The Zoning Report

A Look at Daycare Centers, Fire & Traffic Impact Fees, ADU Regulations, & Other Regulatory Changes

Mar 21, 2025

In this free edition of Permitted with Conditions, I take a look at a variety of zoning and land use changes happening around the state.

Are Child Care Deserts a Land Use (Zoning) Problem?

Before diving into the land use question and some recent zoning changes approved by the Snohomish County Council, let’s examine the childcare situation.

What is the Problem?

If you're a current or recent parent of young kids, you’re likely well aware of the lack of child care available in Washington State and its high cost.

In a 2022 Cost of Quality Child Care Legislative Report, the Washington Department of Commerce noted that as of 2020, 71% of parents reported difficulties finding childcare. As of 2022, a whopping 63% of Washington children lived in childcare deserts.1 Worse yet, Commerce also noted that full-time child care for an infant + a child in preschool takes up 35% of a two-parent family’s income and can be as high as 150% of a single parent’s income.2

Where is the Problem?

To get a sense of where the problem is, I looked at a 2020 map of census tracts that meet the definition of a childcare desert, which presents a startling baseline image of the county I live in (Snohomish).

Image captured from www.ChildcareDeserts.org published by the Center for American Progress (CAP).

For example, Census Tract 536.07, located in the southern part of the Lake Stevens Urban Growth area, had 0 licensed providers for a population of 6,714 where there are 514 children under 5 years old and 63% laborforce participation among all parents (including 68% maternal labor force participation). By contrast, the adjacent rural Census Tract 523.01 had 11 providers (including 10 family child care homes) for a population of 4,604, offering 176 childcare slots for the 127 children under age 5.

More recently, CAP—along with the University of Minnesota—published an updated map that provides a better spatial analysis of the relationship between the supply of childcare spaces adjusted to the population of nearby families with children under age 5. In this example, each dot represents 10 families with children under age 5 with a color scale from gray (adequacy) to dark orange (scarcity) indicating the availability of child care.

Applying this methodology better illustrates the net impact of the demand versus supply as I pointed out in my examples from my hometown of Lake Stevens (above), which, as shown on this map, has a very severe case of scarcity.

Is Land Use (Zoning) the Problem?

In my professional opinion, land use (zoning) could play a significant role in exacerbating the problem. Many jurisdictions have adopted zoning requirements that limit where such facilities can be located, require most non-in-home daycare centers to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and often require significant parking that can make it difficult to locate new facilities in existing buildings and retail centers.

Over the years, I’ve had a couple of daycare center clients. While most of those projects went smoothly, I had one particular case in a city last year that did not. It was a situation where a daycare center wanted to be located in a business park setting within an industrial zone. The space had previously been used as a preschool by a church (though the preschool hadn’t previously been considered a separate use from the church). Thus the proposed use of the space by a daycare triggered a “change of use” review by the city, which process identified several hurdles including the need for a conditional use permit, the need to update the original business park’s parking study, the inability to use an outdoor area as the playground (it was within a shoreline buffer), and several others issues. After considering the time, expense, and lack of predictability in the outcome, the project was abandoned. The most frustrating part? This specific project would have created up to 30 childcare spaces for children within a Census Tract identified as a childcare desert.

Snohomish County Adopts Major Zoning Reforms for Child Care Centers

On March 19th, Snohomish County Council unanimously approved Ordinance 25-015, which revises development regulations for daycare facilities as follows:

Removes the requirement for daycare centers in the WFB, R-7200, R-8400, R-9600, R-12500, R-20000, and SA-1 zones to be secondary to the principal use of the facility as a school or place of worship.
Shifts the requirement that all daycare centers in the R-5, R-9600, R-8400, R-7200, and T zones obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow centers 8,000 square feet or smaller to be an outright permitted use.
Allows daycare centers of all sizes as a permitted use in the LDMR and MR zones.
Permits family daycare homes in the PCB, RRT-10, RFS, and UC zones and updates the definition of family daycare homes to allow more than 12 children at a time if a waiver is granted by the Department of Children, Youth & Families.
Simplifies parking calculations for the minimum number of parking and loading stalls required for daycare centers.

What is the Impact of Ordinance 25-015?

In addition to expanding the areas where daycare centers and in-home daycare facilities can be located, the most significant change will be the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for childcare centers less than 8,000 square feet in size. CUPs add time and expense to the approval process because, as in Snohomish County, they are typically decided by a professional Hearing Examiner. In most jurisdictions, a CUP process can take 5 to 9 months and, in the case of Snohomish County, the application fee for a CUP is $3,300 (which is more reasonable compared to some locations).

