Photo courtesy of the city of Sammamish The city of Sammamish issued stop work orders to the county on June 16 ordering the county to stop work being done at the intersections of the East Lake Sammamish Trail with 206th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 33rd Street. This does not stop construction in the rest of the southern segment of the trail.

King County and the city of Sammamish find themselves once again in litigation over issues regarding the East Lake Sammamish Trail.

The 11-mile trail connecting Redmond to Issaquah is part of a larger regional trail system that connects Seattle to the Eastside and the Cascade Foothills. There are three segments in the city of Sammamish.

Last week, King County filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city seeking a declaratory judgment to determine if the city’s alleged “attempts to interfere” with the county’s construction on the southern segment of the trail violates state and federal law, according to court documents.

The heart of the lawsuit, filed June 14 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, revolves around two points along the southern segment of the trail where two city streets, 206th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 33rd Street, intersect with the trail.

Both roads dead-end. Two-hundred-sixth Avenue Southeast serves 15 homes generating around 180 trips per day while Southeast 33rd Street is one of three access points for 46 homes generating around 552 trips per day, according to King County Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Brown. “By contrast, original design estimates for the [East Lake Sammamish Trail] have projected between 2,500 and 4,000 trail users would cross these intersections on peak days and newer estimates are even higher,” court documents read.

As part of its plan to widen and pave the trail, the county wanted to work in these intersections, changing the placement of the stop controls so that trail users would have the right of way. This is for safety reasons, Brown said.

But in order to do so it needed a right of way permit, according to the clearing and grading permit the city issued to the county in October 2016.

The county, however, is not convinced it needs a right of way permit.

“After reviewing the relevant documents, the County’s position is that these [right of way] permit requirements do not apply to these two crossings because they are not within the City’s right-of-way,” Brown wrote in a six-page letter to City Manager Lyman Howard on May 23. “… It goes without saying that the City does not have authority to require a [right of way] permit for activities on property owned or controlled by the County.”

Brown went on to say that the city “lacks the property interest” to require such permits “because the railroad retained all rights to use the property for railroad purposes and … granted only a limited right to cross the corridor.”

“The act of railbanking [which was done under the National Trails Systems Act] preserved all of the property and ownership rights formerly held by the railroad and they were passed on to the County,” Brown wrote. “In addition, the railbanking process added the right to construct and operate a trail within the railroad corridor.”

Brown also went on to say that the county would continue with its plan to work in these intersections.

The county had applied for right of way permits in early May “[a]s a sign of good faith and to minimize additional delays,” according to court documents.

The application included a disclaimer that stated “King County does not waive, and intends to fully preserve, all rights King County possesses to the Corridor, including its ownership and control of the Corridor at issue in this permit application as well as other portions of the Corridor.”

“King County does not concede that any permit is required from the City to undertake work or modify traffic control in the area of the Corridor at issue,” according to the disclaimer. “Nor does King County agree that the City has any power to impose conditions on the County as part of any process to review or issue such permit.”

Brown later withdrew that permit application in the May 23 letter.

In a nine-page response on June 9, Howard called Brown’s letter “the latest of several recent examples where you have directly and materially contradicted in writing earlier statements you or your subordinates have made to the City regarding the [trail].”

“Given that you have expressly withdrawn the County’s required [right of way] permit application, the County will now need to submit a new permit application before any work in the 206th Avenue SE or SE 33rd Street [right of way] will be authorized,” Howard wrote. “… Moreover, without the required [right of way] permit, the County will likely be in violation of the conditions of approval of the [clearing and grading] permit …. Because of your actions, the City is forced to consider suspending the [clearing and grading] permit and instituting proceedings to revoke it under [the Sammamish Municipal Code].”

Howard also claimed that the city does indeed have the right to require the permit, as the city inherited the easements from the county when the city incorporated.

Brown maintains these are only “limited rights.”

“If the County genuinely disputed the City’s right to demand a [right of way] permit, it should have, and could have, raised it months ago by appealing the [clearing and grading] permit conditions,” Howard wrote.

Howard went on to say that the city would issue stop work orders if the county worked in the intersections without a right of way permit.

“I hope you can sense from this response that my Staff and I are disheartened, to put it mildly, by the constantly shifting positions and combative posture assumed by the County,” Howard wrote.

Brown replied on June 14 by reiterating the county’s belief that the city “does not have the authority to require a right-of-way permit or otherwise mandate control signage at these intersections because the City’s rights are limited by the plain language of the crossing easements themselves.”

“Because you indicate that the City is determined not only to issue a stop work order, but also to suspend or revoke the clearing and grading permit, King County has no choice but to take legal action,” Brown wrote.

The county filed the lawsuit the same day Brown sent this letter.

“Unless the City issues a stop work order, King County will be proceeding with its plans to pave [the southern portion] of the trail this week (if the weather allows it), and subsequently, to install stamped concrete across the intersections,” Brown wrote. “Should the City respond to this work by red tagging the project and attempting to suspend or revoke the clearing and grading permit, we will have no choice but to amend the complaint to hold the City liable for all resulting damages.”

Brown went on to say that “red tagging” would cause “unnecessary delay and increased expense.”

The county did continue its work last week and so the city issued a Notice and Order to Abate as well as put up stop work orders at the sites on June 16.

The county has since stopped work at these intersections.





