BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2954
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2954 (Simitian)
As Amended June 25, 2002
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |46-29|(May 30, 2002) |SENATE: |23-13|(August 30, |
| | | | | |2002) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-29|(August 31, | | | |
| | |2002) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Requires cities and counties to address the
distribution of child care facilities, not including family day
care homes, within the land use element of any general plan
adopted or revised after January 1, 2003.
The Senate amendments require the land use element of a city or
county's general plan adopted or amended on or after January 1,
2004, to address the distribution of child care facilities.
EXISTING LAW requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt a
general plan for the physical development of their communities
that is to include, among other mandatory elements, a land use
element that designates proposed general distribution, location,
and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business,
industry, open space, education, public buildings, waste
disposal facilities, and other categories.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required cities and
counties to address the distribution of child care facilities,
not including family day care homes, within the land use element
of any general plan adopted or revised after January 1, 2003.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 2954
Page 2
COMMENTS : According to the 2001 California Child Care
Portfolio, 55% of California's children up to the age of 13 live
with either two working parents or a working single head of
household. Only one slot at a licensed child care facility or
family child care home exists for every 4.6 of these children.
Only 5% of these slots are for infants. Even if a slot is
available,
the cost of the child care is steep and, in some cases,
prohibitive. In every county in California, the cost of putting
an infant or preschooler in full-time care exceeds the fair
market rent of a
two-bedroom apartment.
According to an assessment performed by the San Mateo County
Child Care Coordinating Council in 2000, only 25% of children in
that county who need child care are in licensed facilities. As
a result of the shortage of spaces in licensed facilities, child
care costs in that county have risen five times faster than
household income over the past seven years. When one considers
that this is occurring in one of the counties that benefited
most from the explosion of the high-tech economy over that
period, that imbalance between income and child care costs is
particularly striking.
The California Department of Education's Child Development
Division established the Building Child Care Collaborative (BCC)
in order to help child care providers "bridge the gap between
available public and private sector financing for child care
facilities." BCC issued a report to the Legislature in January
of 2002 entitled "Child Care Facility Development and Financing:
Barriers and Recommendations." In its report, BCC found that
child care is very often not a part of land use planning at the
local level, at least not at the general plan level. A lack of
explicit planning for child care at the general plan level means
that attempts to obtain permission to
create facilities on a project-by-project basis can be derailed
by appeals to zoning or the lack of specific designations of
child care in the general plan, appeals which often conceal Not
in My Back Yard (NIMBY) motivations.
BCC's report's Recommendation 1, Part B calls for the creation
of a separate child care element in state general plan law.
AB 2954
Page 3
According to BCC, creation of such an element would, "send a
signal that child care is a vital part of community
infrastructure, create a forum for communities to consider their
child care needs, and identify a strategy for meeting them on a
consistent basis to ensure that land use decisions are
consistent with the goal of increasing the child care supply."
This bill does not create an entirely new mandatory element for
cities and counties to incorporate into any adoption or revision
of their general plans. Rather, it calls on cities and counties
to consider and incorporate the distribution of child care
facilities within the current mandatory land use element. Doing
so will allow child care to be considered on a par with housing,
business, industry, open space, education, public buildings,
waste disposal facilities, and other categories at an early
enough stage of land use planning to allow for sensible, planned
growth of this necessary resource, with full public input in the
process. It is hard to see how child care can be considered to
be a less important element of land use planning than business
or industry, given the vital role child care plays in the
continued growth and strength of these sectors.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill would require that any general plan land use
element adopted or amended after January 1, 2004,
address the distribution of childcare facilities in
the land use element.
I certainly recognize the importance of childcare
facilities and I commend the author for his leadership
on this issue. Indeed, I encourage local communities
to address the distribution of childcare facilities in
their general plan land use element. However, I am
obligated to evaluate this bill within the overall
context of its effect on the General Fund during these
uncertain fiscal times. As written, AB 2954 is a
reimbursable mandate. As all 535 general plans are
amended over time, the cost to the state would reach
$100 million at a time when the state is facing very
difficult financial pressures.
AB 2954
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : J. Stacey Sullivan / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0008139