Download - Final Report - co.sanmateo.ca.us · Final Report: Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study June 10, 2003 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY San Mateo County Office of Housing and the San Mateo

279 Vernon Street # 8 • Oakland, California 94610 • tel/fax 510.451.4168 • [email protected]

Final Report

CHILD CARE AND HOUSING LINKAGE RESEARCH STUDY

Prepared for The County of San Mateo Office of Housing

in conjunction with The San Mateo County Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc.

By

Brion & Associates

with

Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.

Funded by a grant from

First 5 San Mateo County

June 2003

Final Report: Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study

June 10, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... ii OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... II RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................... III

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xi I. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY.......................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 3 STUDY ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................... 4

II. Supply and Demand Conditions ................................................................................. 6 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 6 ISSUES TO CONSIDER........................................................................................................ 6 Child Care Demand ...................................................................................................... 6 Child Care Supply ......................................................................................................... 7 Housing Development and Growth............................................................................... 7

CURRENT CHILD CARE SUPPLY AND DEMAND ................................................................ 8 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 12 FUTURE CHILD CARE NEED ........................................................................................... 14

III. Policy Review and Assessment.................................................................................18 POLICY IDEAS ................................................................................................................ 18 1. AB1600 Child Care Impact Fees ............................................................................ 18 2. Child Care Inclusionary Ordinance ....................................................................... 25 3. Encourage or Mandate the Provision of Child Care Facilities in Affordable Rental

Housing Developments ......................................................................................... 28 4. Child Care Density Bonus ...................................................................................... 30 5. Child Care through Development Agreements, and Other Zoning Requirements . 32 6. Use of Public Surplus Land .................................................................................... 34 7. Financial Assistance and Cost Offsets.................................................................... 37 8. Municipal Zoning, Permit Streamlining, and Planning Support ............................ 40 9. Public Education Targeting: Neighbors, Landlords and Tenants, Real Estate

Community and Planners...................................................................................... 43 10. Rehab Financial Assistance and Allocating Newly Rehabbed Units for FCCHs. 46 11. Child Care Opportunities in Public Housing Projects......................................... 48 12. Child Care in General Plans and Other Planning Documents ............................ 49 13. On-Site Child Care as a Congestion Management Tool ...................................... 52 14. Child Care and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program ................................ 54 15. Child Care Facilities and CEQA Checklist .......................................................... 56 16. Public Ownership of FCCH Units in Affordable Housing Projects – A Vancouver

Policy Proposal..................................................................................................... 59 OTHER POTENTIAL POLICY IDEAS.................................................................................. 61


June 10, 2003

IV. Project Case Studies.................................................................................................. 64 SUCCESSFUL CHILD CARE/HOUSING PROJECTS ............................................................. 64 Affordable Housing Projects....................................................................................... 64 Market Rate Housing Projects.................................................................................... 69 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................... 73 Affordable Housing Developments and Child Care ................................................... 73 Market Rate Housing Development and Child Care .................................................. 74

V. Recommended Policy Strategy.................................................................................. 75 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 75 All Cities and County.................................................................................................. 77 Cities with Growth Potential ...................................................................................... 78 Small Cities or Built Out Cities .................................................................................. 79 Other Recommendations ............................................................................................. 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 82 Appendix A: Detailed Data................................................................................................1 Appendix B: Other Projects with Child Care ...................................................................1

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table S-1 Summary of Policies and Recommendations .........................................................v Figure 1 San Mateo County Development and Land Uses.................................................... 2 Table 1 Children 0 to 13 by Age/Child Care Group and Area.............................................. 8 Table 2 Labor Force Participation Rates by Area.................................................................. 9 Table 3 Supply of Child Care Spaces by Type and Area...................................................... 10 Table 4 Children in San Mateo County Needing Care by Type and Area............................ 11 Table 5 Child Care Supply Gap or (Shortage)/Surplus by Type and Area........................... 12 Table 6 Projected Households in San Mateo County by City: 2000 to 2025........................ 13 Table 7 Recent Housing Building Permits by Area: 1993 to 2002 (1).................................. 14 Table 8 Future Child Care Need by Type and Area............................................................ 15 Table 9 Current Unmet and Future Child Care Need, 2003, and 2004 to 2025 ................... 16 Table 10 South San Francisco Projects with DAs and Child Care....................................... 33 Table 11 Examples of Local Low-Interest Loan Programs for Child Care.......................... 39 Table 12 Summary of Potential Child Care & Housing Policies......................................... 76


June 10, 2003

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

San Mateo County Office of Housing and the San Mateo Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc., (4Cs) commissioned this Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study. The purpose of this Study is to examine ways to increase the provision of child care in the County by linking child care both to residential development and to local policies that affect residential land use. The audience for this Study includes County staff and officials, San Mateo cities, the development community, and child care advocates. An Advisory Committee provided guidance to this Study by suggesting programs and policies and by evaluating the draft Study before its distribution to a wider audience. This process will culminate with a Summit on Child Care, to which a wider group of San Mateo County officials and staff and child care providers will be invited to participate.

Overview This Research Study is not a static report. Instead, it represents the first phase of a public effort to develop strategies to deal with child care needs. This Study is a guide for local governments. It provides lengthy policy descriptions, assessments, and, where available, case studies chronicling the experiences of other areas that implemented suggested policies or programs. A detailed matrix is attached to the Executive Summary that provides an overview of each policy and program, assesses strengths and weaknesses, and provides some preliminary recommendations. More in-depth information on each of these policies and programs is provided in Chapter III.

The Study also presents an analysis of the relationships between development and growth in each city and the need for child care. This is one of the first efforts to systematically link growth projections to the need for new child care facilities. This analysis and information can provide policy makers with new information to help shape public policy around child care as well as help direct the efforts of such organizations as the 4Cs.

Six case studies of housing projects with child care are profiled in Chapter IV of this Study. Four of these are affordable housing projects and two are market rate; other examples are also discussed in Chapter III. The market rate projects are not located in San Mateo County. These case studies highlight the use and challenges of the policies discussed in this Study and provide some useful “lessons learned.”

Child care has not traditionally received the same public attention as has other community needs. To ensure an active labor force while maintaining quality care for our children, it is necessary for the public sector to intervene in this area of family life. This intervention can be direct, indirect, or educational. Furthermore, the costs of intervention range from minimal to more significant, depending on the policy considered.

It is unlikely that any one community would adopt all 16 policies presented below. For example, some policies are more appropriate for communities with a sizeable amount of developable land, such as child care impact fees, inclusionary zoning for child care, and development agreements for large-scale projects. Still other policies are appropriate for


June 10, 2003

iii

communities that actively sponsor affordable housing construction or publicly assist housing rehabilitation. However, there are several policies that define good planning practice and should be considered by all jurisdictions. These cover General Plan policies, the permit process, and Zoning Ordinances.

There are several unresolved issues that this Study discusses. These include the following:

§ The appropriate methodology to measure and project child care demand in the various categories of service, such as infant, toddler, preschool, and after school care.

§ The potential mismatch between the availability of child care and its affordability.

§ How to address the unmet needs that already exist in communities and that are significant.

§ The competition for funds and sites between child care and other community needs, such as affordable housing.

While it is not expected that the entire unmet demand for child care will be satisfied through implementation of one or more strategies presented in this Study, it is still possible to improve the lives of many working families. Finally, since the linkage of child care to residential development is a pioneering effort, the County and its member cities have the opportunity to create policies that can serve as models for other cities in California.

Recommendations The following general recommendations are presented and discussed in Chapter V:

§ All cities should include some type of supportive child care policies in their General Plans, Specific Plan, and other planning documents.

§ Combining requirements, such as impact fees with incentives such as density bonuses, can be a more effective and acceptable policy approach when dealing with new development.

§ All cities and the County should review existing zoning and their permit process for barriers to the development of child care facilities.

§ Public Education should be conducted at the County level and be Countywide and also be supported by cities.

§ Policies #3 (Child Care in Affordable Housing), #4 (Density Bonus), #5 (Development Agreements), #6 (Surplus Land), #7 (Cost Offsets), #10 (Housing Rehab), #11 (Public Housing), and #16 (Public Ownership) are recommended.

§ For cities with growth and development potential, child care impact fees or inclusionary ordinances with in-lieu fee options will be useful tools for directly increasing the supply of child care.

§ New polices must address existing shortfalls as well as future development as the need from existing development exceeds that of future growth (i.e., over next 20 years) in most cities.


June 10, 2003

iv

§ Cities that may have need but not enough to warrant a large center can partner with other cities or the County to provide centers that are strategically located to serve both communities. This may be useful in the more rural parts of County that abut incorporated cities.

§ Cities, the County, and the 4Cs should continue to support lobbying efforts at the State and federal level to ensure that supportive and enabling legislation is adopted around child care.

§ A comprehensive public education campaign should be undertaken, targeting four key groups as discussed under Policy #9 (Public Education):

1. Residents, Neighborhood Organizations, and Homeowners Associations

2. Landlords and Tenants

3. Real Estate and Development Community

4. City Planners and Other Local Decision Makers

The following matrix presents the full list of policy recommendations included in this Study and is intended to guide public discussion of each issue.


June 10, 2003

v

Table S-1 Summary of Policies and Recommendations

Policy/Program

Type of Poliy and Implementation Authority

Concept

Strengths/Weaknesses

Recommendations

1. Impact Fees Development and financial policy. Implemented locally. Places standard requirement on all new residential development.

Charges new development for share of new child care facilities. Fee varies by land use tied to demand factors. Fees are becoming more common for child care.

S: Common method of funding public facilities. Provides certainty to development community. W: Requires cities to quantify existing gaps or shortfalls. If city fees are already high, adopting a child care fee can be difficult and may make a city less competitive for new development.

Good for cities with development/growth potential. Easy to implement but requires nexus study and public process/review. Not as useful for cities with limited growth potential or cities that want to address service quality rather than expand facilities.

2. Inclusionary Ordinances

Development planning policy. Implemented locally. Similar to impact fee but requires on-site facility or in-lieu fee.

Similar to programs for affordable housing. Requires provision of child care space and/or in-lieu fee. In-lieu fees are an option if providing space is not feasible or too burdensome.

S: Useful in acquiring on-site facilities for larger projects. Use can be dedicated for 20 years or more. W: Does not work for smaller projects. Requires threshold estimate of need.

New policy concept. May be opportunities for cities with affordable inclusionary ordinances to expand ordinances to include child care. Like impact fees, may be useful for cities that are growing. Requires nexus study for in-lieu fee portion.

3. Child Care in Affordable Housing Development

Development planning policy. Implemented locally but on a project-by-project basis.

Cities work with affordable housing developers to provide on-site child care centers or units for Family Child Care Home (FCCHs). Developer owns space/units, outside operators or tenants operate child care.

S: Many examples can serve project residents as amenity but it requires early planning and consideration of other needs of residents. W: Difficult to implement on small and/or expensive sites. Can create competition with other land uses. Financing can be difficult.

There is great need for more affordable child care integrated in affordable housing projects. It requires special planning and sometimes outside financing; sharing child care space with other uses is a challenge but shared parking and open space can work. This policy applies to both growing and built out cities.


June 10, 2003

vi

Policy/Program


Concept


Recommendations

4. Density Bonus Development planning policy. Implemented locally based on proposed State legislation.

Allows additional density for projects that provide child care facilities on or off-site, similar to affordable housing density bonus ordinances.

S: Beneficial for communities that accept higher densities. W: Does not work in locations where residents do not want higher densities.

Adopting this policy does not guarantee that child care space will be provided, since this is an incentive, not a mandatory policy.

5. Development Agreements

Development/entitle-ment policy that is implemented at the local project level.

Requires child care in exchange for other entitlements or financial assistance. Applies to larger projects that require development agreements.

S: Good tool for larger projects where on-site child care can work or is needed. Does not preempt other policies per se. W: Does not work with smaller projects or in-fill. Often provides market rate child care only.

This policy can be used when circumstances warrant or developer requests a DA for other reasons. Does not require special ordinance or adoption of new local policy. If a DA were used, impact or in-lieu fees would be waived.

6. Use of Public Surplus Land

Development/financial policy that is implemented at the local project level.

Cities or County provide surplus land at low cost, through a long-term ground lease, or sell land and donate proceeds. Helps offset high land costs. Joint use of public land with parks can also be considered.

S: When surplus land is available, this is a good tool. It does not preempt other policies and can reduce project development costs; sites can be small. W: There is competition for surplus land. Cities may want to sell it and use the funds for other purposes. Also, the land may not be well located for child care.

All jurisdictions can include this policy and it can complement other policies and programs. It can assist in making child care projects more feasible but does not systematically provide for new child care facilities. Good for both growing and built out cities/areas.


June 10, 2003

vii

Policy/Program


Concept


Recommendations

7. Financial Assistance and Cost Offsets

Financial policy. This can be a local policy, but it is primarily under the control of the State or financial institutions.

Cities can adopt financial programs to assist child care development; there are many existing financial assistance programs available to child care providers by non-profits, state agencies, or foundations.

S: Many loan programs are available to help providers. W: New programs targeted for child care are needed. Many loan funds are not being used, since child care does not generate sufficient operating income to support loans. Cost offsets to developers may trigger prevailing wage requirements.

Providing cost offsets can augment low-cost financing and grant programs available to developers. These offsets complement other policies. Financial challenges are not easily addressed through local policy.

8. Zoning, Permit Streamlining, and Planning Support

Local planning policies that benefit development.

Focus is on removing barriers. These include providing child care as of right in more zoning districts; creating an easier and quicker permit process for child care providers; and providing start up guides.

S: These policies are key to increasing child care at minimal costs. W: Some communities may want child care to be regulated.

These are good policies to increase the supply of child care, since they directly benefit and help providers at minimal costs. Start-up guides for providers help simplify the process and reduce processing time.

9. Public Education

Planning policy that can be implemented locally but would be best at the County or regional level.

Develop public education campaign targeted at neighbors, landlord/tenants, real estate industry, and planners.

S: The provision of information on available child care programs, legal issues, and providers’ rights will help promote FCCHs. W: Does not directly create new child care spaces and requires some funding.

Good policy/program to fund at the county level and to target specific groups over time. Requires funding and strategic planning with public relations support. Can have long-term benefit but does not directly increase supply in short term.


June 10, 2003

viii

Policy/Program


Concept


Recommendations

10. Housing Rehabilitation for Family Child Care Homes (FCCH)

Financial policy that is implemented locally, using State funds, federal funds, or local housing trust funds.

Provides rehab monies for FCCH providers that need repairs, and could target recently rehabilitated units for FCCH use.

S: Provides additional funding needed to make homes suitable for FCCH use. Since programs exist already, no major policy changes are required. W: Probably will not create a significant number of child care spaces. Also could require more rehabilitation funds.

This is easy to adopt this policy as many have these programs in place. However, it may not significantly increase the supply of child care because existing loan funds target low income seniors or special needs households that wouldn’t be child care providers.

11. Public Housing Projects

Housing policy that can be implemented locally, assuming that the jurisdiction has public housing units.

Allows for child care space or FCCHs in public housing projects.

S: Provides employment and business opportunities for residents as well as child care services. Converting units to FCCHs entails minimal costs. W: Only four public housing projects in the County, so there is very limited applicability.

As a policy it can be effective, but since the County has a limited supply of conventional public housing units, this policy would not generate many child care spaces.

12. General Plan and Other Planning Documents

Planning policy that can be implemented locally.

Include policies and programs in General Plans, including the land use, housing, transportation, and public facilities elements, and specific plans that call for and support the provision of child care.

S: Creates general policies that support specific policies fostering child care, such as impact fees and inclusionary zoning. General Plan policies can establish a positive framework for the development of child care facilities. W: General plans are not updated often. Requires support of city councils and planning commissions.

This is a highly recommended approach for all cities.


June 10, 2003

ix

Policy/Program


Concept


Recommendations

13. Congestion Management Tool

Planning policy that can be implemented locally.

C/CAG and County policy already allows developers to receive traffic mitigation credits for providing child care or providing easy access to child care.

S: Provides incentives to reduce traffic impacts of development; encourages child care to be located near employment centers and in multifamily housing near transit. W: Difficult to assess whether these credits are useful, since no developer has requested traffic credits related to child care.

The County could find out why these credits have not been used thus far.

14. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

Development financial policy implemented at the State level.

Provision of child care has been added to the selection criteria for the award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for multifamily housing development.

S: Acts as incentive to include child care in multifamily developments using tax credits. No local costs. W: Developers are not required to include child care, thus there is no guarantee that this policy increases the supply of child care.

This policy can be encouraged and pursued but unless it is mandatory it will not increase child care spaces.

15. Child Care Facilities and CEQA Checklist

Development policy that could require revisions to the state level CEQA law.

Would add child care to the list of items included in the CEQA checklist used for screening impacts of development under public facilities.

S: Increases awareness of child care as an issue in EIRs and suggests that EIRs analyze the impacts of development on child care. This would be mandatory if the CEQA law is changed. W: Most projects do not trigger CEQA review. The checklist is only recommended and is not required under CEQA law. Courts have found that public facilities are not a CEQA issue.

This is not a recommended policy. While it could be helpful, it could also generate substantial opposition and not necessarily increase the supply of child care.


June 10, 2003

x

Policy/Program


Concept


Recommendations

16. Public Ownership of FCCH Units

This is a development policy under consideration in Vancouver, BC. The policy recommends public ownership of FCCH units or co-ownership

Policy calls for the public ownership or co-ownership of FCCH units to be located in affordable housing projects. These units would be excluded from density calculations. Co-owners could be non-profits, child care providers or individuals.

S: Provides for long-term stability for FCCH operators and allows for co -ownership opportunities for providers to gain equity in property; W: Most cities do not directly own residential units. In California, allowing non-profit organizations to own units may be more realistic.

This could be a useful policy, but requires additional analysis to determine whether it can work in California’s institutional setting. Organizations such as the 4Cs could own the units and avoid the issues related to direct municipal ownership.


June 2003

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals assisted in the conception and preparation of this report. As discussed in the Introduction, a Community Advisory Committee (CAG) was formed to assist in this effort. The chair of the CAG includes the honorable Rose Gibson, President of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Other members include in alphabetical order:

Kristen Anderson, Child Care Coordinator, Redwood City Lisa Aozasa, County of San Mateo - Planning and Building Norman Book, Jr., Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson & Horn Sheila Burks, Fannie Mae Sally Cadigan, Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, Inc. Mark Church, San Mateo County Board of Supervisor Carla Dartis, Packard Foundation Judy Davila, County of San Mateo – Office of Housing Fran Durekas, Children’s Creative Learning Centers David Foster, Santa Cruz County - Office of Education Yvonne Gavrillis, Aide to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo Greg Greenway, Sea Port Industrial Association Barbara Gualco, Mercy Charities Housing, California Deborah Hirst, Aide to Board of Supervisor Rich Gordon Diane Howard, City Council Member, Redwood City Jeannie McLoughlin, Child Care Partnership Council, San Mateo County Kevin Mullin, Consultant Heather Quinn, City of South San Francisco Tim Ridner, Glenborough-Pauls, LLC Kevin Rose, Aide to Board of Supervisor Mark Church Ann Sims, Bayshore Child Care Services Lisa Stalteri, Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson & Horn Heather Stewart, City of San Mateo Jan Stokley, Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, Inc. Lorna Strachan, County of San Mateo - Human Services Agency, Child Care Lydia Tan, BRIDGE Housing Alex Torres, Wells Fargo Bank Yiaway Yeh, Aide to Board of Supervisor Rich Gordon Marina Yu, County of San Mateo – Office of Housing (Study Project Manager)

Other individuals that have contributed significantly to this report include: Marcy Conn, Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, Inc., Denise Milner, San Mateo County - Office of Housing, and the many individuals listed in the bibliography. We want to acknowledge the efforts of State Assemblypersons Eugene Mullin and Joseph Simitian for their work on and continuing support for child care issues.

This report was funded by a generous planning grant from the First 5 San Mateo County.

Consultants: Primary Study Authors, Joanne Brion, Brion & Associates and Marian Wolfe, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. with Michelle Nilsson and Lise Marken, Research Assistants.


June 2003

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The County of San Mateo Office of Housing, working in conjunction with the San Mateo Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, Inc., (4Cs), is striving to increase the provision of child care throughout the County and to link child care to the provision of family housing. The purpose of the Housing and Child Care Linkage Research Study is to research policy options and other related programs that can more systematically link new child care facilities with the production of housing. Evaluating these policies and programs inherently requires interaction with the development community as well as public agencies, non-profits, and cities in San Mateo County. To that end, a Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed by the County to provide direction and support for this study and to help shape the policy recommendations. The CAG, which comprises 30 members including County and 4Cs staff, has been directly involved in this effort. The study will culminate with a Summit meeting on the issue wherein the final report will be presented.

The County received a planning grant from the First Five Commission of San Mateo County to fund this study. It is expected that after the Study is presented at the Summit, the County will apply for additional implementation grant funds to work on recommendations and strategies developed as part of this effort. Thus, this Study represents the planning phase of a larger effort.

There are many organizations and groups, including cities, working on child care and housing issues in the County. This Study builds on many of those efforts and is not meant to duplicate them. This Study specifically focuses on the provision of child care facilities and housing. As such, it does not address issues such as child care affordability or staffing, child care and non-residential development, or employment-driven child care needs. However, these other issues are equally important and require new public policy and support as well.

Context San Mateo County, like many Bay Area counties, faces many challenges including high housing costs, traffic congestion and air quality, preservation of open space, and many social issues and challenges. The Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County; A Yearly Report Card on our County’s Quality of Life highlights the relevant facts about the county, including those necessary for establishing the essential community dialogue and consensus.1 Child care and housing are core quality of life issues according to this study.

As stated by the Sustainable San Mateo report, land use in the County is fairly evenly divided among urban, rural, and greenbelt uses. Almost 35% is protected from development; 39.1% is devoted to rural activities, including agriculture, forest, and range land; and 26.2% is allocated to urban use. The County ranks third in the Bay Area, behind San Francisco and Alameda Counties, in estimated urban density. Figure 1 presents a map

1http://www.sustainablesanmateo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=indicators2002.document&selectdocument=AA2_00intro.html provides a copy of the report and indicators.

J

J

J

0 5 101

MILES

1

101

280

101

280

1

1

84

92

92

380

35

35

84

Atherton

Belmont

Brisbane

Burlingame

Colma

Daly City

EastPalo Alto

Foster City

Half Moon Bay

Hillsborough

MenloPark

Millbrae

Pacifica

PortolaValley

RedwoodCity

San Bruno

San Carlos

S.F. Airport

San Mateo

SouthSan Francisco

Woodside

Montara

TheBaylandsNortheast

Ridge

Eastof 101

NavySite

Bair Island/Glenborough

PacificShores

UniversityAve

La Honda

Figure 1 -- San Mateo County Development and Land UsesSmart Growth Strategy/

Regional Livability Footprint ProjectSeptember 2001

Corridor

Rail Station/Major Transfer Facility Area

Protected Open Space

Important Farmland/WetlandSignificant Natural Area

Other Rural Land

Impoverished Area

Key/Pivotal Site

Employment Center/Institution

Town Center/Downtown

Mixed-use

Residential

Urban Growth Boundary

City Limit

Sphere of Influence

Freeway/Highway

Major Arterial

Frequent Bus Service

Rail Line

BART

Proposed BART Extension

Rail Station

Ferry

Airport

100 or more peoplewith household incomebelow 80 % of countymedian

=

EL CAMINO REAL

EL CAMINO REAL

EL CA

MIN

OREAL

MIS

SIO

N S

T

GENEVA AVE

BAYSHO

REBLVD

E GRAND AVE

WEST

BOROUGH

SNEATHLN

SKYLINEBKVD

RALSTON AVE

WO

OD

SID

ER

D

SAND HILL RD

8

9

5

6

37

411

17

25

2632

34

38

52

53

39

42

40

48

43

44

56

57

61

58

60

89

69

7876

75

92

8182

153

84

73

91

99

98

102

121 122

154

120119

107

124

155

116

134125

131

135

157137

139

156

127

129128 136

142

140

111

158

148

151

152

2

14

19

1

16

18

24

21

20

13

12

10

31

3637

22

49

35

50

51

47

55

63 64

62 65

70

66

67

68

71

77

79

87

90

85

83

80

95

86

94

97

93

118

123117105

106

115

130

126 132

138

133

112

110

113

114

147

149

54

150

141

15

59

23

143

88

41

33

27

28

4645

145

2930

72

74

100

101

109

108

103

104

96

146

144

DY E T T & B H AT I A Urban and Regional P lannersSeptember 2001


June 2003

3

of the county from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that illustrates the statistics discussed above. This map is from a study by ABAG that evaluates two development scenarios: “business as usual” and “smart growth” directives. It shows key development sites in the County and the locations of all the cities and communities discussed in this Study.2

The Sustainable San Mateo report notes the problems that arise from lack of affordable housing:

“A lack of affordable housing limits the ability of young people to remain in the county after they enter the work force and makes it difficult for employers and municipalities to recruit qualified workers. If housing is too expensive, people employed in the county obtain housing in neighboring counties and commute in. If there are not enough high-paying jobs in the county to support the high cost of housing, county residents commute out to adjacent counties to work. This jobs-housing imbalance contributes to traffic congestion and air pollution. Lack of affordable housing also leads to overcrowding.”

