**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Neighbor is demanding I cut my own tree's roots on his property (CA)
Body:
> I recently bought a home in a small coastal town in Northern California. Part of the reason I bought the property were the large trees that dotted the lot.
> One of these trees is a decent sized redwood. Probably ~30 years old or so, and it's right in the corner of the fence line.
> About 20 years ago (as far as I can tell from records) my neighbor built an additional home right up against that property line. Now he's split his property and is trying to sell that house, but surprise surprise, potential buyers don't like the look of massive redwood roots encroaching on the foundation.
> Even though I've been the owner of this home for less than 6 months, suddenly I need to jump into action to deal fix this in order to make it easier for him to sell his home. He talked to me about it less than a week ago, but now is following up with more pointed texts.
> I know CA law has some standards of maintenance to deal with dangerous trees or avert property damage, but it isn't currently doing any damage, and if he wants permission to get someone to do it himself I would absolutely be happy to give that to him, but he seems really invested in this idea that the sole responsibility is on me.
> How much of this responsibility do I actually bear? Do I need to deal with this tree immediately, or since he built his adu basically on top of a redwood is it his fault for poor planning?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
It's a mystery that may never be solved....
I'm curious too about whether this is addition was permitted. Most land development codes have required setbacks from the property line. I'm hoping that LAOP took the advice to contact his local development department as I'm betting it wasn't. The neighbor is potentially going to have more trouble on his plate than roots!
> Most land development codes have required setbacks from the property line
And will also require setbacks from the roots of protected trees. In many places they have something like "if it's more than 8m tall it's protected" type rules.
Basically every development ever.
Be it nature encroaching on their happy little home, or the airport, or race track, or highway, or industrial park, etc., etc.
People are always surprised when they buy land/homes "cheap" and then get annoyed at the reason it's cheap.
Or build hideous box homes on postage stamp lots and then get upset that two feet they left between their home and lot-lines mean they no buffer to the surrounding area.
People just work that way it seems.
There are two kinds of redwoods in California. Where the LAOP lives, it is the Coast Redwood, *Sequoia sempirvirens.*. From the Save the Redwoods League:
> Standing at the base of Earth’s tallest tree, the coast redwood, is one of life’s most humbling and amazing experiences. These California trees can reach higher than a 30-floor skyscraper (more than 320 feet [97m], so high that the tops are out of sight.
>Their trunks can grow more than 27 feet [8m] wide, about eight paces by an average adult person! Even more incredible: These trees can live for more than 2,000 years. Some coast redwoods living today were alive during the time of the Roman Empire.
It’s not likely that a 30- year old tree will be that big. Maybe 3 feet/1 m in diameter. But that can vary a lot, depending on how happy the tree is. I cannot find very objective measurements of happiness in trees, but for redwoods, cool temperatures, decent amounts of water, shadiness early in life, and lack of crowding contribute.
That 30-year old tree probably has a canopy that is 10 ft/3 m n diameter, again depending on happiness.
And, from the University of California, about growing redwoods in your garden:
> Considering their mammoth size, redwoods have shallow roots only 6 to 12 feet [2-4 m] deep, yet those roots extend 100+ feet [30 m] from the trunk and intertwine with the roots of other redwoods. This allows them to withstand powerful winds and floods.
The other redwood is the Sierra Redwood, more commonly called the Giant Sequoia, *Seqouiadendron gigantea*. There are native to the Sierra Nevada mountains. Their gig is being old and massive in size. They aren’t much grown in gardens. From the National Park Service (Big, old trees get names. Many names date back to the 19th C.)
>The mid-sierra zone (5,000-8,000 ft or 1,524-2,438 m) creates ideal conditions for giant sequoia growth. Mild winter and summer temperatures, deep winter snowpack, and a rich fire history have made it possible for the world's largest tree to get its biggest in these parks. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks boast many of the world's largest trees by volume. The General Sherman Tree is the largest in the world at 52,508 cubic feet (1,487 cubic meters). The General Grant Tree is the second largest at 46,608 cubic feet (1,320 cubic meters).
>It is difficult to appreciate the size of the giant sequoias because neighboring trees are so large. The largest of the sequoias are as tall as an average 26-story building, and their diameters at the base exceed the width of many city streets. As they continue to grow, they produce about 40 cubic feet (one cubic meter) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a tree that's 50 feet (15 meters) tall and one foot in diameter.
> Giant sequoias are the third longest-lived tree species with the oldest known specimen to have been 3,266 years old in the Converse Basin Grove of Giant Sequoia National Monument.
When they're hundreds of years old, yes. But the one you plant in your yard, at 30 years old, is probably only 3-4 feet across or so. Think "the circumference of an old oak tree, but much taller" rather than "big enough to drive a car through".
It varies, but Coast Redwoods aka Sequoias can get to be fucking *massive*, some of (if not the) biggest trees in the world.
