San Francisco homeowner Paul Dennes has been fined thousands of dollars for illegal tree work after trimming street trees outside his property in an effort to satisfy an insurance requirement.
Dennes, whose family has owned their Panhandle home for more than three decades, was told by his broker that he would need to trim trees near the building to secure coverage. He proceeded to cut back five trees outside his unit, including branches he said were brushing against the structure and nearby power lines.
“I wanted to get them out of the power lines. I didn't want to be responsible for that,” Dennes told ABC7’s On Your Side.
Days later, the San Francisco Department of Public Works issued the first in a series of citations that initially totaled $50,000 for illegal pruning.
City officials said the trees were located within a public right-of-way and therefore fall under Public Works’ jurisdiction. Under San Francisco’s StreetTreeSF program, which took effect in 2017, the city is responsible for maintaining more than 125,000 street trees and repairing related sidewalk damage, funded by a voter-approved parcel tax. Damaging or improperly pruning a street tree – including “topping,” where large branches are cut back to stubs – is prohibited and can result in fines.
In Dennes’ case, the agency initially proposed penalties of $10,000 per tree, arguing that the work had so severely damaged the canopy that the trees would need to be removed entirely. An urban forestry inspector concluded the trees had been topped, shortening their expected lifespan.
“As stewards of San Francisco's urban forest, it is our job to hold people accountable when they harm or damage a street tree,” Public Works told ABC7.
The enforcement action reflects the value municipalities place on urban trees. Studies of California’s street trees have estimated that they are collectively worth billions of dollars and generate around $1 billion a year in benefits, including energy savings and improved air quality, with maintenance spending producing a multiple return in public value.
Christopher Campbell, a certified arborist and owner of CC Tree Design, told ABC7 that fines of this size can surprise residents.
“I know that the fines have been going up. $10,000 a tree seems like a lot of money,” he said, adding that confusion over who owns and is responsible for trees near homes is common.
Public Works has since reduced Dennes’ penalty to $6,475, on the condition that he follow a city-approved pruning plan with a certified arborist.
Authorities noted that fines for unauthorized tree work are not unusual in US cities, particularly where public land or protected areas are involved. In Washington state, King County is suing homeowners and real estate agents accused of illegally cutting or damaging more than 140 trees on protected public land to improve their views, and is seeking millions of dollars in damages.
In many jurisdictions, trees that appear to form part of a property’s frontage are in fact located in the public right-of-way and are treated as regulated public assets. In San Francisco, street trees in these zones fall under the Bureau of Urban Forestry, and residents are instructed not to carry out pruning without permission.
Dennes maintained that he cut the trees to comply with insurance conditions rather than to alter views or landscaping.
However, city officials said tree rules are communicated through online resources, including a street tree map and pruning standards, as well as via mailers and notices. Dennes said he was unaware of those rules.
Homeowners’ policies typically require policyholders to maintain their property and address obvious hazards; failure to manage a dangerous tree could, in some circumstances, expose a homeowner to liability if it later causes damage or injury. At the same time, intervening on a city-owned tree without authorization can trigger enforcement and substantial fines.
Tree-related disputes frequently cross municipal tree law, utility safety rules, private property rights and insurance contracts. In many areas, utilities are responsible for vegetation management around their lines within easements and advise residents not to undertake their own pruning near power lines because of safety and liability concerns.
The case underscores the need for clarity when advising clients to deal with vegetation or other hazards as a condition of coverage. Vague instructions to “address” tree risks may not be sufficient in dense urban markets where trees are more likely to be public assets managed under strict rules.
Urban trees are increasingly treated as part of critical infrastructure, with research estimating that trees in major US cities represent a structural asset worth hundreds of billions of dollars and provide billions more in annual ecosystem services. That economic framing helps explain why municipalities are willing to enforce strong protections and impose high penalties for unauthorized work, according to the report.
