Mountain View city council has allowed big business to change the entire ambience of this city - steadily turning it from a pleasant, green environment to a "concrete jungle". There is this constant see-saw of "we need more jobs" to "we need more housing" as we lurch from one man-made "crisis" to another. All these "crises" are manufactured by big corporations as they seek to generate maximum profits by manipulating the situation-of-the-moment. What is the point of having the power to grant or deny planning permission if the council and its staff constantly roll over and give in to whatever Avalon et al. demand? How many trees have we lost in the past 10 years or so? Is there no concern about our contribution to climate change? Is climate always someone else's problem to solve? Environmental NIMBY-ism?

More homes so people can live closer to work does far more to address climate change than keeping an additional handful of trees on this lot.

We are in a drought, adding more homes and people will make it worse. Cutting down trees will make it worse. Trees actually cause more rain see Web Link any one on city council who allows cutting down so many trees is at best not well informed , I hate to think what other explanation there is. This is not in the best interest if Mountain View residents.

The article neglected to mention an important message that the Sierra Club representative and many of MV residents who attended this meeting have expressed. Providing housing near transit is very desirable, however not at the expense of degrading the environment and sustainability of humans and natural habitats. Saving the 62 mature heritage trees that form a highly effective buffer from toxins and noise pollution can be achieved by scaling down (not eliminating) the proposed project. Balancing between our needs for housing and keeping healthy sustainable environment is what we should strive to reach. And in the face of climate change and extreme weather, we need to plan for this balance now so we can have a future.

It seems to me that they should make the project even bigger, rather than scaling it down. That would even further reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the people living in these buildings, doing far more to protect us from climate change than forcing those people to commute into Mountain View.

All the Mountain View City council really wants is to make Mountain View home to dozens of new
pro-Google voters. They don't care a fig for aesthetics, nor for a stable community. ("Heritage! Hah," they sneer.) Build, build, build, and let's make this a one company town, real soon!

Headline is a bit misleading. It's using the total number of trees projected to be removed vs. the 62 heritage trees -covered by tree ordinance- to be removed. It would be nice to also know how many of the 62 heritage trees are in poor condition ( likely to die within a few years, thinned foliage/canopy....).

The Cypress Point Community Preservation Group has a solution and remedies that will mitigate significant impacts to the neighborhood and most of our concerns and issues. The developer needs to go back to the drawing board and redesign the project. Consider adding more units to Block B which is close to a main arterial roadway, Moffett Blvd. Consider adding 2-3 stories to the top of the new amenities building in Block A. These additional units will replace the units lost by eliminating Block C. Block C is a natural area for the proposed public park because it can seamlessly integrate into the existing urban woodland area and wildlife habitat. No Heritage trees would be lost. In fact, native trees and plants should be added to this area to enhance its biological and ecological benefits to the neighborhood and to the city. The developer, AvalonBay, has redesigned this project multiple times since 2015. Their latest version fails again to address the short and long-term impacts. The urban land use planning process has been an adversarial for ages. It should be a cooperative process between the housing developer and the neighborhood residents. We waste so much precious time and money by this adversarial process. I propose a rule whereby housing developers collaborate with the existing residents during the conceptual phase of the planning process (prior to drawing up the project plans). The residents concerns and potential impacts of the project are discussed with the developer and incorporated into the design of the project. This coordination, collaboration, and cooperation between the developer and the homeowners will create a cooperative process and save the developer, the people, and the city significant amounts of time and money.

If these were planted trees, no big deal...natural and original trees are another matter depending upon whether they pose a fire or electrical danger.

It is one thing to be a 'tree-hugger' who embraces trees that were originally here and part of the natural ecosystem...another to protect trees that were procured from some nursery.