HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-14 Staff Retreat Agenda Packet CITY OF ■ . CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF
RETREAT AGENDA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
NEW LOCATION: TRI-COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
July 14, 2021
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING AND THE FRONT ENTRANCE
DOORS ARE LOCKED, PLEASE CALL (909) 774-4406, EXT.4406, AND STAFF WILL LET
YOU IN.
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not
listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the Agenda but set
the matter for a subsequent meeting.
C. Discussion
Planning Commission and Staff Discussion:
1. Past— Evaluation and Discussion of Approved Projects.
2. Present — Healthy RC Development Checklist.
3. Future — Draft General Plan and Future Project Review.
D. Adjournment
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson
may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the
audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Planning Department at(909)477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning
Commission, please state your name for the record. After speaking, please fill out a speaker card. It is
important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to.
Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an
item, the Chairman may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be
heard. Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Communications."
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for
distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to
be used for the official public record.
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:OOpm on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for
scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CitvofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the
Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the
City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$3,279 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at
www.CitvofRC.us.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, July
8, 2021, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
HPC/PC Staff Retreat Agenda —July 14, 2021
Page 2 of 2
CITY . ■ . ! . !
l
DATE: July 14, 2021
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission and Staff Discussion
1. Past - Evaluation and Discussion of Approved Projects
2. Present - Healthy RC Development Checklist
3. Future - Draft General Plan and Future Project Review
The Regular Planning Commission calendar did not include any public hearing items for July 14,
2021, and staff felt that this would be a good opportunity to lead a discussion with commissioners
about past project review, especially as we are in the review process for the PlanRC General Plan
Update to be adopted later this year.
Topic 1 —The Past (30 minutes)
In order to facilitate good discussion, staff has created the following list of recently approved
projects to review. Commissioners are asked to either visit the sites in person or do a Google
Maps search as a reminder of these recent developments/businesses. Discussion is meant to
provide helpful lessons for future project review, and not to revisit these decisions for any further
action on previously approved projects. Prior to the meeting on July 14, if you have any questions
for staff about the approval process or conditions on any of these projects, you can email Mike
Smith at Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us.
Commercial
• Day Creek + Base Line shopping center (Stater Bros., CVS, etc. @ NWC)
• Residence Inn (hotel @ SEC Haven + 6tn)
• Haven + Base Line shopping center (Ralphs, Chase Bank, etc. @ NEC)
• Lazy Dog, Sonic, In-N-Out, KFC, etc. (various locations)
Industrial
• Panattoni distribution/warehouse complex (3 industrial buildings @ NWC 41" + Utica)
• Goodman distribution/warehouse complex (2 industrial buildings @ SWC Arrow +
Etiwanda)
• Steelcase warehouse with light assembly manufacturing (industrial building @ NWC
Arrow + Yellow Wood)
Residential/Institutional
• Van Daele (townhomes @ SEC Haven + Church)
• Santa Barbara (apartments @ south side of Church between Elm and Spruce)
• Cadence (senior living facility @ SWC Haven + Church)
• KBHome (large lot single-family residences @ NEC East + 210)
• Van Daele, Tri-Point, and New Home (attached SFRs @ Empire Lakes/The Resort)
• Manning Homes (small lot single-family residences between Archibald and Ramona,
north of PE Trail)
Mixed Use
• Arte (multi-story apartment building w/retail on first floor @ NEC Foothill + Hermosa)
• Day Creek Square (commercial center and attached SFRs @ SWC Base Line + Day
Creek)
• Verano /Town Center Square (commercial center and apartments @ SWC Foothill +
Haven)
"Redevelopment"
• New office "wing" (vacant office at UTI building @ SWC Haven + gth)
• Foothill + Spruce "restaurant row" (The Habit, Luna Grill, etc. that replaced former single
restaurant @ SWC)
• Haven City Market food court (miscellaneous tenants/uses at former Kmart/JCPenny @
SEC Haven + Civic Center)
• Bowlero entertainment facility (within Deer Creek shopping center @ NWC Foothill +
Haven)
Uses/activity/general
• Microbreweries
• Outdoor seating/dining areas
• Self-storage facilities
• Aesthetic enhancements such as creative lighting, wall art, etc.
• Signs
Topic 2: The Present (20 minutes)
At the City Council meeting on July 7, 2021, the City Council considered an appeal of the 7-11
project at 9th and Archibald. Members of the community spoke on the project and raised
numerous issues that pertain to the HealtyRC development checklist. A copy of the checklist is
attached, and we will be discussing ways in which these principles can be incorporated into future
development projects.
Topics 3: The Future (20 minutes):
The City is undertaking a long-range planning effort with the General Plan update - PlanRC. A
draft document is now available for public review after eighteen months of research and public
outreach. The atached graphic encapsulates on one page the Core Values and Guiding
Principles, the five "Big Ideas" and the Land Plan. Staff is interested in hearing general thoughts
from Commissioners about Volume 2 of the draft General Plan, and ideas about how we can
collectively ensure that future development meets our new high standards.
Exhibit A— Public Review Draft General Plan Update
Exhibit B — Healthy Development Checklist
Page 2
PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
our vision is to build on our success as a world-class community, to create
• an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................