Are There Other Changes Coming?

The Legislature is considering additional changes that may help resolve one common zoning issue for these facilities. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5184 would restrict cities and counties from establishing minimum parking requirements for childcare facilities. The bill has passed the Senate and currently sits in the House Committee on Local Government, where it is scheduled for Executive Session on March 26th. The bill must pass out of committee by April 2nd to advance further.

Fire Impact Fees

You are likely familiar with school, park, and traffic impact fees that jurisdictions adopt to “make developers pay for growth.” Builders and developers often oppose these fees because homeowners ultimately bear the cost in the purchase price, effectively financing them.

A much less common type of impact fee is the fire impact fee, which jurisdictions may use to help fund future capital improvements (like new fire stations). Jurisdictions in Washington that charge fire impact fees include Redmond, Auburn, Tukwila, Shoreline, jurisdictions served by Puget Sound Fire Authority, and Clark County Fire District #3.

Kennewick is considering fire impact fees to help offset the cost of its new Station 6 and related capital equipment expenditures (engines, ambulance, etc.). The cost estimate for Station 6 and its equipment is about $15 million and the estimated eligible cost proportionate to new development is about 49% of that.

The proposed fees, discussed at a Council workshop on March 11th, would add about $580 per single-family home and $650 per unit for multi-family developments. Commercial and industrial developments would also pay a per-square-foot fee.

Council asked for opportunity for public input. A public hearing is expected to be scheduled for April 1st after which the Council can continue to discuss the proposal.

Pasco Traffic Impact Fees

Like Monroe, the City of Pasco is looking to adjust its

Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. The city’s current fees $709/single-family home, $435/multifamily unit, and $43/commercial trip were first adopted in 2005 and only apply to new developments west of 20th Avenue. However, it hasn’t been updated since 2009.

The City began the TIF update process in 2022, but it stalled in 2023. However, some elements of the new TIF were presented to the Council on March 17th.

According to a presentation by Fehr and Peers, a consultant hired by the city, there are 18 road segment and intersection projects preliminarily identified as being impact fee eligible in the future. Projects must be impacted by future development to quality. Fehr and Peers suggested the city apply the following formula to determine how much new development should contribute to these projects:

A snip of a slide from Fehr & Peers’ Presentation to Council on March 17, 2025

In addition to providing a general briefing to the Council, staff and the consultant were seeking the Council’s input on how the city should assess TIF fees. Specifically, should they have one city-wide fee, two TIF districts, or a multi-zoned system?

Staff and the consultant plan to present draft fee calculations to the Council in April, with an expected final adoption of a new TIF fee program by June. There was consensus among the council to have staff come back with a TIF district approach.

Monroe Considers New Traffic Impact Fees

Sticking on the topic of impact fees, the Monroe City Council discussed proposed increases to their traffic impact fees at their March 11th meeting. These increases are driven by (a) updates to their transportation element adopted in conjunction with their periodic comprehensive plan update, (b) a reevaluation of the improves that are impacted or required by future development, and (c) the inclusion of certain multi-modal projects as impact fee-eligible.

Monroe currently charges $4,231 per single-family home, but the proposed fee would jump to $7,425 under the current proposal. Likewise, the fees for multi-family, retail, and other uses are proposed to increase with the fees charged for new retail development jumping from $10.36 per square foot of building space to $18.18 per square foot. If approved, the developer of a small retail building would pay more impact fees which mean future tenants moving into a newly constructed space could expect higher rents. On a 1,500 square foot building space the increase raises the traffic impact fee to $27,270, up from a current fee estimate of $15,540.

The council was not being asked to adopt fees at their March 11th meeting, but proposed fees will be brought back at a future meeting for adoption.

Snohomish County Amends ADU Requirements

On Wednesday, the County Council unanimously approved Ordinance 25-014, enacting several amendments to improve their accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance.

The most significant of the changes were:

Increase the number of ADUs allowed in conjunction with a single family home from one to two, except
For single family attached homes (for instance with attached townhomes on smaller lots), they’ll be allowed one ADU
They also now allow lots with duplexes to have up to two ADUs
Provides allowances for an existing non-conforming structure to be converted to an ADU, such as in situtations where a small, existing home on the property doesn’t meet the setbacks but can be retained as an ADU with another principal structure created

What Other ADU Changes Could Help?

