Fauntleroy tree ‘encroachment’: Reminder to check before cutting

| Fauntleroy | West Seattle news | West Seattle parks

Story and photos by Keri DeTore
Reporting for West Seattle Blog

Walking through Fauntleroy Park one day last fall, Steve Hodson was surprised to hear the sound of chainsaws. Walking toward the south ridge of the park, he came upon a tree-cutting company taking down trees and dropping the debris on a recently restored hillside, crushing the new vegetation.

Hodson, who has been a park steward for many years, pointed out to the tree-cutters that they were dropping debris on a newly restored site.

This native restoration project, installed by Steve Richmond of GardenCycles along with the city, was clearly denoted by multiple orange flags (which are still visible in the photos, among the debris). Hodson said: “I was told they’d clean it up, but when I came back the next morning, more trees had been cut and the slash piles were still there.”

Hodson contacted the Parks Department about the damaged trees and restoration site. The city recently sent out a survey crew, which determined that the trees taken down were on park property. Property stakes denoting the line between the private and public property had been moved, but the city doesn’t know when or by whom.

Encroachment onto park land from private property that abuts it is a persistent issue, one that City Forester Mark Mead says happens “over the long-term. There are numerous encroachments throughout the city. (Boundaries) get fuzzy through property owners.”

Terry Dunning of Seattle Parks visited the site and added that encroachment “happens all the time. (Boundary lines) get misrepresented. We don’t know that the homeowner did anything wrong.” The remaining debris is now Parks Department property and they will determine what to do with it. Terry Dunning said, “We may chip it and spread through the park.”

In the meantime, the city will likely work out an agreement with the homeowner to replace the damaged vegetation on the restoration site.

Dunning adds, as a caution to homeowners, “Certain trees require a permit to cut, even on private property. It’s important to check with the Department of Planning and Development to determine what those requirements are.” Information on city regulations, and how to research your property, can be found here.

coffee February 21, 2011 (9:57 pm)

Apparently the “tree company” was not very qualified if they did this kind of damage.

stuart February 21, 2011 (10:35 pm)

If the city is not pursuing the perpetrators legally, that is saying that it was not illegal to cut the trees.

JT February 21, 2011 (11:18 pm)

That is crap the trees fell onto park property they should have to pay for all the cost and labor that went into that restoration project!!!

waterworld February 21, 2011 (11:55 pm)

Stuart: No, they are not saying it’s not illegal. They are merely letting the perpetrators get away with it, and thereby saying “crime pays.”

CandrewB February 22, 2011 (5:51 am)

I bet he/she paid by the tree removal company by credit card or check. Mayor Sierra Club, you just going to let this go?

redblack February 22, 2011 (6:26 am)

what does the mayor have to do with this?
.
oh, i see. it happened in seattle city limits, so we have another opportunity to smack mcginn around.

Ken February 22, 2011 (6:54 am)

I say never let an opportunity to smack McBicycle around pass you by.

I was betting on him being ineffective but I had hoped he would not consider driving up the cost of the tunnel as a goal…

redblack February 22, 2011 (7:12 am)

well, at least you’re honest in your intentions, no matter how misguided.

we can take the tunnel conversation over here and out of fairmount park, and you can explain to me me how mcginn drove up the cost of the tunnel.

CandrewB February 22, 2011 (7:27 am)

redblack, this has nothing to do with the tunnel. You made a wrong assumption. This has to do with being the boss. Why are Seattle’s investitgatory powers letting this go? It appears a homeowner hired a company to cut down trees in a city park and additionally damaged prior conservation efforts. This statement: ““happens all the time. (Boundary lines) get misrepresented. We don’t know that the homeowner did anything wrong.” Uh huh, oh well, since holding someone accountable may require effort, let’s just let bygones be bygones and spend city funds to clean up the mess.

WSRes February 22, 2011 (7:53 am)

This is pretty obnoxious. The property owners had clearly decided that they could handle paying a fine in exchange for a better view. After destroying these park trees they seem to have gotten off Scott free and the publicity now encourages others around the city to do the same. This should really be handled in both a civil court with a suit for actual and punitive damages and with a criminal citation for vandalism of public property. Who in the parks department and prosecutors office is reading this blog and would like to respond?

Yardvark February 22, 2011 (8:46 am)

Such a shame. Do we not know the name and owner of the tree company?

KatherineL February 22, 2011 (8:57 am)

This kind of thing infuriates me. The property owner cut down MY trees – OK, our trees – and gets away with it? “An agreement to replace” sounds pretty watered down. Heaven knows what he/she will actually do, if anything. If Steve Hodson hadn’t happened to be walking by just then, they’d have got away with it.

mpento February 22, 2011 (9:19 am)

Well done Steve Hodson, I would not have noticed the problem even if I walked by it. Thanks for making the effort to follow up on it too.

JAT February 22, 2011 (9:20 am)

Washington Case Law allows for treble damages for intentional destruction of trees (and trees are more economically valuable than one might think).

But the real problem I have with this is that while many would like to starve the beast amd make government get out of our lives, the record is rife with examples of private corporations doing a slipshod job in the name of expedience and cost savings and callously offloading the costs of their actions onto the public.

