Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout220412_Item 8.2_CorrespondenceFrom: Serge Bonte To: Matichak. Lisa; Hicks. Alison; Kamei. Ellen; Ramirez, Lucas; Showalter, Pat; Lieber, Sally; Abe-Koga, Margaret Cc: McCarthy. Kimbra; . City Clerk; . City Attorney Subject: re: 04/12/2022 Meeting - 590 Castro Street Date: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:02:47 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: It has come to my attention that the developer of a project on Castro, Fairmont and El Camino Real has been mentioning a possible closed session City Council meeting to discuss sale of a portion of Fairmont and/or Hope Street. I want to urge you to refuse starting any evaluation of this project behind closed doors. Any time there is consideration of selling a public asset, there are important policy decisions to be made prior to negotiating a price. These policy decisions ought to be made in public. This prompts me to share advanced comments on 590 Castro Street as this project too started with closed session meetings where important policy decisions were made. While I don't think any decisions made during these closed session meetings were ever shared with the public, it seems fair to assume they had to do with preserving vehicular access and surface level parking for the City property rented in quasi -perpetuity to the Chamber of Commerce. Looking at the proposed plans, they seem to show the current surface parking near the park is preserved and creating potential conflicts with vehicles going to/from the underground garage. Because this policy decision was made in closed session, it is really unfortunate that the public didn't have a chance to weigh in to suggest: - unbundling parking for the Chamber of Commerce (in fact it's not even clear parking is included in the rent charged by the City) - negotiating some parking for the Chamber of Commerce in the underground garage - providing parking for the Chamber of Commerce in other nearby City parking Any of these suggestions would have resulted in less vehicular conflict to/from the underground garage, more space to serve as a greener buffer with the park (maybe even a place to relocate some heritage trees). If it's still possible to revisit that closed session decision to preserve that surface parking, by all means do so. I wanted to share another comment on this project. The project seems to preserve the existing angled street parking on Castro. While angled parking is easier to enter for drivers, it is extremely dangerous when pulling out. Cars back up into traffic without any visibility and without much warning; creating stress and hazard for cyclists (and other street users). The city should remove angled parking any time there is a redevelopment, and I am urging you to do so for this project. Doing so will also reclaim more space for sidewalk and/or street trees/planters. It would also provide more space to put a bike lane in the future. Personally, I would remove all street parking on the Castro side of the project. But switching to parallel parking would still reduce safety risks while providing for more space for sidewalk/street planting. As to the 590 Castro Street project as a whole, I would have prefered to see housing but it's not mandated in the Precise Plan which the project adheres to. I really like the proposed paseo (a huge improvement over the current conditions and an improvement spelled out in the Precise Plan), I also like the fact that the developer will make the garage available for public parking in evenings and week -ends; hopefully deferring a costly city investment in another parking structure. Sincerely, i r e Bonte From: Serge Bonte To: City Council FORWARD; Ramirez. Lucas; Abe -Kona, Margaret; Matichak, Lisa; Showalter, Pat; Kamei. Ellen; Hicks, Alison Cc: Pancholi, Diana; Shrivastava, Aarti Subject: re: 4/12/22 Agenda Item 8.2 - Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 6:18:11 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: While I would have preferred to see housing on that site, the proposed project adheres to the Precise Plan and is worth supporting. I especially like: - The public plaza/paseo -which was contemplated in the Precise Plan- a vast improvement over the current conditions - "The project applicant voluntarily offering to provide public use of the first floor of the parking garage (91 parking spaces) during non office business hours (6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and on weekends and Federal holidays (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.).". This offer alone is a huge benefit for the City as it might delay the need and exorbitant costs of yet another public parking structure. I have two suggestions to further improve the project. The decisions rest primarily on you, and I would imagine the developer can quickly adapt the project. 1. Get rid of the six public surface parking spaces in the back of the building and replace them with more landscaping/trees Surface parking is the absolute worst possible land use ... especially Downtown. I am actually shocked to read that preserving these six spots will require an encroachment on Pioneer Park AND the removal of on Heritage Tree. "As part of the proposed development project, the existing driveway is proposed to be modified to provide a compliant driveway -access width with the relocation of the existing six public parking spaces. A portion of the relocated parking spaces will encroach into a small portion of Pioneer Park. The applicant is voluntarily proposing to fund and complete the construction of these six replacement public parking spaces. This necessitates the removal of one Heritage cherry tree in the park." Choosing Heritage Parking over Heritage Tree and portions of a public park ,doesn't sound like any of the Council Priorities nor any of your campaign platforms. Please remove these parking spots. I am certain the City and/or the developer can find an alternative to accommodate the Chamber of Commerce parking needs. Removing these spots would save one heritage tree and instead of encroaching on the park, you'd be able to slightly enlarge the park via additional landscaping (and possibly more trees). 2, Get rid of angled street parking on the Castro side of that project: The existing angled parking is convenient when parking (just need to drive in) but it's an extremely dangerous maneuver when pulling out as cars back out into traffic without much visibility. With the adoption of Vision Zero, the City should try to enhance safety any chance it gets. And here's your chance to remove a dangerous type of parking fronting that project. My preference would to remove all that street parking as it would enhance the view of the paseo. But at minimum you should re -configure parking to be parallel. Either way, this would enhance safety on Castro and provide more space for trees/planters/people. Sincerely, Ser e Bonte Mountain View From: David Shreni To: City Council FORWARD Subject: Agenda Item on 590 Castro Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 7:37:24 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Hello City Council. I'm in favor of this type of development in the downtown core space, but the impact on traffic/parking will be larger than the staff or developer have indicated. The Traffic study prepared by TJKM was based on less office space and retail space (97K and 6.5K sq ft, respectively) than the size of the space proposed in this project stated in the agenda: 105K and 14K sq ft, respectively. I have enclosed