General Legislative Session - public_hearing

Good morning, everyone. Snohomish County Council is called to order for our public hearings. Today is Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 at 1030 a.m. We're meeting in the Jackson boardroom and also remotely. I'll read the script for providing public testimony and then our clerks will take role. We will take public testimony on each item, and public testimony will be open for each agenda item separately. We'll take public testimony 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 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak, and please start your testimony with your name and city of residence. Next is roll call.

Chair Dunn. Here. Vice Chair Lowe.

Present.

Councilmember Neering. Here. Councilmember Meade. Here. Councilmember Peterson. Here. Chair, we have five members present. Thank you.

Next are our action items. So we will first hear Ordinance 26-037.

Council considers Ordinance 26-037 relating to the regulation of construction adopting the 2021 edition of the International Codes as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council and amending Stonemash County Code.

Good morning, Chair Dunn and Council Members. For the record, Dub Bell Council staff. Proposed Ordinance 26-037 was first heard at the August 11th Committee of the Whole with a time and date for public hearings set at the August 19th GLS. The proposed ordinance would amend Snohomish County Code 30.5 to include the most recent 2021 Washington State Building Code under RCW 19.27. International construction codes are periodically updated and each state has the ability to adopt all or part of the updated code. Washington State adopted the 2021 ICC, which became effective on March 15th of 2024. RCW mandates that the SBC be administered and enforced by counties and cities and grants the authority to amend the code as it applies within their jurisdiction. The proposed amendments will update Snohomish County Code to the most recent 2021 SBC standards. The requested action is for Council to take public testimony prior to considering the ordinance. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions. And today we have Michael Sepinaro from PDS here to provide a briefing.

For the record, Michael Sepinaro, Long Range Planning. I just want to give a quick briefing on the I-Codes and give a little background for people who aren't aware. Proposed code amendments relating to the 2021 International Code Council updates, I-Codes. Just as an outline, if you're curious, what are the I-Codes? What are the notable I-Codes, updates, and themes? What are the impacts of the Snohomish County Code? Some room for questions. Just as background for people who aren't aware, what are the I-Codes and who are the agencies involved? The International Code Council, the ICC, and the I-Codes. The ICC is a nonprofit organization, and the source of the model construction codes we use, a.k.a. the I-Codes. The SBCC, that's the State Building Code Council. The SBCC is a state agency created by the legislator to provide independent analysis and objective advice to the legislator and the governor's office on state building code issues. And you guys are probably aware what the RCW is. Those are statutes passed by the state legislator, voted by the people. So some notable updates and themes in 2021. ICO's cross-laminated timber and mass timber is kind of a big deal now. and we allow mass timber buildings of taller heights, up to 18 stories, and more stories if it's above grade in the international building code update. There's also more emphasis on open rooftops and occupied roofs. More and more building owners are using open rooftops to create events or gathering spaces. The 2018 version began to incorporate requirements, further code clarification occurring in the 2021 version. There's also some future trends in alternative energy and climate change. The state requires electric vehicle charging infrastructure within new buildings and accessory structures for most occupancy groups, including dwelling units with private garages. Renewable energy generation systems are required for new buildings greater than 10,000 square feet in area. And there's also flood hazard documentation required for lower floors, levels, and flood hazard areas. There's a new appendix adopted. The 2021 International Residential Code now has Appendix AF for radon I didn't put it on the slide, but there's also a small appendix that was added to the uniform building, excuse me, uniform plumbing code just about flow rates. And there's some links to references if you want to see an exaggerated list of changes from 2018 to 2021, but those are the major issues. And just to go quickly, you know, there aren't a lot of impacts to the actual written Stoneman County Code. A lot of it is just updating the wording to say instead of following the 2018 building code, we now follow the 2021 building code. And it sort of goes on nauseam like that. There's just a few related changes to that point on 3050, the administrative chapter. small changes to that effect in the mechanical code, energy code, plumbing code, although there is also another appendix, like I said, on flow rates. Some of the major changes, there's a WUI code now, the Wildland Urban Interface. This has been delayed for a few years, but By December of this year, there'll be a new map from the DNR that shows all the WUI areas. And basically our code, the new WUI section, just says we will follow the state WUI code and the state map when it's released. And it's optional, but we have some language, too, on a green construction code. If builders are interested in following a green construction code, now we finally have it in the code if they want to follow it. And just to break it down, just real quickly, just to point out the changes we made in the code from the 2020 update, there were just a few lines added to the administrative chapter. There's just some wording changes to say 2018 is now 2021 and building code, mechanical code for the ventilation and indoor air quality code. Just added a quick paragraph saying that the ventilation code is not part of the mechanical code per the state guidelines. Energy code, again, just changing 2018 to 2021. plumbing code there was a little bit of cleanup of language some of the past language was I think accidentally deleted some important parts so we updated it where it's appropriate and also added the new Fenix residential code just change it from 2018 and 2021 The sprinkler system, we just had a quick reference that's saying it's now part of the International Fire Code. And the fire code, there seems like there's a lot of changes, but basically there was 90 pages of fire code that's been reduced to 30 pages. We're not reducing the code per se, just they reiterated stuff that was already in the International Fire Code. So for your layman reader, instead of having to read through 100, nearly 100 pages of fire code that's already in the IFC code, We just redirect them and say all this code is in the IFC and just makes for a shorter, sleeker chapter. The wildland urban interface code, again, it's just stating that we'll follow the state guidelines of the map, which should be out in December. And the green construction code is optional, but we just added some language there to say if people want to follow the international green construction code, we gave them the guidelines and the direction from the IGCC website. loading the slide here it should go to questions slide but if it doesn't I can just oh there we go I can just take questions but that's just a long and short of it thank you for the briefing questions from council okay 90 pages down to 30 that's yeah it's thankless work but it's it's a sleeker now

