General Legislative Session - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Snohomish County Council is called to order for our general legislative session. Today is Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026 at 9 a.m. We're meeting in the Jackson boardroom and also remotely. I'll read the script for public comment and then our clerks will take role. We'll take public comment beginning in person and then remotely on Zoom. Click on the hand icon to raise your hand. If you're calling in by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak and please start your comment with your name and city of residence. Next is roll call.

Chair, Dan here vice chair low present councilmember nearing councilmember mead here councilmember Peterson. Chair, we have 5 members present.

Thank you next is our pledge of allegiance and we've asked vice chair low to please lead us in the pledge. Thank you, Vice Chair Lowe. Next is public comment. Did anyone wish to provide public comment today? You can use the podium in the middle.

Hello. My name is Donna Breske, B-R-E-S-K-E. I'm a civil engineer. I've presided design for storm drainage and site development LDA plans in Snohomish County for nearly 30 years, since 1997. I'm here today because I currently have a project for a client on Danvers Road, and he wants to build a garage, another 1,000 square feet of rooftop. His site is 16,000 square feet. It's zoned R7200, Snohomish County Code 30.23.032, and the bulk matrix allows 35% footprint, building footprint area, For our 7200 zoning. That equates to about 5600 square feet. Currently on the site. There's a Rambler built in 1962. There's a. They do built three years ago. There's a shop built about 20 years ago. And now my client. Wants to build a two car garage. Total building footprint area will be 4600 square feet. The code allows 5,600 square feet. However, I've gone round and round with the permitting staff, and I'm working with the director, Steven Phillips, now, who asserts, let's put it this way, I have not had him respond to my request to harmonize the section of code 30.23.032 into the review comments. Instead, They're looking at a memo in the file of 10 years ago when the short plat, a two-lot short plat, created the lot, which is now my client's lot. And they're saying that memo in the file is the controlling factor, how a memo in a file can override code. It's inconceivable to me that this is what's going on in Snohomish County after my first 25 years of dealing with reviewers that understood that it's about demonstrating compliance with the code, not me chasing somebody's personal opinion on what they think a memo in a file says. Stephen Phillips has asserted there are often times limitations on total impervious area. That's on a recorded record. Plat map. This is not a recorded plat map. This is a memo in the file. A BLA has occurred since then. He's asserting the BLA was not done correctly and somehow my client is supposed to harmonize his square footage with the memo in the file with lot two of this two-lot short plat. It's ridiculous. Could you please make sure staff does review in accordance with the code? Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Could you leave your contact information with the clerk? I have already. Great, thank you.

Any other speakers for public comment? Hi, welcome.

Hi, everyone. My name is Kiu Kai, CAI, and I'm a researcher and clinician by training. I'm a psychologist by training. So I'm here to introduce a free initiative I'm part of. It's called Project LINK. It's connecting researchers interested in youth mental health, in general mental health, and local policy makers trying to see are there any challenges in the local area, and what we can do to help you with address the challenges. It's a free project. It's funded by William T. Grant Foundation. Let me try to cover everything. After today's meeting, I will follow up with, it's a really rigorous research, so I have to follow the script, but I didn't. After today's meeting, I'll follow up an email just trying to see what are the local challenges for child and family well-being policy. And I'm willing to do some research on that and provide you with a research brief. And I already got those cards, and I will follow up with emails afterwards. Yeah, just trying to introduce myself today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Other public speakers? Patrick, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, council members. My name is Patrick Gann. I'm a lifelong Snohomish County resident living in the unincorporated Clearview area. I'm a father of four and a local business owner employing 26 county residents. My Clearview store was ready to open on March 1st, 2025. More than 570 days have passed while this completed business has remained closed. Here's the economic ticker. It's a lot of numbers, so hold on here. Based on my existing stores, this location was projected to generate approximately 530,000 per month in pre-tax retail sales. And approximately $250,000 per month in combined cannabis excise and sales tax. Over that time, approximately 9.9 million in retail sales have never been occurred. And approximately 4.68 million in state and local tax revenue has never been generated. Snohomish County has lost its share. At a conservative 50% inventory cost, nearly 5 million in purchases from producers and processors have also never been received. Because approximately 90% of my products come from Snohomish County businesses, roughly 4.4 million could have supported local businesses and workers. It's never circulated throughout this county. More than 20 jobs have not been created. I've also paid approximately 10,000 every month to keep this building intact, nearly 190,000 in carrying costs. Every additional day adds approximately $17,400 in retail sales that are lost, $8,200 in lost taxes, and $8,700 in lost wholesale purchases. This county's completed the staff review, supports removing this restriction. The SEPA review also determined that doing so would not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact, quoting there. Those are not my conclusions. They are the county's own findings. Yet cannabis remains subject to a retail to retail separation requirement that does not apply to alcohol, tobacco, or any other age-restricted retail products. In rural areas, the 10,000 foot restriction is four times greater than the standard applied elsewhere in the county. It is now an unjustified regulatory outlier. The executive's proposal is now before the county council. The review is complete. This restriction was adopted quickly, but correcting it now has taken years. And the economic damage grows every single day. Please put this proposal on the agenda and bring it to a vote. The work has been done. The findings are clear. Please stop this ticker and let this business open. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Any other speakers? And then are there any hands raised?

