The circumstances in which most "official street trees" are discussed and selected is critical to addressing this question.
While I'd like to advocate planting LOCALLY native trees -- not California fan palms or Joshua trees in the Bay Area -- most northern California native trees are not adapted to pavement, soil compaction, vandalism, air pollution, drainage constraints, and other urban conditions. In almost all urban situations, native trees cannot thrive, and their poor performance when forced into these situations provides cynics with more reasons not to plant natives in other, more suitable situations.
A sidewalk or median strip of 2- or 3-ft. width is not a good situation for most trees, native or not, and I can't think of a native tree that would thrive in such a situation. In parks or areas with more extensive root and canopy space, watering, mowing, and public use regimes are often ill-suited to native trees, most of which evolved in summer-dry climates over thousands of years. Some native trees will adapt to areas of poor drainage or compacted soil by producing a proliferation of surface roots, resulting in maintenance problems and safety (walking) hazards to sidewalks and street pavement.
Northern coastal California has perhaps 20 or so native tree species, and for those I can think of, a street-side planting is not in the plant's best interest, for thriving and surviving long-term. Although many of the "street trees" chosen by municipal agencies are abhorrent choices (they're invasive ecologically, invasive physically -- roots, etc. -- or just ugly or messy), I really can't recommend most native trees for street planting, unless they're provided with sufficient space for roots and canopies. I might be overlooking some possibilities, but urban streets are not viable ecosystems for most native trees.
|