Okay. Okay, I appreciate the briefing. If there's no questions, then we will open up public testimony on this item. Did anyone wish to speak to this item? So we'll take in person and then remote. I don't see anyone in person. Any hands raised? No hands raised. Okay, if there's no hands raised, we'll close testimony on this item and turn to council.

I move approval of Ordinance 26-037. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 26-037. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll have a roll call vote.

Council Member Nehring? Yes. Council Member Mead?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lowe?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson? Aye. Chair Dunn?

Yes. So Ordinance 26-037 passes 5-0. Next, we'll hear Ordinance 26-038.

Council considers Ordinance 26-038 relating to growth management concerning roads and access amending Snohomish County Code.

Thank you. Proposed ordinance 26-038 was first heard at the August 11th Committee of the Whole, with time and date for public hearing set at the August 19th GLS. The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 30.24, General Development Standards, Access and Road Network, and Sections 30.66B.540, Dedication, Establishment, or Deeding of Right-of-Way Timing, 30.91R.220, Road Public, and 30.91R.240 Road System. Most of this code chapter was last updated in 2012, and the proposed amendments would streamline existing code and create two sets of access and road network requirements, one for inside the urban growth areas and one for outside the urban growth areas. Dual metrics for urban and rural network connectivity and pedestrian requirements are proposed, along with updating general requirements and clarifying ambiguous language. This code update started a few years back, and with the assistance of Public Works and the Masters Builders Association and stakeholders, the proposed edits are consistent with logistical and technical work that will not affect safety or engineering concerns. The requested action is to take public testimony prior to considering this ordinance, and today we have Michael Steffanaro here to go over the proposed changes in more detail. And this concludes my staff report, and I'm available for any questions.

Questions from council? Okay, so there's a number of amendments. Some came from the Planning Commission. Can you just kind of summarize the input from the Planning Commission on this?

