Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study

June 1, 2003

279 Vernon Street # 8| Oakland, California 94610| tel/fax 510.451.4168| joanne@brionassociates.com
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
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 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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 projectby-
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
June 10, 2003
vi
Policy/Program
Type of Poliy and
Implementation
Authority
Concept
Strengths/Weaknesses
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/entitlement
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
June 10, 2003
vii
Policy/Program
Type of Poliy and
Implementation
Authority
Concept
Strengths/Weaknesses
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 nonprofits,
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
June 10, 2003
viii
Policy/Program
Type of Poliy and
Implementation
Authority
Concept
Strengths/Weaknesses
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
June 10, 2003
ix
Policy/Program
Type of Poliy and
Implementation
Authority
Concept
Strengths/Weaknesses
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
June 10, 2003
x
Policy/Program
Type of Poliy and
Implementation
Authority
Concept
Strengths/Weaknesses
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 coownership
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.d...
_00intro.html provides a copy of the report and indicators.
J
J
J
0 5 10 1
MILES
1
101
280
101
280
1
1
84
92
92
380
35
35
84
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East
Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo
Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola
Valley
Redwood
City
San Bruno
San Carlos
S.F. Airport
San Mateo
South
San Francisco
Woodside
Montara
The
Baylands Northeast
Ridge
East
of 101
Navy
Site
Bair Island/
Glenborough
Pacific
Shores
University
Ave
La Honda
Figure 1 -- San Mateo County Development and Land Uses
Smart Growth Strategy/
Regional Livability Footprint Project
September 2001
Corridor
Rail Station/Major Transfer Facility Area
Protected Open Space
Important Farmland/Wetland
Significant 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 people
with household income
below 80 % of county
median
=
EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
ELCAMINO
REAL
MISSION ST
GENEVA AVE
BAYSHOREBLVD
EGRANDAVE
WESTBOROUGH
SNEATH
LN
SKYLINE
BKVD
RALSTONAVE
WOODSIDE
RD
SANDHILLRD
89
5
6
3
7
4
11
17
25
26
32
34
38
52
53
39
42
40
48
43
44
56
57
61
58
60
89
69
78
76
75
92
81
82
153
84
73
91
99
98
102
121
122
154
120
119
107
124
155
116
134
125
131
135
157
137
139
156
127
129
128
136
142
140
111
158
148
151
152
2
14
19
1
16
18
24
21
20
13
12
10
31
36
37
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
123
117
105
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
46
45
145
29
30
72
74
100
101
109
108
103
104
96
146
144
DYET T & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners
September 2001
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 jobshousing
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
7. Financial Assistance and Cost Offsets
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
15. Child Care Facilities and CEQA Checklist
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 offsite,
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.)
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 lowincome
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 nonresidential
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,
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 twobedroom
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 lowincome
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
15. Child Care Facilities and CEQA Checklist
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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, tra nsit-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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 courtordered
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 neighborhoodserving
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 nonproject
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 nonprofit
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
7. Financial
Assistance and
Cost Offsets
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)
Yes, provides key support for
other policies
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)
Yes, provides key support for
other policies
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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 inlieu
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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).
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.d...
ctdocument=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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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.
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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-1
Current Child Care-2003
Supply & Demand and Gap
San 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 to 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:
>>>>>>
Children Needing Care (1) School Age
2000 US Census Population Data by City or Area
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-1
Current Child Care-2003
Supply & Demand and Gap
San Mateo County
Area
Incorporated Cities/Towns
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
Total Cities
Unincorporated Areas
Broadmoor CDP
El Granada
Emerald Lake CDP
Highland-Baywood Park CDP
Montara
Moss Beach
North FairOaks CDP
West Menlo Park CDP
Other Unincorporated Areas
(incl. LaHonda/Pescadero)
Total Unincorp. Areas
Total San Mateo County
Percent 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 Total
Infants 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 Served Child Care Supply (2) Child Care Gap
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-2
Projected Households in San Mateo County by City: 2000 to 2025
San Mateo County Housing and Childcare Linkage Study
City/Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 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
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-3
Building Permits (1)
by City: 1993 to 2002
San Mateo County
City/Area
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
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
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-3
Building Permits (1)
by City: 1993 to 2002
San Mateo County
City/Area
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
Unincorporated
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 2002 Year 1998 Year 1999 Year 2000
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-4
Future Child Care Need
Year 2004 to 2025
San Mateo County
Area
Incorporated Cities/Towns
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
Total Cities
Total Unincorp. Areas (1)
Total San Mateo County
Percent 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 yrs
Total, 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)
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Table A-4
Future Child Care Need
Year 2004 to 2025
San Mateo County
Area
Incorporated Cities/Towns
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
Total Cities
Total Unincorp. Areas (1)
Total San Mateo County
Percent Distributions
LFPR for
LFPR for
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
6/9/2003 appendixATables6-9-03.xls
Final Report:
Child Care and Housing Linkage Research Study
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)


#

tags