Child care is also a vital quality of life issue in the Sustainable San Mateo report. It links the provision of child care to reducing poverty, since child care enables both parents or a single parent to work. Most working families need two incomes to afford housing in the County. Therefore, child care is a critically important service. In summary, child care and housing are two key quality of life issues that affect most residents and businesses directly or indirectly.

Purpose of Study The purpose of the Study is to identify policies and programs that will increase the supply of child care facilities along with the development of new housing. Many of the policies reviewed also apply to existing development. New policies and programs throughout the County are needed for both existing and new development. In this way, new residential growth can provide for its own child care needs and will not create further shortages of child care. While there are varying methods of estimating the demand for child care, no matter how it is quantified, the demand for child care always outstrips supply. This is particularly true for affordable or subsidized child care and infant care. There are many ways in which cities and the County can adopt supportive child care policies and programs that will increase the supply of child care. Some policies are incentive driven and others are related to removing barriers. Many of the policies can be implemented together as a package. However, it should be noted that much of the current need for child care is associated with existing development, and programs that target new development will not solve this problem.

Background There are various opinions about the role government should have in the provision of child care. Child care is not an inherent public good such as public education and police services, 2See http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/maps.html. This map is from ABAG’s Smart Growth Strategy /Regional Livability Footprint Project; the Planning Area maps were used as a visioning tool during the Smart Growth Workshops (2001).

http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/maps.html


June 2003

4

and as such, policies and solutions that work for those services do not translate well to child care. Also, child care, while for the most part privately provided, is not generally a profitable business enterprise. Fees are held down by most parents’ ability to pay, which keeps staff salaries and profit much lower than in other businesses. Normal financial business models and available financing do not benefit or work for child care providers because their businesses do not generate enough profit to pay for much else, besides salaries and rents. Furthermore, child care facilities are often located in buildings owned by churches, schools, and other non-profits or by local cities (through parks and recreation departments), since they cannot afford typical market rents for commercial space. The most affordable space is often not located where the need is, e.g., in neighborhoods. In recent years, the demand for more classroom space to lower class sizes has pushed child care providers off of school sites. Also, escalating commercial rents in the Bay Area have driven many providers out of business. Finally, high San Mateo average home prices make running family child care home businesses a challenge as it generally takes two incomes to afford to purchase and maintain housing in the County, and family child care homes (FCCHs) generate very little net income.

There are many efforts underway to address some of these problems locally in San Mateo County, at the State level, and in many other communities. Cities such as South San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Vancouver (B.C.) have been diligently and systematically developing child care policies and programs to address the provision of child care facilities. In this vein, the 4Cs in San Mateo County is now evolving into a development intermediary and facilitator in recognition that the market has failed to provide a sufficient number of child care spaces.

There are both similarities and differences between affordable housing and affordable child care. One similarity is the need to locate child care and affordable housing near jobs, public transportation, and schools. Another similarity is also tied to location. Even where there may be an adequate supply of child care and housing located near jobs, affordability is a critical issue. If households cannot afford to pay for nearby housing or child care, then the availability of that housing or child care does not benefit working families.

There are also differences between the two. For example, there are structural problems with the way subsidized child care funds are allocated to counties, since eligibility rules do not take into account the higher cost of living in the Bay Area. In contrast, affordable housing subsidies do vary from county to county, so that higher subsidies are available in high cost of living areas. In addition, eligible household incomes vary by county.

These issues are not directly addressed in this Study but it is important to keep them in mind when thinking about child care and housing and reviewing the following information. An overall goal of this Study is to develop child care policies that learn from and complement affordable housing and allow for both affordable child care and housing to increase Countywide.

Study Organization The Study presents discussion and analysis of the supply and demand for child care and how anticipated residential growth within cities and the unincorporated areas of the County will impact demand for child care. This is the first comprehensive analysis that evaluates the relationships between growth in the County and the need for child care by type, e.g., infant


June 2003

5

care, preschool, etc., and age group. The Study reviews and assesses 17 different policies (or groups of policies) and programs related to providing child care as part of housing development or those that support child care. These include policies that are well established, such as impact fees, and other more innovative policies, such as the public ownership of family child care homes (FCCHs). Some policies reviewed can be implemented at the local level while others represent policy at the State level, or a combination of both. The Study also presents several case studies of affordable and market rate housing projects that have included child care facilities and a discussion of what can be learned from these projects.

The report provides a variety of information that does not have to be read in chronological order. The information presented in Chapter II is provided to set the development context for the consideration of the various policies discussed in Chapter III, but one can consider the policies in Chapter III without reading Chapter II.

The Study concludes with a series of policy recommendations that can be applied to cities with growth potential or cities that do not expect growth. Finally, the Study presents a menu of policy options that cities can choose from to address their specific child care facility needs. More detailed information and data is provided in the appendices.


June 2003

6

II. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONDITIONS

Overview This section addresses the existing and future conditions related to the supply and demand of child care and housing in the County. This discussion is presented to provide the context for policy considerations that are discussed subsequently in this report. This analysis is useful and important because it provides the various cities in San Mateo County and the County, which oversees development in the unincorporated areas, with a sense of the relationships between housing supply and demand and child care supply and demand. This information updates some data like overall supply by age from the 1999-2000 Needs Assessment and uses current U.S. Census data. It also combines a consideration of the supply and demand of child care and how that relates to growth potentials in each city.

This analysis uses existing data and projections. Given the differences in data collection and reporting, precise comparisons of supply and demand of both housing and child care are not possible. Rather, this information is provided as a general indicator of supply and demand conditions to allow for informed policy decisions to be made and successful strategies to be developed. It is important to recognize that one aspect of a strategy to increase the supply of child care will be to develop more accurate methods to forecast demand and track supply as well as addressing the issue of affordability and location. Summary tables of supply and demand data are presented in this chapter and detailed data, including data by individual city and area of the County, are provided in Appendix A.

Issues to Consider

Child Care Demand The principal method of estimating the demand for child care is to combine population estimates by age with labor force participation rates and income data by location. The California Child Care Referral & Resource Network (CCCR&R) publishes estimates of the demand for child care by County.3 The CCCR&R and most of the local Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies estimate child care demand as all children 0-13 that have all parents working. There are two issues with this methodology that should be considered:

1. The method does not account for parents using family members, nannies, self-care or unlicensed care, either by choice or because of cost.

2. The current method does not capture the additional child care demand from employees who work within a city but maintain residency elsewhere. Countywide, there is an additional child care demand from employees who work and use child care within the County but live outside of San Mateo County. This situation is more

3 “The California Child Care Portfolio,” prepared by The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, (2001).


June 2003

7

prevalent for families seeking child care for infants and preschoolers than for school age children.

Even with these issues unresolved, it is safe to say that demand far outstrips supply of child care. When affordability is taken into account, demand is probably much higher. Also many child care spaces are only part time and do not serve working parents; thus, in some cases, supply is overstated. Many studies that measure demand focus on current usage as an indicator of demand, and many parents may want licensed care but cannot afford it or it is not accessible.

When affordability is taken into account, these studies underestimate the demand for child care. There has been limited research on this issue of current use of child care services versus preference.4 If cost were not an issue, one could assume that most parents would want licensed quality child care for children of all ages.

It would be useful to develop a more uniform child care demand methodology at the County level that could be easily utilized by local cities. The 4Cs could take the lead in developing such a methodology. It would also be useful to quantify the need for child care space by the size of a residential project, so that cities can determine what size project would support a child care center.

Child Care Supply Although the 4Cs has good data on the supply of providers, there is less information on providers’ wait lists and vacancies. Also, many providers choose not to use their full licensed capacity for a variety of reasons. Some of these child care spaces are only part-time spaces and do not serve working families; thus, supply may be over counted in some areas. The supply includes State licensed spaces at child care centers, family child care homes, some after school programs, and some exempt spaces at schools. It does not include unlicensed care.

Housing Development and Growth The analysis and data in this section are presented to set the context of child care and housing Countywide and in each community. Despite the various issues with data, this information will be key when developing a list of policy recommendations that will work for different types of communities in the County. The housing and population information used in the analysis is based on data from the U.S. Census, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), local cities, and the County of San Mateo.

The estimates of current population and households are from ABAG as reported by the U.S Census in 2000 or directly from the Census (i.e., in the case of the data on children by age

4The studies that do exist include: “A New Assessment of Child Care Need for Children Age 5 and Under in Santa Clara County,” prepared for FIRST 5 Santa Clara County by International Child Resource Institute (September 2002); Capizzano, J., Gina Adams, and Freya Sonenstein, “Child Care Arrangements for Children Under Five: Variation Across States,” a new policy brief from the Assessing the New Federalism Project by Urban Institute (data from 1997 National Survey of America’s Families) (2000); “Child Care Master Plan, City of Santa Monica,” prepared by Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (1991); and “Child Care in Santa Monica” prepared by the Human Services Division and Lisa Mizell, City of Santa Monica, (September 2000).


June 2003

8

and labor force participation rates). Housing supply data is available from various city housing elements or as compiled by the County Office of Housing, but this is incomplete. For recent housing production, current building permit data from the Construction Industry Research Board was used.

The housing supply data is the most tenuous and represents an estimate of development sites compiled based on State Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements. This supply typically represents supply that is related to the current 7.5 years of Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) allocation by ABAG. It does not necessarily relate to long-term household projections prepared by ABAG. Comparing supply/site data from Housing Elements to ABAG projections of household growth to 2025 is not useful or appropriate. While we can discuss long-term household growth projections for each community in the County, we do not have comparable development data for each area. Thus, for future development and demand for child care in this study, ABAG projections of household growth are used rather than supply data from local housing elements.

To provide some sense of how much residential development has occurred in the County, historical (last ten years) building permit data for each area has been compiled, by single family, multi-family, and total units (1993 to 2002). The average annual number of building permits issued in each community serves as a useful indicator of recent residential development activity in each community. However, this data is not being used to forecast future development activity by area because past permit activity is not an indicator of future potential. As stated above, ABAG projections are used for future development potential.

Current Child Care Supply and Demand The following information is based on data provided by the 4Cs Needs Assessment for San Mateo County, updated with 2000 U.S. Census data and current child care supply data (as of March 2003). Table 1 summarizes the existing population by age by city and area in the County. Children ages 0 to 13 comprise about 18% of the total population in the County. Of the total estimated 128,400 children in the County, about 21% are infants (birth to 2), 21% preschool (3 to 5 years old), and 58% are school age (6 to 13 years old).

Table 1 Children 0 to 13 by Age/Child Care Group and Area

Infants Preschool School Age Total Areas 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrs 0-13 yrs

Incorporated Cities 24,617 24,162 34,719 32,924 116,422 Total Unincorp. Areas 2,486 2,557 3,539 3,371 11,953 Total San Mateo County 27,103 26,719 38,258 36,295 128,375 Percent Distribution 21% 21% 30% 28% 100%

Sources: The 4Cs; 2000 U.S. Census; Brion & Associates.


June 2003

9

Table 2 Labor Force Participation Rates by Area

Children with Working Parents:

City/Area less than 6 6 to less than 18 Atherton 36% 41% Belmont 60% 73% Brisbane 69% 74% Burlingame 53% 72% Colma 59% 57% Daly City 59% 66% East Palo Alto 48% 54% Foster City 47% 69% Half Moon Bay 64% 70% Hillsborough 55% 48% Menlo Park 51% 58% Millbrae 55% 64% Pacifica 70% 77% Portola Valley 44% 35% Redwood City 59% 68% San Bruno 61% 72% San Carlos 56% 72% San Mateo 52% 66% South San Francisco 64% 71% Woodside 36% 45% Unincorporated Areas Broadmoor CDP 79% 64% El Granada 62% 66% Emerald Lake CDP 56% 58% Highland-Baywood Park CDP 50% 63% Montara 59% 67% Moss Beach 59% 67% North FairOaks CDP 52% 52% West Menlo Park CDP 66% 56% Other Unincorporated Areas (1) 53% 76% Total San Mateo County 57% 66% (1) Includes La Honda and Pescadero and other areas. Sources: The 4Cs; 2000 US Census; Brion & Associates.


June 2003

10

Labor force participation rates (LFPR) are presented for each area in Table 2 and vary quite a bit by community. As one would expect, the less affluent communities have higher LFPRs than do more affluent communities. The County overall has a LFPR of 57% for parents with children under 6, and a 66% LFPR parents with children over the age of 6, but less than18 years of age. These rates have decreased slightly since the 1990 census when the figures for the County were 63% and 69%, respectively. These rates are used to estimate the number of children needing non-parental child care in each community.

Currently, there are 22,909 formal child care spaces in San Mateo County, according to the 4Cs supply database as shown in Table 3. From 1999 to 2003, there was a loss of about 3,000 spaces or a 12% reduction in supply. About 60% of the existing supply represents preschool spaces, while the estimated preschool demand is only 33% of the overall child care demand (see Table 4). Hence, the preschool demand is better served than the demand for infant and school age care. Even at this level, there is currently a small shortage of preschool spaces. Hence, it should be noted that if there is a push for universal preschool for all 3 and 4 year olds (regardless of whether their parents work), more preschool spaces would be needed.5

Table 3 Supply of Child Care Spaces by Type and Area

Infants Preschool School Age Total Areas 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-13 yrs 0-13 yrs Incorporated Cities 2,106 12,684 6,390 21,180 Total Unincorp. Areas 121 1,137 471 1,729 Total San Mateo County 2,227 13,821 6,861 22,909 Percent Distribution 10% 60% 30% 100% Sources: The 4Cs; 2000 US Census; Brion & Associates.

The 4Cs’ 1999-2000 Needs Assessments assumes all children with both parents or a single parent in the workforce need child care (consistent with State CCCR&R methodology). However, this “proxy” method may overstate demand for some age groups. Working with the 4Cs staff for this study and analysis, we have relaxed this assumption and assumed that for children with both parents or a single parent in the workforce:

§ 75% of infants (0 to 2) need non-parental child care

§ 100% of preschool children (3 to 5) need non-parental child care 5 There are 17,110 3 and 4 year olds, which would mean an additional 3,289 additional spaces would be needed for universal preschool, based on U.S. Census 2000 data and current supply data for preschool spaces.


June 2003

11

§ 50% of school age children (6 to 9) need non-parental child care

§ 25% of school age children (10 to 13) need non-parental child care

The remaining percentages of children assume care provided by parents with staggered or flexible work schedules, relatives, unlicensed care, self-care, older siblings, or through participation in school-sponsored or private after school activities.

Using the assumptions above, in San Mateo County a total of about 45,000 child care spaces are currently needed: 11,500 for infants, 15,000 for preschoolers, and 19,000 for school age children (see Table 4). About 41,000 (90%) of this demand come from within the incorporated cities and about 4,100 (10%) from unincorporated areas. The estimated child care demand for each city and area is shown in Appendix A.

Table 4 Children in San Mateo County Needing Care by Type and Area

Infants Preschool School Age Total 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrs 0-13 City/Area Demand Factors: 75% 100% 50% 25% na All Cities 10,445 13,699 11,522 5,458 41,123 Total Unincorp. Areas 1,036 1,457 1,117 535 4,145 Total San Mateo County 11,481 15,155 12,639 5,993 45,268 Percent Distribution 24% 33% 28% 13% 100% Sources: The 4Cs; 2000 US Census; Brion & Associates.

Table 5 summarizes the child care space gap or shortage that exists in the County (detailed data city is in Appendix A). As in most communities, infants are the most underserved age group in San Mateo County’s child care supply. Countywide, there is a shortage of about 9,000 infant spaces (assuming 75% of infants with working parents need licensed care), 1,300 preschool spaces, and about 11,800 school age spaces. These gaps at the city level are shown in Appendix A.

Overall, the formal child care supply currently accommodates about 50% of the demand for child care in the county. For the unincorporated areas, this relationship is slightly worse, with only 42% of the child care demand being met by current formal supply. The supply of infant care supply is even lower in the unincorporated areas meeting 12% of the demand compared to 20% in the cities (overall).


June 2003

12

Table 5 Child Care Supply Gap or (Shortage)/Surplus by Type and Area

Infants Preschool School Age Total Areas 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-13 yrs 0-13 yrs (1) Incorporated Cities (8,339) (1,015) (10,590) (19,943) % Not Served 80% 7% 62% 48% Total Unincorp. Areas (915) (320) (1,181) (2,416) % Not Served 88% 22% 71% 58% Total San Mateo County (9,254) (1,334) (11,771) (22,359) % Not Served 81% 9% 63% 49% (1) This figure is understated as many preschool spaces are only part-time, and do not serve working parents. Sources: The 4Cs; 2000 US Census; Brion & Associates.

Hence, infant care represents the greatest unmet child care need in the County on a percentage basis, while school age care represents the largest number of additional spaces needed to meet demand. There is a total shortage of about 22,400 spaces Countywide for all age groups.

Based on waiting list information from providers, studies by the 4Cs have also shown that infant care is under-supplied relative to demand. Overall, it can be seen that more child care spaces are currently needed throughout the County in all categories.

Projected Household Growth and Development ABAG projects population in San Mateo County to increase by over 100,000 people, from 2000 to 2025, with a total population of about 813,000 by 2025. This amount of growth equates into an increase of about 35,000 new households, as shown in Table 6 . If this projected 25-year growth is pro-rated for ten years, by 2010 San Mateo County can expect an increase of about 14,000 households. This amount of growth is equivalent to about 1,400 new households annually for the entire County. Additional child care spaces will be required to serve these new households.

Historical building permit data is presented in Table 7. Over the last ten years, the average annual amount of building permits issued has equaled about 1,400 units per year. While there is no relationship between historical permit activity and projections by ABAG, it is


June 2003

13

comforting to know that recent permit activity suggests the market can annually produce the projected number of units (on average).6

On an individual city level, however, the correspondence between projected household growth and actual development activity is less precise.

Table 6 Projected Households in San Mateo County by City: 2000 to 2025

Total Households at 2000 to 2025

City/Area 2000 2025 Total Net Change

% Net Change

Avg. Annual Increase

Atherton 2,413 2,690 277 11% 11 Belmont 10,418 11,480 1,062 10% 42 Brisbane 1,620 2,340 720 44% 29 Burlingame 12,511 14,060 1,549 12% 62 Colma 329 450 121 37% 5 Daly City 30,775 32,840 2,065 7% 83 East Palo Alto 6,976 9,900 2,924 42% 117 Foster City 11,613 13,130 1,517 13% 61 Half Moon Bay 4,004 5,630 1,626 41% 65 Hillsborough 3,689 4,030 341 9% 14 Menlo Park 12,387 13,540 1,153 9% 46 Millbrae 7,956 8,770 814 10% 33 Pacifica 13,994 15,980 1,986 14% 79 Portola Valley 1,700 1,960 260 15% 10 Redwood City 28,060 31,230 3,170 11% 127 San Bruno 14,677 15,830 1,153 8% 46 San Carlos 11,455 12,100 645 6% 26 San Mateo 37,338 43,210 5,872 16% 235 South San Francisco 19,677 21,980 2,303 12% 92 Woodside 1,949 2,220 271 14% 11 Unincorporated 20,562 25,550 4,988 24% 200 Total San Mateo County 254,103 288,920 34,817 14% 1,393 Sources: ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.

6 Not all permits pulled end up being construction so actual housing production is slightly less.


June 2003

14

Table 7

Recent Housing Building Permits by Area: 1993 to 2002 (1) Average Bldg Permits per Year by Type (1993-2002) City/Area Single Family Multi-Family Total Atherton 9 - 7 Belmont 29 10 20 Brisbane 3 39 25 Burlingame 15 23 56 Colma 2 1 21 Daly City 73 15 62 East Palo Alto 38 31 91 Foster City 7 72 68 Half Moon Bay 34 16 56 Hillsborough 15 - 18 Menlo Park 40 3 20 Millbrae 2 17 32 Pacifica 37 17 50 Portola Valley 9 1 29 Redwood City 98 135 110 San Bruno 4 30 158 San Carlos 9 19 20 San Mateo 22 143 114 South San Francisco 91 19 108 Woodside 17 - 72 Unincorporated 177 40 142 Totals 729 630 1,359

(1) From Construction Industry Research Board building permit reports. Sources: Construction Industry Research Board; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Brion & Associates.

Future Child Care Need Applying the current age distribution to projected population growth in the County, a net increase of 17,000 children (0-13) will be living in the County by 2025 (see Appendix A). Assuming current LFPRs by city (using the average County rate for the unincorporated areas), and the demand assumptions discussed regarding the percentage of children needing non-parental care, an additional 6,080 children will need non-parental child care by 2025. About 1,530 of these spaces would be infant care, 2,050 for preschool care, and 2,500 for school age care as shown in Table 8 .

The new demand, combined with the existing supply gap in the County, suggest that new policies are required to accommodate the demand for child care. Table 9 summarizes the


June 2003

15

existing unmet demand (or the existing supply gap) combined with the projected new demand for child care by area.

Table 8 Future Child Care Need by Type and Area

Projected Child Care Space Needs - 2004 to 2025 Infants Preschool School Age

Area 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-13 yrs Total, 0-

13 yrs Atherton 6 10 13 29 Belmont 43 49 61 153 Brisbane 10 34 45 89 Burlingame 46 57 89 193 Colma 6 5 10 21 Daly City 112 154 179 445 East Palo Alto 165 224 261 649 Foster City 47 56 94 197 Half Moon Bay 64 104 105 273 Hillsborough 12 15 20 46 Menlo Park 39 59 59 157 Millbrae 27 32 47 107 Pacifica 74 125 169 368 Portola Valley 10 12 12 34 Redwood City 183 203 232 617 San Bruno 66 88 117 270 San Carlos 28 42 51 121 San Mateo 195 245 323 763 South San Francisco 140 177 208 525 Woodside 6 8 10 25 Total Cities 1,279 1,699 2,104 5,082 - Total Unincorp. Areas 250 343 406 998 - Total San Mateo County 1,529 2,041 2,510 6,080 Percent Distributions 25% 34% 13% 100% Sources: The 4Cs; ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.


June 2003

16

Table 9 Current Unmet and Future Child Care Need, 2003, and 2004 to 2025

2003 2004-2025 Existing Future Total Percent of Area Supply Gap Need Need Need 0-13 yrs 0-13 yrs 0-13 yrs Atherton 36 29 65 0.2%Belmont 419 153 572 2.0%Brisbane 87 89 176 0.6%Burlingame 369 193 562 2.0%Colma 40 21 61 0.2%Daly City 4,906 445 5,351 18.8%East Palo Alto 1,602 649 2,252 7.9%Foster City (27) 197 170 0.6%Half Moon Bay 301 273 574 2.0%Hillsborough 499 46 546 1.9%Menlo Park 468 157 625 2.2%Millbrae 153 107 259 0.9%Pacifica 1,708 368 2,076 7.3%Portola Valley 88 34 122 0.4%Redwood City 2,623 617 3,240 11.4%San Bruno 1,057 270 1,327 4.7%San Carlos 661 121 782 2.7%San Mateo 1,967 763 2,731 9.6%South San Francisco 2,922 525 3,447 12.1%Woodside 63 25 88 0.3%ALL CITIES 19,943 5,082 25,025 88.0%Unincorporated Areas 2,416 998 3,415 12.0% Total San Mateo County 22,359 6,080 28,440 100.0%Percent Distributions 79% 21% 100% Sources: The 4Cs; U.S. Census; ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.

As shown in Table 9 , there will be a total need in the County for about 28,000 additional child care spaces to serve children from 0 to13, including the existing supply gap and projected demand from new households through 2025. About 88% of this demand is within incorporated cities while 12% of this need is projected to be in the unincorporated areas. Daly City has the highest percentage of the unmet need at 19% of the total, which is mostly from existing unmet demand. Generally, the cities with the most development potential and the larger existing populations have the most need.

For example, East Palo Alto has a higher percentage of children than many other cities in the county, as well as a significant amount of development potential.

The estimated need by community should be viewed as a general indicator of need and what a city should target. Some communities that have a significant amount of employment and


June 2003

17

future employment growth will need even more child care than this approach suggests. Some communities are currently better served with child care than others. This analysis is intended to provide context for potential policies to be evaluated and does not represent data that should be used to replace 4Cs’ Needs Assessment, a city’s own supply and demand study when adopting local child care policy, or an individual provider’s supply and demand study to test the market feasibility of a new child care program.

