BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: AB 2954 HEARING: 6/19/02
AUTHOR: Simitian FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 5/23/02 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
GENERAL PLANS AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Background and Existing Law
Every city and county must adopt a general plan that
contains seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. The
land use element must designate the location of public and
private land uses, including population density and
building intensity. State law says the general plan's
degree of specificity and level of detail must reflect
local conditions and circumstances. Depending on the
community's location, its general plan must also contain
special topics such as coastal resources, airport land use,
or seismic safety. Local officials can also adopt optional
elements for topics that are important to their
communities.
All key land use decisions --- zoning, subdivisions, public
works, use permits --- must be consistent with the local
general plan. State law also requires cities and counties
to treat family day care homes and other licensed care
facilities as if they were single-family residences. Local
officials can't put conditions on care facilities that they
don't also put on single-family residences.
A 1999 survey by the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) identified one county and seven cities with
optional child care elements in their general plans: San
Joaquin County, Chula Vista, Huron, Petaluma, Santa Rosa,
Susanville, Walnut Creek, and West Sacramento.
A January 2002 report by the State Department of
Education's Building Child Care Collaborative found that
child care is "often woven into other [general plan]
elements on community facilities, transportation, or maybe
even housing if it is addressed at all." The report to the
Legislature recommended exploring the creation of a child
care element in local general plans.
AB 2954 -- 5/23/02 -- Page 2
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2954 requires the land use portion of a
general plan to address the distribution of child care
facilities, except for family day care homes, upon the
adoption or revision of a local general plan after January
1, 2003. AB 2954 contains legislative findings regarding
licensed child care facilities.
Comments
1. For the kids' sake . Balanced communities are strong
communities. But many two-income families must endure long
commutes that take them away from their children. Economic
and demographic forces make affordable child care a
necessity. Many California families want and need safe,
decent child care facilities for their kids. The best way
to implement a long-range vision for child care facilities
is to expand the scope of local general plans. But most
general plans focus on the physical aspects of conservation
and development, not on social problems or programs. By
requiring cities and counties to include child care
facilities in their general plans, AB 2954 contributes to
stronger communities.
2. Does the shoe fit ? Current law requires a city or
county to plan for a topic in its general plans only to the
extent that the issue is a problem, challenge, or
opportunity in that community. The "shoe fits doctrine of
local planning" keeps a densely-built urban city from
having to spend much time drafting an open space element,
just as a small rural town need not waste a lot of effort
on a complicated noise element. The Committee may wish to
consider whether the land use elements of 58 counties and
477 cities need to discuss child care facilities. While
they may be an important need to urban and suburban
communities, should the Legislature mandate this change on
rural counties and small towns?
3. Mandatory or advisory ? AB 2954 adds a new topic to the
contents required in general plans' land use elements,
creating a new state mandated local program. Another
approach would be to ask OPR to prepare a set of advisory
guidelines to help cities and counties include child care
topics --- including facilities --- in their general plans.
AB 2954 -- 5/23/02 -- Page 3
That advice might suggest other planning formats,
including inserting those concerns in more elements than
just the land use element, adopting specific plans, or even
preparing separate elements. That's the approach used in
AB 1553 (Keeley, 2001) for environmental justice matters.
It's also the approach in SB 1468 (Knight, 2002) which
passed the Committee and AB 2175 (Dauscher, 2002) which the
Committee will also hear on June 19.
4. Two technical amendments . The Committee should adopt
two technical amendments to AB 2954: (a) the bill should
refer to a general plan amendment not a revision (page 3,
line 10), and (b) the bill should refer to a general plan's
land use element and not the land use portion (page 3, line
11).
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 7-3
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 17-7
Assembly Floor: 46-29
Support and Opposition (6/13/)
Support : American Planning Association-California Chapter,
California Child Development Administrators Association,
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network,
California Children & Families Commission, California
Church Impact, California State Association of Counties,
Child Care Law Center, Child Care Planning Council, Child
Development Policy Advisory Committee, Choices for
Children, Cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Redwood City;
Counties of Alameda, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara; League
of Women Voters-Los Altos/Mountain View Area, Peninsula
Partnership for Children, Youth, and Families, Redwood
City-San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County
Child Care Partnership Council, Santa Barbara County Kids
Network, Sonoma County Child Care Planning Council,
Opposition : Unknown.