|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Google’s ambitious plans to build a futuristic headquarters in Mountain View’s North Bayshore is hitting big snags over some of the neighborhood’s deep-rooted inhabitants. About 200 trees, mostly redwoods, lining Shoreline Boulevard and nearby streets will need to be removed to make way for a slate of road improvements to accommodate the company’s growing workforce.
In an Oct. 4 study session, the Mountain View City Council signed off on early plans to remove all the trees along the western side of Shoreline Boulevard, despite plenty of apprehension that the sight of all those iconic redwoods being chopped down could prompt a public backlash.
Yet most council members concluded that removing the redwoods was ultimately the best environmental course of action. The trees aren’t native to the baylands area, and they require much more water than other species, they said.
It was a divisive issue for the council as well as many environmentalists. In a curious turn of events, naturalist groups known for preserving the redwoods, including the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, attended the Mountain View meeting to lend their support for felling the trees.
In this case, the trees near Shoreline are out of place and prevent the development of the larger, eco-friendly campus envisioned by Google, said Gita Dev, vice-chair of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter.
“We know (these trees) are going to die. In order to enhance that area, we are supportive of the idea that we need to replace these trees,” Dev said. “We need a new model, a new paradigm for how we live with nature — if we do that, we have to get rid of these trees.”
Following the meeting, she explained to the Voice that the Sierra Club and other environmental groups had been meeting regularly with Google officials for more than a year to discuss how the company could best blend its growing office park into the surrounding habitat. That collaboration built a relationship of trust between the groups, reassuring them that the tech giant’s representatives truly wanted to build a sustainable campus, she said.
But some independent environmentalists were appalled. At a March review of the project, tree advocates made impassioned — in one case, tearful — pleas to save the North Bayshore redwoods.
“Losing such a large amount of our heritage redwoods is too steep of a price to pay,” said Pamela Tremain, a San Jose resident at the meeting. “Why do these companies seek to destroy our redwoods that have been here for generations?”
As part of the city’s North Bayshore Precise Plan, Google’s massive plans for office expansion are contingent on the company’s ability to drastically lower the amount of traffic caused by its employees. The company is helping finance about $90 million in transportation improvements, including construction of a new frontage road along Highway 101, a variety of new bus pullouts and an elaborate bike path to encourage more cycling.
But city officials indicated the redwoods along the western side of Shoreline Boulevard were directly along the right-of-way where three lanes for bicycles were slated to go. About 100 trees would need to be removed under this plan, city staff reported.
In addition to the Shoreline redwoods, about 100 more trees along Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road would also need to be removed. These trees are a mix of redwood, cherry and cedar, some of which are in poor condition, according to the staff report.
Sensing a potential hot-button issue, city staff offered some alternatives, including a plan to remove only a fractions of the trees by scaling back the bike lanes and instead creating a trail through the wooded area that would be shared by cyclists and pedestrians. This idea was opposed by Google team members, who described it as a recipe for bike-versus-pedestrian collisions and hefty ongoing maintenance.
“If it were possible to achieve this vision with the trees, then we’d be doing that,” said Michelle Kaufmann, an architect working on Google’s Charleston East project. “Unfortunately, that’s is not the case. The reality is these trees are non-native; they’re young and they require significant amounts of water which will be increasing over time.”
Kaufmann and other Google representatives pointed out that their plans would eventually bring 380 new native trees, which would use 40 percent less water.
Nevertheless, council members indicated they had a hard time stomaching the idea of chopping down redwoods. Describing the trees as “magnificent”, Councilman Lenny Siegel said he disagreed with the premise that removing the trees was the best environmental option. Eventually the city would be able to pipe in recycled water suitable for the trees, he said. He proposed an alternative plan with Councilman Chris Clark that would result in about 45 trees being removed.
But Councilman Mike Kasperzak said his colleagues were being blinded by their emotion. He recommended they stick with the transportation improvements suggested by their adopted precise plan.
“It’s an emotional decision, but (the redwoods) don’t belong there,” Kasperzak said. “We talk about removing invasive species — well, they are an invasive species.”
The council approved removing about 100 trees in a 4-3 straw vote with Clark, Siegel and Councilman John Inks opposing. Yet the council members wanted to make clear they were extremely reluctant to lose the redwoods.
“People are going to be upset,” said Councilman Ken Rosenberg. “When we’re known as the council that got rid of the redwoods, I’d like the record to show how much the environmentalists were saying the same thing.”
I’d like to remove Kasperzak before we remove those beautiful trees. Who does he think he is, I’m so over his lousy decisions for the city! He’s the worst! SAVE THE TREES!