Sure, I'd be happy to. I think there was three amendment sheets, and I labeled them as 1A, 2A, and 3A. Those came from the Planning Commission, mostly about dry vials. And when we took, I think it was Commissioner Ash was the one who proposed some of those amendments. We took some of those amendments, and we brought them to the Department of Public Works, and we added just one or two qualifiers to the amendment sheets. And I think that was just input for some safety and engineering concerns. And I'm happy to go over the differences. The differences are pretty slight, but it's mostly qualifying instead of, for example, drive aisles in all residential zones. qualify that and say, well, instead of all residential zones, what about all urban residential zones that have townhouses? Because if you look at the permitted uses there, that's where drive-by would be more applicable. And I think there might be a, like there's a footnote qualifier for the difference between 2A and 2B, and that's just to make sure that the amendments proposed during planning commission also don't run afoul of any cross-references in any of the Snohomish County Code. If it's okay with you, I was going to go through the briefing and then go through the amendment sheets one by one and sort of talk about the differences. But I'm also happy to clear it up now, whatever you prefer.

You mean your PowerPoint?

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Yeah. I think the PowerPoint would be great if the council agrees. Okay.

Sure. Okay. I'll go through the briefing and I'll just kind of go through the amendment sheets real quick. So the proposed code amendments relating to roads and access I miss it's mostly chapter 30 24 and a few cross references So I'll just go over some background proposed code code amendments and some of the timeline So there's been ongoing efforts for the past two years to update access and road network. There's just a need for general updates to outdated or ambiguous language. Last time this code chapter was updated was in 2012. And then there was actually a briefing to the Planning Commission in July of 2025. But after the Planning Commission briefing, we brought it back to do more work with the Department of Public Works, focus on some code language and feedback, incorporate other information. input from stakeholders so then we we brought it back again in 2026 and had a public comment period from February 6 2026 to February 20th 2026 and And the objectives of the update is basically to grant more flexibility and clarity for road network connectivity and pedestrian facility requirements. Basically, we want to separate two sets of requirements for road network connectivity and pedestrian facilities, depending on whether the developments are rural or urban, just because there might be more metrics that are applicable, depending on whether it's rural or urban. We want to allow private drive-outs in the T, MR, LDMR, or UC zones, although there is an amendment sheet that I'll go over that might Alter that depending on which amendment sheets are adopted. We want to grant more flexible timing for road improvements during boundary line adjustments and also grant more flexible timing during the deeding of right of way. For the updates to 3024, access and road network connectivity requirements will no longer apply to all storage structures and garages. The road network connectivity will now have separate requirements for rural and urban areas. The urban areas will include additional exemptions to road connectivity for statutory or constitutional reasons or for critical areas. Drive aisles may be provided with a SFDU and TMR, LDMR, or UC zones. also there'll be amendment sheets on that just to break it down in rural areas that have less than a 200 ADT they will not require road network connectivity unless the county engineer determines it's necessary to protect public safety and when road network elements are necessary to develop or maintain the planned road system and in rural areas that are greater than 200 ADT they will require road network connectivity unless prohibited by statute or constitutional reasons, and when the county engineer determines the unique nature of the site, makes expanding the road network impractical or infeasible. So, a little confusing, but it's basically saying that if you have a rural area above or equal to 280T, you're always going to require road network connectivity. unless there's certain reasons that prohibit it. And in less than 280T, you're saying you're not going to require that type of connectivity. But we also put a guardrail saying that there's discretion by the accounting engineer, saying if it's unsafe, then there would be a necessary connectivity. And it's similar to the pedestrian facilities, but I'm going to go over this next slide first. Proposed boundary line adjustments may be recorded prior to the construction of road network elements. The access locations conform to ED standards. And if you're curious on why that's being changed, basically the BLAs and the deeding of right-of-way, a lot of developers wanted sort of flexibility because they said this boundary line adjustment or this deeding of right-of-way, it's more of a paper change. So can we just make the change on paper and then do the construction afterwards? Makes the construction timetables a little bit more flexible. And we said that's fine as long as they go through the hoops afterwards of making the paper change to ensure the construction is done right. But that's basically the background on that change. And similar to connectivity, now pedestrian facilities are not required in UGAs with 280T or fewer. and are not required outside of UGAs. And for shoulders, they are required outside of UGAs except on private roads that serve 282 or fewer and have a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less on permanent dead end road elements when connecting Individual dwellings to the adjacent road network element and when connecting detached garages storage structures or carport to the adjacent road network element there is also the guard guard rail of The county engineer having discretion of an interest of public safety then we can require shoulders as well Okay, and so just to clear up a few final points, the deeding of right-of-way can be established prior to this certificate of occupancy, including for rezone applications and for binding site plans, subdivisions. short subdivisions done concurrently with the time of recording. And that was just a kind of efficiency thing where they felt that certain paper changes could be made before doing construction, similar to the BLAs. There's a few other changes. Definition of road public is amended to include roads that are maintained by the state and cities. Again, it's kind of a weird loophole where people were saying, you say public road and it's defined as being maintained by Snohomish County. So maybe I don't have to follow certain setbacks if it's maintained by the state or maintained by different entities. And so we just clarify that to avoid that loophole and just say public road is just any roads that are maintained by the state and cities. And there was also a few other definitional changes to road system to that point. And just to go over timeline, it was kind of a long process. SEPA was issued July 2025, same with Department of Commerce notification, public engagement February 10th through 24th on the 2026th. And there was also public engagement in 2025 as well. We had the briefing February 24th and the hearing March 24th, and now we're a council. And I'm happy to take questions or happy to go over the amendment sheets, whatever order you prefer.