As shown above in Table 9 , almost 80% of the need in the County is associated with existing development. This means that policies that deal only with new development will not address the child care facility needs in the cities and the County. Policies that address existing development must be considered as well. This has real implications for what policies will be effective. While it is important for new development to fund its fair share of child care demand so as not to exacerbate the already difficult shortages that exist in most communities in the County, a combination of policies that address both existing and new development is needed in every community in San Mateo County.


June 2003

18

III. POLICY REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

This section of the Policy Review and Assessment Chapter addresses policies that are related to providing child care within residential developments, or general policies that are designed to increase the supply of child care facilities. These policies cover the following areas:

1. AB 1600 Child Care Impact Fees

2. Child Care Inclusionary Ordinances

3. Provision of Child Care Facilities in Affordable Rental Housing Developments

4. Child Care Density Bonus

5. Child Care through Development Agreements and Other Zoning Requirements

6. Use of Public Surplus Land


8. Municipal Zoning, Permit Streamlining, Planning Support

9. Public Education

10. Rehab Financial Assistance and Allocating Newly Rehabbed Units for FCCHs

11. Child Care in Public Housing Projects

12. Child Care in General Plan and Other Planning Documents

13. On-Site Child Care as a Congestion Management Tool

14. Child Care and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program


16. Public Ownership of FCCH Units in Affordable Housing Projects

Policy Ideas Some of these policies are in use by local jurisdictions while others are ideas that would require new legislation or other State policy changes. Some policies can be implemented by the cities and San Mateo County, and as such these policies have received more attention. The first seven policies are more development-related policies but include policies that can provide financial support in terms of generating revenue for new facilities. The final nine policies are more zoning- or planning-related or incentive-driven. Some require State legislation or changes as noted.

1. AB1600 Child Care Impact Fees Child care impact fees are becoming a more common means of addressing child care needs from new development, but they have not reached the level of use in other public facility areas such as parks and transportation. The handful of cities with child care impact fees in


June 2003

19

the Bay Area include the cities of South San Francisco, San Francisco, Concord, Danville, and San Ramon and the County of Santa Cruz. The City of Palo Alto is also considering adopting a child care impact fee. Each of these cities’ fee programs is slightly different, was adopted at different times, and uses a variety of methods to calculate the fee.7

Impact fees are different than in-lieu fees, which are discussed under Policy #2. Impact fees are meant to represent a charge on new development that represents or mitigate a project’s impact on the particular type of facility being funded with the fee. In-lieu fees are associated with inclusionary ordinances that require the facility to be provided with the project, either on-site or off-site. An in-lieu fee is an alternative option for meeting the requirement when the provision of the facility is not feasible or is too burdensome.

Type of Policy: Local Impact fees represent a charge on new development that relates to the development’s impact on public facilities for which the fee is charged. Cities must demonstrate that there is a nexus between the fee and the impact of the project or development being charged. AB1600 regulates impact fees and applies to all local agencies, as defined in Government Code section 66000(c) to include cities (both general law and chartered), counties, special districts, school districts, other municipal public corporations and political subdivisions of the state. The legislation was drafted to establish a uniform process for formulating, adopting, imposing, collecting, accounting for, and protesting fees. The key points of AB1600 are:

1. The facility to be built with the fee revenue relates to the project subject to the fee.

2. The fee cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the project’s proportionate share of the proposed facility.

Under AB1600, a “fee” is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or assessment, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with the approval of a development project to defray all, or a portion of the increased costs of the public facilities required by the new development” (Government Code 66000b). Impact fee revenue cannot be used for operations and maintenance, which include funding child care program or staffing costs.

Policy or Program Concept This policy assumes that new developments will mitigate their impacts on child care through the levying of the fee. Developers meet their obligations, or impact, and are not responsible for building the required facility. Impact fees are extremely useful for public facilities that are too costly and large for most individual developers to build and fund either on-site or off-site, except for very large projects. In San Mateo County, the average size residential development project is not of a size to warrant inclusion of a new child care center solely as a result of that project’s impact. On the other hand, a family child care home (FCCH) could easily coincide with the impacts of a residential project, as they typically serve from 8 to 14 7 There are several different methods for calculating impact fees, and local jurisdictions have some flexibility in how they calculate a fee; however, it needs to be reasonable, and the amount of the fee must bear a relationship to the cost of the facility and the impact of a project and the need for the facility. Having a uniform method in the County for calculating child care impact fees is an idea worth investigating further.


June 2003

20

children. Most impact fee programs allow the option of building and dedicating a facility in lieu of paying the fee, or the developer is given a credit towards the fee requirement.

Given that child care impact fees are not that common, it is not clear whether developers have opted to build and dedicate a facility in lieu of paying the fee. Developers often build and dedicate parks or roadway improvements in lieu of paying fees. This issue is discussed further under Policy #2 below.

Known History and Use There are a handful of cities and counties that have adopted child care fees. Some child care fees were adopted before AB1600, which governs the establishment of fees, and others, afterwards. Some fees are consistent with AB1600, and others are not. Three impact fees are briefly described below as examples. The cities of San Ramon, Danville, and Martinez also have some form of a child care fee, and the City of Santa Monica is in the process of preparing a nexus study to adopt a new impact fee.

City of South San Francisco Year fee was adopted: 2001

Type of development the fee applies to: Residential, commercial/retail, industrial/warehouse, and quasi-public uses (such as churches, schools, etc.)

Fee rates/formula: § Single family: $1,736 per unit § Medium Density: $1,630 per unit § High Density: $1,624 per unit § Commercial/Retail: $0.60 per sqft § R&D Office: $0.50 per sqft § Hotel/Visitor: $0.16 per sqft

South San Francisco’s impact fee program is the first child care impact fee adopted in San Mateo County. While it was adopted in November 2001, right before a major real estate slow down, it has generated $150,000 in revenues as of March 2003. The majority of the funding will be used for a proposed new child care center at the BART Station, and a small portion will be set aside for a pilot grant program with the 4Cs. The impact fee program will fund 50% of estimated demand for all types of child care, including special needs. The City’s existing deficiency is significant. Based on nexus requirements of AB1600, the impact fee program will raise about $12 million in revenue for about 1,200 spaces, which is the impact of new development. The City is committed to provide an additional 3,600 new child care spaces over the next twenty years.

County of Santa Cruz Year fee was adopted: 1992 Type of development the fee applies to: Residential, commercial/retail, industrial/warehouse, and quasi-public uses (such as churches, schools, etc.)


June 2003

21

Fee rates/formula: § Residential: $328 per single family unit, $108 per multifamily unit § Commercial/retail: $.023 per sqft § Industrial/warehouse and

quasi-public uses: $0.12 per sqft

The County of Santa Cruz’s program works as a hybrid loan/grant program and has been mainly used to create low-interest loans for providers. Non-profit agencies are eligible for both grants and loans, while others are eligible only for loans. If a provider increases the supply of spaces and maintains those spaces, the loan payment is waived; if however, the provider goes out of business or reduces the number of spaces, the loan payments are due. The main goal has been to increase child care spaces or maintain existing spaces. No new centers have been built through this program. The fee has raised about $1 million in funding over the last nine years. The revenue has been used to create low interest loans, grants, and other assistance provided to existing or new providers. The fee has not increased since 1992, but the County is considering increasing it in the near future because the existing fee does not raise enough money.

City and County of San Francisco Year fee was adopted: 1985

Type of development the fee applies to: Office and Hotel in the downtown area only

Fee rates/formula: In lieu of providing 1 sqft of child care space per 100 sqft of net additional gross sqft of development (with the minimum gross floor area of child care facility being 2,000 sqft); the developer may pay the Fee of $1.00 per sqft of net additional gross sqft of development.

Historically, the City and County of San Francisco used the fee to subsidize spaces for low-income families. After the 1980s, when construction and land costs became prohibitive and no new centers were being built, the emphasis was shifted to building new facilities. In 1998, a public/private venture named the Child Care Facilities Fund (CCFF) was created. The CCFF raises money from other sources besides the Impact Fee. Since its creation, the CCFF has raised $14.9 million and so far has funded 28 new child care centers, 89 small FCCHs, and 33 large FCCHs.

City of Concord Year fee was adopted: 1985

Type of development the fee applies to: Non-residential development only

Fee rates/formula: 0.5% of development cost

The City of Concord’s Child Care Impact Fee is somewhat unique in that the fee is based upon development costs rather than square footage of development. The program has raised $827,000 since 1989, with annual collected fees ranging from $207,000 in 1989 to a low of $10,000 in 1995 and 1996. $55,000 was available for 2001.


June 2003

22

Implementation Authority Cities and counties have the authority to establish impact fees under Government Code Section 66000. In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code Sections 66001 (a) and (b) state that the local agency must:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify how the fee is to be used (if financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified).

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used.

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed.

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

In general, in establishing fees the local agency should consider the following points:

1. Project the future population to be served, both residential and non-residential, by each category of facility for the relevant service area (not required).

2. Identify existing and appropriate service levels for each needed public facility.

3. Determine additional facilities that will be needed in each category to serve the projected future population at the appropriate level and identify the cost of these projects.

4. Distribute proportionally the costs between existing development and new residents and businesses, taking into account each group’s contribution to the need for the facility.

Strengths There are many benefits from establishing an impact fee program to address child care facility needs. First, this type of program requires a comprehensive assessment of the existing child care needs of a community and a projection of future child care space and facilities need. By undertaking such a study, a local jurisdiction can get a great picture of the state of child care in its community, and the study allows for focused and productive community input through the planning process.

For jurisdictions that have a significant amount of future development capacity, both for housing and other development, impact fees are useful and important. For cities with little development capacity or projected growth, impact fees are not appropriate. Impact fees can only fund a new development’s facility needs and cannot be used for existing space deficiencies in a community or cover operations and maintenance costs.

Developers prefer that cities have established impact fees at set rates by types of land uses over situations where impacts and fees are negotiated on a project-by-project basis. Established fee rates, made easily accessible on the City’s web site, allow developers to


June 2003

23

analyze the financial feasibility of their projects, know ahead of time what their financial commitments will be, and allow them to address their projects’ impacts without doing a costly and time-consuming study of their projects’ child care requirements.

Impact fees also are useful for long-range planning of public facilities. Once a fee has been in operation for a few years, it becomes possible to consider potential development and forecast future revenues with more certainty. In the current real estate market, this may not be true for office and commercial development, but for housing development, where demand outstrips supply, more certainty exists, assuming other obstacles to producing housing can be overcome.

An impact fee program is also a very cost effective way for a city to address the funding needs of child care facilities. Once the fee is established by ordinance and resolution, the fee rates can be increased annually to account for inflation and construction cost increases, and a comprehensive facility needs assessment need not be completed for another 5 to 10 years. Typically, impact fees are reevaluated after a city updates its general plan so that facilities included in the fee programs reflect new development potential and other changes to land use.

Overall, for cities that have future development potential, child care impact fees are an important potential policy program to consider.

Weaknesses Impact fees are a type of mitigation policy that can be adopted by cities or counties. Fees have been used extensively for transportation and parks. Most cities rely on public works and parks departments to administer fee programs. Staffs in these departments are experienced in using fee revenues to construct parks and undertake traffic and roadway improvements. Most cities do not have the staff or expertise in child care to know how to develop a child care master plan or a capital improvement program. However, this potential weakness can be addressed by partnering with local child care organizations, such as the 4Cs in San Mateo County.

A major weakness or negative side effect of impact fees on housing development is that they are typically passed along to the buyer and thus, increase the cost of housing. This is one of many reasons for the high housing prices in California.

In South San Francisco, the City is considering partnering with the 4Cs on a Family Child Care Home grant program. The City will contribute impact fee revenue to the 4Cs’s Smart Kids: Child Care Facilities Expansion Fund for San Mateo County. The City provides the funding and has oversight on choosing the grant recipients while the 4Cs administers and monitors the grant program. This is a good way to address South San Francisco’s commitment to developing new or expanding existing FCCHs without adding additional staff costs to the City’s budget. It helps the 4Cs serve more grantees in the program by providing additional funding. And overall, the supply of FCCHs in South San Francisco will increase with this pilot program.8 The City Council of South San Francisco recently approved this partnership pilot grant program.

8 See “South San Francisco Child Care Impact Fee Implementation Plan” Staff Report to City Council, February 19, 2003, prepared by Director of Community Outreach, Heather Quinn.


June 2003

24

One other weakness of child care impact fees is that it is competing for revenues with public facilities that already have impact fees. For cities that currently have high total impact fees, relative to surrounding and competing jurisdictions, it may be difficult to implement a new child care fee. Cities need to remain competitive relative to the overall cost of development, and if their total impact fees greatly exceed those of the competition (i.e., other cities), then a new impact fee can become a disincentive to new development. This defeats the purpose of imposing fees.

For cities that do not have extensive impact fees or where existing fee rates are relatively low, a child care impact fee may be a reasonable policy and funding mechanism. However, a careful assessment of a proposed child care fee’s impact on a city’s overall competitiveness should be undertaken as part of the nexus study for the fee.

Because impact fees average the cost of facilities over different types of land uses and development, there are situations where the cost of mitigating a project’s impact on a particular facility is not fully captured. However, the general practice of establishing an impact fee usually is tied to the establishment of certain service standards for a facility. For instance with parks, cities establish that a project must provide so many acres of park per 1,000 residents.

Impact fees require a variety of assumptions to be applied to future development capacity to estimate facility demand. For the South San Francisco non-residential child care fees, average employee per sqft assumptions by land use type are used. In reality actual projects will have varying degrees of employee generation rates. Thus, individual projects may have slightly lower or higher generation rates, and thus, the child care space demand may be slightly higher or lower. Developers and cities live with this situation, recognizing the benefits of having a uniform fee that can be applied to all projects rather than doing individual assessments of public facility needs for each project application, which is time consuming and costly.

A perceived downside of impact fees is that it forces cities to address the existing deficiency for the facility being funded with the fee. If existing deficiencies are high, and new development potential low, then an impact fee may not be the best policy to consider.

Some cities may find that it is better to negotiate child care mitigation on a project-by-project basis through development agreements rather than through an impact fee. Development Agreements are discussed under Policy #5.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities Jurisdictions in San Mateo County with some development potential of all types and expected growth will benefit the most from adopting a child care impact fee. The cost of creating the fee, which includes preparing a nexus study, must justify the amount of fee revenue that can be generated. Many cities in San Mateo County do not have a significant amount of development potential unless densities are increased or areas are redeveloped. In addition to San Mateo County, the cities that might be suitable for a child care impact fee could include:

1. Daly City

2. East Palo Alto


June 2003

25

3. Foster City

4. Milbrae

5. Redwood City

6. City of San Mateo

7. County of San Mateo

It is important that cities consider additional factors when determining whether to adopt a child care impact fee. These other factors include the existing supply and demand conditions for child care, the overall amount of impact fees charged by the city relative to other jurisdictions, and the amount of non-residential development capacity. While this study only addresses child care and housing, the need for child care facilities is also generated by non-residential development. Thus, some cities may have very little residential development capacity but a significant amount of non-residential capacity. A commercial impact fee might be a good option in those cases.

2. Child Care Inclusionary Ordinance

Type of Policy: Local A Child Care Inclusionary Ordinance could be similar to Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances designed for affordable housing. It could establish a relationship between new housing units and the provision of space for child care facilities.

Policy or Program Concept An Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is part of a jurisdiction’s zoning regulations, and as such is incorporated into a jurisdiction’s municipal code. Thus far, Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances have been written to address the requirement to include affordable housing in new market rate housing developments. In some cases, developers have an option to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing units.

Cities and counties vary widely in how Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances are written. Many ordinances, however, share common features, which could be relevant to a Child Care Inclusionary Ordinance. These features are as follows:

§ Threshold size of residential project triggers Ordinance requirements. Generally single-family homes that are not part of a larger development are excluded from Inclusionary Ordinances. A more conservative policy will select a larger threshold project size, i.e., 20 or more units, and a more aggressive policy targets smaller residential developments, as low as duplexes.

§ Option of paying a fee in lieu of providing space. There is some controversy over the issue of whether it is better to require developers to provide space or allow them to pay fees. There are two main advantages of requiring space over fees. First, a space requirement guarantees that the space is included within the new residential development. Secondly, since the fees may be inadequate to build the space,


June 2003

26

requesting the developer to provide the space will ultimately reduce the amount of additional subsidy needed.

On the other hand, if a jurisdiction wants to collect funds it can use in a more discretionary fashion, e.g., assist existing centers, then fees could be a preferred approach. If a fee option is adopted, then an AB1600 Nexus Study is needed to justify the selection of a fee. The fee can be assessed on a per unit basis or on a per square foot basis. Fees for multi-family and single family housing can vary.

Inclusionary Ordinances will sometimes allow a fee to be paid for smaller developments (e.g., up to five to nine units), and then require space only in larger developments (ten units or greater). In some situations fees and required units are combined. For example, if the project threshold size is ten units and the inclusionary requirement is 10%, then, a 15-unit project could be required to provide one affordable unit and in-lieu fees covering the fractional unit, since the next whole unit would not be required until the project size reached 20 units.

Finally, even if a jurisdiction prefers the provision of space over fees, a recent legal case in Napa County has demonstrated that an in-lieu fee option must be available to developers to cover those situations in which provision of space is deemed to be a hardship or is otherwise impractical.

§ Cost offsets. To reduce the cost burden on developers of providing affordable housing (or space for child care), cities will frequently offer cost offsets. Examples include increased densities, reduced setbacks and parking requirements, and fee waivers.9

§ Period of restriction. The period of time over which inclusionary units must be affordable (or time period that space for child care must be restricted) is another parameter of Inclusionary Programs. Cities have been increasing the time period for which prices and rents are restricted, since it is so difficult to develop more affordable housing.

§ On-site or off-site. In some cases, developers prefer providing the affordable units at a different location, particularly if they partner with another developer that is more experienced in the provision of affordable housing. In the provision of child care there can be good reasons to provide it off-site. For example, a central location can be more accessible to families who do not live in the residential development. This may be particularly important if families move into a development with younger children and then remain once their children no longer need child care. The case studies in Chapter IV discuss some of these issues further.

Known History and Use At this time, we are not aware of any city or county that has adopted a Child Care Inclusionary Ordinance. Instead, governments have relied on impact fees or specific plans as a way of collecting fees and/or requiring child care space to be developed in new housing developments. 9 Fee waivers by cities can trigger the need to use prevailing wages according to SB975 adopted January 1, 2002, and SB 972 adopted January 1, 2003 and should be considered carefully.


June 2003

27

Implementation Authority County and city governments are authorized to adopt Inclusionary Ordinances.

Strengths There are several advantages of a Child Care Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. These include the following:

§ Local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt these ordinances. They do not require voter approval.

§ Communities in the San Francisco Bay Area (and elsewhere in California) are already accustomed to Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances adopted for affordable housing.

§ By placing the burden on new development, jurisdictions are able to facilitate the expansion of child care space without the use of local funds.

§ Space for child care can be developed as residential development occurs, so as not to burden existing child care resources.

Weaknesses There are also several disadvantages to an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance for child care space.

§ If an in-lieu fee is adopted, then it will be necessary to undertake a nexus study that quantifies the relationship between increased demand for child care and new residential development. The methodology for establishing this nexus is not as well articulated as it is for affordable housing.

§ The cost of new housing is high. Imposition of additional requirements on residential developers will drive prices higher, assuming that developers are able to pass these costs or fees on to buyers.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities There is not a surplus of developable land in San Mateo County. Although some cities, such as Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco, are still adding housing units, other cities, such as Menlo Park and Atherton, are building very little housing. Those cities that no longer have tracts of vacant land add new housing either through single-family home development on scattered sites or through land recycling, e.g., rezoning of non-residential land for residential uses. Thus, an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that requires child care could benefit some San Mateo cities (those that are growing), but not all cities.

Secondly, although the housing market is still strong, there is a concern that the economic recession will at some point slow down new residential development, particularly if interest rates rise. When financial feasibility is harder to attain, there is less political support for fees and other policies that place a burden on developers. So, cities could consider adopting a Child Care Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance but decide not to enforce it in the event that the housing industry becomes depressed.


June 2003

28

3. Encourage or Mandate the Provision of Child Care Facilities in Affordable Rental Housing Developments

Type of Policy: Local A jurisdiction that assists a developer of affordable housing can either encourage or mandate the provision of a child care facility or dedicated units for FCCHs.

Policy or Program Concept This policy can both provide incentives and mandate that affordable housing developers build space for a child care center or allocate standard or specially designed units for FCCH use. The housing developer continues to own the space while a separate child care provider leases and operates the center. Tenant households run FCCH businesses. Residents of the affordable housing units have priority for the child care spaces created.

To encourage this development, jurisdictions can use a carrot and stick approach. The carrot is to provide cost offsets or direct subsidies to developers. The stick is to establish provision of child care as a requirement for project approval.

Building a separate center requires that additional funding be provided by a city, or the developer must cover the additional costs in some other way, frequently by providing additional equity to the project. Providers can also apply for low-interest loans and/or grant programs to provide additional funding. Since the child care provider furnishes affordable child care, there is very little operating income to pay for the rent that could be charged for the space. Consequently, the affordable housing developer rents the space at a below market rate. These rents are generally adequate to cover maintenance only and not contribute to debt service. Lack of debt on the child care portion of the development is critical for financial feasibility.

For small projects, or for projects with limited land, a second approach is to require that one or more units be provided on a priority basis to residents who operate FCCHs. These units would be ground floor units, so that there can be access to an outdoor play area. In the case of Carter Terrace in San Francisco, the units to be used for family day care have two stories with extra storage space and a kitchenette (in addition to a standard kitchen).

Known History and Use The case studies presented in Chapter IV of this report cover several examples of both mandated and optional child care facilities and units. At two affordable projects developed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition in Redwood City and Half Moon Bay, the respective cities mandated the inclusion of child care centers. In contrast, Daly City approached Mercy Housing and Bayshore Child Care Services to team together to build a separate center, consisting of 4,000 square feet, in the 47-unit family housing project. This is an example of voluntary, not mandatory, provision of space. One large master-planned community is also discussed and was required to provide child care facilities throughout the project.


June 2003

29

Implementation Authority Local governments can implement this policy through mandatory or optional requirements.

Strengths Provision of affordable child care on-site in a multi-family housing development provides a valuable service to working parents. Since cities work closely with affordable housing developers already, requiring child care space can be seen as a next step in creating positive environments that serve low- and moderate-income families. Working relationships have already been established to develop affordable housing. Adding additional requirements should be acceptable, assuming that jurisdictions help offset costs. For smaller residential projects, cities may wish to consider requiring units and not separate centers. Finally, supporting FCCHs creates employment and business opportunities for project residents.

Weaknesses There are several drawbacks, which need to be considered carefully. These include the following:

§ Land is expensive. Most affordable developments try to place as many units as possible on their sites. Requiring a child care center reduces land available for housing.

§ There can be competition for outdoor space and parking between the child care center and residents. Unless residents use the center, they may feel that the center is encroaching upon their use of open space.

§ Residents may outgrow their need for child care. Residents who move in with child care needs may outgrow them over time. When this happens, the child care center accepts children from a wider community and is no longer directly serving residents.

§ Financing difficulties can ensue. Issues in securing financing for child care centers are discussed below. In all the case studies presented below, funding came either from a city, the developer’s equity, or did not require special financing (in the case of FCCH units).

§ State and federal income eligibility mismatches are a factor to consider. When the child care center is operated by a State or federally funded affiliate such as Head Start or the California Department of Education, participants’ incomes must fall within the guidelines established by these programs, which, in some cases, are much lower than the eligible household incomes for affordable housing in the Bay Area. For instance, while incomes for many tenants in affordable housing may be under the income threshold for Head Start, it is also possible that that tenant incomes exceed these limits, particularly in mixed-income affordable projects. The maximum eligible income for the Head Start Program is $18,400 for a household of four, representing the poverty income level for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. In comparison, the maximum income for a household of four in 2003 in a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Project is $67,860; in a HUD project affordable to low-income households, the maximum income is $90,500; and $67,860 is the maximum income for a project affordable to low-income households funded by Redevelopment Agency Funds. Therefore, residents living in the a ffordable project may be ineligible to use


June 2003

30

the child care center. This, again, can lead to tenant dissatisfaction with an on-site center.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities This is a good policy that already has been used in San Mateo County and elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Santa Cruz County. Over time, cities will learn from experience and improve policies. For example, it is important to establish a time period that defines how long the development must use the space in a center or a rental unit for child care use. Cities have learned to extend time periods for housing affordability. For example, although density bonus programs started with a 10- to 15-year term of affordability, these times are now being extended to 20 and 30 years. Other areas for improvement include using the same household income eligibility for both child care services and affordable housing, reducing the amount of shared space within a development, and allowing child care centers to be used for other purposes during off-hours. These uses could include evening tutoring, computer learning center, or social events. Sharing child care space, however, takes additional planning and can create conflicts. Addressing the location of the child care facility within a project is also important. Finally, determining whether the center will serve residents only or be open to other community residents is an important consideration.

