By Karen Howe
Mayor, City of Sammamish
Over three years ago, three of us were voted into office on a platform that included support for Town Center, more housing choices, and affordability. The election in 2023 shows three council-members getting 53%, 58%, and 59% of the vote with the same basic platform.
A consistent theme I’ve read in much of the feedback is that folks are good with the idea of a town center and adding social retail and more housing options – both market rate and more affordable. They struggle with the number 4000 and I understand that. So how do we get to a Town Center plan that people can related to.
First, it’s important to know that development in Town Center is not currently feasible because the density permitted in the plan and code is not adequate and is less dense than what is now allowed in the rest of the city. Through recently added state mandated middle housing options, most areas of Sammamish allow 12 to 18 units per acre. Without changes to the Town Center Plan and code, less than 944 units would be available for the remaining 89 acres in Town Center, which is 10.6 units per acre – a lower density that what is permitted in the Town Center.
State legislation has created mandates, and regional priorities have a different focus. We need to ensure the Town Center Plan and Code aligns with the recently adopted 2024 Comprehensive Plan, existing state laws, and county and regional planning. Remember, our Comp Plan just won the Futurewise award for towns and small cities. Futurewise works throughout Washington to encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities and to protect our natural resources through wise land use policies and practices.
Development in Town Center is happening slowly, and it is unrealistic to think 4,000 units will appear overnight. We do not expect this rate of development to change. Since the adoption of the Town Center Code in 2010 only 326 residential units have been built and 730 units remain under construction or in permitting and are expected to take at least another five years to be built (under optimal economic conditions). So, under that rate of development (1,056 units between 2010-2030 or over 20 years) we can expect around 53 units per year with some years with more and some years with less. This means that if we were working off of a 4,000 unit assumption it would take the remaining 2,944 (4,000 – 1,056) units ~55 years to be built out. Even if it was built in half that time at a rate of 106 units per year this is easily manageable and provides a reasonable timeline to plan for, fund, and construct infrastructure alongside.
School capacity is not an issue. The Town Center is within the Lake Washington School District. The District forecasts a decline of 15% in the Eastlake High School enrollment area between 2028 and 2035. Source: January 21, 2025 Lake Washington School District 2025–26 to 2034–35 Enrollment Forecast memo. I know there are parents saying that the schools are overcrowded and this is true at the high school level. This student population ‘bubble’ bursts in 2028. You’ll also see empty elementary classrooms today. The plans we’re studying now need to work for at least 10+ years and beyond.
Water and sewer capacity are addressed through coordination and planning. The Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District plans for service delivery commensurate with growth through their Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans (RCW 57.16.010) which they update on a periodic basis following adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and associated subarea planning. Water and Sewer service plans are required to account for planned growth in the City.
Development in Town Center brings improvement in stormwater conditions over today. The same stormwater rules and program that were found to be protective and restorative in the recent Town Center third party stormwater study will continue to apply. There is no proposal to change these rules or these components of Town Center.
As development occurs, developers pay for street, water, and sewer infrastructure. As with all developments within the city, the developer pays for all infrastructure to serve their project. The City may step in to fill off-site gaps in infrastructure where needed. This is paid for by impact fees and is the intended use of impact fees. The Town Center has produced nearly $5 million in street impact fees and over $1 million in park impact fees. For the remainder of Town Center, the City is estimated to receive between $27 and $36 million in street impact fees and $14 million and $19 million in park impact fees, which can be utilized to address gaps in infrastructure and ensure impacts are mitigated.
Emergency management and evacuation can be planned for and mitigated. Concerns around emergency management and evacuation of the City have been under evaluation by the City for several years and several studies have been done. Emergency management, especially evacuation, is dependent on the emergency and geography, and is an issue that requires continuous collaboration between community partners, including agencies and residents. Town Center does have a role in emergency management and already does serve as a resource through the civic campus component. Future development in Town Center can be designed for resiliency and to serve as a gathering place in the event of some emergency events. Evacuation is an issue that is complex and requires partnerships, preparation and coordination that the City will continue to develop.
Advisory votes are a way to express public sentiment but authority resides with elected officials. Advisory votes cannot be used to determine zoning or land use policy. Fortunately, we have a process for the public to issue feedback, enshrining it as a public record for perpetuity. The opportunity for public feedback does not end with the July 9th deadline which applies only to the draft SEIS. The public is welcome and encouraged to participate in providing their thoughts, suggestions, and opinions on an ongoing basis. (Additionally, it can be helpful to remember that the ‘S’ stands for Study / Statement, not fait accompli.)
This is from the Municipal Research and Services Center (MSRC) regarding initiatives, but I see it applying to non-binding advisory votes.
“Those opposed to the use of initiative power are basically supporters of representative democracy. They stress the need for knowledge and deliberation in the drafting of legislation and the daily business of governing. While those favoring this position are often accused of being undemocratic and lacking faith in the people, they assert that the most important democratic act is the selection of representatives. Critics of the initiative process argue that it is a dangerous device that undercuts representative government by taking lawmaking out of the hands of the legislators elected to do the job. Complex issues are reduced to fast “yes” or “no” decisions by voters who may be swayed by misleading television or other commercials paid for by special interest groups. Initiatives may be crudely drafted and no allowance made for the usual give and take of the legislative process, which often results in the kind of compromises that make laws more workable. Both sides agree that most of the business of governing cannot be decided directly by the people but must be decided by elected representatives. Therefore, the power of initiative is always recognized as a supplement to the normal legislative process.”