below a screenshot of parking analysis that was undertaken using the smaller square footage than the proposed amount in the agenda. The retail space proposed is DOUBLE (which is great) but will require DOUBLE the amount of retail parking proposed and generate DOUBLE the retail traffic indicated in the traffic study. And that's just the retail piece. The Office space proposed will be 10% larger, which will require ... ten percent more parking. I would expect many of those excess parking needs to end up parking on our neighborhood streets (or probably in the library parking lot!) Please require additional parking, especially for retail needs, or ask the developer to limit the total number of employees allowed in the building. Warmly, David S Consultants, Inc.). This results in 295 parking spaces required (Table 20). Table 20. Downtown Precise Plan Required Parking vs. Proposed Parking Land Use Gross SF Office 95,688 Office Parking Reduction (5%) Required Rate (1 Spacelx SF) 333 Required Spaces proposed Difference (deficit) 287 -14 Midday F Rate 273 236 37 Retail 6,646 300 22 19 3 Total 29S 255 40 While providing adequate parking is essential to the economic vitality of a downtown, providing too much parking can be counter to many of Mountain View's goals, such as reducing congestion, increasing transit ridership, creating a walkable environments and encouraging successful infill development. Table 7. Project Trip Generation Land use & ITE code B°'Id'"g Area Units naiIy Rote Trips ANPeak Midday F Rate In % out % In Qut Total Rate In % Out % Proposed Land Use General Office Building (rrE Code 710)' 97.693 k-s.f 30.62 1,037 I.21 86 14 101 17 118 0.97 14 86 Reduction: Office Land Use • Employment nears Major Bus Stop, 2%' 2I 2 I 3 Retail XE Code M' 6.300 k.s.f 37.7'5 245 a94 62 38 4 3 7 324 di 59 Reduction : Retail Land Use Peak Hour Pass by Trip Reduction (as per VTA guidelines), 309' N/A NIA WA Proposed Trips (A) 1,261 103 19 1I2 Existing Land Use General Office Building (ITE Code 710)` 9.228 k.s.f 1I.40 105 0 0 0 1.09 14 86 Reduction : Office Land Use - Employment nears Major Bus Stop, 2%4 s -2 0 Q D Exlsting Trips (B) 103 0 0 6 Total Trips Increased (A) -(B) 1,158 103 19 122 Notes: Source - rTE Trip Generation Manual, 16th Edition (2017} Fitted Curve Equations for Office Land Use Daily. Ln(T)m 0.97LnOQ*2,50; AM Peak: T = 0.94Qq + 26.4% PM Peak; Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X) + 0.36. Where T= Average Vehicle Tr CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL- Ensure you trurt this email before clicking on any links or attachments A con tion: according to the Aw Set, the proposed retail is 10.5k aqfeet®the gmwd floor, 40% more thaw the&.it study indicated. (Not doable).E.ground floor hva 141, sq ft in OFFICE apace std ix.1r dy ivclvded m the office apace total. Th.& ou, David �-E4Eaaew 61oC,Rs ly] •-sr.na;F -i9.N15R waYaRTRr•feic av �9k.alt�SF r�..r9r�u�,xi Sr LGr v9tG+ •� sSryKKrmtoi ate. Y98i6449,W4.!!C� rSrgoftir Tw.x Reegryrutaat) I[C r-s_LW rOR std Ma P'Lsabtror, III L-1- 95'rcL5 ti9 asTNL•9r pFrx,at 'enEaeaair • �ccxeraxwA.,uns aTCUaiD esRxare auc7o /ATenraxa cur. ueaawuaT,ulR Rea eWM sra.,•ccessaL�srat.La rro+.a p mqurvtainviaw.legstar.com C M n On Apr ]0, 2022, at 7:37 PNL David Slveni <shreni@yahoo.—wrote: Hello City Council. I'm in favor of this type of development in the downtown core space, but the impact on traffic/panting will be larger than the staff or developer have indicated. The Traffic study prepared by TJKM was based on less office space and retail Spam (97K and 6.5K sq It, respectively) than the size of the space proposed in this project stated in the agenda 105K and 14K sq It, respectively. I have encbsed below a screenshot of parking analysis that was undertaken using the smaller square footage than the proposed amount in the agenda. The rata I space proposed is DOUBLE (which is great) but will require DOUBLE the amount of retail parking proposed and generate DOUBLE the retail traffic indicated in the traffic study. And thats just the retail piece. The Once space proposed will be 10% larger, which will require Win percent more parking. I would expect many of those excess parking needs to and up parking on our neighborhood! streets (or probably in the library parking lot!) Please require additional parking, especia ly for retail needs, or ask the developer to knit the total number of employees allowed in the building. Wanmly, Da d s Ni I a Ave Consultants, Inc.). This results in 295 parking spaces required (cable 20). TaHle fR Mut Rlan Rwn:ro,l Rar4lnn..e R.nnnwl RarLrm Land Use Gros SF Required Rate (I Spaceyx 5n Required 5paces ProposedDifference (deficit) Office 95,688 333 287 Office Parking Reduction (5%) -14 273 236 37 Retail 6,646 300 22 19 3 Total 295 i 255 40 While providing adequate parking is essential to the economic vitality of a downtown, providing too much parking can be counter to many of Mountain View's goals, such as reducing congesbon, increasing transit ridership, creating a walkable environments and encouraging successful infill development. Takla] Pr,—t TrinC.ncratinn Table 7. Project Trip Generation Land Use & ITE Code Building Area Units Lfaify Difference AM Peak proposed Midday F Rate Trips Rate In % out % fn Out Total Rate In % out % Proposed Land Use -14 273 235 37 General Office Building UrE Code 710)1 97.693 ks.f 10.62 1,437 2.21 86 I4 101 17 118 0.57 I4 86 Reduction: Office Land Use - Employment near a Major Bus Stop, 2%' 21 -2 -1 -3 Retail (f7E Code 820)' 6.504 k.s.f 37.75 245 094 62 38 4 3 7 324 42 59 Reduction: Retail Land Use Peak Hour Pass by Trip Reduction (as per VrA guidelines) , 30%• NVA N/A NIA Proposed Trips (A) 1,261 103 14 122 Existing Land Use General OfliceBuilding (ITE Code 710)' 4.228 k.sf 1I.40 105 0 0 0 1.09 14 86 Reduction : Office Land Use - Employment near a Major Bus Stop, 2%'' -2 0 0 0 ExlstingTtips(B) 103 0 0 0 Total Trips Increased (A) -(B) 1,158 103 19 122 Notes: Source - rTF Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) Fitted Curve Equation g for office Land Use Doily. Lr(T)= 0.971-np"2.50; AM Peak: T= 0.44Qq - 26-49; PM Peak: Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(S) + 0.36. Where T= Average Vehide Tr Consultants, Inc.). This results in 295 parking spaces required (Table 24). Table 20. Downtown Precise Plan Required Parking vs. Proposed Parking While providing adequate parking is essential to the economic vitality of a downtown, providing too much parking can be counter to many of Mountain View's goals, such as reducing congestion, increasing transit ridership, creating a walkable environments and encouraging successful infill development. Required Rate Required Difference Land Use Gross 5F proposed (1 Space/x SF) Spaces (deficit) Office 95,688 333 287 Office Parking Reduction (5%) -14 273 235 37 Retail 6,646 300 22 19 3 Total 295 255 40 While providing adequate parking is essential to the economic vitality of a downtown, providing too much parking can be counter to many of Mountain View's goals, such as reducing congestion, increasing transit ridership, creating a walkable environments and encouraging successful infill development. From: Raquel McJones To: City Council FORWARD Subject: 590 Castro Street development Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:45:10 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. I am completely scandalized that city staff and the zoning administrator feel that a 20 -times increase in employees (from 20 at the old Wells Fargo to 400 at this new building) and only providing parking for half of them will not have any environmental impact on the surrounding areal Please do not approve this plan. Raquel McJones Mountain View, CA Sent from my iPad From: LWormald To: City Council FORWARD Subject: 590 Castro St - on April 12, 2022 agenda Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 7:16:33 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. 