HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03171987 - I.O.1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM a� ' ? Special Committee on Contra
Child Care Issues
Costa
DATE: March 9, 1987 County
SUBJECT: Ordinance Providing for Mitigation of Child Care Needs ' "Y
in Residential and Commercial Developments
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECO MENDATION(_S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Direct the Director of Community Development and County
Counsel to incorporate as many of the comments received on
the draft ordinance as are appropriate before taking the
Ordinance to the Planning Commission.
2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
Our Committee provided the attached informational report to the
Board on February 10, indicating that we were circulating a draft
ordinance for comments by all interested parties, and that we
would consider those comments at our meeting on March 9, 1987 .
On March 9, our Committee received the attached report from the
Director of Community Development. This report includes the
draft ordinance which was circulated to a variety of
organizations, comments from County Counsel, comments from the
Contra Costa Centre and the Contra Costa Children' s Council. At
our meeting we also received verbal comments on behalf of the
Children' s Council and the Contra Costa Council. These comments
generally requested clarification or expansion of some of the
definitions, or suggested the need for as flexible a program as
possible in order to respond to a variety • of situations. We
concur in general with these comments and have asked the
Community Development Department to incorporate as many of these
comments as is possible and appropriate. The revised ordinance
will then be taken to the Planning Commission for hearings and
consideration by the Commission, following which it will be
referred to the Board of Supervisors.
Our Committee believes that we have, with the assistance of all
parties who have been involved, fashioned a unique and
progressive approach to meeting the child care needs which will
be created by future residential and commercial development in
the unincorporated areas of the County. We believe the emphasis
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X AP OVE OTHER
SIGNATURE s cy C. Fanden SZ '�l. McPeak
ACTION OF BOARD ON arc APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I V AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED March 17 , 1987
Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Children 's Council (Joan Kelle.v)
Contra Costa Centre Assoc. (Maridelle Moulton)
M382/7Cj� l ra Costa Council (Linda Best) er ,DEPunr
(T
•
i
Page 2
on meeting the actual child care needs in preference to simply
paying a fee will prove to be more fair to the developer and
provide a much more acceptable and creative solution to the
future child care needs in the County.
The Board need not address the details of the ordinance at this
time since it still requires hearings and approval by the
Planning Commission. However, we do solicit the support of the
Board in incorporating the comments attached to Mr. Bragdon' s
report. We believe our Committee has completed its task in this
regard, and we thank the Board for the opportunity to have worked
on this most vital project. We would also like to thank the
Children' s Council, Contra Costa Council, Contra Costa Centre
Association, and the members of the Child Care Task Force for
their support' and hard work in producing this draft ordinance.
1'
l
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 9, 1987
TO: Child Care Committee
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Child Care Ordinance
County Counsel 's Office has commented on the draft Child Care Ordinance with
some questions which should be resolved prior to a final draft (attached) . The
ordinance has also been provided in a coded format.
Subsequent to the last Committee meeting of February 9, 1987, copies of the
proposed ordinance was sent to:
The Child Care Task Force Steering Committee
The Contra Costa Children's Council
The Contra Costa Council
The Contra Costa Centre Association, Inc.
Taylor Associates
The Child Care Alliance
Written comment has been received from the Contra Costa Children's Council
(attached) , most of which it appears can be incorporated into the proposed
ordinance, related to:
1. Administration - Section III (pg. 1) .
2. Definitions - Section V. A. (pg. 1) .
3. Permitted Uses - Section VI (pg. 2) .
4. Residential Requirements - Section VII . C. (pg. 3) .
5. Exceptions - Section XII . C. (pg. 6) .
The Children's Council has also indicated by letter of February 27, 1987
(attached) that they will submit a proposal to serve as the chi'.d care
coordinating body as outlined in the Board Order of February 24,1987.
BT/aa
LTRIX/Child.BT
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Date: March 2, 1987 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
87HAR
To: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Developmeg Ply
Attn: Byron Turner
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Silvano B. Marchesi, Asst County Counsel /J
N
Re: Child Care Facilities Ordinance
As requested, we have reviewed the draft ordinance providing
for child care facilities in connection with development
projects. Attached is a copy of the draft, placed in ordinance
format. We have made some modifications, but have
attempted to make as few changes as possible, retaining the
meaning of the submitted draft. We offer the following comments
for your consideration.
1. § 82-22.406 . The phrase. "which conforms to development
approvals" is unclear. What is meant?
2. § 82-22. 602. This provision seems inconsistent with the
provisions of Ord. No. 86-43 (copy attached) , adopted 3 June
1986. This section would seem to allow a large child care
facility in any district, even upon application for a simple lot
split, and despite requirements elsewhere for a land use permit
for a large child care facility. Is it the intent of this
ordinance to eliminate all regulation of child care facilities?
If so, other Ordinance Code provisions should be repealed. If
not, this section should be reworded for clarification.
We note also that under this section a child care facility
may not be permitted in certain industrial zones, inasmuch as a
developer in one of those districts may not require any land use
entitlement..
3 . § 82-22.814. It is not clear as to when the needs have
not been established or satisfied, i.e. , before or after project
approval. The same issue pertains to the requirement for a
contract,
4. § 82-22.1006. The second sentence has been copied from
§ 82-22.806. Is it appropriate in this section? Also, the last
sentence is different from the provision in § 82-22. 814. Should
it be the same?
