Daly City Child Care Facilities Assessment Project
~ Final Report ~
Contents
Background and Purpose of the Project
Child Care and Early Education in Daly City
A Note on the Economic Value of Child Care/Early Education to Daly City
Facility Assessment Survey
Training for the Child Care and Early Education Community
Faith Community Outreach
Realtor Outreach
School District Outreach
City of Daly City Outreach
Recommendations
Policy and Practice Examples from Other Communities
Conclusions
Appendices:
1. Provider Survey Cover Letter/Message
2. Child Care Operator Survey of Facility Conditions
3. Summary of Survey Responses
4. Interview Questions for City Planning/Community Development staff
5. Interview Questions for School District Representative
6. Property Search Criteria Child Care/Preschool Centers for Realtors
Attachments:
Materials for Provider Workshop (Flyer, Powerpoint presentation, Resources List)
Presentation to Child Care Partnership Council, Nov. 22 (Powerpoint)
Funding Sources for Child Care/Early Education Facilities (Construction & Renovation)
The Child Care Partnership Council of San Mateo County wishes to
acknowledge the support for this project from
Background and Purpose of the Project
Through the Child Care Partnership Council (CCPC)’s Needs Assessment process, facilities
issues have emerged as a major barrier to improving the quality, expanding access and even
maintaining the child care and preschool spaces in San Mateo County. Except in the
communities of Redwood City and East Palo Alto/Menlo Park, where Preschool for All invested
in capacity-building activities, little is known about the extent of facility problems. Anecdotal
evidence includes, for example:
Several state-funded child care/preschool and non-subsidized programs are operating in
15- to 20-year old portable buildings that are repeatedly repaired by volunteers
A successful 15-year old, 70-child infant through preschool program lost its space in a
church that was sold, and eventually closed following a two-year search for a
replacement home
Some community-based preschools experienced a barrier to participation in Preschool for
All due to facility-related conditions that impacted their ECERS scores.
Facility development/improvement and land use policy barriers are complicated, and solutions
require persistent effort and coordination over many years. While significant resources are
invested in other components necessary for quality programs—workforce/professional
development, curriculum and instruction, family engagement and support, etc.—little attention is
paid to the facilities in which programs operate. While the SmartKids program1 provides limited
grants and technical assistance to expand or renovate facilities, resources are not available to
assess, advocate for, and address the larger community needs. It is hoped that this facility
assessment will inform San Mateo County partners’ work in this area.
The Expected Outcomes of the project were:
1. The CCPC will have an assessment of the condition of existing child care/early education
facilities in Daly City, and rough cost estimates for repair/renovation, and
2. An assessment of potential for, and interest in, new or expanded facilities, as well as
potential for new opportunities and partnerships
3. Providers, the CCPC and key Daly City stakeholders will receive information about
needs and resources for child care facility development
4. A final report will include strategies undertaken and results, recommendations, and
lessons learned that are applicable to future work.
Child Care and Early Education in Daly City
The community of Daly City was chosen as the target for this project due to its unenviable status
of having the largest estimated child care supply gap in the County. The City, School Districts
serving the community, child care/preschool operators, and other partners have, over many years,
taken steps both independently and in partnership to address these needs. Some of the many
highlights have been:
The City has provided funding, facility space and leadership to support various programs
including building a child care center on its City Hall campus a decade ago;
1
SmartKids is managed by the Child Care Coordinating Council (4Cs) with annual funding (until 2012) from First 5
San Mateo County and one-time funds from SMC Human Services Agency.
2
Jefferson School District operates a large preschool program at one site as well as seven
(8 in January 2011) ASES afterschool programs on school campuses in cooperation with
the City Parks & Recreation Department and other groups.
Significant state and federal child care and early education funding has been captured to
serve community families by Bayshore Child Care Services, IHSD/Head Start, 4Cs, and
other agencies
All of the above agencies and many more participate in the Daly City Peninsula
Partnership Collaborative that initially focused on needs of children and families and now
addresses broader community issues as well.
While the need for state & federal public subsidy funds (i.e. CDD, ASES, Head Start) to serve
low-income families is not a focus of this project, a brief statement is helpful. Administrators of
large subsidized programs in Daly City indicate interest in expanding services, and long wait
lists demonstrate demand. While advocacy in this arena will continue to be a goal of the CCPC,
local operators can only anticipate future facility needs and prepare as well as possible. Since
facility development is multi-year process and new state and federal funding is often released on
a much shorter timeline, creative, flexible and collaborative planning is needed to enable the
community to capture funds.
Certain facility-related funds are available only to state- or federally-funded programs: CDD’s
Renovation & Repair funds and Revolving Loan Fund, and Head Start’s facility funds. These
should be used whenever possible, of course, to improve or replace buildings and playgrounds.
A Note on the Economic Value of Child Care/Early Education to Daly City
Child care and early education are important to the Daly City community for social, educational and
economic reasons. National research on the economic impact of child care and early education has
shown both long- and short-term positive effects. Long-term savings are realized when participation in
high quality early childhood programs leads to prevention of greater costs in education, welfare,
crime, etc. In addition, immediate impacts on the local economy come from revenues generated by the
industry (both parent fees paid and public subsidies captured in the community), and indirect effects of
industry jobs and program expenditures (food, materials, etc.). A further ripple is related to parents
being able to work, support their families and spend their earnings in the local economy.
3
Facility Assessment Survey
Purpose
The primary purpose for conducting the facility assessment survey was to identify the
renovation, repair and/or replacement needs of existing child care/early education centers and
homes and to assess the cost of doing this work. A second purpose was to identify operators’
interested in expanding an existing site or opening a new one.
Survey content
The survey questions2 covered the following topics:
Background information on the program (license type, ages served, schedules, capacity,
funding sources, facility type & ownership, etc.)
Current enrollment and wait lists
Assessment of condition of features (structures and systems) of the facility, rated on a 7point scale): Roof, Foundation/structural issues, Exterior Walls, Entrance, Security
Systems, Interior Walls/Floors/Windows, etc., Plumbing, Outside Play Area, Electrical
Systems, Gas & Heating/AC, ADA (disability access), Fire/Earthquake readiness, and
Overall rating.
Interest in, and timeline for, expansion; perceived barriers to expansion
Survey Dissemination
The survey was offered to operators in online format as well as paper, and in English or Spanish