Steve Richmond February 22, 2011 (10:06 am)

As the contractor who previously restored that part of Fauntleroy Park, I viewed the damage, and though it was a mistake to cut non-hazard trees in the context of declining city forests, I have to say it was an honest mistake that we could attribute to the enthusiasm of new ownership. City park boundaries are generally not well defined (no budget), and the previous owner we worked with incorrectly defined his boundary to my crew in the same way the new owner understood. The encroaching landscaping/lights/irrigation into the park easily created this incorrect assumption. I spoke to the new homeowner and am convinced he wants to make things right.
The point I would like to make is that this graphic example of tree loss doesn’t compare to the apparent indifference the threat invasive plants pose to our city forests. English ivy, holly, laurel, and Himalayan blackberry are smothering the natural growth of a native ecosystem, and collectively, city government and private citizens are not adequately addressing the threat that could leave us landslide-prone slopes, disease-prone plant communities, and declining property values and quality of life in a very short decade or so.
The Bigleaf Maples that make up city forests are nearing the end of their life cycle, and holly stems alone now outnumber native tree seedlings 9 to 1. We have to figure out incentives to encourage all landowners to proactively care for their land without criminalizing everyone.
By the way, the current owner did clear blackberry and holly at the same time the tree-cutting mistakes were made.

WSB February 22, 2011 (10:22 am)

Thanks, Steve. Some of the points you make are why our story does not call out the owner specifically, or the tree company, for that matter. When this was brought to our attention, we talked about the situation’s various aspects and decided in the end that reporting it was a matter of trying to be informative/educational, rather than saying “Oh my gosh, look at this horrific thing that happened, let’s go pillory somebody.” – TR

KatherineL February 22, 2011 (11:22 am)

OK, Steve and WSB, I won’t pillory the owner this time. But not all incursions on public land are honest mistakes. May I pillory those others? :-)

WSRes February 22, 2011 (11:32 am)

Quoting Steve “the previous owner we worked with incorrectly defined his boundary to my crew in the same way the new owner understood”. If this is true then the title insurance that was obtained upon purchase of the house should cover these damages. This is exactly what title insurance is for. It may also compensate the new home owner for the land that they thought they bought/owned, but is actually owned by the city.

Nulu February 22, 2011 (11:42 am)

Encroachment is common and unforgiven by ignorance.
Parks points out that boundary markers get moved and removed without mentioning the motive. I wonder why property owners choose to be ignorant?
Property owners who claim to not know where their property ends and other property starts have no business cutting anything.
All property information is available online at King County and Seattle DPD, Steve Richmond and all others should check this before doing anything.

madashell February 22, 2011 (1:49 pm)

I just want to commend Steve and his crews (and Seattle Parks who contracts with them) for doing the right thing for our native habitat. They just completed a big job on the pocket park at the end of 35th Ave SW and MVD. He’s right about invasive plants. When we bought our house there was a telephone pole that was so engulfed with ivy it essentially became a tree.

As for *&!#$@ who cut down trees on public property, grrrr!

redblack February 22, 2011 (3:03 pm)

andrew: they mayor has nothing to do with this. the city has agencies that handle – or don’t handle – these situations.
.
and if mcginn did respond to this, 10-to-1 there would be a chorus of private property rights advocates piling on.
.
there’s a huge contingent of axe-grinders here on WSB who bash the mayor for any reason they can think of.

CandrewB February 22, 2011 (3:54 pm)

McGinn is not in charge of city agencies, check.

Chris February 22, 2011 (7:36 pm)

If we are required to “call before digging”, then certainly we should be required to call before cutting.

Mike February 22, 2011 (8:02 pm)

I would like to echo Steve’s comment regarding the invasive plants taking over and killing our urban forests. It is always sad when trees are cut down, but even more damage is being done by invasive plant species.

I would like to suggest, if you haven’t already, volunteering occassionaly for Green Seattle Partnership work parties. They are all over the city, including West Seattle, and the work being done is amazing. Check out http://www.greenseattle.org for opportunities.

redblack February 23, 2011 (1:05 am)

andrew: well, let’s see. this tree encroachment happened in fauntleroy park. when i enter “fauntleroy park” in the search bar at seattle.gov, it takes me to
.
Seattle Parks and Recreation
100 Dexter Ave N Seattle, WA 98109
General Parks Information
(206) 684-4075 | TTY (206) 233-1509
.
that doesn’t look like the mayor’s office. oh, here we go:
.
BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
.
The Seattle Board of Park Commissioners is a volunteer advisory board established by ordinance. The Board consults with and makes recommendations to City Council, the Mayor, and the Superintendent regarding the Parks and Recreation Department’s policies for the planning, development and use of the City’s park and recreation facilities.
.
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkboard/default.asp
.
i’d start there. or maybe the city arborist, DPD, DCLU… none of which are the mayor. if these agencies can’t or won’t help, then go to mayor sierra club – but only because the agencies in charge aren’t doing their jobs.
.
or is it like this?
.
“oh, no! a cyclist was just injured by a car on the ballard bridge!”
.
“what?! call the mayor! he rides a bike! what is he going to do about this?!“

sean February 23, 2011 (5:53 am)

Honest mistake or not there should be a penalty. If this were Bellevue they would have been slapped with a treble damages fine, honest mistake or not.

CandrewB February 23, 2011 (7:30 am)

Up til one in the morning doin the research, huh..? The City Forester and Seattle Parks were notified; will likely do nothing. I once did a Cop ride-a-long years back, the officer received a call over the radio informing him Mayor Nickles himself called in about some debris on the Bridge. This officer threw on the lights and reached speeds of 60 down Delridge to get to it. Two other officers were already there taking care of the matter. Don’t tell me the Mayor cannot do anything about the illegal cutting down of trees on City property. Knowing how this usually goes, I give you the last word.

redblack February 23, 2011 (8:22 am)

i couldn’t sleep, but thanks for asking.
.
i didn’t say hizzoner can’t do anything; i said he shouldn’t be culpable for doing nothing until the agencies in charge fail to perform their jobs.

CJ5000 March 2, 2011 (1:15 pm)

Uhh, this is not ‘exactly what title insurance is for’. Whether a claim could be made under the homeowners title insurance policy would depend upon the type of coverage purchased and whether the encroachments were disclosed in the title commitment or supplemental title report.

Sorry, comment time is over.