How about making the traffic lanes narrower and slower to make room for the bike lanes?
I will be able to hear the cry of the trees all the way up here where they are native beings, as you murder them to sacrifice to the gods of transportation.
/sarc
How many trees will be removed? I remember when the trees were planted in the early eighties and I am sure the landscape architects at that time knew that a coastal redwood grows well in our area. Mtn View is not that far from the coast. Now all over sudden these trees need to go because they are not native?
This is the worst city council. In the last 5 year we have had so much destruction of our town. I thought our council members loved mountain view. Guess stuffing one’s own pockets is a greater love.
Seriously? That’s a terrible plan. Those trees are beautiful! Surely there’s another way. Shame on you, city council! Boo.
This city council must indeed be corrupt. Kasperzak and his grungy looking Baskin and Robbins. It’s an eye sore. He should go back to working there and making it look more appealing instead of helping to destroy the rest of Mountain View. Those trees are beautiful that the council is allowing to get chopped down. Redwood trees are like families…their roots intertwine and so they are connect. The council has forgetten their roots also are here in Mountain View but keep letting the greediness of Google take over. Seriously not funny anymore how Google is like a spoiled child and the council it’s every wish-granting parents.
No. The trees were here long before all these techies were.
I have lived here for 40 years. Forty years ago, Mountain View was awful. The “downtown” was pathetic. In fact, there really wasn’t a downtown. The streets were beat up. There were few curbs and sidewalks. Property values were low. I don’t want to go back to that. I like the growth. I like the investment in our infrastructure and our environment. I like the new houses, the new people, and the new businesses. If you want to see what happens when businesses leave and communities collapse, go to the Midwest.
North Bayshore is a landfill. I support the investment to make this a livable area with successful businesses, transportation, and communities. Stop worrying about a couple of hundred trees. They don’t belong here anyway. We will plant more than we will chop down, and they will sequester more carbon anyway.
Ode to Mountain View City Council
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put ’em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half to seem ’em
No no no
Don’t it always seem to go,
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They’re replacing the trees with a native species that uses less water.
And bike lanes are important.
Seems like a win win to me.
Does everything in this town have to be bought and paid for by Google?
The trees belong right where they are. Google does not.
There is a lot of treeless land in Las Vegas. Perhaps a move by Google would make everyone happy.
It’s clearly too late – Google *owns* MV and there’s no turning back. Anything the 800lb gorilla wants, he gets.
Oh, and “eco-friendly” and “green” as touted by Google and Apple is BS. Know how much of a footprint is taken up by the construction of these behemoths? Will the bulldozers and cranes be electric with no greenhouse emissions? Anything to be eco-friendly – as long as it doesn’t impede the next Googleplex or the next gazillion Android phones to be built.
Things are going to be very different once Google and Apple run out of shiny new things to create and we go thru a tech downturn. Wait until the layoffs happen and some Google buildings start closing…
Let’s just pave over the entire city, save a lot of time having these discussions. What Google wants Google gets, why waste time talking about it.
Actually, coast redwoods aren’t “deep-rooted”. Their roots are relatively shallow. And they require a lot of irrigation, especially when they’re planted away from the coastal fog that they normally depend upon.
My HOA is dealing with landscape trees that are reaching their end of life, or that have overgrown their current location. And we’re replacing water-intensive trees and plants with native species that require less irrigation. This doesn’t seem all that different.
arrghh!
Forgot to mention that our glorious leaders make 35-40 M per month, and get lifetime health care…I wonder how much they get “extra”.
whoops, that’s their yearly “compensation” not monthly; sorry guys.
I am saddened and appalled by the notion of destroying 200 trees for bike lanes. Really? I guess we should get used to the idea of becoming a concrete jungle….the new moniker for Mountain View. And I am offended by the statement of the trees not being “native” to the area. Then why were they put there in the first place? Palo Alto took out a bunch of redwood trees years ago on San Antonio. Has anyone else noticed how hot that area gets now? We talk about climate change and saving the environment. How does that apply to this situation? Totally disgusted.
I’m surprised at how many people think they know more than the environmentalists and the Sierra Club. Yes, Redwoods are beautiful. That doesn’t make them appropriate. Nor does removing them equal turning the area into a concrete jungle. It sounds to me that 300 trees will be replaced with 380 trees, and they will not only consume less water, but they will lead to higher accessibility to bike traffic, reducing the carbon footprint even further. FFS, people, you can’t have it all. This sounds like a reasonable trade-off.