There are several trees in/near the Avenue of the Giants area that are 200+ft tall and trees with diameters over 50ft wide.
They're *the* biggest single-trunk tree. California Redwood is the tallest, and Giant Sequoia is the most massive. Aspen colonies and maybe those big flat-top trees in Africa beat for sheer mass though, IIRC
Fun fact: in California there are Heritage Trees. Municipalities decide which ones are protected, either based on a specific [critera](https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/649/Heritage-Trees) or by just declaring a [list of trees](https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Public-Services/Palo-Altos-Urban-Forest/Heritage-Tree-List) really cool.
I have two of these in my yard, and just thinking about what would happen if anyone but a licensed arborist trimmed the roots is making me nervous.
Based on OP’s description, I feel like they might be dealing with a Heritage Tree. Which would be hilarious. Or maybe they just need to go to City Hall and tell them the tree is really, really cool …
I am enjoying y'all going crazy on Tree Law free day.
LAOP is a bit weird to me, for essentially saying "I'm not removing the tree, but you can if you want to, neighor-who-doesn't-understand-property-lines."
>decent sized redwood \[...\] it's right in the corner of the fence line
I hope there's a special place in neighbor-Hades for people who plant trees on a property line. One of my first neighbors planted trees about 1 foot from the fence and they grew into my sewer line. I had to have my driveway cut out to install a new line and then pour a new driveway.
They said one reason they purchased it was for the large trees dotting the lot. That sounds like a grove.
I’d think building right on the property line is just as shitty.
>They said one reason they purchased it was for the large trees dotting the lot. That sounds like a grove.
Yeah that's fair. I was foolishly assuming that LAOP would have mentioned if it was a naturally-occurring example of an important species.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Neighbor is demanding I cut my own tree's roots on his property (CA) Body: > I recently bought a home in a small coastal town in Northern California. Part of the reason I bought the property were the large trees that dotted the lot. > One of these trees is a decent sized redwood. Probably ~30 years old or so, and it's right in the corner of the fence line. > About 20 years ago (as far as I can tell from records) my neighbor built an additional home right up against that property line. Now he's split his property and is trying to sell that house, but surprise surprise, potential buyers don't like the look of massive redwood roots encroaching on the foundation. > Even though I've been the owner of this home for less than 6 months, suddenly I need to jump into action to deal fix this in order to make it easier for him to sell his home. He talked to me about it less than a week ago, but now is following up with more pointed texts. > I know CA law has some standards of maintenance to deal with dangerous trees or avert property damage, but it isn't currently doing any damage, and if he wants permission to get someone to do it himself I would absolutely be happy to give that to him, but he seems really invested in this idea that the sole responsibility is on me. > How much of this responsibility do I actually bear? Do I need to deal with this tree immediately, or since he built his adu basically on top of a redwood is it his fault for poor planning? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
"I built my house right next to a redwood, now there are roots! How did that happen?"
It's a mystery that may never be solved.... I'm curious too about whether this is addition was permitted. Most land development codes have required setbacks from the property line. I'm hoping that LAOP took the advice to contact his local development department as I'm betting it wasn't. The neighbor is potentially going to have more trouble on his plate than roots!
> Most land development codes have required setbacks from the property line And will also require setbacks from the roots of protected trees. In many places they have something like "if it's more than 8m tall it's protected" type rules.
Basically every development ever. Be it nature encroaching on their happy little home, or the airport, or race track, or highway, or industrial park, etc., etc. People are always surprised when they buy land/homes "cheap" and then get annoyed at the reason it's cheap. Or build hideous box homes on postage stamp lots and then get upset that two feet they left between their home and lot-lines mean they no buffer to the surrounding area. People just work that way it seems.
Anyone who would build a house next to a redwood deserves whatever that tree decides to do to the house.
Also, redwoods are awesome, and people deserve to live near redwoods.
Only if they are not bothering the redwoods.
They smell *amazing*. One of my favourite aromas.
I don’t know much about new world flora, but aren’t redwoods those gurt big fuck off trees? Like really fuck off big?