(the predominant alternate language spoken per 4Cs’ files). Operators for whom email addresses
were available (either through the CCPC or 4Cs) received an email message with a request to
complete the survey. Other operators, mainly family child care home providers, were sent hard
copy versions by mail, with a cover letter.
Response to survey and follow–up
Eleven (11) of the 17 child care centers responded and follow-up calls were made to the others.
Some had chosen not to complete the survey since they believed their facilities to be in good
condition. One was in the process of building out the child care space in the new Bridge Housing
development near Colma BART and expected to move in late summer 2010.
Only 9 of 97 family child care home providers completed the survey. Telephone follow-up found
that most said they did not have home repair needs or want to expand. Some did not want to
participate, had closed their child care businesses, or did not return voice messages.
Results
A summary of the survey results including responses to open-ended questions is provided in
Appendix 3. Some highlights are provided:
License capacity of centers ranged from 17 to 170.
Years in operation at the location ranged from 18 months to 32 years.
2
The survey cover letter is provided as Appendix 1 and the survey questions as Appendix 2.
4
Centers were located in these types of facilities: 5 school classrooms; 4 modular
buildings; 2 converted residential buildings; 1 converted commercial building; 1 church
space; 1 City-built child care facility; 1 integrated in affordable housing development.
(Total is more than number of respondents due to use of multiple buildings at some
programs.)
Owners of their facilities were family child care home providers and school district or
city operators. No non-profit or private center-based programs own their facility.
Respondents rated the physical condition of their facility and their need for repair or renovation
using the 7 point scale below. Space was provided to add any details specific to their program.
(1) Inadequate: Facility has serious health, safety, licensing issues, has been cited and could be
closed immediately.
(3) Minimal: Facility has some health, safety, licensing issues but not in danger of closing or
losing license.
(5) Good:
Facility needs some refreshing, but not in danger of closing or losing license.
(7) Excellent: Overall facility is in excellent condition; there is no need for repair or renovation.
Average scores across all responding programs were around 5 (―Good‖). The facility features
with ratings with more frequent lower averages (e.g. 4.8) indicating poor condition were:
Interior walls, flooring
Plumbing
Playgrounds
Security system (many had none)
Many programs responded ―Don’t Know‖ to questions asking about compliance with
ADA (disability access) and/or Fire/Earthquake/Hazmat codes. This may be due to their
assumption of the landlord’s responsibility, as tenants of school or city-owned buildings.
Eight respondents (homes and centers) assessed several facility features at 4 or lower.
Follow-up Assessments and Technical Assistance
Three child care centers and 3 family child care homes were identified as priorities for further
assessment based on their self-assessment scores on the condition of the facility. Other selection
factors involved operators’ interest or follow-through. One, IHSD (Head Start operator), said
they did have facility repair needs but that their federal funds were available to address those.
On a scale of 1 (serious deficiencies/unsafe) to 7 (excellent condition), these facilities rated
several items at 4 or below.
Latchkey Alternative (preschool and school-age at FDR school)
Bayshore Child Care Services: Midway Village and South Parkview St. sites3
Small Family Child Care Home, Westlake area4
Small Family Child Care Home, Broadmoor area
3
Bayshore’s 87th St. site was initially identified as a target but the director felt that S. Parkview had greater needs, so
requested the team assess it.
4
Neighborhood identifiers are used for Family Child Care Home providers to preserve anonymity.
5
Small Family Child Care Home, Westborough area
Site visits were made by a team consisting of project staff and Rebuilding Together Peninsula’s
Executive Director and partner construction company staff (Nibbi Brothers). The following
rough estimates were provided by the construction company’s cost estimator.5
Small FCCH, Westlake area
Total $36,326
1) Enclosing the deck/porch $20,000
2) Metal gate and hardware replacement $5,063.
3) Remove concrete area between provider’s and neighbor’s home $4,010
4) Replace concrete area with lawn $2,126
5) (Fence rebuild, not requested but needed)
Small FCCH, Broadmoor area
Total: $32,025
1) New fence across back yard to separate unusable hill area: $7,442
2) Miscellaneous upgrades in the two rooms $15,000
3) Electrical re-wiring/service upgrade $5,063.
Small FCCH, Westborough area
Total: $35,132
1) Roof replacement $18,225
2) Leveling side yard, re-landscaping and building a wall. $11,948
Latchkey Alternative Center Total: $74,755
1) Ramp replacement: $12,656
2) Cabinetry replacement: $2,673
3) Acoustical ceiling replacement $7,214
4) HVAC system replacement: $36,450
5) Appliances and window shutters/blinds: $5,206
Bayshore Child Care Services
Midway Drive site (4 buildings)
Total: $225,138
1) Roof overhangs: $24,300
2) Playground grading, leveling and resurfacing:6 $14,580 (demolition), $56,469 (grading
and paving), and $37,463 (drainage, etc)
3) Decks in courtyard: $31,806
4) Classroom cabinetry replacement: $10,277
5) Windows replacement: $25,151
6) Doors replacement: $24,636
7) Painting: $17,118
8) Plumbing: $3,522
9) Miscell bldg spec $7,004
10) Permits, equipment: $8,139
5
Note that the totals for each site include construction overhead and profit in addition to the costs of items listed.
Note: Bayshore has been allocated a $50,000 CDE Renovation and Repair grant to put toward this playground
renovation ($16,000 recently received).
6
6
Bayshore/South Parkview St. site (cost estimate not provided)
Individual letters were sent to each family child care provider and center operator detailing the
cost estimates and providing referrals to resources tailored to each case and identified needs.
Training for the Child Care and Early Education Community
To reach more program operators with information and resource referrals, a training workshop
on ―Expanding or Improving Your Child Care or Early Education Facility‖ was provided on
October 18 at Our Second Home family resource center in Daly City. Its purpose was to provide
information on considerations, requirements and processes for improving or expanding an
existing child care/preschool center or home; and to offer referrals to resources that may fit
participants’ situation and plans (including funding, business assistance, etc.)7
Twenty-two people attended from around the county (plus 4Cs and CCPC staff): Daly City 8,
Millbrae 3, Redwood City 3, South San Francisco 2, San Bruno 1, Pacifica 1, San Mateo 1,
Foster City 1, Other (Skyline College student) 1. The session was well received and many
participants asked questions or requested additional resources related to their specific case. Three
other operators were not able to attend and wished to receive materials and be informed if the
workshop is repeated.
Faith Community Outreach
Several strategies were used to identify spaces in the Daly City area that might be adapted to
house a child care/preschool program. To identify potential sites in church/temple/synagogue
facilities, letters were sent and calls made to a list of ―Churches and Houses of Worship‖ that
was available on the City of Daly City website. Among the list, the CCPC committee identified
several to exclude from the outreach:
3 congregations housed at 699 Serramonte Blvd. (former Serramonte High School) where
2 child care facilities already exist
4 churches that are known locations of existing centers
3 churches that operate elementary schools with after-school care.
