17 February, 2026
Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I think it is great that we are discussing trees! This is one of the rare issues that nearly everyone agrees
on—we
all
love
trees
and
think
more
would
be
better.
Below
are
several
considerations
for
Council
and
staff
regarding
the
Urban
Canopy
report.
Forgive
me
if
I’m
just
missing
the
point
of
the
report.
1. Are We Giving Up?
The report divides every square foot of the city into “suitable” and “unsuitable” areas for new trees
using
what
looks
like
a
reasonable
set
of
criteria.
● ≈ 80% of our city’s area is deemed unsuitable, ● ≈ 15% of Costa Mesa already under tree canopy, ● This leaves only about 5% of land as potentially available for new trees—land currently classified
as
vegetation
or
soil.
It concerns me that in a report meant to guide future tree strategy, a full third of our city’s land is deemed
unsuitable
simply
because
it
is
currently
classified
as
“roads.”
I
feel
like
I
might
be
missing
something?
When
presented
with
a
report
on
our
urban
trees,
wouldn’t
most
people
imagine
that
this
exercise
is
about
the
canopy
over
our
streets?
If
we
categorize
the
streets
as
unsuitable,
are
we
not
eliminating
the
very
places
where
trees
would
provide
the
most
visible
public
benefit?
Is
“unsuitable”
meant
to
describe
a
permanent
physical
limitation,
or
simply
a
current
condition?
If
it
is
the
latter,
then
it
seems
precisely
the
sort
of
condition
that
future
strategy
should
be
willing
to
reconsider.
“There is too much hot hard asphalt in the world.”
-
Christopher
Alexander
2. How Should We Categorize Canopy Coverage?
The report strangely divides our tree canopy into council district, census tract, and land use category.
Would
it
not
be
more
meaningful
to
look
at
the
canopy
in
a
more
intuitive
way?
For
example:
major
corridors,
minor
corridors,
and
residential
streets?
Again—is
that
not
what
most
would
expect
from
such
a
report?
And then rather than ensuring similar percentages of coverage across abstract and arbitrary lines,
we
can
be
better
informed
to
figure
out
how
to
prioritize
new
trees
along
our
public
rights
of
way.
For
example,
should
corridors
like
Harbor
Boulevard
or
Newport
Boulevard
be
evaluated
differently
from
a
quiet
residential
cul-de-sac?
They
serve
very
different
public
roles
and
likely
merit
different
canopy
priorities.
3. The Benefits of Trees
The report lists five benefits of street trees: pollution removal, carbon storage, carbon sequestration,
avoided
runoff,
and
oxygen
production.
Those
are
fine,
but
they
are
mostly
abstract,
and
subject
to
ideologically-driven
accusations
and
dismissals.
And
I
wouldn’t
expect
the
average
person
to
cite
any
of
those
if
asked
why
they
love
trees
and
want
to
see
more
of
them.
I
would
expect
people
to
reach
for
language
that
describes
how
it
just
feels
better
when
there
are
trees
around!
Yes,
that
is
abstract
too,
and
subjective—but
at
least
it’s
a
rationale
that’s
closer
to
our
actual
experiences.
And
it
does
not
seem
impossible
or
unreasonable
to
use
it
as
a
basis
for
deciding
where
to
plant
new
trees.
If we could articulate this sentiment into arguments, I think they could be just as persuasive and resonate
more
with
more
people.
Street
trees
can
create
a
sense
of
enclosure—both
horizontal,
by
framing
and
protecting
the
pedestrian
realm
from
fast-moving
cars,
and
vertical,
by
filtering
sunlight
and
softening
the
sky
above
us.
They
bring
soil,
birds,
shade,
and
seasonality
into
places
that
might
otherwise
feel
sterile
and
overbuilt.
They
visually
narrow
the
driver’s
field
of
view,
which
naturally
slows
traffic.
And
over
time,
they
give
streets
charm,
character,
and
a
sense
of
permanence—things
we
all
want.
4. If We Want Healthy Street Trees and Big Canopies, We Must Design for Them This is a moot point if we give up out of the gate by writing off “roads” as unsuitable places for new
trees—but
I
hope
we
can
recognize
that
the
edges
and
middle
of
“roads”
are
some
of
the
best
places
for
urban
trees.
If
we
want
large
shade
trees
with
real
canopy,
we
must
design
to
accommodate
them.
Otherwise,
we
will
continue
planting
small
ornamental
trees
that
never
mature
into
the
treescapes
people
imagine
when
they
say
they
want
“more
trees.”
Though planting in streets do not come without challenges. Fire departments typically do not like
how
they
can
block
their
parking
areas
alongside
buildings
and
public
works
departments
typically
do
not
like
how
the
roots
can
interfere
with
paving
and
underground
utilities.
Luckily, we do not have to figure out solutions to these problems on our own—many other cities have struggled through this in their commitments to getting great treescapes, and have paved the
way
for
smaller
cities
like
ours.
The
report
would
therefore
ideally
include
discussion
on
techniques
and
technologies
that
facilitate
the
feasibility
and
vitality
of
large
trees
in
urban
environments. (Silva cells for example!).
In addition to the technical and underground design, there are valid questions about urban design
that
should
be
discussed:
What
types
of
trees
are
appropriate
where?
How
far
should
they
be
set
from
building
façades
and
into
the
streetscape?
What
about
spacing?
5. Species Selection Should Be Simplified for the Rest of Us! The species list in the report is technical and overwhelming. For most residents, the relevant characteristics
of
our
trees
might
rather
include
the
things
that
most
people
care
about:
● Height at maturity ● Canopy diameter at maturity ● Maintenance burden ● Whether they drop problematic debris ● Whether they are native or climate-appropriate That’s it! The technical disease resistance discussion is important—but that is expert-level filtering
that
should
be
done
before
the
final
nominees
are
presented
for
a
discussion
of
design
that
should
follow.
6. Long-Term
Vision:
Green
Corridors
&
City
Structure
Since we’re talking about trees, I may as well mention the potential we still kind of have for a city greenbelt.
There
are
about
a
dozen
major
greenbelts
being
pieced
together
in
cities
across
the
country,
including
the
following:
Atlanta,
Georgia
has
the
Atlanta
BeltLine
;
Houston,
Texas
has
Bayou
Greenways
2020
;
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
has
the
Grand
Rounds
Scenic
Byway
;
Nashville,
Tennessee
has
the
Nashville
Greenway
System
;
Portland,
Oregon
has
the
40-Mile
Loop
;
Boston,
Massachusetts
has
the
Emerald
Necklace
;
Louisville,
Kentucky
has
the
Olmsted
Parkways
and
Park
System
;
and
Raleigh,
North
Carolina
has
the
Neuse
River
and
Regional
Greenway Network . See also what they do in Hamburg. There is history of consideration of this type of thing in Costa Mesa, and it is likely something that people would want. As we densify, I think
the
preservation/creation
of
large
connected
open
spaces
and
wildness
becomes
even
more
important.
Through
foresight
and
luck,
we
have
Fairview
Park
on
one
side
and
the
Back
Bay
on
the
other,
with
spaces
not
yet
carpeted
by
townhouse
projects
that
might
one
day
connect
the
two.
“When the countryside is far away, the city becomes a prison.”
-
Christopher
Alexander
Thanks for reading!
Russell Toler