Planning staff introduced proposed code changes to implement Washington's co-living mandate on Aug. 6, describing required elements in the state statute and the policy choices Edmonds must make to implement the law locally.

Rose Hawes, planning staff, told the board that co-living is distinct from cohousing and, quoting the state framework, described it as a development “with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable that provide living and sleeping space and resident-shared kitchen facilities.” The state law (Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1998, codified at RCW 36.70A.535) requires jurisdictions to allow co-living on lots that already permit at least six multifamily dwelling units and prohibits regulations that are more restrictive than those applied to other multifamily units in the same zone.

Key discussion points included whether Edmonds should:
- Allow co-living only where the state threshold applies (lots that can support six multifamily units) or permit co-living across all multifamily zones regardless of lot-size-based density limits;
- Permit a ratio commonly referenced in the discussion — four sleeping units for each conventional dwelling unit — to expand opportunities for single-person households and increase affordable options;
- Prohibit short-term rentals (Airbnb-style stays) in co-living buildings to protect long-term rental supply; Hawes said model guidance suggests jurisdictions “seeking to increase the supply of housing for low and very low income households may consider prohibiting short-term rentals in co-living buildings.”

Board members and commenters raised practical implementation questions about building-code and infrastructure requirements, including plumbing and bathroom expectations, sprinkler and egress standards, and sewer-connection fee calculations. Hawes noted that the model ordinance and building code will govern minimum room sizes and plumbing; for example, the building code sets minimum sleeping-unit sizes and commercial code triggers that affect restroom counts. She also flagged a state-model provision that for sewer-connection calculations treats a co-living sleeping unit as no more than half of a conventional sewer connection.

Several board members recommended permitting co-living across all multifamily zones rather than limiting the use to lots that can support six conventional units. They also favored drafting a prohibition or limits on short-term rentals inside co-living buildings to keep housing available for residents rather than visitors. Some members asked staff to produce a map showing where co-living would be allowed under alternate approaches (state-threshold-only vs. all-multifamily zones) and to provide draft redline language for the board's next meeting.

Staff timeline and next steps: staff said it will return with a redline draft and additional internal input (building, engineering and fire) for the board's Aug. 13 meeting and will present a more complete draft in September. Hawes told the board the city must adopt regulations by Dec. 31, 2025, or follow the state model ordinance if it misses the deadline.

Why it matters: Co-living is intended to add lower-cost, smaller rental units appropriate for single-person households and others seeking lower-cost options; how the city defines allowable locations, parking, room-size standards and short-term rental rules will shape how many co-living units are created and where they are built.

The board did not take a formal recommendation or vote on code language during the meeting; staff will prepare draft ordinance language and maps for further review.