City planning staff presented a draft "Imagine Lynnwood" comprehensive plan at the Lynnwood City Council business meeting on Jan. 13, 2025, detailing where the city would accommodate projected population and job growth through 2044. Community Planning Manager Carl Almgren told the council the draft plans for a total population of about 63,735 — roughly 25,000 additional residents — and an increase of approximately 14,000 housing units within existing city boundaries.

The plan, which staff said has been reviewed by the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Washington State Department of Commerce, uses the Growth Management Act framework and allocations developed through Snohomish County Tomorrow and related regional processes. Almgren said the draft also aims to increase the city’s job count by roughly 20,000 to 22,000 jobs and to focus growth in the City Center/Alderwood area, Highway 99 and the college district.

Why this matters: the adopted plan sets the city’s policy framework for land use, housing, transportation and utilities for the next 20 years, establishes where new housing can be built, and affects eligibility for some state and federal grants. Almgren told the council the draft includes policies to implement recent state housing laws (referenced in the presentation as HB 1220) and that the regulations needed to implement the plan will come to council later this year.

Key staff presentation points included the plan’s core values (resilience, livability, sustainability, equity and transit orientation), the housing allocation by income band that staff said reflects regional allocation work, and a proposed streamlining of zoning categories tied to a future Unified Development Code (UDC). Almgren said the UDC amendments to implement middle housing are scheduled for council review by June, and additional code updates (critical areas) are expected by December 2025.

Public concerns and council questions: several members of the public spoke during the hearing. Resident Ted Heikle told the council he opposed the allocations and warned that the city’s single-family character would change; he cited staff figures and said, “If you take away our rights as single family, that means that you can take away the right.” Another commenter, Elizabeth Lunsford, praised public outreach and highlighted climate and cooling in higher-density neighborhoods. Forrest Baum and Mike Eckert offered pro-growth comments, with Baum saying more housing could reduce driving.

Council members pressed staff for clarifications about what the numbers mean on the ground. Council Member Josh Bridal asked staff to confirm figures for low-income housing and single-family housing in the draft; Almgren said the draft plans for roughly 3,069 new low-income units (0–80% AMI) in addition to approximately 8,213 existing low-income units and said the plan also includes an estimated 5,187 new single-family-type units in the high-income band. Council Member Patrick Decker asked whether the draft specifies how many new single-family detached homes would actually be built; staff replied the income bands identify affordability targets, not exact building types, and that many high-income units could be single-family, ownership townhomes or other “middle housing” types allowed by new state law.

Next steps: Almgren said the city received planning commission and Department of Commerce comments and that the planning commission recommended approval. The council closed the public hearing and staff said an adoption ordinance will be presented for council consideration in two weeks; staff also noted the city must seek Department of Commerce certification and delay effective zoning changes until the Unified Development Code is adopted so maps and regulations align.

Details and context: Almgren said the housing allocation work comes from the county-level HO5 report and state legislation requiring housing planning by income band. He also noted the plan includes a future climate element requirement by 2029 and references to wildfire mitigation and the wildland-urban interface standards that could require future code changes.

The city did not take a vote on the comprehensive plan at the Jan. 13 meeting; the public hearing was closed so council could deliberate at an upcoming meeting and consider an ordinance in two weeks.