4. Child Care Density Bonus

Type of Policy: State and Local State density bonus law allows higher densities to developments that provide a specified percentage of units affordable to low- and very low-income households or to seniors in newly developed multi-family housing projects, consisting of five or more units. Condominium projects can also receive higher densities if they provide housing affordable to moderate-income households. Government Code Sections 65913.4, 65915, and 65917 describe these density bonus requirements.

Policy or Program Concept Representative Gene Mullins has introduced AB 305. Density bonuses for provision of child care space are already permitted for commercial development. This bill, if passed, would add child care to the residential density bonus law (to increase densities even more) and would parallel the commercial child care density bonus provisions. The bill is still being worked on, so the current version is likely to change.

Known History and Use At this time, we are not aware of bonus densities provided for child care in residential developments.


June 2003

31

Implementation Authority Local density bonus laws are guided by state regulations. If the state passes this legislation, then it will provide a positive precedent for local governments to add child care to their existing density bonus regulations.

Strengths Bonus densities have been useful in the development of affordable housing units in the San Francisco Bay Area. Developers like bonus densities, since, by developing more units than would otherwise be allowed, they can increase profits. Furthermore, cities may offer cost offsets to help developers, but they are not always offered.

Weaknesses Since developers are not required to develop at higher densities, they do not request them unless there is a financial benefit. It is likely that the same will hold true for bonus densities and provision of child care space. Furthermore, the current commercial density bonus law does not serve as a complete model for a revised residential regulation since there is no specification of how the amount of residential space will translate to child care space requirements. Under the commercial component, there is a formula that links the two. This is presented below.

(2) “Density bonus” means a floor area ratio bonus over the otherwise maximum allowable density permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use elements of the general plan of a city, including a charter city, city and county, or county of:

(A) A maximum of five square feet of floor area for each one square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for existing structures.

(B) A maximum of 10 square feet of floor area for each one square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for new structures. For purposes of calculating the density bonus under this section, both indoor and outdoor square footage requirements for the child care facility as set forth in applicable state child care licensing requirements shall be included in the floor area of the child care facility.

Housing policies are generally linked to units and not space. Therefore, to be effective, this regulation will need to come up with a residential unit-based definition. Many communities do not want higher density housing. Often in more suburban locations, while density bonuses are available, they are not always utilized.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities If the language in AB 305 can be improved and the bill approved, then San Mateo County and its cities could benefit from this policy. Whether developers will provide child care space for higher densities remains to be seen. This is a policy that should be discussed with area developers.


June 2003

32

5. Child Care through Development Agreements, and Other Zoning Requirements Development Agreements (DAs) are a common method cities and developers use to negotiate a set of benefits in exchange for a set of entitlements over a specified period of time. The documents are legally binding but do not have any standard requirement in terms of content or terms. They are completely unique to an individual project’s needs and issues. Usually developers with larger projects that will be built out over a number of years find DAs useful in that they guarantee their entitlements and lock in their financial commitments for the project such as the amount of impact fees that are to be paid.

Cities or counties can also adopt general requirements for new developments to mitigate their impacts on child care facilities without necessarily specifying how the mitigation will be accomplished. The County of Contra Costa has such an ordinance but it is not an approach we support or recommend.10

Type of Policy: Local Development Agreements are commonly used by cities and other jurisdictions to deal with the uncertainty of development and the broad range of benefits projects can afford cities. DAs are allowed by California State Zoning Law (see California Government Code, Sections 65864 to 65869):

A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time (Government Code Section 65865.2.)

Policy or Program Concept Development Agreements are a common approach to the entitlement process, particularly when financial arrangements or assistance is involved. It does not represent a policy option that is exclusive of any other policies discussed in this study to address child care needs. Rather, it is an option that should be considered as an additional policy that can be used by cities or counties to address child care needs. Typically if a city has a child care impact fee, the DA may waive payment of such fee for the provision of a facility.

10 The Contra Costa County Child Care Ordinance is part of the City’s Zoning Code and is similar in nature to an impact fee ordinance but it does not specify a fee. It makes certain statements of nexus but does not appear to have a nexus study to support the adoption of the ordinance.


June 2003

33

Known History and Use Although DAs have been used numerous times in California, there are fewer examples of DAs used for child care. Before the City of South San Francisco adopted its child care impact fee, it had negotiated a number of DAs for large projects that require child care facilities. Table 10 lists those projects, their development components, and the number of child care spaces required.

Table 10 South San Francisco Projects with DAs and Child Care

Office/R&D

Retail/Comm. Residential Child Care Project Name in Bldg. Sqft in Bldg. Sqft in Units Spaces Approved Projects Terrabay 665,000 166 100 Bay West Cove 569,000 10,000 100 Gateway 390,000 75 Proposed Projects Britannia E. Grand 785,000 13,000 80 BART Station na na na 80 Totals 2,409,000 23,000 166 435

Sources: South San Francisco; Brion & Associates.

Implementation Authority Any city, county, or city and county may enter into a DA with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property.

Strengths For larger projects that have the size to support their own child care center, a new school site, or enough interest from perspective employers that will occupy the project, DAs are useful tools. When developers desire more certainty, they are often willing to do more than their fair share or pay more than the standard impact fees. In this manner, more child care facilities can be created than might normally occur through other policies and requirements. However, other concessions may be provided by the City that offset this additional benefit. Each DA is unique and requires a weighing of various costs and benefits for a city.

The use of DAs does not require new policy to be adopted at the local level. DAs are already allowed by the state zoning code. DAs can work with and complement other polices.

For cities that do not adopt a child care impact fee and for projects that are too small to support their own center or child care facilities, a monetary contribution towards mitigating child care needs can be negotiated. This revenue can be used to build new facilities or expand existing facilities. A developer can also agree to set aside residential units for FCCHs or lease space at below market rates for a child care center, or donate land for a new facility. There are numerous ways the DA can be a useful tool in addressing child care needs.


June 2003

34

Weaknesses If the use of DAs is the only way a city mitigates the impacts of new developments on child care, it will miss a significant amount of the demand, since most projects are not of the size or scale to warrant a DA. The child care that is provided by DAs also tends to be market rate child care centers. Thus, this policy does not always address the need for affordable child care or child care in existing neighborhoods.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities All cities and the County should include DAs as a potential policy option for addressing child care needs. It does not preclude the adoption of other policies and can be an effective tool for creating new child care centers, as witnessed in South San Francisco.

6. Use of Public Surplus Land This policy idea addresses the use of surplus public land for child care facilities. Overall, this is an excellent way for cities to contribute to the supply of child care centers. There are cases where public land has been donated or leased at a low or nominal rate to child care providers. Redevelopment agencies often enter into long-term ground leases with developers for a variety of public and private projects. However, in San Mateo County, public land competes with a number of other public facilities needs including police and fire stations, parks, libraries, and other public buildings. Affordable housing developers also consider surplus public lands as sources of potential housing sites. In addition, cities are not generally in the business of owning land. There are certain instances where public agencies hold significant pieces of land, such as in the case of Alameda County near the Santa Rita jail, or with large military bases that have been closed in recent years. In addition, sites that are too small for other public facilities can work for child care. Finally, underutilized land can also be jointly used for child care and other activities.11

Type of Policy: Local This policy can be implemented locally; this is one of its key benefits, assuming that a city or school district has surplus land with which to work.

Policy or Program Concept This policy would fold into a city’s or county’s broader goal to address child care needs and could be added as a policy in the general plan. This policy could read something like:

The City shall evaluate all surplus properties owned by the City and other public agencies in the City for use as child care facilities. This land can be provided through long-term ground leases, donations, or sold at a below market value. Alternatively, the City can sell the land at market rate and provide the sales proceeds for the development of new child care facilities.

11 The site used in downtown Palo Alto is about one-quarter of an acre.


June 2003

35

For valuable property, it might be more beneficial to sell the property at market value and donate all or some of the proceeds to child care projects in the city. This type of revenue can also be used to seed a low interest loan fund or a forgivable loan fund, such as the one in use by the County of Santa Cruz. The city could also have a policy that states the city will work with local school districts to use surplus property for child care facilities. Land can be temporarily used for child care facilities, and structures need not be permanent; in some situations, modular buildings can work well for child care, particularly in park settings.

Known History and Use There are many instances where cities donate or lease low cost land for projects that they support from an economic development standpoint. This includes child care facility development. Two local and recent examples include Redwood Shores and downtown Palo Alto. In downtown Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation agreed to lease a 12,500 sqft patch of land to the City in 1991 or a little more than a quarter of an acre.12

Another example is the new Shores Child Care Center that was developed on surplus land next to the City’s water tank in Redwood Shores. In Redwood Shores, the developer of the building entered into a long-term ground lease with the City for a 1.8-acre parcel for 31 years at $1,000 per year and market rate thereafter until year 50.13 The child care center is market rate and serves an existing residential community and major employment center in Redwood City. The project is a 10,000 sqft facility on the ground floor of a two-story building. The child care portion of the building cost $3 million to develop or about $300 per sqft. The upper floor is leased to a children’s services provider (Associated Learning Language Specialists) and is similar to professional medical office space. There is shared use between the child care center and the upstairs tenant, which serves special needs children. The center is a unique opportunity to integrate special needs children into a mainstream environment. Rent is $2.75 per sqft per month,14 which is high for child care providers; typical rent for a child care center is $2 per sqft per month.15

Financing for the entire project was initially provided by capital supplied by the developer ($1.0 million) with remaining financing obtained through a conventional construction loan personally guaranteed by the developer. After construction, the City provided a 10-year mortgage loan to pay off the construction loan. The developer supplied additional capital to complete the second floor tenant improvements.

The site was situated between the City’s water tank and a proposed hotel site. The developer had already extended utilities to the site to serve the hotel site and requested that one-fourth of these costs be allocated to the office/child care project. The total child care center cost $4 million to construct or about $400 per sqft for the entire project, including the second floor. The center serves 156 children which equates into a per space development cost of over $12,800 per space, assuming costs divided equally between first and second floors.

12 See Moore, Andrea, Daycare for Downtown, New child care center offers creative learning f or children, Palo Alto Weekly on-line edition, December 18, 2002. 13 Not all of this site is needed for the child care center and includes land for public access to the Bay, an access road and infrastructure right-of-way. 14 This is $0.25 per sqft less than required to amortize costs; city’s financial assistance has allow developer to charge below market rent. 15 Ibid.


June 2003

36

The project was a difficult site on which to develop a child care center and took three years to develop. The project faced potential opposition, but the developer had established relationships with homeowners’ associations, the airport, and other groups and agencies. The project required a Bay Conservation and Development Commission permit, special Bay shoreline access and improvements, a special airport permit, and a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment. For a child care provider lacking these contacts and relationships, the project might not have been approved. The project also had some toxic issues and required new fill, all of which added significantly to project costs.

Thus, having surplus city land at a low cost did not necessarily keep the project low cost or make it more financially feasible. However, it did create a large child care center in an area that had developed without a child care facility and that had a tremendous need for one.

Another potential project was planned by Redwood City and the County to be built on a small, triangular-shaped parcel. The site turned out to have a variety of challenges including an inadequate amount of land for parking requirements. However, the final blow to the project was the unusual infrastructure requirement of a culvert cover, estimated to cost over $1 million. This additional site improvement cost made the site financially unfeasible for child care.

Implementation Authority Local jurisdictions have the authority to sell or lease surplus property.

Strengths If local jurisdictions have surplus property, it can be considered for child care. The primary cost to a city is the opportunity cost of using it for some other purpose or selling it for revenue. When property is available and is not competing for other needs in the community like parks or open space, surplus land can greatly add to the feasibility of a child care center, since rent (or debt service) will be lower.

Weaknesses While there is no cost outlay to utilize such a policy, considerable effort can be spent on a piece of property, and it may turn out to be too costly to develop. This type of experience is commonplace for the private sector development community, but the child care community does not have the in-depth experience (or pre-development capital) of a real estate developer.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities This policy should be considered by all local jurisdictions that have surplus land. However, it should not be expected to solve a significant part of the need for child care facilities. Also, careful consideration of individual sites need to be undertaken to ensure that the property can be used for child care in a cost-effective manner and that the site does not require unusually high infrastructure costs or toxic clean-up for which no outside funds are available.


June 2003

37

7. Financial Assistance and Cost Offsets Financial assistance can take the form of low-interest loans; grants; in-kind donations such as vacant public buildings, land, or other equipment; and fee waivers, fee deferral, or fee payment plans. This assistance can be provided to developers or child care providers. This section does not address a particular policy per se but rather discusses a wide variety of financing challenges that face the child care industry and potential policy or program options. Short of waiving fees, or creating loan or grant programs for child care providers, there are no local financing policies that can be adopted at the city or county level. Many of the financing issues are a function of the basic economics of child care. As a new study prepared for Santa Clara County demonstrates, “If providers were able to charge the true cost of child care, it would be at least two to three times current fees.”16 More broad-based lending policy changes are needed to address many of these financing issues.

Cost offsets are ways in which cities can offer non-monetary assistance through such policies as reducing parking requirements, increasing development capacity, or adjusting height and set-back requirements, all of which add more value to a given parcel and allow a developer to spread fixed costs over a larger amount of development. Cost offsets are a common practice in the affordable housing field. They are also a way that cities can offer assistance without a direct cost to the city. Direct financial assistance to developers by cities now can trigger the prevailing wage issue and many developers are reluctant to accept such assistance.17

Type of Policy and Concept Most of the financial issues that are faced by child care providers are either economic, such as low profit margins relative to typical financing requirements, or state and federal program requirements that do not work for providers. For instance, most low-interest loan programs will loan no more than 50% of the total project costs and have matching requirements that many providers cannot meet.

There are a number of loan programs available that are summarized in this section. This discussion addresses the policies and programs that can be developed locally to address some of the broader economic and financial challenges faced by the child care industry. The notion of providing low-interest loans to private developers that want to develop child care as part of their projects will require further investigation with a wider range of developers. The few developers contacted as part of this effort felt that it would not be worth the trouble of applying for separate financing for such a small portion of overall project costs. The additional administrative costs would consume the cost savings from a below market rate loan.

On the other hand, cost offsets are potentially more appealing. Cost offsets are usually applied to specific projects as a result of negotiation. A city could adopt a general policy to consider cost offsets for projects that include child care facilities, and the exact terms would be negotiated on a project-by-project basis. 16 See “The True Cost of Child Care” prepared by Local Child Care Planning County and the Local Investment in Child Care (LINCC) Project, (July 2002). 17 SB975 adopted January 1, 2002, and SB 972 adopted January 1, 2003 are the state bills recently passed that define the situations in which prevailing wages are triggered.


June 2003

38

Some cities allow for all city fees either to be waived, paid upon project completion, or staggered over several years, thereby reducing the initial cost burden on developments. These arrangements are at the discretion of the City Council and are more likely to occur when a project is perceived as creating public benefits. Deferring fees helps financially challenged projects in that the fees can be paid out of the proceeds of sales or the income from a project.18 Waiving fees altogether reduces income for a city, but fee deferment can be a win-win situation. The city still gets the money while it reduces the provider’s or developer’s carrying costs.

Available Financing Programs There are a number of studies available that address financing issues facing the child care industries. The best source of financing and funding resources is provided in the booklet: “Child Care Facilities Development Financial Resources and Technical Assistance,” written in 2001 by the National Economic Development and Law Center.19 A funding matrix presented in this report is included in this excellent discussion of the financial and economic challenges facing child care facilities development. This report is a collaborative effort between child care advocates and agencies.20 This study commented on how a State loan program (that has been discontinued) in concept was good but suffered from lack of direct advertising to providers, had too many different State agencies involved, some of which were not familiar with child care, and had loan requirements that were difficult for providers, and the interest rate was too high. A separate State program for portables with a lease to purchase option was noted as being very successful.21

Table 11 summarizes some examples of local low-interest loan funds available.

In addition, the 4Cs has a new SmartsKids: Child Care Facilities Expansion program, which targets grants to FCCH providers, either new or expanding. As discussed elsewhere, South San Francisco will begin a new partnership with the 4Cs and contribute funding to this program that will be targeted towards South City FCCHs. This is a new partnership, and as such, is proposed as a pilot program to start. If this program proves successful, a permanent program and agreement would be developed between the 4Cs and the City.

Finally, loans and grants for child care facilities are an eligible use for funds provided by the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Within San Mateo County, there are four CDBG entitlement cities (Daly City, South San Francisco, Redwood City, and San Mateo), and the remaining cities receive CDBG funds from San Mateo County. However, there are many applicants for these funds, and competition is very strong. On an annual basis, the five CDBG entitlement jurisdictions get about $6 million total, distributed over a wide variety of housing and community developments projects.

18 The City of Benicia has a fee waiver/deferment program for industrial development. 19 See http://www.nedlc.org/publications/child care.html. This document is No. 2002-03 and can be downloaded directly from the web. 20 See by “Report to Legislature Child Care Facility Development and Financing: Barriers and Recommendations by Building Child Care Collaborative, the California Department of Education, Child Care Division, et al (2001). 21 Ibid.

http://www.nedlc.org/publications/child


June 2003

39

Table 11 Examples of Local Low-Interest Loan Programs for Child Care

Program Loan Amount Terms and Conditions of Loan

Alameda County Facility Development Loan $50,000 limit No interest loan for three years; if all of the terms

of the project have been met, the loan is forgiven.

ABCD Fund, Statewide program administered through Low Income Investment Fund

$10,000 to $20,000 planning grants; up to $100,000 predevelopment loans; up to $1 million development loans

Predevelopment loans at 3% interest with repayment in 3 years; development loans up to 8% interest and 3 years repayment. Total of $40 million available in program, funded through Packard Foundation.

California Department of Housing and Community Development: Loan Guaranty Program

$1 million limit

Payback cannot exceed 20 years; child care must be provided throughout the term of the loan; interest rates and terms are set up by the private lender; application fee of $250; origination fee of up to 2%; no collateral required.

California Department of Housing and Community Development: Direct Loan Program

Loan amount ranges from $25,000 to $1 million.

Maximum loan term is 20 years; below prime fixed interest rate; construction financing available; child care must be provided throughout the term of the loan; application fee of $250; loan origination fee of 1%’ collateral required.

California Department of Housing and Community Development: Microenterprise Assistance Program

$50,000 limit

Maximum loan term is 15 years; below prime fixed interest rate; child care services must be provided throughout the term of the microloan; collateral required.

Local Policy Options Although there are many financial programs and loan programs to assist child care, more financial assistance and education is required to assist the child care industry in developing child care facilities. There are several ways in which local cities can assist child care development. These are as follows:

§ Offer impact and building fee waivers, deferments or payment plans for child care facilities.

§ Consider lowering or eliminating permit fees as of matter of right for affordable child care providers.


June 2003

40

§ Participate in local fund programs such as the new SmartKids grant program for FCCHs and other loan programs.

§ Offer direct cost offsets to developers that include child care through parking reductions, set back variances, and increased intensity of development.

§ Work with local child care advocates to increase state and federal funding available for child care facilities.

8. Municipal Zoning, Permit Streamlining, and Planning Support

Type of Policy: Local Zoning changes and permit streamlining are very important policies that can be adopted at the local level and have a significant impact on the provision of child care. Numerous studies have shown that the majority of child care providers do not have the expertise to understand planning and zoning and complicated permit processes. These government requirements may serve as a disincentive to developing child care. Regulations also add to costs. In addition, adopting zoning changes and permit streamlining are changes that can be adopted without significant costs to local jurisdictions. Finally, by updating zoning and making it “child care friendly,” a jurisdiction sends a positive message to the child care community.

Educating planners to understand child care issues, or at least designating one planning staff person to be the “expert,” can be extremely helpful in advancing broader goals. Many cities and counties are starting to prepare and offer child care providers with information packets and guidebooks on the “ins and outs” of child care planning and regulation and the process of entitlement. These guidebooks and start-up brochures are useful and relatively inexpensive tools that can be undertaken locally.

The San Mateo County City Managers Association is currently reviewing permit streamlining as it pertains to child care and other related issues. A uniform permit process is also being discussed. This section incorporates information that is taken from that study and effort. 22

Policy or Program Concept This policy includes three concepts:

1. Revise zoning to make it consistent with state regulations and make it more supportive of child care.

2. Make permitting of child care easier, quicker, and less costly.

3. Prepare guides, brochures, and other pamphlets that educate providers and planners on the entitlement process for child care facilities.

Each of these is discussed below.

22 Anderson, Kristen, “Supporting Child Care Development in San Mateo County.” Best Practices and Recommendations, prepared for the City of San Mateo and City Managers Association. (February 2003).


June 2003

41

Zoning Many cities have zoning ordinances that are not consistent with state law. Different zoning areas define child care and the permits they require differently; there is no set standard. Because child care is licensed as a single category by the state, permitting should also have a standard fee that does not vary by type of child care center.23 Additionally, family child care homes, which operate out of residential units should not be considered a “Home Occupation,” since the restrictions for home occupations are not consistent with what is required for family child care homes.24

Permit requirements need to be clear and need to be addressed in the zoning code. According to state law, small family child care homes must be permitted in all zones, as long as they meet the Health and Safety code. Large family child care homes are allowed in single family districts, if they meet the Health and Safety Code. For child care centers, all requirements must be stated upfront. Planning permits should not have to be renewed regularly, although a review process should be in place.

Family Child Care Homes Family Child Care Homes (FCCHs) face the greatest challenges in meeting zoning and permitting requirements, especially the “large” FCCHs that serve 12-14 children. There are three options regarding the permitting for large FCCHs. They are:

1. Allow them by right.

2. Require a non-discretionary permit without a hearing; and specify “prescribed” reasonable conditions related only to parking, traffic, noise, and spacing or concentration of homes.

3. Require a conditional use permit and process.25

State Law requires fire clearances for large FCCHs and child care centers, but no extra requirement should be made locally, such as requiring small and large FCCHs to meet regulations meant for residential care facilities which operate on a 24-hour basis, or large child care centers. Additionally, a city or county business tax or license may be required of large FCCHs and child care centers, but not small FCCHs.

Streamlining the Permitting Process In order to encourage the creation of child care facilities, cities/counties should consider implementing the following:

§ Create clear standards for obtaining permits, in writing.

§ Reduce whatever planning permit and processing fees and business license taxes.

§ Train city/county staff who will be handling child care inquiries and permits on the requirements so that consistent information is provided.

§ Help facilitate access to permit assistance.

23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.


June 2003

42

§ Be prepared for common concerns regarding child care centers, especially family child care homes, at public hearings.26

In addition to these permit-streamlining efforts, cities/counties should also provide incentives for the development of child care facilities, whether it be through the developer or offering grants or low-interest loans to those interested in creating child care. Any reduction in excessive requirements would be considered a positive step in streamlining the permitting process.

Planning Guides and Start-Up Brochures There are a number of local jurisdictions and organizations that are publishing planning guides, start-up guides for providers, and other helpful information. Below are some useful examples on the issue.

1. The County of Santa Cruz’s Making Room for Children, which is a Q&A brochure on doing FCCHs in affording housing projects, was prepared by Childcare Ventures, a child care facilities development intermediary.

2. Santa Barbara County’s Office of Early Care & Education just released Planning for Child Care in Santa Barbara County - A Guide for Planners (June 2002). This document covers a range of topics on best practices and child care development, including regulations, general plans, zoning, transportation, and funding options.

3. Supporting Child Care Development in San Mateo County-Best Practices and Recommendations by Kristen Anderson (February 2003), which addresses zoning, permits, and other information regarding barriers to developing child care.

4. Using Land Use Principles to Expand Child Care Capacity – Everything a Legal Services Attorney Needs to Know about General Plans, Zoning Landlord/Tenant Law and Restrictive Covenants in the Child Care Context by Central California Legal Services, Child Care Law Center (2002). This document is thorough but oriented towards lawyers and not child care providers or the general public.

Known History and Use To our knowledge, there is no specific permit-streamlining project being implemented for child care alone. It is being discussed by the San Mateo County City Manager’s Association. The City of San Mateo is seeking grant funds to revise zoning, streamline the permit process, and review other positive child care policies. The San Mateo County City Manager’s Association has endorsed the recommendations of considering permit streamlining for child care, zoning changes to support child care development, and exploring other strategies such as incentives, dedicating public land, and general plan policies.27 Some cities such as South San Francisco have been working on child care for a number of years and have addressed some of these issues already. Other cities are not as far along and perhaps do not recognize some of the problems with zoning and permits.