So I guess nobody understands that the trees will be replanted with NATIVES for the area? No? Can’t help you then.
These are ornamental city trees people. They are not deforesting anything. Be angry if they don’t replant. There’s your fight.
This is no Eco-dilemma, it’s an eco disaster. It took so years for us to get approval for necessary tree removal at my condo complex. Yet, NOW, Google has no problem taking out trees unnecessarily. The environmental rape continues, air quality declines and the illusion continues. A friend recently visited and politely referred to Mountain View as Stepford.
There’s a massive section of open space already targeted for destruction. Without trees and plants, we have no oxygen. I guess that doesn’t matter to Google though, since they’re all about robots.
Frank, you’re right. An 800lb gorilla on the rampage. Phony environmentalism. If you actually research landscaping, replacing these trees with native plants, is not cost effective, not energy efficient, nor water efficient. These existing trees as described require no watering and very little maintenance. This is just more if Google’s private playground. I’m sooooo over it!
Did you “residents” all miss this? ” naturalist groups known for preserving the redwoods, including the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, attended the Mountain View meeting to lend their support for felling the trees.” I love how a bunch of transplant residents who think they are experts on what trees should stay and which ones should go, know better than organziations who’s existence is to support PROPER preservation of Redwoods. Get over yourselves. I grew-up taking my garbage to the DUMP in north bayshore. It was all underwater. Swamp. not some nature preserve. If you don’t like it, YOU LEAVE!
I am old enough to remember when Shoreline Blvd was Stierlin Road, and it ended at the bay with the Mtn View Dump. As North Bayshore was envisioned by the city of Mountain View to be a business center (beginning with The Landings), it was REQUIRED to have deep setbacks of lawn and trees. It became a beautiful area where people could work and enjoy nature. With Google choosing Mountain View as their home base, they have grown at an uncontainable pace. Google took down over a 100 trees at Mayfield Mall; now they want to take down over 200 trees on Shoreline. I question how easily our city leaders simply fall into line “in the name of progress.” How do the rest of us “ungooglers” benefit from Google’s presence in Mountain View?
That area is completely fine to ride bikes around…..except for the Google employees who park in the bike lanes (of which Google refuses to do anything about) and the Google buses. Outside of that area, the Google bicycles litter the neighborhood and the Google employees ride the Google bikes at night, dark clothes, no lights, no helmet and blowing through stop signs. The problem is Google. Keep the trees and fix Google.
How decent of Google to chop down 200+ redwood trees to better the area because the redwoods are “non-native” … I’ll go along with that as long as each and every MV council member who IS NOT NATIVE TO MOUNTAIN VIEW (in other word who was not BORN in Mountain View and has lived here all of their lives) will kindly resign their positions … the reality is that Mountain View City Council is the bitch of Google and NEVER responds to a Google demand (I mean “request”) with a “Uhhhhh, NO – that’s not going to happen!” … props to Clark, Siegel and Inks for voting NO and standing up to Google at least this once …
So while I am all for trees I just had to remove 3 large ash trees from my property because whoever built the tract in the 70’s thought it would be a great idea to put them all within 5 feet of the chimney and foundation. My foundation was crumbling, walkways cracking, drywall cracking. I had to do it yet. Some uninformed moron felt it necessary to deface my property by basically telling my Eff you written on my fence. Sometimes when we develop an area it can’t stay the same. Google is a very good neighbor to us. They give more than anybody else to our schools and are trying to solve the traffic issues, they are actually being stifled by the council.The plus to Google being here is all of our homes are going up in value, not that I am going to sell anytime soon, but yes our downtown is now a destination. If we want a good economy it means bring in business and tax revenue. If you want nature, move to Ben Lomond or something. You just can’t have both. So many people have bitched about bike and pedestrian safety, well here is a plan we don’t have to pay for, nope not good enough. Google had a plan to build a bridge from 880 over the bay into the campus area, well that was some colored toed frogs habitat so it couldn’t be done, yet cars idling for hours I am sure con’t have any effect on the species,
Sick of it: so Google is the perfect neighbor to you? And you talk about a ‘southern southern’ crossing, never heard of it. The southern crossing across the bay north of SF airport was voted down long long time ago. But I guess you have not live here very long. I would say it’s the big bully in Mountain View. And what Google wants Google gets, that’s not a way to treat the residents who have to live with the traffic at any time mornings and afternoons and all the other problems this companies puts on it’s neighbors. This is a company that pays not much in taxes since they don’t produce anything. Their revenue comes from adds. And now they can’t work around the redwood trees with their extension. Too bad, it’s time for them to expand into other areas. Mountain View did fine without them, believe me, I have lived here for 30 plus years.