Initial questions or hear the amendments. I did, I guess since we have this up, can we on the timeline? So there's substantial amendments. Um, I'm also hearing, well, if, if we have a substitute, what, what parts of this process? would need to be either repeated or sent back if there's a substitute that's proposed versus additional amendments.

Substitute ordinance does extend the timeline a little bit compared to amendment sheet. I think you have to send it back through other parts of the process. In this case, we felt it seems extensive because there's like seven different amendment sheets. But if you look at them, and I can go over them, they're actually kind of small. They're basically word changing to different phrases. So just know you can do substitute ordinance. It'll delay the process even more. And if you give me the chance to go over the amendment sheets, I can point out the exact tweaks to you.

Okay. And then in general, the 280T, is that based on a national standard for low-volume roads, or where did 280T come from?

Yes, it is. And if Chad or Kelly isn't here, maybe they can chime in. But I spoke to Jen and Kelly and hopefully they can have concurrence with me. But it is based on some peer review of other government standards. And I have some notes, too. I think there's some neighboring counties that have very similar ADT. Some of them even go higher and they say a low volume road. You can go up to 480T. I think one even goes up to 880T, and they still qualify as low-volume roads. So we're pretty conservative in how we determine low-volume road at 280T. Feel free to jump in, but I think that was after discussion with Jed and Kelly. Jed might come in and give some specifics here.

I'll just let Council know my staff report does have a chart for reference on the proposed ordinances.

For the record, Jack Gonzalez, Public Works staff, and basically Michael summarized it, and it is a variety of things. There was research done for neighboring counties like Spokane County, Pierce County, and in the case of Pierce County, low-volume roads would be anywhere from 280T. National standards, something like the AASHTO standard, would be 400, but there's also further stratification for those low-volume roads, which could be up to 100 or somewhere between 101, 250, that type of deal. And then also, two years back, when this effort first started, there was conversations with stakeholders to come up with that 280T number.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Neering?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Not necessarily a question, but more of a comment. I think in light of a lot of the community feedback that I've received, I think there's still some more work to be done on this. So my recommendation would be that we do send this back to committee and look at a potential substitute.

Yeah, I agree. That was going to be my same thought. And then the only question for me was timing, and if it's a substitute, what parts would have to be sent through again? like a SEPA analysis, Department of Commerce, versus amendments.

We would have to look at that and determine whether or not it was substantive or not.

Okay. Did you want to go through the amendments?

Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to. And these might even have an impact on the substantive ordinance we write if we go that route. So it might be good for them just to go over it. Basically, and it modifies a certain part of the ordinance related to dry vials, and that's what a lot of these amendment sheets are doing is modifying dry vials. But 1A is from the Planning Commission. Basically, if you kind of remember from the PowerPoint, we wrote the code update saying, okay, we'll allow dry vials in the TMR, LDMR, or UC zone. And then one of the Planning Commissioners said, well... you know, let's have drive-bys included in all residential zones, and at least if you don't mind shooting to 2B, we wanted to temper that a little bit say instead of all residential zones oh I'm sorry I meant one B instead of all residential zones modify that say drive aisles in all urban residential zones and any zone in which townhouse development is permitted so it's just kind of tempering some of the recommendation by Planning Commission for drive aisles and all zones to just have them in a little bit more germane zones You'll see that in some other amendment sheets. Lisa. Do you mind going to to a for me? If you look at to a can you scroll down a little bit basically related to the point on dry vows the Planning Commission said well Drive aisles are kind of similar, and I agree, drive aisles are similar to alleys, shared courts, shared driveways. So why not allow connections of drive aisles to drive aisles, but also to alleys, to shared courts, to shared driveways. And I brought it to some public work stakeholders and Supervisor Darin. And we don't have a whole lot of contention with that, but we did put one qualifier on that. Lisa, could you go to 2B? The only qualifier we had with connections of drive aisles to drive aisles, shared courts, shared drive aisles, et cetera. If you scroll down, we just added a quick footnote just saying, that if you do make a connection specifically to an alley, the alley must not exceed 150 feet in length. And that's just to make sure it conforms to other cross-references in the code. And maybe when the Planning Commission made that recommendation, they didn't think to add that little qualifier. So we added it. It's not actually super... Urgent I think because no matter what it's already covered in 30 24 120 anyways, but it's just kind of a reiteration So if people are reading the table, they know that there's certain length standards and that's why we added that but it's already in the code anyway, so it's not a huge change from the Planning Commission amendment 3A, 3B, very similar thing. It's just because there's little parts of dry vials throughout all of 3024, and this is some language in dry vial to 302455, and it just repeats, okay, we want dry vials not just in TMR, LDMR, or UC zones, We want them in all residential zones, so we said, okay, let's try to temper that. And if you go to 3B, we just had the same suggestion and said, let's rein this in a little bit. Instead of drive aisles in all zones that are residential, we'll do all urban residential zones. Any zone in which townhouse development is permitted. So it's just having dry vials be slightly contained to more germane zones. That's the only tweak we made. Mostly dry vials. And then I think there's one more amendment sheet for. And I think that's also with dry vials. I'm trying to read the screen, but I can read it here on my. Paper two. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's just trying to make sure that drive-bys conform to fire trucks. And it might be a little redundant because there's also some language in the fire code itself. We just adopted it with the ICOs just earlier. But there's some language that already has certain standards that all roads have to meet. you know firetruck standards, but we also want to put up a point on 3024 90 to add these 2 sentences. Drive I'll designated as a fire lane show me the requirements of 3024 100 and 3053 a 5.12. Then we added a drive aisle must be capable of supporting the weight of a fire apparatus, and parking is prohibited within drive aisles except within designated parking stalls. If you're wondering the origin of that, there was a lot of different stakeholders in this code update, including people from the Department of Emergency Management. I don't think Amy Lucas is here with the county anymore, but she was involved from an emergency management standpoint. She just wanted to make sure that certain parts of the roads and access code update wouldn't run afoul of certain egress or fire response concerns. And, you know, just having that additional language about not making sure there's errant cars parked where fire trucks need to access, which is added for safety reasons. So that's why that amendment was added.

Questions from Council? Council Member Neering?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. So amendments with an A at the end were recommended by the Planning Commission. With a B at the end are PDS recommendations after seeing the Planning Commission's. So the 1A, or excuse me, 1B, 2B, 3B, were those discussed at the Planning Commission meeting? Is the Planning Commission giving input to sort of the PDS recommendation that's followed their recommendation?

I think we sent the amendment sheets after, like it wasn't directly during the Planning Commission meeting. I think it was shortly after we sent it to them. And I think there is a letter of recommendation included in the Index of Records, but as far as I was concerned, there wasn't too much pushback on the qualifiers. We had it.

to the Planning Commission Amendment Sheets. So they've seen the Amendment Sheets that PDS has recommended, but haven't taken action to recommend them or not?

And Deb can chime in, but I haven't gotten any explicit communication from my way about contention with the Amendment Sheet qualifiers we added. Or support. Right. Okay.

So the letter from April 22nd. says Planning Commission recommended approval of code amendments as submitted by staff. Is that the 2B, 1B, the Bs?

