[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6511617,"mediaKeyId","5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d","parentId",5322158,"title","Councilmembers report on Strong Towns and Congress for New Urbanism: housing types, quick‑build and accessory commercial units","audioSeconds",2028,"startMs",8462000,"endMs",10490000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d&start=8462&end=10490","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d/thumbnail_8462000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511617/Lynnwood/Snohomish-County/Washington/Councilmembers-report-on-Strong-Towns-and-Congress-for-New-Urbanism-housing-types-quickbuild-and-accessory-commercial-units","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511617-04703d022e252fef73f2be319354f14e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770408646&Signature=DwXZCR7BwAmgNvcpRxR-2IRHtopVCVinRLpKM7PhbChsn3pZFzprIJgeCJ5NgwToSCJpRUL0eMvRK5m4KLBxm9fUbt0kog5koWanEnLuYG5kbAkqdCBaifPWWQu1smCWSMezRTTot8xe4m4gjVu686yl8Pauj7Z8-mdzgq7VUvCgb8HaLamCS~Ap94lAJZUfwscJrNqlfcClV9XXRH4Twyt771gZdSv0wNsFj71Kslzu7PuOZA6R7DcC0jZxLIBEdms5oB0ZiofApQUNkTSboMXfYbP49ADaw4Ffy9AwmJ4uEwkf3UhG5hn8Bby7e9--nCjTLWRMv1-~1vixQ9j0iA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lynnwood","date","2025-07-07T00:00:00Z","article","Councilmembers Nick Coelho and Robert Lewyler reported back to the Lynnwood City Council on July 7 about the Strong Towns National Gathering and the Congress for the New Urbanism conference they attended. Their presentation highlighted examples and policy ideas the council could consider in future planning work.

Their lede point: both conferences brought together planners, elected officials, developers and community activists with practical examples of how to make neighborhoods more livable, affordable and resilient. Coelho and Lewyler emphasized a human-centered planning frame—focusing on “places where people can love each other,” Coelho said—rather than technical zoning alone.

Key takeaways presented to the council included: support for “missing middle” housing types such as cottage courts that can fit into existing single‑family neighborhoods; the use of quick‑build, temporary street improvements to test bike lanes or pedestrian changes before permanent construction; and accessory commercial units (ACUs) as a tool to encourage small neighborhood businesses (examples included converted garages, accessory retail in mixed-use zones, and small incubator storefronts).

Lewyler and Coelho showed several built examples from other cities—small cafes started in garages, cottage‑court developments that blend with single‑family homes, and quick‑build bicycle lanes—pointing out that several proposals discussed during Lynnwood’s recent comp‑plan updates and UDC review mirror those trends. Coelho said ACUs can reduce startup risk for small entrepreneurs by allowing business activity as a secondary use tied to a residence and by enabling residential mortgage financing for small commercial buildouts under certain thresholds.

The presentation stressed process lessons as well: involve residents early, use low‑cost temporary changes to demonstrate outcomes, and “fall in love with the problem, not the solution” before selecting a particular design. Councilmembers recommended staff consider further study of cottage courts, ACU concepts and quick‑build pilot projects when updating the Unified Development Code and implementing parts of the comprehensive plan.

Ending: Coelho and Lewyler suggested city staff and additional councilmembers could attend future conferences and recommended staff follow up on potential pilot projects and code language to enable ACUs and other neighborhood-scaled options.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lynnwood - City Council Work Session - Jul 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Councilmembers Nick Coelho and Robert Lewyler summarized takeaways from Strong Towns and Congress for the New Urbanism conferences, raising ideas for missing‑middle housing, quick‑build street tweaks, accessory commercial units and neighborhood-scaled economic opportunity.","taxTitle","Lynnwood, Snohomish County, Washington","taxId",58431,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511622,"Lynnwood council hears broad debate on retail cannabis rules, high‑THC risks and zoning options",6301,2214000,8515000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d&start=2214&end=8515","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d/thumbnail_2214000.jpg","/articles/6511622/Lynnwood/Snohomish-County/Washington/Lynnwood-council-hears-broad-debate-on-retail-cannabis-rules-highTHC-risks-and-zoning-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511622-ce1701560b84d093164985bbe7c6839c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770408646&Signature=Phb9Dylzww2jygBxV8wl6IwwfqqtrG2hmohU3r6~UgQVrDPqn286r1X5BsP3mRiu7wQtYU2RTCCuTV~KTKcvBLaAGGkw-3LdnhFgmCTq0IFLGGvzyaj8PMAGM3jR1q9t7C8DqbgRUFcOuTU~QITI0n6Vt4lnMRcaaWmFK0ATGkSu2qqN0pMlVxiMmyZp25EJTTunGX3X94vIFrtP--Vi0nSdYq4wPr~0cTgVHjHwP9toe0JLTKH8tvjqkTKhVOEM3pRy19j4qcnJfqTPA8gj4idSZ2dXqTiFIwEn2CCE037mxqLTEqZS4rL7-cNpx9G6BoVnV5zbQodHBopABjeY6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lynnwood City Council spent most of its July 7 work session discussing retail cannabis policy, hearing a public-health presentation and comments from state and local industry representatives, license holders and a registered lobbyist about the benefits and risks of allowing retail cannabis in Lynnwood.

