Residents Debate Town Center: 4,000‑unit Option, Traffic and Environment Draw Strong Public Comment

Dozens of Sammamish residents used the public comment period at the July 1 Sammamish City Council meeting to press competing views of a proposed Town Center amendment that includes studying an increase to 4,000 residential units.

Speakers from across the city said the planning choice matters because it will shape traffic, the natural environment and the availability of housing for seniors, teachers and other workers. Several commenters urged the council to rely on updated data; others said the council should put the proposal to a citywide vote.

The comments illustrated two broad lines of argument. Supporters said increased housing could help the city provide more affordable and diverse options and support a viable, walkable town center. Carrie Bosworth, a Sammamish resident, described the outcome for her father after he moved into an affordable unit in Bellevue and said the 4,000‑unit option “sounded like a thoughtful and creative way to help achieve our affordable housing goals.” Paul Stickney, who framed citywide housing as four types by price bands, urged the city to quantify internal housing needs before choosing an option.

Opponents stressed traffic, environmental and character concerns. Multiple speakers asked for updated traffic data and questioned projections used in earlier environmental reports. Don Jaren said the 2007 Town Center environmental impact statement’s traffic projections should be revisited against current conditions and calculations. Several speakers raised environmental worries about tree removal, soil compaction and habitat loss if dense development is concentrated in currently wooded areas; Sam Parton argued tree thinning can weaken forests and urged more independent environmental oversight.

Arguments over process and scope recurred. Some residents said the 4,000‑unit option was not widely understood in the community; Isabelle Miracco urged the council to put the change to a citywide vote and said many residents “feel like they don’t have a way of expressing it.” Other speakers, including Steve Christensen, said the city should use evidence and that concentrating growth is consistent with the Growth Management Act’s intent to reduce sprawl.

Speakers also pushed for practical connectivity changes that could make walking and biking safer and more useful regardless of the town center outcome. Mary Wichter highlighted neighborhood cul‑de‑sac connectivity and encouraged pilots to create walking links; she said the city contains “over 750 dead end cul de sacs” that, if connected at selected points, could increase walkability. Several commenters pressed for clearer transit funding commitments before approving higher densities, saying transit viability is necessary to realize the town‑center vision.

No formal action on the Town Center amendment was taken at the meeting; the remarks were part of the public comment period that the council held before agenda business. The council took no vote on the 4,000‑unit alternative during the meeting and made no administrative direction recorded in the minutes.

Council members had not yet debated or decided changes to the Town Center alternatives during the meeting. The public comments will be part of the record for planning staff and the council as they continue environmental and policy review of Town Center alternatives.