Lake Stevens planning commission continues debate on state-required "step housing" rules

The Lake Stevens Planning Commission on Monday continued a multiweek discussion about how the city should implement state law requiring localities to allow different types of "step housing," including emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing.

"Step housing is basically a continuum of housing ... for members of the community that are facing homelessness," David Levitan, the city’s principal planner, told commissioners as he reviewed state guidance and regional examples. Levitan said the discussion will inform code language, definitions and operational standards staff will draft for public review.

Why it matters: House Bill 12 20 (adopted in 2021), Levitan said, obliges cities to allow emergency shelters in zones that permit hotels and to allow transitional and permanent supportive housing in many residential and multifamily zones. The commission must translate that requirement into Lake Stevens municipal code sections (Levitan cited draft changes to the definition chapter, described in the packet as chapter 14 08) and decide what, if any, local restrictions on spacing, occupancy and operations are appropriate.

Key points from staff presentation

- Scope: Levitan summarized the three broad categories commonly called "step housing": emergency shelters (short-term), transitional housing (typically up to about two years) and permanent supportive housing (longer-term housing with wraparound services). He told the commission the city’s growth targets and comprehensive plan show a documented need for supportive units and said staff estimated “about another 454 units” of permanent supportive housing are needed in the city.

- State guidance: The Washington State Department of Commerce guidance that Levitan reviewed recommends allowing these uses as outright permitted where possible, encouraging proximity to jobs, services and transit, keeping parking requirements modest, and requiring a clear nexus when jurisdictions adopt spacing or occupancy limits to protect public health and safety.

- Regional examples: Levitan reviewed a range of local approaches. Edmonds and Lynnwood have relatively light supplementary regulations, while Redmond’s ordinance is more prescriptive (including a one-half-mile buffer between developments). Everett does not require operational plans or spacing for transitional and permanent supportive housing; Marysville requires an operations plan and has a two-tier rule for emergency shelters (outright permitted for 30 residents or fewer, conditional-use review for larger facilities) and a 600-foot buffer from schools for shelters; Shoreline requires operation by a public agency or nonprofit and some operational rules but no spacing requirements. For emergency shelters, Everett requires an administrative permit, a management plan, a transportation plan and pre-application notice to property owners within 100 feet, while Marysville requires notice within 600 feet 15 days before application.

Commissioners’ concerns and priorities

- Services and placement: Commissioners repeatedly raised where residents of step housing would receive supportive services, and whether services would be co-located with housing. Chair Huxford and others emphasized public engagement to explain services and operational safeguards to neighbors.

- Buffers and concentration: Several commissioners said they favor rules to avoid an uneven concentration of facilities in a few neighborhoods. Commissioner Huxford said she liked Marysville’s approach that required services at the location and some buffering; she said buffers could reduce the prospect of "housing on top of housing or next to our schools where unnecessary." Commissioner Connor Davis asked about local data on chronic homelessness and McKinney-Vento school counts as sources of need information; staff said point-in-time and school-district data would be pursued.

- Regulation intensity: Commissioner Morton argued for fewer restrictions so providers are not deterred from proposing facilities, saying: "I still believe that less restrictions are desirable ... if we are putting up roadblocks to impede that, then we are doing a disservice to people who would be served by those facilities." By contrast, Commissioner Duer (transcript spelling inconsistent later as Durer) urged a strong, specific local plan and cited a local example of problems when oversight and standards failed. Duer referenced reporting about Claire’s Place, saying tests found contamination "in 48 of the units," and used that example to urge robust operational requirements before development proceeds.

- Operational controls: Commissioners asked staff to research inspection regimes and whether state rules require annual inspections; Levitan said he would check state regulations and noted municipalities can adopt local inspection authority to protect public health and safety. Other suggested measures included management/operations plans, codes of conduct, parking and transportation plans, pre-application outreach and tiered review based on facility size.

Next steps and public engagement

Levitan told the commission staff will draft code language and an outreach plan for summer public engagement, including maps, graphics and materials for community events such as AquaFest and the farmers market. Planning manager Christy Schmidt said she had located Snohomish County’s point-in-time study and would circulate those links; she said city-specific data would be requested from the police department and the school district.

Formal actions at the meeting were procedural: the commission approved minutes from the May 21 meeting and excused Commissioner Jennifer Davis. No land-use regulations or formal policy decisions were adopted; the discussion provided direction for staff to prepare draft regulatory language and outreach materials.

What remains unresolved

Commissioners did not reach a final position on the amount of local control to adopt. Differences persist on whether to favor a permissive approach (less local supplemental regulation) or a more prescriptive approach (buffers, tiered review, operational plans and inspection requirements), and commissioners asked staff to present draft code options that reflect the range of regional approaches discussed.

The commission scheduled further review as staff prepares draft code amendments and public-engagement materials.