropriate tree selection by the City and private landowners, with the goal of ensuring that all trees planted support increased urban forest health, diversity, and resiliency.

It is important to note that this list is not prescriptive. The City may recommend or approve plantings that may vary or deviate from this list, depending on site and project type.

What this list does and does not include:
• This list is not comprehensive and will be updated on a continual basis; • Not all trees included on the list will be suitable for each individual planting area; • Trees on the list should not be considered automatically approved; and • Final plant selections should be made in coordination with the relevant City departments and/or a consulting accredited arborist.

As indicated in Action 13, the City may replace this tree list with an interactive WebBased Tree Selector tool. Once developed and implemented, the tree selector tool will enable anyone to identify appropriate trees for a site based on relevant selection criteria, such as tree form, planting site conditions, maintenance requirements, and potential for biodiversity support and other ecosystem service benefits.

The list is divided into two parts:

1. Street Trees: a list of trees recommended for planting along city streets, as well as in other less-constrained site types. This table includes species both native and not native to California and excludes any species known to be invasive. Trees recommended as street trees may also be appropriate to plant in parks and open space.

2. Parks and Open Space Trees: a brief list of additional trees that are less suitable as street trees, but are recommended for planting in parks and open spaces (excluding Shoreline Park, which has unique planting constraints). These species, including many additional California-native species, have larger growth potential, higher root disruption risk, or more intensive water or site requirements, such as those suited to riparian zones or larger rooting areas. These characteristics make them less suitable for confined urban planters but well-suited to naturalistic or open park environments. Trees from both lists may be appropriate to plant in parks and open space.

To support informed planting decisions, the list identifies minimum recommended planting space for each species, along with mature height and canopy spread. This additional B-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
985
context will help determine whether a tree is suitable for a narrow sidewalk strip, a larger streetscape planter, or a less restricted setting.

Species included in the recommended plant list were selected through a climate-forward, resilience-based framework tailored to the urban conditions of Mountain View and the broader Santa Clara Valley region. The selection criteria were as follows:
• Demonstrated strong tolerance to key urban stressors, including prolonged drought, extreme heat, limited rooting space, compacted soils, and exposure to pollutants. • Tolerance of both water scarcity and heat stress, in recognition that drought and rising temperatures are interconnected and intensifying due to climate change. These dual stressors are projected to increase in severity and duration in California’s urban environments, as supported by findings from the UC Davis Climate-Ready Trees Program and USDA Forest Service research. Trees with proven tolerance to these conditions are more likely to persist and thrive as average temperatures rise and heatwaves become more frequent. Native trees with high water needs were included in the Parks and Open Space list for strategic planting, particularly within riparian settings. • Suitability for Mountain View’s likely future climate. This list also incorporated SFEI’s original research on climate-resilient trees, which identifies tree species—and particularly California-native species—that currently thrive in cities that have climates today that are analogous to Mountain View’s likely future climate. • Salt tolerance—important for successful irrigation with reclaimed water. • Resistance to pests and diseases expected to worsen with climate stress. • Species known to be invasive were excluded.
• Regional nursery availability was reviewed to ensure practical sourcing.

Each species was also classified as California native or non-native. This broader definition of native status in the City tree list—rather than a more narrow focus on species native to Santa Clara Valley and Mountain View’s historical plant communities—reflects a City tree inventory that values native status while minimizing maintenance and long-term care burdens in the context of a changing climate.

The lists were compiled by Davey Resources Group from multiple sources, including the SelecTree database,3
CalScape1 and academic and nursery-based resources and government technical reports.169–175 B-6
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 986
UPDATED CITY TREE LIST: STREET TREES
Street trees were selected based on their tolerance to drought, heat, pests, and urban stressors such as salt exposure and soil compaction. Each species was classified as California native or California non-native. The list excludes any species considered to be invasive. All trees are hosts to other species (fungal, microbial, animal, etc.) that rely on them for food and shelter; species that might be detrimental to the tree are identified under pest susceptibility. (Trees recommended as street trees may also be appropriate to plant in parks and open space.) Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Acer rubrum Red Maple 40-50 40-50 Slow Medium Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Verticillium and Aphids, Beetle Borers, Scales, Maple Shoot Borer (Proteoteras aesculana) Acer x Freemanii
Freeman Maple 30-40 30 Fast Medium Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Verticillium and Aphids, Beetle Borers, Scales Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree 35 15-30 Fast Medium Low Evergreen Moder- ate 5-10 Phytophthora, Root Rot Callistemon citrinus
Lemon Bottlebrush 25 25 Fast Small Low Evergreen Low 5-10 Chlorosis Carpinus betulus
European Hornbeam 30-40 40 Moderate Medium Moderate Deciduous Low 5-10 Armillaria, Root Rot, Chestnut Blight and Scales Catalpa speciosa
Western Catalpa 40-60 20-40 Moderate Med.- Lrg. Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Anthracnose, Powdery Mil- dew, Root Rot, Verticillium and Caterpillars Cedrus atlantica'Glauca Fastigata'
Fastigate Blue Atlas Cedar
60 25-40 Moderate Large Low Evergreen Moder- ate >10 Phytophthora, Root Rot, Sooty Mold, Armillaria Cercis occidentalis
Western Redbud 20-25 10-20 Fast Small Moderate Deciduous Low 2-4 Native Chionanthus retusus
Chinese Fringe Tree 15-25 15-25 Slow to Moderate Small Moderate Deciduous Low 2-4 Scale, Aphids B-7

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
987
Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Cornus glabrata (nuttallii)
Brown Dogwood 5-20 8-10 Fast Small Moderate -High Deciduous Low 5-10 Native Anthracnose, Powdery Mildew, Dogwood Borer, Root Rot Corylus americana
American Hazelnut 18-20 10-12 Moderate Small Moderate Deciduous Low 2-4 Chlorosis, Leaf Blight, Powdery Mildew, Sooty Mold and Aphids, Scales, Gypsy Moth Corymbia ficifolia
Red Flowering Gum
25-40 25-40 Mod.-Fast Sm./ Med. Low Evergreen Moder- ate 4-7 Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Beetle Borers, Thrip Crinodendron patagua
Lilly of the Valley Tree 20-25 20 Slow- Mod. Small Moderate Evergreen Moder- ate 5-10 Eriobotrya deflexa
Bronze Loquat 15-30 15-30 Moderate Small Moderate Evergreen Low 5-10 Fire Blight Eriobotrya japonica
Japanese Loquat 15-30 15-25 Moderate Small Moderate Evergreen Low 5-10 Fire Blight, Armillaria, Root Rot Gingko biloba
Maidenhair Tree 'Autumn Gold'
40-60 30-50 Fast Medium Moderate Deciduous Moderate 4-7 Anthracnose Gymnocladus dioicus
Kentucky Coffee Tree 50-75 40-50 Moderate Large Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >7 Heteromeles arbutifolia
‘Davis Gold' Toyon 25 8-15 Moderate Small Low Evergreen Low 4-7 Native Sudden Oak Death, Armillaria, Root Rot and Scales, Thrip Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 25-40 15-30 Moderate Medium Moderate SemiEvergreen Moder- ate 4-7 Armillaria, Root Rot and Beetle Borers Koelreuteria bipinnata
Chinese Flame Tree 20-40 20-30 Moderate Sm./ Med. Moderate Deciduous Low 4-7 Armillaria, Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Beetle Borers, Scales B-8
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 988
Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Lagerstroemia indica
Crape Myrtle 10-30 15-25 Moderate Sm./ Med. Moderate Deciduous Low 2-4 Leaf Blight, Sooty Mold, Powdery mildew, Aphids Lagerstroemia indica 'biloxi'
Biloxy crapemyrtle 25 25 Mod.-Fast Small Very Low Deciduous Low 4-7 Powdery Mildew, Sooty Mold and Aphids Lophostemon confertus
Brisbane Box 40-50 20-30 Moderate Medium Low to Moderate Evergreen Low to Moderate 4-7 Thrips, Scale, Root Rot Metasequoia glyptostroboides
Dawn Redwood 80-70 12-20 Fast Large High Deciduous Moder- ate >7 Armillaria, Root Rot Metrosideros excelsa
New Zealand Christmas Tree
35 30-35 Moderate Medium Low Evergreen Moder- ate 4-7 Phytophthora, Root Rot Myrica californica
Pacific Wax Myrtle 25-30 10-30 Moderate Small Moderate Evergreen Low 4-7 Native Olea 'Swan Hill' Swan Hill Olive 30 20-30 Moderate Medium Low Evergreen Moder- ate >7 Anthracnose, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Scales, Psyllid Photinia serrulata 'aculeata'
Chinese Hawthorn 15 25-30 Moderate Small Low Evergreen Low 4-7 Powdery Mildew, Sooty Mold, Armillaria, Root Rot and Aphids, Scales Pinus sabiniana Foothill Pine 50-70 10-20 Fast Large Low Evergreen Moder- ate >7 Native Pitch Canker, Mistletoe, Western Gall Rust, Armillaria and Aphids, California Five Spined Engraver Beetle, IPS Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache 30-60 30-50 Moderate Medium Low Deciduous Low 4-7 Verticillium Wilt, Aphids, Scale Platanus racemosa
Western Sycamore 60-80 20-50 Fast Large High Deciduous Moder- ate >7 Native Anthracnose, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Mistletoe and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Leaf Miner, Scales, Spider Mites B-9

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
989
Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine 30-50 25-35 Slow Medium Moderate Evergreen Low >7 Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry 30 10-25 Moderate Medium Low Evergreen Low 4-7 Native Armillaria, Root Rot, Rust, Sooty Mold and White Flies, Aphids, Caterpillars Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry 35 20-30 Slow Medium Low Evergreen Low >7 Armillaria, Canker, Leaf Spot, Aphids, Beetle Bor- ers, Caterpillars, Scales Punica granatum Pomegran- ate 8-10 6-10 Moderate Small Moderate Deciduous Low 2-4 Chlorosis, Sooty Mold and Plant Bug, White Fly Pyrus kawakamii
Evergreen Pear 15-30 15-30 Moderate Small Moderate
SemiEvergreen Low 4-7 Fire Blight, Sooty Mold and Aphids, White Fly Quercus acuta
Japanese Evergreen Oak
30 15-20 Moderate Medium Low Evergreen Low >10 Armillaria Quercus agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30-70 40-70 Slow Large Moderate Evergreen Moder- ate 5-10 Native Sudden Oak Death, Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Armillaria and Carpenterworm, Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Goldspotted Oak Borer, Aphids Quercus chrysolepis
Canyon Live Oak 50-70 20-30 Moderate Large Low Evergreen Moder- ate >10 Native Sudden Oak Death, Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Armillaria and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Goldspotted Oak Borer, Aphids, Caterpillars Quercus canbyi Chisos Oak 50 30-50 Moderate Large Low Deciduous Low >10 Armillaria, Anthracnose, Root Rot, Scales and Spider Mites B-10
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 990
Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Quercus douglasii Blue Oak 60-70 40-50 Slow Large Very Low Deciduous Low >10 Native Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Armillaria, Brown Rot and Caterpillars, Insect Galls, California Oak Moth, Gall Wasp Quercus garryana
Oregon Oak 70-90 30-60 Slow Large Moderate Deciduous Low >10 Native Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Armillaria, Root Rot and Beetle Borers, Caterpillars, Insect Galls, Scales Quercus kelloggii Black Oak 50-70 30-50 Moderate Large Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Native Sudden Oak Death, Anthracnose, Armillaria, Brown Rot and Goldspotted Oak Borer, Insect Galls, Carpenterworm, California Oak Moth Quercus lobata Valley Oak 50-70 40-50 Moderate Large Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Native Armillaria, Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Root Rot, Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars, Insect Galls Quercus macrocarpa
Bur Oak 70-80 20-30 Fast Large Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Armillaria and Aphids, Spider Mites Quercus rubra Scarlet Oak 50-75 40-50 Moderate Large Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Aphids, Caterpillars, Insect Galls, Anthracnose Quercus rugosa Netleaf oak 60 20-40 Fast Large Low Evergreen Moder- ate >10 Quercus suber Cork Oak 30-60 30-50 Slow Med.- Lrg. Moderate Evergreen Moder- ate 5-10 Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Invasive Shot Hole Borer B-11