No doubt pushed through by Kasperzak, the council member who makes decisions without emotion (or a soul apparently). If ever there was an invasive species, it is MK – the two-term limit didn’t apply to him.
By the way, he doesn’t own a Baskin Robbins (that is John McAlister) – Kasperzak is a lawyer. Explains a lot.
I wrote letters to MV Voice years ago warning against becoming a company town to google. And now we are one. Wish I had been wrong. And google is a tax dodging parasite with oligarchic tendencies. They use our land and feed us their crumbs while selling our most private data for their profit
The “not-native” issue is used all too frequently to serve some groups’ agendas. Many of our major crops are not native but they’ve been allowed to grow here for many years and are an accepted and valued part of our economy. There are other ways Google can add bike lanes without destroying the trees. Re-planting sounds fine but there’s no guarantee it will actually happen and it takes a long time for most trees to mature. The Mountain View Council needs to stop giving in to Google. Google’s presence here has negatively impacted housing, transportation, and small businesses locally.
Come on folks – those trees are dying because they are inappropriate to the soil and conditions. They have very low habitat value, are not native to that area, and use a ton of water. They are going to replace the trees with new, more appropriate species. The Sierra Club and Audubon Society lend their support for felling the trees. There will be new bike paths for the area. What more do you need!
We have become a nation of complainers forsaking reason and doing what is right for “feeling”. It is just not cool. Let’s all go volunteer at a park clean up and do something productive instead of complaining all the time.
I’m sorry. I mean’t McAlister not Kasperzak. Got the names confused. As mayor of this city, one would think he’d protect his town from becoming what it is, so overcrowded, conjested and long-time residents being forced to move. I don’t go to the Safeway on Shoreline anymore. I go to the Safeway in Sunnyvale as it takes less time to purchase my groceries there and it’ll get worse with all the new apartments being built in the neighborhood. I take Easy Street to 85 to get to work as Middlefield is so much more congested and I work in Mountain View. I’m just so disappointed in the city council simply giving up our town to Google. They should just rename it as Googleview instead of Mountain View. I do like Google and the services they provide. I just don’t like how they’ve smothered Mountain View. I do agree with the one person above that Google could easily move to Las Vegas as yes, there is plenty of land there and would cost them alot less money I’m guessing for it.
“Continue to support unhealthy, thirsty, non-native trees, or replace them with natives and build bike lanes?”
It’s quite an easy decision when you put it that way. Why wait for them to start falling or buckle the road and sidewalk with roots?
I agree the trees look wonderful but we do need street improvements so for every tree that is cut down a tree should be planted elsewhere. When the bike lanes are done, the street is improved the more trees should be planted.
We need to get rid of the 2 city council incumbents who only see more and more development. Mountain View is fast becoming unlivable because of the traffic alone
What a terrible idea! I just biked there. The redwoods are the only thing in the area making the ride a pleasure… otherwise it’s merely a series of hideous offices surrounded by parking lots and minimal landscaping. No other kind of tree can make up for the shade and feeling of a gradually more natural and appealing entry to Shoreline Park. This was a study session, so I assume the decision isn’t final. I urge the council to reconsider the alternative proposal involving recycled water. And what is the area of the tree removal? Is it only along Shoreline in the N Bayshore or does it include trees further south on Shoreline, nearer to the downtown?
I worked in Shoreline in the Good Old Days of Sun and SGI and Shoreline was one of the most beautiful tech parks in the whole Bay Area. It is a gem. Now they are trying to cut all the trees down and it is heart-breaking. Why do we always have to cut down the trees? Redwood trees are native to the Bay Area (Duh!) and they grow well when
planted near each other as they lock roots when they are mature. I cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would sacrifice the redwoods on Shoreline Avenue as it is also the entrance to Shoreline Park. Tech companies come and go. The trees remain. They will probably be there long after Google has sunk into the mists of Tech Memory
if they are left alone. The life span of a redwood is far longer than a tech company’s lifespan. Look at Twitter flittering off into oblivion…. Leave teh Shoreline Redwoods be. They belong to the peopel of Mountain View, not Google.
FYI:Google is building a campus in Boulder, CO. As long as their buildings meet Boulder height requirements, they will have no problem building around in Boulder. You just might get what you wish for..and regret it. OTTO + Google Cars = a transportation solution. But you rocket scientists knew that..
