Edmonds — The Edmonds Planning Board on Aug. 13 debated how far to expand co-living housing after state legislation and voted to recommend banning short-term rentals shorter than 30 days in co-living dwellings, while leaving unresolved whether the city should allow co-living broadly across multifamily and mixed-use zones beyond the state minimum.

Planning staffer Rosa Paz reviewed the state requirement, telling the board: "cities must allow Calabrio housing on any lot that allows at least 6 multifamily residential units." She said the statutory requirements must take effect by Dec. 31, 2025, and described co-living as a housing type in which sleeping units are rented independently while residents share kitchen facilities.

Why it matters: House Bill 1998 (passed in 2024, as presented to the board) sets a statewide baseline that cities must meet. The Planning Board’s choices — whether to stick to the state-prescribed threshold (lots that can accommodate six multifamily units) or to allow co-living in more lots — will shape where shared-unit, bedroom-by-bedroom rental models can be built in Edmonds and how the city addresses lower-rent housing options.

What staff presented: Paz displayed the city zoning map and a table showing where existing lot areas already meet the state threshold (the packet highlighted parcels in orange that would accommodate six units and a larger gray area representing additional multifamily lots). She explained technical controls that remain in place — building-code minimum sleeping-room size (building code minimums apply) and the statutory requirement that co-living unit counts be derived from the multifamily density calculation (the commonly discussed 4-to-1 bedroom-to-unit ratio was explained in the meeting as the statutory method of converting dwelling units into sleeping rooms).

Board discussion and public input focused on tradeoffs. Supporters said co-living can add lower-cost, smaller dwelling options and better match walkable hubs and centers; skeptics cited concerns about building form, scale and administration on smaller lots. Several board members and members of the public noted that the orange and gray coverage on staff maps are highly intermingled, which led some members to favor a simpler, area-based approach rather than a parcel-by-parcel carveout.

A motion to recommend that co-living dwellings not be used for short-term rentals (under 30 days) passed. The board debated whether the prohibition should apply to all co-living dwellings regardless of zoning and whether hotels or hotel-like uses in zones that already allow transient lodging should be exempt; the prevailing direction was to prohibit short-term rentals in co-living units while allowing traditional hotels to remain regulated under existing hotel/transient lodging rules. The motion text (as recorded in the meeting) was: "Recommendation prohibits short term rentals less than 30 days in co-living dwellings." The motion was seconded and carried. The meeting transcript does not record a roll-call vote by name; the board recorded the motion as approved.

What was not decided: The group did not reach a binding consensus on whether Edmonds should adopt only the state minimum threshold (lots that can support six multifamily units) or allow co-living more broadly across multifamily and mixed-use zones. Several board members asked staff to run parcel-level tables showing how different thresholds (for example 4 or 5 unit thresholds) would change the share of qualifying lots; staff agreed to return with those analyses.

Next steps: Staff said it will prepare draft redline language for the board to review and will run alternate threshold tables (4, 5, 6 units) and parcel counts so the board can see the effect of each option before the public hearing and before making a formal recommendation to city council.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased above are those who spoke during the agenda item; the motion text and the board action are recorded from the meeting transcript.