5 . § 82-22 . 1202. This section provides for a $600-per-lot
fee "when fees are to be paid in lieu of providing a child care
facility . . . . " Where is an in-lieu fee authorized for
Harvey E. Bradgon March 2, 1987
Attn: Byron Turner
residential projects in article 82-22.8? If it is intended that
the developer of a residential development may have an option to
pay fees in lieu of providing a facility, that intent should be
spelled out in article 82-22. 8. For example, moving the second
sentence of this section to that article may be appropriate.
6. § 82-22. 1204. The first sentence presents a problem.
The project value, and a percentage of it, cannot be determined
until an application for a building permit is submitted. ( § 82-
22 . 408) On the other hand, the fee must be paid before the final
map, LUP, etc. is approved (§ 82-22. 1206 ) , which occurs earlier.
It may be better to require payment of the fee at issuance of the
building permit.
7. § 82-22. 1206. Depending on the anticipated use of these
fees, this provision may conflict with Gov. C. § 53077 . 5 ( the
"Leonard Bill" ) , which prohibits the County from collecting
certain fees before the final building inspection, with certain
exceptions. The fees which are covered by that section are those
which are used to fund "the construction of public improvements
or facilities. "
This section is unclear whether (a) the proposed child care
facilities are to be public or private, and (b) the fees are to
be used for construction only or also for operation and
maintenance. These issues should be clarified.
8. § 82-22. 1402. In subdivision ( 1 ) , do you intend that
this exemption would not apply to a project where its needs are
no greater than those of a prior project on an adjacent site?
In subdivision ( 2) , is the meaning of "rehabilitation"
clear?
In subdivision ( 3 ) , the clause after the comma was copied
from subdivision ( 2) . Is that intended? Also, is there a
difference between "rehabilitation" and "reconstruction"?
In subdivision ( 4) , the same problem arises as in Paragraph
6, above.
We are available to discuss the draft ordinance and the
points raised above, if you wish. We note that the ordinance is
scheduled to be heard by the Board' s special committee next
Monday, 9 March 1987 .
2
ORDINANCE NO . 87-
(Child Care Facilities)
The Contra Costa County board of Supervisors ordains .as follows
(omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of
the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code) :
SECTION I : SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 82-22 to the
County Ordinance Code to require the establishment of child care
facilities in connection with residential and- non-residential
developments .
SECTION II : Chapter 82-22 is added to the County Ordinance Code
to read :
CHAPTER 82-22
CHILD CAFE FACILITIES
Article 82-22 .2
General
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
1
1 1
82-22 .202 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to
implement the Child Care component of the Community Facilities
Element of the County -General Flan .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .204 Administration . The community development
department shall coordinate child care needs , provide information
concerning child care , assist in the preparation of child care
programs , assign the use of child care funds , and otherwise
administer the provisions of this chapter .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .206 Requlations . The Board of Supervisors may issue
regulations for the administration of this chapter , including
procedures and policies .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
Article 82-22 .4
Definitions
82-22 .402 General.. Unless otherwise specifically provided ,
the following definitions shall govern the interpretation of this
chapter .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
ORDINANCE NO. 87-_
2
82-22 .404 "Child care facility ." "Child care facility"
means a child care facility as defined in Health and Safety Code
Section 1596 .750 , and which provides facilities , programs and
personnel licensed by the State for direct child care services ,
including but not limited to shelter , food , educational , and play
opportunities for less than 24 hours per day.
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .406 "Project . " "Project" means a proposal for the
development of land , requiring a land use entitlement , whether
residential or non-residential , or both , which conforms to
development approvals and county requirements . A project
includes but is not limited to the development of a lot or parcel
or larger acreage, conversion of an existing use to a different
use , and expansion of a use.
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .408 "Project value . " "Project value" means the total
value of the improvements for a project , as indicated on building
permit applications submitted in order to obtain building permits
for the project .
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
Article 82-22 .6
i
ORDINANCE NO. 87-_
3
7-
3
Permitted Use
82-22 .602 Permitted use. A child care facility provided as
a part of a project shall be a permitted in all land use
districts .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
Article 82-22 .8
Residential Projects
82-22 .802 Residential requirements . The following
requirements shall be applicable to all residential projects .
(Ord . 87 § 2 .)
82-22 .804 Pre-application conference. Before filing an
application , the applicant or developer of a residential project
shall confer with the community development department concerning
child care needs and programs.
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
82-22 .806 Child care survey . An- application shall include
a survey or assessment of the estimated child care needs for the
project . together with a response program showing how those needs
1
ORDINANCE NO . 87-
4
are to be satisfied . The response program shall include
information on the location and capacity of proposed child care
facilities and how they are to be established , maintained and
operated . If the response program recommends that child care
facilities be provided by others not part of the project , the
developer shall provide sufficient information indicating how the
child care needs of the project will be met .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .808 Integration with other facilities . To the extent
possible , child care facilities shall be integrated with other
facilities , such as private recreational or common area
facilities , parks, public or private schools, churches , and
community facilities .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .810 Deed notification . The developer shall provide
deed notification to all purchasers that a child care facility
may be located at any residential unit or lot or in any common
area or facility within the project , as determined by the zoning
administrator .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .812 Restrictive covenants . The developer shall
provide in the covenants , conditions and restrictions , if any , or
in similar documents , that a child care facility may be located..
ORDINANCE NO . 87-_
5
at any residential unit or lot or in any common area or facility
within the project , as determined by the zoning administrator .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .811 Consultant 's report . If the director of
community development determines that child care needs have not
been adequately established or that child care needs are not
being satisfied for a project , the applicant or developer may be
required to enter into a contract with the county providing for
the preparation of a report by a consultant selected by the
community development department but paid for by the developer ,
to evaluate and assist in determining child care needs and
programs for the project .
