BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2954|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2954
Author: Simitian (D), et al
Amended: 6/25/02 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 4-2, 6/19/02
AYES: Torlakson, Machado, Perata, Soto
NOES: Ackerman, Margett
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-4, 8/28/02
AYES: Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Murray,
Perata, Speier
NOES: Battin, Johannessen, McPherson, Poochigian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-29, 5/30/02 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : General plans and child care facilities
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires, upon the adoption or
amendment of a city or countys general plan, on or after
January 1, 2004, the land use element of the general plan
to address the distribution of certain child care
facilities.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
AB 2954
Page
2
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.
This bill requires, upon the adoption, or amendment, of a
city or county's general plan, on or after January 1, 2004,
the land use element of the general plan must address the
distribution of child care facilities, except family day
care homes.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
AB 2954
Page
3
Major Provisions 2002-03 2003-04
2004-05 Fund
General plans Unknown, potentially reimbursable
costs, General
potentially in excess of
$150
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/2/02) (unable to re-verify at time
of writing)
American Planning Association-California Chapter
California Child Development Administrators Association
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
California Children and 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
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to Senate Local
Government Committee, 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, this bill contributes to
stronger communities.
AB 2954
Page
4
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Cardenas, Cardoza, Chan,
Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Havice, Hertzberg,
Horton, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Koretz, Liu, Longville,
Lowenthal, Matthews, Migden, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Pavley, Reyes, Salinas, Shelley,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas,
Washington, Wayne, Wiggins, Wesson
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs, John
Campbell, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Dickerson, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Kelley, La Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie,
Maddox, Maldonado, Mountjoy, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco,
Pescetti, Richman, Runner, Strickland, Wyland, Wyman,
Zettel
LB:sl 8/29/02 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****