Transcript Slide 1

Comprehensive Planning for
Healthy Cities and Communities
Presentation by Marya Morris, AICP
2006 design for Health Speaker Series
Sponsored by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota
A Convergence of Priorities
Public Health
Comp Planning,
Plan Implementation
Healthy, Active
Communities
APA’s Five Strategic Points of Intervention
1. Visioning and goal setting
2. Rethinking planning in all
contexts
3. Local implementation
tools
4. Site Design and
Development
5. Siting Public Facilities
and Capital Spending
Visioning and Goal Setting
• Begins with a discussion of
shared values
• Results in a shared image of
a community imagines most
desired future
• Provides a broad context
within which goals are set
and plans are developed
• Majority of planning efforts
now launched with a
visioning exercise (reflective
of more citizen participation)
Where Health and Physical Activity Fit in
the Visioning and Goal Setting Process
• Residents’ shared desire for
healthy communities
• Enhancement and
improvement of quality of life
• It is government’s
responsibility to protect the
public’s health, safety and
general welfare
• Environmental justice (and
the removal of health
disparities) is a land-use
issue
Attitudes About the Planning / Public Health Connection
self vs. elected/appointed officials
NACCHO members
important policy issue
33%
emerging policy issue
not an important issue
63%
20%
1%
2%
unsure
42%
27%
11%
APA members
important policy issue
54%
20%
38%
39%
emerging policy issue
not an important issue
4%
unsure
4%
0%
24%
self
17%
20%
officials
40%
60%
base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members)
80%
Barriers to Planning/Public Health Collaboration
PRACTICAL BARRIERS*
lack staff resources
64%
lack funding
54%
78%
76%
40%
41%
lack qualified staff
21%
19%
statutory restrictions
operate in "crisis" mode
14%
lack interdepartmental flexibility
13%
15%
26%
SUBSTANTIVE BARRIERS
citizens not interested
40%
48%
29%
35%
public health regarded solely as medical issue
regarded as barrier to local growth
14%
other
12%
0%
33%
NACCHO
APA
20%
20%
40%
60%
80%
base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)
*top mentions
100%
Plans Prepared/Updated (1999-2004)
52%
comprehensive (or master)
75%
42%
transportation
41%
trail and/or greenway
61%
42%
parks and recreation
70%
61%
31%
bicycle and pedestrian
64%
39%
downtown
27%
housing
47%
growth management
30%
redevelopment
30%
20%
community facilities
human services
11%
0%
20%
40%
40%
41%
14%
neighborhood
47%
43%
27%
40%
NACCHO
APA
60%
base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)
80%
Plans Explicitly Addressing Public Health
24%
comprehensive (or master)
14%
parks and recreation
23%
11%
bicycle and pedestrian
25%
13%
trail and/or greenway
11%
transportation
human services
7%
9%
housing
36%
22%
22%
23%
16%
10%
12%
8%
11%
growth management
community facilities
4%
neighborhood
5%
redevelopment
4%
downtown
12%
10%
NACCHO
APA
10%
5%
6%
other
0%
20%
40%
60%
base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)
80%
Health and Environmental Data Provided
(from public health to planning department)
incidence of providing
53%
22%
TYPES PROVIDED
environmental quality
41%
17%
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
23%
2%
obesity
4%
exercise
4%
routine physical activity
20%
18%
16%
5%
pedestrian or bicyclist injuries/fatalities
14%
6%
housing conditions
7%
industrial pollutants
6%
asthma
11%
11%
14%
3%
other
4%
0%
NACCHO
APA
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)
60%
2. Rethinking State and
Local Planning
• Comprehensive
plans
• Neighborhood plans
• Redevelopment
plans
…2. Functional Plans
• Functional Plans
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Health services
Bicycle and pedestrian
Transit
Streets and circulation
Trails
Parks
Housing
Economic development
Schools and campuses
Local Implementation Tools
• Zoning, subdivision, and
land development
regulations
– Rethink development
density
– Mix land uses
– Connect streets and
routes
– Require sidewalks
– Open space
• Transit-oriented
development
• Traditional neighborhood
development
Putting Health and Physical Activity into
Comprehensive Planning
Good planning and smart growth is are
inherently supportive of physical activity
and health:
• Walkable communities, increased
transportation options:
– Create opportunities for PA
– Reduce VMT
– Improve air quality
– Provide open space, trails, bike/ped
• Managing the pace and direction of local
and regional growth:
– Supports contiguous, compact
development
– Creates high-quality neighborhoods
– Ties to public infrastructure spending
Putting Health in Plans:
Specific Interventions
• Narrative description of rationale for including health in
the plan
• Explain relationship of existing plans, e.g., smart growth
to health
• Develop goals and objectives that connect heart health,
safety, physical activity, and obesity to planning,
community design, and land use
• Develop specific health goals for relevant plan elements
• Create an implementation schedule for the health
objectives
Riverside County, California
• 7,100 square miles (size of
New Hampshire)
• 1.8M population
• 24 cities
• 1/3 of residents live in
unincorporated areas
• Auto-dependent development
patterns
• Ranked 4th in US for
unhealthy air
• High rate of CVD
• Low public transit use
How Riverside Co. DPH Got Involved in
Livable Communities Activities
• County DPH invited to take part in City of Riverside’s
Healthy Cities project in 2000
• “Get Movin’ Riverside” walking program: identified
safe walking routes
• DPH staff attended conferences and meetings to
learn the language of transportation, planning and
development
• Riverside County completed its Integrated Plan for
unincorporated areas
– Emphasizes habitat protection
– Focuses on creating pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods and smart growth in general
City of Riverside Project
 Mayor invited County DPH to sit on 38-member
Walkable Communities Task Force to prepare a
Pedestrian Walkability Plan
 County conducted 1 walkable community
workshop and 5 Walk Audits to identify areas for
change
 Drafted a pedestrian plan
 Reviewed policies that promote walkability,
recommend design guidelines, capital
improvements, prioritize recommendations, and
provide action steps
 Presented report/plan to City Council
Riverside County DPH Participation
Conducted Walkability
Assessments
Identified 38
Walking Routes
Riverside Co. DPH Conducted Walk
Audits at Highest Pedestrian Crash Zones
. . . Riverside Co. DPH
Recent Interagency Activities
• Providing funding and content for a
“Smart Growth Guide” for developers
• Jointly submitted w/ planners,