590 Castro St. I request the City Council NOT approve this project without further study. Major development going thru without notifying the public in ways the public actually gets the information. This is our downtown! • Notifying the nearby owners is inappropriate in this case— city hall and the actual developer themselves. • Why no environmental impact study? • Why are the heritage trees allowed to be removed? • Housing impact fees —why so low? • Why is parking not adequate for planned volume of workers? Sincerely, Lorraine A. Wormald Mountain View, California 94041 From: Thida Cornes To: City Council FORWARD; Ramirez. Lucas; Hicks, Alison; Showalter, Pat; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Matichak, Lisa; Kamei, Ellen; Lieber, Sally Subject: Oppose Wells Fargo project Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 4:13:04 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear Mayor Ramirez, Vice -Mayor Hicks, and City Council members, I'm writing in opposition to the Wells Fargo project as it stands for the following main reasons: a) increases the job -housing imbalance b) the developer seeks an exception to CEQA guidelines yet there will be significant environmental impacts c) it offers little visual interest to the pedestrian at a time when we're trying to encourage people to patronize the businesses further away from the train tracks. Here are my specific objections. 1. The new proposal would bring 400 employees to downtown Mountain View replacing the previous approximately 20 employees that were at the old site. With no CEQA guidelines, the effects on traffic and the environmental impact are unknown. 2. 255 parking spaces are proposed, which is higher than a 1:2 ratio, which is typically higher than parking spaces in newer developments. 3. Making a CEQA exception removes the developer's incentives for employees to take alternative means of transport than driving. 4. The project would remove 9 Heritage trees and with no CEQA report, the effects of loss of shade and water retention, and even whether the project could be built by removing fewer trees are unknown. I understand that we wish to develop our downtown but with such a large space, I feel the developer could work harder to ensure that less parking is needed, reduce the environmental impacts, and make the ground floor space a shared space with bank retail and something more interesting to pedestrians such as a coffee shop. CEQA is the main tool that Cities have to ensure that such goals are met. Thanks for reading my email, Thida Cornes Pronouns: she/her From: Lenny"s Sonic To: Ramirez. Lucas; Hicks, Alison; Showalter. Pat; Kamei, Ellen; Lieber, Sally; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Matichak, Lisa Cc: City Council FORWARD Subject: Please do not approve this downtown office building. Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 12:04:32 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. The proposal by the Sobrato Organization to redevelop 590 Castro Street (the former Wells Fargo building) with a four-story, 102,442 square foot commercial building should not move forward without a challenge. Not only does Mountain View not need more downtown jobs. By adding about 500 more jobs and no new housing, it will exacerbate our housing shortage and throw more commuters onto our regional roadways. The staff report for this proposal states, "The applicant held a community meeting on October 12, 2021 to introduce the project, seek feedback on the design, listen to concerns, and provide updates on the project status and development schedule. Approximately five people attended, and no comments or concerns were conveyed. Meeting attendees provided their support for the project and the proposed building design." Yet no one that I've asked — people who follow such proposals - was aware of that meeting, unlike public meetings Sobrato has convened for other projects. At the very least, approval of this project should be delayed until there is genuine public outreach and feedback. This project will increase our need to build more housing and to fund more affordable housing while forcing more low-income, particularly Latinx residents, out of town. The staff report states,"the applicant will pay $2,575,463 in Housing Impact fees, which are used to construct affordable housing." That's enough to build no more than three subsidized apartments, hardly a match for the housing shortfall created by the addition of hundreds of employees. By causing more people to commute great distances, it will further congest traffic and boost greenhouse gas emissions. Yet for some strange reason the developer is not required to conduct Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis. Unlike the Sobrato office development on the St. Josephs site across Castro Street, this proposal is asking the Council to vote exceptions: A reduction in required parking and allowance of nearly 14,000 feet of ground floor office space. Sobrato is also requesting permission to remove nine Heritage trees, including three redwood trees. And it is asking for a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. I've got nothing against the Sobrato organization. In 2015, when it became clear that they would have difficulty putting offices on all their North Bayshore parking lots, I suggested that they build housing there. And that's what they're doing. Mountain View should move more quickly to update our Downtown Precise Plan to acknowledge that we have too many jobs here for our housing and services. Let's start by sending this project back to the drawing board. Lenny Siegel Lean Sic el ttn: ennsisiegel.users.sonic.net/web/ Author_ DISTURBING THE WAR: The Inside Story of the Movement to Get Stanford University out of Southeast Asia -1965-1975 (See httn:/la3ruretiniov.or2) From: Susan Lam To: City Council FORWARD Subject: Safety concerns about Castro/Fairmont project and 590 Castro St. project Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:28:22 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear Council Members, Concerns: Existing traffic already poses a considerable safety risk for pedestrians and that risk will be greatly magnified by the scope of both projects and Provisional Use Permits for parking reduction that have been granted to both projects. Inadequate parking poses significant problems for the residents, especially for those who live within the several block area directly impacted by these two projects. It is well known that the City of Mountain View already has inadequate parking and many narrow streets. This becomes especially apparent during peak working hours and many evenings. Mountain View is a wonderful town for pedestrians but enjoying outside activities as simple as walking is becoming increasingly perilous. The pedestrian traffic includes people of all ages who are walking, jogging, riding bicycles, pushing strollers, using walkers, walking dogs, and on skateboards, in addition to automobiles. The inevitable spillover parking from both of these large projects will have a negative impact on surrounding areas within several blocks of each development. More specifically, the few blocks surrounding each of these projects