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
Article 82-22 . 10
Non-residential Projects
82-22 .1002 Non-residential requirements . The following
requirements shall be applicable to all non-residential projects .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 . 1001 Facility or fee required . The developer of a
non-residential project having 100 or more potential employees or
i
ORDINANCE NO . 87-
6 r
having a floor area of 15 ,000 gross square feet or more shall
provide a child care facility approved by the planning agency
approving the project , on- or off-site as part of the project , or
shall pay fees in lieu of providing such a facility , in
accordance with the provisions of article 82-22 .12 .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 .1006 Child care survey . If a child care facility is
proposed for a non-residential project , the application shall
include a survey or assessment of the estimated child care needs
for the project , together with a response program showing how
those needs are to be satisfied . If the response program
recommends that child care facilities be provided by others not
part of the project , sufficient information shall be provided
indicating how the child care needs of the project will be met .
Before project approval , the developer shall enter into a
contract with the county for the preparation of a report by a
consultant selected by the community development department but
paid for by the developer , to evaluate whether the developer 's
program meet the child care needs for the project .
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
82-22 . 1008 Small projects . The developer of a project
with fewer than 100 employees or floor area of fewer than 15 ,000
gross square feet shall pay fees in lieu of providing a child
care facility , in accordance with the provisions of article 82
r
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
7
22 . 12 .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
Article 82-22 . 12
In-Lieu Fees
82-22 . 1202 Residential project fee . Except as otherwise
provided in this chapter , when fees are to be paid in lieu of
providing a child care facility , such fees shall be six hundred
dollars per residential lot or dwelling unit . A combination of
fee payment and child care facilities may be allowed by the
planning agency approving the development .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 . 1204 Non-residential fees. Except as otherwise
provided in this chapter , when fees are to be paid in lieu of
providing a child care facility, such fees shall be equal to one-
half of one percent ( .5%) of the project value. A combination of
fee payment and child care facilities may be allowed by the
planning agency approving the development .
(Ord . 87- § 2 . )
82-22 . 1206 Payment , retention and expenditure of fees .
When a fee is required , it shall be paid to the county prior to
ORDINANCE NO . 87-_
8
approval of the final map , parcel map , other land use
entitlement , or issuance of a building permit , whichever occurs
first , and shall be held until expended to mitigate the child
care needs of the qeneral area of the project .
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
82-22 . 1208 Refunds . If the director of community
development determines that a final subdivision map , parcel map ,
development plan , building permit or other entitlement has been
voided , vacated or has expired , and that the county still retains
the fees , and if the developer so requests , the County shall
refund the fees to the developer or his designee .
(Ord . 87- § ,2 .)
Article 82-22 . 14
Exemptions
82-22 .1402 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter do
not apply to the following :
(1 ) Any project , as determined by the director of community
development , which will not have any child care impact , or whose
child care needs are no greater than the needs of a previously
approved project on the same site, or for which the required fee
had been paid in connection with the prior project .
ORDINANCE NO . 87
9
(2) The remodeling or rehabilitation of a residential or
non-residential building , provided there is no intensification of
the use or enlargement of the building .
(3) The repair or reconstruction of a building resulting
from damage by fire or other natural disaster , provided there is
no intensification of the use or enlargement of the buildinq .
(4) A project having a project value of $40 .000 or less , as
indicated on a building permit application .
(5) Any modification or remodel of an er_':isting , legally-
established dwelling unit that does not create an additional
dwelling unit , or the temporary occupancy of a mobilehome not
situated in a mobilehome park .
(Ord . 87- § 2 .)
SECTION III . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 60
days after passage,. and within 15 days of passage shall be
published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and
against it in the , a
newspaper published in this County .
ORDINANCE NO . 87-
10
PASSED ON by the following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR , Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Deputy Board Chair
(SEAL]
SEAM
(3 -z-?7)
ORDINANCE NO. 87-_
11
CONTRA COSTA
CHILDREN'S COUNCIL
CID
❑ ADMINISTRATION
3020 Grant St. :Z-
Concord,
Concord,CA 94520 March 6 , 1987
(415)676.5442
❑ WEST BRANCH 1.0
3727 Barrett Avenue
Richmond,CA 94805 a
(415)233-KIDS –
❑ CENTRAL BRANCH Byron Turner
3020 Grant St. Senior Planner
Concord,CA 94520
(415)676-KIDS Community Development Department
❑ EAST BRANCH 651 Pine Street, 4t�` Floor
�
2075-A Railroad Avenue
Pittsburg,CA 94565 Martinez , CA 94553-0095
(415)427-KIDS
❑ SOUTH BRANCH
2420 Camino Ramon#135 Dear Mr. Turner:
San Ramon,CA 94583
(415)830.0508
. Enclosed please find comments and recommendations
from Contra Costa Children ' s Council relative to
the proposal for a child care ordinance to
require child care facilities development and
possible fees; in lieu of facilities .
A representative cf our agency will be in
attendance at the March 9th meetinc when this matter
will be discussed.