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
991
Street Trees
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Height
(ft)
Spread
(ft)
Growth
rate
Relative
Size
Water needs
(WUCOLS)
Growth
Strategy
Root
Damage
Potential
Min. Grow
Space (ft)
CA
Native
Status
Pest, Pathogen, and Stress
Susceptibility
Quercus tomentella Island Oak 50 25-40 Moderate Large Low Evergreen Moder- ate >10 Armillaria Quercus wislizeni
Interior Live Oak 50-70 40-75 Slow Large Moderate Evergreen Moder- ate >10 Native Armillaria, Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Caterpillars, Coddling Moths, Insect Galls, White Fly, Powdery mildew Quillaja saponaria
Soapbark Tree 45 15-25 Slow Medium Low Evergreen Low >10 Phytophthora Tilia tomentosa Silver Linden 40-50 20-30 Moderate Medium Moderate Deciduous Moder- ate >10 Root Rot, Sooty Mold, Verticillium and Aphids Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Evergreen Elm
40-60 50-60 Fast Large Moderate
SemiEvergreen Moder- ate >10 Dutch Elm Disease, Armil- laria, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Aphids, Beetle Borers, Beetle Leaves, Caterpillar Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay 40 15-30 Slow Medium Moderate Evergreen Moder- ate 5-10 Phytophthora, Root Rot, Psyllid and Scales” Umbellularia californica
California Bay 60-80 60-75 Slow Large High Evergreen Moderate >10 Native Armillaria, Sudden Oak Death, Anthracnose, White Mottled Rot, Phytophthora ramorum (Sudden Oak Death) and Beetle Borers, Leaf Miner, Cottony Cushion Scale, Beetle Leaves, Invasive Shot Hole Borer x Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 20-30 20-30 Fast Sm./Med. Low Deciduous Low 5-10 Root Rot, Verticillium and Aphids Zelkova serrata Saw-Leaf Zelkova 40-50 50 Moderate Medium Moderate Deciduous Moderate >10 Dutch Elm Disease, Beetle Leaves, Spider Mites B-12
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 992
Parks and Open Space Trees
Scientific Name Common Name Height (ft) Spread (ft) Growth rate Relative Size Water needs Growth Strategy Root Damage Potential Min. Grow Space (ft) CA Native Status Pest Susceptibility Acca sellowiana 'coolidge'
Coolidge Pineapple Guava 15-25 18-25 Fast Small Low Decidu- ous Low 4-7 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 80' 30'-50' Fast Large High Decidu- ous High >7' Native Sudden Oak Death, Root Rot, Armillaria, Annosus Root Disease and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Beetle Borers, California Flathead Borer, Caterpillars Acer negundo Box Elder 50-60 30-40 Mod- erate Large Moderate Decidu- ous Moderate >7 Native Anthracnose, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Powdery Mildew and Aphids Aesculus californica
California Buckeye 25 20-30 Fast Small Low Decidu- ous Low 4-7 Native Armillaria, Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death, Powdery Mildew, Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Thrip Arbutus 'Marina' Strawberry Tree 30-40 20-30 Mod- erate Medium Moderate Evergreen Low 2-4 Anthracnose, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Rust and Scales, Thrip Arctostaphylos spp.

Manzanita species 20 5-10 Fast Small Low Evergreen Low 2-4 Native Armillaria, Sudden Oak Death and Aphids, Insect Galls
Betula occidentalis Water Birch 20-30 10-20 Fast Medium High Decidu- ous Low 4-7 Native Armillaria, Root Rot and Aphids, Beetle Borers UPDATED CITY TREE LIST: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Updated City Tree list recommended for parks and open space trees. This list includes species with larger growth potential or higher root disruption risk, which is expected to reduce their tolerance for being planted in confined sidewalk plant strips. All trees are hosts to other species who rely on them for food and shelter; those that might be detrimental to the tree are identified under pest susceptibility. (Trees recommended as street trees may also be appropriate to plant in parks and open space.) B-13

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
993
Parks and Open Space Trees
Scientific Name Common Name Height (ft) Spread (ft) Growth rate Relative Size Water needs Growth Strategy Root Damage Potential Min. Grow Space (ft) CA Native Status Pest Susceptibility Ceanothus 'Ray Hartman'
Ray Hartman Ceanothus 20 15-20 Fast Small Low Evergreen Low 2-4 Native Armillaria, Crown Rot, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Aphids Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon (American) 15-30 15-30 Mod- erate Small Moderate Decidu- ous Moderate >7 Crown Rot, Root Rot, Verti- cillium and Caterpillars Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash 70-80 40-50 Fast Large Moderate Decidu- ous Low >7 Native Anthracnose, Root Rot, Rust, Sooty Mold, Armillaria and Caterpillars, Scales Juglans nigra Black Walnut 50-80 40-50 Slow Large Moderate Decidu- ous High >7 Native Armillaria, Anthracnose, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Beetle Borers, Caterpillars Persea americana Avocado 40-50 40-50 Mod- erate Medium Moderate Decidu- ous Low 4-7 Root Rot, Leaf Spot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Mites, Scales Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood 60-80 30-50 Fast Large High Decidu- ous High >15 Native Anthracnose, Canker, Crown Rot, Mistletoe and Aphids, Beetle Borers, Beetle Leaves, Caterpillars, Invasive Shot Hole Borers Quercus wislizeni Interior Live Oak 50-70 40-75 Slow Large Moderate Evergreen Moderate >7 Native Armillaria, Crown Rot, Mistletoe, Caterpillars, Coddling Moths, Insect Galls, White Fly, Powdery mildew Salix gooddingii Goodding's Black Willow 20-25 15-25 Fast Small High Decidu- ous Moderate 4-7 Native Anthracnose, Willow Blight, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Aphids, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars B-14
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 994
Parks and Open Space Trees
Scientific Name Common Name Height (ft) Spread (ft) Growth rate Relative Size Water needs Growth Strategy Root Damage Potential Min. Grow Space (ft) CA Native Status Pest Susceptibility Salix laevigata Red Willow 40-50 15-35 Fast Medium High Decidu- ous High >7 Native Anthracnose, Willow Blight, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Aphids, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars Salix lasiandra Shining Willow 30-40 10-25 Fast Medium High Decidu- ous High 4-7 Native Anthracnose, Willow Blight, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Aphids, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars, Spider Mites Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow 30-40 15-20 Fast Medium High Decidu- ous High 4-7 Native Anthracnose, Willow Blight, Armillaria, Phytophthora, Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer, Aphids, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow 20-25 15-25 Fast Small High Decidu- ous High 4-7 Native Sambucus nigra Black Elderberry 25-30 10-20 Fast Small Moderate Decidu- ous Low 4-7 Native Verticillium and Beetle Bor- ers, Invasive Shot Hole Borer B-15

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
995
B-16
GUIDE B: PLANT LISTS 996
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST

POLICIES AND PRACTICES
prepared by Davey Resource Group with support from SFEI This Guide includes an assessment of the City of Mountain View’s urban forestry policies and practices. This work, conducted by Davey Resources Group, Inc. (DRG), identifies gaps, needs, and opportunities, and recommends actions the City can take to improve urban forest health, expansion, and protection. These assessments examine the City’s urban forestry operations and pest management strategy.

Background and Operations Review
A comprehensive review of Mountain View’s urban forestry policies and operational procedures was conducted to identify areas for improvement. The approach included in-depth interviews with key personnel and a thorough review of relevant documentation. This documentation included City ordinances, technical manuals, and other guiding documents.

The findings and recommendations aim to enhance and optimize Mountain View’s urban forestry practices and ensure sustainable management of the city’s green spaces.

DOCUMENT REVIEW
Tree Technical Manual
The Mountain View Tree Technical Manual provides guidelines for all aspects of tree management in the city. It supports the City’s sustainability goals by promoting a healthy urban forest and standardizing tree-related practices.

Recommendations
General Suggestions:
• Remove all gendered language found in the document
• Fix broken web links
• Expand the manual to serve as a training resource for City staff, developers, and tree care companies
• Include clear, step-by-step guidance on enforcement procedures and permitting workflows
• Add annotated examples of arborist reports and site assessments to improve consistency and quality • Provide visual references and process flowcharts to support onboarding and ongoing staff training • Align all additions with updated ordinance language and industry standards to ensure consistency and legal compliance C-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
997
Section 2. Definitions:
• Update definitions
Section 3. Heritage Trees:
• Update process for measuring diameter to bring into line the standard measurement of a tree trunk at 54 inches above the natural grade
• Consider using this section to explain the reasoning for protecting Heritage Trees, including their value, their contribution to the community, and the actual cost of their removal
• 3.50 Heritage Tree Removal Permits
• Detail process for mitigation plantings
• Link to included timeline
• Link to official City of Mountain View Tree Species List • Link to the suggested vendor list
• Detail reinspection process and the possibility of penalties for failing to comply Section 5. Best Management Practices for Construction Site Management:
• This section is robust and in line with industry standards, but lacks details around the enforcement of these BMPs
• This section needs to be paired with an addition to the ordinance • Enforcement should be funded and staffed to ensure compliance • Standards should be consistently expressed in all applicable areas, including development codes, tree ordinances, and specific plans Section 6. Arborist Report Requirements:
• Detail that when the term “Arborist” as used in this section, refers to an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist
• Consider the addition of “Certified” Arborist to the Title • Consider creating an approved vendor list for Certified Arborists • Create a standardized vetting process as well as a term for renewal • Detail requirements and possible causes for removal from the list • Mandate that all Arborist Reports submitted for permitting or appeals must be made by an approved Certified Arborist
• Maintenance of this list would help ensure better quality of submitted reports • Detail the benefits of retaining a Certified Arborist while considering the removal of a tree
Section 7. Tree Planting and Maintenance Information:
• This section should refer to the official City of Mountain View Tree Species List • Consider the creation of an approved vendor list for tree purchases C-2
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 998
• 7.10.2 Tree Selection Concepts
• Define the term “locally” as this is a vague term that could cause confusion • Detail the value of a diverse urban forest
• Include pest susceptibility as a factor to consider during species selection • Planting materials
• Align guidelines for water with Section 4.30 Street Tree Ownership and Responsibility Precise Plans
Mountain View has adopted multiple precise plans, each tailored to specific neighborhoods and offering opportunities to test new landscaping, urban forest, and development standards. For the purpose of this Plan, The City of Mountain View selected the El Camino Real Precise Plan and Downtown Precise Plan as representative examples for this review.

These plans address common urban forestry challenges and opportunities that appear across multiple development contexts in Mountain View.

This section focuses on highlighting urban forestry best practices that may be integrated into Chapter 32 of the City Code. Implementing these recommendations holistically will help ensure consistent tree protection, canopy expansion, and climate resilience across the city.

Recommendations
While this review focused specifically on the El Camino Real and Downtown Precise Plans, the recommendations outlined below are intended for city-wide application.

Strengthen Protection for Existing Mature Trees:
• Adopt a “No Net Loss” Policy: Establish policies and standards that promote no net loss of canopy cover, while building in flexibility with how requirements are met. First, consider setting minimum canopy cover requirements for developments: prioritize onsite tree retention and planting and encourage creative designs that provides adequate soil volume and growing space for long-term tree health. Where full canopy retention or replacement is not feasible, contributions (such as in-lieu fees to support off-site urban forestry initiatives) may be used to achieve equivalent canopy gains elsewhere in the city. The policy should clarify whether replacement goals are measured immediately after project completion or at tree maturity (e.g., 15 years after planting) • Require Tree Disposition Plans for Development: Require developers to identify all mature trees on-site and identify the reason for removal, and what the project design effects would result if the tree was preserved.
• Set Strict Criteria for Removal: Update Heritage Tree removal findings to be more objective
• Offer Incentives for Tree Retention: Develop a list of incentives for Heritage Tree preservation that may allow for reduction or modifications of development standards C-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
999
Construction Protection Standards:
• All construction protections match both the Section 5 of the Mountain View Tree Technical Manner as well as Chapter 32 Trees, Shrubs and Plants in Mountain View’s City code
• Require Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) Following ANSI A300 Standards • Follow ISA Best Management Practices (BMP) for Managing Trees During Construction • Enforce Root Zone Preservation: Prohibit mechanical excavation within a minimum radius of one (1) foot per inch of the tree’s diameter measured at 54 inches above natural grade without prior assessment and written approval from an ISA Certified Arborist. Any approved encroachment into the root zone must include appropriate mitigation measures, such as clean root pruning, air excavation, and soil protection, to minimize damage and preserve tree stability and health. Tree protection fencing should be installed at the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) as determined by the project arborist and remain in place for the duration of construction.
• Regulate Heavy Equipment and Material Storage: Prohibit staging of construction materials, vehicles, or chemicals near tree root zones
• Monitor Tree Health During Construction: Require on-site arborist inspections during construction to ensure compliance with ANSI A300 and ISA BMP standards throughout the construction process
Improve Post-Planting Maintenance & Enforcement:
• Require a Minimum 5-Year Maintenance Period: Developers must maintain newly planted trees, including irrigation, pruning, and pest management, for at least 5 years post-planting
• Mandate Performance Bonds: Require a tree survival bond that is refunded only if trees survive and thrive after the initial care period
• Increase Tree Replacement Penalties: Establish higher fines for unauthorized tree removal or damage during construction such that fees cover not just tree replacement but also the lost ecological and cooling benefits
• Fund and staff positions responsible for ensuring compliance with ordinances, including mitigation planting requirements
Strengthen Ordinances for Public & Private Trees:
• Establish a Pre-Development Canopy Retention Standard: Require new commercial and multi-family developments to preserve existing trees such that at least 30–40% of the site’s original canopy coverage is maintained post-construction.