Council President Nick Coelho opened the item by saying the evening’s invited guests were asked to share regulatory experience rather than lobby. The council then heard a 30-minute public-health overview from Caitlin Ryan, executive director of the Cannabis Alliance, who described the complexity of high‑THC products, evidence gaps and youth-risk questions. “High concentrations are not inherently dangerous,” Ryan said, but she urged the council to place risks in context, to focus on regulated retail to enable age‑gating and to fund education and prevention programs.

Nutrition: why this matters. The discussion is significant because council decisions will determine whether, where and how Lynnwood allows retail storefronts and whether the city seeks additional local safeguards—rules that affect youth access, neighborhood siting and the design of retail operations.

Councilmembers pressed several themes: public-health risk to youth and people with preexisting vulnerabilities; whether high‑THC concentrates increase the chance of problematic mental-health outcomes; the difference between state-level regulation and what a city can reasonably enforce; and equity concerns about siting shops near lower-income neighborhoods and schools.

Public-health and evidence: Dr. Ryan summarized recent work and said some research shows associations between cannabis use and later psychosis in susceptible individuals but not clear causation; she cited the need for education, age-gating and state-level action on product differentiation or taxation for high‑THC products. She cautioned that much of the high‑THC research comes from jurisdictions with different regulatory histories and that unregulated hemp products sold outside the regulated market are associated with spikes in accidental ingestions.

Industry and license‑holder perspectives: Councilmembers heard from four license holders or industry representatives invited to the table. Sanuk Abraha, who said he grew up in Lynnwood and operates licensed stores nearby, described security and compliance practices: 24/7 surveillance, reinforced storefronts and ID checks at entry and purchase. Gene Konofsky, a long-time region operator, said he has seen no “negative comments” from cities that allowed retail and emphasized operator compliance. Eric Anderson (joining via Zoom) and another local license holder said real-estate availability is a major barrier and argued that wider zoning options and moderate buffers can prevent clustering while letting businesses thrive. Josh Estes identified himself as a registered lobbyist and said he was present to help answer ordinance and implementation questions.

Council questions and concerns: Councilmember Decker challenged the characterization that invited industry guests were not lobbyists and highlighted public-health studies linking cannabis use with later psychiatric outcomes in some populations. Councilmember Parcel cited the Washington State Health Care Authority’s 2022 high‑THC policy work and asked why the state wouldn’t take stronger regulatory steps; she suggested raising the legal purchase age for high‑THC products to 25 and adding labeling and point‑of‑sale education. Councilmember Binda urged moving forward with regulation that reflected the will of voters but said the city must protect youth and vulnerable populations.

Zoning and buffers: The planning commission recommended allowing retail in Highway‑99 mixed-use, general commercial and Alderwood zones with minimum buffers (1,000 feet in Highway‑99 mixed use and general commercial; 300 feet in Alderwood) and re-evaluating city-center zoning after Town Square Park construction. License holders generally favored greater availability and asked planners to avoid artificial clustering by permitting multiple zones; they also voiced support for minimum separation among stores so operators would not compete on a single block.

Design and operational standards: Council and the industry discussed signage, window visibility and security measures. License holders said operators typically prefer to be transparent about interior operations, but that roll-down security measures for after-hours protection and controlled signage are common. Industry representatives said they already invest in lighting, cameras and other safety measures and that many stores conduct community donations and sponsorships (examples cited included food-bank donations and pandemic-related mask drives).

What the council decided: No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Councilmembers asked staff to draft proposed local regulations and zoning language, to return with additional stakeholder outreach (neighborhood groups, schools and public‑health practitioners were specifically requested by several councilmembers), and to include options for buffers, permitted zones and potential design standards. Several councilmembers suggested discussing whether to hold a public ballot measure in the future; staff and industry noted the cost of a city ballot measure and that state law and prior initiatives (I‑502) shape the baseline regulatory environment.