Sincerely,
Jo'ar. Kelley
Executive Direc or
JK:kdm
/'. enclosure
j
87 MAR -9 AM I P 48
3/9/87 For Issue/Release
RESPONSE/COMMENTS to Proposed County Ordinance Addressing Child
Care as Part of the Development Process
First, Contra Costa Children' s Council would lil::e to go on
record as applauding the County Board of Supervisors, the
Planning Commission and staff for their diligence in the
incorporation of Child Care into the County' s General .Plan. The
proposed ordinance to implement the Child Care Component of the
community facilities e.l ement of the General Plan will signal
another significant step towards formal recognition of children
as one of the most precious and vital elements of -this county' s
infrastructure.
In regard to the discussion draft of the proposed ordinance,
Children" s Council has the following coinrnent (s) /recommendations:
#1--Section III Administration could be clarified by the
following statement:
(Proposed change) : The Community Development Department is
designated as the County Agency responsible to ensure the
coordination of child care needs assessments, the provision of
information concerning child care, and to assist. in the
preparation of child care programs (where appropriate) as well
as to assign the use of any child care funds generated by this
ordinance to provide for the establishment of child care
facilities.
This statement is proposed as a substitution for the statement
in the draft ordinance.
# -- Section V Definitions under sub section "A" should be
e::panded with the addition of the following statement:
The use of the term "Child Care Facility" shall apply to the
three basic designations covered under the California Health &
Safety Section Code 1596. 750 which are:
a) Small family day care homes --meaning those facilities
licensed for the care of up to six (6) children.
b) Large family day care homes--meaning those facilities
licensed for the care of '7-12 children.
c) Centers--meaning facilities licensed for the care of more
than 12 children.
#=-- Section VI . Permitted use: should add the following phrase
at the end of the sentence:
" consistent with the General Plan, and as determined by
State Law (S.S. 163) . "
#4-- Section VII. Residential Requirements, sub-section C speaks )
to the child care needs assessment and development of a response
plan. In addition to the statement which encouragers integration
with other community programs and facilities ( ie, public or
87 MAR -9 AM 11: 48
private school sq private recreational faciIi.ties, etc. ) ,
Children' s Council would also urge the consideration of
programs that encourage support of existing resources that may
be under-utilized as a program option. For example, many
sections of the county have family day care providers and
center-based providers who are seeking more clients. A child
care response plan program option Could and should irlClude
support -training, mark:eting or other capacity building services
to assist these child care providers and enable new child care
Clients to have the option to utilize the available child care
services in an impacted area.
#5--Child care facilities development--Most of the family day
care (Home based child cure services) providers will be covered
by -the exemption "XII-C. " in the proposed ordinance when they
wish to ma4::e structual changes for the purpose of e::panding or
upgrading their facilities (i . e. cost will be less than
$40, C)�)0. C)0) . However, centers (new or existing) would qualify
as "developers" and would therefore be covered by this ordinance
and proposed fee structure. Therefore it is recommended that
this section be expanded (or another created) to address the
ordinance provisions/fee structure in relationship to these
child care providers. It obviously would defeat the purpose of
the ordinance to apply the same regulations to this group.
It is our suggestion that lower fees or no fees be assessed for
this "developer" group., relative to the child care ordinance.
The total process (for any other related fees to develop the
project should take into account the child care impact of that
type of development also) .
The Contra Costa Children' s Council would be happy to meet and
confer- with Community Development Staff in -the development of
the proposed additions to -the ordinance in terms of #5.
I
CONTRA COSTA ECEI '
CHILDREN'S COUNCIL -y-�
' FEB 2 7 IV
APH:t BATCP'
'a .E BOARD f
C 1' -. .
ADMINISTRATION. y'
3020 Grant St. February27 , 1987
Concord.CA 94520
(415)676-5442 �%
❑ WEST BRANCH
3727 Barrett Avenue
Richmond.CA 94805 /
(4151233-KIDS Board of Supervisors - Y
❑ CENTRAL BRANCH
3020 Grant St Contra Costa County
ConcoJ415)676-KIDS
520 651 Pine Street
(4151 676•KIDS
❑ EAST BRANCH Martinez, CA 94553
2075-A Railroad Avenue
Pittsburg CA 94565
(415)427-KIDS Dear Board Members:
❑ SOUTH BRANCH
2420 Camino Ramon*135
San Ramon,CA 94583 The purpose of this correspondence is to respond
(415)830.0508 to your invitation to submit a proposal to serve
as the Child Care Coordinating Body as conceptualized
in the Child Care Task Force Report (presented to the
Board in December, 1985) approved by the Board.
I have been directed by Contra Costa Children' s
Council Board of Directors to inform you that our
Agency does have an intent to submit a proposal to
serve as the Child Care coordinating Body for the
child chare coordinating and brokerage functions as
requested and outlined in your Board Crder of
February 24 , 1987. This proposal will be developed
and submitted for your review by March 15 , 1987.
The Board also wishes to thank you for this
invitation and .the opportunity to continue in our
mutual efforts to improve the quality of life and
services delivery for children and families through-
out Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
Joan Ke
Executive Dir r
JK:kdm
TO:' :BOARD OF SUPERVISORS +
FROM: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak Contra
Costa
DATE: Introduced February 10, 1987 for Action on County
February 24 , 1987
SUBJECT: Child Care Coordinating Body and Broker for Land Use Planning
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Invite the Contra Costa Children' s Council to submit a
proposal to servlte as the Child Care Coordinating Body as
outlined in the Child Care Task Force Report and approved by
the Board of Supervisors. Request the Contra Costa
1
Children' s Council to indicate by March , 1987 if they will
be submitting a proposal and require such a proposal to be
submitted by March 15, 1987 . If the Children' s Council
declines to submit a proposal, authorize the Special
Committee of Supervisors Fanden and McPeak to develop an
alternative approach including establishing an open RFP
process.
