Residents tell council city code enforcement failed after construction damaged trees, yards; staff named inspector responsive

Two Sammamish residents told the council they have suffered property damage after a neighboring demolition and construction project allegedly failed to comply with permit protections for trees and soil.

Shelley Franklin said she and neighbor Tia Towne hired an arborist and a geotechnical engineer who concluded excavation damaged tree roots that later caused multiple trees to topple onto Ms. Franklin’s property. Franklin said, “The roots were destroyed, 2 to 3 feet of supporting soil was excavated out from under it, and as predicted, the tree fell onto my house doing significant damage.” She said other trees marked for removal were not protected and that excavator operators drove within inches of trunks for weeks.

Franklin said the pair submitted an arborist report and a geotechnical assessment to city staff; the city agreed that one high‑risk landmark tree should be removed but did not provide a timeline. She said corrections posted on mybuildingpermit.com on Dec. 3 required work within 48 hours, and that as of the meeting date not all corrections were complete. Franklin told the council she and Towne had to hire independent consultants at their own expense and asked whether civil penalties would be assessed. She said staff told them the city’s civil penalties for unlawful removal or damage to significant trees do not apply to trees under an active permit.

Towne added that excavations had removed root balls and cut into her property lines, that the contractor pumped standing water toward Pine Lake through silt fencing, and that they were concerned future storms could topple compromised trees. Both women said Joey Tedler in the city inspection division “has been extremely responsive and very helpful,” while they sought broader city enforcement and written guidance on remedies and timelines.

What the speakers asked the council to do: The pair requested council guidance on enforcement options, clarification of civil‑penalty applicability where permitted work allegedly caused damage, and assurance the city will enforce permit conditions proactively to prevent further property or environmental damage. They also said they would submit their documents to the public record.

Council response and follow up: Council did not take formal action at the meeting. Staff did not make a public technical response during the session beyond acknowledging receipt of the complaint; Franklin said the inspection division had made some corrections but that deadlines had not all been met. The speakers requested that the council direct staff to provide a clear written timeline for required corrections, to explain whether penalties can be applied where damage occurred during permitted work, and to confirm what remedies are available to adjacent property owners.