26 Ibid. 27 Telephone conversation with Kristen Anderson, March 2003.


June 2003

43

The County of Ventura recently amended their zoning ordinance to allow large FCCHs by right.28 According to Patricia McWaters, while the County may not have a lot of development potential for new FCCHs as it is sparsely populated, this zoning change does set an example for cities. This can be useful in promoting child care development.

Implementation Authority Local jurisdictions can implement these policies as they have control over local zoning. Cities, counties, and other public agencies can sponsor planning guides and start-up brochures. The 4Cs provides a wealth of information, pamphlets, and other pertinent information that can be tailored to individual city documents that reflect local policy.

Strengths This policy concept is extremely important as permitting and zoning are key barriers to child care providers in developing new or expanding existing facilities. It is low to no cost and is relatively easy to implement. The benefits are great. This issue is also discussed under Policy #9, public education.

Weaknesses There might be some opposition to making child care a more allowed and less regulated use in some communities. Proponents of child care argue that in all non-residential areas, except for industrial areas, child care should be allowed by right.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities All cities and the County should considered evaluating whether their current zoning regulations are child care friendly and supportive and whether their permit process is costly, confusing, and time consuming. This makes good sense for all types of development, not just child care, and many communities have already done this. Perhaps a special review could be undertaken related to the cost and ease of preparing child care permits.

9. Public Education Targeting: Neighbors, Landlords and Tenants, Real Estate Community and Planners

Type of Policy By providing accurate information regarding the demand for child care, the benefits of child care, laws permitting FCCHs, and other legal issues, resistance to opening new FCCHs and larger centers can be reduced.

Policy or Program Concept This is a broad policy category that covers the following groups:

28 Telephone conversation with Patricia McWaters, Work/Family Office, Ventura County, March 2003.


June 2003

44

§ Landlords who refuse (or are reluctant) to rent units for use as FCCHs, and tenants who often do not know their rights.

FCCH providers are allowed “by right” in residential areas under California Health and Safety Code 1597.40(b). Landlords who refuse to lease units to FCCH providers are in violation of this regulation. By providing information about this state regulation, it is possible to reduce landlord opposition.29

§ Commercial and residential developers of large projects.

Large projects generate demand for child care. This demand stems from increased employment and/or new housing units. In some master-planned communities, developers may be required to provide off-site or on-site space for child care centers. If education regarding the relationship between new development and an increase in demand for child care services is provided, it is possible that some developers will voluntarily provide space or that those who are required to provide space will find it easier to comply with the requirement.

§ Neighbors who oppose child care centers and FCCHs.

“Not in My Backyard” opponents of child care can be effective in blocking proposed projects, in much the same way that neighbors block new residential developments. Education could be the first step in overcoming some of this resistance.

§ City Planners and other city staff.

In many of the documents reviewed for this study, it has been noted that city planning staff often do not know the laws regarding child care. Furthermore, planners may not be aware of the connection between new housing units and increased demand for child care.

Known History and Use The Child Care Law Center in San Francisco has assembled a helpful list of questions and answers directed to landlords in California to inform them about family child care providers.30 This list includes questions and answers on the following issues:

§ Does a tenant need permission from a landlord to operate a licensed FCCH?

§ Can a landlord prohibit a FCCH in a tenant’s home?

§ Is the operation of a FCCH considered a business use of property?

§ May a landlord require that a FCCH provider carry liability insurance?

§ Will a FCCH disturb neighbors, cause more wear and tear on property, and increase the landlord’s operating expenses?

29 See “Using Land Use Principles to Expand Child Care Capacity – Everything a Legal Services Attorney Needs to Know about General Plans, Zoning Landlord/Tenant Law and Restrictive Covenants in the Child Care Context,” by Central California Legal Services, Child Care Law Center (2002) for a good discussion of tenant rights and landlord issues. 30 See Legal Update Summer 2002 issue, Child Care Law Center.


June 2003

45

Distributing this list of questions and answers to the Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA) would be a first step in landlord education. A second step would be to invite a staff member from the Child Care Law Center to address the Apartment Association. Information addressing the above issues could be placed on the TCAA website as well.

Affordable housing developers have learned community outreach techniques to gain the support of neighbors for new projects. Some of their techniques can be adapted for new child care centers.

As discussed in Policy #8, a number of information and child care development guides are being written and published that can assist in the public education process.

Implementation Authority There is no one organization or agency that is responsible for providing education. At this time, it is open ended. If the County wishes to reach organized groups, such as landlords and builders, working with professional associations, such as the Homebuilders Association and the Tri-County Apartment Association, is recommended. Since there is no comparable association for neighbors, child care providers and their advocates need to develop strategies designed to overcome “NIMBYism,” the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Oftentimes, addressing complaints before they are raised, e.g., parking and traffic impacts, can help defuse public opposition to new centers and FCCHs.

The 4Cs is a good candidate for overseeing such a public education effort if it can secure the funding. A joint public education program conducted by the 4Cs and the County is one possibility to be discussed further.

Strengths Education can be a formidable tool to encourage preferred behavior. Although education by itself will not directly create space for child care, it can help speed the approval process (in the case of new developments), motivate large-scale developers to consider additional community impacts, and facilitate the use of rental units for FCCH providers.

The development community in general would benefit from wide-spread public education about child care issues, barriers, and the many advantages of including child care in their projects, including knowledge about the expertise that is available along with the wide variety of options for addressing child care needs. As an example, the case study on the Shapell project discussed in Chapter IV discussed the fact that the developer has not been able to find a provider to do infant care and did not know that FCCHs could be provided in their project for a lower cost. This arrangement could meet their infant care requirements.

Weaknesses There is no obvious weakness to an outreach policy but it requires funding, organization, and a well thought-out plan and strategy. However, this policy is a long-term strategy to increasing the supply of child care but does not directly provide new child care spaces and requires funding.


June 2003

46

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities This is an area that San Mateo County can address directly through preparation of materials for use by child care advocates, local governments, and professional associations. Furthermore, the County can disseminate information to the licensed child care providers in San Mateo County real estate community, planners, and the general public about child care issues. Public awareness is always the first step towards development and implementation of public policies.

10. Rehab Financial Assistance and Allocating Newly Rehabbed Units for FCCHs

Type of Policy: Local This policy has two components. The first is to provide preference in the allocation of public rehabilitation funds for the purpose of rehabilitating housing units for use as FCCHs. The second component would to require that one or more units in a newly rehabilitated rental housing project be used as FCCHs.

Policy or Program Concept San Mateo County and its cities frequently use funds available from the CDBG and HOME Programs, as well as local housing trust funds to pay for housing rehabilitation. These funds are used for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied units.

For owner-occupied units, rehabilitation program guidelines can provide a preference for homes used for family day care.

For renter-occupied housing, the situation is more complex. Since there are strings attached to the use of subsidies for rental rehabilitation (rents must be restricted), it is frequently impossible to get owners of market rate rental housing to apply for subsidized rehabilitation loans and grants on a voluntary basis.

However, another option is feasible. Specifically, non-profit developers will acquire an existing multi-family property that requires rehabilitation. The developer seeks public funds to pay for both the acquisition and rehabilitation of these units. Thus, a more promising option is to mandate or provide preferences to developers who reserve one or more of these newly rehabilitated units for FCCHs.

Known History and Use Eastside Community Investments in Indianapolis rehabilitated more than twenty single family homes that it then leased on a preferential basis to family child care providers.31

The Indianapolis program used single family homes that were rental units. Single family homes generally provide more indoor and outdoor space than do multi-family units. 31This project is mentioned in Linking Child Care Development and Housing Development: Tools for Child Care Providers and Advocates, by Jan Stokley, National Economic Development and Law Center (1997). It was not possible to find out more details regarding this program, since we were unable to locate this organization.


June 2003

47

However, the majority of single family houses that are rehabilitated with public assistance in San Mateo County are owner-occupied. Thus, the Eastside Community Investments program, utilizing single family rental housing, is not directly relevant for San Mateo County and its cities, unless they have single family rental housing that could be targeted.

Implementation Authority Local government would be the implementation authority, since the operating guidelines for the CDBG or HOME program do not include a requirement that at least one newly rehabilitated unit would be reserved for a home day care provider. A city can give local preference for CDBG rehabilitation loans to home day care providers.

Strengths A rehabilitation loan preference for those houses providing home day care can be beneficial for owners who want to operate a FCCH and who also require funds for rehabilitation. The owner’s income must fall within eligibility limits. For the CDBG and HOME programs, household income cannot exceed the level established for low-income households, often designated as 80% of area median income, adjusted for household size.

For rental housing, a strategy that requires units to be set aside is very similar to requiring developers of affordable rental housing to reserve units for FCCHs. See the policy discussion under Policy #3.

Weaknesses For owner-occupied units, there is no way of knowing how many income-qualified owners would be interested in rehabilitating their homes and operating FCCHs. In general, in San Mateo County this program targets very low-income households, which tend to be seniors of households with special needs and thus, these homeowners are not likely to be child care providers. Thus, although this policy may appear to be helpful, it will only be beneficial if there is demand from homeowners.

For rental housing, since there is only a limited number of acquisition/rehabilitation projects that occur each year, this policy may also create only a limited number of units for child care. Furthermore, since most existing market rate rental properties provide one- and two-bedroom units, unless substantial rehabilitation occurs, it may be difficult to provide the size of unit that would meet licensing requirements.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities If a jurisdiction decides to provide preference for owners to rehabilitate their homes for licensed family day care, then this preference should be actively marketed in targeted outreach in order to encourage applications from eligible and interested owners. If loan preference is provided, there is no guarantee that a homeowner will continue to operate the FCCH for the duration of the loan term. However, since the owner would have been income-eligible anyway for the loan, this does not present a major problem.


June 2003

48

Cities that encourage acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing may wish to consider adding this policy as a requirement for receipt of public funds, with the following caveat. While making this a mandatory requirement will result in more units for FCCHs, it is also possible there are some projects for which this policy would not make sense, e.g., senior projects, projects with only one- and two-bedroom units, etc.

11. Child Care Opportunities in Public Housing Projects

Type of Policy Public housing authorities can provide public housing units for use as FCCHs, as well as space for a separate child care center.

Policy or Program Concept The advantage of this policy is that it provides residents with opportunities for employment. At the same time, residents have access to affordable, licensed child care on-site.

Known History and Use The Contra Costa County Housing Authority currently provides space for both a FCCH and a child care center at the Las Deltas Public Housing Project in North Richmond.

§ The center serves infants and toddlers and was constructed on land owned by the Housing Authority, but located one-half block from the sprawling housing development. The County owns the building, which was funded using CDBG funds and general funds. Operations are subsidized with funds from the State Department of Education.

§ The FCCH is located at the housing development. Two units were converted to a Head Start day care center. The units are no longer used for housing.

Implementation Authority The San Mateo County Housing Authority is the largest housing authority in the County. In addition, South San Francisco has a Housing Authority.

Strengths Setting aside one or more large units at family public housing projects for use as a FCCH is beneficial for residents. Some rehabilitation may be needed for the space to meet the standards defined by California licensing requirements.

Weaknesses Since the public housing projects are already built, the only want to find space for a separate center would be to take open space and/or parking away from resident use. Providing space for a separate center makes more sense at the time a new public housing project is in the planning and development stage.


June 2003

49

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities There are four public housing projects in San Mateo County. These are as follows:

§ Eighty family units on C Street, South San Francisco.32

§ Midway Village, 150 family units in Daly City.33

§ Half Moon Village, 60 senior and disabled units in Half Moon Bay.

§ El Camino Village, 30 new family units in Colma.

Since Half Moon Village is not a family project, it is not recommended as a site for FCCH development. However, the use of units at the other three projects for FCCHs can occur at any time and could be considered by the Housing Authorities.

12. Child Care in General Plans and Other Planning Documents

Type of Policy: State and Local In response to the critical need for quality, affordable child care throughout California, some cities and counties are adding child care sub-elements to their General Plans or drafting child care policies for inclusion in other elements. Cities and counties that have adopted child care elements are acknowledging the need for child care and have attempted to create plans and policies which promote the development of child care facilities. Assemblyman Simitian of San Mateo County has sponsored new State legislation (now AB51 of the 2003-04 Session) that would add child care as a mandatory component of the land use element of general plans. This legislation was proposed last session but was vetoed by the Governor.

Policy or Program Concept The State of California requires cities and counties to prepare General Plans. The State offers guidelines on the minimum requirements of these documents, but in general, local jurisdictions have a wide range of options concerning the format and types of policies and goals that can be included. In terms of child care, putting child care policies in the General Plan is the first step to address the issue and sets the stage for a variety of other policy options to be implemented, including density bonuses, in-lieu fees, or impact fees. These policies require adoption of zoning ordinances, which cite the General Plan as the rationale for the special child care ordinances

The type of child care goals and policies that can be included should reflect local conditions and the community’s preference. Some cities will want to encourage all types of child care; others may wish to focus child care in particular areas, or in new developments. The more child care is mentioned throughout the General Plan the more likely it will be addressed through implementation of General Plan policies as development occurs. Thus, it is good to have policies that address child care in more than one General Plan element. The most relevant elements are the transportation, land use, housing, public facilities; additional ones

32 There is no name to this project. 33 This housing project has a child care center but additional FCCHs could be considered.


June 2003

50

to consider are parks and recreation, and economic development. Some of these are not standard or typical elements and very few, if any, cities have separate child care elements.

Specific and Master Plans are prepared for larger sites that have multiple property owners, represent large redevelopment areas (either formal or informal), or are of a scale that specific plans are warranted. Some areas are mentioned in the General Plan as requiring master plans or specific plans. General Plans sometimes mention the type of public facilities that should be included in such plans. For example, the City of South San Francisco specifies that the development of the BART Station site shall include child care.

Known History and Use Simitian’s bill (AB51) would increase the likelihood that child care would be addressed in some fashion although it does not suggest how child care is addressed, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation by local jurisdictions. If passed, it would be a major step forward for the child care field and would provide additional impetus for cities to address child care in the planning process. Despite the lack of State legislation on this issue, many cities have addressed child care in their general plans. The following discussion presents a few examples as such.

Santa Cruz County (Child Care Element of General Plan)34 In Santa Cruz County, the Community Facilities Element of the County Consolidated Plan requires the establishment of a child care system that will adequately provide for child care needs as an essential public service prerequisite to any increase in either residential or nonresidential development which would create an increased demand for child care.

West Sacramento Child Care Section of General Plan The City of West Sacramento has adopted a child care section of its General Plan. For new development, the inclusion of child care facilities or payment of in-lieu fees in multi-family housing projects is encouraged. The City will also encourage inclusion of child care facilities in employee-intensive office/industrial developments. In the development of public buildings, child care will also be considered. In addition, employer and corporate contributions towards employee child care costs will be encouraged by the City.

Walnut Creek Child Day Care Sub-Element and Policies Recognizing the critical need for child care, Walnut Creek has developed a Child Care Sub-Element to set the foundation for what can be done by the City, its residents, and employers to meet this growing need.

While there is no direct link with new development in city policies, Walnut Creek strives to encourage and assist the development of affordable child care by allowing child care facilities in all zoning districts, by encouraging on-site child care services by large Walnut Creek employers for their employees, and by developing other

34 Santa Cruz County General Plan, Community Facilities Element.


June 2003

51

measures. The City also hopes to help create more child care spaces near elementary schools through providing grants. Additionally, the City aims to promote public awareness about the need for child care services by providing information at City Hall and other Civic buildings.

Santa Rosa Youth and Family Element of General Plan The Child Care section of the Youth and Family Element of the General Plan of Santa Rosa states the need for child care in their city. While there are no direct rules related to new development, the plan calls for endorsing the development of new child care facilities throughout the City, including residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and school sites. Additionally, the plan calls for promoting development of new facilities during the review of development projects at sites designated Community Commons on the Land Use Diagram. The plan also calls for the City to permit fee deferrals and offer a rebate program for the provision of child care facilities.

Chula Vista Child Care Element The goal of the Chula Vista Child Care Element is to encourage safe and affordable, good quality child care that is available and accessible to all economic segments of the community. The element does not specifically address new development, or policies for existing residential areas.

Implementation Authority Local cities adopt, update, and amend General Plans on a regular basis and certain elements such as the Housing Element are updated on a more frequent schedule. Specific and Master Plans are also developed and adopted by cities and counties, although with these documents, developers often prepare the plans and then submit them to the City for review and approval. If a city has child care policies adopted in its General Plan, it enables other potential child care policies to be considered, such as impact fees and other financing mechanisms.

Strengths Adopting child care policies in the General Plan or similar documents is really the first step for a local jurisdiction to address child care. It sets the stage and provides direction for city staff, the development community, employers, and residents. When opposition arises around subsequent child care projects or policies, the General Plan can be referred to as justification. In particular, planners or developers who are not concerned or sympathetic about the provision of child care must address this need when it is included in the General Plan.

Weaknesses Overall there are no inherent weaknesses in including child care in a General Plan or similar planning documents; however, it is only the first step. If the General Plan policies are not implemented, enforced, and applied to new and existing development, they will not be effective tools in addressing child care. Additional effort, programs, and policies, such as


June 2003

52

those discussed in this document, are required as well, to support General Plan goals and policies.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities Whether or not AB51 is passed, it is highly recommended that cities and the County develop General Plan policies and programs that support child care and allow for the implementation of other policies recommended in this report. This can be addressed when the housing elements are updated or when the entire General Plan is updated. A new and separate child care element can be added if desired, but it is more effective to weave child care policies throughout the General Plan document so as to ensure that it is considered in a variety of contexts.

13. On-Site Child Care as a Congestion Management Tool

Type of Policy This policy adds the provision of child care to the list of congestion management tools used by developers of commercial and residential space to reduce traffic and parking impacts associated with new large developments (i.e., generating over 100 peak hour trips).

Policy or Program Concept San Mateo County developers are required to mitigate traffic impacts from new projects. To assist them, the San Mateo Congestion Management Unit provides a list of tools that allow developments to earn “credits” against traffic impacts that could be generated through new development.

Known History and Use San Mateo County City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) has already incorporated child care into its list of “credit” tools. The tools are listed below; not all of these address child care.

Credit Tools for All Developments 1. Operate a dedicated shuttle service during the peak period to a rail station or an

urban residential area.

§ One peak hour trip will be credited for each peak hour round trip seat on the shuttle. Increases to two trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place.

§ Five additional trips will be credited if the shuttle stops at a child care facility en-route to/from the worksite.

2. Subsidize transit tickets for employees.

§ One peak hour trip will be credited for each transit pass that is subsidized at least $20 per month for one year.


June 2003

53

§ One additional trip will be credited if the subsidy is increased to $75 for parents using transit to take a child to child care en-route to work.

3. Provide on-site amenities/accommodations that encourage people to stay on site during the workday, making it easier for workers to leave their automobiles at home.

§ One peak hour trip will be credited for each feature added to the job site. Possible features may include: banking, grocery shopping, cleaners, exercise facilities, and a child care center.

4. Provide child care services as a part of the development.

§ One trip will be credited for every two child care slots at the job site. This amount increases to one trip for each slot if the child care service accepts multiple age groups, defined as infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-age.

5. Developer/property owner may join an employer group to expand available child care within five miles of the job site or may provide this service independently.

§ One trip will be credited for each new child care center slot created either directly by an employer group, by the developer/property owner, or by an outside provider if an agreement has been developed with the developer/property owner that makes the child care accessible to the workers at the development.

Additional Measures for Residential Development 6. Develop schools, convenience shopping, recreation facilities, and child care

centers in new subdivisions.

§ Five peak hour trips will be credited for each facility included.

7. Provide child care services at the residential development and/or at a nearby transit center.

§ One trip will be credited for every two child care slots at the development/transit center. This amount increases to one trip for each slot if the child care service accepts multiple age groups (infants, toddlers, preschool, and school age children).

Implementation Authority The San Mateo Congestion Management and Transportation Planning Unit (located in the Public Works Department of the San Mateo Council of Governments) plans and coordinates improvements to local transportation programs. The goal of these programs is to provide for differing transportation needs of County residents and non-residents alike through the improvement of existing transportation systems and the promotion and expansion of multi-modal transportation alternatives. Another purpose of congestion management is to review major development plans and suggest ways for cities and developers to reduce traffic impacts from new developments. However, cities are responsible for negotiating the final traffic mitigation agreement with developers.


June 2003

54

Strengths These policies, already adopted by San Mateo County, reflect the importance of locating child care facilities at or near new developments to reduce traffic impacts.

Weaknesses Thus far, no developer has requested credits related to child care centers. The County Agency does not know why this is the case. A more detailed program assessment is needed to determine how to make this policy more beneficial to developers.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities Since child care credit tools have not been utilized, this study suggests that the County contact San Mateo County cities to evaluate why these tools have not been tried. However, well-placed child care does reduce traffic, and if placed near public transit can assist low-income families and increase public transit ridership. There are many advantages to exploring the benefits of child care development and transportation planning and congestion management.

Cities that have traffic impact fees could consider adopting a similar policy that provides for fee reductions or credits for projects that include child care facilities as part of commercial or residential projects or locate child care near public transit.

14. Child Care and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

Type of Policy: Local This policy would add the provision of child care space to the current selection criteria used by agencies that provide funding to multi-family housing. This policy would apply to family housing only and not senior housing, which is also eligible for low-income housing tax credits.

Policy or Program Concept Applications for funding of affordable housing are evaluated using published criteria, covering many different features, such as how affordable the project will be, whether the local city or county will provide additional financial assistance, the track record of the developer, etc. When applications are ranked, points are awarded for each attribute that favorably meets these published criteria. This policy recommends adding provision of child care to the list of criteria for ranking applications. In this way, developers of affordable housing would be encouraged to provide on-site child care facilities.

Known History and Use California’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program is one of the major sources of equity for new, subsidized rental housing. The agency that administers this program in California is the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). The Low-Income Housing Tax


June 2003

55

Credit Program is a federal and state program. It provides hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in affordable rental housing for lower-income families and individuals. Federal and state tax credits, allocated by the Committee, assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing by enabling affordable housing sponsors to raise project equity through the sale of tax benefits to investors.

The most recent regulations for this program favor provision of day care in two ways. First, an applicant can receive five extra points (out of a total of ten) under the “Service Amenities” category. The exact language is as follows:

Service Amenities: must be appropriate to the population to be served and committed for a minimum of 10 years. Physical space for such amenities must be available when the development is placed in service, and the amenities must be available within 6 months of the project’s in service date. To receive points in this category, programs must be of a regular, ongoing nature and provided to tenant free of charge, except for day care services. Services must be provided on-site except that projects applying as Small Developments, or other projects may use off-site services within ¼ mile of the development provided that they have a written agreement with the service provider enabling the development’s tenants to use the services free of charge (except for day care and any charges required by law) and that demonstrate that provision of on-site services would be duplicative. Referrals will not be eligible for points. Further, evidence that physical space will be provided, and a budget reflecting how the services will be paid for must be included in the application. No more than 10 points will be awarded in this category. Amenities may include, but are not limited to:

1. Hardwiring for computers in each unit. For projects that provide infrastructure in each unit, permitting the use of high speed Internet technology; that is, cable modem, DSL service where available. Where such service is neither available nor currently planned, providing for dial-up service. (5 points)

2. After school programs of an ongoing nature for school age children. (5 points)

3. Educational classes (such as ESL, computer training, etc.) but which are not the same as in 2 above. (5 points)

4. Licensed child care providing 20 hours or more per week (Monday through Friday) to residents of the development. (5 points)

5. Contracts for services, such as assistance with activities of daily living, or provision of senior counseling services. (5 points)

In addition, the Tax Credit guidelines allow the applicant to receive a 2% increase in the basis for projects with child care. This has the effect of providing 2% more equity to the project to help with project financing. The total possible increase to the basis from all other sources, including serving special needs populations, is 20%.

A second rental subsidy program operated in the State of California is the Multi-family Housing Program (MHP). At this time, the selection criteria for this program do not include preference for the inclusion of child care facilities.


June 2003

56

Implementation Authority Funding for multi-family housing construction comes from a variety of sources. These include the following:

§ The federal government provides both funds (CDBG and HOME) through local guidelines as well as enabling legislation (Low-Income Tax Credits and Tax-Exempt Bond Financing).

§ The State of California administers the tax credit and tax-exempt financing programs that are enabled through federal legislation and also funds and operates its own programs to assist in the construction of multi-family housing, e.g., MHP and Help Programs.

§ Local jurisdictions often have their own housing funds from redevelopment agency set-a-side funds, in-lieu, and other impact fees.

Criteria favoring child care provision could be added to more state programs and could be adopted by local jurisdictions that use local trust funds to subsidize new rental housing construction.

Strengths By including child care facilities in selection criteria for funding applications, a funding agency can encourage the inclusion of facilities in new projects.