Request the County Administrator' s Office and Community
Development Department to develop a plan for establishing
and funding a child care coordinating/brokerage function to
assist in the efficient implementation of the new child care
land use and developer ordinance. Such a plan should
incorporate "start-up, seed" funding from foundations with
on-going financing from a dedicated portion of the Transient
Occupancy Tax from the approved hotels in the Contra Costa
Centre (at the Pleasant Hill BART Station) when they are
constructed. The function, when financed, could be
contracted out to the Child Care Coordinating Body.
BACKGROUND
The adoption of the child care land use ordinance requiring
developers to plan for an mitigate child care needs or pay
in-lieu fees requires the designation of the Child Care
Coordinating Body as outlined in the Child Care Task Force
Report adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Further, there
will be a need for funding for the child care
coordinating/brokerage function to assist in the efficient
implementation of the ordinance. The purpose of the child
care coordinating/brokerage function is to facilitate joint
efforts among worksite developers, homebuilders, child care
organization/providers and community resources. Designation
of the Child Care Coordinating Body is a necessary but not
sufficient step. The coordinating/brokerage function must
also be funded. Since the cost to the worksite developers
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Child Care Coordinating Body and
Broker for Land Use Planning
February 24, 1987 Page 2
and homebuilders should be invested directly in child care
facilities, to the extend possible the Child Care Task Force
saw the cost of coordination to be a general government
responsibility. The challenge is to find a new innovative
way of funding this effort since the current General fund is
unable to absorb more services.
The above recommendation would direct the- County
Administrator' s Office and Community Development Department
to prepare a plan ( including an initial budget based on
consultation with the Child Care Task Force and prospective
Coordinating Body) for financing the ongoing
coordination/brokerage function through:
A. Start-up, seed grants from private foundations for
perhaps two to three years) .
B. ongoing funding from Contra Costa County through
dedication of future Transient Occupancy Tax from
the hotels in Contra Costa Centre ( Pleasant Hill
BART Station) .
It may be possible for cities to contribute a modest amount
to the coordinating function in the transition away from
reliance on grant monies.
I
ORDINANCE NO.
(Child Care Facilities) .
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the
parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended
provisions of the County Ordinance Code:
Section I: Summary: This ordinance amends Title 8 of the Ordinance Code to
provide for the establishment of child care facilities.
Section II. General Provisions: The Ordinance is enacted to implement the
Child Care Component of the community facilities element of the General Plan.
Section III. Administration: The Community Development Department is desig-
nated to coordinate child care needs, provide information concerning child care,
assist in the preparation of child .care programs and assign the use of child
care funds.
Section IV. Regulations: The Board of Supervisors may issue regulations for
the administration of this Division including procedures, interpretation and
policy direction.
Section V. Definitions: Unless otherwise specifically provided, the following
definitions shall govern the interpretation of. this section:
A. Child Care Facility: "Child Care Facility" shall mean a child care
facility as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section
1596.750, providing for the location, facilities, program and
personnel licensed by the State for direct child care services,
1
including but not limited to providing shelter, food, educational/play
opportunities for less than 24 hours per day.
2.
B. Project: A proposal for the development of land, including residen-
tial and non-residential development, which conforms to development
approvals and requirements of County Ordinances, regardless of the
nature of the project. i .e. , development of a lot or parcel or larger
acreage, converting an existing use to a different use, expanding a
use, et cetera.
C. Project Value: The total value of the improvements for a project, as
indicated by building permit applications submitted to the Building
Inspection Department in order to obtain a building permit(s) for a
project.
Section VI. Permitted Use: Child care facilities and programs provided as a
part of a project, shall be a permitted use in all land use districts and will
be considered consistent with the general plan.
Section VII . Residential Requirements: The following shall be required for
residential projects:
A. Provision for deed notification that child care facilities may be
located at any residential unit or lot or in any common area or -
facility within the project, as determined by the County Zoning
Administrator.
r
3.
B. Provision in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) or
similar document, that child care facilities may be located at any
residential unit or lot or in any common area or facility within the
project, as determined by. the County Zoning Administrator
C. A survey or assessment for the estimated child care needs for a
project shall be submitted with an application for development to
determine the child care needs together with a response program
addressing those needs. The response program shall include informa-
tion as to the location and capacity of proposed child care facilities
and how they are to be established, maintained and operated. If the
response program recommends child care facilities are to be provided
by others, not part of the project, then sufficient information shall
be provided indicating the project needs will be met. Child care
facilities will be encouraged to be integrated with other facilities
such as private recreational facilities or common area, parks, public
or private schools, churches, community facilities, etc.
D. Prior to filing an application, the applicant or developer of a
residential project shall confer with the Community Development
Department concerning child care needs and programs.
.j
4.
E. If child care needs have not been adequately established and/or the
child care needs are not being satified for a project, the applicant
or developer may be required to enter into a contract with the County
for preparation of a report by a consultant selected by the County but
paid for by the developer, to evaluate and assist in determining child
care needs and programs for a project.
F. Fees in lieu of providing for child care facilities may be applied to
a project as determined by the approving body.
Section VIII . Non-Residential Requirements:
A. A non-residential project having 100 or more potential employees or
having floor area of 15,000 gross square or more, shall provide a
child care facilities on or off-site as part of the project or fees
shall be required in lieu of providing such facilities.