I would think so because I can check the timeline exactly if you'd like me to. But as far as I was aware, they were aware of these qualifiers we had. It didn't have too much contention. I can check my email and see the exact timeline of when they were made aware. But I don't think they were too opposed to small qualifiers we added.

But I think if the Planning Commission takes formal action at a meeting to recommend something, even if it's a small qualifier or not, I think it's helpful to have, like in another public meeting, a recommendation either for or against just so that we're sure. It's one thing to make them aware. We know that they've seen them, but it's another to say they either support or don't. But if we're sending this back to committee, if that's the will of the council, I think we'll be able to get that information. So thank you for the presentation.

Okay. Other questions from council or any online? Okay. Uh, if there's no more other questions, we will open up public testimony on this item. So, uh, you can come to the podium in the center of the room and then we'll, we'll do, uh, in person first and then online. So you have three minutes. Welcome.

So, uh, my name is Richard Flath and I am a, um, fire commissioner for fire district four, which headquarters in Snohomish. And, um, Our fire chief indicated that in the planning process, the fire entity was not really provided input, and there was an article in the Herald not long ago about that. And so with that in mind, we have a fire marshal in our district, and he put together a briefing for us about some issues, particularly in... SCC 34-24. And I'd like to leave that with you to take a look at and to see, because I do believe we need some fire input in this. I know the gentleman over here indicated that FEMA did something, but FEMA is not the fire districts that are out there. And so I I don't know if the fire districts had any more part of the stakeholders in this whole thing. I would like to give this to somebody.

Yeah, you can give it to our clerks and we'll include it in the record.

Okay, thank you very much. Hopefully you'd make some copies and maybe take a look at it.

Yeah, it'll be distributed to the full council.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Other comments? Welcome.

Is the mic on? Okay. Hello, my name is Tris Sandberg. I live at 5424 Lurch Road in rural, unincorporated Snohomish County. Council members, I am speaking today regarding Ordinance 26-038. I've provided written comments this morning and I also emailed them this morning. I am requesting that council oppose establishing separate road standards for urban and rural areas. The intent, quote, to avoid urban levels of traffic demand in non-urbanized areas is disconnected from reality. The problem is rapid development is occurring in the rural areas, and we are already sustaining urban levels of traffic. Our rural roads will continue to fail their levels of service and become less safe. It is important to ensure that the long-term impacts on our transportation network are adequately addressed as development occurs so that the costs and responsibilities do not ultimately fall on the community and taxpayers after development is complete. Although laudable, this ordinance will not address housing affordability for reasons I've given in my letter. Road shoulders and pedestrian facilities are not, quote, unwarranted costs. Residents use those facilities to walk, bike, and recreate. I live on rural roads that have no shoulders or sidewalks. It is dangerous to walk when the choice is to jump off the road into a ditch, down an embankment, or into blackberries. According to the proposed language 30.24.010 section 5, quote, outside urban growth areas, developments generating fewer than average daily trips shall not be required to provide road connectivity and I emphasize including the extension of any open or unopened right of way that abuts a proposed development. Relaxing road connectivity standards in rural areas raises enough concerns. So why allow a developer to ignore a right of way that already exists and would improve safety and traffic circulation. I also want to note, it's noteworthy that the proposed ordinance allows access to dwelling units via a network of drive aisles. I have concerns about that, which I have noted in my letter as well. In conclusion, road connectivity is especially needed in rural areas because thoughtful placement of roads where none exists form the backbone of a functioning road network when rural areas inevitably develop. I encourage you to retain this item for your docket and engage staff to make modest adjustments while keeping the road standards the same for both urban and rural areas. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there other testimony today in person? Anyone else? Yes, welcome.