Weaknesses As long as the space is not mandated by a funding agency, there is no guarantee that a developer will decide to include a child care facility just to get the extra points or increased eligible cost basis. Since there are other project amenities that could provide the same benefits at a lesser cost, there is no reason to assume that project developers will automatically elect to develop an on-site child care center.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities If the County and cities manage funds used to subsidize new multi-family housing development, then adding child care to the selection criteria is feasible. However, unless the requirement is mandatory, there is no way of predicting whether it would lead to expanded child care facilities.


Type of Policy: State and Local This is a new policy idea that is being considered by local child care advocates along with several new State policy ideas this year. No legislation on this idea has been introduced. It is not a policy that can be adopted at the local level, although it is implemented at the local project level.


June 2003

57

Policy or Program Concept The idea is to expand the CEQA checklist of items that must be considered when evaluating a proposed project’s potential impact on the environment. Currently this checklist includes 17 categories including public services. This is the category under which child care would fall.35 This policy concept is one that uses “the stick” and formal requirements rather than incentives to address child care facility needs.

Known History and Use This policy has not been formally proposed or implemented.

Implementation Authority This policy would require changes to State legislation regarding CEQA.

Strengths The strength of this policy idea is that child care would be recognized as an equally important public facility and service alongside school, police, and fire services. From this standpoint is it moves from a “stepchild” position in the realm of public services and becomes part of the basic list of services that the public comes to expect to be addressed through environmental review. The differences between child care and other services normally addressed in Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) is that the public services are provided by cities, special districts, counties, or other public entities. The public services section does include a category called “other public services,” which could be interpreted by local jurisdictions to include child care.

Weaknesses36 In general, CEQA is not a replacement for good, long range planning. Child care was determined not to be a CEQA issue in a San Francisco court decision and in a Court of Appeals case in Goleta. In the Goleta case, community services such as schools, fire, and police were also determined not to be CEQA issues unless the development project identified a need for additional physical facilities (a new school, a new fire station, etc). Thus, a need for more teachers, more police cars, or more firefighters is not always a CEQA issue. That case was about demand for more teachers and schoolrooms, but not an entire new school, and has been easily expanded to police and fire services. Thus far, the courts have been reluctant to make public facilities a required CEQA issue although some cities require public facilities to be evaluated in EIRs.

Even adding a requirement that child care be addressed in General Plans (discussed under Policy #12) would not necessarily compel detailed CEQA review in an EIR. It would, however, compel some type of detailed analysis of child care needs that could result from

35 A copy of the checklist can be viewed at www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/AppendixG.html. 36 The following discussion is based on interviews with Barbara Sahm, Turnstone Consulting, an expert in CEQA, and environmental analysis and Timothy Tosta, Attorney, Steefel, LeVitt &Weiss (March 2003).


June 2003

58

development in order to be consistent with General Plan policies. CEQA is reactive, it analyzes the impacts of projects and policies and does not create policy; it is not proactive. Policies in a General Plan are better instruments or a preferred method of requiring provision of child care facilities or contributions to a child care fund.

Monitoring CEQA mitigation measures is also not well tracked and sometimes requirements are overlooked, as larger projects can take years to build out.

Another downside of the CEQA checklist approach is that many projects do not require an EIR. Therefore, there would be no mitigation measures to address child care. Only larger projects trigger the need for an EIR or a mitigated Negative Declaration. Even when a project creates significant environmental impacts, a local jurisdiction can and does make over-riding considerations. Thus, a project can be approved, even without mitigation of project impacts.

The CEQA Checklist is not actually part of the CEQA Guidelines or Regulations; rather the Checklist is provided as a suggestion of how local government can evaluate whether an EIR is needed for a project. When cities do have impact fees, the analysis of public facilities included in the EIR will quantify the amount of the fee due from the project, and state that the impacts are mitigated through the impact fee program. As mentioned above, the Checklist’s Public Services section includes a category called “Other Public Facilities.” A jurisdiction could interpret this to include child care. However, given that most child care is not publicly owned and operated, it might be subject to challenge.

If a city has other child care policies and requirements, these can be exercised through the EIR process and discussed for larger projects. This can be requested at the discretion of a local agency. For instance, fiscal impact analysis is not required by CEQA but often cities require some type of fiscal analysis as part of an EIR. Most developers will do this additional, non-CEQA required analysis. If a project is denied on the basis of non-CEQA issues, based on recent case law, the city may run the risk of litigation.

Suggested Use by San Mateo County and Cities In general, this policy concept needs further legal review and analysis to determine whether it would be feasible. Given the above discussion and the need for more research on this idea, it seems premature to include this policy as one to be pursued and supported by the County and the 4Cs.


June 2003

59

16. Public Ownership of FCCH Units in Affordable Housing Projects – A Vancouver Policy Proposal

Type of Policy: Local The City of Vancouver did a study on the creation of family child care homes in new housing developments.37 The policy calls for the outright public ownership of affordable housing units dedicated to family child care homes in new affordable housing developments. Examples of this policy are included in the Case Studies section of this report and discussed under Policy #3. This policy focuses on the ownership models proposed in Vancouver, Canada, which has been working on the issue of child care, housing, and economic development extensively. In California, it may be more appropriate to have the child care units owned by non-profit organizations rather than public entities.

Policy or Program Concept Due to the challenge of finding suitable locations and funding, while still ensuring quality child care, the City of Vancouver looked at the combination of housing, child care and job creation as one social policy issue. The first look at child care by the City took place in 1990, when the first child care report was drafted. As most Canadian mothers are employed outside of the home and affordable, quality child care is not available, the City of Vancouver conducted this study with the understanding that investing in early childhood programs has positive social and economic returns.38 In 1992 the City adopted revised planning guidelines for high density housing for families and children.39 The policy objective of these revised guidelines was that families with children should have both reasonable and safe access to essential community services and recreational amenities, and child care is considered an essential community service that is required by many families.

Both housing and family child care share the same physical space. The City of Vancouver concluded that providing affordable housing would enable child care providers to keep operating costs under control, and more importantly, if the child care and housing are developed together, children will be able to attend child care centers near their own home. In the planning of new developments, collaborations between the housing and the child care coordinator allows for the designation of certain housing units as family child care homes. In addition, the capital costs for the construction of the centers will be much lower because they are absorbed in the overall costs for the housing development. The location of these family child care homes are to be decided upon based on several factors. All of the affordable units are rental units and one of the key factors is that the child care provider must agree to provide child care services as a condition of occupancy, assuring that the services will be in place.

37 Access Building Association, Family Child Care Facilities in New Housing Developments: Housing and Family Child Care (City of Vancouver, March 1999). 38 Ibid. 39 See City of Vancouver Planning Department, High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines, Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines, April 1992.


June 2003

60

Under current zoning in Vancouver, child care space is excluded from the Floor Area Ratio40 calculation. This enables developers to build child care and not be penalized for it. Through rezoning, development, permit approvals, and bonus provisions, the City can play a critical role in the negotiation for and acquisition of family child care units as part of its existing policy on affordable housing. The City of Vancouver does not have a definition of family child care because there is a Community Care Facilities Act that does not allow municipal by-laws to regulate use, and child care can, therefore, occur in all zones. Additionally, cooperation between the City’s Housing Center, Social Planning Department, and Planning Department can promote the development of new family child care spaces in order to meet the future demand for child care with less government funding. The City acknowledged the importance of having new development of child care units clustered near one another, with no fewer than two units in a specific housing development. Because isolation is a problem for many family child care providers, placing two or more together allows for collaboration and support.

The tenure or ownership of the housing units is the key variable in the expansion of new family child care spaces for Vancouver. In each model the City has some role in the ownership, enabling them to participate in design review and have input with regard to the construction of new child care spaces. Some of the models looked at are:

§ Municipal Ownership. Through this model, the City can provide the child care operator with a permit to occupy; or it can lease space to a provider, non-profit organization, or a cooperative.

§ Co-Ownership. Co-ownership can take place between the City and an individual or the City and a society (non-profit organization).

Implementation Authority In Canada, it is assumed that the City of Vancouver is the implementing agency. Here in California, it is assumed that the authority would be local jurisdictions, redevelopment agencies, non-profit housing developers, and/or the 4Cs.

Strengths § Creates affordable family child care homes in new developments.

§ Excludes child care centers from Floor Area Ratio requirements. In turn, this provides more flexibility and incentives to developers.

§ Allowance of family child care in all zones.

§ The clustering of two or more family child care homes to provide support, etc.

40 In Canada it appears that Floor Space Ratios are used for all buildings, both commercial and residential. In the U.S. Floor Area Ratios (FARs) are generally used to calculate and discuss density for commercial space and units per acre for density of residential development.


June 2003

61

Weaknesses § Since this is a Canadian policy, modification of this policy to conform to California

institutions could be needed.

§ Many cities are not interested in owning real estate directly or managing it. Public Housing Authority and housing development corporations may be more likely candidates for the owners or co-owners, as our case studies suggest.

Suggested Use for San Mateo County and Cites For cities/areas in San Mateo County that have development potential (e.g., East Palo Alto), the inclusion of affordable housing units that also serve as FCCHs could be an option. Additionally, the policy excluding child care centers and FCCHs from Floor Area Ratios could be beneficial and should be considered along with other zoning policies that can support child care development.

Other Potential Policy Ideas The policies presented above represent a range of policy options that are reasonable and in some cases currently available to cities and counties. Other ideas surfaced during the course of this study for which information could not be found or which did not fit within the context of the study. These include the following and could be address in future efforts by the cities, the County, or the 4Cs.41

§ Use of Redevelopment Funding and Financing Methods. The use of Redevelopment Agency funds and tax increment financing for child care facilities, either as part of housing developments or stand alone centers in redevelopment areas, could include the notion of increasing the 20% minimum housing set aside to account for this additional cost or allowing RDAs to use a small percentage of the 20% set aside funding for child care included with housing. For cities that have RDAs and little new development potential, redevelopment (whether formally or informally) will be more important means of address child care needs. This policy would require changes to State legislation.

§ Child Care and Employment Uses or Commercial Development. This study focuses on housing and child care, but child care demand is also created by employment or non-residential uses. Additional policies that relate to this relationship should be considered and developed. Most of the above policies would apply to non-residential development, however, if needed. This could include working with existing major employers to identify opportunities to develop child care centers in vacant office space.

§ Voluntary Provision of Child Care Facilities. While it may be unlikely that many developers will do this, there is no inherent reason for cities not to start requesting

41 These are not presented in any particular order of preference.


June 2003

62

that child care be considered in the planning process for a project. While it may take some time to develop and implement some of the policies recommended in this report, nothing stops a city from offering incentives or cost offsets to encourage the provision of child care space.

§ Conduct Review of Existing Policies for Potential Barriers. While the policy discussion under Policy #8 discusses most of the common barriers to developing child care, a thorough review and assessment of all city policies should be undertaken to identify “non-child care friendly” policies or restrictions. Leverage existing city programs, space, and staff to assist in providing support to families and children are also important.

§ Align with Other Smart Growth Groups and Efforts. Working with organizations that promote smart growth, such as the ABAG’s Regional Liveability Footprint project, transit-oriented development, or groups such as the Congress for New Urbanism, can help raise the broader consciousness about child care. There are many similarities between the goals of such organizations and efforts and the need for well-placed and affordable child care.

§ Work with State to reenact programs and funding that link child care and housing. Programs that have been successful in the past but which have been discontinued should be lobbied for again, e.g., Family Housing Demonstration Program that linked child care facility development with housing and contracts for subsidized child care.42

§ Utilize land owned by redevelopment agencies being held for other uses or long-term development for temporary child care facilities using portables. Some cities such as South San Francisco are considering the idea of using land purchased by the Redevelopment Agency for housing but for which funding is not available, as temporary child care facilities. This idea is conceptual at the moment and would require further analysis but the concept is to use this land with portables owned and operated by the City’s Park and Recreation Department. One portable can serve about 30 preschool or school age children and can cost from $150,000 to $300,000 depending on size and site improvement costs.

§ Utilize 1St Time Home Buyers Programs with Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) and Target FCCH Providers. In Los Angeles, the Enterprise Foundation has developed a pilot program to connect FCCH providers with First-1st Time Home Buyers Assistance and Individual Development Accounts, which is a matched savings program combined with financial management education, in an effort to help providers purchase homes for their businesses. While this appears at the surface to be a good idea, experience has shown that the cost of housing combined with the lack of profit and low incomes of providers does not allow them

42 This program was discontinued but very successful; the current State program that is similar, Multifamily Housing Program does not specifically address or require child care and does not include links to Department of Education funding of child care providers. Conversation with Pat MCGuire, Housing & Community Development, April 2003.


June 2003

63

to qualify for most housing in Los Angeles. This idea seems to have merit but further research and analysis is needed to determine how to make it work and additional gap funding is probably required.43

Other issues that face the child care industry that require addressing but do not relate directly to facilities and development include the following. These other issues are important components of the broader child care field and challenge and indirectly relate to the difficulties faced by the industry.

§ Lowering the cost of child care for working families.

§ Improving the quality of child care through quality enhancement grants and loans, and helping unlicensed providers get licensed.

§ Lobbying the banking industry to look at child care underwriting differently than typical small businesses, given the low profit margins of child care businesses.

§ Reviewing existing development loan programs available to child care to determine what changes would make them more supportive and useable for the industry.44

§ Developing partnerships with school districts, and other local non-profits such as child advocacy groups and affordable housing developers and local economic development corporations.

§ Developing more standardized methodology for estimating child care demand that can be applied at the project level or the city/county level and prepare manual that can be provided to interested parties.

43 Sandra Guiterrez, Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles office, April 2003. 44 The terms of some loan programs are difficult for many providers to meet and thus, some loans funds are not being fully utilized.


June 2003

64

IV. PROJECT CASE STUDIES

Successful Child Care/Housing Projects This chapter profiles several successful housing projects that have included child care. While the intention was to have as many market rate projects discussed as affordable projects, it turns out that they are few and far between. Only one market rate project was identified that has done child care and one that is proposing to do child care and currently has an RFP out to select a developer. Neither of these projects is in San Mateo County. The affordable projects are located in San Mateo County. A list of other housing projects with child care is included in Appendix B.

This chapter presents cases studies on the following projects:

1. City Center Plaza, Redwood City

2. Moonridge, I and II, Half Moon Bay

3. Carter Terrace, San Francisco

4. School House Station, Daly City

5. Gale Ranch in Dougherty Valley, San Ramon

6. Dominguez Hills Village, City of Carson

Affordable Housing Projects

1. City Center Plaza – Redwood City, 81 Family Units with an On-Site Child Care Center45

Development Overview Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (referred to as Mid-Peninsula, herein) is the current owner and manager.

Financing of the Child Care Facility According to Mid-Peninsula, money for the center’s shell came out of the development budget. In this case, funds were allocated from the developer’s fee. In general, there was no money available that could be used for child care development (except some grants), so money came out of the developer’s fee.

45 This center is located at 950 Main Street, Redwood City 94063. This information is based on interviews with Mike Wiley at Mid-Peninsula and the on-site manager, Ana Miriam Monjara.


June 2003

65

Physical Description The child care center consists of 1,450 square feet of interior space and 990 square feet of exterior space. Staff park in the residential parking garage. So far, there have not been any problems with the shared parking space. There is a public parking lot next door that is used by parents who are dropping off or picking up their children.

Projects with Units Allocated for Child Care This project only provides a separate child care facility.

Operations Mid-Peninsula owns the child care facility. It is leased at a minimal rate to the San Mateo County Family Service Agency. This rent is used to maintain the property. It is possible to provide a subsidized rent to the provider because funding for the space came from the development budget. Consequently, there is no debt on the child care center.

The program is funded by a State of California Child Development contract. There are 24 preschool spaces; at present, all spaces are occupied. First priority is given to project residents; second priority could be for residents of the neighborhood, etc. Household incomes of families using the center must be compatible with state income guidelines.

Overall Comments Redwood City’s RFP for this project included the requirement to provide a child care center in this project. It was mandatory, not optional. The development of the facility took place at the same time the units were developed. The biggest challenge was to provide both child care space and the number of units Mid-Peninsula wanted to build.

The biggest problem with the facility is that the income limits specified by the State of California are too low to serve the residents.

Another problem is that, over time, the residents will not need child care services. Although there is some turnover, it is very limited. Therefore, when the children living in the project start attending school and do not need child care targeted to preschoolers, the center will no longer serve as many project residents. Thus, although the child care center takes up space in City Center Plaza, it will no longer be an amenity for many residents.

If Mid-Peninsula were to build this space again, it would build space with more flexibility. Right now, when Head Start leaves every day and on the weekend, the space remains vacant, and residents are unable to use it.

When the project first opened, the child care space was helpful to the project, since it served residents. However, now it is a hindrance because it is not useful space from the residents’ perspectives. Mid-Peninsula’s main recommendation is to create a more flexible space.


June 2003

66

2. Moonridge, I and II, Half Moon Bay - 160 Family Units with an On-Site Child Care Center46

Development Overview Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (referred to as Mid-Peninsula, herein) is the owner and manager of this development.

Financing of the Child Care Facility San Mateo County provided the land for the facility, and the developer used a portion of the developer’s equity to pay for the construction of the facility. There was no financing.

Physical Description Moonridge only provides a separate child care facility. The indoor space is 2,736 square feet. This space is divided into separate infant and preschooler spaces. Two classrooms are provided for preschoolers. Twenty children are accommodated in each classroom. There is a separate, fenced-in area that is for the exclusive use of the child care facility. The parking lot is shared between Head Start, community services, and some residents and is the only shared space.

Projects with Units Allocated for Child Care This project only provides a separate child care facility.

Operations Mid-Peninsula owns the facility and leases it to the Institute for Human and Social Development, a federally funded Head Start, non-profit program. The rent charged to the Institute is well below market rate. The rent charged covers maintenance of the space. This below market rate rent is possible because the facility has no debt.

There are spaces for 40 preschoolers and six infants. All 46 spaces are occupied, and there is a long waiting list. Head Start targets very low-income families. Care is free to families that qualify. Both parents must work in order to be enrolled in this program. Twenty-five slots are set aside for residents. These slots are State funded, so income limits are slightly higher.

Overall Comments The planning department required the provision of a child care center in the project as part of the EIR process. This was a mandatory requirement. The development of the facility paralleled the development of the rental units. The biggest challenge was developing the units. The child care facility did not present any challenge. It worked well enough, so that Mid-Peninsula would not do anything differently.

46 This project is located at 2001 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, 94019. This information is based on interviews with Mike Wiley, Mid-Peninsula Housing and the on-site manager, Susan Sanchez.


June 2003

67

The facility has helped the project enormously. So many families in the development have two working parents. It is a benefit to provide safe, very high quality care. In fact, Mid-Peninsula considers this center to be their best child care center for the following reasons:

§ The center was built in addition to other space at the project for services, e.g., after school tutoring, other classes, etc. Thus, the child care center does not detract from other programs for residents.

§ Slots are reserved specifically for residents. Even if their incomes exceed the Head Start income limits, residents must still fill these spaces.

§ Because the center is required to serve residents, Head Start (run by the Institute for Human and Social Development) becomes part of the project (“on the team”) rather than just a tenant in their space.

The only policy recommendation is to be more flexible in terms of how the space can be used (e.g., for after school programs or evening classes for the residents).

3. Carter Terrace, San Francisco - 101 Units with Two Units Reserved for Home Day Care47

Development Overview Mercy Housing owns and manages the child care units.

Financing Since two units were designed to accommodate family day care, there was no separate financing.

Physical Description There is no separate center. Instead, two units are available. There is no dedicated outdoor space. Instead, the units share community space. However, these units open directly onto the shared open space. Each unit has three-bedrooms; the third bedroom is located on the second floor. This bedroom has extra storage space as well as a small kitchenette. The units do not have to be used for child care. There are no additional amenities or dedicated parking spaces.

Operations These units are not yet in service. Mercy Housing wants to market the units to people who will use the space for day care. However, Mercy is not sure if that will happen.

Other General Questions The City of San Francisco required that these units be set aside for child care as a condition to provide a predevelopment loan. Originally, Mercy Housing planned to provide a separate child care center, but the size of the site was too small. If Mercy Housing tried to provide a

47 This project is located at 522 Carter Street, San Francisco 94134. This information is based on interviews with Ramie Dare, Mercy Housing.


June 2003

68

separate center on this site, the center (along with the outdoor space requirements) would push the units off to one corner of the site. So the City agreed to change the requirement to the provision of day care units instead of a center.

It did not take too long to develop these units. However, first it was necessary to determine that there was insufficient space for the child care center. This was the larger issue. LISC provided assistance with the design issues.

At this time, it is not possible to say whether Mercy Housing would do anything differently, since the units are not yet leased.

The City put this requirement on housing developers to provide space for child care. Since Mercy Housing did not have experience in this area, the City provided Mercy with free assistance to plan for the space. Also, the City identified sources of funds for a separate center and earmarked those funds for the child care provider. Furthermore, the City had a list of providers for Mercy to choose from and helped Mercy identify a provider that would fit their needs, if they had built a center.

There is one area for improvement. Mercy Housing could have benefited from City supplied information on which age groups have the greatest need for child care. When planning the center, Mercy did not really know what age groups to consider.

4. School House Station, Daly City - 47 Units with a Separate Center48

Development Overview Mercy Housing owns and manages this development.

Financing Mercy Housing built the center’s shell with funds from the Redevelopment Agency of Daly City. Bayshore Child Care Services, a non-profit provider, was responsible for the improvements and also receives an operating subsidy. County CDBG funds assisted with the construction of the tenants improvements of the child care center.

Physical Description The development provides a separate center, consisting of 4,000 square feet of indoor space. Open space is reserved for the child care center. The parking garage is shared. There are parking spots set aside for the center, and this creates problems with the tenants. Tenants feel this shared parking is a security breach. Next time, Mercy Housing will try to provide a separate parking area.

Bayshore believes this is excellent space, since they were given the shell and able to design it how they wanted. They consider this the best possible scenario.

48 This project is located at 97 School Street, Daly City, 94015. This information was provided by Ramie Dare, Mercy Housing.


June 2003

69

Operations Mercy Housing, the owner of the center, leases the space to Bayshore at a below market rent. Bayshore now has a ten-year lease. Mercy is able to provide a below market rent since the shell was financed by the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, all rent revenues go to maintain the property.

There could be spaces for 43 children under California licensing requirements. However, Bayshore only serves up to 36 children, a number below the number for which they are licensed. They feel that the licensing standa rds do not provide enough room.

Currently, Bayshore provides spaces for six infants, eight “wobblers,” eight toddlers, and thirteen early preschool children. There are four classrooms: two for infants and “wobblers,” and two for toddlers and early preschool. The infants are required to have a separate space (as well as a separate license). Each set of classrooms has its own kitchenette and its own door to the outdoor space.

This center has state funding for operations, so it charges fees, based on a sliding scale. However, often the state cut-off (75% of state median income) is too low to work in San Mateo County. In addition, the receipt of State funding requires the waiting list to be processed in order of income with the lowest income families getting priority. Thus, the center ends up serving more low-income families. Bayshore prefers operating a center with more of an income mix. Since operating a mixed-income center is a priority for Bayshore, it tries to get around this requirement by maintaining a separate waiting list for residents, who are more mixed-income.

Other General Questions Daly City approached Mercy Housing and Bayshore and encouraged them to do a joint child care center at the housing development. Thus, this was not a mandatory requirement. Since the ground floor of the project is for commercial use, the child care center was designed at the same time as the first-floor commercial space.

The residents at Schoolhouse feel intruded on by the child care center because of the shared parking and also shared open space. The residents had moved into the project before the child care center was occupied. When the center began operations, it took over the open space that was provided for the child care center, and the residents felt the space had been taken away from them. Nevertheless, the center has certainly been an asset that meets a need.

Market Rate Housing Projects Relatively few examples of market rate residential developments with child care exist in California for which we could find published information. Child care in affording housing projects, as discussed above, is much more common. Although as more and more cities start to include child care policies in their general plans, and master and specific plan projects, this situation will change. For this study, we were able to find one large project in San Ramon that is generally market rate, which is required and has provided child care facilities.


June 2003

70

There is a project in the City of Carson (Southern California) that is trying to develop a child care center that is part of a gated community but located outside the entrance across the street. This project has not yet been built.

A specific plan for a 1,800-acre development in Los Banos called Stonecreek includes a 2.0-acre site for child care. The project is still in the planning and entitlement process.

There are more examples of a child care centers within market rate, non-residential projects, such as office parks and R&D campus areas. The City of South San Francisco has several existing or planned centers in commercial facilities. Bishop Ranch in San Ramon, Hilltop Office Park in Richmond, University Town Center in San Diego, and Palm Desert Town Center in Palm Desert are other examples of non-residential projects with child care centers.49

Glenborough-Pauls, a local developer in San Mateo County recommends that defining the problem is key to developing sound policy. Having a “uniform, need-measurement system…would be a good start in defining the problem and provide a base line to measure progress.”50 Glenborough-Pauls suggest the following ideas on the issue most of which relate to employee based child care centers:51

§ Determine whether child care need is housing based or employment based.

