City of Sammamish Starts Responding to Inglewood Residents’ Questions
Residents must prove their streets were formally open to public use between 1890 and 1895
The City of Sammamish’s Inglewood Right of Way web page is being updated with answers by the city to questions submitted by Inglewood residents. The questions were numerous, but this one stood out to me:
Question: What do you need from residents to make the roads public? We can work to provide the legal information you need to make these roads public.
Answer: The City would need to see evidence that the streets in Inglewood had been formally opened between 1890-1895 for public use (i.e., as a footpath for the public to traverse). If neighbors have legal information that shows the formal opening of the streets within the Inglewood plat for public use between 1890-1895, City staff would be happy to review such information.
As a journalist, I try to refrain from opinion, but I thought this answer from the city was quite tone-deaf. Someone on social media pointed out, did roads even exist in 1890 in Inglewood? The first automobile to arrive in Seattle, and likely Washington State, was in 1900.
After reading through the city’s replies, I decided to explore this legal position the city holds on taking streets public. I am not a lawyer, but I was able to do some simple searches to unearth some hopefully useful information and case studies.
A critical exception that the city ignored.
While the Non-User Statute (RCW 36.87.090) does establish a five-year window for opening county roads, it contains a crucial exception that the city overlooked. The statute explicitly states that its provisions "shall not apply to any highway, road, street, alley, or other public place dedicated as such in any plat, whether the land included in such plat is within or without the limits of an incorporated city or town."
I’m not a lawyer, but I can read English, and I can read a map. The majority of the streets in Inglewood have been treated as public streets since Sammamish’s incorporation in 1999, and before that, King County.
The city's interpretation of law contradicts established legal state precedents.
The Washington Court of Appeals addressed this exact issue in Leonard v. Pierce County, clarifying that "the non-user statute 'vacates' any county road not opened for public use within five years of the order or authority for opening it. But the statute's proviso exempts streets dedicated in a plat from such a non-user vacation."
The court specifically noted that "there is nothing in the statute that bars re-dedication of a previously vacated road." The court explained that the legislature's intent in passing the Non-User Statute was to govern county authority over county roads, not to preclude private landowners from dedicating their lands for public roads. The statute also provides a mechanism, guidelines, and a timeframe, which local governments then use to document the legal jurisdiction records of a road.
There are legal channels for road re-dedication.
There are Washington state precedents that have established formal processes for accepting private roads as public streets:
Woodinville operates under Municipal Code Chapter 12.27 (Ordinance 236, adopted 1999), which allows the city to "accept dedication of private streets that do not meet current City standards" when "100 percent of all the vested owners of the private street have signed" a petition and meet specific criteria including pavement surface requirements and emergency vehicle access.
Mukilteo has similar provisions under Chapter 12.26 (Ordinance 1314, adopted 2012), requiring unanimous property owner consent and establishing clear standards for road width, construction quality, and utility infrastructure.
Washington's legislative framework explicitly provides for road dedication through the platting process. RCW 58.17, which codifies land use and governance, defines dedication as "the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses" and specifies that "acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing by the appropriate governmental unit."
A Washington State Attorney General opinion confirms this principle, stating that "when the county commissioners by appropriate action approve a proposed plat without reservation concerning the roads designated therein, those roads become county roads."
It will take political will. And a good land-use attorney.
The City of Sammamish claims there is no formal legal process to dedicate the Inglewood streets to the public. How did the city attorney miss these examples that my simple search found?
I’m sure there are more that my research missed, but these few examples prove that Washington municipalities have indeed accepted roads when property owners petition unanimously for inclusion, or through dedication.
Good luck to Inglewood residents at the June 12th meeting. Coming to a resolution will take a lot of effort, coordination, and TIME. Demand more time. I hope the city and our elected officials recognize how unrealistic a 30-day notice is.
There is also an upcoming City Council Regular meeting on Tuesday, June 3, 2025, where you can make public comment. Please check the link for details and how you can address the City Council.
It will take political will and organization, with Inglewood homeowners at the seat of the table with the city, to find a resolution.
It can be done. It must be done.
This article is based on my interpretation of publicly available legal documents and court decisions. Affected Inglewood residents should consult with a qualified land-use attorney familiar with Washington State municipal code and statutes.
There is an effort on Facebook to organize and advocate for Inglewood residents: Inglewood Pothole Patrol. Even though I don’t live in Inglewood, I’ve joined this group because I think this is not just a problem isolated to Inglewood’s residents. The stance the city has taken on this issue should be of concern to all Sammamish residents.
In other news: The pre-release presentation of the Draft Town Center Plan and DSEIS is on the Agenda for the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025.
From the agenda:
Based on the findings of the DSEIS, feedback/comment received during the comment period, and analysis supporting the plan update efforts, at the July 15th City Council meeting, staff will ask the Council to choose one of the alternatives or an option between the 2,000 and 4,000 housing unit thresholds.
Sammamish Local News will continue to update its readers on this SEIS process and its implications on the Town Center Plan.
All Sammamish Local News articles can be found on Sammamish Local News’ Facebook page. If you are on Facebook, please follow!