Ending: The council did not vote on an ordinance July 7. Staff will draft and circulate ordinance language and planning recommendations and continue outreach to community stakeholders and public-health experts before council action.","Councilmembers, a public-health speaker and four license holders debated whether Lynnwood should allow retail cannabis, how to regulate high‑THC products, and proposed zoning, separation buffers and design standards; no vote was taken and staff will draft ordinances for future council consideration.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511627,"Lynnwood staff recommend 39¢/kWh public EV charging fee to cover operations and replacement",583,805000,1388000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d&start=805&end=1388","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322158-a15f3b7becdbcf23041899662b822b4d/thumbnail_805000.jpg","/articles/6511627/Lynnwood/Snohomish-County/Washington/Lynnwood-staff-recommend-39kWh-public-EV-charging-fee-to-cover-operations-and-replacement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511627-1882b7fd07097545a52044721aeda4fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770408646&Signature=kzmqbOXpZtseoLmAPHE9h88MUZnji9qz814twPlv7zNcU5ulF5SR1eOV8elcjlfoPQmuMyvLL-e80NpC6tC84lQ1P6qUvHkftAwD8kojJ7U-RQoz1Vjvrmym8u5heZbuc0JX-aym6Ga5RnefMfWp98n4dGxa6gbHuRpBvPhv6z9meD-HaAVGLZdlA0xjRZuCHnGqMA~ON8fAfCEPKydros1wiSfQQkg3Mv9jjoQXOduN6kfsstBqmOsB-4YP6bNSZS9A7lX8JRZ6hoGwksj~O8c93Hfdl0FB7wyPcjldMCGqXyYvfG8ZPTZcTa2SQ5~xWxoJwmh4Xp7t2k4hUrT4GQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynnwood Public Works Deputy Director Marcy McGuire told the City Council on July 7 that the city has installed three new public charging stations (six ports) at the city campus and recommends an initial public rate of 39¢ per kilowatt-hour to cover ongoing operations, maintenance and eventual replacement.

McGuire said the chargers went online in May and have recorded “over 1,300 charging sessions” and about “6,500 kilowatt hours of electricity consumed.” She described average use at roughly 45 minutes per session and estimated about 30 charging sessions per day across the six ports. “We built it. They came,” McGuire said, describing visible use during a lunchtime site visit.

The nut graf: The city installed the chargers with grant funding and some matching city funds but must cover recurring costs—daily PUD demand charges, kilowatt-hour energy charges and vendor operations fees—going forward. Staff proposed 39¢/kWh as a market-aligned rate that would also set aside revenue for replacement of the hardware in an expected 7–10 year lifespan. Council will review an administrative fee ordinance next week to add the rate to the city’s fee schedule.

Most important facts first: McGuire told council the installed equipment includes three ChargePoint pedestals (six charge heads) with a two-hour maximum parking limit per posted signage and an observed average session of about 45 minutes. ChargePoint provides the charging network and payment collection under contract; McGuire said the city pays ChargePoint approximately $1,200 per port per year for services. Energy costs from Snohomish County PUD were noted as a daily demand charge (about $1.72/day) plus per-kWh charges (around 8¢/kWh), and staff propose a clause allowing administrators to adjust the city rate to reflect PUD pass-through increases.

Council members pressed for clarifying details. Councilmember Escamilla asked whether the program had been intended to be free; McGuire said it was “never intended to be a free service” and that charging users was part of avoiding the gifting of public funds and ensuring long-term replacement funding. When Escamilla asked how many city vehicles exist and how many city chargers the city already operates, McGuire said the city’s fleet includes 17 vehicles and the government operates approximately 12 charging stations for city vehicles.

Other council concerns included equity and subsidy. Councilmember Lewyler, an electric-vehicle owner, asked whether lower public rates could be seen as a subsidy for higher-value vehicles; he suggested monitoring real-world data before making final decisions. Councilmember Bridal asked how surplus funds would be tracked. McGuire said revenue would be placed in a city fund tracked by Public Works and reserved for capital replacement and maintenance of the charging equipment.

Councilmember Decker asked about the carbon mix of the electricity used at the chargers; McGuire said the city would follow up with PUD for renewable-share and provide that information by email. Decker also asked about noise from the chargers; staff offered to provide manufacturer specification sheets to the council.

What was not decided: Council did not vote on the ordinance at the July 7 work session. McGuire said the ordinance updating the administrative fee schedule to include the 39¢/kWh rate and to allow limited administrative adjustments tied to PUD rate changes will be brought back to council next week for consideration and possible adoption.

Why it matters: The fee will shape whether public chargers remain affordable and usable while ensuring the city can maintain and eventually replace infrastructure paid for partly with grants and partly with city matching funds—critical to long-term program sustainability.

Next steps and questions staff will supply: staff will provide the matching-fund amount for the grant installation, the PUD renewable-energy mix for the electricity used at the chargers, manufacturer noise/efficiency specifications, and a two-year monitoring plan tied to the biennial budget so council can revisit the rate based on more data.

Ending: Council members generally supported the program’s fiscal prudence—tracking replacement funds and limiting use—but signaled they want more data on energy sources, vendor contract scope and usage trends before a permanent policy is adopted.","Public works staff briefed the Lynnwood City Council on a new three-station, six-port electric vehicle charging installation, user patterns since May, ongoing costs and a proposed 39¢ per kilowatt-hour rate tied to PUD changes; council members asked about program funding, equity and enforcement ahead of an ordinance scheduled next week.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Councilmembers report on Strong Towns and Congress for New Urbanism: housing types, quick‑build and accessory commercial units

Lynnwood council hears broad debate on retail cannabis rules, high‑THC risks and zoning options

Lynnwood staff recommend 39¢/kWh public EV charging fee to cover operations and replacement