Good morning, council members. My name is Brian Mills. I'm a fire commissioner for Fire District 4. Like my fellow commissioner mentioned, we have some concerns specifically with one section of this proposal. The area that talks about a single road into rural areas with less than 280Ts. As you can imagine, that creates a problem. If I, as a homeowner, decided to build a house somewhere up on a hill and be off grid and have one way in and out, that's on me. But when there are this many people that are depending upon that single road in and out, that's a whole nother level. And I think it's important for us to consider history as you look at that particular requirement. There are examples year after year from wildfires all across this country where neighborhoods that have had one road in and out, and these are large neighborhoods, as the gentleman suggested earlier, not just in Washington State, large developments, two, three, four, five, 600 homes, one road in and out. So if you're looking at how to improve that, I understand that a principal driver of roads is cost, and it doesn't surprise me that the Planning Commission and the master builders would be focusing on that. But you need to also consider a different kind of cost, and that's the cost of human life and property. When responders go into an area like that in an emergency, whether it's firefighters or police officers or utility workers, And then that road is blocked. Now you've got the people that have come to save those residents also blocked. And just last year, we lost a firefighter trying to get out of an area like that. And unfortunately, he died because the road was closed and he couldn't get out. So I would urge you to take a look to re-examine that section, specifically about the 280Us and make a different choice. I would also urge you to include fire agencies much earlier in this process. We were not, it wasn't even on our radar until after the public comment period it was brought to our attention. So as what I would consider a significant stakeholder in safety issues such as this, I would urge you to include fire agencies earlier in the process. Thanks.

Thank you for your comment. Other testimony on this item. Are there any hands raised online.

Zoe Harris followed by Kristen Kelly.

So are you able to provide comment.

I am can you hear me yes. Hi, my name is Zoe Harris, and I'm from unincorporated Snohomish County near Lake Bosworth. I submitted my written comments to reflect my position, so I won't repeat what that long letter has already said. But I agree with the previous speakers who oppose moving forward with this ordinance. I respectfully ask that it be returned to Committee for further research and consideration of public safety, emergency access, transportation capacity, and other potential impacts before the Council takes action on this. And I also respectfully ask that any further public hearings or comment periods on this topic be taken in the early evening. So those who have reached out to me and others that can't make it today because of work, it would be really appreciated if this was at a later hour. Thank you. And I return the remaining two minutes back to the council.

Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker.

Kristen Kelly, followed by Craig Erickson.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great. So I'm Kristen Kelly. I'm here representing FutureWise. We oppose this ordinance because it will put some residents of Snohomish County in an avoidable danger should a wildfire erupt in their neighborhoods. The county is also required to reduce rural development, not increase it. I did a quick look at each council member's webpage about your priorities for Snohomish County. Each of you, in some way, said you care about public safety and healthy communities, among other things you said. I want to thank the Herald Reporter for the story about this ordinance over the weekend. I, along with many others, learned about the dangers with this ordinance from that article. Nowhere did I see any mention of wildfires and increased housing with these road rules changes. And that is why you should not adopt this ordinance, because it will not... have anything to do with public safety or healthy communities. What it does is provide more money for the developers who are the main drivers of this ordinance. Nowhere in the ordinance or the staff report did I find any discussion that by creating more affordable housing that these regulations would also create unsafe neighborhoods, especially in the rural wildfire interface areas. upending the residents' ability to evacuate their neighborhoods should a large wildfire erupt, and that this would also substantially interfere with the fire department's ability to save people's lives. In the news yesterday on KNXX Radio, it was reported that we no longer have a fire season here in Washington because we have wildfires all year round. The evidence of increasing wildfires near housing developments that are in neighborhoods, especially in rural areas, are increasing due to climate change impacts of drought, high heat, and large storms, and the cost of fighting and preventing wildfires is at its highest level yet and still growing. And it costs the taxpayers money to fight these fires. As a reminder, think of Spokane this year. I can go on and on about this, but we really recommend that denial of this ordinance is important. Bring people back to the table. FutureWise was never asked to join this discussion. I don't know who the other stakeholders are besides the master builders. This has been a long process. I just heard about it. And I'm very active in land use issues here in the county. So I really recommend denial. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker.

