Mountain View staff and consultants presented a draft Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan on Oct. 8, asking the Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board for feedback on actions, metrics and implementation steps that will guide the city’s management of public trees and biodiversity through adoption expected in mid‑2026.

Brenda Sylvia, assistant community services director and the project lead, opened the presentation by placing the document in local policy context: "In June 2021, City Council adopted the strategic roadmap, which included sustainability and climate resilience as a key priority," she said, and described the draft as an integration of the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan into a broader, science‑based biodiversity strategy.

The draft, led by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) with support from other consultants and city staff, translates a stated vision into goals, objectives, actions and metrics. “Mountain View envisions a healthy, connected, and resilient urban ecosystem with abundant access to nature and its benefits for people and native species alike,” Lauren Stoneburner of SFEI read from the draft and said the document is intended to be a framework for measurable items the city can track over time.

Why it matters: The plan collects scientific assessments, city operations and more than 1,300 community interactions to recommend how Mountain View manages its trees, plantings and green spaces as a single urban ecosystem. It proposes both near‑term, department‑level steps and longer‑term priorities for coordinating across city departments, community partners and private landowners.

What’s in the draft: SFEI and staff described five structural elements — vision, goals, objectives, metrics/targets and actions — with supplemental guides on urban landscaping, plant lists, urban forest policies and monitoring protocols. Notable draft details flagged by presenters include a 2030 canopy milestone referenced as 22.7 percent for the city’s public urban extent and a recommendation to limit any single species to no more than 10 percent of the public tree population, 20 percent per genus and 30 percent per family to improve resilience.

Commission questions and public comment focused on three points: (1) targets and timing, (2) private‑property trees, and (3) heritage tree protections. Commissioners repeatedly asked for a redlined version of the plan when it returns in January 2026 and for clearer, numerically stated targets. "It would be really helpful if we could get a redlined version that shows the changes from now to then," Commissioner Filios said.

Private trees: Several commissioners and members of the public urged the city to address the large share of canopy on private land. The draft notes that roughly 90 percent of Mountain View’s urban canopy sits on private property; commissioners and commenters requested concrete steps for documenting and encouraging private‑land stewardship. Russell Hansen, the city’s urban forest manager, said the city is expanding inventories and relies on its contracted tree crew to update key tree fields during routine work. He said West Coast Arborist currently updates roughly a dozen critical data fields when they service public trees and that staff aim to increase the number of trees touched annually from about 3,000 last year to 4,000–5,000 this year.

Metrics and targets: The draft includes 14 recommended metrics the city could track using existing data and 10 supplemental metrics that would need new data collection. Presenters and commissioners agreed metrics are useful but said targets should be set in a later implementation phase. "Setting targets...takes a lot of work to reconcile and weigh trade‑offs," Stoneburner said; SFEI and staff recommended a cross‑departmental biodiversity implementation team decide specific numeric targets during implementation, with staff returning to the commission and council in the coming months.

Heritage trees and appeals: The draft includes technical recommendations for heritage tree protections and updates to the ordinance, but stops short of making ordinance changes in the plan itself. Commissioners and public commenters pressed staff to move faster on ordinance revisions and on standardizing arborist reports. Several speakers cautioned against shifting appeals of heritage tree removals away from the commission to a board of arborists, arguing that public trust and a "jury of peers" approach matter to the community’s review process.

Other topics: Public commenters raised a suite of local issues tied to the plan’s implementation: preservation of remnant patches along creeks and freeways, better mapping and neighborhood‑scale visuals for the plan, concerns about allergenic species on plant lists, and requests to tie park restroom hours and other amenities into equity considerations for green space access. Multiple commenters urged a stronger emphasis on native plants; Dr. Shani Kleinhouse of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance said locally native trees support far more insects and birds than nonnative selections.

Next steps: Staff said the draft remains in an early public review phase. The plan will be revised after this round of PRC input and again in January 2026; if the commission recommends it, staff plan to bring a revised draft to the Environmental Planning Commission and then to City Council in April 2026 with adoption targeted for June 2026. Staff also signaled a sequence of implementation tasks after adoption: establish an internal biodiversity team to set targets and coordinate across departments, update the heritage tree ordinance in phases and develop monitoring and reporting processes.

What the commission asked staff to add or clarify: Commissioners repeatedly asked for (1) a redline of changes between drafts; (2) clearer numeric targets, even if provisional; (3) improved, neighborhood‑scale maps and prototypes showing how the guidance would look on the ground; (4) greater emphasis on private‑land canopy inventory and incentives for private owners; and (5) clarity about which actions will require new staff or funding.

Public involvement and timeline: Project materials and a comment tool remain open at biodiversitymb.com. Staff said they will return to the commission for focused review in January 2026 and anticipate a City Council adoption hearing in June 2026.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the Oct. 8 commission meeting and include city staff, SFEI consultants, commissioners and members of the public. Direct quotations are taken from recorded remarks at the meeting.