(And if we want to get into case law and how referendums can inhibit adding affordable housing, check out the Urban Law Journal’s article on Initiatives and Referendums: Direct Democracy and Minority Interests by Priscilla F Gunn. It’s a pager turner.)
Sammamish is a beautiful, welcoming city to all current and future residents. Our shared values span environmental responsibility, inclusivity, and collective advancement. Change is hard for everyone and it’s difficult to have an open mind. So be curious, ask questions, offer alternative solutions. I appreciate the public engagement.
Sammamish Comment 
Would it be feasible to focus more on senior housing and assisted living units rather than single family and multi family. Senior and assisted living would produce less traffic.
Wow is all I can say. Diverse choice in housing? What different sizes of condos and apartments. Once approved development will be accelerated like Redmond or Kirkland. If this is what you want then build on baby build on and 4,000 units plus is only the beginning if they go up 150 feet. Traffic will not be reduced because no one beyond a 3 block radius is going to walk to the town center to eat or shop. Too many hills and weather changes. Affordable housing starting at $800,000 ya that is affordable for a young family or person just getting out of school who wants to live in Sammamish were there is no night life. Oh, wait they can take the bus that is not there to go to a club and take the bus back that is not there because of the hours they run in Sammamish. This is a joke or a version of reality that will not exist.
The way this article reads, it says, don’t fight development because it will be slow. This feels like boiling the frog. If you don’t want more traffic or more development, the rate of it isn’t the big issue it’s the more of it that is the big issue. I find it rather telling that there is a continuous big push to place more people on the plateau but not a large push to reduce travel times. Why is that?
This affordable housing push is also not what concerns the majority of residents. This is placing the priorities of non-residents above the priorities of residents. I have never talked to a neighbor or fellow resident who said “I wish there was more affordable housing in Sammamish.” Nobody. Never. I’ve read statements like this online but they’re always from a developer or a politician.
If you want to live in a homogenous city that is like Bellevue, Kirkland or Redmond, you can always live in Bellevue, Redmond or Kirkland. Trying to be like everyone else isn’t a recipe for maintaining the character of Sammamish nor what makes it special.
The city’s priorities should be on increasing quality of life for residents not trying to make Sammamish just like other cities. You may not realize what you have until it’s gone.
What an interesting polemic on the quality of life in the city, poorly disguised as a long-winded apologetic for real estate development. Howe’s “opinion piece” almost perfectly encapsulates the mindset of municipal-level political “leadership” that’s completely in the pocket of developers.
This is how you turn a legitimate problem like the lack of affordable housing into a profiteering opportunity to maximize density at the expense of quality of life for everyone else. It doesn’t require very careful reading to understand that Howe’s constituency is not comprised of the people who live and vote in Sammamish–it’s the real estate developers. As usual.
Mayor Howe claims it will take 55 years to build the remaining 2,944 housing units. That projection seems either ill-informed or deliberately misleading. Consider the Issaquah Highlands—a significantly larger project—developed in less than 20 years. Even if development is gradual, residents will still endure decades of traffic disruptions, particularly along 228th. Let’s be honest about what that means for quality of life.
She suggests the Town Center is “less dense than other areas” and implies this somehow forces an update. But is it a legal requirement or simply a planning preference? If Sammamish’s internal code permits less density, it can be revised. Presenting this as mandatory is disingenuous.
Mayor Howe argues the Town Center must align with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, state laws, and county/regional priorities. That’s a sweeping claim. Are we being legally compelled to build 4,000 units, or is this an internal goal based on our own planning choices? The mayor should differentiate between genuine legal obligations and self-imposed strategies that can be changed.
She cites projected declines in high school enrollment as evidence that additional housing won’t strain schools. But how does adding 4,000 new housing units help resolve that? If the goal is to fill empty classrooms, fine—but crowding classrooms is a far worse outcome. Her argument lacks clarity.
Saying water and sewer plans are being developed is already expected. But who pays for that growth? What part exactly is being paid by the developer and what part is paid by taxpayers? Does this expansion benefit current residents outside of Town Center? No—it’s focused on supporting new development we didn’t ask for and for future residents that strain the rest of the city’s resources.
Mayor Howe claims the new plan improves stormwater conditions through better design. This is circular logic. That improvement is tied to accommodating the 4,000 units. If we didn’t pursue aggressive development, we wouldn’t need the upgrades. Meanwhile, neighborhoods like Deer Park see no benefit. Who is this really for?
She mentions millions in impact fees, suggesting developers cover costs. Are these millions listed coming completely from the developer? And are we making a profit on these fees? If we don’t do the development, then there is no impact and there’s no need for fees.
It’s reassuring to hear that emergency evacuation is “being studied.” But where is the current plan for present-day conditions? Without a baseline, we can’t compare what’s needed with these 4,000 additional households. A future promise means little when preparedness is already lacking.
Mayor Howe asserts that advisory votes can’t determine zoning. True—but residents elect officials expecting representation. If overwhelming public sentiment opposes this plan and elected leaders push forward anyway, that’s not governance—it’s disconnect. The mayor’s refusal to acknowledge this gap invites calls for resignation or recall.
She warns of public influence by misleading commercials and special interest groups. Yet communication on this plan has been near silent from the city. Residents only learned details through grassroots efforts like Save Our Sammamish (SOS). The mayor’s op-ed came not from a proactive desire to inform—but from reactive damage control triggered by mounting opposition.
Pingback: Opinion: Town Center Upzoning to 4,000 Homes Needs Voter Approval | Sammamish Comment