City approved street tree lists: how twelve cities set theirs out

This page reports what the official source says. It is not legal advice: ask the office named here. It is also not planting advice and it does not say which tree suits a site. Only lists that were opened and read are in the table. Several other city pages did not load when they were read on October 9, 2026, so a missing city is not a statement that it has no list. Each city has its own page below with the names copied from the city’s file.

The twelve lists side by side

What the lists have in common

All twelve tie the list to the public right-of-way or to city property, and most print a clause that lets the city approve a species that is not on it. Philadelphia says the list is not exhaustive, Providence and Ann Arbor allow substitutions or case-by-case approval, Portland lets a tree inspector approve additional species, and San Francisco requires Public Works approval of every species. Corning states that no other species will be allowed in the right-of-way. Camden confines new street trees to its list and puts the burden on anyone proposing a variation. Escondido says a tree not on its list can be considered pending Planning Department approval. Rochester prints that a listed species may still be refused for diversity, site or space reasons, and that the permit defines what is authorized.

The lists are not grouped the same way. Philadelphia, Providence, New York City, Ann Arbor, Corning, Escondido and Rochester group by mature height. Portland and Lafayette group by planting strip width and by whether power lines are overhead. San Francisco groups by purpose, from local natives to palms, and Camden groups by use: street, replacement, open space, under power lines and salt tolerant. Avondale Estates separates street trees from park trees. Four cities also say which trees they will not take: Providence prints a table of unauthorized trees, Lafayette prints a prohibited list, Camden prints eight species it will not approve on public land, and Portland’s FAQ explains why maples and ash trees are not approved.

The lists differ in what they add. Philadelphia adds a column of optional cultivars and a group of narrow form trees. Providence and Lafayette add tolerances for each species. New York City adds growth rate and tolerances such as small tree pit. Ann Arbor adds a native column. San Francisco adds a minimum sidewalk width and marks for utility, drought and allergy. Corning adds footnotes and a list of the extension and nursery resources it drew on.

Reading the dates

A list’s date is not always the date of its content. Providence prints July 2011 on the PDF itself, Ann Arbor prints March 2017 and San Francisco prints August 2024 with the date its council approved the list. Philadelphia prints no date, and the only label is in the file name. Corning, Lafayette, Avondale Estates and Camden have no printed date on the list, and the PDF metadata gives a creation date, which is not the same as an approval date. NYC Parks shows none. Portland names its table for 2025. Escondido prints 4/13/2017 on its PDF. Rochester prints no date on the web page that holds its list. Each child page states which date it is relying on and where it came from.

Where the lists sit among the evidence

A list is a policy document, not a study. The street tree diversity page covers the research on how many species a city street tree population needs. The page on why new street trees die covers survival studies. The choosing a tree guide is for the species-level questions.