Sammamish planners review draft Town Center SEIS and code updates as council readies alternative selection

Sammamish Planning Commission members examined a draft supplemental environmental impact statement and associated code updates for the city’s Town Center at an unusual Wednesday meeting on June 18. City staff and consultant Jeff Arango of Framework reviewed two SEIS alternatives — a “no action” baseline that models roughly 2,000 Town Center residential units and an “action” alternative that models roughly 4,000 units — and described proposed zoning, street‑design and incentive changes meant to make higher‑density multifamily development more feasible.

The draft SEIS, posted June 9, focuses its environmental analysis on land use, housing and transportation, city staff said, and the formal comment period runs through July 9. “An EIS is really a tool for decision making and a conduit for public input,” Arango told commissioners, adding that written comments received during the public comment period will inform a final SEIS and any refinements to the plan or code.

Why it matters: the Town Center plan and its implementing code have shaped what development is permitted there for almost two decades. Planning staff and consultants told commissioners that the existing code and several unique features (including an atypical system of development credits and density allocations) have contributed to low Town Center housing production and to a pattern of predominantly for‑sale townhomes rather than the mixed housing and ground‑floor retail that the plan envisioned.

What staff proposed and why. Framework described a streamlined set of zoning districts (an urban core, an urban mix and a middle‑housing/garden zone) and a hybrid form‑based code that emphasizes building‑to‑street relationships, frontages, and street types. The draft would reduce the number of special subzones, remove explicit commercial caps that currently constrain mixed‑use projects, and introduce clearer street and frontage standards. In the draft, the urban core retains modest ground‑floor retail requirements; the urban mix allows stand‑alone residential buildings without required first‑floor commercial uses; and middle‑housing zones would allow townhouses, small apartments and 6‑plexes.

Consultants and staff repeatedly said the existing code produces a mismatch between numeric standards on paper (for example, some zones list a 40‑units‑per‑acre “maximum”) and the practical yield and building forms developers can achieve without buying limited transfer‑of‑development‑rights (TDR) credits. Commissioners and staff pointed to the Sky Apartments and the Met Market parcel as examples of how site assembly or TDR purchases have driven the few permitted mid‑rise projects, while most other parcels have been developed as townhomes.

Housing capacity and feasibility. Framework said its high‑end modeling can reach roughly 4,000 units in the Town Center when assumptions about available land, public improvements and incentive use are applied; staff cautioned that site‑level feasibility (construction costs, interest rates, parking, and financing) remains a key constraint. Consultant materials showed that from 2008 through February 2024 the Town Center accounted for about 326 housing units, and that current local housing prices are high (a slide in the presentation reported median price multiples of about 13.3 times median income). Commissioners and members of the public warned that without changes the market will continue to produce mostly for‑sale townhomes, which in Sammamish have been selling for roughly $1.5–$2.5 million and do not address the city’s stated goals for more varied, market‑rate multifamily housing.

Incentives, affordability and tools. The draft code package includes proposals to update the city’s affordable‑housing program and to offer a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) with 8‑ or 12‑year terms tied to affordability. Framework noted that in some modeling the MFTE plus affordability commitments can materially improve project returns. The consultants also noted the dwindling number of available TDR credits and described their trade‑offs: properties that acquire TDRs can achieve higher yields but the credits are limited and have been purchased by early entrants.

Parking and state law. The draft code incorporates recent state parking reforms that limit how much parking local governments may require; the proposal shows minimums drawn from state statute (for example, 0.5 stalls per multifamily unit as a minimum requirement). Staff emphasized the state rules set minimums only and that developers, lenders and retail tenants typically require additional parking to match market needs.

Streets, public space, and a new “eco factor.” Staff described updated form‑based street standards and a point‑based “Sammamish Eco Factor” that would award development credits for integrated green infrastructure (green roofs, tree canopy, stormwater features) and allowed some of those credits to be earned in the public right‑of‑way. Consultants pointed to examples in Kirkland and parts of Seattle where similar scoring systems drove higher‑quality streetscape and landscape outcomes.

Critical areas and open space. Framework and staff said existing critical‑areas rules remain in force: wetlands, streams and buffer protections are not proposed to be relaxed as part of the Town Center update. Commissioners asked about trail access, daylighting streams, and opportunities for restoration or integrated open‑space design; staff said buffers could be used for trail connections in some circumstances but that the underlying critical‑area protections would continue to apply.

Public input and participant comments. Resident Paul Stickney urged the commission and city to “Add 5,000 b and c to the comp plan, readjust town center alternatives based on market rate and affordable needs,” arguing that a larger yield is needed to provide diverse housing types. Several commissioners and the consultant repeatedly urged clearer public communication about what the current code actually allows versus the Town Center images residents may see in outreach materials.

Timeline and next steps. The SEIS comment period closes July 9. Staff will publish the draft code the week after the meeting and present a recommendation to City Council on July 15, when council is scheduled to select a preferred alternative (no action, action, or a hybrid). Planning staff said the city expects to refine the draft code and respond to comments during July and August and tentatively schedule a public hearing on the plan and code for Sept. 4.

Votes at a glance - Motion to extend the meeting to 9:00 p.m.: motion and second recorded; voice vote, passed (names not specified). - Motion to adjourn: motion and second recorded; voice vote, passed (names not specified).

Ending note: Commissioners and staff said additional public outreach is planned (open houses and online materials) and again encouraged written comments on the draft SEIS by July 9. Staff and Framework will return to the Planning Commission for code review in August and for the public‑hearing process in the fall.