Letters were mailed to 28 congregations unless they had been reached earlier by phone.
Responses of interest were received from three: Golden Gate Korean Presbyterian (300 Crocker
Ave.), Westlake Community Baptist (99 Elmwood Dr.), and St. Luke CME (1006 Hanover).
This low response rate is not surprising considering that many of these congregations may have
no appropriate facility. It is common for small faith groups to meet in storefronts, homes, or
other buildings unsuitable to share with a children’s program.
7
Workshop materials are provided as attachments (flyer, Powerpoint presentation and resource list handout).
7
Site visits were made to the first two interested churches to discuss, with their leaders, potential
partnerships with local operators, since neither congregation was interested in being the operator.
Visual assessments of the facility spaces were made and documented with notes and photos.
Preliminary assessment/findings were that both facilities have some potential but also many
barriers including:
Insufficient bathrooms, playground space, exits required by building code, etc.
Location, size or other uses of outdoor space
Inconvenient layout (for child care) of available rooms, or rooms are too small to
function as separate classrooms
The information about the two possible church facilities will be shared with local child care
operators who have indicated interest in opening a new center.
The third congregation was not visited since a phone conversation determined that no outdoor
space was available to develop a required playground. Research was conducted and options
provided to the faith leader for developing a drop-in afterschool program, recreation or other
services to youth and families.
Realtor Outreach
The Daly City Housing & Community Development staff provided the name of a local real
estate company to contact for leads on properties that might be suitable for new child care
centers. Terry Sedik (retired city planner) was contacted at Hildebrand Real Estate Group. He
suggested it would be helpful to know the lot size needed for a center. A brief list of criteria or
guidelines was developed to highlight some critical aspects of facilities that eliminate many
properties from being feasible. The guidelines were sent to Mr. Sedik. No specific properties
have been identified as a result of this activity but further communication is needed.
School District Outreach
Lisa Zimiga, the Jefferson School District Preschool Supervisor, participated with the committee
and as such was a liaison to this project. An interview was conducted on March 30. (Questions
provided in Appendix 5). She has indicated that classroom space is available at several school
sites at this time. Prospective child care/preschool operators can contact her or the
Superintendent’s office to inquire.
The District has the capacity to expand its own preschool program if additional subsidy funding
were available. The director’s preference is to expand at the one current location rather than
opening classrooms at other elementary school campuses.
City of Daly City Outreach
An interview was conducted (by the initial consultant) on March 30 to gain information about
the city’s involvement in child care/early education from a planner’s perspective. Planning
8
Director Rich Berger, Planning Manager Tatum Mothershead, and Housing and Community
Development Supervisor Betsy ZoBell were interviewed together. (Interview questions are
provided in Appendix 4). The following are major findings.
1) The City has a long history of supporting child care and early education, including:
ongoing support to the Daly City Peninsula Partnership Collaborative. This group started
with an early childhood focus but has broadened its scope to address the needs of all ages
in DC. City staff sit on the Board, contributing significant time and resources (including
part of the Executive Director’s salary).
annual CDBG funding has been directed at Bayshore Child Care Services
The City built and leases the Bayshore Community Center to the Boys & Girls Club that
provides a variety of services to children and families. This includes a license-exempt
ASES afterschool program that serves Bayshore and Robertson Elementary Schools.
Daly City built the Imagination Station child care center in 2000 on the City Hall campus.
The facility is leased to Hoover Children’s Center, providing child care to city employees
and community families.
The City assisted in development of, and supports, Our Second Home family resource
center.
The City partners with the school district to provide ASES/21st Century Afterschool
Programs. The Parks & Recreation Department operates 2 sites.
Daly City’s Economic Development Department can provide start-up assistance to new
businesses.
2) Interviewees were asked about city land use policies. No General Plan policies were cited,
but supportive zoning code and permitting requirements & processes were described.
3) One concern voiced by staff was how the city can link child care with community
development activities (both housing and nonresidential projects) when it has no ordinance
that requires that projects mitigate impact on child care (as is expected for other impacts).
Staff repeated that a nexus study would be needed to identify impact and require developers
to address such.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the following activities continue in order to ―close the loop‖ on past
work:
1. Continue to provide support to link interested child care operators with available church and
school classroom spaces to create new child care/preschool centers.
2. Inform the Superintendent’s office that there is community interest in leasing classroom
space for child care/early education programs. Refer interested operators (identified through
the facilities survey, the Oct. 18 meeting or other means) to the JSD Preschool Supervisor.
3. Provide, to the Daly City Peninsula Partnership Collaborative, the contact information for
churches interested in providing or hosting services to children /families (particularly in cases
where licensed child care is not feasible).
9
4. Investigate further the barriers to family child care expansion to large licenses, considering
small lot sizes in some neighborhoods (e.g. of use of second floor space and fire protection
requirements).8
5. Offer repeat of the workshop on ―Expanding or Improving Your Child Care or Early
Education Facility.‖
6. Provide support as needed for operators applying for grant or loan funds to create new
facilities.
7. Disseminate the ―Property Search Criteria…‖ document to other realtors in Daly City area as
well as making it available to child care operators who will be working with a realtor to find
properties, including those who contact 4Cs or the City. (It was mentioned at the Oct. 18
information session.)
8. Post project materials on the CCPC website (and link from 4Cs’ website) to make them
available for wider use (county- and statewide).
Additionally, the following are recommendations for next steps in planning proactively for child
care/early education in the Daly City community and to support efforts of its many partners:
9. Advocate for and assist the City in exploring potential policies for new General Plan and for
strategies to link child care with community development activities (i.e. new developments or
redevelopment projects).
10. Explore options for replacement of facilities or relocation of Bayshore Child Care Services’
Midway Village and South Parkview programs.
11. Identify (with 4Cs and experienced DC child care operators) neighborhoods with greatest
supply gaps for either fee-based or subsidized child care/preschool. Then, with DC Planning
staff, identify appropriate areas where facilities could be sited.
Policy and Practice Examples from Other Communities
To address some of the needs of the Daly City child care/early education community or to
address concerns expressed by agencies, a few examples are offered for consideration.