Increase Public Oversight & Accountability:
• Consider the creation of objective standards in relation to tree planting requirements, such as minimum dimensions of planting areas and allowed plant lists; for nonresidential and rezoning projects, for which the City has more discretion, consider the creation of objective standards for tree protection and planting requirements C-4
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1000
• Consider shifting the roles of the Urban Forestry Board to an outside Technical Advisory Committee comprised of ISA Certified Arborists to support the City with decisions related to tree protections and planting requirements, including Heritage Tree Appeals
• Implement Digital Tree Monitoring: Use GIS mapping to track tree removals, plantings, and overall canopy coverage • Require Annual Tree Reports: The City should consider publishing an Urban Forest Annual Report, providing a high-level summary of tree loss, new plantings, and compliance with protection policies C-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1001

FORESTRY OPERATIONS REVIEW
This section provides an overview of the current operational challenges and recommended improvements for the Mountain View Urban Forestry Division. The information presented was obtained through the Document Review described in the previous section and interviews conducted with the Mountain View Urban Forestry Division. It highlights key areas needing attention to enhance the Division’s effectiveness in managing and preserving the city’s urban forest. The analysis is based on current Division practices, resource availability, and identified areas for growth and optimization.

Challenges and Recommendations
Current Challenges Recommendations
Staffing
Current staffing levels can address basic and
reactive urban forest management operations,
with little capacity for proactive urban forest
management
Consider adding Urban Forest positions and/or
collaborating with other City divisions, such as
the Sustainability Division which has experience
securing grants that could support urban forestry
efforts through shared resources and streamlined
grant management.

Planning and Tracking Planting
The lack of a current planting plan and unmapped
planting sites delays mitigation efforts.

Additionally, the City does not have a designated plant palette or planting plan, particularly to address climate change.

Compounding these challenges, there is no plan
or budget for regularly updating the public tree
inventory, and the poor quality of existing data
has made planning and management increasingly
difficult.

Develop a comprehensive Planting Plan with
clear goals, including canopy cover targets—such
as the 22% by 2030 goal set in the prior 2015
Community Tree Master Plan—and mapped,
inventoried planting sites.

Invest in GIS tools, tree inventory and care request tracking software.

Commit adequate staffing and resources to meet
these objectives and follow through on long-term
urban forestry goals.

C-6
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1002
Current Challenges Recommendations
Permitting
Chapter 32, Article II - Protection of the Urban
Forest (“Heritage Tree Ordinance”) is hindered
by confusion and an ineffective online permitting
process.

There is a lack of enforcement regarding required
replanting, and developers can exploit loopholes,
such as the limited timeframe for managing miti- gation plantings.

It is challenging to obtain high-quality, unbiased
arborist reports, which undermines the integrity
and consistency of permit decisions.

Enforcement of Post-Removal Permits is lack- ing, undermining accountability and compliance.

Clarify the definition of a Heritage Tree.

Simplify the permit application process, including
improving the online application system.

Implement a transparent reinspection and en- forcement process.

Increase follow-up inspection and enforcement
efforts to strengthen compliance, and ensure
that enforcement staff are trained and resourced
to support consistent, proactive oversight.

Establish clear standards for arborist reports,
including potentially using a City-approved list of
certified, independent arborists or a peer-review
system to ensure unbiased evaluations.

Implement financial penalties for non-compli- ance and close developer loopholes—such as the five-year mitigation planting timeframe that
allows tree removal after minimal maintenance.

Development
Tree preservation is hindered by redevelopment
pressures, limited space for replanting, and out- dated tree codes.

Developers often design projects without initially
considering tree preservation opportunities.

State law (such as State Density Bonus and the
Housing Accountability Act) limit the City’s
ability to deny or require changes to housing
projects to preserve trees.

Develop specific development codes and standards, including structural soil provisions and designated space for larger trees.

Develop standards or requirements for minimum
landscaped areas around the entire building footprint—not just front-facing planting spaces.

Align tree removal permit and development
permit expiration dates. Develop procedures and
submittal requirements that encourage developers to consider tree preservation in their designs.

C-7

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1003
Current Challenges Recommendations
Pest Management
The current pest management approach is reactive, with limited monitoring, especially regarding the Invasive Shot Hole Borer (ISHB).

Implement a proactive pest monitoring and trapping program (especially for ISHB).

Develop comprehensive pest control strategies,
adapting to climate change impacts.

Community Engagement
Community engagement in urban forestry has
historically been low, though it is gradually increasing.

The City uses annual, term-limited contracts
with the nonprofit Canopy to support community engagement and private tree planting.

Persistent public misconceptions exist about the
purpose and requirements of the Tree Ordinance
and permitting processes, and the benefits of
trees in urban settings.

Expand community outreach through hands-on
opportunities like volunteer planting days, training workdays, and guided tree walks.

Convert the agreement with Canopy to a permanent contract for continual, consistent levels of support.

Develop and distribute clear, accessible educational materials that directly address common misconceptions—such as when a permit is required, why certain trees are protected, and how tree removals and replacements are evaluated.

Use infographics, short videos, and FAQs to
make information digestible.

Incorporate this content into a new resident
welcome packet and post it on the City website
and social media. Partner with neighborhood as- sociations and schools to broaden the reach and credibility of messaging.

Funding
Existing funding levels provide for base-level operations, maintenance, and community outreach and education.

These shortages have constrained operations,
deferred maintenance, resulted in missed opportunities for program expansion, and hindered the ability to apply for and manage grants or explore
alternative funding mechanisms.

Prepare a comprehensive budget proposal
aligned with the Urban Forestry Division goals
and priorities, including those recommended in
this Plan, to justify increased funding for added positions and services, which are needed to implement the proposed proactive management
practices and community engagement.

Explore partnerships with nonprofits and private
entities to supplement public funding.

Pursue grant opportunities where feasible, prioritizing those with manageable administrative requirements.

Where appropriate, pair contracted work with inhouse staff to increase capacity while maintaining oversight and quality control.

C-8
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1004
Current Challenges Recommendations
Department Structure & Operations
The urban forestry program faces several operational challenges, including staffing shortages, certification gaps, and inadequate enforcement
practices.

Key positions, such as the Urban Forestry Manager, were vacant for extended periods, creating a strain on the remaining staff and leading to a
reactive, rather than proactive, approach to tree
management.

Additionally, there is a shortage of certified
arborists and tree workers, which hinders the
department’s ability to perform specific tasks.

Enforcement of tree removal permits and mitigation planting requirements is also insufficient, with minimal follow-through and penalties for
non-compliance. The department currently relies
on outdated, paper-based systems for tracking
service requests and tree maintenance, contributing to operational inefficiencies.

To address these challenges, the city should
implement a digital system for tracking service
requests, tree inventory, and maintenance tasks,
integrating with GIS tools for better monitoring
and efficiency.

Increasing contractor inspection frequency to
daily will help ensure quality and accountability in
contracted work.

Ensure sufficient staffing by filling essential roles
and enhance team capabilities through necessary
certifications and training programs.

Lastly, strengthening enforcement measures for
tree removal permits and mitigation requirements, including the introduction of penalties for non-compliance, will ensure adherence to city
policies and promote better compliance.

Interdepartmental Collaboration
Challenges exist in interdepartmental collabo- ration, especially when related to development projects and deciding how to manage tree-plant- ing trade-offs and conflicts with utilities, such as powerlines, gas lines, water and sewer services,
and buried fiber optic and electrical conduit lines.

Other infrastructure (sidewalk location, utilities,
etc.) are often prioritized over trees that are
difficult to replace in kind.

Establish clearer interdepartmental coordination
policies and procedures.

Improve communication between teams manag- ing development projects throughout the city.

Develop guidelines for managing utility conflicts
with tree planting.

Create an approved vendor list.

C-9

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1005
Urban Forestry Pest Report
Current and Emerging Tree Pests in Mountain View, California Mountain View, California is home to a diverse urban forest that provides numerous ecological, aesthetic, and community benefits. However, various pathogens and pests threaten the vitality of the city’s tree canopy. Among the most concerning pests are Sudden Oak Death (SOD), bark beetles, and ambrosia beetles such as the invasive shot hole borer (ISHB). This section outlines these current and emerging pest concerns, detailing their impacts on the urban forest and offering best management practices (BMPs) for managing these threats.176–183

GENERAL BEST PRACTICES
• Public Outreach: Engage the community through workshops, informational campaigns, and volunteer programs to raise awareness about tree health and pest management.; • Education: Provide resources and training for residents, arborists, and City staff on pest identification, prevention, and proper tree care practices.
• Community Monitoring: Encourage citizen participation in tracking and reporting pest activity to support early intervention efforts.
• Tree Health & Maintenance: Strengthen tree resilience through proper pruning, watering, mulching, and species diversification.

C-10
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1006

CURRENT THREATS
Sudden Oak Death (SOD)
Status
Pathogen Sudden Oak Death (SOD) is caused by the Phytophthora ramorum pathogen.

Species affected: Oak species, particularly Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Black Oak (Q. kelloggii). While oaks are the primary targets, SOD can also affect other plant species, exacerbating ecological damage.

Status SOD has been a major concern in the Bay Area for over two decades, leading to significant oak mortality.

Mode of transmission The disease spreads through water and soil, infecting trees and causing rapid decline.

Symptoms Infected trees typically exhibit dark lesions on the trunk, bleeding cankers, and leaf dieback.

Best Mangagement Practices
Monitoring and Early
Detection
Regularly inspect oak trees for signs of SOD, including bleeding cankers, lesions on leaves, and overall tree decline. Early pathogen detection using PCR assays can help confirm infection.

Cultural Controls Proper watering, fertilization, and pruning can improve tree health and reduce stress, increasing tree resistance to infection.

Sanitation Remove and properly dispose of infected trees and materials to minimize pathogen spread. Disinfect tools between cuts to prevent transferring the disease.

Chemical Control Fungicides like phosphonates can help slow disease progression on high-value trees. Early treatment can significantly improve tree survival.

Quarantine Measures Establish quarantine measures for infected trees and materials to reduce the spread of SOD to new areas.

C-11

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1007
Bark Beetles
Status
Pathogen Bark beetles, including Dendroctonus species
Species affected Primarily affect Ponderosa and Coulter Pines, but also Lodgepole, Sugar, and other pine species, as well as Douglas-Fir and fir trees.

Status Bark beetles continue to pose a significant threat to trees in the San Francisco Bay Area, particularly during periods of drought. Stressed trees become more susceptible to infestation, leading to widespread decline and mortality in native and ornamental forests.

Mode of transmission These beetles bore into the phloem, just under the bark, to feed. This feeding causes damage and introduces the beetles’ symbiotic fungi, such as Grosmannia sp., Ophiostoma sp., and Entomocorticium sp., which can disrupt a tree’s nutrient flow and lead to tree stress, decline, and eventual mortality.

Symptoms Infected trees typically have sawdust or frass at the base of the tree or in the bark furrows, small holes leaking sap, and foliage will show signs of chlorosis.

Best Management Practices
Monitoring and Early
Detection
Regularly inspect trees for signs of infestation, including bore holes, pitch masses, and leaf discoloration, especially during periods of active infestation. Pheromone traps can be used to monitor beetle populations.

Sanitation Prune and remove infested branches to limit beetle spread. Properly dispose of infested tree material by chipping, burning, or burying it to prevent re-infestation.

Cultural Controls Minimize tree stress by providing adequate water and nutrients and ensuring proper tree spacing to reduce competition.

Chemical Control For high-value trees, consider the use of insecticides. Insecticides must be applied according to the label. Pheromone packets can be attached to trees to deter beetles from colonizing.

