Snohomish County sends road code proposal back to committee
Published 1:44 pm Thursday, September 10, 2026
EVERETT — Snohomish County Council unanimously decided to send a road access code update back to the county’s planning committee Wednesday after public comments from local fire commissioners and residents who relayed safety concerns about the policy proposal.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Michael Saponaro, a long-term planner for the county’s Planning and Development Services department, presented proposed policy changes to council members that have been in the works since 2024. The planning department said it has wanted to update the code to give developers more flexibility with construction requirements, therefore saving money and supporting the county’s need for more affordable housing.
If the proposal had passed on Wednesday, it would have more than doubled the allowed number of houses developers could build on a dead-end road in rural areas. Developers would also no longer have been required to build pedestrian facilities, like sidewalks, or create road shoulders in certain rural areas.
“This code update started a few years back, and with the assistance of Public Works and the Master Builders Association [of King and Snohomish counties] and stakeholders, the proposed edits are consistent with logistical and technical work that will not affect safety or engineering concerns,” Saponaro said on Wednesday. The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish counties is a lobby group representing more than 2,400 builders and developers in the central Puget Sound region.
While Saporano said the proposed revisions to the code would not pose a threat to safety, local and regional wildfire researchers and emergency responders have said otherwise, stating that the changes could lead to deadly consequences during disaster evacuations.
“In light of a lot of the community feedback that I received, I think there’s still some more work to be done on this,” council member Nate Nehring said after Saporano’s presentation, which was before public comments even began.
Council member and chair Megan Dunn seconded Nehring’s statement.
A handful of people, including three commissioners from Fire District 4, which covers the area around the city of Snohomish, provided public testimony and asked council members to rethink the proposed changes.
Earlier this year, The Herald reported that the proposed changes the county’s planning department was putting forward were heavily shaped by suggestions made by the Master Builders Association.
Emails obtained by The Herald through public records requests showed the lobbyist group provided specific requests for policy changes for two years before the 14-day public comment period was opened. Additionally, four members of the county’s Planning Commission, a volunteer advisory board to the county council, have direct ties to the Master Builders.
Additional emails showed the county’s own Department of Emergency Management wasn’t looped into the policy proposal until after the 14-day public comment period had concluded. The Herald interviewed three fire chiefs around the county who said that, until the interview, they had not heard of the possible changes.
“The fire district commissioners were not notified of this change until very late notice, and it makes us unable to perform our duties. Part of those roles and duties are government strategic planning, community engagement, financial oversight and safety oversight,” said Fire Commissioner Brian Mills. “And safety is probably the number one thing that we need to concentrate on by not amending some of the things that have been talked about here. In the future, please notify the Snohomish County Fire Commissioners Association so that we can act appropriately.”
He then emphasized what he believed to be the stakes of the code proposal.
“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,” he said. “But you need to also consider a different kind of cost, and that’s the cost of human life and property.”
Kristin Kelly, the Snohomish County for FutureWise, a statewide land use and policy nonprofit, questioned why the organization hadn’t been looped into the conversation.
“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,” she said. “FutureWise was never asked to join this discussion. I don’t know who the other stakeholders are besides the Master Builders.”
Brian Holztclaw, who serves as both the Master Builders’ general counsel and a commissioner on the county’s Planning Commission, said that he believes the majority of the code revisions are solid.
“The press reports about this ordinance and even some of the testimony yesterday make it sound like this ordinance is highly controversial. As I understand it, there’s really only two provisions that are at issue,” he said on Thursday over a phone call, referencing the proposals about creating separate road connectivity requirements for rural and urban areas, and what those requirements are. “I think the main substance of the ordinance isn’t at issue, although there apparently have been some specific changes suggested that the council wants the planning committee to take a further look at.”
When asked about whether or not his role for the county and role for the Master Builders created any conflicts of interest, he said that it was a drawn connection that didn’t exist.
“I can’t affect how people perceive things, but I certainly am not going into that as being an advocate for MBA, even though sometimes my opinions align with what MBA is pushing for,” he said.
Eliza Aronson: 425-339-3434; eliza.aronson@heraldnet.com
Eliza also uses the encrypted messaging platform, Signal: @elizaaronson.40
Eliza’s stories are supported by the Herald’s Investigative Reporting Fund.