There are no hands raised.

Thank you. So we will close public comment and move on in the agenda. And next is resolutions. We have Resolution 26-045.

Council considers Resolution 26-045 honoring Dolly Parton and carrying her literacy legacy forward in Snohomish County.

Thank you. Any speakers to the motion or to the resolution? Council Member Peterson, did you want to speak?

I would thank you chair done and my apologies for not being there this morning. We had a little bit of a veterinary emergency. Everything seems to be fine, but yes, I just I wanted to introduce this as. The world knows Dolly Parton passed recently and. As with many, it hit me pretty hard. But I think also, as the world knows, she leaves an incredible legacy for all of us to emulate and appreciate, and especially her legacy around literacy and childhood learning. Washington State was able to become an imagination library state a few years ago, and Dolly Parton actually visited Washington State, and I had the incredible honor of meeting her, which was one of the highlights of my years on this earth. But she does so much more than that. She stood up for working people. She stood up for LGBTQ youth and communities. She stood up for, she donated incredible amounts of money for vaccine research. And all of this she did very quietly and humbly, of course, as she lived, despite the fact that she lived this life of glamour and fame. So I bring this resolution to you and to the people of Snohomish County, in part just as an honor to the incredible legacy of Dolly Parton, but also to remind us all of the things that we can do individually to help so many different aspects of our communities that are in need. So I appreciate, Chair Dunn, I appreciate you getting this on the agenda, and I look forward to voting yes on this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Any other speakers? Okay, so is there a motion for Resolution 26-045?

I move approval of Resolution 26-045. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve Resolution 26-045. Any other speakers? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 5-0. Thank you for bringing that forward, Councilmember Peterson. We have nothing on the consent agenda and next is administrative matters.

I move approval of administrative matters motion 26-386. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve administrative matters motion 26-386. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 5-0. Next, we have four items under Committee of the Whole, and first is Motion 26-379.

Council considers Motion 26-379, approving and authorizing the dialectical behavior therapy training with DBT and Schools LLC.

For the record, Cynthia Foley, Council Staff, Snohomish County, through the Human Services Department, is seeking to contract with DBT and Schools LLC to provide dialectical behavioral therapy. therapy training to school counselors, social workers, student support advocates, and other appropriate staff. The contract is funded by CDMH sales taxes. Motion 26-379 approves the DBT training contract for $117,540 and any future amendments. The request is to consider motion 26-379. Questions from council? Council Member Lowe?

So you said any future amendments, so...

Theoretically if there's a 1 million dollar contract that could get approved in the 2 million dollar contract that could get approved without counsel Yeah, I think that this this gives them additional author Authorization beyond what is in code or it could be read that way So, yeah All right.

Thank you So it would still follow our finance policies I No, I'm getting a head shake from one.

It would still, yeah, it would follow, it would go through the typical approvals for contract amendments and signing through the department is my understanding.

Okay.

And then I had two questions. Did this follow an RFP process to bid?