C-12
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1008

EMERGING THREATS
Invasive Shot Hole Borer Beetle (ISHB)
The Invasive Shot Hole Borer Beetle (ISHB; Euwallacea spp.) is an increasing threat to Mountain View and the surrounding Bay Area. The pest is established in Southern California and is rapidly moving north, leading to its detection in San Jose in August of 2024. The beetles bore into the bark, where they introduce and cultivate a fungus (Fusarium sp.), leading to Fusarium dieback, which causes tree decline and mortality. The beetle and fungus reproduce within 78 tree and shrub species worldwide, including California native trees and common landscape trees. Tree death results from infestation in only 17 of the 78 species; of those, 10 are native to California, 6 of which are native to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Additionally, the beetle has attacked 247 plant species across 64 families; however, these plants do not support the reproduction of the beetle and fungus. These pests are of particular concern in drought-prone regions, where stressed trees are more vulnerable to infestation. The fungus associated with ISHB significantly exacerbates the damage, as this disease complex can spread quickly, particularly in areas with high tree density.

Since identifying signs of ISHB infestation can be difficult, active monitoring, early detection, and proactive removal are essential to curbing the spread and preventing outbreaks.

Status
Pathogen/Pest Invasive Shot Hole Borer Beetle (ISHB) – Euwallacea spp.

Species affected Box Elder, Maples, Sycamore, Willow, Oaks, Poplars, Sweet Gum Status Established in Southern California, rapidly moving north. Detected in San Jose in August 2024184
Mode of transmission The beetles bore into the bark, where they introduce and cultivate a fungus (Fusarium sp.), leading to Fusarium dieback Symptoms Black bark staining, round 1/8-inch holes, frass, white powder on trunks, limb dieback, tree death
C-13

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1009
Basis for Concern
Wide Host Range ISHB affects a wide range of tree species, including ornamental and high-value trees commonly planted in urban areas, increasing the likelihood of significant tree mortality and loss of biodiversity.

Rapid Spread The beetles can spread quickly across the landscape, infesting new trees and contributing to a rapid increase in pest population densities. Early detection and management are critical to preventing widespread infestations.

Fusarium Dieback The fungus carried by ISHB causes Fusarium dieback, leading to dieback and eventually tree mortality. Once a tree becomes infected, the disease progresses quickly.

Limited Control
Options
Unlike some other pests, ISHB is difficult to manage with traditional methods. Chemical treatments and biological control options are still being explored, but there is no fully effective solution currently available.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Monitoring Regularly inspect trees for signs of ISHB infestation, including small, round holes in the bark, black staining around the entry points, leaf discoloration, and branch dieback. Focused monitoring on boxelder species as it is a preferred host. Using pheromone traps can help detect early infestations and track beetle movement. Stay up to date on regional monitoring and control efforts.

Cultural Controls Prune and remove infested branches promptly to limit beetle spread.

Proper sanitation practices, including disposing of infected wood and tree material by chipping, burning, or burying it, are critical to stopping the spread.

Chemical Control In areas with high beetle activity, insecticides may be applied to protect trees. Information on potential insecticides can be found at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Biological Control Research into biological control options, such as introducing parasitoid wasps or other natural predators of ISHB, is ongoing. Eventually, this may offer long-term pest population suppression.

Public Education Engage the community in identifying and reporting potential ISHB infestations. Education on the importance of tree care, pathogen management, and the role of ISHB can help reduce the spread of this invasive pest across the urban landscape.

C-14
GUIDE C: URBAN FOREST POLICIES AND PRACTICES 1010

CONCLUSION
Proactive management, including early detection, monitoring, and management of tree health, is essential to mitigating the effects of pest and pathogen threats. Once a pest is identified, implementing BMPs, such as a combination of cultural, chemical, and biological control, are key to reducing pest severity and spread.

As pests and diseases continue to threaten Mountain View’s trees, continued research, regional collaboration, public education, and community engagement will be vital to sustaining the health of the urban forest and protecting its biodiversity.

C-15

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1011
1012
GUIDE D: MONITORING

AND TARGETS
This Guide provides recommendations for establishing a standard monitoring protocol to track change in the biodiversity Metrics recommended in the Mountain View Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan (“the Plan;” see 5.3 Metrics and Targets) and setting Targets that pair the Metrics with concrete, time-bound goalposts the City can work towards.

Monitoring: Biodiversity Metrics
There are several ecological and methodological factors that could influence a change in detected species numbers over time, across space, or between projects.185 These include:
• Species’ responses to changes in habitat availability in the city. Being able to detect this is the target of monitoring. With standardized methodology the goal is to confidently detect changes in the presence or absence of species in the area of interest, while accounting for the other factors that might influence detection. • Survey effort. This is standardized to reduce its influence on the data. Performing repeated surveys during the same time of day, for the same amount of time, with the same numbers of observers, and in the same locations are several ways to standardize effort.
• The life history and annual phenology of a species. This is something to be aware of and plan for so that data is collected during the time period and life history stage of interest. Using birds as an example: Depending on the species, birds will occupy the city during different times of year;e.g., 186 they can either be year-round residents or migrants who pass through the city in spring and/or fall, breed in the city (arrive in spring, leave in fall), or overwinter in the city (arrive in the fall, leave in the spring). Similarly, different species may be using habitat in the city for different life history stages (e.g., nesting, raising fledglings, foraging, roosting and shelter). Monitoring should be planned accordingly, so that data is collected for the time periods and life history stages of interest.

The goal of a monitoring program is to control for as many factors as possible, so that the data reflect actual changes in the response variable (e.g., number of species) instead of inconsistency in methodology. The ability to compare species counts over time or across space, in a statistically meaningful way, will require repeated surveys using the same methods and standardized effort.

Three monitoring levels are recommended for tracking biodiversity-related Metrics, depending on the desired results and resources available (as shown in the following table).

Where appropriate, monitoring efforts may incorporate available community science data and partnerships to support biodiversity tracking and public engagement (see columns “Compile Existing Partner Data” and “Managed Community Science Data Collection”).

D-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1013
Monitoring levels the City can employ to track biodiversity Metrics.

Monitoring
Level
Compile Existing
Partner Data
Managed Community
Science Data Collection
Technical Expert
Monitoring Program
Amount of
effort
Lowest Medium Highest
Approach Compile City biodiversity
data being collected
by partners (including
academic researchers,
NGOs, or agencies) and
by community scientists
through well-vetted
online platforms.

Use existing tools and
organized events such as
iNaturalist and the City
Nature Challenge and work
with community volunteers
to gather data across an
established array of City
biodiversity data collection
sites.

Hire qualified subcontractors or City staff
to design a city-wide
monitoring program and
carry out repeated surveys
at regular intervals.

Types of results Opportunistic lists of
species presence in the
city
Targeted and more
comprehensive lists of
species presence (and
possibly absence*)
Comparisons of species
numbers between sites and
over time*
* if effort is standardized and
well-managed, and observer
skillsets are validated (and/or
photographic evidence can be
employed)
City-wide comprehensive
lists of species presence
and absence that allow for
robust occupancy analysis
Statistical comparisons of
species numbers between
sites and over time,
accounting for detection
error
Advantages and
Disadvantages
+ Lower effort
+ Builds partnerships
− Unable to use statistics
to meaningfully evaluate
or compare
+ Community engagement
+ Greater longevity
+ Lower cost for observers
and often more data
+ Statistical comparisons are
possible*
− Data quality dependent on
technical skill available and
effort put toward preparation
(i.e., establishing sites and
protocols) and data collection
management
−/+ High effort and technical
skill needed initially to
establish protocols and set
up sampling array, but with
trained volunteers and staff
managers, subsequent years
require less effort
+ High quality data
+ Highest effort in terms
of standardization and data
quality, but little effort by
City beyond expense
+ Potential for additional
data collection (e.g.,
individual abundance,
vegetation), to be more
efficiently collected as
part of the program,
allowing for more robust
analysis and reporting
− Higher cost
− Longevity of study
dependent on availability
of funds
A recommended resource to help the City plan its biodiversity monitoring effort is Urban Biodiversity Inventories, an ongoing project of cities and organizations—including the California Academy of Sciences and the City of San Francisco—to create tools and a roadmap for cities to implement the Urban Biodiversity Inventory Framework. 187 D-2
GUIDE D: MONITORING AND TARGETS 1014
Targets
Setting quantitative targets for improving biodiversity is an important step in meeting planning Objectives.152,188
The SMART Framework, originally developed in management and educational settings,189 has been validated, modified, and recommended by scientists and biodiversity planners to help develop achievable biodiversity-related targets.188,190,191 Applying this framework is recommended when developing biodiversity and urban forest targets for the City of Mountain View.

Specific Biodiversity is complex, so targets need to be specific and clearly defined.

Measurable It is essential to quantitatively measure progress toward targets.

Ambitious Targets should aim sufficiently high to achieve goals, while also being Assignable to specific parties and organizations who are Accountable for the target’s delivery.

Realistic Targets should be developed using evidence to assess if they are realistic.

Time Bound Targets should be accompanied by a clear timeline for achievement and assessment.

Source: 188
The following target setting worksheet was developed to assist the City in setting Targets that align with the SMART framework, the Plan Objectives (see 5.2 Vision to Action), and with each of the Plan’s recommended Metrics (see 5.3 Metrics and Targets). It is recommended that this worksheet be completed by collaborating across City departments and seeking input from external technical experts, so that targets are ambitious, yet realistic.

D-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1015
Target setting worksheet. Example language for developing and setting quantitative time bound Targets for meeting plan Objectives (see 5.2 Vision to Action), paired with the relevant Metrics (see 5.3 Metrics and Targets).

TARGET SETTING WORKSHEET
Plan Metric Example Target Language

RECOMMENDED METRICS
Recommended, ready-to-use Metrics linked with the Objectives for which they track progress
M1. Tree canopy cover across the city (as
percent of total area, excluding the Baylands)
% tree canopy cover by 20
M2. Proportion of public trees that are
regionally- and California-native
% regionally-native and % Californianative trees on City-managed lands by 20 M3. Number of projects (or acres of project
area) incorporating enhancements for native
species habitat in the urban matrix
# projects (or # acres of project area)
incorporating enhancements for native species
habitat in the urban matrix by 20
M4. Number of projects (or acres of project
area) incorporating enhancements for native
species habitat integrated into capital projects
# projects incorporating enhancements for
native species habitat integrated into capital
projects by 20
M5. Acres of landscaping converted from turf
to ecologically-functioning landscaping
# acres of turf converted to ecologically
functioning landscaping by 20
M6. Acres of landscaping converted from
impervious surface to ecologically-functioning
landscaping
# acres of impervious surface converted to
ecologically functioning landscaping by 20
M7. Number of trees planted on Citymanaged lands, distinguishing between new and mitigation trees
# new trees and # mitigation trees
planted on City-managed lands by 20
M8. Number of trees planted for new
developments, distinguishing between new and
mitigation trees
# new trees and # mitigation trees
planted for new developments by 20
-themed installations by 20
M9. Average interval (years) between tree
care visits (including a health assessment and
upkeep activities such as pruning) on trees
maintained by the City
average # years between tree care visits
conducted on City maintained trees by 20
M10. Percent or number of parks and
community facilities that implement
biodiversity-themed installations, including
signage and art associated with physical
landscaping
% of parks and community facilities that
implement biodiversity-themed installations
by 20
D-4
GUIDE D: MONITORING AND TARGETS 1016

TARGET SETTING WORKSHEET
Plan Metric Example Target Language

RECOMMENDED METRICS
Recommended, ready-to-use Metrics linked with the Objectives for which they track progress
M11. Number of external stakeholders
partnering with the City to implement
biodiversity activities, projects, and programs
# external organizations the City has
partnered with on biodiversity-related
activities by 20
M12. Number of attendees during Citysponsored or -partnered biodiversity and urban forest events and programs
# attendees at City-sponsored or
-partnered biodiversity and urban forest
events and programs by 20
M13. Number of volunteer or participant
hours during City-sponsored or -partnered
biodiversity and urban forest events and
programs
# volunteer hours at City-sponsored or
-partnered biodiversity and urban forest
events and programs by 20
M14. Number of trees distributed through
Arbor Day Tree Giveaway or other Citysponsored or -partnered events and programs # trees given away to residents during
City’s Arbor Day Tree Giveaway program by
20 SUPPLEMENTAL METRICS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Additional Metrics that the City can consider evaluating to measure progress towards Plan Objectives; would require additional data collection and tracking, beyond current City activities
M15. Number of native vascular plant, bird,
and arthropod species
# native vascular plant species (or bird
species or arthropod species) recorded in the
city by 20
M16. Percentage of native bird species in
built-up areas or within project site
% point increase of percentage of native
bird species in built-up areas/project sites by
20 M17. Percent of newly installed (within 3
years) public trees that are in good condition
% newly installed public trees (within 3
years) in good health by 20
M18. Acres restored for native species habitat
and protected from human disturbance
# acres restored in protected areas for
native species habitat, by 20
M19. Linear footage ratio of nature-based vs
engineered banks for freshwater streams
# linear feet of stream banks converted
from engineered to nature-based by 20
M20. Number of properties with existing/
updated wildlife-friendly lighting
# properties with wildlife-friendly lighting
by 20
D-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1017

TARGET SETTING WORKSHEET
Plan Metric Example Target Language
M21. Number of structures with existing/
updated bird-safe design
# structures with bird safe design by 20
M22. Linear footage of trail extensions,
improvements, or new trails amidst natural
features
# linear footage of trail extensions,
improvements, or new trails amidst natural
features by 20
M23. Number of hours or FTE positions
City staff work on biodiversity-related tasks,
including training, to manage landscapes for
supporting biodiversity.
# hours or FTE positions City staff work on
biodiversity-related tasks by 20
M24. Number of acres enhanced for
biodiversity during City-sponsored or
-partnered events and programs
# acres enhanced for biodiversity at Citysponsored or -partnered biodiversity and urban forest events and programs by 20
M25. Number of privately-managed trees
tracked through data submitted by private
community members (e.g., by community
members and large landowners)
# privately-managed trees tracked by 20
D-6
GUIDE D: MONITORING AND TARGETS 1018
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
This appendix summarizes the Plan’s public survey responses, lists recommendations resulting from the public stakeholder workshop, and highlights key values that emerged from the community’s written comments.
“Water, Treated” by Ian Abbott, CC BY 4.0 2024 Biodiversity & Urban Forest Plan community workshop. Photo courtesy of the City of Mountain View.