§ Determine the relationship between employee populations and on-site day care needs.

§ Find out how employers “value” on-site day care. Are they willing to pay a slight premium in their rent for buildings with child care facilities?

§ Define what the on-site needs are for a child care facility.

§ Since it is unlikely that there are going to be many large-scale office projects built on the Peninsula in the near future, find out if cities are willing to provide economic incentives to developers to encourage day care facilities in redevelopment or smaller developments.52

§ Collect fees from other developers that do not want to provide on-site day care, but through their projects contribute to the problem.

§ Programs should be developed at the County level rather than separate rules and requirements for each city.53

Overall, Glenborough-Pauls believes that developers on one of many key players but not the sole solution. Cities, the county, school districts, foundations, etc., need to be involved in the solution as well.54

49 See “A Developer’s Guide to Child Care,” by California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, (1986). 50 Timothy J. Ridner, Director of Development, Glenborough-Pauls, LLC Memo to Community Advisory Group, March 3, 2003 51 Ibid. 52 These ideas are discussed in Chapter III. 53 This is similar to the permit streamlining discussion under Policy #8. 54 Timothy J. Ridner, Director of Development, Glenborough-Pauls, LLC Memo to Community Advisory Group, March 3, 2003


June 2003

71

5. Gale Ranch in Dougherty Valley, San Ramon - 11,000 Unit Master Planned Community .55

Project Overview Gale Ranch is part of the Dougherty Valley Development in San Ramon. The project is an 11,000 unit master-planned community that is entitled by the County of Contra Costa, serviced by a special Community Services Area (CSA M-29), and annexed to the City of San Ramon, as phases are developed. This arrangement is totally unique and the result of a court-ordered settlement agreement for the project. The project also has an unusual 25% affordable housing requirement as part of the settlement agreement.

Shapell Industries is one of two master developers of Dougherty Valley.56 Shapell’s Gale Ranch has 5,830 units with the market rate single family units selling on average at $633,000, townhomes at $300,000, and apartments assumed to be valued at $175,000 per unit (rents are not known). The project has four elementary school sites, parks, and requirements for community and senior centers, new library, community college facilities and neighborhood-serving retail. The entire site is about 6,000 acres but a large portion of this is open space and habitat.

Contra Costa County requires that child care be provided and the demand for child care from the project is to be estimated by the developer.57 Shapell prepared a simple Needs Assessment of child care demand for the project based on some gross assumptions provided by the County. The County has been enforcing the child care requirement through the annual compliance reporting process for the project. The County has indicated that it will require infant care to be provided by 2004. To date, Shapell has provided plans to provide the following child care facilities to meet their unspecified child care requirement:

§ School Age: Shapell’s first child care center was a school age facility at Coyote Creek Elementary School, which was part of the first phase of development at Gale Ranch, a golf-course community. The child care facility is a separate facility, next to the school, and it shares play space with the school. Parking is available. The child care center serves around 120 school-age children. Priority is given to kids who attend the school next door. After that, other children are allowed to attend as long as the parents can provide transportation to the facility.

The school is designed to serve 740 students and currently serves 400 students. In addition to building the facility, Shapell also set aside an acre at the school site. The typical suburban elementary school site is 10 acres; in Dougherty Valley the developers have set aside 11 to 12 acres for each school site to include child care facilities.

§ Preschool and School Age: The developers are planning on constructing a new 60-space child care center within a 266-unit affordable rental housing project, which will be run by the YMCA. The center will provide space for preschool and

55 Interviews were conducted during March 2003 with Chris Truebridge, Executive Vice President/Division Manager and Dan Coleman, Vice President/Forward Planning of Shapell Industries of Northern California. 56 Lennar is the other master developer and is associated with the Windemere Ranch portion of the valley. 57 See Contra Costa County Code, Title 8: Zoning, Chapter 82-22 CHILD CARE FACILITIES, http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us.

http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us


June 2003

72

school age children. Ecumenical Association for Housing, (EAH), a non-profit housing developer, will manage the affordable housing project, and Shapell will own it.

§ Preschool and School Age: Shapell recently sold three acres to a church, and as a condition of sale, the church will build and operate a 10,000 sqft child care center to serve at least 100 children. While Shapell would like the church facility to provide infant care they do not have the ability to require it at this point. The design of the church includes all the required indoor and outdoor space required by state licensing and has its own parking.

To date, Shapell has reported difficulty in finding any provider to do infant care; thus, the County is now requesting that they do an infant care needs assessment. Shapell is considering including FCCHs in the affordable housing project to meet infant care.

Financing and Costs Financing was part of the overall project construction financing. When asked if they would like to have access to low interest financing for the child care facilities, Shapell stated that it would not be worth the trouble. The child care space makes up such a small portion of the overall project costs. For the church site, the church is financially responsible for financing and constructing the center.

The school age facility cost $550,000 and includes 3,200 sqft of space or $171 per sqft or $9,166 per space. The apartment center is expected to cost about $700,000 and is wrapped into the total development costs. To account for parking requirements, Shapell had to eliminate one project building and the corresponding units. Shapell is privately financing the apartment project; they are not using tax credits or any other outside funding typical of affordable housing projects.

Overall Comments Without the County Ordinance, Shapell would not be directly building and providing child care. In general, they do not believe providing child care should be part of their responsibility as home builders. They would prefer to either pay an impact fee or donate land, as long as the fee is reasonable and based on a legitimate needs assessment. They believe that the County does not know what demand is and has not developed the justification for requiring child care.

Child care has been a big headache for them and required a lot of extra time and effort. They are not in the child care business. It has become yet another extra requirement for which they lack the expertise to handle.

Overall, it is a benefit, and they are glad it is in the project, but the way it has been required has been troublesome. Each of the three additional schools to be built will have land set aside for school age care. According to Shapell, the County needs to establish clear requirements that are justified; the County’s current ordinance is vague and burdensome to developers.


June 2003

73

6. Dominguez Hills Village, City of Carson, California – 650 unit Gated Community with Separate Child Care Facility58

Project Overview This project is located at the Northwest corner of Victoria Street and Central Avenue and is being developed by K. Hovnanian Homes. The project will be a private, gated community consisting of up to 650 single-family homes and condominiums. A child care facility is proposed outside the gate entrance to the community in order to serve project and non-project residents.

Physical Description and Project Status The City of Carson has issued an RFQ for child care providers to develop the center. Responses to the RFQ were due April 14, 2003. There is a committee comprised of the developer and two child care experts that will select the provider. The land for the center was donated by the developer (value not known); part of the project negotiations with the city was that a child care center would be on the site of the housing development. A compromise was struck with the city to locate the center right outside the project so that it can serve non-project residents as well. The child care provider will be responsible for designing and completing the facility at its own expense. The center is expected to serve a minimum of 150 children in the 0 to 5 age group and can be run by a for-profit or non-profit organization.

Lessons Learned Based on the case studies presented in this chapter, the following lessons or conclusions can be drawn.

Affordable Housing Developments and Child Care § Funds for child care space are not provided by traditional sources of financing for

subsidized housing, with the exception of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Instead, space is paid directly by the developer (out of a developer’s fees) or by CDBG or RDA grants.

§ To make affordable child care financial feasible, it is necessary to rent space at below market rents.

§ It is important for developments to include other additional community space, in addition to the child care center so as to avoid the complexity of trying to “share” space. This is particularly true when residents do not use the center.

§ If the child care provider is required to serve households earning incomes that are at or below state or federal poverty levels, it is possible that the affordable housing tenants will be over the income limits and not be able to use the child care center. If

58 This information is based on interviews with Junnie Verceles, Management Assistant, City of Carson and from the project website.


June 2003

74

the residential community is not a part of the child care center, then there can be more conflict over shared parking, open space and community facilities.

§ The advantage of providing units for FCCHs is that no additional financing is needed. Furthermore, FCCHs units should be on the ground floor with easy access to outdoor play areas and include extra space and storage.

§ FCCHs units in affordable projects also need long-term management and oversight.

Market Rate Housing Development and Child Care § Local jurisdictions requiring child care need to provide justification for their

requirements, provide clear methods of measuring demand, and offer incentives.

§ A fee may be preferred over the provision of space, particularly for smaller projects.

§ It is not worth the trouble to apply for special child care facility financing.

§ Location of the facility is important. It can be sited near or at an elementary school (for school age children), or on the periphery of a development to enable access to the community at large.

Finally, for both affordable and market rate projects, there are two shared conclusions.

§ The child care provider should be an independent entity. Housing developers

frequently provide the space as a separate shell, and selected providers finish this space to meet their needs. Residential managers and developers are not in the child care business.

§ It works better when the provider is selected during project design and planning so the space can be configured to meet their needs.

Reasonable mandatory, not voluntary, requirements and incentives are more likely to result in the provision of space.


June 2003

75

V. RECOMMENDED POLICY STRATEGY The above analysis and discussions provide useful information to develop a set of policy recommendations that can be used by cities and the County in addressing child care needs associated with housing development. This final chapter presents a menu of potential policies that cities or the County can choose to implement.

The challenges faced by the child care industry are unique in many ways. In particular, child care is not a direct “public good or service” although federal, state, and local governments all participate in assisting the child care industry and families needing child care, either directly or indirectly. In addition, there are many non-profit organizations and local foundations that provide critical support to the child care industry in San Mateo County and throughout the State.

A summary matrix of the policies evaluated in Chapter III is provided in the Executive Summary. The following table lists these policies and assesses their usefulness for areas with and without significant growth potential, the outcomes or impacts that might be expected from each policy, and whether the policy requires new local ordinances to be adopted.

Each city in San Mateo County has unique child care needs, growth potential, and development or redevelopment opportunities. For some communities, issues such as affordability and accessibility may be more important than lack of facilities. Many of the policies discussed can be adopted as pa rt of a Child Care Development Strategy and they do not represent extensive effort. Some policies are already allowed by existing State legislation such as development agreements. There are still other policies that do not require new ordinances, such as the use of surplus land for child care facilities.

Recommendations The majority of the policies and programs reviewed and analyzed for this effort are not mutually exclusive policies and can be adopted by local jurisdictions together to provide for a broad based policy platform that supports and encourages the development of child care facilities. As noted in the table below, some policies are more likely than others to result directly in the production of new child spaces. Others, like General Plan policies, are essential for setting the groundwork to implement other policies. The following represents our recommendations, but it is recognized that each jurisdiction will want to review these policies carefully in light of specific local conditions and interests.


June 2003

76

Table 12 Summary of Potential Child Care & Housing Policies

Policy Name & Number

Creates Child Care Spaces

Requires New Policy, Program, or Ordinance

Complements or Supports other Efforts

1. Impact Fees (1) Yes Yes (Nexus Study & Ordinance) Yes, except for Policy #2.

2. Inclusionary Ordinances (1) Yes Yes (Nexus Study &

Ordinance) Yes, except for Policy #1.

3. Affordable Housing Development

Yes No Yes

4. Density Bonus Yes (Theoretically) Yes (Ordinance) Yes

5. Development Agreements Yes No Yes

6. Use of Public Surplus Land Indirectly No Yes


Indirectly Only if new local programs are created. Yes

8. Zoning, Permit Streamlining, & Planning Support

Indirectly Yes (Revisions to Zoning Ordinance and new planning processes)

Yes, provides key support for other policies

9. Public Education Indirectly Yes (PR material and campaign)


10. Housing Rehab for FCCHs Limited Amount Yes (to change program

selection criteria) Yes

11. Public Housing Projects Limited Amount No Yes

12. General Plans and Other Planning Documents

Indirectly Yes (Can occur when plans are updated)


13. Congestion Management Tool

Theoretically, yes, but no evidence so far. No Yes, but not used so far (2003)

14. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

Indirectly through incentives. No Yes

15. CEQA Checklist No Yes (Changes to state CEQA law) Not recommended.

16. Public Ownership of FCCH Units Yes, limited amount No Yes

(1) A City could adopt either an Impact Fee or an Inclusionary Ordinance, but not both.


June 2003

77

All Cities and County

§ All cities and the County should include some type of supportive child care policies in their General Plans, Specific Plan, and other planning documents.

This policy sets the groundwork for all other policies to be adopted and implemented. The types of goals and policies that are included in a General Plan can vary greatly. They can be located in a variety of elements, but are best woven throughout the documents. The more frequently child care is mentioned as a policy, the more often it will get addressed through the planning and development process, including environmental review. A benefit of this policy is that it allows for creativity at the local level.

§ Combining policies that include requirements such as impact fees or inclusionary ordinances with incentives such as density bonuses provides a more attractive package that developers may be more likely to support.

While it is important to adopt policies that will increase the provision of child care facilities, either directly (through inclusionary ordinances) or indirectly (through fees) combining such policies with other desired incentives such as density bonuses, relaxing parking standards, or allowing for other variances can make new child care policies more acceptable to the development community. In addition, adopting policies and programs that address existing child care gaps signals to the development community that the city or county is not expecting new development to solve all the child care problems of a community.

§ All cities and the County should review existing zoning and their permit process for barriers to the development of child care facilities.

As discussed under Policy #8 (Zoning and Permit Processing), there can be many local barriers to child care in zoning codes and in difficult or unclear permitting processes. An important precursor to developing sound and effective child care policies is to ensure that these uses are allowed, encouraged, and facilitated and not hindered by local planning process or zoning. Child care providers also have difficulty in not only understanding the development process but being able to afford costly processing fees. This policy combined with General Plan policies sets the stage to create more child care spaces in a community.

§ Public Education should be conducted at the County level and be Countywide and also be supported by cities.

Cities interested in promoting and supporting child care should collaborate with the 4Cs and the County in any public education campaign around child care as discussed further below. This type of campaign can make developing child care facilities easier and avoid problems down the road when projects are going through the approval process. Such education efforts can also be conducted during General Plan updates as part of the community planning process.


June 2003

78

§ Policies #3 (Child Care in Affordable Housing), #4 (Density Bonus), #5 (Development Agreements), #6 (Surplus Land), #7 (Cost Offsets), #10 (Housing Rehab), #11 (Public Housing), and #16 (Public Ownership) are recommended.

These other policies complement and support impact fees or inclusionary zoning but they generally will not produce as much child care given the nature of each policy and/or the infrequency with which it can be used. For instance, Development Agreements generally only are negotiated for larger projects; much of the growth potential in the County is on small infill sites. Affordable housing projects are great opportunities but they face their own financing challenges as well, and adding child care is not always possible without additional funding. However, for smaller housing projects it is often more feasible to designate one or more units for family child care. These policies, however, are great additional tools for addressing child care and city planners and public officials should be aware of their usefulness with regard to addressing child care.

Cities with Growth Potential § For cities with growth and development potential, child care impact fees or

inclusionary ordinances with in-lieu fee options will be useful tools for directly increasing the supply of child care.

For those cities with development potential, impact fees or inclusionary ordinances with in-lieu fees would benefit child care supply directly. These policies do take time and funding to create as they require nexus studies. However, unlike development agreements, they create a uniform policy and fee that applies equally to all new development depending on the type of land use. It sends a clear message to the development community that this is the child care requirement for the city and it allows developers to plan more effectively. Inclusionary ordinances do not have the same requirements as impact fees and represent a slightly different approach with the same end. In the case of inclusionary ordinances, it is recommended that cities require the provision of space, and allow the payment of in-lieu fees only if the provision of space would be a burden, or in those cases where the project is too small to warrant a new facility.

§ New polices must address existing shortfalls as well as future development as the need from existing development exceeds that of future growth (i.e., over next 20 years) in most cities.

Almost all cities and the County have existing shortfalls in supply. These gaps require careful and thoughtful strategies. Developers should not be required to provide more child care than is warranted by their new projects. However, if cities were able to locate outside funding and work with developers to provide additional space, it would be possible to address a portion of the existing shortfall. By partnering with new development to meet existing gaps, economies of scale can be created where the average cost of each space is reduced.


June 2003

79

Small Cities or Built Out Cities For cities without growth potential, impact fees or inclusionary zoning do not make sense. For these cities it is even more important to address barriers to child care development in zoning and the permit process because many of the new centers or FCCHs will occur in existing or rehabilitated space or homes. Housing rehab programs are useful and can target existing homeowners and potential FCCH providers. For cities that are not growing significantly but have existing shortfalls in child care spaces, more creative approaches are required and partnerships with local non-profits a must.

A thorough assessment of any surplus city-owned property is also a good exercise. Working closely with local school districts to identify surplus property, or even property that can be used temporarily for child care, is an excellent first step towards addressing child care needs in a built out environment.

Other Recommendations § Cities that may have need but not enough to warrant a large center can partner

with other cities or the County to provide centers that are strategically located to serve both communities. This may be useful in the more rural parts of County that abut incorporated cities.

While public/private partnerships are the norm in planning today, public/public partnerships and other collaborations need to be explored to systematically address child care needs. New development is not the answer when existing shortfalls are so high. If a strategic plan is developed Countywide to address child needs in all locations, then more rational planning can take place. While these types of arrangements may be new and take more time, they can be useful. Policy #16, public ownership of FCCHs through the 4Cs is a policy that could work well with smaller communities. The cities can provide funding and the 4Cs can manage, own, and operate the units. These types of partnerships will be important for smaller communities with limited staff and resources.

§ Cities, the County, and the 4Cs should continue to support lobbying efforts at the

State and federal level to ensure that supportive and enabling legislation is adopted around child care.

There are programs and policies discussed in this study that will require new State legislation. These types of changes take time and effort, and local groups and policy makers can be effective advocates for child care and children overall. San Mateo County has been leading the effort with such proposals as the Simitian bill to include child care in General Plans and the Mullin bill on density bonuses for child care in residential projects. South San Francisco and the City of San Mateo have also been providing leadership in this area.


June 2003

80

§ A comprehensive public education campaign should be undertaken, targeting four key groups as discussed under Policy #9 (Public Education).

The public education idea discussed under Policy #9 is not truly a public policy or program but rather part of the overall strategy needed to further the issues of child care and develop sound solutions, which include local public policy and programs. Without education targeted to key groups, it will be hard to muster the political will and support needed to adopt required policies and programs discussed in this study.

The public education campaign will need to have a broad theme, which is then tailored to individual constituencies, including:

§ Residents, Neighborhood Organizations, and Homeowners Associations, which often provide significant opposition to child care centers and FCCHs because of fears of traffic, noise, parking and just general NIMBY attitudes.

§ Landlords and Tenants, who often do not understand their rights and responsibilities and liabilities surrounding child care. Many FCCHs are located in rental housing, as they do not generate income to support home purchase. Landlords of commercial property also have fears and concerns about the liability of renting to child care providers, which with appropriate information can be allayed.

§ The Real Estate and Development Community is a key player in making strategies effective for both new and existing development. Working with such organizations as the Home Builders Association (HBA), the Pacific Builders Association, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) and the local chapter of Commercial Real Estate Women (CREW) would provide excellent opportunities to both educate professionals in the development field and stimulate and expand the debate about potential roles and solutions. These organizations hold salons, seminars, and brown bag lunches for members where child care advocates could come and present information and gather input. Having booths with information packets at conferences is another recommendation.

§ City Planners and Other Local Decision Makers. These groups deal with growth and development on a daily basis. Working with planning commissions, city councils, and the American Planning Associations (APA), which already has supportive child care policies, is another method of pushing the issue forward and stimulating debate and ideas. An example of collaborating with professional organizations is the current work with the City Managers Association in San Mateo County. Outreach and collaborations with smart growth advocates are also useful.

The campaign can take the form of direct mailings to residents and neighborhood groups. A public poster and ad campaign can be effective but a costly way to reach the broad public including the groups mentioned above. The real estate and development community will be much more interested in issues of fairness, demand methods and more quantitative issues, as well as policy issues. The cost of new policies will be of key concern and thus, a campaign targeting these groups will be very different than that of landlords and tenants. While many of the issues and concerns raised by these groups may be challenging for the child care industry, it is important to engage them and address them, so that well thought out and


June 2003

81

reasonable policy can be adopted and implemented. These groups can be key assets when they are educated and become supporters in advance of program and policy hearings with local decision makers.


June 2003

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY Studies, Reports and Articles Access Building Association, Family Child Care Facilities in New Housing Developments: Housing and Family Child Care (City of Vancouver, March 1999). Anderson, Kristen, Supporting child Care Development in San Mateo County: Best Practices and Recommendations (Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc., February 2003). Bay Area Economics, Mission Bay Preliminary Needs Assessment and Child Care Strategy (2000). California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, The California Child Care Portfolio (2001). California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, A Developer’s Guide to Child Care (1986). California Department of Education Child Development Division, Building Child Care Collaborative (December 2001). California Tax Credit and Allocation Committee, Scoring Criteria for Applications for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Capizzano, J, Gina Adams, and Freya Sonenstein, Child Care Arrangements for Children Under Five: Variation Across States (Assessing the New Federalism Project by Urban Institute (2000). Center for the Child Care Workforce, A Profile of the San Mateo County Child Care Workforce: Findings from the 2001 Survey of Family Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers (2001). Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc., Child Care Needs Assessment (1999-2000). Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc., City of San Mateo Child Care Policy Analysis and Recommendations: A Roadmap for San Mateo’s Children (2001). Child Care Coordinating Council, Inc., Development Plan Maple Crossing Child Care Center Franklin Redevelopment Area, Redwood City, California (February 8, 2001). Child Care Law Center, Using Land Use Principles to Expand Child Care Capacity (September 2002). Child Care Law Center, Legal Update (Summer 2002). Child Welfare League of America, Summary of the Access to High Quality Child Care Act, S. 2117 (2002). Chudnovsky, Rita and Paul Kershaw, Mount Pleasant Child Development Services Needs and Preference Assessment (City of Vancouver, January 2003). City of Vancouver Planning Department, High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines, Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines, April 1992.


June 2003

83

City of Vancouver Social Planning Department, Steps for Establishing a Child care Centre in Vancouver in an Existing Building (April 2000). City of Vancouver Social Planning Department, Steps for Establishing a Child care Centre in Vancouver in a New Building (April 2000). City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and Environmental Services Agency and San Mateo County Planning and Building Division, Census and Housing Data 2000 Source Book (2000). Cleary, Chris and Liz Eng, Housing and Land Use Policies Can Limit Child Care Supply (Child Care Law Center, 2002). De Give, Michael, Planners Discuss Steps to Better Local Child Care (Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 11, 2002). Dektar, Ellen, County Child Care Shortage Challenges Vitality of Women-Owned Businesses (Bay Area Business Woman, June 2002). International Child Resource Institute, A New Assessment of Child Care Need for Children Age 5 and Under in Santa Clara County (September 2002). Local Child Care Planning Council of Santa Clara County, The True Cost of Quality Child Care: Financing Strategies for Silicon Valley (July 2002). Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. Child Care in Santa Monica, prepared for City of Santa Monica Human Services Division, (September 2000). National Economic Development and Law Center, The Child Care Facilities Fund of the Low Income Housing Fund, The Child Development Policy Institute Education Fund and The California child Care Resource and Referral Network, Building Child Care: A New Resource on Financing the Construction, Renovation, and/or Acquisition of Child Care Facilities (February 5, 2002). National Economic Development and Law Center, The Local Investment in Child Care (LINCC) Project: What Happens When We Invest in Child Care. National Economic Development and Law Center, Quick Reference Guide to Facilities Development Resources (2001). Peninsula Partnership Council, Children in Our Community: A Report on Their Health and Well-Being (2002). San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council, Child Care Partnership Council Strategic Plan 2000-2005 (2000). Santa Barbara County Office of Early Care and Education, Planning for Child Care in Santa Barbara County: A Guide for Planners (June 2002). Stokley, Jan, Linking Child Care Development and Housing Development: Tools for Child Care Providers and Advocates (National Economic Development and Law Center, 1997).


June 2003

84

Stokley, Jan, Linking Child Care Development and Public Sector Redevelopment (National Economic Development and Law Center, 1992). Stokley, Jan and Emily Heumann (National Economic Development and Law Center), Joe Nation (Economics Online), Mary Petsche, Vivian Cho and Kristen Anderson (Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County), The Economic Impact of Child Care in San Mateo County (National Economic Development and Law Center, July 1997). Upp, Stephanie, Chris Palamountain, Alice Bussiere and Brad Caftel, Child Care and Community Economic Development: Critical Roles for Legal Services (Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May-June 2002). Young, Carol Ann, Moving Forward: Child care: A Cornerstone of Child Development Services (City of Vancouver, April 15, 2002). Legislation or related materials and Court Cases: Assembly Bill No. 51 (SIMITIAN) to include child care in General Plans. Assembly Bill 305 (Introduced)-Modifications to Section 65915 of the Government Code to permit increased residential densities if child care facilities are provided. Assembly Bill AB2954 Analysis. Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California, 36 Cal. App. 4th, 1121 (1995). San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v City and County of San Francisco, 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, No. A035010, Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California (1989). Ordinances and General Plans: City of Chula Vista, Chapter 5A: Child Care Goals, Objectives, and Policies. City of Pasadena, Land Use Element, Guiding Principle #4, Pasadena, Healthy Family Community. City of Santa Rosa, Chapter 9 of General Plan: Youth and Family. City of South San Francisco, Ordinance No. 1301-2001, An Ordinance Establishing a Child care Impact Fee. City of Walnut Creek, Child Day Care Sub-element-Policies. City of West Sacramento, Child Care Section of General Plan, Section IX: Child Care Goals and Policies. Contra Costa County Code, Title 8: Zoning, Chapter 8-22: Child Care Facilities. Monterey County, General Plan Update (October 2001). Santa Cruz County, Resolution 15.04.010: The Community Facilities Element of the County General Plan.