RR trees are really not suited to the sandy bay soils around shoreline. They were not the right choice years ago and they will only be money pits going fwd. Replanting with trees that will thrive instead of sickly trees is the right fix for the long term. If we get some improved bike lanes with it, even better.
What was native to that part of Mtn View? Sea weed.
Photo of area pre Google, Shoreline, land fill, fruit frees etc….
http://www.photosofoldamerica.com/index.cfm/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_Mountain_View-Moffett_Field_Mountain_View_343.htm
I treasure the apparently endless supply of entertainment provided by observing the cognitive dissonance employed by some of my neighbors in their unhinged anti-Google screeds on these boards. I’m convinced that there is nothing Google can do, no matter how beneficial to MV or the environment, that some nutter wouldn’t complain about.
Saving water is a good thing right?
Well, removing these trees and replacing them with species more suited to the environment saves water….about 40%.
Removing non-native ornamental landscaping in favor of native species is a good thing right?
Well, these trees are non-native and they will be replaced with a greater number of trees that actually belong in the near-riparian environment that is N. Bayshore providing more habitat for other species.
Reducing traffic is a good thing right?
Increasing the scope of the bike lane network will facilitate less use of vehicles for intra-campus movement and make it easier for Mountain View residents to use bicycles to get to the Amphitheater and other recreational locations in N. Bayshore and Shoreline Park which will reduce traffic on Shoreline and tributary streets….fewer emissions to boot.
Those trees are not native. They are ornamental landscaping planted on a landfill that was once a swamp. At no time were there coastal redwoods growing where those now do. They were planted (irresponsibly) by the original developer (not Google) without regard to sustainability or to impact on other species. The Sierra Club agrees that they should be replaced.
So what’s the problem?
True….
These trees were planted by the city of Mountain View in the early eighties during widening of Shoreline Blvd into the new Shoreline Park. So what the city gave us (very nice trees) they will take away and we the taxpayers pay twice for it.
Any new trees will take a lot of years to be of any size and newly planted trees need a lot more water than established ones.
In the past the Voice has reported on the status of the redwood trees along Shoreline in North Bayshore. The trees were using recycled water / landscape-only water for many years. Seems to me a good use of recycled sewer water. However – there is high salt content in recycled sewer water – more than redwood trees can tolerate.
(we California natives do tolerate some of the non-native-to-California humanoid species who show up here! even if they do require a lot of pure drinkable water)
The city fixed this problem, which was killing the trees, by diluting the salt content by mixing in some drinkable (no-salt) water.
I wish this had a simple solution. (salt in solution 🙂 but it does not. Redwood trees are not a real ‘root problem’ they have shallow roots that seem to avoid tearing up streets or concrete sidewalks. But, is the Sierra Club local official an arborist? Probably not. So we don’t really have to follow his lead – if we find the current shade and ambience of the redwoods a great community benefit. Do we water grass in city parklands? Usually. Is this particular stretch of roadway/heavy-use sidewalks “A PARKWAY”? I kinda-think it is.
Two issues with the proposal:
1. gives away a piece of Charleston Park
The city should get something back in return.
2. big loss of shade for the next 10-15 years
City and Google should consider temporary shade (awnings, vine canopy…) to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
@Old Techie
Sure, redwood trees are native to the Bay Area, but they are not native to the North Bayshore area. They’re native to the foggy coastal areas. The replacement trees will be local natives that will require much less irrigation, and will be healthier in the long term.
When the tree-huggers advocate cutting down the trees, it must be a reasonable plan.
What I can’t understand is the arbitrary designation of “heritage tree” automatically given to any tree over a certain size. What part of our “heritage” is a redwood tree PLANTED in what was marshland? This discussion is simply asinine.
As to those who don’t want trees cut down at all, I hope you don’t live in a wood house, because then you fall into the same category of people who fly commercial and complain about airplanes flying over their house. Or don’t forget those that buy houses next to train tracks and complain about the horns….
There must be a way to find a “win-win” to save the trees and make this work!
We need creativity here. In the epicenter of “crowd sourcing” ideas I can’t believe that we can’t find a “win-win” solution here.
This is not hypocrisy from someone that lives in a wood house.Rather it is an invitation to have the city and Google and others to reach out to the community and find a way to keep those gorgeous Redwood trees.
As far as bike advocates and environmentalists supporting this. This is what happens when both of these groups rarely get wins, they’re willing to accept peanuts instead of a healthy meal if I can use this analogy.
So let the brainstorming commence!
If a “win-win” can only be achieved by saving trees that are going to die regardless (according to the vice-chair of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter), then I guess there won’t be a “win-win”.