are already hazardous for pedestrians, and the impact of these projects will greatly magnify an already hazardous situation. One particularly treacherous intersection is the "offset' T -intersection at the comer of Church and Hope Streets. At this point in the planning process, enhanced safety and much good will could be achieved by providing appropriate parking signage and/or permit parking for residents in the areas that will be most severely impacted by these projects. This has been accomplished successfully in various other cities as a compromise between the needs and desires of the developers while addressing safety needs of local residents. Any positive vision for Mountain View cannot fail to address these important safety issues_ Thank you for your attention to and support of safety for the residents of Mountain View. Regards Susan Trench From: Hala Alshahwanv To: City Council FORWARD Cc: . City Manager; Lee. Danielle; . Planning Division Subject: Comments on 590 Castro Development Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:24:35 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Hello Council Members and City Staff, As I started to write my input for council regarding 590 Castro St proposal, I found this email that I had sent to the DRC members last year when design aspects were being discussed. Unfortunately the pleas made by the public and even the DRC architects (read message below) to save our heritage trees, have been ignored by the developer and project planer. It is vital to retain the Redwood heritage trees due to their proximity to Pioneer Park and their importance in keeping our downtown beautiful and healthy. These trees are our greatest asset against climate extremes. Please protect them. Hala Alshahwany ---------- Forwarded messae--------- From: Hala Alshahwany Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 2:48 PM Subject: Further Comments on 590 Castro Development To: planning.divisionamountainview_gov <planning, divisionamountainview.gov>, rebecca.shapiroa.mountainview.gov <rebecca.shapiroa.mountainview.gov> CC: city.mgramountainview.gov <city.mgr&mountainview.gov> Hello DRC Members, Shapiro, Poncini & Sherman, Thank you all for your support on pushing for sustainable designs and practices in reviewing 590 Castro St., and other developments coming through steady fast in our city. One of the great accomplishments of MV ESTF-2 (Environmental Sustainability Task Force 2017-18), was working with council to pass updated Reach Code requiring all new buildings, commercial & residential, to be 100% electric using clean sourced energy (through SVCE). Now in 2021, in light of climate challenges and extremes, we have to go further. As I mentioned in yesterday's meeting, saving mature heritage trees, at minimum the native ones is crucial to the health and beauty of our community and environment. The suggestion made by Ms Poncini to relocate the 3 native redwood trees to adjacent Pioneer park is an excellent way to accommodate the developer and preserve these trees. The developer's cost in maintaining and relocating heritage trees is justified to support long term sustainability goals. Likewise, using green roof tops and permeable walkways should be encouraged and sought by reviewers and builders. These small changes combined with big ones will enable us as to have a better future for all. Best, Hala Alshahwany Member of ESTF-2 & MV Resident From: Ronit Bryant To: City Council FORWARD Subject: Item 8.2 comments Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:38:34 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicl<ing on any linl<s or attachments. Dear Councilmembers, I join my voice with those of many residents asking you to look again at the commercial development at 590 Castro. Some key points: • The public has had very little opportunity to comment on the basic nature of this development. Five neighbors with no concerns at an October public meeting? That sounds like a meeting that was not sufficiently publicized. • This project offers our city no benefits: more office space worsening our jobs -housing imbalance. Why do that? • The corner of Castro and Church will become 100% office and Pioneer Park will be pretty much closed off from Castro - not a way to bring life to the upper part of Castro. • Have you noticed that the offered "Pedestrian landscaped connection between Castro Street and Pioneer Park" is 2 inches wider than the minimum required by development standards? At the very least, please offer this project no exceptions: if the project cannot proceed without them, so be it. Housing would be a much better fit for that location, with significant benefits to the city. sincerely, ronit bryant From: D Offen or G Nyhan To: Ramirez. Lucas; Hicks, Alison; Abe-Koga. Margaret; Kamei. Ellen; Lieber, Sally; Matichak. Lisa; Showalter, Pat Cc: City Council FORWARD Subject: 590 Castro- 4-12-22 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:20:02 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear Councilmember- As long-time homeowners in Mountain View, we continue to be concerned about the jobs -housing imbalance in our city. If you approve the proposed office development at 590 Castro, you will be allowing 500 potential new jobs downtown without any new housing and only require inadequate fees for this imbalance. In our view the best action would be to reject this project as proposed. It will stress our city services and negatively impact our quality of life. At least the Council should require a higher offsetting penalty fee from the developer in order to build new affordable housing elsewhere in the city. Thank you for considering our view, Dave Offen & Gail Nyhan From: Gwen Smith To: Ramirez. Lucas; Hicks. Alison; Kamei. Ellen; Matichak. Lisa; Abe -Kona. Margaret; Showalter, Pat; Lieber, Sallv Cc: City Council FORWARD Subject: Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:22:59 AM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear Mayor Ramirez, Vice -Major Hicks, and City Council Members, My name is Gwendolyn Smith and I am a resident of Mountain View. I am writing to express my concern about the planned commercial development proposal at 590 Castro Street - in particular the removal of heritage trees. The project proposes to remove 19 trees, 9 of which are heritage trees. Why is it that the standard response of development companies is to remove established trees when it should be in their best interest and that of a city to encourage the preservation of existing trees - enhancing the image and appeal of such projects as well as reputation and profits? Why didn't the architect and development company design something creative that incorporated existing heritage trees? The small grove of three redwoods or as they are referred to in the proposal, "parking lot" trees, are beautiful and majestic — characteristics that cannot be said of yet another generic office building in Mountain View. The proposal states that 54 new trees would be planted on-site and 75% native planting. What is meant by "native planting"? What kinds of "new trees" are being proposed? While a higher tree count might sound good it often means that the developer rips out healthy mature trees only to replace them with saplings, bushes, and grasses for ornamental landscapes. In the renderings I see what look like jacaranda trees and typical curbside trees. Not all trees are equal. From an environmental and conservation perspective, trees such as pines and redwoods should not be replaced with jacaranda, myrtles, and ornamental bushes