Yes. Yes, it did during the summer.

Okay. And then is there... reporting back, because it is a high amount of money for a Zoom training for 150 people for a Zoom-only training. So is there a report back to the CDMH board for measurements for work like this?

Not that I know of.

I'm not sure if someone from the department is available.

Let's see. Is there anyone on the Zoom call from the department that you see? Is there an urgency? There is actually some urgency. They're hoping to...

Someone raised their hand. Sorry. Amanda Frankie.

If you can answer the question about urgency, that's great. Yes. They plan to start the training on September 28th, so five days from now.

Okay.

And then Amanda are you able to answer the question about just reporting back to the CDMHD board or CDMHD board? Hi.

Yes, sorry I am driving so my apologies. I don't have the contract in front of me but if council desires that's certainly something we can do I understand about the high dollar amount.

Okay, great. Okay, other questions? Okay, is there a motion?

I move approval of motion 26-379. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-379. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed?

No.

Okay, motion 26-379 passes 4-1. Next is item B, motion 26-384. Counsel considers motion 26-384,

Authorizing Snohomish County to accept and execute TSA Other Transaction Agreement at Snohomish County Airport for Law Enforcement Officers Reimbursement Program.

Good morning, Council Members. For the record, Hillary McGowan, Council Staff. Snohomish County has received an Other Transaction Authority, or OTA, agreement offer from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration. to receive partial reimbursement to offset the costs of carrying out aviation law enforcement responsibilities in support of passenger screening activities. The agreement will reimburse eligible expenses in the amount of $127,750. The base period of performance for the agreement is September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2027. TSA may unilaterally extend the agreement or provide additional funding as it becomes available at any time during the period. Motion 26-384 would authorize the executive to execute the agreement and any necessary documents. It would also authorize the airport director to approve any amendments. Today's request is for council to consider taking action on motion 26-384. Thank you. Questions from council?

Okay, is there a motion?

I move approval of motion 26-384. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-384. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 5-0. Next is motion 26-381.

Council considers motion 26-381, confirming the reappointment of Kimberly Bastide to the Snohomish County Planning Commission. The proposed action today is to set time and date for a public hearing.

Hi. Motion 26381 seeks to reappoint Kimberly Bustede to the second term on Planning Commission. Commissioner Bustede currently represents one of two District 2 positions on the Commission. Her first and current four-year term expires on November 30th, 2026, with reappointment of another four-year term to end on November 30th, 2030. Requested action for Motion 26-381 is to set time and date for a public hearing. with a suggested date of October 14th, 2026, at GLS at 10.30 a.m.

Thank you. Sorry, could I just... I had to type it on the agenda. It's 9 o'clock a.m. 9 o'clock, okay.

That's what I had originally, but I was like, oh, for 9 a.m., thank you.

Okay, any questions from council? Is there a motion?

I move to set time and date for motion 26-381 for Wednesday, October 14th, 2026, at the hour of 9 a.m. Second.

Motion has been properly made and seconded to set time and date for a public hearing on motion 26-381. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the pass is 5-0. Next is Ordinance 26-036.

Council considers Ordinance 26-036 relating to growth management concerning lot splitting and amending Title 30 of Snohomish County Code. The proposed action today is also to set time and date for a public hearing.

