Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
City planners and planning board members alike have been wrestling with middle housing requirements mandated by Washington State. So what exactly is the state’s minimum requirement?
The answers are found in the middle housing bill HB 1110.
The requirements for Edmonds, according to RCW 36.70A.040, comes down to the following as stated in HB 1110, Section 3 Subsection 1 (Page 9 Lines 11-23):
– The development of at least two units per lot on all residential lots.
– The development of at least four units per lot on all residential lots within one-quarter mile of walking distance of a major transit stop or anywhere if one unit is affordable.
The above bullet points define the City of Edmonds minimum density requirement for all residential areas.
In addition, HB 1110 Section 3(5) lines 35-38 refer to the above density requirements: “Cities are not required to allow accessory dwelling units or middle housing types beyond the density requirements in subsection (1) of this section.”
This aligns with former City Planning Director Shane Hope per her document “Director’s Guidance on Code Update for Middle Housing.” It also aligns with the Association of Washington Cities’ interpretation. AWC is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation that represents Washington’s cities and towns before the state legislature, the state executive branch and with regulatory agencies. It guides 281 cities and towns in the state (including Edmonds) in understanding and adopting new bills into their city code.
Under frequently asked questions of AWC middle housing, the following two pertinent questions were asked and answered:
“If our city is required to allow two units per lot under Section 3 and we already allow ADUs on all those lots, do we meet the density requirements?”
Answer: Yes. “Section 3(5) allows a city to fulfill the density requirements by allowing ADU’s. Cities are not required to allow additional middle housing types beyond the density requirements.”
“But doesn’t the law require us to allow at least six types of middle housing?”
Answer: “Cities are only required to allow as many middle housing types that also meet the minimum density requirement per lot. For example, a city is not required to allow a triplex for a lot that must allow two units. However, that city would need to allow a four-unit middle housing development on that lot if at least one unit met the affordable housing requirements.”
This means Edmonds is not required by the State to pick and allow six of nine middle housing types! The whole middle housing struggle just got a lot easier. We can hit our target 42 units over 20 years with 21 duplexes over the next 20 years or any combination of duplex and fourplexes.
There are many reasons to adopt only the minimum. First and foremost, the minimum with increased density in the Centers and Hubs combined with the recently implemented ADU and DADU code is going to be staggering as it is. Can you imagine the strain on an already stressed infrastructure if all the units for just the minimum get built, let alone going above and beyond? The traffic, congestion, loss of tree canopy, increased storm water and sewage, to name a few.
On top of all this, the State just passed another housing bill HB 1096, Lot Splitting, which must be implemented within two years of passage. The impact of this bill hasn’t even been considered. No one involved has any idea what the total impact the State mandates will bring to our fair city.
I’m sure Edmonds will rise to the challenge no matter which path we take. I just hope we don’t degrade the very things that drew us all here in the first place. I implore concerned citizens to ask city planners, citizen planning board, city council and Mayor Rosen to start with the minimum requirements. We can always add more later if needed.
Author Greg Brewer lives in Edmonds
Thank you for your perspective. I have a few questions and am curious for your thoughts.
Edmonds grew from untouched forest into a city of 43,000. Do you view Edmonds’ history and population growth as a process of continuous degradation?
Could you help me understand 1) why 43,000 is the ideal size to begin pursuing measures to minimize future population growth, given that Edmonds was quite successful in scaling our municipal and regional infrastructure for transportation, stormwater, sewage, and other public utilities as we grew from a city of 0 to 43,000 and 2) why you chose to characterize the cumulative development of the past 100 years that was required to build the Edmonds we know today as “[drawing] us all here in the first place”, but future development as “staggering”?
I agree with Mr. Brewer. If we can meet the mandated growth targets by implementing the minimum standards required under the various density bills enacted by the state, that’s precisely what we should do. It’s a more thoughtful way to set the stage for growth, and we can always amend our code later if necessary.
I appreciate your evaluation of the required growth targets, Mr. Brewer, as it provides a clearer understanding of the implications. However, it appears that some members of the Planning Board have transitioned from a technical analysis of these targets to acting as unelected political advocates, which I believe is not the intended role of such city boards.
Thanks, I thought I could do 4 (with one affordable). With the lot splitting bill, can I do 8? 12? Does lot size even matter? Not that I would do that to my neighbors, but could they do it to me?
Edmonds residents pay the bills, built the community, let us decide our future. Cities should ban together and sue the State over the authoritarian zoning legislation.
Let’s not forget WA in last few years has seen a decline in population growth. Went from ~4.5% / yr. to 1% growth.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-state-budgets-tightening-population-growth-slows
Greg, thanks for this great information so clearly laid out.
Greg
Great explanation. Yes, meeting the minimum requirements makes great sense. My question is “Has Edmonds already met the minimum requirements? “ There have been many new housing units built in Edmonds in the last couple of years. For example, the new affordable apartments just north of Safeway. There is new development just being started this week on Highway 104 on the south side going into Edmonds. I have never seen any numbers on what is being built now.
We need statistics to see where Edmonds is at.
Edmonds Mayors, the planning boards they appoint and City Councils have a long history of promoting and selling Edmonds to developers and business interests. Supposedly this was to save the dying city of “Deadmonds.” I recall when a guy last name Gregory (The Gregory Condos) could do no wrong. I thought they were going to rename the town after him for awhile. No surprise your current mayor, planning board and planning staff are going all in on the new law because that’s what they generally do – promote development. Even to the point of risking drinking water so as not to discourage development. Unbelievable!
Katheen
Edmonds has historically always met our GMA requirements. This gave us slow and steady growth. With the passage of HB1110 and HB1337 we have been catapulted into uncharted territory for rapid growth and densification.
We will meet our state requirements for creating capacity with the implementation of these bills into our comp plan. However available capacity and actual units created is hard to calculate. To complicate matters the State is still pushing more mandated housing bills our way. Thank you for supporting the minimum.