and grasses. Church Street between Castro and Franklin is lined with redwoods that enhance its nature and attractiveness. Pioneer Park has some lovely large trees. Any development on this site should preserve and extend that environmental context. A few oaks, pines and redwoods are worth more than a myriad of ornamental trees. I urge you to veto or at least minimize the removal of heritage trees on this property and to preserve and extend the planting of redwoods, oaks, and pines instead of ornamental trees and plants. Sincerely — Gwen Smith Gutierrez, Jeannette Subject: RE: MVCSP comments on 590 Castro project to City of Mountain View City Council From: Mountain View MVCSP <mvcsp.info@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:28 PM To: Ramirez, Lucas <Lucas.Ramirez@mountainview.gov>; Hicks, Alison<Alison.Hicks@mountainview.gov>; Kamei, Ellen <EIIen.Kamei@mountainview.gov>; Abe-Koga, Margaret <Margaret.abe-koga@mountainview.gov>; Matichak, Lisa <Lisa.Matichak@mountainview.gov>; Showalter, Pat <Pat.Showalter@mountainview.gov>; Sally Lieber <Sally@sallylieber.org>; Lieber, Sally <SaIly.Lieber@mountainview.gov> Cc: Mountain View MVCSP <mvcsp.info@gmail.com>; Pancholi, Diana <Diana.Pancholi@mountainview.gov>; Williams, Stephanie <Stephanie.Williams@mountainview.gov>; Shrivastava, Aarti <Aarti.Shrivastava@mountainview.gov>; McCarthy, Kimbra <Kimbra.McCarthy@ mountainview.gov>; Glaser, Heather <Heather.Glaser@mountainview.eov> Subject: MVCSP comments on 590 Castro project to City of Mountain View City Council CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. (formal letter attached) Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning c/o Aaron Grossman 817 Montgomery Street Mountain View, CA 94041 April 12, 2022 City of Mountain View City Council City Hall, 500 Castro Street PO Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Re: Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council members: The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit to Construct a New Four -Story, 105,361 Square Foot Commercial Building with Two Levels of Underground Parking, at 590 Castro. We are asking City Council to consider bringing back this project after the Downtown Precise Plan phase 2 is finalized next year. If that is not possible, or if the plan might be delayed, we ask the Council to ask for key considerations to make the best possible use of this remarkable opportunity. This property, located on an important, historical corner in the heart of downtown, and next to a major open space in our city, deserves this extra examination. Our biggest concern is why this property is being developed for 500 new jobs, without a single unit of housing, in an area near transportation, existing places of employment, and walkability to services and recreation. It is a perfect spot for housing. With many companies creating hybrid or fully remote work environments, we question the need for speculative office space, but the demand for housing is real. To this point, we question if the housing impact fees are high enough. How do they compare to other projects, per square foot, and can they be raised? Our second largest concern is why the entire ground floor is not dedicated to retail or other public use. Our downtown is struggling. We need to tie the 600 block of Castro together with the rest of downtown, and not create a dead zone separating Civic Center Plaza and the residential and commercial area toward El Camino. The maligned projects at 599 Castro, housing Wells Fargo, and particularly the project across Church from it, at 605 Castro, housing Quora, should remind us why ground floor Castro Street establishments need to be accessible, attractive, and useful to the public. We recommend office entrances being moved to the back or side of the building, and all retail or other public spaces made to face Castro. A larger, contiguous retail space could also allow for more interesting uses, such as a food hall, like State Street in Los Altos, an art gallery with art visible from the sidewalk, an interactive art or science space, or flex space for pop ups for interesting rotating exhibits and businesses. Other concerns include: • The impact on historical Pioneer Memorial Park. This is a very important public park and historic resource, which still contains some graves and has oak trees that are likely 200+ years old. We are concerned that the building will block visual access and light from the park, essentially walling off the park on the Castro side. The removal of a heritage tree in the park, and more egregiously, the encroachment onto park land for car parking, must be reconsidered. • The excess removal of heritage trees. Many of these trees make an excellent buffer between the park and the building, and should not be removed. We also feel that heritage trees should not be removed to make room for parking spots, as it is a huge loss of natural resources for very minimal public gain. • The limited public parking. Why are only 91 spots, and not all, open to the public? • The use of artificial grass. No landscape areas should have fake turf. Native plantings and natural materials should be used throughout the project. • Dangerous public parking along the Castro Street frontage. We would like to see it removed for increased bike, pedestrian, and automobile safety, as well as to increase visibility of ground floor retail. • The impact on the Chamber of Commerce. This organization's visibility and accessibility will be impacted. Perhaps the Chamber could be moved into the new building, and be a partner for creating unique, captivating ground floor retail and other public use. In summary, we think the best decisions for this property can be made after the new Downtown Precise Plan phase 2 is created, but we believe that if our concerns are addressed, we can still create a project that will benefit our entire community, for a long time to come. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, IdaRose Sylvester for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Heather Glaser, City Clerk About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer -based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond! For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org. To contact us, send email to mvcsp.infokgmail.com. Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning c/o Aaron Grossman 817 Montgomery Street Mountain View, CA 94041 April 12, 2022 City of Mountain View City Council City Hall, 500 Castro Street PO Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Re: Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council members: The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit to Construct a New Four -Story, 105,361 Square Foot Commercial Building with Two Levels of Underground Parking, at 590 Castro. We are asking City Council to consider bringing back this project after the Downtown Precise Plan phase 2 is finalized next year. If that is not possible, or if the plan might be delayed, we ask the Council to ask for key considerations to make the best possible use of this remarkable opportunity. This property, located on an important, historical corner in the heart of downtown, and next to a major open space in our city, deserves this extra examination. Our biggest concern is why this property is being developed for 500 new jobs, without a single unit of housing, in an area near transportation, existing places of employment, and walkability to services and recreation. It is a perfect spot for housing. With many companies creating hybrid or