The General Plans of many cities and counties across California include various child
care-supportive policies and programs. A compilation of examples is available.9 Locally,
Redwood City’s newly adopted General Plan includes a large section on child care, and
South San Francisco adopted several policies in 1999.
Linking child care with other community development activities can maximize
opportunities and resources for new facility development, while addressing the increased
demand for child care created by new housing or employment. Including a child care
requirement or priority in Request for Proposals for new housing developments is one
strategy. San Mateo County did this with the Colma BART project resulting in a new
8
―Small‖ family child care home licenses have capacity of up to 8 children, depending on ages served. ―Large‖
family child care licenses can take up to 14, with an assistant, but require Fire Marshal clearance and a city use
permit.
9
See the Local Investment in Child Care (LINCC) website Library at www.lincc-childcare.com.
10
child care facility integrated in the Trestle Glen development. Several funding sources
were used by Bridge Housing and the child care operator contributed the build-out of its
space. South San Francisco has used redevelopment funds to build child care to support
its biotech businesses. It also adopted a child care impact fee that is charged to new
developments. Redwood City has not adopted such an ordinance but has negotiated child
care conditions in development agreements for large projects. Peninsula Park includes
such conditions but has not been built. The proposed ―Stanford in Redwood City‖ project
(an administrative campus extension) is expected to involve a development agreement.
Principles for negotiation that have been agreed to include the expectation that the
developer will address impacts ranging from economic, fiscal and traffic to child care.
The Jefferson School District has adapted to community needs for preschool and
afterschool learning and supervision by capturing state subsidy funds (CDD and ASES)
and expanding its programs when possible. Full-day preschool-age care (to meet working
parents’ needs) is not offered but could be with existing State Preschool funds, as other
districts do. Other models that could be explored are:
o Shifting some preschool classrooms to other school campuses in order to make
the programs more accessible to families without transportation and to support
school-based preschool-to-kindergarten transition practices. Redwood City
School District’s Child Development Centers offer part-day and/or full-day
preschool at seven school sites, and preschool/kindergarten teacher
communication is being promoted.
o Offering parent fee-based preschool at one or more schools in neighborhoods with
more middle- to upper-income families who can pay. San Mateo/Foster City
School District is doing this to financially support the state-funded program
budget. Hosting privately operated preschool programs on campuses also can
make preschool more available to families but would not support the District’s
preschool program.
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Both the process & content of the Child Care Operator survey could be improved to
facilitate analysis and interpretation of responses. Specifically, refining certain questions
that were frequently misinterpreted, and tailoring questions differently in separate
surveys to family child care and centers would be helpful.
Some of the Family Child Care operators’ repair/renovation requests were home
maintenance needs (e.g. a new roof or fence). During our site visits to assess needs,
however, we observed other improvements (some less costly) that would have greater
impact on the quality of care. (These providers were referred to 4Cs quality improvement
programs.)
There is expansion interest for both FCCH and centers, despite the recession. Successful
Small Family Child Care providers with wait lists wished to expand to Large or to start a
small center. Most of the centers that wanted to expand were state- or federally funded so
had wait lists of parents needing subsidies.
Several barriers exist to operators’ addressing identified repair, renovation, or facility
replacement needs. E.g.:
11
o
o
o
o
Facility ownership: Most operators do not own their facilities so are not willing or
able to invest significant resources in the landlord’s property.
The landlord usually has maintenance responsibility yet may not be able or
willing to address all but the most critical health and safety issues on a regular
basis.
Eligibility criteria for funding/financing sources often include: serving lowincome populations, being non-profit or public entity; or being a child care center,
not family child care.
Most child care/preschool centers are financially marginal operations. This often
leads to deferred maintenance and the inability to carry debt (i.e. take out a loan
for remodeling and expansion).
A general conclusion based on our experience during this project is that proactive planning
and more extensive technical assistance and liaison work can have positive results in the
short and long term. The additional, though limited, training and individual provider
assistance benefited many. The assessment visit to one of Bayshore’s sites lead to unplanned
(but welcomed) repair and renovation work by Rebuilding Together Peninsula. Unfortunately
the agencies most capable of delivering these services in San Mateo County-- 4Cs and CCPC
-- lack the resources to deliver this.
An observation of recent activity in the Daly City child care community is that, during the
period of this project, two new private child care centers have opened, both licensed for 24
preschool-age children. Both are housed in remodeled commercial buildings, one in an
industrial zone. If this type and size of building space (often with minimal exterior space for
playgrounds) is what operators typically are able to find and adapt without assistance, it is
unlikely that such programs will be financially robust or ever serve infants and toddler ages.
Due to the economics of child care, many experienced operators will not open a center for
fewer than 50-60 children or more and will not serve infants unless they have a large
preschool-age component to balance the budget. This example is cited to support the
advocacy for proactive planning, and for interventions to enhance the ineffective marketbased system that exists. Community collaborations of public and private agencies, such as
exist in Daly City (and the broader county), provide a valuable basis for such work.
12
Appendix 1: Cover letter/email for Child Care Operator Survey (English & Spanish
versions)
Greetings Daly City Early Learning Colleague,
The Daly City Peninsula Partnership Collaborative (DCPPC) and the Child Care Partnership
Council (CCPC) are embarking on a project to help Daly City early learning program operators
evaluate the physical condition of their facilities and match their needs with available financing
or funding options. We hope to provide tools and resources to help early learning centers,
preschools, family childcare homes and afterschool school programs improve their facilities and,
where possible, renovate and expand.
As a first step, we need your help to complete a short, 10-minute online survey. All
information collected will be used only for the purposes of this project and is confidential. (Esta
carta y un enlace a la encuesta en español se encuentra al final de este mensaje de correo
electrónico.)
Survey Guidelines:
 The survey does not ―save‖ so please schedule time to complete the survey in one sitting.
 If there is a question that does not pertain to you, or your facility, just skip to the next
question.
 Be candid with your responses, they will be kept confidential. Reports will contain only
common themes across multiple respondents.
 Click on this link to access the online survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DalyCitySurvey
 Complete one survey for each site. (You will need to click the link again for each new
site)
 If you have any questions, or would prefer complete a paper survey by mail, please call
Linda Lau at (650) 802-5344.
Please complete the Survey by May 4, 2010 by 5:00 p.m.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in the survey!
Sincerely,
Nirmala Dillman, San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council
Deborah Simon, Early Learning Consultant
Ann Sims, Bayshore Child Care Services and the Daly City Peninsula Partnership
Laura Walker, Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County
--------------------------------
13
Bienvenidos Colegas de Programas de la Educación Temprana de Daly City:
La Asociación de Colaboración de la Península de Daly City (DCPPC) y la Asociación del
Concilio de Cuidado de Niños (CCPC) están lanzando un proyecto para ayudar a los operadores
de los programas de educación temprana de la cuidad de Daly City a evaluar las condiciones
físicas de sus instalaciones y responder a sus necesidades utilizando los diferentes fondos que
están disponibles. Esperamos proporcionarle las herramientas y los recursos necesarios a los
centros de educación temprana/infantil, preescolares, guarderías de niños en casa de familia, y
cuidado de niños después de la escuela para ayudarles a mejorar sus instalaciones, renovarlas y/o
ampliarlas si es posible.
Como primer paso, necesitamos que complete una breve encuesta de 10 minutos en línea. Toda
la información recopilada se utilizará únicamente para los fines de este proyecto y es
confidencial.
Normas de la Encuesta:
La encuesta no tiene opción de ―guardar‖ así que por favor planee su tiempo para
completar la encuesta de una sola vez.
Si hay alguna pregunta que no le corresponda a usted o sus instalaciones, pase a la
siguiente pregunta.
Sea amplio con sus respuestas, las mantendremos a nivel confidencial. Solamente
incluiremos las respuestas de temas comunes a través de múltiples respuestas en los
reportes.
Haga clic en el enlace para iniciar la encuesta en línea:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DalyCityencuesta
Complete una encuesta por cada instalación (Usted tendrá que hacer clic en el enlace de
nuevo por cada establecimiento).
Sí tiene alguna pregunta, o prefiere completar la encuesta por correo, por favor llame a
Linda Lau al 650-802-5344.
Por favor complete la encuesta a mas tardar el 4 de mayo de 2010 y no mas tarde de la 5 p.m.
Gracias por participar en esta encuesta.
Atentamente,
Nirmala Dillman, Asociación del Concilio del Cuidado de Niños del Condado de San Mateo
Deborah Simon, Consultante de la Educación Temprana
Ann Sims, Servicios de Cuidado de Niños de Bayshore
Laura Walker, Coordinación del Concilio del Condado de San Mateo del Cuidado de Niños
14
Appendix 2: Child Care Operator Survey
1. Demographic Information
Business Name
Address
Zip Code
Phone
Email
Website of Program
Operator/Owner Name
Name of Individual completing form
Contact information of individual completing form
Licensed Capacity
Family child care programs only – ages served
Infants
Toddlers
Preschoolers
School - Age
2. License Type : Family Child Care Homes
Large
Small
Not Applicable
3. License Type: Child Care Centers (check all that apply)
Infant
Preschool with Toddler Option
Preschool
School-Age
License Exempt Center
Not Applicable
4. FT/PT
Full day
Part day
Both
5. Enrollment (as of date of survey)
Yes
Are you fully enrolled?
Do you have a wait list?
Approx. # on wait list_____
No
6. Do you own or rent your facility?
Own __
Rent/Lease __
7. Check all current funding/financing sources. Check all that apply.
15
Fees from parents
State funding (direct contract with State of California)
Federal funding
County funding
City funding
Alternative Payment Program (APP)
Foundation funding
Employer support
In Kind (non-monetary support such as free, or reduced cost rent, janitorial, etc.)
Other
8. Does your program offer scholarships?
YES
NO
9. How many years have you been in operation at your present location? _____
10. When was the last time (approximate date) you had any major/significant repair and/or renovation
work done on your facility? ______
11.
Describe the major/significant repair and/or renovation that you had completed in #10.
_________________
12. Have you received bids, estimates for repair, renovation and/or expansion work that has not yet been
completed?
Yes
No
13. Describe work identified in #12. _________
14. Do you have any major/significant repairs, renovation currently underway?
Yes
No
15. Describe the type of work currently underway in question #14. _______
16. Are you interested in expansion?
Yes
No
17. What is your time line for expansion?
Now ___
1-2 years ___
3-4 years ___
More than 5 years___
18. Do you have the ability to expand your existing facility (increase the # of spaces)?
YES
NO
19. Obstacles to expansion at your present location:
Lack of space __
Lack of financing/funding ___
16
Do not own building ___
Lack of time and/or expertise to manage project __
City permitting process ___
License issues ___
Other ___
20. Child Care Centers Only (In what type of building/facility/campus is your program currently
located?)
Converted Residential __
Public Building (community center, school, City hall, etc.) __
Commercial building __
Modular __
Church, Mosque, Synagogue Temple, etc. __
Other __
21. Roof: Is the roof of your early learning facility in good repair? If not, describe what needs to be
repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
22. Foundation/structural issues: Is the foundation of your facility sturdy and meets code? If not,
describe what needs to be repaired?
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
23. Exterior walls and surfaces: What is the condition of the exterior walls of your facility? Do they in
need resurfacing or repainting?
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
24. Entrance, sidewalk & stairs:
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
25. Security systems: What is the status of your security system?
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
26. Interior, walls, floors, etc.: Are the facilities interior walls, floors, and ceiling in good repair? If not,
describe what needs to be repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
27. Plumbing: Is the plumbing (equipment, etc.) in good repair? If not, describe what needs to be
repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
28. Outside play area: Is the play area (equipment, fencing, shade, etc.) in good repair? If not, describe
what needs to be repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
29. Electrical systems: What is the condition of your electrical system? Describe what needs to be
repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
17
30. Gas and heating systems: What is the condition of your gas, heating systems? Is it in need of repair?
Describe what needs to be repaired.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
31. ADA standards/code: Rate your facility's adherence to the ADA standards/code; if physical plant
does not meet ADA standards/code, describe what needs to be done to bring facility into compliance.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
32. Fire/earthquake/hazmat code: Rate your facility's adherence to fire/earthquake/hazmat code. If you
are not in compliance, what needs to be done to bring the physical plant into compliance.
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
6 (_)
7 Excellent (_)
8 Don't Know (_)
33. Rate the overall condition of your physical facility:
1 Inadequate (_)
2 (_)
3 Minimal (_)
4 (_)
5 Good (_)
34. Explain anything that you feel is important that was not included or covered above.
18
Appendix 3: Summary of Findings from the Survey of Daly City Child Care Facilities
1.
Total number Child Care Business Operators responding to the survey
21
1,879
Total number of licensed child care spaces represented
2.
3.
License Type ~ Family Child Care Home
%
#

Large Family Child Care Homes
42.9%
9

Small Family Child Care Homes
44.4%
8
License Type ~ Center Based Programs

Infant License infants
42.9%
9

Preschool with Toddler Option
28.6%
6

Preschool
66.7%
14

School age children
28.6%
6

Licensed exempted programs
4.9%
1

o
4.

Full-time /Part –time programs
%
#

Full-time
23.8%
5

Part-time
14.3%
3

Combination full-time and Part-time
61.9%
13

o
5.
6.
7.



Programs indicating that they are fully enrolled (as of date of survey)
61.9%
13
Programs indicating that they have waiting lists
55.6%
10
Programs that own their facilities
42.9%
9
Programs that rent/lease their facilities
57.1%
12
Funding/Financing Sources

Parent Fees
81.0%
17

State funding (direct contract with State of California)
42.9%
9

Federal funding
14.3%
3

County funding
14.3%
3

City of Daly City
9.5%
2
19

Alternative Payment Program (APP)
19.0%
4

Foundation funding/grants
14.3%
3

Employer support
0%
0

In kind (non-monetary support e.g. reduced costs for janitorial or rent
0%
0

Other (San Mateo County Office of Education)
14.3%
3
4.8%
1
8.
Programs that offer Scholarships
9.
Number of years / months operating at current location
10.
11.

32 years +
5.2%
1

31 - 15 years
5.2%
1

10 – 14 years
31.5%
6

5 – 9 years
36.8%
7

5 years and under
21%
4
21%
4
Dates and description of last major renovations
2010
Roofing, not yet complete
2009 ~ last year
Window Installment
2010
New resilient paving in Toddler yard
4/24/2010 Rebuilding Together
shelving, sump pump, some roofing
Summer 2010
Playground Repairs, General Upkeep
2010
4 years
deck, dry rot, sump pump, roof
plumbing and flooring for opening of a
new classroom
2009
Changed carpet and paint
within last 5 years
flooring/lighting/electrical etc.
over the last 5 years
bathrooms/flooring/lighting etc.
gutter replacement, replaced faucets,
dispensers, parking gate,
2009
08/01/2006
12.
2007
Replace walls & ceiling
added a bathroom/washroom only for
daycare kids
2005
Windows
Programs who you received bids, estimates for repair, renovation and/or
expansion work that has not yet been completed?
20
13.
Description of bids, estimates for repair, renovation and/or expansion work that has not yet been
completed?

preschool yard renovation

Waiting for bids for ramp replacement from facilities Dept.
Expansion of family child Care to add another room to accommodate more
children.
Roof repair, windows, concrete work, addition of square footage for childcare
facility.


14.
Number of programs with major/significant repairs renovation currently
underway?
15.7%
3
52.4%
11
Now
3
15.7%
1 – 2 years
6
30.0%
3 – 4 years
2
10.0%
More than 5 years
7
45.0%
30.0%
6
Description of major/significant repairs renovation currently underway?
15.

Kitchen remodel to begin in 6 weeks

Renovation of play yard.

replacing walking ramp
Number of programs interested in expansion
Timeline for expansion:
16.
19.
Programs with the ability to expand at their existing location (comments)

Have two rooms that are now used for mornings only

Garage space

Need a good helper

Playground needs to be larger

Lack of space for large fcc, and need to repair windows & door per licensing

Child’s college expenses mean resources not available
Obstacles to program expansion at current location

Lack of space
47.4%
9

Lack of financing/funding
57.9%
11

Do not own building
10.5%
2

Lack of time and/or expertise to manage project
10.5%
2

City permitting process
10.5%
2

Licensing issues
5.3%
1
21
20.

Lack of students
5.3%
1

Need help with drawing plans for phase expansion
5.3%
1
Child Care Centers Only (type of building/facility/campus are program currently located?)

Converted residential
11.8%
2

Public Building
41.2%
6

Commercial Building
5.9%
1

Modular
23.5%
4

Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue , etc.
Other: 2 triple wide modular units, family resource center, affordable housing
complex, building built by the city of Daly City for child care use.
11.8%
1
5.9%
1

Respondents rated the physical condition of their facility and their need for repair, update and/or
renovation using the 7 point scale (below). Respondents also added any details specific to their program.
1. Inadequate:
Facility has serious health, safety, licensing issues, has been cited and could be closed immediately!
3. Minimal:
Facility has some health, safety, licensing, issues, but not in danger of closing or losing license
5. Good:
Facility needs some refreshing, but not in danger of closing or losing license
7. Excellent:
Overall facility is in excellent condition, there is no need for repair or renovation
%
#

Percentage, number of respondents rating at least one area of their physical facility
4 or below.
47.4%
9

Percentage, number of respondents rating at least one area of their physical facility
as 5 or above good to excellent
36.8%
7
%
#
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
9.5%
2
4.
21.1%
4
5. Good:
21.1%
4
6.
9.5%
2
7. Excellent
33.3%
7
21.
Roof: is the roof of your facility in good repair?
Average rating 5.38
1.
The owner fixed the roof.
2.
Overhangs need re-roofing.
3.
Last repair was about 15 years ago.
22
22.
4.
Roof needs to be changed within the next year or so; door in the garage needs to be
changed, and a window needs replacement.
5.
Roof is old and leaking; in need of repair.
Foundation/structural issues: Is the foundation of your facility sturdy, does it
meet current code requirements? If not, describe what needs to be repaired?
Average rating 5.84
%
#
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
0
0
4.
5.3%
1
5. Good:
42.1%
8
6.
15.8%
3
7. Excellent
36.8%
7
1. I think the foundation is good. I don't know what a professional might find. We haven't checked.
2. We have no structural or foundation issues
23.
Exterior walls and surfaces: What is the condition of the exterior walls of your
facility? Do they in need resurfacing or repainting?
%
#
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
5.3%
1
4.
15.8%
3
5. Good:
47.4%
9
6.
15.8%
3
7. Excellent
15.8%
3
Average Rating 5.21
1.
needs on-going maintenance painting
2.
Needs to be checked by a professional.
3.
painting is on-going due to age of the building
4.
need to be repainted
5.
Eventually, we will need repainting but still in good condition.
23
24.
25.
Entrance, sidewalk & stairs:
Average Rating 5.29
%
#
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
5.3%
1
4.
31.6%
6
5. Good:
21.1%
4
6.
26.3%
5
7. Excellent
15.8%
3
%
#
26.7%
4
0
0
3. Minimal:
20.0%
3
4.
6.7%
1
0
0
6.
20.0%
3
7. Excellent
26.7%
4
1.
FRONT RAMP IS RUSTING
2.
Our Midway Center was built in 1943
3.
We have clean and clear sidewalk and stairs. Entrance is open and clear.
4.
Sidewalk concrete has cracks/separation.
Security systems: what is the status of your security system?
Average Rating 4.20
1. Inadequate:
2.
5. Good:
1. no burglar alarm
2. no burglar alarm
3. Do not have a security system.
4. It does not cover all rooms
5. no security systems
6. none
7. We don't have a working security system right now but we live in a very safe neighborhood.
24
26.
Interior, walls, floors, etc.: Are the facilities interior walls, floors, and ceiling in
good repair? If not, describe what needs to be repaired.
Average Rating 5.06
1. Inadequate:
%
#
0
0
0
0
3. Minimal:
17.6%
3
4.
23.5%
4
5. Good:
23.5%
4
6.
5.9%
1
7. Excellent
29.4%
5
%
#
5.6%
1
0
0
3. Minimal:
11.1%
2
4.
22.2%
4
5. Good:
33.3%
6
6.
5.6%
1
7. Excellent
22.2%
4
2.
1.
Needs on-going painting needs new carpeting
2.
Interior walls ripping bathroom walls turning yellow
3.
Would like to update the area where day care performed. Want to add great room with
floors raised off the ground.
4.
Will need painting next year
5.
Will need painting next year
6.
Painting is on-going due to age of the building
7.
Need repaint
8.
Price Street is excellent
9.
Need to replace carpets (9 years old)
10
Interior is in excellent condition.
.
11 Ceiling needs repair due to leaky roof.
27.
Plumbing: is the plumbing (equipment, etc.) in good repair?
Average Rating 4.83%
1. Inadequate:
2.
25
28.
1.
old fittings and fixtures drainage problems
2.
Planning to convert to copper plumbing soon.
3.
old fittings and fixtures drainage problems
4.
Our Parkview Center has poor plumbing
5.
Plumbing is good but sometimes toilet won't flush properly because of stuck toilet
paper.
Outside play area: Is the play area (equipment, fencing, shade, etc.) in good
repair? If not, describe what needs to be repaired.
Average rating 4.94
1. Inadequate:
%
#
5.9%
1
0
0
3. Minimal:
5.9%
1
4.
29.4%
5
5. Good:
23.5%
4
6.
11.8%
2
7. Excellent
23.5%
2
2.
29.
1.
Asphalt holds water, can’t go outside for days after
2.
Needs to be improved and updated.
3.
Toddlers/Early Preschool needs completely resurfacing
4.
Side yard need replacement grass
5.
Fences need to repaint, need more equipments for children
6.
We have a grass play area and a deck play area. That's where the kids play right now because there's
work needed to be done in the backyard. We need to change fencing because they're old and weak.
There's definitely a need to fix the backyard and level it so that the children can be safe.
Electrical systems: What is the condition of your electrical system? Describe
what needs to be repaired.
%
#
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
11.1%
2
4.
16.7%
3
5. Good:
16.7%
3
Average Rating 5.44%
26
6.
27.8%
5
7. Excellent
27.8%
5
%
#
5.6%
1
5.6%
1
0
0
4.
16.7%
3
5. Good:
22.2%
4
6.
22.2%
4
7. Excellent
27.8%
5
%
#
5.6%
1
0
0
3. Minimal:
5.6%
1
4.
11.1%
2
5. Good:
27.8%
5
6.
11.1%
2
7. Excellent
16.7%
3
Don’t know
22.2%
4
1.
We prepare meals and fuses aren't strong enough to hold several items running at
same time.
2.
Planning to update electrical with kitchen remodel.
3.
Old but satisfactory
4.
30.
Nothing needs to be repaired in this area.
Gas and heating systems: What is the condition of your gas, heating systems? Is it
in need of repair? Describe what needs to be repaired.
Average rating 5.22
1. Inadequate:
2.
3. Minimal:
31.
1.
Heater breaks down frequently, air conditioning can't use leaks on ceiling.
2.
Needs to be replaced.
3.
not great but not fixable
4.
no A/C
ADA standards/code: Rate your facility's adherence to the ADA standards/code;
if physical plant does not meet ADA standards/code, describe what needs to be
done to bring facility into compliance.
Average rating 5.67
1. Inadequate:
2.
27
1. story building Early Preschool will never be ADA compliant
2. could use a second ramp
3. We have three steps from the entrance to the main door.
Fire/earthquake/hazmat code: Rate your facility's adherence to fire/earthquake
/hazmat code. If you are not in compliance, needs to be done to bring the
physical plant into compliance.
32.
Average Rating 6
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
5.6%
1
4.
11.1%
2
5. Good:
27.8%
5
6.
11.1%
2
7. Excellent
22.2%
4
Don’t know
22.2%
4
1.
need on-going training and supplies
Find..
.
2.
We need training
Find..
.
3.
Our home was built in 1949 but the foundation is sound. There are no structural issues
that we're aware of. We have hazardous materials (leftover paint and stuff that we will
need to dump. Otherwise, we're fine.
Rate the overall condition of your physical facility
33.
Average rating 5.26
1. Inadequate:
0
0
2.
0
0
3. Minimal:
0
0
4.
26.3%
5
5. Good:
42.1%
8
6.
10.5%
2
7. Excellent
21.1%
4
1.
Facility mainly needs to be updated.
2.
New building-in good shape
3.
The main building was built by the Navy in 1943.
28
4.
Two Centers poor, two centers good and one excellent
5.
Other than clearing out some old paint, fixing backyard fence, replacement of window, etc., our
facility is in a pretty good condition.
29
Appendix 4: Interview Questions for City Planning/Community Development staff
The following questions were used to interview city staff on March 30, 2011.
Land Use and Planning:
1) What language does Daly City have in its General Plan that supports the retention and
expansion of child care/early learning facilities and services?
2) How is Daly City including early learning environments in housing and transit-oriented
developments?
3) How does Daly City encourage builders to look at the impact that their project has on
existing child care supply and what does Daly City have in place to mitigate the negative
impact of large scale commercial/industrial developments on child care demand?
4) Has Daly City encouraged child care facilities as part of commercial/industrial/residential
developments?
Grants, loans and microenterprise programs
5) How does Daly City use CDBG, Redevelopment, Stimulus and other grant and loan
programs to support retention and expansion of child care/early learning facilities or
services? How do you market your home rehab program to low-income family child care
home providers?
Public-private partnerships
6) Has Daly City used public-private partnerships to support the retention and expansion of
child care/early learning programs using publicly-owned property and facilities? (E.g. are
there community centers, libraries, or other city buildings that might have vacant or
under-utilized rooms? Is there city-owned land, parkland, or undeveloped spaces where a
facility might be developed?)
7) Tell me about your experience with the City-sponsored Imagination Station program. Is
this a model of public-private partnerships?
30
Appendix 5: Interview Questions for School District Representative
The following questions were used to interview Jefferson School District staff on March 30,
2011.
1) What is your District’s projected kindergarten enrollment for 2010-11 and 2011-12?
2) Is your District experiencing increasing or decreasing enrollment?
3) In your District, what percentage of children attends preschool before entering
kindergarten? Indicate whether this number is an estimate or based on data from schools.
4) Have you identified specific elementary schools where preschool is especially needed?
5) Do you have additional classroom space that you could dedicate to preschool? If yes,
please list the school sites and number of classrooms.
6) Is land available at any school sites to develop preschool classrooms (under-utilized
parking lot or black top and/or vacant land)?
7) Does your District operate state-subsidized or market-rate preschool? Are you interested
in expanding those services if funding were available?
8) Are you willing to provide space (or additional space) for new Preschool for All classes
offered by high-quality, community-based preschool providers?
9) Do you charge rent to preschool/child care operators? What is the rate (specify what that
includes such as janitorial, maintenance, utilities, etc.) and length of lease?
31
Appendix 6
Property Search Criteria for Child Care/Preschool Centers
For Realtors
Child care/preschool operators differ as to the size (and other aspects) of a facility they are
seeking, based on their business model, philosophy, and operational factors. So the following
guidelines are provided for general use in identifying potentially suitable properties.
Explanation and Assumptions:
Interior space: A range of
5,000/6,000 sf to 10,000 sf 10
Outdoor space: Approximately the
same amount of outdoor space is
needed that is suitable to be
developed for a fenced playground
Parking
Most operators require licensed capacity of at least
50-60 children to have an economically viable
program. Some will consider a smaller capacity and
others prefer at least 100-child capacity.
While state Community Care Licensing regulations
require 35 sf per child of unencumbered play space,
quality standards assume 50. Depending on the
building, 80-100 sf per child must be available to
account for: other child uses (cubbies, bathrooms),
adult spaces (office, food prep area, bathrooms),
storage, hallways, etc.
CCL requires 75 sf of playground space per child
(including for infants). It is possible for the operator
to obtain a waiver to reduce playground space based
on scheduling different time periods for classes.
However, the need for age-appropriate equipment
precludes sharing of playgrounds by infant/toddlers,
preschool-age (3-5 yrs) and school-age (5-12 yrs.).
Playground space may be shared with the public
outside of child care hours only.
Ideally, playgrounds are directly accessible from
classrooms.
Cities vary in parking requirements for child
care/preschool centers. Generally, one space is required
for each child care employee based on the maximum that
will be on-site at one time.11 Short-term drop off/pick up
parking for parents may be required at anywhere from 1
space per 5 to 1 per 10 children. Sometimes a curbside
green zone can meet this requirement. Staff and parents’
access to public transit may permit a reduction in parking.
10
Ground floor space is highly preferred due to the extensive, additional Building and Fire Code requirements for
child care above (or below) ground level.
11
The 10-12 hours of operation of a child care center are staffed with overlapping work shifts based on lower
enrollment at beginning and end of the day.
32
Bathrooms/Plumbing: 4 toilets and
4 sinks for children plus an adult
facility (can be unisex)
Other Site Considerations (not
regulated by CCL):
City or county zoning must allow
this use.
Convenient location for parents
Safety/health issues
ADA accessibility
CCL regulations require one toilet and sink per 15
children in addition to adult facilities. Ideally these
are located in or adjacent to classrooms to avoid
teachers leaving to escort children to bathrooms. So
the amount and location of existing plumbing (that
can be tapped into) is an important consideration if
additional toilets/sinks will be required.
Child care centers should be available in residential
neighborhoods, office parks, commercial areas,
in/near public facilities and parks. Some cities allow
child care in light industrial areas but potential
impacts of toxics, noise, etc must be assessed.
Convenience to commute routes and public transit is
ideal.
Air quality is a concern due to respiratory illnesses in
children. Avoid sites within 500 ft., at least, of
freeways and other sources of emissions.
Noise impacts of high vehicle traffic areas, airports,
industrial activities or other sources can be
detrimental to children’s development and learning.
Soil contamination from previous uses of a property
must be assessed. Testing and mitigation costs may
make a project unfeasible.
Child care centers are required to be accessible under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. In relation to
physical facilities, this impacts bathrooms, access to
the building and playground, and path of travel
within.
33