AA-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1019
Full public survey: question and
summary of responses

1. Use three words to describe what you hope nature will look like in the City of Mountain View in the future. (How should it look or sound? What should it feel like?)

2. How important is it to you that Mountain View supports a community of plants, trees and animals that fits the following descriptions?
AA-2
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1020
3-4 (results combined)

3. Biodiversity and the Urban Forest provide many benefits to the community. How important are each of the following benefits to you? Please consider trees and nature in all areas including parks, commercial areas, along streets, and on residential properties.

4. Trees and nature in the city can also create challenges for people in their daily lives. How important are these potential challenges to you? Please consider trees and nature in all areas including parks, commercial areas, along streets, and on residential properties.

AA-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1021

5. Where in Mountain View do you think trees and nature are most needed? Please click on one spot on the map.

See map of “Places Where Nature and Trees Need More Support” in 4.2 Community Perspectives, which combines survey and public event responses.

6. In which types of areas in Mountain View do you think trees and nature are most needed? Select all that apply.

AA-4
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1022

7. To preserve the health and growth of the urban forest, the City of Mountain View has a tree protection ordinance that requires a permit to remove trees of a certain size if it meets certain criteria, with associated fees, replant requirements, and fines. Which of these current practices do you feel are most important for tree protection (Please select up to two choices.)

8. If the City of Mountain View were to update its tree protection ordinance, what would be most important to you? (select all that apply)
AA-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1023

9. Where is your favorite place to spend time in nature in Mountain View? (E.g., Shoreline, my backyard, Pioneer Memorial Park, Stevens Creek Trail). What makes that place so special to you?

10. In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to nature in Mountain View? Rank these from biggest threat (top) to smallest threat (bottom)
AA-6
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1024

11. Which wildlife species adds to your enjoyment of nature in Mountain View?

12. Do you have additional input or comments you wish to provide? See table of “Key Values” at the end of this section, which combines survey and public event responses.

13. What is your connection to Mountain View? Select all that apply.

AA-7

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1025
Springer /
Cuesta /
Phyllis
San Antonio
/ Rengstorff
North
Bayshore NASA Ames
(Federal)
Moffett /
Whisman Road
Grant Road /
Sylvan Park
Central Neighborhoods N SHORELINE BLVD

N SHOREL NI E BLVD

W EL CAMINO REAL

E EVELYN AVE

CENTRAL EXPY

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

SLEEPER AVE

ELLIS ST

GRANT RD

N BERNARDO AVE

S SHORELINE BLVD

FARLEY ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE S RENGSTORFF AVE

PHYLLIS AVE

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

DALE AVE

EL MONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

CALIFORNIA ST

LA AVENIDA

ESCUELA AVE

SIERRA VISTA AVE

W EL CAMINO REAL

CASTRO ST

BORANDAAVE

ORTEGA AVE

W EVELYN AVE

LATHAM ST

E EL CAMINO REAL

BUSH ST

CHURCH ST

N SPRINGER RD

E CHARLESTON RD

N WHISMAN RD

S SPRINGER RD

SAN ANTONIO RD

ROCK ST

CHARLESTON RD

SYLVAN AVE

SAN ANTONIO RD

BRYANT AVE

LEVIN AVE

HOPE ST

CRITTENDEN LN
101
237
85 Monta Loma/Farley
/ Rock Street
Neighborhood Meeting Areas June 2024

14. In which Mountain View neighborhood do you currently live? AA-8
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1026

15. How long have you lived in Mountain View?

16. Do you rent or own your residence in Mountain View? AA-9

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1027

17. What is your age?

18. What is the highest level of school you have completed? AA-10
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1028

19. What is your gender identity?

20. Are you of Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a/x ancestry? AA-11

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1029

21. Which of the following best describes your race?

22. Which category below best represents the total combined income before taxes for all the people in your household for 2023?
AA-12
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1030
Recommendations Received from
the Stakeholder Workshop
DISCUSSION TOPIC: DESIGNING AND PLANTING

AROUND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1. Plant more trees in places where people and all living things will benefit.

2. Create a City-wide “Green Team” to specifically implement biodiversity. (Biologist, ecologist, landscape architect, gardener).

3. Partner with local groups/organizations to implement biodiversity enhancement.

4. Focus biodiversity enhancement in shopping areas & commercial/industrial areas (e.g., Middlefield/Rengstorff Shopping, near Wyandotte Park)

5. More targeted outreach to notify/educate public of the City’s free street tree planting program (literature, or going door to door, etc).

6. Share development plans sooner

7. More than one planner reviewing projects

8. More green spaces is streetscapes

9. Provide “welcome packets” on transfer of property that discusses city values, services, etc. related to biodiversity and the urban forest

10. Convert some roadways in industrial areas to green spaces DISCUSSION TOPIC: INCORPORATING HABITAT FOR

BIODIVERSITY INTO TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT

1. Plan for plant maintenance, including proper training for planting and maintaining new and future plantings.

2. Improve canopy and habitat through appropriate native and non-native plantings.

3. Complete green streets program.

4. Identify best practices for existing successful trails (i.e. Stevens Creek Trail) and implement in existing/future trails.

5. Update road design standards to require natural elements including street width, corner radii, driveway triangle, dark skies, plant palette.

6. Think of natural spaces as amenities
AA-13

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1031

7. Link parks, for example: Hetch Hetchy, Miramo, Cuesta, Shoreline, Mdlfd, Evlyn, SCT, Cal…

8. Funding Recommendations: O&M training, street sweeping in bike lanes, trimming crews to help owners not remove trees, trail maintenance, City native gardener expert

9. Achievable metrics

10. Place lines underground

11. Convert non-functional turf to native plants

12. No pesticides and herbicides

13. Curve roads and sidewalks around trees
DISCUSSION TOPIC: PROTECTING SPACES FOR NATURE

1. Utilize under-used areas for biodiversity support and native plantings

2. More food gardens

3. Reduce grass

4. More native trees

5. Increase bioswales to help limit water runoff

6. Pollinator garden

7. Implement Shoreline Habitat Plan and Burrowing Owls Preservation Plan

8. Manage and reduce light pollution

9. Foster meaningful partnership with NGO and private entities for biodiversity enhancement.

10. Envision urban restoration, including creek corridor, native trees, and green stormwater infrastructure AA-14
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1032
Key Values
The following table summarizes key values that emerged from written comments, open-ended responses to the public survey, and comments provided via the City webpage.

Key values and themes from community written and verbal comments. An asterisk (*) next to a value indicates especially high support.

KEY VALUES (* notes especially high support)
TREES
* Generally want more trees to be planted and maintained * Focus on increasing shade, combatting high temperatures, combatting urban heat island effect Focus on the feeling trees give -- calm, a good gathering place, improving “barren” areas * Focus on increasing native species in Mountain View’s tree canopy * Increase canopy and other natural elements near schools, in commercial areas, to promote foot traffic and beauty
Interest in fruit trees as a community benefit, edible landscapes Concern about pollen and allergies, and desire for consideration of that when choosing which species to plant Concern about conflicts between trees and infrastructure (e.g. leaf and needle litter on sidewalks, tripping hazards from roots breaking concrete)
* Protection for Heritage Trees

OTHER VEGETATION
* Increase native species and drought-tolerance
Desire for beauty, “cleanliness”
* Promote native plantings specifically to support native wildlife species, and especially pollinators, protected wildlife species (see also Wildlife)
* Focus on resilience to withstand drought, urban impacts, climate tolerant Concern that vegetation is sustainable, and either gets the attention it needs to thrive, or is able to thrive without tending

PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLNESS
Biodiversity should balance environmental and human needs Build green belts through under-vegetated areas, combine green belts and bike/walking paths, paths along waterways, connecting parks/patches Consider accessibility for different abilities, and accessibility from different neighborhoods, equitable access, when designing greenways, open space
Improve/increase mixed-use paths as a viable transportation alternative to driving Improve general walkability of the city; improve safety of paths with thoughtful landscaping, better lighting * Combat urban heat island effect, increase shade for public safety AA-15

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1033
KEY VALUES (* notes especially high support)
* Desire to take care of parks in a way that they continue to be welcome gathering places, places for exercise, places for children to play
* General desire for the city to feel lush; find areas that feel separate, calmer, and quieter than city Include benches to linger and rest
* Concern about the use of pesticides
Narrow existing streets and incorporate street trees and planted medians to slow traffic, reduce accidents (see also Development and Management Policies)
Providing walking paths along waterways, riparian corridor access Greening schools to provide nature space for both students and community (off hours)

DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
* Share biodiversity and urban forestry education opportunities (requirements?) for developers * Native plant list shared for guidance/requirements when landscaping development/redevelopment * Desire to change policies, ordinances to require “integration of the natural environment” into development proposals, plans, designs; require ongoing stewardship and the inclusion of bird-safe building design. “welcome packets” on transfer of property that discusses city values, services, etc. related to biodiversity and the urban forest
Share development plans sooner and have more than one planner reviewing projects * Promotion of native plant gardening and landscaping among residents * Encourage/incentivize residents and developers to replace lawns with native landscaping (see also Water and Water Conservation)
Include vegetated paths and sidewalks to promote alternative transportation and recreation Consider water conservation, including incorporating green stormwater infrastructure in commercial-area street design and planters
Narrow existing streets and incorporate street trees and planted medians to slow traffic, reduce accidents (see also Public Health and Wellness)
* Preserve trees during development/redevelopment, instead of removing them Support tree care: bigger tree wells, trim branches, engineered soil, space for roots Remove dead plants, weeding
Reduce impervious surface
Funding support/incentives to keep trees to help with cost of pruning/care * Suggested changes to existing Heritage Tree protections: enforcement, ensuring re-planting * Monitoring and metrics
AA-16
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 1034
KEY VALUES (* notes especially high support)
Training for operations and management to support biodiversity Creation of City “Green Team” to implement (Biologist, ecologist, landscape architect, gardener).

More targeted outreach to notify/educate the public of the City’s free street tree planting program (literature, or going door to door, etc).

