Sammamish staff to study impacts of up-to-4,000-unit Town Center alternative; public raises traffic, schools and evacuation concerns

Sammamish City staff told the Planning Commission on Feb. 20 that they will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and draft Town Center code updates after receiving more than 200 written comments on the SEIS scope. The SEIS scoping will compare a no-action alternative tied to the current Town Center plan (about 2,000 residential units) with an action alternative that would study accommodating up to 4,000 units and potential increases in building height in the core area.

The SEIS kickoff was presented by Matt Brandmeier, the city’s deputy director of community development, who said the purpose is “to study capacity and environmental impacts and then potentially how would we mitigate those impacts.” Brandmeier said the City Council directed staff to move forward with the posted scope and asked staff to evaluate at least one additional alternative and to disclose study results to the public before the council makes any decision.

Why this matters: The Town Center occupies a central role in the city’s effort to expand housing types and affordable units while also preserving public amenities. Residents and commissioners said the SEIS should examine transportation, school and public-service capacity, utilities and stormwater, environmental impacts (including tree canopy and wildlife), and emergency evacuation and response for wildfire and earthquake scenarios.

Staff described the process and timeline. The city posted scoping materials in early January and received 200-plus responses by the end of the month. Brandmeier said the draft SEIS is tentatively scheduled for release and commission review in early May, followed by draft zoning and code review in June and July and a targeted adoption timeframe in October. The SEIS approach will include a gap analysis against the 2007 Final EIS and 2008 Town Center plan to identify what has changed and what elements need fresh study.

On technical scope, David Pyle (on-line), who answered SEIS questions, said the review will compare current conditions with the 2006–07 analysis and then identify where “there might be a different impact or a different change in condition.” Pyle said the review will likely cover the standard SEPA elements (referencing WAC 197-11) but that elements with no material change since the 2007 study would not be redundantly restudied.

Alternatives: Staff described two primary alternatives for the SEIS: - No-action (baseline): the existing plan and zoning that informed the 2007 FEIS, generally tied to a capacity of about 2,000 Town Center units and the code and design standards now in place. - Action alternative (studied in the notice): an option to study accommodating up to 4,000 units in the Town Center overall and potentially increased building heights in a limited core area (the A1 zone). Brandmeier said the action alternative would be tied to a set of proposed code changes (including a hybrid form-based code) and administrative streamlining to reduce redundant entitlement steps.

Staff stressed the city’s stated objective: to use tools and incentives so that additional capacity, if adopted, yields a greater share of smaller and affordable units than the market is currently producing. Pyle and Brandmeier said many of the current incentives that produced affordable units—such as the city’s affordable bonus pool and available transfer-of-development rights (TDR) credits—have largely been used up by projects already in entitlement, limiting the existing ways to secure affordable units without new policy or code changes.

Public comments and commission concerns: More than a dozen residents spoke during public comment and most raised similar concerns: increased traffic and gridlock on State Route 202/228 and plateau access; emergency evacuation and wildfire risk; school capacity (the Town Center is within Lake Washington School District); adequacy of utilities and stormwater systems; loss of tree canopy and neighborhood character; and the scale and visibility of taller buildings. Sample remarks included: - Paul Stickney, resident, said the city has “an extreme shortage” of smaller and mid-priced housing and urged study of how to meet that demand. - Cooey Golding, resident, said, “I am not opposed to the town center… But when I think of that many residential people … I’m really concerned about what would happen if there’s an emergency and we have to get off this plateau.” - Heather Murphy Raines, resident, cited wildfire and evacuation concerns and urged commissioners to read the 200 public comments submitted to the council.

Commissioners asked staff for guidance on the appropriate level of study and public communication. Commissioners requested clearer messaging so residents do not read the scoping notice as a “done deal,” and asked staff to consider additional alternatives that fall between the 2,000- and 4,000-unit options, and to show visual examples of proposed building heights and footprints. Several commissioners suggested separating emergency preparedness and disaster-response analysis from general transportation modeling to ensure evacuation capacity is examined explicitly.

Data and scope details staff cited: Brandmeier said 62% of scoping respondents raised traffic and road-capacity concerns; 39% raised school-capacity concerns; 36% mentioned infrastructure and utilities; 26% commented that proposed changes were inconsistent with existing city character; and roughly 24% raised stormwater or environmental issues. Brandmeier said roughly 400 Town Center units are built, about 300 are permitted, and another several hundred are in the pipeline—together approaching the “one-third” marker noted in the 2007 plan that triggers reevaluation.

Next steps and public input: Staff plans agency workshops with fire, water and state resource agencies, property-owner workshops, public draft-SEIS workshops in April/May, and a June–July zoning and code review schedule. Brandmeier said the city is updating a project web page (www.sammamish.us/tcamendment) with documents, the final 2007 EIS and FAQs.

What was not decided: Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that the scoping and SEIS are study steps only; no legislative action or code change was approved at the meeting. City Council will review the draft SEIS and related materials before any decisions are made.

Ending: Staff and commissioners encouraged residents to review posted materials, participate in scheduled workshops and provide formal comment on the draft SEIS when it is released. The schedule presented by staff targets a final SEIS and planning commission/council decision window in the fall of 2025.