B. If child care facilities are proposed with an application for develop-
ment, it shall include a survey orassessment to verify the child care
needs of the project together with a program in response to show how
the child care needs are to be satisfied. The developer shall enter
into a contract with the County for the preparation of a report by a
consultant selected by the County but paid for by the developer, to
evaluate developer's programs and the child care needs for the
project.
5.
C.' Projects with less than 100 employees or floor area less than 15,000
square feet shall pay fees in lieu of providing for child care assess-
ment, program and facilities.
Section IX. Fees: Fees shall be required in lieu of providing for child care
facilities as follows:
A. Residential Project Fee: Except as may otherwise may be provided when
fees are to be paid in lieu of providing for child care facilities and
programs, such fees shall be $600 per residential lot or dwelling
unit. A combination of fee payment and child care facilities and/or
programs may be permissible as determined by the approving body.
B. Non-Residential Project Fee: Except as may otherwise be provided when
fees are to be paid in lieu of providing for child care facilities,
y
such fees shall be equal to one-half of one percent ( .5%) of the
project value. A combination of fee payment and child care facilities
and/or programs may be permissible as determined by the approving
body.
Section X. Trust: When a fee is required, it shall be paid to the County prior
to approval of the final map, parcel map, or building permit, whichever occurs
first, and is to be held in trust until expended to mitigate the child care
needs of the general area where the fees are received.
``I
6.
Section XI . Refunds: If a Final Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Development Plan,
Building Permit or other entitlement is voided, vacated or expires, and if the
County still retains the fees, and if the developer so requests, the Director of
the Community Development Department shall order return of fees.
Section XII . Exemptions: The provisions of this Division do not apply to:
A. Any project which will not have any child care impact, or is able to
demonstrate that the child care needs for the project are no greater
than the needs of a previously approved project on the same site, or
the prior project had paid the required fee.
B. The remodeling or rehabilitation of a residential or non-residential
building, provided there is no intensification of the use or enlarge-
ment of the building, or the repair or rebuilding of a building
resulting from damage by fire or other natural disaster.
C. A project having a total value of $40,000 or less as determined by a
building permit application.
D. Any modification or remodel of an existing legally established dwell
ing unit that does not create an additional dwelling unit, or the
temporary occupancy of a mobilehome not in a mobilehome park.
7.
Section XIII. Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in the a
newspaper of general circulation published in this County.
PASSED on 1987 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:.
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By:
Board Chair
BT/aa
12/29/86
2/4/87
LTRVIII/Child.BT
FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Persons per Residential Unit - 2.8
Children per residential unit - .8
Estimate Half are Child Care Children - .4
Area needed per child in child care facility - 50 sq. ft.
Value for residential unit - $60 sq. ft.
Half of facility requirement provided by commercial development
.4 x 50 sq. ft = 20 sq. . ft.
20 sq. ft. x $60 = $1,200 fee per unit
.4 x 50 sq. ft. = 20 sq. ft.
20 sq. ft. x $60=
2 $600 fee per unit
[March 9 , 1987
1 '
1
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa CO
c/o Harvey Bragdon, Community -4
Development Director
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez , CA 94553
D
Attention: Byron Turner s
Proposed Contra Costa County Child .�
Care Facilities Ordinance co
Honorable Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to set forth our
initial comments , concerns and suggested revisions to the
proposed Child Care Facilities Ordinance . Before the Ordinance
is put into final form, we would appreciate providing input to
your Committee regarding both the initial issues set forth in
this letter, and any subsequent issues that may arise during
this legislative process . Our initial concerns are set forth
below.
I . THE PRIVATE MARKET PLACE
We are concerned that new development will be asked to
subsidize existing or new child care facilities when such
programs have traditionally been provided by local
entrepreneurs who either make a livelihood, or supplement their
incomes by operating, or working for , such businesses . If new
development is creating a new child care need, we feel that
need will naturally create an opportunity for existing and new
child care facilities to come into that new market to meet that
new need .
Further , in meeting that need , the privately-owned
child care business not only creates an income for its owners ,
but also for those it employs . Many such businesses currently
offer alternative and varied employment approaches to older
persons who are seeking a supplemental income , to younger
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 2
persons who are looking for part-time work , and to the gamut of
persons and time schedules falling in between.
Further, many of these facilities are presently run
out of the homes of friends , neighbors , or churches ; a practice
which gives parents the peace of mind of knowing and being.
comfortable with the people who are caring for their children.
If the County plans to enter or effect the child care
facilities market, it may potentially be doing so in
competition with existing child care businesses, and may also
preclude new businesses which might have otherwise entered that
market to meet that new need . Further , if the County is
proposing to .have existing or new child care facilities
subsidized by new development funds, a false supply situation
(benefitting the subsidized private child care business at the
new development 's expense) will be created . Moreover, if new
development is asked to supply in-house facilities , it too may
compete with existing and potential .new privately run child
care facilities .
Finally, such an approach presumes both the lack of
capacity in existing child care facilities , and that the
employees generated by such new development would choose to
place their children in child care facilities near their
employment. However , our initial review reveals that there
presently exists available capacity in existing child care
• facilities, and that a majority of workers choose day care
centers near their homes and not their jobs . Further,
school-age children are generally placed in after-school child
care. facilities which are near their schools , and not
necessarily their parents ' jobs .
These observations are not meant as a general protest
against the concept of child care facilities , but rather to
bring to light some of the logical implications of this
particular proposed approach .
II . EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE .
We are also concerned that new development will be
asked to remedy any perceived child care facility problem,
while existing development, which helped to cause any such
problem, will not be subject to such fees or dedications .
Moreover , because developments charged such fees will more than
likely have to reflect those increased costs in the amount of
rent they charge their business tenants , leases in existing
lousiness developments which are not subject to these fees would
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County. of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 3
more than likely be less expensive , and therefore, more
competitive than those with new business developments which
must reflect those child care fees in their lease prices .
Therefore, we would request that an approach by which
existing businesses could contribute in the same fashion as ' new
development be investigated and entertained by your Committee
to help address this inequity.
III . THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE .
Section VI . Permitted Use .
We are pleased to see Section VI ( "Permitted Use" )
would allow child care facilities in all land use districts ,
and support its inclusion in the final Ordinance . This Section
will help continue the practice of neighborhood, church and
other local child care facilities.
Section VII . Residential Requirements, and
Section VIII . Non-Residential Requirements .
We support the provisions of Section VII D
( residential ) which require the developer to confer with the
Community Development Department concerning child care needs
prior to the submittal of a proposed child care facility
program, and suggest that these provisions be reflected in
Section VIII (nonresidential ) as well . This will save
developers the needless expense of developing a program which
may not comport with the perceptions and expectations of the
Community Development Department.
We also suggest that the provisions of Section VIII be
clarified and expanded to state that after the
developer/applicant ( "applicant" ) has met with the Community
Development Department and has assessed both the estimated
child care needs of its proposed project and the existing and
forecasted capacity of area child care facilities, that the
applicant draft a "response program" incorporating all of this
information and arriving .at a list of proposed solutions
(alternatives ) showing how that particular development proposes
to satisfy the child care needs it generates . Most
importantly, we suggest that the solutions set forth in these
response programs should not be limited to providing on or
off-site facilities , and/or paying in lieu fees as Section
VIII , subdivisions A and B presently seem to mandate .
'I
•Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 4
We are also unclear. from our review of Section VIII ,
subsections A and B, whether nonresidential development
employing 100 or more employees and having a floor area of
15 , 000 square feet or more would be excused from providing a
child care facility or paying in lieu fees if their survey or
assessment evidenced that existing child care facilities had
more than adequate capacity to meet the new need . If this is
the case , then there appears to be an inequity in the
distinction drawn in Section VIII between those developments
with more than 100 employees (who may be ultimately excused
from providing such facilities or paying such fees if existing
facilities meet that need ) and new development employing less
than 100 employees which, pursuant to the present provisions of
subdivision C of Section VIII , are mandated ( "shall" ) to pay
such in lieu fees even if existing facilities more than
adequately meet that new development ' s child care needs . This
inequity could be remedied by making the language permissive
rather than mandatory by replacing the word "shall" with the
word "may" ' (which would thereby make the imposition of those
fees at the discretion of the County) .
We support the permissive ( "may" vs . "shall" ) approach
of Section VII ( residential ) , and suggest this approach be
reflected in Section VIII (non-residential ) as well . Because
the purpose underlying this Ordinance is to meet the child care
needs of all development, the Ordinance should allow for the
. greatest flexibility in any given situation, whether it be
residential or nonresidential development. This permissive
language affords the County the flexibility it needs to
determine on a case-by-case basis the dedications or fees that
will be required of a particular development to meet the child
care needs generated by that development.
With these Section VIII thoughts and concerns in mind,
we have drafted the following ordinance language and offer it
as one method of addressing and accommodating County, developer
and local child care entrepreneur interests alike:
Section VIII . Non-Residential Requirements:
A. Prior to filing an application for
nonresidential development , the
developer/applicant or its
appointed representative
( "applicant" ) shall confer with
the Community Development
Department regarding child care,
including without limitation , the
following:
Child Care Committee
of the Board .of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 5
( i ) existing and projected
area-wide child care facilities,
their current and projected
capacities , and how they are (and
are to be ) . established , maintained
and operated ;
( ii ) applicable federal ,
state and local regulations and
standards relating to child care
facilities and the computation of
the child care needs of a proposed
development;
( iii ) the forecasted number of
employees , child care facility
needs and employee child care
facility location preferences of
the applicant ' s proposed
development ( if known) ; and
( iv ) suggested and/or
available response programs and
child care response alternatives .
B. The applicant after conferring
with the Community Development
Department pursuant to subdivision
A above, shall submit with its
application for nonresidential
development ( "proposed project" ) a
survey or assessment of the
estimated child care needs of its
proposed project together with a
response program which recognizes
those assessed needs , and which
set forth proposed child care need
response alternatives
( "alterna.tives" ) which indicate
how those needs will be
satisfied . If the applicant ' s
response program includes
alternatives which recommend that
child care facilities are to be
provided by existing or proposed
child care facilities which are
not part of. , nor to be subsidized
by, the applicant ' s proposed
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 6
project, then the response program
shall provide sufficient
information regarding the child
care preferences of its employees ,
the location and capacity of such
existing and proposed child care
facilities , how they are (or , are
to be ) established, maintained and
operated , and any other
information upon which applicant
bases its determination that said
child care facilities will meet
the proposed project 's child care
needs . There shall be no limit to
either the number of alternatives
that may be set forth in an
applicant 's response program, nor
the number of response programs
that may be submitted by an
applicant.
