In a report submitted as part of the Wednesday meeting agenda, Levitan noted that state legislators during the 2023 session addressed housing affordability, increasing housing supply and allowing additional housing types. Several bills related to housing were approved and three of them — House Bills 1110, 1293 and 1337 — will require the city to update its development code to accommodate them. Those updates must be completed by June 2025 — within six months of Edmonds finishing its 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update.

“All three topics covered by these bills — middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and design review/standards — have the potential to increase housing supply and diversity and meet the city’s future housing needs,” Levitan wrote. The Edmonds Housing Commission recommendations also included those topics, he added.

The city council has not discussed the housing commission’s findings since its June 24, 2021 meeting, but the council has expressed a desire to integrate the housing commission recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan Update. The 2023 state legislation “will require the city to amend its development code beyond the proposed scope of the housing commission recommendations,” he explained, including allowing at least two units per lot in most single-famly residential zones (as opposed to the 25% phase-in approach proposed by the housing commission) and allowing two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) per lot, instead of the one detached ADU proposed by the commission.

“Staff intends to have targeted community outreach related to these topics as part of the Comp Plan Update to ensure that required code amendments are ready for adoption by June 2025,” Levitan said.

Here is a more detailed summary and analysis of the three bills:

Commonly known as the Middle Housing Bill or Missing Middle Housing Bill, HB 1110 requires cities to authorize minimum housing development densities and permit specific “middle housing” types in any zone that allows for detached single-family residences (RS zones). Middle housing includes housing types that fall between detached single-family residences and larger apartment complexes, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments and cottage housing. The requirements vary based on city population and do not apply to urban unincorporated areas such as Esperance.

Cities with populations between 25,000 and 75,000 residents (such as Edmonds) must allow a minimum of two units per lot that permits detached single-family residences. That is increased to four units per lot in two instances: if the lot is located within one-quarter mile walking distance of a bus rapid transit station along Highway 99 or the Sounder station or if at least one affordable housing unit is provided for a minimum of 50 years.

Cities with populations over 75,000 are required to allow a minimum of four units per lot for most lots, which is increased to six units per lot for the two situations outlined above. Earlier versions of HB 1110 required a minimum of four units per lot for smaller suburbs such as Edmonds, but that was later reduced to three units per lot before ultimately being approved at the adopted two units per lot.

“For most of the city,” Levitan wrote, “this is essentially a ‘duplex bill,’ with duplexes or two-unit townhouses required on most RS-zoned lots. For those areas that must allow at least four units per lot, HB 1110 requires the city to allow at least six of the nine middle housing types identified in the bill.” Cities may allow ADUs to achieve the minimum-density requirements, he noted.

Minimum-density requirements are not required for lots designated with critical areas and their buffers and certain watersheds listed as impaired or threatened. “Additional guidance is needed from the Washington State Department of Commerce on requirements for lots with minor critical area encumbrances (such as one small corner of a lot with a wetland buffer) that could otherwise accommodate two units on the lot; the city expects additional guidance later this year,” Levitan wrote. HB 1110 also allows cities to use an alternative density requirement for at least 75% of lots in the city that are primarily dedicated to detached single-family residences.

The bill also notes that cities:

1) May only apply administrative design review for middle housing;
2) May not required standards for middle housing that are more restrictive than those for detached single-family residences;
3) Must apply the same development permit and environmental review process that apply to detached single-family residences;
4) Must allow zero lot line subdivisions;
5) May not require off-street parking within a half-mile walking distance of a major transit stop (bus rapid transit station or Sounder station); and
6) May not require more than one off-street parking space per unit on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet and two off-street parking spaces per units on lots larger than 6,000 square feet.

Councilmembers and planning board members are asked to provide feedback on how best to integrate middle housing into the city’s Comprehensive Plan policy framework.

HB 1337 — commonly known as the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bill — requires cities and urban unincorporated areas to update their development codes to allow at least two ADUs on any lot that meets the minimum lot size for the principal unit in any of the following configurations:

1) Two detached ADUs;
2) One detached ADU and one attached ADU; or
3) Two attached ADUs.

In addition, HB 1337

1) Caps impact fees for ADUs at 50% of those for the principal residential unit;
2) Prohibits frontage improvement requirements (sidewalks, etc.) for ADUs;
3 Prohibits owner occupancy requirements for the ADU or principal unit;
4) Allows ADUs to be sold separately as a condominium unit;
5) Prohibits development and design standards that are stricter than those for the principal unit;
6) Requires the maximum gross floor area to be no less than 1,000 square feet;
7) Requires the maximum roof height be no less than 24 feet, unless the height limit of the principal unit is less than 24 feet;
8) Allows ADUs with zero setback from a public alley; and
9) Allows ADUs to be converted from existing structures (such as a garage).

“As noted above in the discussion of HB 1110, the city may consider ADUs when evaluating its ability to meets its housing growth targets across different income levels as well as its middle housing requirements,” Levitan wrote. “As such, ADUs have the potential to play a key role in the city meetings its housing needs and targets.”

The city is awaiting guidance from the Department of Commerce on how the requirements of HB 1337 and HB 1110 will interact, Levitan added. It is unclear whether a city must allow two ADUs on lots that are required to allow a duplex or two townhouses, or if the two ADU requirement only applies to lots with one principal unit.

HB 1293 has two main components:

1) Design standards: The city may only utilize clear and objective design standards (except for designated landmarks and historic districts), which may not result in a reduction in density, height, bulk or scale below the generally applicable development regulations for a development in that zone; and

2) Review process: Any design review process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise logically integrated, with the consolidated review and decision process for the project permits (typically a building permit), and may not include more than one public meeting.

“HB 1293 has less of an impact on the city’s ability to meet its growth targets and housing needs, as it is primarily focused on the design standards and review processes,” Levitan wrote. It will be important, he added, for the city’s Comprehensive Plan update to consider a goal and policy framework that supports the implementation of such required code language. That’s because the current Comprehensive Plan and development code language “uses terms such as ‘character’ that are somewhat subjective in nature and will need to be supported by goals and policies that support clear and objective development regulations,” he added.

The city will also need to update the city’s district-based design review process. It currently requires a two-phased public hearing process with the Architectural Design Board, and that will need to be modified to require no more than one public meeting.

The housing commission included a policy recommendation on multifamily design standards, based on the desire to “maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community,” Levitan wrote. There are more clear and objective concepts related to “building visual interest” and stepbacks/incentives, he said, that can be incorporated into the city’s upcoming work on multifamily design standards, which will be updated as part of the code modernization work program.