WILDLIFE
Ensure there are wildlife corridors, habitat connectivity * Promote native plantings specifically to support native wildlife species, and especially pollinators, protected wildlife species (see also Other Vegetation)
* Comments re: bees, burrowing owls, egrets, black skimmers, birds in general, monarchs (and milkweed), butterflies in general, pollinators in general, salt water harvest mouse * Reduce light pollution
Areas where wildlife are not disturbed/Limit access to sensitive areas

YOUTH AND COMMUNITY
Include education component for elementary aged children Include service learning for K-12 aged children
Include youth corps or similar program for teens to have edu/work opportunities in biodiversity or urban forestry within MV
* Host community education about biodiversity and best practices for at-home gardening; volunteer opportunities, community planting opportunities
* Build and maintain school gardens and community gardens as gathering spaces, food sources, recreation and education opportunities

WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION
* Interest in water conservation; reuse of run-off
Desire to have water bodies to visit, as a component of parks (ponds, streams) Reduce irrigated footprint of parks (though others look for “lush” landscape as the ideal) * Encourage/incentivize residents and developers to replace lawns with native landscaping (see also Development and Management Policies)
Creek/habitat restoration and riparian corridor protection, daylighting, improve habitat connectivity Green infrastructure and stormwater design for flooding/ground water absorption AA-17

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1035
1036
Appendix B: Literature Cited

1. CNPS, [California Native Plant Society]. (2025). Calscape | California’s Native Plant Gardening Destination. https://www.calscape.org/

2. Jepson Flora Project. (2025). Jepson eFlora. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/

3. Cal Poly, [California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo]. (2025). SelecTree: A tree selection guide. https://selectree.calpoly.edu/

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2023). Plants Database [Dataset]. 10/1/2023. https://plants.usda.gov/

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Level III and IV Ecoregions [Dataset]. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-state

6. Chalker-Scott, L. (2015). Nonnative, noninvasive woody species can enhance urban landscape biodiversity. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(4). https://doi. org/10.48044/jauf.2015.017

7. Pawlak, C. C., Love, N. L. R., Yost, J. M., Fricker, G. A., Doremus, J. M., & Ritter, M. K. (2023). California’s native trees and their use in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 89, 128125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128125

8. Burg, J., Symonds, J., Lee, V., Stanford, B., Herman, B., Panlasigui, S., & Verpeet, K. (2023). Ecology for Health: Design Guidance for Fostering Human Health and Biodiversity in Cities (SFEI Contribution No. 1130). San Francisco Estuary Institute.

9. Spotswood, E. N., Aronson, M., Bazo, M., Beller, E., Brown, J. D., Dronova, I., Estien, C. O., Frumkin, H., Galarraga, J., Grossinger, R., Hachadoorian, K., Herman, B., Jennings, T., Jennings, V., Kuo, M., Mcdonald, R. I., Miller, D., Rigolon, A., Symonds, J., & Weinbaum, K. (2025). Will biodiversity actions yield healthy places? A systematic review of human health outcomes associated with biodiversity-focused urban greening. In PEOPLE AND NATURE (Vol. 7, Issue 11, pp. 2622– 2658). WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70130

10. H. T. Harvey & Associates, & Higgins, P. (2023). Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan. Prepared for: Prepared for: Shoreline Division, Community Services Department, City of Mountain View. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6285/638204613474170000 AB-1

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1037

11. Spotswood, E., Grossinger, R., Hagerty, S., Beller, E., Grenier, L., Robinson, A., & Askevold, R. A. (2017). Re-Oaking Silicon Valley: Building Vibrant Cities with Nature (No. 825). San Francisco Estuary Institute. https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/ biblio_files/Re-Oaking%20Silicon%20Valley%20SFEI%20August%202017%20 med%20res_B.pdf

12. Hagerty, S., Spotswood, E., McKnight, K., & Grossinger, R. (2019). Urban Ecological Planning Guide for Santa Clara Valley. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (SFEI Publication #941). San Francisco Estuary Institute.

13. Koenig, W. D., Walters, E. L., Stacey, P. B., Stanback, M. T., & Mumme, R. L. (2020). Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), version 1.0. Birds of the World. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.acowoo.01

14. Goals Project. (2000). Baylands Ecosystem Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish and Wildlife Species and Community Profiles. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

15. Fowler, J. (2020). Pollen Specialist Bees of the Western United States.

16. Steele, S. K. (2021). Nesting Habits of Cavity Nesting Bees and Wasps in Portland, Oregon [Portland State University]. https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/ PFT/2/EmduK?_s=xliWyWVOeBIyAGD5pR7gFtEczBI%3D

17. Laudenslayer, W. F., & Parisi, M. D. (2007). Species Notes for California Vole (Microtus californicus): California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System Level II Model Prototype.

18. Cudworth, N. L., & Koprowski, J. L. (2010). Microtus californicus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Mammalian Species, 42(868), 230–243. https://doi. org/10.1644/868.1

19. Leidy, R. A., Cervantes-Yoshida, K., & Carlson, S. M. (2011). Persistence of native fishes in small streams of the urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California:

Acknowledging the role of urban streams in native fish conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 21(5), 472–483. https://doi. org/10.1002/aqc.1208

20. Page, L. M., & Burr, B. M. (2011). A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. https://www.fishbase.se/references/ FBRefSummary.php?ID=86798
AB-2
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1038

21. Green, J., Govindarajulu, P., & Higgs, E. (2021). Multiscale determinants of Pacific chorus frog occurrence in a developed landscape. Urban Ecosystems, 24(3), 587– 600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01057-4

22. Lee, T. S., Randall, L. A., Kahal, N. L., Kinas, H. L., Carney, V. A., Rudd, H., Baker, T. M., Sanderson, K., Creed, I. F., Moehrenschlager, A., & Duke, D. (2022). A framework to identify priority wetland habitats and movement corridors for urban amphibian conservation. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 3(2), e12139. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12139

23. Nafis, G. (2025). A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. https://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/ pages/p.regilla.html

24. Somma, L. A. (2025). Pseudacris sierra (James, Mackey, and Richmond, 1966): U.S.

Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. United States Geolgocical Survey. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=2780

25. Morey, S., Papenfuss, T., & Duke, R. (2000). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships life history account for Southern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicainata). https:// nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2727

26. Spear, D. M., Pauly, G. B., & Kaiser, K. (2017). Citizen Science as a Tool for Augmenting Museum Collection Data from Urban Areas. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00086

27. Putman, B. J., Williams, R., Li, E., & Pauly, G. B. (2021). The power of community science to quantify ecological interactions in cities. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3069. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82491-y

28. Iverson, A. R., Waetjen, D., & Shilling, F. (2024). Functional landscape connectivity for a select few: Linkages do not consistently predict wildlife movement or occupancy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 243, 104953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2023.104953

29. Otahal, C. D. (1995). Sexual differences in Wilson’s Warbler migration. Journal of Field Ornithology, 66(1), 60–69.

30. Yong, W., Finch, D. M., Moore, F. R., & Kelly, J. F. (1998). Stopover Ecology and Habitat Use of Migratory Wilson’s Warblers. The Auk, 115(4), 829–842. https:// doi.org/10.2307/4089502
AB-3

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1039

31. Colling, O. M., Guglielmo, C. G., Bonner, S. J., & Morbey, Y. E. (2022). Migratory songbirds and urban window collision mortality: Vulnerability depends on species, diel timing of migration, and age class. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 17(1), art22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02107-170122

32. Ammon, E. M., & Gilbert, W. M. (2020). Wilson’s Warbler (Cardellina pusilla), version 1.0. Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor), Birds of the World (P. G.

Rodewald, Editor). https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.wlswar.01

33. Beller, E., Salomon, M., & Grossinger, R. (2010). Historical vegetation and drainage patterns of Western Santa Clara Valley: A technical memorandum describing landscape ecology in Lower Peninsula, West Valley, and Guadalupe Watershed Management Areas (No. 622). SFEI.

34. Association of Ramaytush Ohlone. (2024). Ramaytush Territory. https://www. ramaytush.org/ramaytush-territory.html

35. Schick, G. W. (1994). The Ohlone and the oak woodlands: Cultural adaptation in the Santa Clara Valley. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=rms

36. Geary, O. L. (2022). Voices from the Aboriginal Homeland: The History of the Tamien Nation. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/beyond_archives/1/

37. Noe, S. J. (2023). Subsistence and Persistence: Indigenous Foodways Within Mission Santa Clara de Asís. California Archaeology, 15(1), 69–107. https://doi.org/10.1 080/1947461X.2023.2191239

38. Tukman Geospatial LLC. (2023). Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County Fine Scale Vegetation Map [Dataset]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3e01167873d14600ad4ae8551785b3d7

39. SFEI, [San Francisco Estuary Institute]. (2017). Bay Area Aquatic Resources Inventory (BAARI) (Version 2.1) [Computer software]. San Francisco Estuary Institute.

40. US Census Bureau. (2024). State and County Quick Facts [Dataset]. https://www. census.gov/quickfacts/mountainviewcitycalifornia

41. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Social Vulnerability Index [Dataset]. https://data.cdc.gov/Health-Statistics/CDC-Social-Vulnerability-Index-SVI-/u6k2-rtt3/about_data AB-4
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1040

42. City of Mountain View. (2025). City Demographics | Mountain View, CA. City of Mountain View. https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/about-mountain-view/ city-demographics

43. Fried, J. S., Torn, M. S., & Mills, E. (2004). The Impact of Climate Change on Wildfire Severity: A Regional Forecast for Northern California. Climatic Change, 64(1/2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000024667.89579.ed

44. Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. C., & Yohe, G. W. (2014). Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment (Vol. 841). US Global Change Research Program Washington, DC. https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/ reference/details/reference_id/3004838

45. Cook, B. I., Mankin, J. S., & Anchukaitis, K. J. (2018). Climate Change and Drought: From Past to Future. Current Climate Change Reports, 4(2), 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0093-2

46. Vahmani, P., Jones, A. D., & Patricola, C. M. (2019). Interacting implications of climate change, population dynamics, and urban heat mitigation for future exposure to heat extremes. Environmental Research Letters, 14(8), 084051. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab28b0

47. Plane, E., Hill, K., & May, C. (2019). A rapid assessment method to identify potential groundwater flooding hotspots as sea levels rise in coastal cities. Water, 11(11), 2228. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112228

48. City of Mountain View. (2021). 2021 Shoreline Sea Level Rise Study Update, Project 21-54 (Council Report). https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7264/638267609877130000&sa =D&source=editors&ust=1741383876037197&usg=AOvVaw3898YhjeYbiS1gNWui01Ey

49. City of Mountain View. (2021). City of Mountain View 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://bawsca.org/uploads/userfiles/files/Mountain%20View%20 Final%202020%20UWMP_WSCP.pdf

50. Sparks, T. L., & Wagner, J. (2021). Composition of particulate matter during a wildfire smoke episode in an urban area. Aerosol Science and Technology, 55(6), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2021.1895429
AB-5

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1041

51. California Ocean Protection Council. (2024). California Sea Level Rise Guidance:
2024 Science and Policy Update. https://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ Item-4-Exhibit-A-Final-Draft-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-Update-2024-508.pdf

52. SF Bay Conservation & Development Commission. (n.d.). ART Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/explorer

53. Cushing, L. J., Ju, Y., Kulp, S., Depsky, N., Karasaki, S., Jaeger, J., Raval, A., Strauss, B., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2023). Toxic Tides and Environmental Injustice:

Social Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise and Flooding of Hazardous Sites in Coastal California. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(19), 7370–7381. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07481

54. Hill, K., Hirschfeld, D., Lindquist, C., Cook, F., & Warner, S. (2023). Rising Coastal Groundwater as a Result of Sea‐Level Rise Will Influence Contaminated Coastal Sites and Underground Infrastructure. Earth’s Future, 11(9), e2023EF003825. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003825

55. EPA. (2025). Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL) [Dataset]. https://www.epa. gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl

56. Nowak, D. J. (2010). Urban biodiversity and climate change. Urban Biodiversity and Design, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318654.ch5

57. Cooley, H., Moore, E., Heberger, M., & Allen, L. (2012). Social vulnerability to climate change in California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0696v9nb

58. Spotswood, E., Grossinger, R., Hagerty, S., Bazo, M., Benjamin, M., Beller, E., Grenier, L., & Askevold, R. (2019). Making Nature’s City: A science-based framework for building urban biodiversity. (No. 947; A Product of the Healthy Watersheds, Resilient Baylands Project. Funded by the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund, EPA Region IX). San Francisco Estuary Institute.

59. Davey Resource Group, Inc. (2021). City of Mountain View 2017 land cover (Developed for the City of Mountain View) [Dataset].

60. Hesselbarth, M. H. K., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K., & Nowosad, J. (2019). landscapemetrics: An open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics.

Ecography, 42(10), 1648–1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04617 AB-6
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1042

61. TOGETHER Bay Area. (2025). Urban Communities, Thriving Ecosystems: A Story about Connecting Urban Biodiversity. https://www.flipsnack.com/9ED777BBDC9/ connecting-urban-biodiversity-report/full-view.html

62. McRae, B. (2012). Barrier Mapper Connectivity Analysis Software. The Nature Conservancy. https://linkagemapper.org

63. Tukman Geospatial, LLC. (2022). Santa Clara County Impervious Surfaces [Dataset]. https://tukmangeospatial.egnyte.com/dl/epiWFZURnN

64. County of Santa Clara. (2024). Road Center Line [Dataset]. https://data.sccgov. org/Transportation/RoadCenterLine/dq3c-eire/about_data

65. City of Mountain View. (2022). City of Mountain View Street Bike Network [Dataset].

66. Davey Resource Group, Inc. (2025). Santa Clara County 2022 land cover (Developed for Santa Clara County) [Dataset].

67. U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). TIGER/Line Shapefile, 2020 [Map]. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tigerline-file.2020.html#list-tab-GJAFE89ILBSWNJSZFO

68. Aerial Information Systems. (2010). Santa Clara Valley Water District Vegetation Mapping Report for Stream Management Program. Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District, July 2010.