Our last hand raised is Craig Erickson.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello. Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

I cannot hear you. Craig, we can hear you. Okay, good. Thank you. Craig Erickson, I'm also a fire commissioner with Snohomish County Fire District 4 and a member of the Sno-Isle Fire Commissioners Association. As Brian and Mr. Flass said, the fire district commissioners were not notified of this change until very late notice and it makes us unable to perform our duties as provided in RCW 52. And part of those roles and duties are the government's strategic planning, community engagement, financial oversight, and safety oversight. And safety is probably, it is the number one thing that we need to concentrate on. by not amending some of the things that have been talked about here, we're putting our future in jeopardy. Today is okay, but when they put those roads in and they do it on a 200 daily trip count and they start adding ADUs to those, pretty soon that 200 is going to double and triple. I just urge the council to take a second look at this and make amendments to the proposal. And also please keep in mind in the future any fire issues, please notify the Snohomish County Fire Commissioners Association so that we can act appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other speakers online? Okay, I'm not seeing any hands raised. So if there's no other hands raised, then we will turn back to council for discussion. Any comments? Council Member Neering?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Any objection to moving this back to committee? That's a good idea.

No, so if it goes back to committee, we can either refer it back to committee or set a new public hearing date. But it sounds like there's substantial work. Can you describe what the difference would be?

Back to committee, we would then... look, we would be able to do more in depth and look at and have for future discussions. If we extend the public hearing or set a new public hearing date, it would limit that ability.

I agree with sending back to committee. So this was planning. This was the planning committee or public works planning.

Okay.

Is that the recommendation to go back to planning? Yes Okay, is there a motion or any other discussion Okay, is there a motion? I moved to refer ordinance 26-0 3 8 back to Planning Committee second It's been properly moved and seconded to refer ordinance 26-0 3 8 back to the Planning Committee. Is there any other discussion? Okay, all in favor. Please say aye. Aye Chair votes aye any opposed hearing none that passes 5 to 0 Next, we'll hear Ordinance 26-039.

Council considers Ordinance 26-039 relating to growth management, revising development regulations for sheriff precincts and fire stations, amending Snohomish County Code.

Thank you again for the record, Deb Bell, Council Staff. Proposed ordinance was initiated by Council Member Lowe and Council Member Mead and was first introduced at the August 18th Committee of the Whole with time and date for a public hearing set at the August 19th GLS. Proposed ordinance would amend Snohomish County Code Chapter 30. Currently, there is no specific designation for sheriff precincts or fire stations within code. The proposed ordinance defines these critical facilities and under zoning regulations outlines where they may be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited. This has gone through the planning review process, including SEPA and Commerce Review and the Planning Commission, all with approval. Requested action is for council to take public testimony prior to considering the ordinance. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Any questions from council? Okay, if there's no questions, we'll open up public testimony on this item. Did anyone wish to speak to this ordinance in person? Hi, welcome.

Once again, Brian Mills. I live in Snohomish. I want to thank the council for taking some action to make it a little easier for fire departments to build fire stations. It's has always been a challenge for us because it seems as though even though we're a public safety entity, we're treated like we're building a jack in the box and you have to jump through all of the exact same hoops and the same timing. And sometimes it takes two to three years to get through that process. So I appreciate the fact that you're trying to help streamline that. I'm hoping that more things can be done to allow Not only fire stations, but police precincts to be built on a more expedient manner so that we can provide safety and fire prevention to residents more quickly. Get those stations built faster. Thanks.

Thank you for your comment. Other speakers in person? Okay, we'll turn to online. Are there any speakers to this item? Please signify by raising your hand. I don't see any hands raised, so we will close testimony on this item and turn to council.

I move to approve ordinance 26-039. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve ordinance 26-039. Is there any comment?

Yeah, I have one.

Council member below?

Yeah, I just want to thank our fire commissioners and districts. This has been a long process to get to this point. I think Snohomish Regional Fire brought this to me about three years ago. I went through a long, lengthy process to get started. And working with Councilmember Mead on this to get this done is, I think, a great thing for the safety of our county, especially in our rural areas. And so I'm happy to see this finally come to a vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Okay, we'll have a roll call vote. Council Member Meade?

Yes.

Council Member Nehring?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lowe?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Chair Dunn? Yes.

So Ordinance 26-039 passes 5-0. We will keep the record open on Ordinance 26-038, and that concludes our agenda for the day, and Council is in recess.