fully remote work environments, we question the need for speculative office space, but the demand for housing is real. To this point, we question if the housing impact fees are high enough. How do they compare to other projects, per square foot, and can they be raised? Our second largest concern is why the entire ground floor is not dedicated to retail or other public use. Our downtown is struggling. We need to tie the 600 block of Castro together with the rest of downtown, and not create a dead zone separating Civic Center Plaza and the residential and commercial area toward EI Camino. The maligned projects at 599 Castro, housing Wells Fargo, and particularly the project across Church from it, at 605 Castro, housing Quora, should remind us why ground floor Castro Street establishments need to be accessible, attractive, and useful to the public. We recommend office entrances being moved to the back or side of the building, and all retail or other public spaces made to face Castro. A larger, contiguous retail space could also allow for more interesting uses, such as a food hall, like State Street in Los Altos, an art gallery with art visible from the sidewalk, an interactive art or science space, or flex space for pop ups for interesting rotating exhibits and businesses. Other concerns include: • The impact on historical Pioneer Memorial Park. This is a very important public park and historic resource, which still contains some graves and has oak trees that are likely 200+ years old. We are concerned that the building will block visual access and light from the park, essentially walling off the park on the Castro side. The removal of a heritage tree in the park, and more egregiously, the encroachment onto park land for car parking, must be reconsidered. • The excess removal of heritage trees. Many of these trees make an excellent buffer between the park and the building, and should not be removed. We also feel that heritage trees should not be removed to make room for parking spots, as it is a huge loss of natural resources for very minimal public gain. • The limited public parking. Why are only 91 spots, and not all, open to the public? • The use of artificial grass. No landscape areas should have fake turf. Native plantings and natural materials should be used throughout the project. • Dangerous public parking along the Castro Street frontage. We would like to see it removed for increased bike, pedestrian, and automobile safety, as well as to increase visibility of ground floor retail. • The impact on the Chamber of Commerce. This organization's visibility and accessibility will be impacted. Perhaps the Chamber could be moved into the new building, and be a partner for creating unique, captivating ground floor retail and other public use. In summary, we think the best decisions for this property can be made after the new Downtown Precise Plan phase 2 is created, but we believe that if our concerns are addressed, we can still create a project that will benefit our entire community, for a long time to come. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Ida Rose Sylvester for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Heather Glaser, City Clerk About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer-based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond! For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org. To contact us, send email to mvcsp.info@gmail.com. From: Laura Blakely To: City Council FORWARD Subject: 590 Castro --please require retail on ground floor and all 312 parking spaces Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:28:29 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear Council Members -- I realize I am writing you at the 11th hour, but I missed this item when I reviewed the agenda late last week. I believe only 4 or 5 of you can vote on this item. My family lives near the intersection of Church and View Streets, so we go through the Church/Castro intersection multiple times per day. There are already two office buildings on that corner, and one of these has no ground floor retail. We need more ground floor retail at this end of Castro Street! Please require that there be no ground floor office. With so much office going in downtown, we need more restaurants and small retail businesses to support the people who will work in the office buildings, especially at this end of Castro Street. We also need to ensure that the office building has sufficient parking for the workers in the building. Pre-covid, parking in our neighborhood was quite difficult during the weekdays. Even though the building where the current Wells Fargo branch is has sufficient parking, many people chose not to use it, and instead parked up and down View Street, Hope Street, Church Street and neighboring streets so that parking was almost impossible to find from 8:30-6 or so on weekdays. Please require 312 parking spaces, and require the landlords to insist that their employees use the parking. It is needed. I am fairly certain that two or three of you cannot vote on this item because of conflicts restraints related to the proximity of your residences to this intersection. I'm hoping the rest of you will not abandon our neighborhood and at a minimum will require retail on the ground floor and sufficient parking. What about, instead of requiring public art, there was studio space for artists on the ground floor? Our community needs diversity, not more office -only! Thanks for your consideration, Laura Blakely From: Isaac Stone To: City Council FORWARD Subject: Item 8.2 - 590 Castro Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:32:44 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Lots of people seem to be against this project. It's fine. Yeah, housing would be better, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The new building is a big improvement on the old one. thanks, Isaac Gutierrez, Jeannette To: Glaser, Heather Subject: RE: Minor correction Re: GreenSpacesMV comments on 590 Castro project to City of Mountain View City Council From: Bruce England <greenspacesmv.info@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:34 PM To: Ramirez, Lucas <Lucas.Ramirez@mountainview.gov>; Hicks, Alison<Alison.Hicks@mountainview.gov>; Kamei, Ellen <EIIen.Kamei@mountainview.gov>; Abe-Koga, Margaret <Margaret.abe-koga@mountainview.gov>; Matichak, Lisa <Lisa.Matichak@mountainview.gov>; Showalter, Pat <Pat.Showalter@mountainview.gov>; Sally@sallylieber.org; Lieber, Sally <SaIIV. Lieber@mountainview.gov> Cc: Pancholi, Diana <Diana.Pancholi@mountainview.gov>; Williams, Stephanie <Stephanie.Williams@mountainview.gov>; Shrivastava, Aarti <Aarti.Shrivastava@mountainview.gov>; McCarthy, Kimbra <Kimbra. McCarthy@mountainview.gov>; Glaser, Heather <Heather.Glaser@mountainview.gov> Subject: Minor correction Re: GreenSpacesMV comments on 590 Castro project to City of Mountain View City Council CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Sorry folks. The first line wasn't correct for this agenda item. I've now corrected it as noted below. Thanks! Bruce (formal letter attached) April 12, 2022 City of Mountain View City Council City Hall, 500 Castro Street PO Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Re: 590 Castro Street project Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council members: GreenSpacesMV appreciates the opportunity to respond to the 590 Castro Street project, which you will be considering at your meeting tonight. To learn more about our organization, see "About GreenSpacesMV" at the end of this letter. The