June 2003

85

Websites: Association of Bay Area Governments http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/maps.html. This map is from ABAG’s Smart Growth Strategy /Regional Livability Footprint Project; the Planning Area maps were used as a visioning tool during the Smart Growth Workshops (2001) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist (Appendix G) www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/Appendix_G.html The National Educational and Law Center http://www.nedlc.org/publications/child care.html Sustainable San Mateo: http://www.sustainablesanmateo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=indicators2002.document&selectdocument=AA2_00intro.html provides a copy of the report and indicators. www.buildingchild care.org for summary child care financing resource matrix. www.rrnetwork.org/ for the child care density maps by zip code and county from the CCCR&R Network web site. http://www.ncfn.org/pp-ccffa.htm for the National Children’s Facilities Network. Interviews: Anderson Kristen, Child Care Coordinator, Redwood City, March 2003. Austin, Marilyn, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Services Coordinator, March 2003. Coleman, Dan, Shappell Industries of Northern California, March 2003. Dare, Ramie, Mercy Housing, March 2003. Davisson, Wilda, Contra Costa County Services Department, March 2003. Durekas, Fran, Children’s Creative Learning Center, April 2003. Foster, David, Santa Cruz Office of Education, March 2003. Guiterrez, Sandra, Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles office, April 2003. Kaminsky, Jennifer, Jamaica Plains Neighborhood Development Corporation, New Jersey, March 2003. McGuire, Pat, California Housing and Community Development Department, April 2003. McWaters, Patricia, Work/Family Office, Ventura County, March 2003. Martone, Walter, City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County, March 2003. Monjara, Ana Mirian, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, March 2003.

http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/maps.html

http://www.nedlc.org/publications/child

http://www.sustainablesanmateo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=indicators2002.document&sele

http://www.ncfn.org/pp-ccffa.htm


June 2003

86

Mullin, Kevin, Communications Consulting, March and April 2003. Sanchez, Susan, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, March 2003. Sahm, Barbara, Turnstone Consulting, March 2003. Tosta, Timothy, Steefel, LeVitt & Wiess, March 2003. Truebridge, Chris, Shapell Industries of Northern California, March 2003. Verceles, Junnie, City of Carson, March 2003. Wiley, Mike, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, March 2003. Worthen, Eric, Office of Assemblyman Gene Mullin, March 2003. Middlebrook, Eileen, Kids Country, March 2003.


June 2003

A-1

APPENDIX A: DETAILED DATA This appendix provides Detailed Existing Supply and Demand Estimates of Child Care, Historical Building Permit Data, and Projected Household Growth and Demand for Child Care, which is used in Chapter II. Table A-1: Detailed Existing Child Care Supply and Demand Estimates by Area and

Age/Type of Child Care - as of 2000 Table A-2: Projected Households in San Mateo County by City: 2000 to 2025 Table A-3: Recent Housing Building Permits by Area and Type: 1993 to 2002 Table A-4: Future Child Care Need by City and Type of Care: 2004 to 2025

Table A-1Current Child Care-2003Supply & Demand and GapSan Mateo County

Infants Preschool Total

Area 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrs 0-13 yrs 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6+-9 yrs 9+--13 yrs Total<6 >6 to <18 Infants Preschool

75% 100% 50% 25%Incorporated Cities/Towns

Atherton 213 273 464 362 1,312 36% 41% 58 99 96 37 290 Belmont 951 822 1,174 982 3,929 60% 73% 426 491 426 178 1,521 Brisbane 43 107 187 147 484 69% 74% 22 74 69 27 192 Burlingame 888 822 1,239 1,267 4,216 53% 72% 350 432 445 228 1,456 Colma 40 29 65 88 222 59% 57% 18 17 19 13 66 Daly City 3,732 3,848 5,456 5,136 18,172 59% 66% 1,649 2,266 1,800 847 6,563 East Palo Alto 1,759 1,796 2,525 2,346 8,426 48% 54% 635 864 687 319 2,504 Foster City 1,041 925 1,427 1,420 4,813 47% 69% 369 437 489 244 1,538 Half Moon Bay 387 468 566 599 2,020 64% 70% 186 300 198 105 788 Hillsborough 358 347 637 765 2,107 55% 48% 148 192 154 93 586 Menlo Park 1,158 1,295 1,541 1,521 5,515 51% 58% 442 659 445 219 1,765 Millbrae 645 571 914 1,119 3,249 55% 64% 268 316 291 178 1,054 Pacifica 1,059 1,345 2,133 2,309 6,846 70% 77% 555 940 822 445 2,763 Portola Valley 188 160 260 289 897 44% 35% 62 70 45 25 203 Redwood City 3,589 2,983 4,055 3,706 14,333 59% 68% 1,583 1,754 1,377 629 5,343 San Bruno 1,442 1,440 2,221 2,106 7,209 61% 72% 662 881 798 379 2,720 San Carlos 1,076 1,189 1,561 1,328 5,154 56% 72% 452 666 564 240 1,921 San Mateo 3,337 3,148 4,512 3,957 14,954 52% 66% 1,296 1,631 1,491 654 5,072 South San Francisco 2,505 2,384 3,489 3,191 11,569 64% 71% 1,208 1,533 1,239 566 4,546 Woodside 206 210 293 286 995 36% 45% 56 76 66 32 231

Total Cities 24,617 24,162 34,719 32,924 116,422 10,445 13,699 11,522 5,458 41,123

Unincorporated Areas 41,123 Broadmoor CDP 107 196 234 175 712 79% 64% 63 154 75 28 321 El Granada 231 263 313 382 1,189 62% 66% 108 164 103 63 438 Emerald Lake CDP 162 164 149 210 685 56% 58% 67 91 43 30 232 Highland-Baywood Park CDP 119 142 249 267 777 50% 63% 45 71 78 42 237 Montara 129 128 182 143 582 59% 67% 57 76 61 24 218 Moss Beach 54 37 89 108 288 59% 67% 24 22 30 18 93 North FairOaks CDP 871 717 1,144 928 3,660 52% 52% 340 373 300 122 1,134 West Menlo Park CDP 123 214 220 241 798 66% 56% 61 140 61 33 296 Other Unincorporated Areas 690 696 959 917 3,262 53% 76% 272 365 365 175 1,177

(incl. LaHonda/Pescadero)Total Unincorp. Areas 2,486 2,557 3,539 3,371 11,953 na na 1,036 1,457 1,117 535 4,145

Total San Mateo County 27,103 26,719 38,258 36,295 128,375 57% 66% 11,481 15,155 12,639 5,993 45,268 Percent Distribution 21% 21% 30% 28% 100% 25% 33% 28% 13% 100%

(1) Not all children with working parents are assumed to need licensed care: the assumptions under each age label are used. The remaining children are assumed to be cared for by family members and unlicensed care. (2) Supply data is as of March 2003 from the 4Cs.

Labor Force Participation Rates

Children with Working Parents:

<<<<<<<School Age>>>>>>>

Children Needing Care (1)School Age

2000 US Census Population Data by City or Area

6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls

Table A-1Current Child Care-2003Supply & Demand and GapSan Mateo County

Area

Incorporated Cities/TownsAthertonBelmontBrisbaneBurlingameColmaDaly CityEast Palo AltoFoster CityHalf Moon BayHillsboroughMenlo ParkMillbraePacificaPortola ValleyRedwood CitySan BrunoSan CarlosSan MateoSouth San FranciscoWoodside

Total Cities

Unincorporated AreasBroadmoor CDPEl GranadaEmerald Lake CDPHighland-Baywood Park CDPMontaraMoss BeachNorth FairOaks CDPWest Menlo Park CDPOther Unincorporated Areas

(incl. LaHonda/Pescadero)Total Unincorp. Areas

Total San Mateo CountyPercent Distribution

0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6+-13 yrs Total 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6+-13 yrs Total 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6+-13 yrs TotalInfants Preschool School Age Infants Preschool School Age Infants Preschool School Age

- 106 148 254 (58) 7 15 (36) -100% 7% 11% -12%61 692 349 1,102 (365) 201 (255) (419) -86% 41% -42% -28%

- 60 45 105 (22) (14) (52) (87) -100% -18% -54% -45%97 727 263 1,087 (253) 295 (410) (369) -72% 68% -61% -25%6 14 6 26 (12) (3) (25) (40) -66% -19% -81% -61%

209 792 656 1,657 (1,440) (1,474) (1,992) (4,906) -87% -65% -75% -75%114 650 138 902 (521) (214) (868) (1,602) -82% -25% -86% -64%167 926 472 1,565 (202) 489 (261) 27 -55% 112% -36% 2%80 299 108 487 (106) (1) (194) (301) -57% 0% -64% -38%

- 78 9 87 (148) (114) (238) (499) -100% -59% -96% -85%126 945 226 1,297 (316) 286 (438) (468) -71% 43% -66% -27%32 662 207 901 (236) 346 (262) (153) -88% 109% -56% -14%63 542 450 1,055 (492) (398) (817) (1,708) -89% -42% -64% -62%

- 75 40 115 (62) 5 (31) (88) -100% 7% -43% -43%280 1,602 838 2,720 (1,303) (152) (1,168) (2,623) -82% -9% -58% -49%208 933 522 1,663 (454) 52 (655) (1,057) -69% 6% -56% -39%94 689 477 1,260 (358) 23 (326) (661) -79% 3% -41% -34%

347 1,871 887 3,105 (949) 240 (1,258) (1,967) -73% 15% -59% -39%219 918 487 1,624 (989) (615) (1,318) (2,922) -82% -40% -73% -64%

3 103 62 168 (53) 27 (36) (63) -95% 35% -37% -27%

2,106 12,684 6,390 21,180 (8,339) (1,015) (10,590) (19,943) -80% -7% -62% -48%-

16 121 6 143 (47) (33) (98) (178) -75% -22% -94% -55%12 104 66 182 (96) (60) (100) (256) -89% -37% -60% -58%7 11 - 18 (60) (80) (73) (214) -90% -88% -100% -92%9 255 137 401 (36) 184 17 164 -80% 257% 14% 69%3 30 96 129 (54) (46) 11 (89) -95% -60% 13% -41%3 15 2 20 (21) (7) (46) (73) -87% -31% -96% -79%

66 439 118 623 (274) 66 (303) (511) -81% 18% -72% -45%- 129 - 129 (61) (11) (95) (167) -100% -8% -100% -56%

5 33 46 84 (267) (332) (494) (1,093) -98% -91% -91% -93%

121 1,137 471 1,729 (915) (320) (1,181) (2,416) -88% -22% -71% -58%

2,227 13,821 6,861 22,909 (9,254) (1,334) (11,771) (22,359) -81% -9% -63% -49%10% 60% 30% 100%

Sources: The 4Cs of San Mateo County; 2000 US Census; Brion & Associates.

% of Children Needing Care Not ServedChild Care Supply (2) Child Care Gap


Table A-2Projected Households in San Mateo County by City: 2000 to 2025San Mateo County Housing and Childcare Linkage Study

City/Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Total net change

% net change

Avg. Annual Growth

Total net change

% net change

Avg. Annual increase

in #

Atherton 2,413 2,450 2,500 2,550 2,630 2,690 87 4% 9 277 11% 11 Belmont 10,418 10,530 10,660 10,870 11,160 11,480 242 2% 24 1,062 10% 42 Brisbane 1,620 1,690 1,800 1,960 2,140 2,340 180 11% 18 720 44% 29 Burlingame 12,511 12,640 12,930 13,320 13,750 14,060 419 3% 42 1,549 12% 62 Colma 329 370 390 410 430 450 61 19% 6 121 37% 5 Daly City 30,775 31,370 31,860 32,330 32,590 32,840 1,085 4% 109 2,065 7% 83 East Palo Alto 6,976 7,530 8,040 8,880 9,170 9,900 1,064 15% 106 2,924 42% 117 Foster City 11,613 12,010 12,240 12,540 12,840 13,130 627 5% 63 1,517 13% 61 Half Moon Bay 4,004 4,380 4,720 5,080 5,360 5,630 716 18% 72 1,626 41% 65 Hillsborough 3,689 3,750 3,810 3,870 3,930 4,030 121 3% 12 341 9% 14 Menlo Park 12,387 12,560 12,730 12,950 13,310 13,540 343 3% 34 1,153 9% 46 Millbrae 7,956 8,140 8,280 8,450 8,580 8,770 324 4% 32 814 10% 33 Pacifica 13,994 14,490 14,860 15,270 15,640 15,980 866 6% 87 1,986 14% 79 Portola Valley 1,700 1,760 1,810 1,860 1,910 1,960 110 6% 11 260 15% 10 Redwood City 28,060 28,630 29,300 29,990 30,580 31,230 1,240 4% 124 3,170 11% 127 San Bruno 14,677 14,780 15,010 15,240 15,550 15,830 333 2% 33 1,153 8% 46 San Carlos 11,455 11,630 11,720 11,830 11,960 12,100 265 2% 27 645 6% 26 San Mateo 37,338 38,970 39,960 41,090 42,160 43,210 2,622 7% 262 5,872 16% 235 South San Francisco 19,677 20,050 20,430 20,840 21,410 21,980 753 4% 75 2,303 12% 92 Woodside 1,949 2,010 2,040 2,100 2,150 2,220 91 5% 9 271 14% 11 Unincorporated 20,562 21,220 22,020 23,210 24,420 25,550 1,458 7% 146 4,988 24% 200

Total San Mateo County 254,103 260,960 267,110 274,640 281,670 288,920 13,007 5% 1,301 34,817 14% 1,393

Sources: ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.

Total Households at 2000 to 2010 2000 to 2025


Table A-3Building Permits (1)by City: 1993 to 2002San Mateo County

City/AreaSingle Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Atherton 15 - 15 15 - 15 13 - 13 - - - 8 - - Belmont 7 - 7 13 19 32 17 - 17 108 - - 46 - 8 Brisbane 3 - 3 - - - 1 26 27 2 37 108 - 27 46 Burlingame 11 8 19 2 23 25 5 59 64 11 12 39 22 32 27 Colma - 2 2 - - - - - - - 8 23 - - 54 Daly City 45 4 49 122 19 141 124 28 152 44 67 8 73 20 - East Palo Alto 7 - 7 15 - 15 3 60 63 4 - 111 5 - 93 Foster City - - - - - - 39 120 159 22 - 4 - 129 5 Half Moon Bay 47 6 53 52 4 56 14 36 50 32 - 22 7 - 129 Hillsborough 10 - 10 8 - 8 14 - 14 12 - 32 19 - 7 Menlo Park 10 - 10 14 - 14 24 - 24 56 5 12 94 18 19 Millbrae 1 - 1 - 7 7 2 - 2 2 - 61 4 158 112 Pacifica 5 12 17 66 104 170 26 24 50 17 10 2 36 - 162 Portola Valley 4 - 4 12 - 12 7 - 7 9 - 27 5 - 36 Redwood City 82 2 84 98 87 185 240 266 506 101 206 9 154 166 5 San Bruno 2 - 2 2 - 2 2 - 2 1 - 307 3 - 320 San Carlos 8 16 24 8 2 10 13 - 13 13 - 1 9 26 3 San Mateo 11 37 48 17 2 19 18 2 20 9 87 13 14 3 35 South San Francisco 20 - 20 22 32 54 29 64 93 88 - 96 227 18 17 Woodside 13 2 15 11 - 11 16 - 16 17 - 88 12 - 245 Unincorporated 120 - 120 122 2 124 110 22 132 125 - 17 184 - 12

Totals 421 89 510 599 301 900 717 707 1,424 673 432 1,105 922 597 1,519

(1) From Construction Industry Research Board building permit reports for 1993 to 2002.

Sources: Construction Industry Research Board; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Brion & Associates.

Year 1993 Year 1994 Year 1995 Year 1996 Year 1997


Table A-3Building Permits (1)by City: 1993 to 2002San Mateo County

City/Area

AthertonBelmontBrisbaneBurlingameColmaDaly CityEast Palo AltoFoster CityHalf Moon BayHillsboroughMenlo ParkMillbraePacificaPortola ValleyRedwood CitySan BrunoSan CarlosSan MateoSouth San FranciscoWoodsideUnincorporated

Totals

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

Single Family

Multi-Family Total

5 - - 4 - - 3 - 3 7 - 7 15 - 15 19 - 5 33 - 4 5 - 5 34 78 112 5 5 10 2 298 19 2 2 33 7 - 7 5 - 5 5 - 5

25 - 300 12 74 4 26 15 41 15 2 17 19 - 19 - - 25 - - 86 - - - - - - 18 - 18 46 - - 20 - - 81 3 84 76 2 78 101 4 105 6 - 46 33 - 20 193 219 412 69 28 97 41 4 45

- - 6 4 - 33 1 - 1 - 439 439 - 31 31 29 - - 23 2 4 38 27 65 47 14 61 55 66 121 18 - 29 18 - 25 22 - 22 20 - 20 11 - 11 91 10 18 27 - 18 38 - 38 32 - 32 14 - 14 1 2 101 6 - 27 3 2 5 3 - 3 2 - 2

96 6 3 45 9 6 36 2 38 31 2 33 14 - 14 12 - 102 7 - 54 8 - 8 13 - 13 12 11 23

201 371 12 59 6 7 13 220 233 18 24 42 9 6 15 2 - 572 14 - 65 - - - 1 - 1 10 300 310 8 42 2 13 - 14 11 7 18 7 4 11 2 97 99

15 454 50 33 - 13 60 640 700 31 75 106 9 128 137 144 - 469 156 - 33 78 32 110 52 40 92 94 - 94 25 - 144 25 - 156 19 - 19 15 - 15 14 - 14

243 4 25 234 40 25 204 304 508 246 11 257 185 13 198

988 1,187 2,175 768 133 901 846 1,471 2,317 722 719 1,441 635 665 1,300

(1) From Construction Industry Research Board building permit reports for 1993 to 2002.

Sources: Construction Industry Research Board; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Brion & Associates.

Year 2001 Year 2002Year 1998 Year 1999 Year 2000


Table A-4Future Child Care NeedYear 2004 to 2025San Mateo County

Area


Total Cities

Total Unincorp. Areas (1)

Total San Mateo CountyPercent Distributions

Total Population

in 2000 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrs

Projected Population

2000-2025 (1) 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrsTotal, 0-13

yrs

7,194 3% 4% 6% 5% 709 21 27 46 36 129 25,123 4% 3% 5% 4% 2,532 96 83 118 99 396 3,597 1% 3% 5% 4% 1,657 20 49 86 68 223

28,158 3% 3% 4% 4% 3,733 118 109 164 168 559 1,191 3% 2% 5% 7% 378 13 9 21 28 70

103,621 4% 4% 5% 5% 7,022 253 261 370 348 1,231 29,506 6% 6% 9% 8% 7,651 456 466 655 608 2,185 28,803 4% 3% 5% 5% 3,693 133 119 183 182 617 11,842 3% 4% 5% 5% 4,099 134 162 196 207 699 10,825 3% 3% 6% 7% 858 28 28 50 61 167 30,785 4% 4% 5% 5% 2,741 103 115 137 135 491 20,718 3% 3% 4% 5% 2,096 65 58 92 113 329 38,390 3% 4% 6% 6% 5,113 141 179 284 308 912 4,462 4% 4% 6% 6% 737 31 26 43 48 148

75,402 5% 4% 5% 5% 8,710 415 345 468 428 1,656 40,165 4% 4% 6% 5% 3,991 143 143 221 209 716 27,718 4% 4% 6% 5% 1,744 68 75 98 84 324 92,482 4% 3% 5% 4% 13,920 502 474 679 596 2,251 60,552 4% 4% 6% 5% 6,994 289 275 403 369 1,336 5,352 4% 4% 5% 5% 570 22 22 31 30 106

645,886 4% 4% 5% 5% 78,948 3,009 2,953 4,244 4,024 14,231

61,275 4% 4% 6% 6% 14,454 586 603 835 795 2,820

707,161 4% 4% 5% 5% 93,402 3,595 3,557 5,079 4,820 17,050 21% 21% 30% 28% 100%

(1) Projections by DCP of the unincorporated areas is not available and thus, this area is estimated as one area. (2) Based on the current distribution of children as percent of total population for each city, which varies slightly from area to area.

Sources: The 4Cs of San Mateo County; ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.

Children as % of Total Pop. in 2000 Projected Children - 2004 to 2025 (2)


Table A-4Future Child Care NeedYear 2004 to 2025San Mateo County

Area


Total Cities

Total Unincorp. Areas (1)

Total San Mateo CountyPercent Distributions

LFPR for <6

LFPR for <18 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-9 yrs 10-13 yrs Total, 0-13 yrs

75% 100% 50% 25%

36% 41% 6 10 9 4 29 60% 73% 43 49 43 18 153 69% 74% 10 34 32 13 89 53% 72% 46 57 59 30 193 59% 57% 6 5 6 4 21 59% 66% 112 154 122 57 445 48% 54% 165 224 178 83 649 47% 69% 47 56 63 31 197 64% 70% 64 104 68 36 273 55% 48% 12 15 12 7 46 51% 58% 39 59 40 20 157 55% 64% 27 32 29 18 107 70% 77% 74 125 110 59 368 44% 35% 10 12 7 4 34 59% 68% 183 203 159 73 617 61% 72% 66 88 79 38 270 56% 72% 28 42 35 15 121 52% 66% 195 245 224 98 763 64% 71% 140 177 143 65 525 36% 45% 6 8 7 3 25

1,279 1,699 1,427 677 5,082

57% 66% 250 343 275 131 998

1,529 2,041 1,702 808 6,080 25% 34% 28% 13% 100%

(3) Not all children with working parents are assumed to need licensed care: the assumptions in each column is used as a % of children needing licensed care by age. The remaining children are assumed to be cared for by family members and unlicensed care.

Sources: The 4Cs of San Mateo County; ABAG Projections 2002; Brion & Associates.

Projected Child Care Needs - 2004 to 2025 (3)2000 Census



June 2003

B-1

APPENDIX B: OTHER PROJECTS WITH CHILD CARE The following represents a list of other affordable or market rate housing projects or projects with child care facilities that may be of interest to readers.

Affordable Housing Projects Eden Housing has five projects with child care centers as follows: § Eden Palmas, San Jose, CA § Glen Berry, Hayward, CA § Ohlone-Chenoweth, San Jose, CA § Owls Landing, Livermore, CA § West Rivertown, Antioch, CA

South County Housing, Santa Clara County has the following: § Depot Commons, Morgan Hill, CA co-housing project with FCCH unit § Vista Verde, Santa Cruz County, CA § Los Arroyos, CA, 57-acre mixed income community (developer will reserve a site for

a child care center) Individual projects: § Chinatown Service Center Child Development Center, Los Angeles, CA by

Chinatown Service Center § Dimock Community Health Center, Boston, MA by Fenway Community

Development Corporation § Downtown Watsonville, CA. § Santa Familia, San Jose, CA by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. § Nueva Vista in Beach Flats, Santa Cruz, CA by Mercy Housing § Rich Sorro Commons, San Francisco, CA by Mission Housing Development

Corporation § Santa Inez Affordable Housing, City of San Mateo, CA by Willows Partners § Sycamore Commons, Santa Cruz, CA by Mercy Housing § Villa Esperanza, Los Angeles, CA by Esperanza Community Housing Corporation § Willow Springs Condominiums, unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA § Women’s Community Revitalization Project, Philadelphia, PA

Market Rate Projects § Delta Ridge/Delta Point, Sacramento, CA by Pacific Scene, Inc. § White Lane Apartments, Bakersfield, CA, by Reality Manager Services § Woodward Lake, Fresno, CA by Grupe Development Co.

Other Types of Projects § Children’s Creative Learning Center, Palo Alto, CA by City, Palo Alto Medical

Foundation, and Children’s Creative Learning Center (not part of housing development directly but part of the South of Forest Area Plan)

Download - Final Report - co.sanmateo.ca.us · Final Report: Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study June 10, 2003 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY San Mateo County Office of Housing and the San Mateo

Top Related