By Miki Mullor
Commentary
The Sammamish City Council is facing an extraordinary moment in the life of our city.
On the table is a plan to double the number of housing units in the Town Center—from the current 2,000 to 4,000. This is by far the most consequential decision the city has faced since 2010, when the original Town Center plan was adopted.
Even more extraordinary is the timing: this decision is scheduled to occur just as four City Council seats—enough for a new majority—are up for election this November. If just three of those seats change hands and align with Councilmember Kent Treen, who opposes the Town Center 4000 plan, the plan could be blocked.
In theory, that means voters could decide the fate of Town Center 4000 simply by voting for council candidates. But the council has another option: place an advisory vote on the ballot. That would allow residents to vote directly on the plan and for their preferred candidates—regardless of the candidates’ individual positions on the issue.
It should be an easy decision.
Mayor Karen Howe, in a recent op-ed we published, expressed confidence that the public supports expanding the Town Center. If that’s the case, why is the sitting City Council unwilling to postpone the final vote on Town Center 4000 until January—after the election results are in?
Perhaps the mayor is not so sure that public support exists. And if the support isn’t there, moving forward would risk breaking public trust.
The timing set by the current city council to vote on Town Center 4000 certainly suggests they doubt the purported support is there. They plan to vote on approval of this policy in December–after the November election and before the new city council is seated in January. Therefore, if three current council members who support this policy are defeated in November, they still get to lock in the new project before opponents take office.
The timing appears intended to be a slap in the face to residents and to the taxpayers who must subsidize the growth that comes with Town Center 4000.
Town Center 2000: A Look Back
Much has been written over the years about the Town Center. I’ve been critical of the city, which has at times seemed lax in enforcing the safeguards meant to prevent overdevelopment.
The original Town Center project was conceived and approved between 2006 and 2010. The process included elected officials and volunteers, among them Sammamish Comment founder Scott Hamilton. I was a new resident at the time and remember the conversations well.
Sammamish in 2008 was a very different place—more rural, with fewer stores and less traffic. We had Ace Hardware, but no Trader Joe’s. And because milk was needed more often than nails, many of us made frequent trips down the hill to Issaquah.
Back then, if you drove down 228th Avenue, you saw the red barn at 20th Street.
Heading the other direction, you saw the old caboose where Metropolitan Market now stands.
These were local landmarks everyone recognized.
Traffic wasn’t a concern, and the trade-off for rural charm and proximity to Microsoft was worth it—even if it meant a 15-minute commute from campus.
When the Town Center plan was being developed, it sparked debate but not alarm. For those of us living within walking distance of the future development, it seemed like a potential benefit. The promotional materials depicted something closer to Gilman Village than downtown Redmond. Schools had plenty of space, and growth was slow and manageable.
The plan was adopted in 2010—just as the nation was beginning to recover from the 2008 real estate crisis.
Then tech happened.
Sammamish began growing at breakneck speed. Massive developments with large homes and tiny yards appeared overnight. Grading and tree-cutting became routine—unlike in older neighborhoods. The city’s character changed. The red barn was torn down, replaced by a dense housing development. The change was visual and visceral, especially for those driving down 228th Avenue.
Whether this was good or bad is subjective. But what’s clear is this: the Sammamish of 2025 is not the Sammamish of 2010. The context has changed, and any new plan—especially one as significant as Town Center 4000—must be viewed through today’s lens.
Town Center 4000: What’s Changing
The 2025 update proposes doubling the maximum number of housing units in the Town Center to 4,000. While this is the headline change, the plan introduces other major revisions.
As ChatGPT summarizes:
“The 2025 update modernizes Sammamish’s 2008 Town Center Plan. It responds to:
- Changing housing needs and new state laws
- The regional housing affordability crisis
- Outdated or overly complex development codes
- The need for better mobility, climate resilience, and community identity.”
The zoning has changed from a mix of five-story apartment buildings, townhomes and single-family homes to a new mix that includes six- to eight-story apartment buildings, five-story buildings, and duplex/townhome-style housing. The apartments will be mixed-use, meaning they will also include commercial space.
The Comment has published two op-eds on the plan—one in favor by Mayor Karen Howe, and one in opposition by former Mayor Tom Odell.
- Opinion: Sammamish safe, welcoming, inclusive
- Opinion: let the residents vote on doubling the Town Center size
Odell, notably, also called for a public vote.
I join him in that call.
Democracy Requires Another Vote
The public—not just the council—should decide on such a profound change to the heart of Sammamish.
Mayor Howe argues that the public already spoke in the last election when it voted for candidates who supported the original Town Center plan. But Town Center 4000 didn’t exist then. It’s possible voters who supported Town Center 2000 will also support this expansion.
Or maybe they won’t: the city received 200 comments from the public in response to its survey that closed on on January 29, 2025. According to Odell, 84% of the responses voiced some opposition to the Town Center 4000 plan, citing concerns such as emergency evacuation, traffic, sewer and water capacity.
There’s one democratic way to find out: Let the People Vote.
An Advisory Vote Is the Best Path Forward
The City Council can place a non-binding advisory vote on the November ballot. Sammamish has done this before—on the YMCA community center and on whether the city should adopt initiative and referendum rights.
All it takes is a resolution asking King County to add the question to the ballot. Pro and con statements are submitted for the voters’ guide. The process is transparent, accessible, and deeply democratic.
Proposed ballot language:
Advisory Vote on Increase in Town Center Housing Units
The City Council of the City of Sammamish has passed Resolution XXXXX concerning the total number of housing units allowed in the Town Center.
Currently, the Town Center zoning allows construction of no more than 2,000 housing units (including those already built).
If approved, this advisory vote will indicate voter approval to rezone the Town Center to allow up to 4,000 housing units.
Should the City Council rezone the Town Center to allow up to 4,000 units?
☐ Yes
☐ No
The results will have no legal effect on the Town Center 4000 plan – the council could legally ignore them. But they are “politically” binding and the council should honor the result.
A Modest Delay, A Major Benefit
The current timeline for Town Center 4000 shows public hearings beginning in September, with a vote scheduled for December—after the elections are certified.
This overlaps with the election campaign, giving candidates a chance to speak directly to voters on this issue, informed by real-time public feedback.
Three sitting council members—Karen Howe, Amy Lam and Sid Gupta—are up for re-election. Kali Clark is stepping down in December. These four make up a voting majority that could easily delay the decision to January 2026—just two weeks later.
Kent Treen, who opposes Town Center 4000, would likely support that delay.
Postponing the vote ensures the final decision reflects the election results—and the will of Sammamish residents.
Critics of a delay argue that state growth mandates or housing deadlines could expose the city to legal risk. Maybe so, maybe not. That’s exactly the kind of debate we should be having in a local election.
The Comment reached out to all four councilmembers—via email and social media—to ask whether they would commit to delaying the vote. None have responded.
Perhaps if the public demands it, they’ll reconsider.
Copyright (c) 2022 The Sammamish Comment
Sammamish Comment 
Enuf is enuf. No more homes that pleases only the damn developers!👎👎