C. If the approving body determines
that an applicant ' s response
program has not adequately
assessed the child care need of
its proposed project and/or has
not provided adequate child care
need response alternatives in its
response program, then the
approving body may require that
the applicant enter into a
contract with the County for the
preparation of a report prepared
by a consultant (selected by the
County but paid for by the
applicant) working with the
applicant, which assesses the
child care needs of the
applicant 's proposed project and
which sets forth a response
program, as described in
subdivision B above, which
contains child care need response
alternatives which satisfy the
child care needs of applicant ' s
proposed project .
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 198.7
Page 7
D. Applicant 's response program
prepared pursuant to subdivisions
B and/or C above , may contain
child care response alternatives
which call for the provision, all
or in part, of on- or off-site
child care facilities and/or the
payment of in lieu fees by the
applicant, provided that neither
shall exceed the size or amount
necessary to satisfy the needs of
the applicant 's project . If the
response program does not contain
such provisions , the approving
body may require such provisions
if, after exhausting the
procedures set forth in
subdivisions B and C above , it
determines that such provisions
are necessary in order to satisfy
the child care needs of the
proposed project.
Section IX . Fees .
We suggest Section/IX be expanded to include language
similar to that present in Sections 4 and 5 of the City of
Concord 's Child Care Program, Policy and Procedure No. 130,
which provides for an exemption, waiver, reduction and credit
system for such fees under certain specified circumstances. We
have included a copy of that City of Concord document for your
review. We would further suggest that any such language be
drafted to allow for situations such as a public storage
nonresidential development project (which would probably only
involve an "on the premises" manager and would
not generate any child care facility needs ) , so that the
dedication or in lieu fee could be adjusted to reflect the
actual needs created by the particular development. We
recognize that Section XII of the proposed ordinance presently
contains certain exemptions , and simply suggest that the
ordinance expand on this concept . Perhaps the formulas
presently proposed in Section IX to calculate such fees could
be amended to provide for the maximum fee amount which could be
imposed , but could further allow for lesser fee amounts
depending on the assessed child care need created by the
particular development .
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 8
Section X . Trust .
We are concerned that because of recently enacted
legislation (Ch . 685 , Stats 1986 , AB 3314 ) , such fees imposed
on residential development cannot be collected until the final
inspection or certificate of occupancy issuance (whichever is
later ) unless the County affirmatively acts to fit within one
of the exceptions contained in that legislation . The current
Ordinance proposal does not recognize the need to coordinate
with that new legislation.
Additional Sections .
We suggest that the Ordinance be drafted to more
clearly and comprehensively set forth the duties and
responsibilities of a developer , and the procedural steps that
must be taken in assessing and meeting those duties and
responsibilties . We suggest that the Ordinance contain
language that gives a developer the flexibility to submit
several alternative programs to the County for review and
approval , instead of restricting a developer to a limited
number of County-mandated alternatives . This language would
allow for a free flow of creative approaches to meeting child
care needs , and would allow each developer to individualize its
proposal to meet the specific circumstances of its particular
development .
IV. CONCLUSION.
Again, we thank you for this opportunity to submit our
comments , concerns and suggested revisions to the proposed
Child Care Facilities Ordinance. As stated above, we are
concerned about the potential impact the County 's entering the
child care facilities business might have on existing and new
private child care businesses . Further , we are concerned
whether the responsibility for providing child care facilities
will be shared equally among the development community, and not
just on those new developments that were last through the
gate . Finally, we have specific concerns , as set forth above ,
regarding the actual language and approach of the Child Care
Facilities Ordinance .
As this letter and our past efforts indicate, we are
very interested in becoming involved in this legislative
process , and are interested in your thoughts and responses to
i
Child Care Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
March 9 , 1987
Page 9
the initial points raised in this letter . We look forward to
becoming further involved in this process , and appreciate your
consideration of our views .
Very truly yours ,
Merle Gilliland /
President
MPD: ns/0
1425C
Enclosure
cc: Victor Westman, County Counsel
Joan Kelly, Contra Costa Children 's Council
Linda Best, Contra Costa Council
Louise Aiello, County Planning Commission
f
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: Board of Supervisors Date. February 9, 1987 i
I
I
I
Supervisor Nancy Fanden
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
From : Special Board Committee on Subject: proposed Child Care
Child Care Issues Ordinance
This item is a matter of record for the Board' s information and
does not require any action by the Board at this time.
The Special Board Committee on Child Care Issues, which the Board
appointed on January 13 , 1987, met with the Community Development
Department and representatives from the Planning Commission, the
Contra Costa Council, and the Contra Costa Center Association on
February 9, 1987 . Our Committee reviewed the attached proposed
child care ordinance. We will be circulating this proposed
ordinance to all interested parties. We are soliciting comments
on the proposed ordinance which we would like returned to the
Community Development Department by February 23 , 1987 . Our
Committee will then meet again on March 9, 1987 at 2:30 P.M. in
Room 105 to consider these comments and make any further
revisions which appear necessary. We would then propose to
return a final ordinance to the Board sometime later in March for
the full Board' s consideration.
We believe this ordinance, which places primary emphasis on the
responsibility of residential developers and commercial
developers to provide land and facilities for childcare centers,
to be a unique approach to meeting the future unmet child care
needs in the County. While a fee schedule is provided for in the
ordinance, it is our clear intent that the fee be paid only as
an alternative to assessing the child care needs caused by a
development and providing for the necessary facilities.
We would encourage Board Members, and others, to review this
draft carefully and provide comments to the Community Development
Department.
NCF:SWM:clg
Enclosure