Sammamish council opens scoping for town‑center SEIS after broad public pushback over 4,000‑unit proposal

The Sammamish City Council opened scoping for a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on proposed Town Center plan and code amendments that would study whether to increase capacity in the Town Center by 2,000 units (to a total of 4,000) and evaluate raising building heights in limited areas up to 150 feet.

The study’s purpose is to disclose possible environmental and community impacts and to give decisionmakers updated information before any legislative changes are adopted. David Pyle, director of Community Development, told the council the SEIS is a disclosure document and “the decision is up to the planning commission...and ultimately the council.” He said the city opted to run a scoping period that exceeds state minimums to gather early public input and to avoid later scope changes that would require restarting the SEIS process.

Why it matters: The Town Center discussion drew the largest turnout of the night. More than 200 comments and in‑person public testimony focused on traffic, school capacity, stormwater and natural resource impacts, tree canopy loss, and the visual scale of taller buildings. The council said it wants data that shows whether the Town Center can deliver different housing types and amenities without causing unacceptable community or infrastructure impacts.

Most speakers during public comment opposed the larger study alternative. Resident Sheila Kelly said, “I am respectfully requesting that you not allow, the town center increase for 2000 units. I think it's too much for Sammamish. We already have traffic issues.” Multiple other speakers echoed concerns about congestion, emergency evacuation, school crowding and tree canopy loss; several asked the council to focus on smaller, market‑feasible housing forms instead of high‑rise alternatives.

City staff described the two baseline planning tracks the SEIS will treat: the “no action” baseline—which retains the existing Town Center plan and the Final EIS (2007) assumptions and a single action alternative that, in staff’s draft scope, examines up to 4,000 units and targeted increases in allowable height in the TCA‑1 zone. Pyle emphasized that the SEIS sets the “bookends” for analysis: if the council later wants to consider an option outside the studied range, staff would need to add another alternative and extend the timeline.

On specific technical issues, staff said they will coordinate with partner agencies. They noted the Lake Washington School District’s capital plan projects enrollment declines in coming years but said school capacity impacts will be analyzed. Eastside Fire & Rescue, the Snoqualmie Tribe and the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District have been or will be consulted on emergency response, cultural resources, and utility capacity respectively.

Council reaction and next steps: Several councilmembers said they want more data before any policy decision. Deputy Mayor Amy Lamb said she supports continuing the SEIS scoping and said, “I do want the data.” Councilmember Sid Gupta asked staff to make clear the proposal would not create a blanket by‑right increase—any higher density would be tied to standards intended to produce affordable and diverse housing. Councilmember Kent Treen urged the council to include a second action alternative in the SEIS rather than only one, saying that major changes to the Town Center merit a fuller range of options.

Staff timeline: Pyle said the draft supplemental EIS and draft plan/code amendments are expected in late spring (target: May) for public review, with responses and a final SEIS expected before summer planning hearings. The SEIS scoping record remains open; the city is asking people to submit comments through the project JotForm on the city website. No legislative action occurred at the meeting; the SEIS process is intended to inform later council decisions.

Context and constraints: The discussion references earlier town‑center environmental review and the city’s 2007 Final EIS and explains the legal role of SEPA and WAC 197‑11 (the state SEPA rules) in limiting how future alternatives can be chosen and studied. Staff also warned that the existing Town Center code contains provisions—such as density tied to transfer‑of‑development‑rights (TDR) mechanisms and an interlocal agreement with King County—that could allow developers to seek project‑level environmental review and permitting if they pursue additional density through those administrative pathways.

What to watch: The draft SEIS when it is issued will be the primary opportunity for detailed public comment on specific traffic, stormwater, environmental and infrastructure analyses; the council said it expects follow‑on Planning Commission recommendations and later council hearings before any code or map changes are adopted.