primary goals of our organization are to protect and enhance green spaces in Mountain View. This letter reflects those concerns. That said, many of our members also have an interest in our city addressing the severe jobs/housing imbalance. Accordingly, we are dismayed that the city will be seeing even more development bringing in additional jobs without the housing to meet the new demand. As we all know, Mountain View is suffering from a jobs/housing imbalance, which exacerbates problems related to affordability and availability. We also believe it's important to activate our streetways as much as possible in the interest of encouraging people to get out of vehicles and considering active transportation modes instead. The site is unique in that it fronts both Castro Street and Pioneer Park. It also fronts the proposed paseo between Castro and Pioneer Park, which is a great addition to the circulation fabric of our Downtown. The proposed building has the opportunity to symbolically and physically link these two key areas within our Downtown. Lining the ground floor with multiple retail or public -serving opportunities along the paseo will help activate that area and create a space that doubles as a throughway and a "place to be". We note that sidewalk space on Castro is narrower than in other adjacent active areas, such as the ground floor of Park Place Apartment and Public Storage Offices. Accordingly, please ask the developer to extend the retail or public -serving services from the corner of Church and Castro, along Castro and the paseo to at least around the corner where the park and paseo meet. The new paseo and Pioneer Park provide natural spaces for people to sit or meet in comfortably. As you know, there has been strong support for the street closure on Castro and what it did for the three blocks south of the Transit Center. Similar opportunities exist in this location as well, along with the grassy knoll, majestic trees, and benches/picnic tables in Pioneer Park. For more on what might be done to activate the area through this project, please see the comment letter from Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP), which makes a number of points we agree with. Regarding landscaping and trees: • We do not want to see encroachment on Pioneer Park, certainly not when it involves removing any trees. • We would rather not see any trees removed on the project site, even with replanting as part of the plans. New trees take some time to mature, and, meanwhile, we lose much of the advantages that existing trees provide. • Healthy redwoods exist today on the property, and beyond the central part of the site. They should be kept in place. Even though they are considered non-native, they serve as excellent air cleaners, an essential aspect of what they can provide for us. More severe fire seasons are ahead of us, and our air quality could be seriously affected, even at some distance from anticipated fire areas. • Regarding the landscaping, please do what you can to ensure that native, drought -tolerant, and pollinator -friendly landscaping is emphasized, that migration paths are protected, and that cone - dropping or low -hanging trees adjacent to sidewalks and bikeways are not allowed. Likewise, please ensure no trees attractive to aphids, such as tulip trees, which can result in sticky droppings on sidewalks, are included in the plans. Regarding parking concerns: • We would like to see parking deemphasized as much as possible with this project. Absolutely, we do not want to see any trees removed to accommodate parking spaces. • Where parking is available onsite, we would like to see assurance that tenants, employees, and others working in or doing business in the building will park only in the underground spaces and not on the street. • We favor seeing all parking along the Castro Street frontage removed as part of the project development. • We support the developer's intention to make on-site parking available to the public as much as possible. Finally, if possible, we would like the City or developer to underground the utility cabling along the project perimeter on Church Street. We hope you incorporate our recommendations into the project specifications and design prior to approval of the project. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Bruce England for GreenSpacesMV Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager / Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager / Community Development Director Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Heather Glaser, City Clerk About GreenSpacesMV Our focus is on biodiversity, native, drought -tolerant, and pollinator -friendly landscaping, complete green streets, parks and other open spaces, including Privately owned, publicly accessible (or POPA) park spaces, and so on. For more information, see https://www.facebook.com/GreenSpacesMV. To contact us, send email to GreenSpacesMV.info2gmail.com. GreenSpacesMV April 12, 2022 City of Mountain View City Council City Hall, 500 Castro Street PO Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Re: 590 Castro Street project Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council members: GreenSpacesMV appreciates the opportunity to respond to the 590 Castro Street project, which you will be considering at your meeting tonight. To learn more about our organization, see "About GreenSpacesMV" at the end of this letter. The primary goals of our organization are to protect and enhance green spaces in Mountain View. This letter reflects those concerns. That said, many of our members also have an interest in our city addressing the severe jobs/housing imbalance. Accordingly, we are dismayed that the city will be seeing even more development bringing in additional jobs without the housing to meet the new demand. As we all know, Mountain View is suffering from a jobs/housing imbalance, which exacerbates problems related to affordability and availability. We also believe it's important to activate our streetways as much as possible in the interest of encouraging people to get out of vehicles and considering active transportation modes instead. The site is unique in that it fronts both Castro Street and Pioneer Park. It also fronts the proposed paseo between Castro and Pioneer Park, which is a great addition to the circulation fabric of our Downtown. The proposed building has the opportunity to symbolically and physically link these two key areas within our Downtown. Lining the ground floor with multiple retail or public -serving opportunities along the paseo will help activate that area and create a space that doubles as a throughway and a "place to be We note that sidewalk space on Castro is narrower than in other adjacent active areas, such as the ground floor of Park Place Apartment and Public Storage Offices. Accordingly, please ask the developer to extend the retail or public -serving services from the corner of Church and Castro, along Castro and the paseo to at least around the corner where the park and paseo meet. The new paseo and Pioneer Park provide natural spaces for people to sit or meet in comfortably. As you know, there has been strong support for the street closure on Castro and what it did for the three blocks south of the Transit Center. Similar opportunities exist in this location as well, along with the grassy knoll, majestic trees, and benches/picnic tables in Pioneer Park. For more on what might be done to activate the area through this project, please see the comment letter from Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP), which