Good morning, Chair Dunn and Council Members. For the record, Deb Bell, Council Staff. Ordinance 26-036 was first assigned on August 18th to the Committee of the Whole. During review of the ordinance, some inconsistencies were noted, and a substitute ordinance has been drafted, is approved as to form, and is included in the ECAF. The proposed substitute ordinance allows for a single lot to be split into two lots, provided that it meets zoning and the updated design standards. The proposed substitute ordinance allows for a streamlined administrative process, and the requested action is to move the substitute ordinance to set time and date for a public hearing with the suggested date of October 14, 2026. We have with us today Samantha Wainsgaard, acting long-range planning manager, to present on the proposed substitute ordinance in more detail. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Again, my name is Samantha Wainsgaard. It's a pleasure to meet all of you. And I am the acting long range planning division manager. I am presenting on behalf of Michael Sapanaro and if there are follow-up questions he will be available as will I. So again today we're here to give a brief overview of the proposed code amendments relating to residential lot splitting. The primary purpose of these amendments is to establish a clear administrative process for dividing one residential parcel into two separate buildable lots. As part of the presentation today, I'll briefly cover the background, the main code changes, and a few clarifications made in the substitute ordinance. So for background, a residential lot split is the administrative process of taking one residential parcel and creating two separate lots House bill 1096 requires cities to allow residential lot splits administrative Lee and we're proactively proposing a county process that is consistent with that direction. The proposal also supports existing County policies encouraging infill and residential density. One important point throughout this presentation is that a lot split is about creating the lots. It is not approval of development on those lots. So keeping that distinction in mind, the proposed amendments establish the standards and process for these applications. I messed up. Did I go one? I went one too far. But in terms of the slide that I just, there we go, thank you. Um, the centerpiece of this proposal is new, a new section 3041 B, um, 22. Oh, um, this establishes, uh, design standards and evaluation criteria specifically for lot splits. We're also making related changes throughout the short subdivision chapter, including the purpose submittal requirements, decision criteria and design standards. There are some corresponding changes elsewhere in the code to make sure that the terminology and cross references are consistent. The important takeaway is that we're creating a defined set of standards specifically for this type of application. What this lot splitting would allow, this proposal proposes limits Limited is limited to residential lots. One lot can be split into two, so we're talking about one new lot per application. The resulting lots must be usable, and the process isn't intended to create unusable or unbuildable parcels. The property could potentially in the future be subdivided, but that would be a separate application subdivision for subdivision or short plat short subdivision process. Excuse me, I'm getting ahead of myself. The key point here is that this is a relatively narrow tool for creating two residential lots and it's not meant to replace the county's existing subdivision process. Unique aspects of this code amendment is we're only reviewing and creation of lots and the proposal Taylors the process to that narrower scope lot splits would use a type one administrative process with reduced submittal requirements and decision criteria. They would also be exempt from minimum construction area requirements and the 5 year subdivision timeframe. Infrastructure improvements associated with the lot splits would be limited to things like right away dedication Frontage improvements were required by code. Impact fees would not be required for preliminary approval. Again, the reason for these distinctions is that we're not reviewing a development proposal at this stage. If someone later proposes to build on one of these lots, that development would still go through the applicable permitting and development review process. In terms of the substitute ordinance that Deb Bell just mentioned at the onset of the presentation, the substitute ordinance will make a few important clarifications. One is related to terminology. We're moving from the phrase short subdivision lot split to simply lot split. More importantly, this substitute ordinance makes clear that a lot split is separate from the subdivision process. It also clarifies that a lot split does not include proposed development or the development review associated with that development. So while the process is similar to a short subdivision in that it's a type one process, the requirements are still scaled to that more limited scope of a lot split. Wrapping up so in summary the proposal creates a straightforward administrative process for dividing one residential lot into two It establishes standards for the lot split itself while keeping future development review separate the substitute ordinance primarily helps make that distinction and the terminology clear With that I'm available for questions Questions from council members council member nearing

Yeah, thanks, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. Appreciate it. On impact fees, so you said they're not collected on preliminary approval. When would they be collected?

Excuse me. They would be collected at the time of development. We are not looking at having these at the time of the initial. It would be when the lots are looked at for development. So there's that separation. Okay, thank you.

Other questions? You have that the design standards, under design standards, a lot split will not create an unusable lot, and that's not defined. I guess it's defined later that says it would need to be utilized to create an accessible area suitable for construction. So if in the future we allow, for example, cottage housing, like smaller housing, would that be compliant with this to be considered a usable lot?

We would have to look at that particular situation and to that particular situation. I don't have an immediate answer for you right now, but we can get back to you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Is there a motion to set time and date on this?

I move to set time and date for proposed substitute ordinance 26-036 for Wednesday, October 14th, 2026 at the hour of 1030 a.m. Second.

A motion has been properly made and seconded to set time and date for a public hearing on the proposed substitute ordinance. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes five to zero. So that concludes our agenda and we are in recess until our 1030 public hearing.

Thank you.