transportation depts. 2 Caltrans grant
apps. to conduct visioning plans in two
unincorporated areas
• Collaborating w/ 9 county agencies and 6
developers on a Planning Community
Facilities Strategy for a massive new
development
• Awarded California State Association of
Counties’ 2005 Challenge Award for its
Livable Communities Project
More Riverside Co. DPH
Recent Interagency Activities
• Hosting workshops for planning,
transportation, fire departments on
Context Sensitive Road and Street
Standards for Riverside County.
• Riverside City Council adopted Walkable
Communities Task Force Report and
Pedestrian Master Plan in June 2005
• Will conduct safe routes to school
trainings in spring 2006 for two Riverside
school districts.
Seattle/King County, Washington
• 2,130 sq. mi. (size of
Delaware)
• 1.7M population
• 39 cities
• Pop doubled between 1960 –
2000 (1.5 to 3.3 M)
• Air quality still better than
federal standards
• Top 3 health issues
– Asthma
– Overweight/Obesity
– Physical inactivity (45% of adult
residents are inactive)
Seattle/King County Initiative
Environmental Health
Community Assessment
Team (EHCAT)
• Interagency/cross divisional
team formed in 2001
• Raised awareness, provided
recommendations on
environmental health issues
and how they relate to planning
policies
• Built Environment and Health
became a cross-cutting team
priority
Public Health – Seattle/King County Initiative
• Seattle/King Co. Public Health Dept. Strategic Plan
(2004):
– Identified Land Use, Built Environment, and Health
was named 1 of 3 strategic priorities for the
Department
• Capacity Building Actions:
– Seattle Planner and King Co. Health Director
participated in NACCHO/APA collaborative training
– Hosted presentations and forums for state and local
health officials
– Formed stakeholder group for LUTAQH
– December 2005 – Two new positions created to
implement interagency recommendations
Partnership and Input on Planning,
Transportation & Land Use Policies
• Providing input on the Puget
Sound Regional Council Vision
2020 Update
– Participated in Scoping Sessions
– Convened Environmental Health
directors in the region to gather input
– Drafted white paper: “What’s Health
Got to Do With Growth Management,
Economic Development, and
Transportation?”
– Drafted policies and actions for
inclusion in the final plan
Excerpts of Puget Sound Regional Council that Direct
Health Issues in Multi-County Policies
• A-6 Address safety improvements for
transportation with an emphasis on
pedestrian and bicycle safety
• A-7 Direct transit agencies/local govts
to make ped/bike investments
coincident with improved transit
service
• A-8 Incorporate provisions addressing
health and well being into local
comprehensive plans in the 4-county
region
• A-9 Improve access to health facilities
for all community sectors
Regional Plan Excerpts:
Health-Related Implementation Actions
• B-1:Develop model health provisions for local comp
plans
• B-2: Encourage local funding of pedestrian and nonmotorized improvements
• B-3: Assess sidewalk connectivity through the urbanized
areas of the region
• B-4: Establish performance criteria or other level of
service for all modes of transportation
• B-7: Add a public health representative to the Regional
Council’s Transportation Policy Board
• B- 9: Advocate inclusion of health considerations in State
Environmental Policy Act/EIS review
Regional Plan Excerpts:
Measurable Objectives to Monitor Health Conditions
% meeting 30 min/day guideline
• C-1: Work with health agencies
and the academic community and
with local jurisdictions to identify
measures for assessing
environmental and public health
related to:
– Land use, including soil
contamination, noxious uses, etc.
– Water quality
– Air quality
• C- 2: Work with partner agencies
to develop measures for assessing
the walkability and bikability of
urban environments
BMI and Walkability
Ingham County, Michigan
• 36 sq. mi. (size of Delaware)
• 400K population
• Pop declining, aging,
suburbanizing
• Air quality still better than
federal standards
• Top 3 health issues
– Overweight/Obesity
– CVD
– Physical inactivity (45% of adult
residents are inactive)
Ingham County (Mich.) Health Department
• Formed the Land Use and Health Team (2001)
• Made public health a priority in the Regional
Growth Strategy
• Developed Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
matrix
– Checklist format for reviews with developers
– Matrix for greater level of detail or thoroughness
– HIA: Mapping results w/ GIS
• Hired a Land Use/Health Liaison
Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future
Jobs, Economic Development, and
Work Force Goal
Jobs, economic expansion and
workforce development should be
emphasized consistent with the
preferred Regional Vision to keep the
region competitive in a global
economy, but not at the expense of
environmental health.
Greenways & Walkability Goal
Pathways, sidewalks, trails and onstreet bike facilities should be
developed and enhanced to provide
alternatives to motorized
transportation, improve linkages to
recreational opportunities for regional
residents and provide public health
benefits by offering opportunities for
physical activity.
Ingham County, Michigan
Factors in the Health Impact Assessment Matrix
• Water
•
Interaction between neighbors
• Air Quality
•
Diversity of housing types and
affordability
• Noise
•
Resident involvement in planning
• Physical Activity
•
Compatibility with adjacent uses
• Injury Prevention
•
Sidewalks and pathways and
mobility options
• Health Equity
•
Nuisance Noises
• Impacts on Traffic Volume
•
Groundwater Recharge
• Children walking to school
Delaware County, Ohio
• Started w/PACE-EH,
community-based
environmental health
assessment
• Public raised land use as the
key issue
Lessons learned to date:
• Role of public health official
should be clearly defined and
abided by
• Get health to the table,
continue make the connections
• Health assessments lay
groundwork for collaboration
that addresses local land use
and planning policies
• Assessments highlight
community values and
concerns that help build
community support and
support of elected officials
Tri-County Colo. Health Department
• Developed
community-based
environmental health
assessment checklist
• Available at naccho.org
Sky Ranch Subdivision
Developer proposed a cookie
cutter subdivision
Planning Dept. rejected
proposal; sent 20-page letter of
conditions
Health Dept. worked w/planners
and the developer to improve
the site design and the active
living features
Used the County’s own
development regulations to
push the envelope
Existing Zoning, PUD Reg. Used to Create a ActivitySupportive Community at Sky Ranch