makes a number of points we agree with. Regarding landscaping and trees: • We do not want to see encroachment on Pioneer Park, certainly not when it involves removing any trees. • We would rather not see any trees removed on the project site, even with replanting as part of the plans. New trees take some time to mature, and, meanwhile, we lose much of the advantages that existing trees provide. • Healthy redwoods exist today on the property, and beyond the central part of the site. They should be kept in place. Even though they are considered non-native, they serve as excellent air cleaners, an essential aspect of what they can provide for us. More severe fire seasons are ahead of us, and our air quality could be seriously affected, even at some distance from anticipated fire areas. • Regarding the landscaping, please do what you can to ensure that native, drought -tolerant, and pollinator -friendly landscaping is emphasized, that migration paths are protected, and that cone -dropping or low -hanging trees adjacent to sidewalks and bikeways are not allowed. Likewise, please ensure no trees attractive to aphids, such as tulip trees, which can result in sticky droppings on sidewalks, are included in the plans. Regarding parking concerns: • We would like to see parking deemphasized as much as possible with this project. Absolutely, we do not want to see any trees removed to accommodate parking spaces. • Where parking is available onsite, we would like to see assurance that tenants, employees, and others working in or doing business in the building will park only in the underground spaces and not on the street. • We favor seeing all parking along the Castro Street frontage removed as part of the project development. • We support the developer's intention to make on-site parking available to the public as much as possible. Finally, if possible, we would like the City or developer to underground the utility cabling along the project perimeter on Church Street. We hope you incorporate our recommendations into the project specifications and design prior to approval of the project. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Bruce England for GreenSpacesMV Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager / Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Heather Glaser, City Clerk About GreenSpacesMV Our focus is on biodiversity, native, drought -tolerant, and pollinator -friendly landscaping, complete green streets, parks and other open spaces, including Privately owned, publicly accessible (or POPA) park spaces, and so on. For more information, see https://www.facebook.com/GreenSpacesMV. To contact us, send email to GreenSpacesMV.info@gmail.com. From: Rosalba Bonaccorsi To: City Council FORWARD; Pancholi, Diana; Bonaccorsi. Rosalba (ARC-SST)FSETI INSTITUTEI; bonaccor Subject: City Council 04/12/2022 Item 8.2 Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street - Permit to Remove Nine Heritage Trees Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:29:53 PM CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. Dear City Council of Mountain View, Concerning City Council 04/12/2022 Item 8.2 (Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street - Permit to Remove Nine Heritage Trees), below are my comments. Best Regards, Dr. Rosalba Bonaccorsi Research Scientist, NASA Ames Research Center MS. 245-3, Moffett Field, 94035 The Problem The Mountain View Tree Ordinance (Chapter 32), established in 1961, was intended to protect the community's street trees and encourage the preservation of large, mature trees, the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter 32.22-32.39) was adopted in 1975. While the Municipal Code 32, Article 1 (Chapter 32.1) requires the protection of street trees during construction or repair projects, in development -related situations, the integrity of large trees is not -so -well protected. Project plans most rely on "planting replacement trees on-site and/or paying in -lieu fees". Effective mitigation measures and creative solutions to protect the integrity and functionality of large trees are warranted. Please. consider that "planting replacement trees on-site and/or caving in -lieu fees " is not a viable replacement for the removal of heritage trees Concerning the Public Health and Social and Environmental Benefits (Items 1 and 2 discussed below), please, note that large and mature trees -with wide canopies (heritage trees) are most effective than newly planted trees that are the cornerstone of aesthetical landscaping (not including heritage trees). Why we do love Heritage Trees 1. Public Health and Social Benefits 1.1 Clean air: The urban canopy directly contributes to meeting a city's regulatory clean air requirements. Trees capture airborne particulates, produce oxygen, and reduce smog, enhancing a community's respiratory health during a time of crisis (climate -change relater wildfires). 1.2 Promote physical and mental health: Large trees, individual or in parks, reduce stress, thus improving the quality of life in our city. • Studies show that urban vegetation slows heartbeats, lowers blood pressure, and relaxes brain wave patterns. • Urban landscaping, including trees, helps lower crime rates. • Girls with a view of nature and trees at home score higher on tests of self-discipline. • Large Trees absorb and block sound, reducing noise pollution by as much as 40 percent. 2. Environmental Benefits 1.1 Climate change: Trees sequester carbon dioxide (CO2), reducing the overall concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. h]4js://canopy.org/tree-info/benefits-of- trees/urban-trees-and-climate-chane/ 1.2 Energy conservation: • cooling effect. Large trees represent urban air conditioners. The evaporation from a single large tree can produce the cooling effect of ten room -size, residential air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. • Acting as a natural air -conditioner, Mountain View's lush canopy ensures that summer temperatures are at least 6- 8 degrees lower than in neighborhoods without trees. • Tree windbreaks can reduce residential heating costs by 10-15%; while shading and evaporative cooling from trees can cut residential air-conditioning costs by 20-50%. 1.3 Water filtration and retention: Urban forests promote beneficial water quality and reduce stormwater management costs. Mountain View's Street and park trees can intercept 135 million gallons of rainwater. Expanded canopies slow rainfall and their roots filter water and recharge the aquifer. Trees reduce stormwater runoff, which reduces flooding, saves city stormwater management costs, and decreases the flow of polluted water into the Bay. 1.3 Wildlife habitat: Trees provide important habitats for the integrity and diversity of urban birds and other animals. 3. Economic Benefits 3.1 Communities and business districts with healthy mature tree -cover attract new residents, industry, and commercial activity. • Homes landscaped with trees sell more quickly and are worth 5% to 15% more than homes without trees. • Where the entire street is tree -lined, homes may be worth 25% more. • Trees enhance economic stability by attracting businesses; people linger and shop longer when trees are present. • Where a canopy of trees exists, apartments and offices rent more quickly, and workers' productivity and welfare increase. Concerning today's City Council 04/12/2022 (Item 8.2 Commercial Development at 590 Castro Street - Permit to Remove Nine Heritage Trees) let me focus on the relevance of heritage trees.