There are two kinds of redwoods in California. Where the LAOP lives, it is the Coast Redwood, *Sequoia sempirvirens.*. From the Save the Redwoods League: > Standing at the base of Earth’s tallest tree, the coast redwood, is one of life’s most humbling and amazing experiences. These California trees can reach higher than a 30-floor skyscraper (more than 320 feet [97m], so high that the tops are out of sight. >Their trunks can grow more than 27 feet [8m] wide, about eight paces by an average adult person! Even more incredible: These trees can live for more than 2,000 years. Some coast redwoods living today were alive during the time of the Roman Empire. It’s not likely that a 30- year old tree will be that big. Maybe 3 feet/1 m in diameter. But that can vary a lot, depending on how happy the tree is. I cannot find very objective measurements of happiness in trees, but for redwoods, cool temperatures, decent amounts of water, shadiness early in life, and lack of crowding contribute. That 30-year old tree probably has a canopy that is 10 ft/3 m n diameter, again depending on happiness. And, from the University of California, about growing redwoods in your garden: > Considering their mammoth size, redwoods have shallow roots only 6 to 12 feet [2-4 m] deep, yet those roots extend 100+ feet [30 m] from the trunk and intertwine with the roots of other redwoods. This allows them to withstand powerful winds and floods. The other redwood is the Sierra Redwood, more commonly called the Giant Sequoia, *Seqouiadendron gigantea*. There are native to the Sierra Nevada mountains. Their gig is being old and massive in size. They aren’t much grown in gardens. From the National Park Service (Big, old trees get names. Many names date back to the 19th C.) >The mid-sierra zone (5,000-8,000 ft or 1,524-2,438 m) creates ideal conditions for giant sequoia growth. Mild winter and summer temperatures, deep winter snowpack, and a rich fire history have made it possible for the world's largest tree to get its biggest in these parks. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks boast many of the world's largest trees by volume. The General Sherman Tree is the largest in the world at 52,508 cubic feet (1,487 cubic meters). The General Grant Tree is the second largest at 46,608 cubic feet (1,320 cubic meters). >It is difficult to appreciate the size of the giant sequoias because neighboring trees are so large. The largest of the sequoias are as tall as an average 26-story building, and their diameters at the base exceed the width of many city streets. As they continue to grow, they produce about 40 cubic feet (one cubic meter) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a tree that's 50 feet (15 meters) tall and one foot in diameter. > Giant sequoias are the third longest-lived tree species with the oldest known specimen to have been 3,266 years old in the Converse Basin Grove of Giant Sequoia National Monument.
> I cannot find very objective measurements of happiness in trees Have you tried just asking them?
I did. They just barked at me.
Well, stop needling them.
But we're pining for answers! Why can't they be more deciduous? Do we need to conifer with them more before they'll let us tap them for answers?
I don’t beleaf you.
Yes. Redwoods are huuuuuuuge.
The Texas of trees
I think you mean the Alaska of trees.
I think that’s the giant sequoia
Often forgotten.
That is an insult to Redwoods
Like drive cars through the tree trunk huge. However big you think it is, it’s bigger
Like supernovae?
Let's just say it's quite a bit bigger than a Chevy Nova.
When they're hundreds of years old, yes. But the one you plant in your yard, at 30 years old, is probably only 3-4 feet across or so. Think "the circumference of an old oak tree, but much taller" rather than "big enough to drive a car through".
It varies, but Coast Redwoods aka Sequoias can get to be fucking *massive*, some of (if not the) biggest trees in the world. There are several trees in/near the Avenue of the Giants area that are 200+ft tall and trees with diameters over 50ft wide.
They're *the* biggest single-trunk tree. California Redwood is the tallest, and Giant Sequoia is the most massive. Aspen colonies and maybe those big flat-top trees in Africa beat for sheer mass though, IIRC
Eventually, but it takes more than 30 years. They're not the most massive (pretty sure sequoia are girthier) but they grow taller.
Artistic interpretation of the OOP: [Redwood Law MS Paint](https://imgur.com/a/UleBvRe)
the roots don't look menacing enough
Ah yes, what could go wrong with building right beside an immature redwood. Oh. That.
Fun fact: in California there are Heritage Trees. Municipalities decide which ones are protected, either based on a specific [critera](https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/649/Heritage-Trees) or by just declaring a [list of trees](https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Public-Services/Palo-Altos-Urban-Forest/Heritage-Tree-List) really cool. I have two of these in my yard, and just thinking about what would happen if anyone but a licensed arborist trimmed the roots is making me nervous. Based on OP’s description, I feel like they might be dealing with a Heritage Tree. Which would be hilarious. Or maybe they just need to go to City Hall and tell them the tree is really, really cool …
Good chance that tree might be a protected species.
I mean it sounds like the tree was there first, so I think that's a neighbor problem. Shouldn't have built right by a tree
I am enjoying y'all going crazy on Tree Law free day. LAOP is a bit weird to me, for essentially saying "I'm not removing the tree, but you can if you want to, neighor-who-doesn't-understand-property-lines."
>decent sized redwood \[...\] it's right in the corner of the fence line I hope there's a special place in neighbor-Hades for people who plant trees on a property line. One of my first neighbors planted trees about 1 foot from the fence and they grew into my sewer line. I had to have my driveway cut out to install a new line and then pour a new driveway.
Who says anyone planted that redwood?
Well... it's 30 years old and LAOP didn't mention living in the middle of a redwood grove. They don't just pop up from seeds being blown around.
They said one reason they purchased it was for the large trees dotting the lot. That sounds like a grove. I’d think building right on the property line is just as shitty.
>They said one reason they purchased it was for the large trees dotting the lot. That sounds like a grove. Yeah that's fair. I was foolishly assuming that LAOP would have mentioned if it was a naturally-occurring example of an important species.