Zoning code Planned Unit
Development criteria



Walkability – “…thoroughly
examining…capability of …
transportation system to serve
present and future land uses.”
Trails along drainage –
“Assure compatibility between
the proposed development,
surrounding land uses and the
natural environment.”
Integrated mixed uses –
“Enhance convenience for
…residents…by ensuring that
appropriate supporting
activities … are in close
proximity to one another.”

Zoning code Planned Unit
Development criteria


Safe bike/ped paths,
connectivity – “Provide for
accessibility within the
development, and between
the development and…
adjacent uses. (e.g., traffic
circulation, transit, pedestrian
avenues, parking and road
connections).
Open spaces – “Minimize
disruption to … physiographic
features…” Two criteria
specify creation of open
space.
Preliminary Development Plan
Summary: Commonalities Among
Planning/Public Health Collaborations
• Advocate for local public health policy making in multiple
contexts e.g., plans, transportation, zoning
• Participate in comprehensive plan updates and code
revisions
• Brief planners on DPH activities relevant to planning
• Provide health data to support planning policies and
actions
• Assume responsibility for health related assessments
• Become a regular stakeholder in land use &
transportation planning process
• Attend planning meetings, engage in policy-making
process, be proactive rather than reactive
Summary: Commonalities Among
Local Public Health Agency Roles
• Make presentations to civic groups e.g., League of
Women Voters, who can monitor process & provide
input.
• Provide training for boards of health; encourage passage
of resolutions
• Collaborate with & mobilize elder network
• Expand role of LPHAs in commenting on development
plans with regard to health impacts.
• Conduct a health impact assessment
• Make planning/public health collaboration a matter of
standard procedure
Thank You
Marya Morris, AICP
American Planning Association
[email protected]
312-786-6375