Every question we answer, in one place

One arborist, one report standard, three front doors. Urban Forestry Guide is the practice and the reference site for Bay Area tree permits and ordinances. California Fire Defense handles defensible space and wildfire vegetation. Boundary Tree handles the tree between two properties. Engagement letters and invoices are issued by Urban Forestry Guide.

ISA Certified Arborist WE-15750A and ISA Certified Urban Forest Professional WE-15750AF, International Society of Arboriculture, with 13 years of Bay Area field, operations and consulting work and working knowledge of 56 city tree ordinances. Reports describe tree condition and risk in plain professional terms with photographs and measurements.

Yes, as a retained consulting or testifying expert under a signed retention letter, billed hourly to the firm. See the attorneys page.

Because every other arborist opinion a homeowner can get for free comes from someone who sells tree work. The report is credible to the neighbor, the mediator, the adjuster and the court precisely because nobody here profits from what it recommends.

The loss address, the date of loss, any photographs the insured or the contractor took before cleanup, and whether the debris is still on site. If it is, ask the insured to hold it until we have been out.

Usually within 2 to 3 business days for a claim; 48-hour report turnaround at a surcharge when the file needs it.

All three, under the same scope, format and fee. The report states who retained it and is otherwise identical.

Separately, under the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal, through Urban Forestry Guide. Cause & Condition and appraisal can be done in one visit.

ISA Certified Arborist WE-15750A and ISA Certified Urban Forest Professional WE-15750AF, 13 years in Bay Area arboriculture across field, operations and consulting, working knowledge of 56 Bay Area city tree ordinances. CV on request.

Either. Many matters start as a consulting engagement for site documentation and a read on the other side's expert, and convert to testifying if the case does not settle. The retention letter covers both.

Site visit within 7 days of retention; written report 7 to 10 business days after the visit; 48 hours when a deadline requires it. Declarations within 3 business days of the report.

$250 per hour for review, site work, report writing, declarations, mediation and hearings. Deposition and trial at a half-day minimum. Retainer required; invoiced monthly to the firm.

Yes, under the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal, delivered through Urban Forestry Guide. Civil Code 3346 and CCP 733 double and treble damages are applied to the appraised value, so the appraisal method is documented in detail.

Because the free look is a sales call. The $850 buys a certified arborist with no tree work to sell, a site visit, root tracing and measurement, photographs, the Civil Code and ordinance citations, and a document the other side will read. If you only want to know whether you have a problem at all, text us a photo; that conversation is free.

Tree count, parcel size, and audience. One or two trees between two houses is the minimum. Several trees, a slope, multiple structures, or a report an attorney will file in court takes more field and writing time and is quoted before the visit.

No. A CTLA appraisal is a separate report, priced $850 to $2,500 on Urban Forestry Guide. If your dispute needs both, we quote them together and do them in one visit.

Reports take a 50% deposit on acceptance and the balance on delivery. Desk reviews and the neighbor letter are paid at booking. Zelle or Venmo. The fee is confirmed in writing before the visit.

Yes, and it often works well: one neutral report both of you paid for is hard for either of you to dismiss. Both parties sign the engagement and both receive the report.

Core area is Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Sonoma, Napa and Solano are quoted with travel.

If any part of the trunk stands on the neighbor's land, Civil Code 834 makes it common property regardless of the proportion. Only a trunk wholly on one lot belongs to one owner (Civil Code 833). Where 'the line' is comes from a survey, not the fence.

No. A co-owner who removes or seriously injures a boundary tree without the other's consent is liable to the other under Civil Code 3346, with doubled or trebled damages. Both owners' consent, and usually a city permit, are required.

Both, in principle; the Civil Code is silent on the split and courts treat it as shared responsibility. In practice the owners agree a split, often by the share of canopy on each side, and the arborist's maintenance specification is what they agree to.

The surveyed line. Fences are routinely a foot or more off. The report measures the trunk against the fence and against any monuments it can find, and tells you plainly whether a survey is needed before anyone acts.

Yes, within the self-help rule and the Booska limit: reasonably, without injuring the tree. On a tree you co-own, injuring it is injuring your own property as well as theirs.

Not for branches over your own land, cut at the line, at your expense, in a way that does not harm the tree. Telling them first is still the right move: it avoids an argument about whether you went over the line, and in a protected-tree city it may be required for anything beyond light pruning.

No. Anything on their side of the line is their tree. Cutting it is trespass and can trigger Civil Code 3346 damages, which are doubled and can be trebled.

The fruit belongs to the tree owner; the leaves, needles and twigs that land on your side are generally your problem to clean up unless the volume rises to a nuisance, which courts rarely find for ordinary litter.

Not for routine overhang. If the branches are causing actual damage (roof contact, gutters, a cracked structure) or are a hazard, you have a nuisance or negligence argument that can shift the cost. A report documents which.

Yes, if the tree is protected. Many Bay Area ordinances regulate pruning of protected trees above a stated percentage of the canopy, and some require a permit for any major pruning. The report tells you what your city allows.

Yes. Most Bay Area cities have a code enforcement or public works process for hazardous trees on private property, and some will inspect and order abatement. Results vary widely by city and by how hazardous the tree actually is. The report gives the city something to act on.

No. It is their tree, and in most cities a protected one. Cutting it is trespass with doubled damages under Civil Code 3346, even if you were right about the hazard.

A boundary tree under Civil Code 834 belongs to both of you, and neither may remove it without the other's consent. You still need a permit in most cities. The report addresses ownership first.

Before a failure, usually not. Afterward, the written notice you sent is the evidence that makes the owner's carrier, not yours, responsible. Keep copies of everything.

In the end a court or the city does, but an independent arborist's written findings are what either one relies on. 'Dead' and 'hazardous' have professional meanings: a dead tree far from any target is not a hazard; a live tree with a cracked union over a bedroom is.

Not directly. Public Resources Code 4291 and local fire codes require each owner to maintain defensible space on their own parcel; they give you no private right to enforce it on the neighbor's. The levers are the fire district's inspection program, the insurer, a hazard or nuisance claim for a tree that is also dangerous, and negotiation with a plan in hand.

Zones are measured from your structure, so a neighbor's tree can sit inside your defensible space. You may trim what overhangs your land, within the Booska limit; you cannot cut on their side. Inspectors generally understand this and look at what you control.

Most Bay Area fire districts inspect parcels in the wildland-urban interface and can issue abatement notices to the owner of the parcel where the vegetation stands. A complaint to the district about a neighbor's parcel is the route; a written arborist assessment of the fuel and hazard condition makes it specific.

Insurers inspect what they can see from your lot, and non-renewal letters often cite neighboring vegetation. California Fire Defense's insurance documentation package addresses your side; for the neighbor's trees, a Boundary Tree report documents the fuel and hazard condition you can show both the insurer and the neighbor.

Not merely for being flammable. A dead or dying tree that is also a structural hazard to your house engages the owner's duty of care (Civil Code 1714), and that is the claim that has teeth. Dead eucalyptus and Monterey pine next door are the common case.

The association, under Civil Code 4775, unless the CC&Rs say otherwise. That includes the duty to deal with a hazardous common-area tree it knows or should know about.

Usually the owner, for a separate-interest lot, and usually the association for exclusive-use common area unless the CC&Rs shift it. Read the CC&Rs first; the default rules in 4775 only apply where the documents are silent.

If the CC&Rs or rules regulate trees (height limits, view provisions, species lists), the association can enforce them through its disciplinary process after notice and a hearing (Civil Code 5855). It cannot order removal of a city-protected tree without a permit, and it cannot enforce a rule it never adopted properly.

It is a bid, not an assessment. Boards that act on contractor opinions to remove protected or disputed trees expose the association. An independent report protects the board's decision under the business judgment rule.

For most disputes between an owner and the association, yes. Civil Code 5925 to 5965 require an offer of internal dispute resolution and, before most lawsuits, alternative dispute resolution. The arborist report is the document both sides bring.

Ordinary litter from a healthy tree is not, under California case law. Courts treat leaves, needles, pollen, seeds and sap as the normal consequence of living near trees. A claim needs something more: actual damage, a hazard, or a volume so extreme it substantially interferes with use of the property.

Clogged gutters are maintenance, not damage, in the eyes of a court. Heavy limbs resting on or abrading the roof are different, and overhanging limbs can be trimmed to the line regardless. See branches over my property.

Yes, to the property line, at your expense, reasonably, without injuring the tree. That is usually the practical answer to debris: less canopy over your side, less litter.

Sometimes. If the debris is from dead wood, a diseased tree, or a species dropping heavy fruit or cones onto a place people stand, those are hazard questions the report answers. If it is just leaves, we will tell you on the phone that a report is not the right spend.

You can ask. Nothing requires the owner to agree, and a court would not order it for ordinary litter. A neutral letter asking for a shared pruning job is more likely to get a yes than a demand.

Trimming overhang to the line is allowed if done reasonably. Cutting that goes past the line, or that injures the tree (stubbing, topping, cutting large structural limbs or roots), is not, and Booska v. Patel makes the cutter liable for the harm.

Under the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal, using the cost approach (trunk formula or replacement cost) or, where the tree can be restored, the cost of cure. Mature Bay Area oaks and redwoods routinely appraise in the tens of thousands of dollars before the statutory multiplier.

Civil Code 3346 doubles the actual damages for wrongful injury to trees, and trebles them where the cutting was wilful and malicious. Code of Civil Procedure 733 provides a parallel treble-damages remedy. The multiplier is applied to the appraised value.

Both, usually. The contractor who cut it and the neighbor who hired them can each be liable. Get the company name from the neighbor or the truck, and photograph everything before the stump is ground.

If the tree was protected, the city may fine the person who removed it without a permit, separately from your civil claim. In Oakland, Mill Valley, Palo Alto and others the fines are substantial. Report it; the city's enforcement file supports your case.

That is a factual question with a professional answer. Many 'dangerous' trees are healthy trees that drop leaves; some are genuinely hazardous and the owner has not noticed. An independent assessment tells you which, and either way you want to know before the letter becomes a lawsuit.

If your tree's roots are causing actual damage, probably yes, in some share. If the roots are from another tree, or the fence failed for another reason, no. The report traces and photographs the roots, which is the only way to know.

Branches and roots that cross the line, yes, at their expense, if done reasonably without injuring the tree. Anything past the line, or cutting that harms the tree, exposes them to damages. The report documents the tree's condition now, so any later harm is measurable.

In most Bay Area cities not without a permit, and a neighbor's complaint is not grounds for one. Removing a protected tree without a permit carries serious penalties. Check your city first; the report tells you.

Not automatically. View ordinances prefer trimming and thinning, allow topping only where it won't harm the tree, and exempt some species. An independent report on what the demanded work would do to your trees is your answer to an unreasonable demand.

You may cut roots that cross onto your land, but California courts require you to act reasonably and not injure the tree. Cutting large structural roots close to the trunk can destabilize or kill it and make you liable for its value. An arborist report tells you which roots, if any, can be cut safely.

If the fence is on the line, Civil Code 841 presumes you share the cost equally unless one of you proves that is unfair. Damage caused by one owner's tree is a common reason to rebut the presumption, which is why documenting cause matters.

Encroaching roots that cause actual damage can be a private nuisance under Civil Code 3479, which supports a claim for the damage and for abatement. Roots that merely exist on your side without damage generally are not.

Rarely. Most Bay Area cities protect trees of this size and would not issue a removal permit for a fence problem. The realistic remedies are root barriers, a redesigned fence footing, selective root pruning under arborist direction, or a shared cost arrangement.

No. We assess from your property and the public right of way unless they give written permission. The report states that and remains useful.

Same ownership and self-help rules. Foundations and slabs add an engineer: we say whether roots are present and lifting; a geotechnical or structural engineer says what it means for the structure.

A plumber can tell you there are roots in the pipe. Identifying which tree they came from, and whether the pipe failed first, is a different question. Roots enter laterals through joints and cracks that were already open; a camera shows roots, not cause. The arborist report and the camera footage together make the case, or show there isn't one.

Only if you can show their tree's roots caused actual damage to a sound pipe, or that they knew of a problem and ignored it. Most sewer-root cases end with each owner paying for their own side of the lateral, which is why documenting the facts before paying matters.

Roots inside your pipe on your land, yes, by cutting or hydro-jetting. Cutting large roots in the ground near the trunk is governed by Booska v. Patel and can make you liable for the tree.

In most Bay Area cities the lower lateral from the property line to the main is the property owner's responsibility too, and some cities require a lateral inspection at sale. Check your city's sewer lateral ordinance; several (Berkeley, Oakland, Albany, EBMUD service area) have one.

No. It establishes cause and responsibility so the repair cost lands in the right place and so a replacement pipe is routed or lined to avoid a repeat. A plumber lines or replaces the pipe.

Yes, and for a trip hazard it is the fastest fix. It does nothing about the root, which keeps growing. Grinding buys a few years; a redesigned slab or a root-pruned, barriered edge solves it.

Roots on your side may be cut, but a root large enough to lift a slab is often a structural root, and cutting it close to the trunk can destabilize or kill the tree. Booska v. Patel makes you liable if it does. The report says where the safe cut is for this tree.

If their tree's roots are the cause of actual damage, you have a nuisance claim and a reasonable basis to ask them to share the fix. Most of these resolve with the tree owner paying for root work and barrier on their side and you repairing the slab.

Then it's the city's tree, and most Bay Area cities have a sidewalk and driveway root program with its own rules and sometimes cost sharing. The report identifies the tree's ownership first.

Only when installed at the right depth and distance for the species, after root pruning, and not so close to the trunk that it harms the tree. Installed wrong it is an expensive trench. The report specifies it.

For the view itself, yes; California law protects no general right to a view, and a tree that merely blocks one is not a nuisance. You may still have a hazard, encroachment or nuisance claim if the same trees are doing something else, and overhanging limbs can be trimmed at the line. We tell you which on the first call.

In Oakland and Berkeley, yes: the claim covers views that existed when you acquired the property, and you need dated evidence, such as listing photographs or your own early photos. A view that grew in before you bought is generally not recoverable.

Removal is the last remedy in every Bay Area view ordinance. Trimming, thinning and sometimes topping come first, and some species (coast live oak and bay laurel in Oakland) are exempt entirely.

Usually the claimant, unless the ordinance shifts costs for specific reasons. Oakland's default is that the claimant pays 100 percent.

The ordinances require you to document the obstruction and propose restorative action. An arborist's report does both to the ordinance's standard, identifies exempt trees, and states what each remedy would do to the trees, which is what the arbitrator or court weighs.

It helps a lot, if it can be shown. Dead wood, fungal conks, a hollow trunk or an old lean visible in earlier photographs are the kind of evidence that establishes the owner should have known. The report documents it before cleanup destroys it.

Weather is a defense only if the tree would not have failed without it. A sound tree that fails in a 60 mph gust is an act of God; a decayed tree that fails in a 25 mph breeze is not. The Cause & Condition Report addresses exactly that.

File with yours first so repairs start; your carrier can pursue the neighbor's carrier (subrogation) if negligence is shown. Give your adjuster the arborist report.

Generally each owner removes the part on their land, and the cost follows the liability answer. Do not let anyone grind the stump or haul the trunk until the failed section has been examined and photographed.

Property damage claims in California generally carry a three-year limitations period, but insurers want notice promptly and evidence disappears in days. Call now.

Not because you want it gone. You can act on a documented hazard, on roots or limbs causing actual damage, and on anything that crosses the line, within the self-help limit. Whether removal is even possible depends on the city; see the rules section.

Small and surface roots, yes. Structural roots near the trunk, no; cutting them can kill or topple the tree and make you liable under Booska v. Patel. The report says where the line is for this tree.

Some are, most are not, and the answer depends on the individual tree, its condition and what it would hit. That is what the risk section of the report answers in plain terms.

Protected at 4 inches DBH in Oakland and Sausalito, 11.5 inches in Palo Alto, 18 inches circumference in Berkeley (the only private species Berkeley regulates), and at small sizes in Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, Los Gatos and most of Marin and Lamorinda.

Not because you want it gone. You can act on a documented hazard, on roots or limbs causing actual damage, and on anything that crosses the line, within the self-help limit. Whether removal is even possible depends on the city; see the rules section.

Small and surface roots, yes. Structural roots near the trunk, no; cutting them can kill or topple the tree and make you liable under Booska v. Patel. The report says where the line is for this tree.

Some are, most are not, and the answer depends on the individual tree, its condition and what it would hit. That is what the risk section of the report answers in plain terms.

Protected at 18 inches DBH in Palo Alto, 95 inches circumference as a heritage tree in Mill Valley, and under general size thresholds (typically 12 to 18 inches) in most other Bay Area cities.

Not because you want it gone. You can act on a documented hazard, on roots or limbs causing actual damage, and on anything that crosses the line, within the self-help limit. Whether removal is even possible depends on the city; see the rules section.

Small and surface roots, yes. Structural roots near the trunk, no; cutting them can kill or topple the tree and make you liable under Booska v. Patel. The report says where the line is for this tree.

Some are, most are not, and the answer depends on the individual tree, its condition and what it would hit. That is what the risk section of the report answers in plain terms.

Oakland exempts the entire eucalyptus genus from protection; Sausalito lists blue gum as undesirable and outside heritage status; many other cities exclude eucalyptus from their protected lists or exempt it from replacement requirements.

Not because you want it gone. You can act on a documented hazard, on roots or limbs causing actual damage, and on anything that crosses the line, within the self-help limit. Whether removal is even possible depends on the city; see the rules section.

Small and surface roots, yes. Structural roots near the trunk, no; cutting them can kill or topple the tree and make you liable under Booska v. Patel. The report says where the line is for this tree.

Some are, most are not, and the answer depends on the individual tree, its condition and what it would hit. That is what the risk section of the report answers in plain terms.

Oakland exempts Monterey pine from protection on private property; Sausalito lists it as undesirable; many cities protect it only under general size thresholds and most grant hazard removals readily, often with just an arborist's letter.

Not because you want it gone. You can act on a documented hazard, on roots or limbs causing actual damage, and on anything that crosses the line, within the self-help limit. Whether removal is even possible depends on the city; see the rules section.

Small and surface roots, yes. Structural roots near the trunk, no; cutting them can kill or topple the tree and make you liable under Booska v. Patel. The report says where the line is for this tree.

Some are, most are not, and the answer depends on the individual tree, its condition and what it would hit. That is what the risk section of the report answers in plain terms.

Most hedge species are unprotected below the city's general size threshold, but a 40-year-old pittosporum with a 15-inch trunk is a protected tree in many cities, and a hedge of them within 10 feet of the sidewalk in San Francisco is a row of significant trees.

Yes. Belvedere Municipal Code Chapter 8.28, Trees, prohibits unreasonable obstruction of a preexisting view or sunlight by trees, shrubs or hedges on another property (8.28.035) and sets out the remedy in 8.28.040.

The complaint of obstruction must identify the certified arborist you will use if corrective work proceeds, and the arbitrator may require either party to pay for and submit a certified arborist report. In practice the report comes first, so the complaint proposes work an arbitrator can adopt.

Only if both parties agree to it. If the owner declines mediation or mediation fails and both agree, the arbitration follows American Arbitration Association rules, costs are split equally, and the award is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure 1285.

180 days after service of the complaint of obstruction, or 180 days after mediation concludes if mediation was attempted, whichever is later. Litigation is available only if the parties did not agree to binding arbitration and the earlier steps were completed.

No. A view or sunlight available only because obstructing vegetation was temporarily removed by accident or natural causes is not protected unless the obstruction was otherwise unreasonable, and view access does not run with the land as an easement (8.28.040(B)).

Yes. Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.45, Preservation of Views and Sunlight, creates a private tree claim for substantial blocking or diminishment of a view or of access to sunlight caused by a neighbor's trees.

Yes. Berkeley's ordinance is one of the few that treats loss of sunlight (for example to a garden or solar panels) the same way as loss of a view.

Physical evidence, such as photographs, showing the absence of the obstruction at a documentable time during your ownership, plus evidence of your date of acquisition, the trees' location, the owner's name and address, your proposed mitigation, and proof that written conciliation failed (certified or registered mail receipts).

A tree mediator or arbitrator acceptable to both parties, or the court. The ordinance does not appoint one for you.

Removal or pruning of more than 25 percent of a coast live oak in Berkeley requires an exception approved by the City Manager under the Coast Live Oak Moratorium (BMC 6.52). A view claim does not bypass that.

No. View disputes between neighbors in Hillsborough run on negotiation and the self-help rule; there is no claim to restore a view.

Any species at 18 inches or more cumulative trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet, multi-trunks added together, plus street trees, Town heritage trees and development-required trees at any size (HMC 14.04).

A permit with an arborist report on the Town's template. Non-hazard removals go to a noticed public hearing before the Architecture and Design Review Board; the FY 2026-27 fee is $1,076 planning review plus a $218 building permit. Hazard removals can be handled at staff level with a certified arborist's written opinion that removal is needed within 30 days, verified by a Town-qualified arborist; fee $682.

Overhang to the line, reasonably. Hillsborough has no percentage allowance; pruning a Town arborist decides would permanently compromise the tree counts as removal. Get a specification first and check with the Town before major pruning.

$150 per inch of trunk diameter or the ISA-appraised value, whichever is greater, plus a 36-inch box replacement within six months, and it is a misdemeanor (HMC 14.04.060).

No. Unlike Tiburon, Belvedere and Sausalito, Mill Valley's code gives a neighbor no private claim to restore a view blocked by trees. Chapter 20.67 lets the City consider "reasonable preservation of views and sunlight" when deciding whether to grant a tree removal permit, and an aggrieved person may appeal a permit decision to the Planning Commission. That is the only view-related mechanism.

Negotiate, with an arborist's pruning specification that stays under the one-third rule so no permit is needed; or, if the obstructing tree needs a permit for the work, the owner's application can cite view preservation as a ground and you can support it. A hazard, encroachment or nuisance claim under state law is separate and still available.

Heritage trees measured at 4.5 feet: tanbark oak 65 inches circumference, oak and madrone 75 inches, coast redwood 95 inches, plus any tree the Council designates. On vacant parcels, any tree over 12.5 inches circumference needs a permit; on developed parcels, removing four or more trees over 19 inches circumference in 12 months does.

Yes, within the self-help rule, but removing more than one-third of a protected tree's foliage in 12 months counts as removal and needs a permit, and topping that foreseeably damages the tree counts too. Keep pruning under a third and to ISA standards.

A minimum of $1,000 per non-heritage tree and $5,000 per heritage tree removed without a permit, or the replacement value if greater; each tree and each day a separate offense; doubled for a repeat within 24 months; plus 3:1 replacement and all corrective costs. If a listed tree professional did the work the fine goes to them.

Yes. Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.52, Views, gives a property owner a claim against a neighbor whose trees unreasonably obstruct a view that existed when the claimant acquired the property.

Coast live oak and bay laurel, certain native species established by natural regeneration, trees in city parks, and city street trees (OMC 15.52.030). A claim cannot be brought against these.

No. The ordinance defines the protected view as one that existed when you acquired the property and says you have no right greater than what existed at that time. You need dated evidence.

The view arbitrator must be a licensed California forester, a licensed landscape architect, or an ISA Certified Arborist, and all mandated tree work must be done by a licensed arborist.

By default the claimant pays 100 percent (OMC 15.52.060), with exceptions where the tree owner's conduct or the tree's origin shifts costs.

No. The city does not prosecute view claims. Chapter 15.52 is enforced privately between the parties, through arbitration or civil action, and a violation is not a misdemeanor (15.52.120). Claimants must notify the Office of Parks and Recreation when they file.

Yes. Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.22, View Preservation, gives a person the right to preserve or restore a view or sunlight from unreasonable obstruction by trees over 15 feet tall. The chapter calls it "a private right between persons" that the City does not enforce.

The preexisting view or sunlight from the primary living area of a residence (or active use area of a nonresidential building) as it existed when the current owner bought or the occupant took possession, and at any time thereafter. Restoration cannot exceed what was documented during your tenure.

No. The steps are written notice, a mediation offer (30 days to respond), a tree claim, binding arbitration if both agree (30 days to respond, 21 days to pick an arbitrator), and otherwise court. City-owned trees are exempt and go to Public Works.

Mediation and arbitration are split 50/50 unless the parties agree otherwise or the neutral allocates them. Restorative work is paid as agreed, mediated, arbitrated or ordered by the court.

Protected trees may need a Planning Director permit and heritage trees need City Council approval (17.22.10B, C). The view chapter does not override those; the report flags them before you propose removal.

No. A blocked view is not actionable in Palo Alto. Hazard, encroachment and damage are, under state law, and the self-help rule lets you trim overhang to the line.

Coast live oak, valley oak, blue oak, California black oak, bigleaf maple and incense cedar at 11.5 inches diameter; coast redwood at 18 inches; most other non-invasive species at 15 inches; street trees, heritage trees and development-required trees at any size. Measured at 4.5 feet (PAMC 8.10).

Overhang to the line, reasonably, yes. Palo Alto requires a posted notice seven days before pruning a protected tree, and topping or heavy thinning can be treated as damage. Get a pruning specification first.

A civil penalty of $10,000 per tree or twice the appraised reproduction cost, whichever is higher, replacement at twice the normal ratio, a development moratorium of up to five years, and possible misdemeanor charges (PAMC 8.10.100, 8.10.110).

Only if it meets the City's removal criteria under 8.10.050. A neighbor's complaint about leaves, shade or a view is not a criterion. A documented hazard or damage to a structure can be.

No. A blocked view, including a view of the Bay or the bridge, is not actionable between neighbors in San Francisco. Hazard, encroachment and damage are.

Usually not. Article 16 regulates street trees, landmark trees designated by the Board of Supervisors, and significant trees, meaning trees with any part of the trunk within 10 feet of the public right-of-way that are over 20 feet tall, over 15 feet in canopy or over 12 inches in diameter. A tree more than 10 feet from the sidewalk and not a landmark is generally unregulated.

The City. Since Proposition E took effect July 1, 2017, San Francisco Public Works maintains street trees, and work on them needs a Public Works permit. Report it to 311 and the Bureau of Urban Forestry; the arborist report documents the damage and cause for your claim.

If it is not a street, landmark or significant tree, generally yes, without a permit. That is unusual in the Bay Area and it changes the negotiation: removal is a real option here, which can be good or bad depending on which side of the fence you are on.

$10,000 per tree or the replacement value, whichever is greater; $20,000 for a repeat within a year; and criminal fines up to $1,000 and up to six months (PWC 811(c)).

Yes. Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 11.12, Preservation of Trees and Views, section 11.12.040 provides that vegetation may not be maintained so as to unreasonably obstruct the view from, or the sunlight reaching, other property, and sets out a claim process for private and City trees.

A view claim must be accompanied by an arborist report, and the ordinance encourages including one with the initial written notice. Parties may be represented by an arborist at the hearing or submit a written report 15 days before it. The work itself must be done under daily arborist supervision, from at least three arborist bids.

The Planning Commission, if both parties agree in writing to binding arbitration, holds a noticed hearing within 45 days of the claim and its decision is final. Otherwise the Commission can issue a non-binding advisory decision, which carries a rebuttable presumption if the matter goes to court.

The Bay, neighboring communities, hills and wooded areas, but the ordinance says a view does not mean an unobstructed panorama. The baseline is the view at the time you purchased the property.

Only as a last resort: removal is considered only when all other restorative actions are judged ineffective, and where removal would significantly reduce screening or privacy the owner may elect removal with replacement planting established first.

Yes. Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 15, View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees, prohibits maintaining a tree that unreasonably obstructs a neighbor's view or sunlight and gives the neighbor a private claim.

A view or sunlight that existed at any time since you purchased or occupied the property, from the primary living area of a residence or the active use area of a nonresidential building. The documentable extent during your tenure is the most that can be required to be restored.

No. The binding arbitration section (15-11) was repealed in 2017. After written notice and a mediation offer, the remedy is a tree claim and, if needed, a civil action in court. The Town does not hold hearings.

Mediation fees are split 50/50 unless the parties agree otherwise or the mediator allocates them; the Town pays for one hour of a mediator chosen from its list. Restorative work is paid as the parties agree or as a court orders.

Not without a Chapter 15A permit. Heritage trees (over 60 inches trunk circumference), oaks, and dedicated trees need a permit from the planning director for removal or significant work, and the view ordinance expressly defers to it.

Yes: Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont and Pleasanton. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

Only in Oakland, Berkeley. Piedmont, Fremont, Hayward, Dublin and Pleasanton have no view ordinance as far as we have verified.

Center for Community Dispute Settlement, (925) 337-7185, trivalleymediation.com; SEEDS Community Resolution Center in Berkeley also serves the county. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The Alameda County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and unincorporated Contra Costa County including Alamo. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

Only in Orinda. Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Danville and Pleasant Hill have no view ordinance as far as we have verified; Lafayette and Moraga hillside view disputes run on negotiation and the self-help rule.

The Center for Human Development, (925) 687-8844; The Congress of Neutrals, (925) 937-3008. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The Contra Costa County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon and unincorporated Marin. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

Only in Tiburon, Belvedere, Sausalito. Mill Valley has no view ordinance (why that matters); neither do the other Marin cities as far as we have verified.

Marin County Mediation Services, (415) 499-7454. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The Marin County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: all San Francisco neighborhoods. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

San Francisco has no view ordinance. View disputes between neighbors run on negotiation and the self-help rule only.

Community Boards, (415) 920-3820, communityboards.org. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The San Francisco Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside and unincorporated San Mateo County. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

No San Mateo County city has a view ordinance as far as we have verified. Hillside view disputes in Belmont, San Carlos, Emerald Hills and Hillsborough run on negotiation and the self-help rule.

Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, (650) 513-0330, pcrcweb.org. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The San Mateo County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

No Santa Clara County city has a view ordinance as far as we have verified. Los Altos Hills, Saratoga and Los Gatos hillside view disputes run on negotiation and the self-help rule, with strict protected-tree rules limiting what can be cut.

County of Santa Clara Office of Mediation and Ombuds Service, (408) 993-4130; Project Sentinel, (408) 720-9888. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The Santa Clara County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes: Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Capitola, Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Felton, Bonny Doon, Aptos and unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Travel is included inside the seven core counties.

No Santa Cruz County city has a view ordinance as far as we have verified.

Conflict Resolution Center of Santa Cruz County, (831) 475-6117, crcsantacruz.org. Community mediation is low-cost or free, takes tree cases routinely, and the arborist can attend by the hour.

The Santa Cruz County Superior Court hears claims up to $12,500 for individuals. The arborist report is the usual evidence of cause and condition in a tree case.

Yes, to the line, at your own expense. Booska adds the limit: reasonably, with regard to the tree, so that you do not injure or destabilize it. Cut past that and you can be liable for the tree.

It depends on species, size, condition and which roots or limbs are structural. A root the diameter of your wrist within a few feet of a mature trunk is usually structural; a limb cut back to a stub is usually an injury. An arborist's specification tells you where the line is for this tree before you cut.

The case was about roots, but the reasoning, that a landowner's rights are subject to a duty of reasonable care toward the neighbor's property, applies to any self-help cutting. Topping or stubbing overhanging limbs is the branch equivalent.

The harm to the tree. If the tree has to be removed, that can be its appraised value under the CTLA Guide, and if the cutting was wrongful injury under Civil Code 3346, doubled.

It helps you, but it does not create an absolute right. Reasonableness weighs the harm the roots were doing against the harm the cutting does to the tree; the better path is a specification that stops the damage without killing the tree, and a nuisance claim for the damage itself.

If the trunk stands wholly on one lot, that owner owns the whole tree (Civil Code 833). If the trunk stands on the line, the tree belongs to both owners in common (Civil Code 834) and neither may remove it without the other's consent.

Yes, up to the line, at your own expense, if you act reasonably and do not injure the tree. Booska v. Patel (1994) holds the right is not absolute and a neighbor who harms the tree can be liable.

Civil Code 3346 makes them liable for double the damages, and treble damages if the cutting was wilful and malicious. The damages are usually set by a CTLA tree appraisal.

Only if they were negligent: they knew or should have known the tree was hazardous. A sound tree that fails in a storm is an act of God and each owner's insurance handles their own property.

Not under state law. Only cities with a view ordinance (Oakland, Berkeley, Tiburon, Belvedere, Sausalito among Bay Area cities) create a view claim, and each has its own process.

In most Bay Area cities, not without a permit if the tree is above the city's size threshold or a protected species. Penalties for unpermitted removal are substantial. Check the city's rule before cutting.

Up to $12,500 for an individual (Code of Civil Procedure 116.221). Tree damage claims within that limit are common there, and an arborist report is the usual evidence.

No. The statute starts at treble but reduces to double where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or the defendant believed in good faith the land was their own. Courts generally award double unless wilful and malicious conduct is shown, in which case treble is available.

Usually the value of the tree, established under the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal: replacement cost or trunk formula for a lost tree, cost of cure for a damaged one. Diminution in the property's value is an alternative measure. The appraisal is the number the multiplier applies to.

Yes. The statute covers wrongful injury to trees, which includes topping, stubbing and root cutting that damages the tree, not only removal.

Yes. The person who cut and the person who directed the cutting can both be liable.

Civil Code 3346 itself sets a five-year period for actions under it, longer than the general three-year period for injury to property. Do not rely on either; evidence disappears in days.

No. Civil Code 833 gives the whole tree to the owner of the land the trunk stands on, however far the branches and roots reach. You have a right to trim the encroaching parts to the line, not ownership of them.

If any part of the trunk stands on the neighbor's land, 834 makes it common property. Proportion does not matter. Only a trunk wholly on one lot is one owner's tree.

At the ground, where the trunk enters the soil, against the surveyed line. A leaning trunk can appear to be on one side at eye level and stand on the other at the base.

A licensed land surveyor. Fences, hedges, walls and old agreements are routinely off by a foot or more. The arborist measures the trunk; the surveyor settles the line.

Neither owner may remove or seriously injure the tree without the other's consent; both share responsibility for it; a co-owner who cuts it anyway is liable to the other under Civil Code 3346.

Presumptively, yes, if the fence divides the properties and you give 30 days' written notice with the required contents. The neighbor can rebut the presumption by showing an equal split would be unjust on the facts.

That is the most common rebuttal argument and it can succeed, but only if you can show their tree's roots or limbs caused the damage, as opposed to age, rot or soil movement. An arborist's attribution is the evidence.

Notice of the presumed shared responsibility, a description of the problem, the proposed solution, the estimated cost, the proposed cost allocation, and the proposed timeline. Thirty days before work begins.

The presumption applies to a fence dividing the properties. A fence entirely inside one lot is that owner's; the tree questions are then nuisance and self-help, not 841.

The presumption is of equal benefit and equal cost; a neighbor can rebut it by showing the fence confers little benefit on them, that it is unnecessary, or that the cost is unreasonable. Tree damage caused by the other owner's tree is one more ground.

Only the written agreement that comes out of it, which both parties sign and which is enforceable as a contract. The mediator decides nothing and orders nothing. That is the point: the parties decide.

For view claims in Tiburon, Belvedere, Sausalito, Orinda and Oakland the ordinance requires at least an offer of mediation or a reconciliation attempt before arbitration or court. For everything else it is optional, and judges in small claims ask whether you tried.

County community mediation programs funded under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act are free or charge a small sliding-scale fee. Private mediators charge by the hour; view ordinances generally split that 50/50.

Often. A neutral report both parties have read is what moves a tree mediation from positions to options, and the arborist in the room can answer 'what happens to the tree if we do X' on the spot. $250 per hour.

Document the offer and the refusal. Under the view ordinances that is a required step completed; in small claims it is evidence of your reasonableness; and it often changes the neighbor's mind once a filing follows.

$12,500 for an individual (Code of Civil Procedure 116.221). Businesses and most entities are limited to $6,250. You can sue for more and waive the excess, but you cannot split one claim into several to get under the limit.

No; neither side may be represented by an attorney at the hearing. You can consult one beforehand. An arborist may testify as a witness.

Small claims awards money. It generally cannot order abatement or injunctive relief, so a claim to make the neighbor prune or remove goes to the superior court's civil division, or through a city view ordinance process where one exists.

Yes, at $250 per hour, if the judge is likely to have questions. Most tree cases are decided on the written report, photographs and bids; attendance matters when cause is disputed.

Over the limit. Your insurer pays under your policy and may subrogate against the neighbor; or you file in the civil division with counsel. The Cause and Condition Report serves either path.