69. City of Mountain View. (2024). Public Trees [GIS Feature Class Dataset].

70. Ikin, K., Knight, E., Lindenmayer, D. B., Fischer, J., & Manning, A. D. (2013). The influence of native versus exotic streetscape vegetation on the spatial distribution of birds in suburbs and reserves. Diversity and Distributions, 19(3), Article 3. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00937.x

71. Threlfall, C. G., Mata, L., Mackie, J. A., Hahs, A. K., Stork, N. E., Williams, N. S.

G., & Livesley, S. J. (2017). Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12876

72. Narango, D. L., Tallamy, D. W., & Marra, P. P. (2017). Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation, 213, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.029
AB-7

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1043

73. Mills, J. G., Bissett, A., Gellie, N. J. C., Lowe, A. J., Selway, C. A., Thomas, T., Weinstein, P., Weyrich, L. S., & Breed, M. F. (2020). Revegetation of urban green space rewilds soil microbiotas with implications for human health and urban design.

Restoration Ecology, 28(S4). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13175

74. Gehring, J., Kerlinger, P., & Manville, A. M. (2009). Communication towers, lights, and birds: Successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions.

Ecological Applications, 19(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1708.1

75. Klem, D., Farmer, C. J., Delacretaz, N., Gelb, Y., & Saenger, P. G. (2009). Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird–glass collisions in an urban environment. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 121(1), 126–134. https://doi. org/10.1676/08-068.1

76. Gaston, K. J., Davies, T. W., Bennie, J., & Hopkins, J. (2012). REVIEW: Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(6), 1256–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2664.2012.02212.x

77. Doren, B. M. V., Horton, K. G., Dokter, A. M., Klinck, H., Elbin, S. B., & Farnsworth, A. (2017). High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(42), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708574114

78. Longcore, T., Rodríguez, A., Witherington, B., Penniman, J. F., Herf, L., & Herf, M. (2018). Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 329(8–9), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2184

79. Horton, K. G., Nilsson, C., Van Doren, B. M., La Sorte, F. A., Dokter, A. M., & Farnsworth, A. (2019). Bright lights in the big cities: Migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(4), 209–214. https:// doi.org/10.1002/fee.2029

80. Deichmann, J. L., Ampudia Gatty, C., Andía Navarro, J. M., Alonso, A., Linares-Palomino, R., & Longcore, T. (2021). Reducing the blue spectrum of artificial light at night minimises insect attraction in a tropical lowland forest. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 14(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12479 AB-8
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1044

81. Van Doren, B. M., Willard, D. E., Hennen, M., Horton, K. G., Stuber, E. F., Sheldon, D., Sivakumar, A. H., Wang, J., Farnsworth, A., & Winger, B. M. (2021). Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(24), e2101666118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101666118

82. ABC, [American Bird Conservancy]. (2025). Glass collisions: Products and solutions database [Dataset]. https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/

83. City of Sunnyvale. (2014). Bird-Safe Building Design Guidelines. https://www. sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1542/637820850588930000

84. City of San Jose. (2019). San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38781/637268875547770000

85. San Francisco Planning Department. (2011). Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. City and County of San Francisco. https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/ reports/bird_safe_bldgs/Standards%20for%20Bird%20Safe%20Buildings%20 -%2011-30-11.pdf

86. City of Oakland. (2013). Bird Safety Measures. https://goldengatebirdalliance.org/ wp-content/uploads/Oakland-Bird-Safety-Measures.pdf

87. Bird-Safe Buildings, 15.04.608.030 Code of Ordinances (2016). https://library. municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTXVZOSU_ CH15.04ZOSURE_SERIES_600GEST_ART15.04.608PEST_15.04.608.030BIFEBU

88. New Bird Safe Building Standards and Updated Lighting Regulations, 3232 Zoning Ordinance (2018). https://perma.cc/7CPE-UWC7

89. Bird-Safe Buildings, 9-4.8 Municipal Code (2020). https://www.codepublishing. com/CA/Emeryville/#!/Emeryville09/Emeryville094.html%23Article%208

90. Golden Gate Bird Alliance. (2025). Healthy Trees, Healthy Birds. Bird-friendly Tree Care for the San Francisco Bay Area. https://ca.audubon.org/sites/default/files/ healthy_trees_brochure.pdf

91. Horton, K. G., Van Doren, B. M., Albers, H. J., Farnsworth, A., & Sheldon, D. (2021). Near-term ecological forecasting for dynamic aeroconservation of migratory birds. Conservation Biology, 35(6), 1777–1786. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.13740
AB-9

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1045

92. Davey Resource Group, Inc. (2021). City of Mountain View Priority Planting Assessment [Dataset].

93. Hutt-Taylor, K., & Ziter, C. D. (2022). Private trees contribute uniquely to urban forest diversity, structure and service-based traits. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 78, 127760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127760

94. Davey Resource Group, & City of Mountain View. (2015). City of Mountain View Community Tree Master Plan 2015. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/ blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17520

95. Santamour, F. S., Jr. (1990). Trees for urban planting: Diversity, uniformity and common sense. Trees for the Nineties: Landscape Tree Selection, Test-Ing, Evaluation and Introduction, 7, 57–65.

96. California Invasive Plant Council. (2025). California Invasive Plant Inventory [Dataset]. www.cal-ipc.org

97. Richards, N. A. (1983). Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecology, 7(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4009(83)90034-7

98. i-Tree. (2025). I-Tree Eco (Version 6.1.55) [Computer software]. https://www. itreetools.org/

99. Nowak, D. J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., & Greenfield, E. (2014). Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution, 193, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.028 100. McDonald, R., Kroeger, T., Boucher, T., Wang, L., & Salem, R. (2016). Planting healthy air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. The Nature Conservancy.
101. Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Tretheway, R. L., Blain, C. J., O’NeilDunne, J. P., & Frank, L. D. (2016). Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health & Place, 42, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.011
102. Eisenman, T. S., Churkina, G., Jariwala, S. P., Kumar, P., Lovasi, G. S., Pataki, D. E., Weinberger, K. R., & Whitlow, T. H. (2019). Urban trees, air quality, and asthma:

An interdisciplinary review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 47–59. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.010
AB-10
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1046
103. Nehme, E. K., Oluyomi, A. O., Calise, T. V., & Kohl, H. W. (2016). Environmental correlates of recreational walking in the neighborhood. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130531-QUAN-281 104. Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., & Bardekjian, A. C. (2020). Urban trees and human health: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4371. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371
105. Akpinar, A. (2016). How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 16, 76–83. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.011
106. Gascon, M., Sánchez-Benavides, G., Dadvand, P., Martínez, D., Gramunt, N., Gotsens, X., Cirach, M., Vert, C., Molinuevo, J. L., Crous-Bou, M., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2018). Long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces and anxiety and depression in adults: A cross-sectional study. Environmental Research, 162, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.012 107. Taylor, M. S., Wheeler, B. W., White, M. P., Economou, T., & Osborne, N. J. (2015). Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.005
108. Ng, E., Chen, L., Wang, Y., & Yuan, C. (2012). A study on the cooling effects of greening in a high-density city: An experience from Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 47, 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.014 109. Ziter, C. D., Pedersen, E. J., Kucharik, C. J., & Turner, M. G. (2019). Scale-dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817561116 110. Simpson, J., & McPherson, E. G. (1996). Potential of tree shade for reducing residential energy use in California. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 22(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1996.002
111. Ko, Y. (2018). Trees and vegetation for residential energy conservation: A critical review for evidence-based urban greening in North America. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 34, 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.021 AB-11

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1047
112. Graham, D. A., Vanos, J. K., Kenny, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2016). The relationship between neighbourhood tree canopy cover and heat-related ambulance calls during extreme heat events in Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005 113. Kuo, M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Sachdeva, S., Lee, K., & Westphal, L. (2018).

Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between “greenness” and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01669
114. Sivarajah, S., Smith, S. M., & Thomas, S. C. (2018). Tree cover and species composition effects on academic performance of primary school students. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0193254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193254 115. Harvey, C., & Aultman-Hall, L. (2015). Urban Streetscape Design and Crash Severity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2500(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3141/2500-01
116. Zhu, M., Sze, N. N., & Newnam, S. (2022). Effect of urban street trees on pedestrian safety: A micro-level pedestrian casualty model using multivariate Bayesian spatial approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 176, 106818. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106818
117. Mok, J.-H., Landphair, H. C., & Naderi, J. R. (2006). Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.09.002
118. McPherson, E. G., & Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance. Arboricultural Journal, 31(6), 303–310. 119. Troy, A., Morgan Grove, J., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2012). The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), Article 3. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.010
120. Kondo, M. C., Han, S., Donovan, G. H., & MacDonald, J. M. (2017). The association between urban trees and crime: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 193–199. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.003
AB-12
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1048
121. Lin, J., Wang, Q., & Huang, B. (2021). Street trees and crime: What characteristics of trees and streetscapes matter. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 65, 127366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127366
122. Wolf, K. L. (2005). Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 396–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jof/103.8.396
123. Lusk, A. C., Filho, D. F., & Dobbert, L. Y. (2018). Pedestrian and cyclist preferences for tree locations by sidewalks and cycle tracks and associated benefits:

Worldwide implications from a study in Boston, MA. Cities, 106(1). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.024
124. Bay Area Open Space Council. (2019). The Conservation Lands Network 2.0 Report (p. 180). https://www.bayarealands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CLN%20

2.0%20Final%20Report.Web.pdf
125. County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Morgan Hill, CIty of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, & Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. (2012). Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. https://scv-habitatagency.org/178/ Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan
126. SCCCC, [Santa Clara County Climate Collaborative]. (2024). Strategic Plan 2024-2026: Santa Clara County Climate Collaborative. County of Santa Clara. https://www.climatecollaborativescc.org/_files/ugd/464876_eaf17f9fff99429eae0bd978ececf866.pdf 127. Valley Water. (2006). Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Santa Clara Valley  Water Resources Protection Collaborative. https://www.valleywater. org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/permits-working-district-landor-easement/guidelines-and-standards-land-use-near-streams 128. EOA, Inc., Paradigm Environmental, & Lotus Water (with Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program). (2019). Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan. https://scvurppp.org/swrp/docs-maps/
129. SFEI and SPUR. (2019). San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas: Working with Nature to Plan for Sea Level Rise Using Operational Landscape Units (Publication #915). San Francisco Estuary Institute.

AB-13

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1049
130. Plane, E., Braud, A., Sneed, A., & Lowe, J. (2025). San Francisco Baylands Resilience Metrics Mapbook: A summary of sea level rise resilience challenges and opportunities (SFEI Contribution No. 1238). San Francisco Estuary Institute. 131. City of Mountain View. (2012). Mountain View 2030 General Plan. https://www. mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6469/638214115708670000 132. Trulio, L., & Higgins, P. (2012). 2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan.

City of Mountain View Public Works and Community Services Departments. 133. City of Mountain View. (2021). North Bayshore Precise Plan. City of Mountain View. https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/regulations/precise-plans/north-bayshore-precise-plan 134. City of Mountain View. (2024). Downtown Precise Plan. https://developmentpermits.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10905/638774806972470000 135. City of Mountain View. (2024). El Camino Real Precise Plan. https:// developmentpermits.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2312/638772837573970000 136. City of Mountain View. (2018). Mountain View Environmental Sustainability Task Force Final Report. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/256/637939041517570000 137. City of Mountain View. (2009). Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 1. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/944/637944323148430000 138. City of Mountain View. (2012). Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 2. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/940/637944323138170000 139. City of Mountain View. (2016). Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 3. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/948/637944323159170000 140. City of Mountain View. (2019). Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 4. https:// collaborate.mountainview.gov/sustainability-action-plan-4-sap-4 AB-14
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1050
141. City of Mountain View. (2014). City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan 2014. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6559/638222725416800000 142. City of Mountain View. (2014). Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2704/637967769924900000 143. Alta Planning + Design. (2015). Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. 144. Anderson, E., Betterncourt, P., Collins, D., Gibson, C., Hurlburt, B., Muela, D., Ogaz-Lanuza, L., & Woodhouse, K. (2003). City of Mountain View Integrated Pest Management Plan. https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community-services/parks-and-trails/integrated-pest-management 145. DarkSky International. (2025). Advancing responsible outdoor lighting: Creating codes and statutes. https://darksky.org/what-we-do/advancing-responsible-outdoor-lighting/darksky-recognized-codes-and-statutes/ 146. Audubon, [National Audubon Society]. (2025). Lights Out Program: Providing safe passage for night-migrating birds. https://www.audubon.org/our-work/cities-andtowns/lights-out 147. American Bird Conservancy. (2025, March). American Bird Conservancy Model Bird-Friendly Building Guidelines. https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/model-ordinance/ 148. CDFG, [California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. (2025). Human-Wildlife Conflicts Toolkit. https://wildlife.ca.gov/HWC
149. County of Santa Clara. (2025). Wildlife in Santa Clara County. https://vector.santaclaracounty.gov/vectors/wildlife 150. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2021). Handbook on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
151. Brown, J. (2023). Indicators of a Biophilic City. Biophilic Cities Journal, 5(1), 46–49.
152. IUCN, [International Union for Conservation of Nature]. (2023). The Urban Nature Indexes: Methodological framework and key indicators. IUCN and The Urban Biodiversity Hub. https://www.iucnurbannatureindexes.org/en AB-15

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1051
153. Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C. B., Damoulas, T., Dhondt, A. A., Dietterich, T., Farnsworth, A., Fink, D., Fitzpatrick, J.

