A year-long inventory and mapping of every street tree in San Francisco has been completed.

And based on the EveryTreeSF census, which identified the exact location, species and current condition of every tree, not including those on private property or in public parks, there are exactly 124,847 street trees in San Francisco as of this morning, which is over 20,000 more than previously estimated.

The census also identified potential planting locations for another 39,688 trees, locations which the City intends to start planning this summer and continue to fill over the next twenty years in order to grow San Francisco’s urban forest.

And yes, every single street tree in San Francisco now has its own webpage and wall upon which the public can upload a photo and comment as well, such as for this Victorian box or this Ginkgo (RIP).

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Nate

    There are a lot still missing from this site – get to work citizens!

    • Posted by Kent

      Especially in the entire Golden Gate park area – shameful!

  2. Posted by Bill

    That is awesome! We need more trees.

  3. Posted by gribble

    Nice to know that the city owned tree in front of my house is known to be in poor condition.

    • Posted by Tyrone of WeOak

      The City’s been sending me bills related to their tree outside by building for the last 15 years. At this point I’m hoping it dies.

  4. Posted by marc

    Kinda cool but lots of missing trees and mistakes (like calling a victorian box a japanese maple) on my little block.

  5. Posted by Brian

    The most inaccurate crap I’ve seen all day.

  6. Posted by Notcom

    I’m curious, if they list dead trees – like the Ginko – then do they list phone poles as well? Aren’t those tress that were once alive and are “planted” in the street?

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Believe it or not, the Urban Forest Map is a dynamic resource. And some trees that were alive when first cataloged have since passed on, such as the Ginkgo in question, the page for which you might notice has been updated, while others have been newly planted since the original count and have yet to be added to the official roll.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Then it’s hardly a very useful resource if it notes a tree is sick and then let’s it die! I’m assuming of course an earlier edition noted a sickly condition, and did nothing about it…although I suppose if the inspection cycle is lengthy, one could go from perfect health to being buried in the ground b/w visits… wait, a tree is already “buried in the ground” even when it’s healthy…well y’know what I mean.

        Anyway, sounds like they need to either spend less on this idea ‘cuz it’s a waste or way, way more to make it work properly…wonder which one its supporters will recommend?

        [Editor’s Note: You might want to take a (closer) look at the aforementioned Ginkgo’s page and profile pic. It doesn’t exactly look like it died of natural causes.]

  7. Posted by Eric Jackson

    How much did this cost us as citizens of SF?

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      The flipside is how much benefit trees provide to citizens. Here’s an example of one tree:

      Yearly Ecosystem Services
      Carbon dioxide stored to date 188.2 lbs $3
      Energy conserved 140.7 kwh/year $13
      Carbon dioxide removed 147.8 lbs/year $2
      Air quality improved -0.2 lbs/year $1
      Stormwater filtered 760.8 gal/year $3

      That doesn’t include the intangible aesthetic value.

      • Posted by 94110

        but will the trees make america great again? NO! get rid of them all! we need more F-35s.

      • Posted by Richard

        I’m unclear on the kwh benefits. In SF most energy load isn’t A/C like it is in other places. So if they used a national estimate of the energy savings of shade then it’s likely way off for this burgh.

  8. Posted by AnonAnon

    Interesting, in addition to the 4 sidewalk trees my neighbors and I planted, they have the purple plum and palm that are in my yard.

    • Posted by AnonAnon

      Oh, and to describe my thriving plum tree’s condition as “fair” is downright libelous!

      • Posted by BobN

        And to describe the poor thing on my sidewalk, an anemic, tiny 30yo sapling, as “fair” is ridiculous. It barely clings to life in the shadow of its brother, planted at the same time, decades ago. Some years it only has half a dozen leaves.

  9. Posted by Jake

    a tree census is welcome, will this be updated periodically?

    by comparison, the public parking survey found there are more than twice as many on-street public parking spaces as this tree count (~275k). The estimate of the number of dogs in SF is about one dog for each of these trees (~120k), though in my neighborhood there are definitely more dogs than trees.

    • Posted by 94110

      it’s open-source! you can update if you have better info

  10. Posted by pablito

    Very cool! San Francisco needs more trees. Hopefully this tool identifing the bare spots will help get more planted.

  11. Posted by Ken Woods

    Completely incorrect for my street. Lists “ghost” trees (like 10 of them) that do not exist.

  12. Posted by Rick

    Bunch of do-nothings complaining about minuscule mistakes instead of celebrating an inventory of tremendous value.

  13. Posted by Peter

    Great initiative, although my tree outside my house is not listed even though I planted it as part of a campaign with Friends of the Urban Forrest aprox ten years ago.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *