title
Workshop to consider policy questions regarding the regulations within the Travis Plan pertaining to 1) concentrations of persons on the ground, 2) nursing homes, and 3) schools
body
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission conduct a workshop to consider policy questions regarding the regulations within the Travis Plan pertaining to:
1) concentrations of persons on the ground,
2) nursing homes, and
3) schools.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, staff and the Commission have worked with the City of Suisun City and the Mount Calvary Baptist Church (MCBC) on the Church’s proposal to develop a multi-purpose project on Peterson Road, 1000 feet east of Walters Road in the City of Suisun City. The project is a multi-use project that will serve residents of Suisun City, Fairfield, and surrounding communities. The project has been reviewed on a preliminary basis twice, once on March 10, 2016 (Attachment A Minutes of March 10, 2016 Meeting) and more recently on March 14, 2019 (Attachment B DRAFT Minutes of March 14, 2019 Meeting).
The proposed project includes the construction of a Sanctuary building, Education Center and a Senior Affordable Housing project as well as a Business Center, a Family Life Center, Personal Storage Units, and a Conference and Banquet Center.
The proposed project is located within the Area of Influence of the Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan (Travis Plan) within Compatibility Zone C. In addition, the project lies within the Travis Plan's Bird Strike Hazard Zone; partly within the Assault Landing Zone Training Area Overlay; and partly between the 65 and 70 CNEL noise contours.
BACKGROUND
The MCBC proposal (See Attachment C Site Plan) would contain the following facilities:
• The Main Sanctuary (80,000 SF),
• The Education Center (60,000 SF),
• The Senior Affordable Housing Project (88 units),
• The Family Life center (80,000 SF),
• The Conference Center and Banquet Hall (22,000 SF),
• The Business Center (10,000 SF), and
• 360 Private Storage Units
The major difference between the current and past proposal is that the current proposal includes an area of seasonal wetlands along the Petersen Road frontage which has been set aside for preservation. As a result, the area proposed to be devoted to the developed portion of the project has been reduced in size.
In addition, the proposed senior housing project has been moved to the western side of the property from the eastern side which increases its distance from the end of the runway. There would also be 360 private storage units on the northern side of the property which was previously depicted as “future development”.
During the Commissions hearing on March 14, 2019, several questions arose regarding certain policy provisions within the Travis Plan.
TRAVIS PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The proposed project is located within Compatibility Zone C of the Travis Plan. The compatibility criteria for Zone C are provided below as well as other plan policies, as related to the issues addressed in this staff report.
TABLE I: Compatibility Criteria for Compatibility Zone C
ZONE: C
LOCATION: Traffic Pattern,
IMPACT ELEMENTS: Safety and Overflight risk and noise impacts
MAXIMUM DENSITIES
Residential: 11 dwelling units per acre
Other Uses: 75 persons per acre (indoors)
100 persons per acre (outdoors)
300 persons per acre at any one time (single acre)
PROHIBITED USES: children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing
homes, hazards to flight.
CHAPTER 4: Detailed land use criteria
4.5.1 "General Standards. The general standards applicable to the review of proposed land use actions in the vicinity of Travis AFB are set forth in Table 1. Permitted non-residential uses allow for the following intensities: 75 people per acre for indoor uses and 100 people per acre for outdoor uses. Also, to prevent clustering of nonresidential development on larger lots, 300 people per acre shall be the limit for a single acre. For residential uses, the maximum allowable residential density for this zone shall be 11 dwelling units per acre."
4.5.3: "Safety Criteria. Land uses of particular safety concern are ones in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond to emergency situations. Children’s schools (all grades through grade 12), day care centers, hospitals (medical facilities that include provision for overnight stays by patients), nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within Zone C. Noncommercial day care centers ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that the overall use of the property meets the intensity criteria indicated in Table 1. Medical clinics are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that these facilities meet the maximum intensity standards listed in Table 1."
CHAPTER 5: Development standards
5.1.2: "The compatibility of nonresidential development shall be assessed primarily with respect to its usage intensity (the number of people per acre) and the noise-sensitivity of the use. Additional criteria listed in Table 1 shall also apply.
(a) The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except for rare special events, must not exceed the indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site.
(1) Gross acreage includes the property at issue plus a share of adjacent roads and any adjacent, permanently dedicated, open lands.
(2) Usage intensity calculations shall include all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) who may be on the property at any single point in time, whether indoors or outside.
(3) Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions will be taken to protect the event attendees from an aircraft accident.
(b) No single acre of a project site shall exceed the number of people per acre indicated in Policy 5.3.4 and listed in Table 1."
5.3.4 Criteria for Clustering of Development. The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing safety compatibility in the vicinity of airports and accomplishing other development objectives. Clustering occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone is concentrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is held to a low-intensity usage such as agriculture, landscaping, or automobile parking. Refer to Chapter 6 for policies regarding infill development.
(a) With respect to the vicinity of Travis AFB, clustering is applicable only to nonresidential development. As indicated in Table 1, usage intensity of new nonresidential development shall be limited for both indoor and outdoor occupancies. Please see Chapter 4 for detailed clustering requirements for each of the compatibility zones, which are incorporated into this Policy 5.3.4 by reference.
(b) In addition to the detailed clustering requirements for each zone:
(1) For the purposes of this Policy 5.3.4, the areas to be evaluated within the compatibility zones shall be rectangles, not irregular shapes.
(2) In no case shall a proposed development be designed to accommodate more than the total number of people per acre that would be safe, as indicated in Table 1. A project site may include multiple parcels.
APPENDIX A: Methods for Determining Concentrations of People
"One criterion used in many compatibility plans is the maximum number of people per acre that can be present in a given area at any one time. If a proposed use exceeds the maximum density, it is considered inconsistent with compatibility planning policies."
DISCUSSION of POLICY QUESTIONS
On March 14, 2019, the Commission conducted a workshop to receive a presentation concerning the proposed project. Presentations were made on behalf of the City and project proponent in which they highlighted certain aspects of the project in light of the Travis Plan's compatibility criteria, seeking feedback concerning whether certain proposed interpretations or calculation methodologies would be appropriate and workable under the Plan.
During discussion, members of the Commission expressed concern over several aspects of the proposal which may be inconsistent with the Travis Plan. The Commission decided to have staff prepare additional analysis for discussion at a future Commission Meeting. The focus of this analysis is to set forth certain Plan policies and the degree to which those aspects of the Plan are amenable to interpretation.
In particular, Staff has reviewed the Travis Plan’s treatment of the following three policy matters:
1. Concentrations of Persons on the Ground,
2. Regulating Nursing Homes, and
3. Regulating Schools
Each of these issues is discussed below.
1. Concentrations of Persons on the Ground
The Travis Plan includes provisions which control the concentrations of people on the ground and in buildings. From Table 1 above, residential uses are controlled by specifying the density of dwelling units per acre which may be permitted (11 du/ac). For non-residential uses, the Travis Plan specifies the number of persons per acre which may occupy the entire project area (75/ac indoors and 100/ac outdoors) as well as the maximum number of persons that may occupy the most crowded single acre in the project area (300/ac).
In the MCBC proposal, the Sanctuary Building would contain fixed seating for 3,000 persons (plus any persons to be added to the calculation for waiting areas or other areas) within an 80,000 sq. ft. space, or approximately 1,500 persons on a single acre. This concentration of population would exceed the 300 persons per single acre maximum intensity standard contained in the Travis Plan.
The City of Suisun City has submitted information to address this issue The City asked how the population intensity limitations might apply to a part-time use of the land (e.g., Main Sanctuary Building) which is occupied on a part-time basis. For those land uses with part-time or limited term occupancy, the City proposed that a person-hours equivalency be developed to compare limited term uses to a full-time use of the land.
For example, if a business were open on Mondays only and occupied with 100 persons per acre it might have 1,000 person-hours per acre of intensity (100 persons per acre*10 hours occupancy on 1 day only). A full-time business with 100 persons per acre might have 7,000-person hours per acre (100 persons per acre*10 hours per day*7 days per week). The City is seeking the Commission’s endorsement of a mechanism which can define an equivalency between full-time and part-time uses of the land under the presumption that the risk is much less for a one-day per week occupancy than for a full-time occupancy.
Staff has reviewed the Travis Plan and related documents and is of the view that the Plan is not amenable to much interpretation on this topic, and that it cannot be read to allow for a person-hours equivalency on this issue. The reasons for this conclusion are outlined below, the most prominent of which is the language of the Plan which requires the calculation methodology to focus on concentrations "at any single point in time." (Policy 5.1.2.) Although this phrase is not repeated in every place in the Plan where concentrations are discussed, it is a requirement of the Plan, and it forecloses any other interpretations of the concentration limits.
The Travis Plan expresses the concentration of people standards as an absolute maximum number without regard to how often the threshold might be reached during a week. For some provisions of the Travis Plan, the Commission is given some discretion to interpret the precise meaning or circumstance to be applied in a given situation. For example, the Commission may determine the precise location of the boundary of a Compatibility Zone depicted on Figure 1 of the Travis Plan. However, there is no language in the Travis Plan permitting the Commission to interpret the meaning of the standards for concentrations of persons on the ground.
In particular with respect to the possibility of reading the Plan to allow for averaging of those concentrations over time, the Plan instead states that the at-one-time approach must be used. For example, Policy 5.1.2 provides: "(a) The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except for rare special events, must not exceed the indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. (2) Usage intensity calculations shall include all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) who may be on the property at any single point in time, whether indoors or outside." (Emphasis added.)
Since the language of the Plan addresses this directly and plainly, there would be no need to look beyond the Plan to some of the background documents that inform airport land use planning or to the way other jurisdictions interpret this.
However, were there a need to do so it would be noted that this is consistent with a widely recognized view of the purpose behind policies such as these, which is that the risk considerations that go into airport land use compatibility planning emphasize limiting the potential consequences/severity of accidents by trying "to minimize the exposure of persons to these risks." (Travis AFB LUCP White Paper (April 2015), at p. 47; Caltrans, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, at p. 4-16 ("Handbook").) "[I]t is the potentially severe consequences of aircraft accidents that are the driving concern in setting safety compatibility policies." (Handbook, at pp. 4-17, 4-32.)
Put another way, it is generally accepted that aircraft accidents happen infrequently, but that when they do the consequences can be catastrophic. Therefore, the Travis Plan reflects (and the State Handbook recommends) a policy focus on reducing the severity of accidents when they do happen by means of policies that prevent concentrations of people near airports. While a use with a lesser frequency than, for example, ordinary 9-5 business hours may have a somewhat lesser "frequency" than other uses, if the concentration of people remains high the severity of accidents that do occur would remain high. Thus, a proposal that further reduces the already-low frequency would not affect the overall risk scenario, as reduced frequency has no effect on accident severity.
With respect to these safety considerations, the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook points out that "near-airport aircraft accidents are events which occur infrequently but have potentially high consequences." (Handbook, at p. F-11.) "With land use compatibility planning around airports, however, reducing the frequency of accidents is not the objective-except for airspace obstructions, land uses have little effect on whether aircraft accidents occur. Rather, the purpose is to minimize the consequences of accidents when they happen." (Handbook, at p. F-10.) "[I]n terms of airport land use compatibility planning, the issue is what could happen if incompatible development is allowed to occur." (Handbook, at p. F-11.) Therefore, it would be consistent with general policy purposes informing the Plan to conclude that the Travis Plan's concentration limits are not subject to averaging over time.
Such a conclusion is also supported by the fact that the size of the "impact areas" for accidents involving Air Force aircraft can be large. For example, for a heavy bomber or a tanker, the typical size of an impact area is 8.73 acres, while the average impact area for accidents involving all types of Air Force aircraft is 5.06 acres. (Travis AFB Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (2009), at p. B.6.)
Putting that in perspective of the proposed project, the impact area that might be expected from an accident here could be more than 8 times the footprint of any one of the proposed project's buildings.
Further support for the conclusion that the numerical concentration figures of the Plan are interpreted as a point in time is the provision of Policy 5.3.4 requiring that "the areas to be evaluated within the compatibility zones shall be rectangles, not irregular shapes." That is, the Plan emphasizes a need to calculate concentration in a simple way that does not require much interpretation.
Although it is Staff's view that the Plan is not amenable to interpretation in such a way that a person-hours equivalency could be found to be within the Plan, there is nonetheless a provision in the Travis Plan which would permit the applicant to make a case for their project. Section 6.2.4(c) Special Conditions (6), which states:
“Other Special Conditions - The compatibility criteria set forth in the Travis AFB LUCP are intended to be applicable to all locations within the AIA. However, it is recognized that there may be specific situations where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site.”
The section goes on to set forth procedural points when utilizing the exception provision which include making it the applicant’s burden to provide information and analysis in support of an exception request.
2. Nursing Homes
MCBC is proposing an affordable Senior Housing Project containing 88 dwelling units on 8 acres of land for a density of 11 units per acre. This density is consistent with the Travis Plan compatibility criteria for residential uses which is 11 units per acre.
The project is an age restricted independent living Senior Housing project and will be occupied by senior citizens aged 55 and over. The Travis Plan prohibits nursing homes and other land uses where the occupants would include the elderly. This Senior Housing project is not an assisted-living or elder-care facility. There are no medical or nursing services provided as a part of the housing. MCBC believes that this facility does not fall into the class of land uses which are prohibited as "nursing homes" under the compatibility criteria for Zone C.
The Commission, during discussion at the March meeting asked for clarification regarding the prohibition of nursing homes and the MCBC proposal to construct Senior (age-restricted) Housing on the site. In order to unravel this question, the Commission must first determine if the senior housing project is a nursing home or conventional housing units restricted to persons 55 and over. That is, Staff believes the definition of "nursing home" is amenable to further interpretation.
The Travis Plan does not provide a definition of “nursing homes”. Staff has provided a series of definitions to assist in determining the meaning of nursing home as utilized in the Travis Plan. Most zoning ordinances used by jurisdictions within California define a land use category of Community Care Facilities which is a broad category of care facilities which include nursing homes. Some jurisdictions do define “nursing homes”. Staff has provided examples below.
The County of Solano defines Community Care Facility as:
“Community care facility. Any facility not otherwise defined in this chapter, excluding any facility owned and operated by the County, which is maintained and operated to provide residential care or day care to children, adults, or children and adults in need of personal services, guidance, counseling, supervision, recovery services, supportive services, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual, including, but not limited to, the physically impaired or handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children. A community care facility may provide incidental medical services. For purposes of this definition, “residential care” means nonmedical care provided on a 24-hour basis and “day care” means nonmedical care provided on a less than 24-hour basis.”
The term “nursing home” is defined in the City of Fairfield zoning ordinance as:
“Nursing Home. Residential facilities providing nursing and health-related care as a principal use with in-patient beds, such as: skilled nursing facilities (facilities allowing care for physically or mentally disabled persons, where care is less than that provided by an acute care facility); extended care facilities; convalescent and rest homes. Nursing Homes are licensed by the State Department of Public Health as Skilled Nursing Facilities or Congregate Care Health Facilities.”
The City of Suisun City zoning ordinance defines “community care facility” as:
“Community Care Facility, Large. Large community care facilities are located in residential dwellings where non-medical care is provided to seven (7) or more persons on a twenty-four (24) hour basis. Large community care facilities include foster family homes, group homes for children who are wards of the state, adult day support centers, social rehabilitation facilities, transitional care facilities, and adult residential facilities (for adults with mental disabilities). A community care facility is licensed under the State of California Health and Safety Code 1520 et seq.”
The Meriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines a “nursing home” as:
“a public or private residential facility providing a high level of long-term personal or nursing care for persons (such as the aged or the chronically ill) who are unable to care for themselves properly “
The Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary defines a nursing home as:
“a private home or other place where maintenance and personal or nursing care are provided for three or more persons who are unable to care for themselves properly."
One common denominator in the definitions cited above is the notion that the residents of a community care facility or nursing home are unable to care properly for their daily needs without some form of medical and/or social service assistance.
For purposes of airport land use planning, the typical policy concern is related to the above common denominator of the need for care, which is a focus on vulnerability, mobility and an ability to understand emergency situations.
Policy 4.5.3 of the Travis Plan provides:
"Land uses of particular safety concern are ones in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond to emergency situations. Children’s schools (all grades through grade 12), day care centers, hospitals (medical facilities that include provision for overnight stays by patients), nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within Zone C. Noncommercial day care centers ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that the overall use of the property meets the intensity criteria indicated in Table 1. Medical clinics are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that these facilities meet the maximum intensity standards listed in Table 1."
On the same general theme, the Caltrans Handbook discusses this policy concern as follows:
"Uses with Vulnerable Occupants. Other types of land uses also tend to be given special deference by the community. These are uses for which risk acceptability cannot be measured simply in terms of the number of occupants. The vulnerability of the occupants to the risks of aircraft accidents must also be considered. In many instances, the appropriate policy may be outright prohibition of new instances of these uses and expansion of existing facilities. Perhaps the most significant uses on this list are schools. This status is reflected in building codes and other regulations that set higher standards for school buildings. Even with respect to aviation-related impacts, the California Education Code (Section 17215(a)) requires special attention be given to new school sites, dictating that Caltrans review and approve sites within two miles of an airport runway. In general, the community gives special attention to protection of children. Similarly, special consideration should also be given, when formulating safety policies, to other facilities that cater to children such as recreation/after-school centers and sports facilities. Two other segments of the population whom are often afforded special consideration and protection are the elderly and disabled. As with children, both groups include individuals who may not know how to respond to an emergency or maybe physically unable to do so. Hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other such uses are ones that usually should be avoided in locations near runways." (Handbook, at pp. 4-29 to 4-30.)
As noted above, Policy 4.5.3 not only points to "nursing homes," but also provides that "other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within Zone C" Thus, if a majority of the occupants would be elderly, the project would fall within the prohibition in Policy 4.5.3.
"Elderly" is defined in various other sources as follows:
“'Residential care facility for the elderly' means a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1569.2, subd. (p)(1).)
For purposes of comparison, the term "elder" is defined in the context of California's "elder abuse" laws as a person "65 years of age or older." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.27.)
In still another unrelated context, "elderly person" is defined in a federal mortgage insurance statute as "any person, married or single, who is sixty-two years of age or over." (12 USCS § 1715v, subd. (a).)
In another unrelated context, for purposes of the California Community Crime Resistance Program, "elderly or senior citizen" means individuals 55 years of age or older. (Pen. Code, § 13841, subd. (b).)
The most related definition above appears to be the one concerning "residential care facility for the elderly." The line between "elderly" and not, therefore, again centers on questions of vulnerability, mobility, and ability to respond to emergencies, at least when it comes to airport land use planning.
3. Regulating Children’s Schools
MCBC is proposing an education center on its campus. The Travis Plan prohibits “children’s schools”. The education center raises a land use suitability question as to whether the education center is a children’s school, and thus prohibited, or another land use type. MCBC has expressed a view that the educational center is not a children’s school as defined by the Travis Plan.
"Among planners and others involved with airport land use compatibility, there is general agreement as to certain types of land uses that are or are not compatible with airports from a safety standpoint: a school near the end of a runway is incompatible, but a typical single-story office or light industrial use is normally fine." (Handbook, at p. 4-19.)
Staff believes the term "children's schools" is amenable to some interpretation, but that the plan itself provides further definition to some degree. The Plan defines a children’s school as serving students up to and through the 12th grade. (See, Table 1, fn. 7; see also Handbook, p. 4-18.) This implies that the school is providing mandated education for grades K-12 and would therefore include public schools for grades K-12 and private school equivalents.
MCBC has stated that the Sunday School does not provide these services, but rather engages in training for students while parents are attending other church functions on the overall site.
As noted above, Policy 4.5.3 provides that "Land uses of particular safety concern are ones in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond to emergency situations. Children’s schools (all grades through grade 12), day care centers, hospitals (medical facilities that include provision for overnight stays by patients), nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within Zone C. Noncommercial day care centers ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that the overall use of the property meets the intensity criteria indicated in Table 1. Medical clinics are permitted in Compatibility Zone C provided that these facilities meet the maximum intensity standards listed in Table 1."
As noted above, this Policy provides that "other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within Zone C" Thus, if a majority of the occupants would be children, the project would fall within the prohibition in Policy 4.5.3.
However, in that policy, note also that day care centers "ancillary to a place of business" are permitted if the intensity criteria are met. Therefore, if the facility is being used as a place where the children can be tended to in one space while the parents are engaged in activities elsewhere in the "place of business," it may possibly be such a day care center. However, if the children are sent there without parents also being present on the site, it may not qualify, as it may not be ancillary to the business.
Based on the Travis Plan definition (i.e., K-12), Staff's view is that the proposed project, as described by the applicant, is likely not a “Children’s School.” However, it likely is an "other use[] in which the majority of occupants are children." If, however, it is merely a day care center ancillary to a place of business, then it may be within those provisions of the Plan as described above.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide further direction to Staff on any or all of the policy matters discussed herein.