W., Fredericks, T., Gerbracht, J., Gomes, C., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M. J., Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., … Kelling, S. (2014). The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169(Supplement C), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003 154. Strimas-Mackey, M., Hochachka, W. M., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Robinson, O. J., Miller, E. T., Auer, T., Kelling, S., Fink, D., & Johnston, A. (2020). Best Practices for Using eBird Data v1.0. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://cornelllabofornithology. github.io/ebird-best-practices/
155. Ralph, C. J., Geupel, G. R., Pyle, P., Martin, T. E., & DeSante, D. F. (1993). Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds (Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144- Www; p. 41). Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 156. Davey Resource Group. (2015). City of Mountain View Community Tree Master Plan (p. 163). City of Mountain View.
157. Caltrans, [California State Transportation Agency]. (2024). Design Information Bulletin-94 “Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance.” https://dot.ca.gov/-/ media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf 158. Caltrans, [California State Transportation Agency]. (2022). Design Information Bulletin-89-02 “Class IV Bikeway Guidance.” https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/design/documents/dib-89-02-final-a11y.pdf
159. Caltrans, [California State Transportation Agency]. (2025). Highway Design Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm 160. US EPA, [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. (2021). Green Streets Handbook (EPA-841-B-18-001). 161. Mason, J., Moorman, C., Hess, G., & Sinclair, K. (2007). Designing suburban greenways to provide habitat for forest-breeding birds. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.07.002 162. City Council of Mountain View. (2016). Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations.

AB-16
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1052
163. City of Mountain View. (2004). Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances.

Part II, Chapter 35, Article V: Recycled Water for Irrigation. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/558/637939136413900000 164. Trust for Public Land. (2024). Heat Severity—USA 2023 [Map]. Trust for Public Land. https://tpl.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=db5bdb0f0c8c4b85b8270ec67448a0b6 165. H. T. Harvey & Associates, C. (2015). Plant Palette Recommendations for the North Bayshore Precise Plan (Project #3640-01). City of Mountain View. 166. ITIS, [Integrated Taxonomic Information System ]. (2025). Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) on-line database. http://www.itis.gov/ 167. NRCS, [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. (2025). PLANTS Database.

United States Department of Agriculture. https://plants.usda.gov/ 168. BCDC, [San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission]. (2007). Shoreline Plants: A Landscape Guide for the San Francisco Bay (p. 50). 169. Sawyer Jr., J., Keeler-Wolf, T., & Evens, J. (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation (Second). California Native Plant Society. 170. Tree Davis. (2016). Climate-ready trees for Northern California. https://www.treedavis.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CRT_NorCal_Handout_2016_12_14.pdf 171. USDA Forest Service, [United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service]. (2020). Identifying climate-ready trees for Northern California communities (General Technical Report PSW-GTR-270). https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/ pubs/60414
172. USDA Forest Service, [United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service]. (2025). Climate-ready trees. Pacific Southwest Research Station. https://research. fs.usda.gov/psw/projects/climate-ready-trees
173. CNPS, [California Native Plant Society]. (2025). What is a native plant? https:// www.cnps.org/gardening/why-natives/what-are-native-plants 174. Devil Mountain Wholesale Nursery. (2025). Top 100 drought Devils—Southern CA. https://devilmountainnursery.com/plant-guides/#top-100-drought-devils-southern-ca AB-17

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1053
175. UCD, [University of California, Davis]. (2025). Climate-ready trees for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. https://climatereadytrees.ucdavis.edu/ 176. Werres, S., Wagner, S., Brand, T., Kaminski, K., & Seipp, D. (2007). Survival of Phytophthora ramorum in Recirculating Irrigation Water and Subsequent Infection of Rhododendron and Viburnum. Plant Disease, 91(8), 1034–1044. https://doi. org/10.1094/PDIS-91-8-1034
177. Garbelotto, M., Schmidt, D. J., & Harnik, T. Y. (2007). Phosphite Injections and Bark Application of Phosphite + PentrabarkTM Control Sudden Oak Death in Coast Live Oak. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 33(5), 309–317. https://doi. org/10.48044/jauf.2007.035
178. Kliejunas, J. T. (2010). Sudden oak death and Phytophthora ramorum: A summary of the literature (PSW-GTR-234; p. PSW-GTR-234). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/ PSW-GTR-234
179. U.S. Department of Agriculture, A. and P. H. I. S. (2019). Phytophthora Ramorum; Quarantine and Regulations. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/02/27/07-892/phytophthora-ramorum-quarantine-and-regulations 180. California Oak Mortality Task Force. (n.d.). Sudden Oak Death (SOD) management guidelines. Retrieved https://www.suddenoakdeath.org
181. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. (n.d.). Bark beetles:

Integrated pest management guidelines. Pest Notes. Retrieved https://ipm.ucanr. edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7421.html
182. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. (n.d.). Polyphagous and Kuroshio Shot Hole Borers: Management options. Retrieved https://ucanr.edu/sites/ pshb/management/index.cfm#management-options
183. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, & Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. (n.d.). Invasive shot hole borers: Integrated pest management guidelines. Pest Notes. Retrieved https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74179.html 184. County of Santa Clara, O. of C. and P. A. (2024, August 23). Non-native insect that kills trees detected in San José. County News Center. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/non-native-insect-kills-trees-detected-san-jose AB-18
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED 1054
185. Larsen, T. H. (2016). Core Standardized Methods for Rapid Biological Field Assessment. Conservation International. https://www.conservation.org/projects/handbook-core-standardization-methods 186. Iknayan, K. J., Heath, S. K., Terrill, S. B., Wenny, D. G., Panlasigui, S., Wang, Y., Beller, E. E., & Spotswood, E. N. (2024). Patterns in bird and pollinator occupancy and richness in a mosaic of urban office parks across scales and seasons. Ecology and Evolution, 14(3), e10958. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10958 187. Bliss-Ketchum, L., Littlejohn, J., Riehl, J., Hepner, M., & Escobedo-Land, A. (2017). Urban Biodiversity Inventory Framework. Samsara Group. https://drive. google.com/file/d/1d0dT7cX5eNsRuTlfFaztz68g3wr2Hzdf/view?usp=sharing&usp=embed_facebook 188. Bane, M. S., Cooke, R., Boyd, R. J., Brown, A., Burns, F., Henly, L., Vanderpump, J., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2023). An evidence-base for developing ambitious yet realistic national biodiversity targets. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(2), e12862. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12862
189. Lawlor, K. B. (2012). Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference, 39. https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/90/86 190. Green, E. J., Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chandler, G. M., Burgess, N.

D., Hill, S. L. L., & Gregory, R. D. (2019). Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress. Conservation Biology, 33(6), 1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13322
191. Díaz, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Purvis, A., Verburg, P. H., Obura, D., Leadley, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., De Meester, L., Dulloo, E., Martín-López, B., Shaw, M. R., Visconti, P., Broadgate, W., Bruford, M. W., Burgess, N. D., Cavender-Bares, J., DeClerck, F., Fernández-Palacios, J. M., Garibaldi, L. A., … Zanne, A. E. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science, 370(6515), 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530
AB-19

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

BIODIVERSITY & URBAN FOREST PLAN
1055
1056
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Adoption | June 23, 2026 ATTACHMENT 2
Summary of Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Updates
Implementation and Accountability
• Added a designated staff lead to oversee the cross-departmental Implementation Team and coordinate plan execution, monitoring, and reporting efforts across departments. • Expanded annual reporting beyond the Parks and Recreation Commission to include City Council and the public, with additional community-facing updates and engagement opportunities. • Strengthened adaptive management language so implementation can remain flexible and responsive to funding opportunities, scientific knowledge, community priorities, and lessons learned over time.

Integration into City Projects, Policies, and Funding
• Clarified that the Plan is intended to serve as a foundational City policy document that helps guide City decision-making, capital project delivery, and budget development across departments. • Added language supporting the integration of Plan concepts, guidelines, and associated Guides into future objective standards, roadway design approaches, green infrastructure strategies, and other implementation tools.
• Recognized opportunities to incorporate greening, urban forest, and green infrastructure improvements into future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and broader infrastructure investments.

Native Planting, Urban Forest Resilience, and Habitat Protection • Expanded language related to native and regionally appropriate planting, including refinement of the definition of “near-native” species to provide greater clarity regarding ecological compatibility and regional applicability, as well as climate resilience, biodiversity-supportive landscaping, habitat protection, long-term urban forest resilience, and sustainable native plant sourcing practices.
• Added language supporting the protection and retention of existing mature trees, habitat features, and ecological resources where feasible, alongside expansion and enhancement efforts. • Clarified that implementation should balance native planting goals with site conditions, biodiversity objectives, climate resilience, maintenance considerations, and long-term species diversity.

Partnerships, Stewardship, and Community Science
• Added language supporting volunteer coordination, stewardship opportunities, partnerships, and community-based implementation efforts as part of adaptive management and long-term implementation.
• Included language recognizing opportunities to use community science data and partnerships to support biodiversity monitoring and public engagement where appropriate. • Incorporated feedback received from community partners and stakeholder organizations, including GreenSpacesMV, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, Bird Alliance, and other community members.
1057
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 205857, Version: 1
Adoption of Community Ownership Action Plan-Housing Element Program 3.2

1. Adopt the Community Ownership Action Plan (Attachment 1 to the Council Report).

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain to Transfer and Appropriate $1,000,000 From the Below-Market-Rate Housing Fund to the Acquisition and Preservation Subfund to Fund Community-Owned Housing Projects as Part of the Community Ownership Action Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 2 to the Council report). (Five votes required)

3. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to Appropriate $425,000 From the General Housing Fund to Fund Capacity-Building Efforts as Part of Implementing the Community Ownership Action Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 3 to the Council report). (Five votes required)

4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to establish and implement a process, including appropriate safeguards and eligibility criteria, for evaluating and selecting Community-Owned Housing Projects for funding, and to approve and execute all funding agreements and related documents for selected projects, without returning to City Council, and direct the City Manager or designee to provide notice to City Council and the public of funding decisions within 30 days of executing all project-related funding documents.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/18/2026
powered by Legistar™1058
DATE: June 23, 2026
CATEGORY: New Business
DEPT.: Housing
TITLE: Adoption of Community Ownership
Action Plan – Housing Element Program

3.2 RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt the Community Ownership Action Plan (Attachment 1 to the Council Report).

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain to Transfer and Appropriate $1,000,000 From the Below-Market-Rate Housing Fund to the Acquisition and Preservation Subfund to Fund Community-Owned Housing Projects as Part of the Community Ownership Action Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 2 to the Council report). (Five votes required)

3. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to Appropriate $425,000 From the General Housing Fund to Fund Capacity-Building Efforts as Part of Implementing the Community Ownership Action Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 3 to the Council report). (Five votes required)

4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to establish and implement a process, including appropriate safeguards and eligibility criteria, for evaluating and selecting CommunityOwned Housing Projects for funding, and to approve and execute all funding agreements and related documents for selected projects, without returning to City Council, and direct the City Manager or designee to provide notice to City Council and the public of funding decisions within 30 days of executing all project-related funding documents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Developing the Community Ownership Action Plan (COAP) is part of the City’s State-certified 2023-31 Housing Element Program 3.2, which includes developing innovative housing options that are not met by the existing housing system. Key elements of the COAP include the following:
• The COAP advances a people-centered vision where housing supports community well-being, health, connectedness, affordability, and stability for all. 1059
Adoption of Community Ownership Action Plan – Housing Element Program 3.2 June 23, 2026