Having spent some time looking at the ADU ordinance and talking to a few property owners, I believe this is at least one additional change that could be made to SCC 30.28.010(3) to allow ADUs on certain lots where the principal unit is not a stick-built single family dwelling, but a mobile home. The amendments could be as simple as:

(3) Rural, resource, and other zones. Accessory dwelling units are permitted uses in the rural, resource, and other zones on lots with a single-family dwelling or mobile home pursuant to SCC 30.22.110 and 30.22.120 and the following standards:

One accessory dwelling unit may be established on lots that contain a legally-established single-family dwelling or mobile home pursuant to the following:
1. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots that do not meet the minimum required lot area, pursuant to SCC 30.23.030, in the zone in which they are located. The following prohibitions also apply:

Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots in the R-5 zone that are less than five acres in size; and
Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots in the RC zone that are less than 100,000 square feet in size.

A mobile home ~~that is subordinate to the single-family dwelling~~ may be allowed as a detached accessory dwelling unit on lots equal to or greater than 5 10 acres.

Accessory dwelling units shall utilize the same driveway as the ~~primary single-family~~ ((principal)) dwelling ((unit)).

Currently the County only allows a mobile home to only be an ADU when it is subordinate to a stick-built single family dwelling (not another mobile home) and only when it’s on a lot that is greater than 10 acres (not the minimum 5 acres in a rural area). Yet, mobile homes are a permitted principal use in those rural zones just like single family dwellings. The current requirements prohibit adding an ADU when the existing principal residence is a mobile home, because ADUs are limited to only lots with legally established (stick built) single family dwellings. Whether a single family home is a mobile home or stick built, it’s still single family housing. The primary difference is that mobile homes offer a more affordable housing option for both the existing resident and the person or family that would occupay the ADU.

It makes no sense why the county would restrict the ability of a property owner living in a mobile home from adding a second mobile home to their site as a detached ADU (provided they can meet the minimum acreage and other requirements). As it exists, current code limits the ability for an elderly couple living in a mobile home from downsizing to a stick built ADU (which would not be the principal dwelling unit), preventing them from having their kids (or someone else) take over living in the mobile home. It restrict the ability of a single grandparent living in a mobile home from having a family member place a mobile home on the property as an ADU.

Given the goal of ADUs is to create both additional and affordable housing options, I’m hopeful that the County will address this isssue in a future update.

Looking Outside the State

Arizona

Back in the early 2000s, while working for a large real estate development firm, I was dispatched to Arizona to help shepherd the entitlements for a Master Planned Development in Sunsites, AZ (Cochise County). The project’s rezoning had recently been rejected by the Planning Commission (on Valentine’s Day, no less), and a different Master Planned Community on the other side of the county had recently faced a public referendum and lost, badly. That’s because all “legislative” decisions in Arizona are subject to referendum, and zoning decisions are considered legislative actions. Fortunately, my team and I were able to navigate the land use process and safely pass the deadline for a public referendum. However, the project ultimately stalled during the Great Recession when the housing market crashed.

According to a story in USA Today on March 5, since my experience a few decades ago, the use of referenda to take rezoning decisions to a public vote has become rather routine.

Earlier this year, Arizona’s legislature was considering a bill to limit referendums on local rezoning by redefining such decisions as “administrative” rather than “legislative” to avoid public votes. The bill was likely spurred by a series of high-profile projects being overturned by public referenda, including a hospital in Flagstaff, and more projects are set to appear on ballots soon. These include a $1.3 billion new headquarters for stun-gun maker Axon, which has threatened to move the home-grown company out of state rather than wait for the public vote scheduled for November 2026. Unfortunately for Axon and other developers, the aforementioned bill stalled in committee.

Wyoming

In the very popular TV show Yellowstone, a central storyline from Episode 1 until the series finale explores the real struggle to preserve traditionally rural communities amid the changes and conflicts brought by growth (housing, economic development, etc.). In reality, this is a serious topic of debate in communities across states like Montana and Wyoming, especially post-COVID, when many people moved to these areas after being allowed to work remotely.

I mention this because a bill introduced in the Wyoming Legislature this year would have enacted a referendum process similar to Arizona’s. This bill would allow enough residents adjacent to a project to sign a petition, putting rezoning decisions on the ballot for a public vote.

PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS

Discussion about this post