CORE COMMUNITY
From the robust and authentic community
engagement that is the cornerstone of this document,
the core values of health, stewardship, and equity
encompass what the community as a whole finds
most important and aspirational. These values are the
pillars upon which the vision rests,
BIG IDEAS
Health I Make Equity I Craft a Stewardship I
To successfully achieve the City's Vision and uphold the choices about city that allows Efficiently utilize
core values identified by the community, this General our communities everyone to have our finite, non-
Plan is designed around strengthening Rancho that shape the a fair and just renewable
Cucamonga's sense of identity and character by places where we opportunity to natural &
creating places where people want to be and live,work and thrive, regardless financial
improving their ability to move around. The fallowing play, and of factors such as resources and
big ideas are considered critical to meeting the vision ultimately race, zip code, resiliently
and core values for the community: improve our gender, age, etc. rebound from
• Design for People First chances for living environmental,
• Provide Connectivity and Accessibility long, healthy, economic, and
• Create Destinations fruitful lives. public health
• Establish Rancho Cucamonga as the Cultural shocks.
Hub of the inland Empire
• Address Environmental Justice
COMMUNITY •
<ICURE EC 3 i..+- 1'
The vision plan graphic summarizes how
the vision, core values and big ideas will
be achieved as a physical place. It is a
conceptual land use and mobility plan
that illustrates a policy level approach for �7
how and where we target investment
and growth to create thriving places, and
r
a framework for multi-modal access �.°•.f i
between these places. " °
TO VIEW PROPOSED
LAND PLAN TO VIEW THE
SCAN QR CODE ' .,ti➢ ¢, „ ..,. ,°° .� .. GENERAL PLAN
bV"$PA= AND
PARTICIPATE.
SCAN QR CODE
"
Exhibit A ,:_.v�rw�sa. .
#PIanRC I CityofRC,us/General Plan I General Plan us
ACTUALIZACION DEL BORRADOR DEL PLAN
PLAN GENERAL DE REVISIO N PUBLICA
Nuestra vision es aprovechar nuestro exito como comunidad de clase mundial, Para crear una
Ciudad equitativa,sostenibleyvibrante, rica en oportunidades Para que todos prosperen.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................
VALORES COMUNITARIOS
A partir del compromiso s6lido y autentico de la
comunidad que es la piedra angular de este
documento, los valores fundamentales de salud,
administraci6n y equidad abarcan to que la
comunidad en su conjunto considera mas importante
y aspiracional. Estos valores son los pilares sobre los
que descansa la vision.
1
GRANDES IDEAS
Salud I Tomar Equidad I Crea Mayordomfa I
decisiones sobre una Ciudad que Utilizar de
Para lograr con exito la Vision de la Ciudad y defender nuestras permita a todos manera eficiente
los valores fundamentales identificados por la comunidades tener una
comunidad, este Plan General esta disenado en torno nuestros recursos
que dan forma a oportunidad naturales y
al fortalecimiento del sentido de identidad y caracter los lugares justa y equitativa financieros
de Rancho Cucamonga mediante la creaci6n de donde vivimos, de prosperar, finitos y no
lugares donde la gente quiere estar y la mejora de su trabajamosy independientem renovablesy
capacidad Para moverse. Las siguientes grandes ideas jugamos y,en ente de factores recuperarse de
se consideran fundamentales para cumplir con la ultima instancia, como raza,
te
visi6n los valores fundamentales de la comunidad: manera rpact s
Y mejoran nuestras c6digo postal, de los impactos
• Diseno Para las personas primero posibilidades de genero,edad, ambientales,
• Proporcionar conectividad y accesibilidad vivir una vida etc. econ6micos y de
• Crear destinos larga, saludable y salud publica.
• Establecer Rancho Cucamonga Como el fructifera.
centro cultural del Inland Empire
• Abordar la justicia ambiental
PLAN DE visi6N • • '
El grafico del plan de visi6n resume c6mo se
lograran la vision, los valores fundamentales y
las grandes ideas como un lugar fisico. Es un
plan conceptual de use de la tierra y
movilidad que ilustra un enfoque a nivel de
politicas sobre c6mo y donde apuntamos la
inversi6n y el crecimiento Para crear lugares y r '
pr6speros, y un marco pars el acceso
multimodal entre estos lugares.
-� PARA VER EL
• w ' I PLAN L3
- - +- .,,.. .. Y PARTICIPAR,
ESCANEAR
PARA VIER EL PLAN DE Mpg
CODIGO QR
TIERRA PROPUESTO. '� w � ■• ^•
ESCANEARCODIGOQR ; �`a
1A'
#PIanRC I CityofRC.us/GeneraiPlan I GeneralPlan@CityofRC.us
y37
r F
+u
{� li
.'a
F� � -'.Yr4zjl�,
'4 L. � a �N .• � Yl.f�•�, y arJ^����'��.+ ��{,
ry
it
lF�fr�, _r�- .r 1 i �+�' t� � r Wit, .4 t4- .*!F" �•�`�u. 1.{-A sr
5 3.,lal. k, A � • # i r
t ti
1f
1 r �
1
LL
FO Riverside
Exhibit B HEA THIversitS STEM
Public Health
This publication was developed by the Riverside University Health System - Public Health.Thank you to
the contributors: Michael Osur, MBA, Miguel Vazquez, AICP, Salomeh Wagaw MPH. A list of partners
who helped shaped this checklist can be found on the following page.
Suggested Citation: Riverside University Health System - Public Health. Healthy Development Checklist,
2017.
PORiverside The Healthy Development Checklist was commissioned by the
University Riverside University Health System-Public Health and produced
HEALTH SYSTEM by Raimi +Associates.
Public Health
The project was funded with a BEYOND grant from the Western
Riverside Council of Governments and produced in
collaboration with the San Bernardino Council of Governments.
We wish to thank the following organizations and individuals for
providing their valuable feedback on this checklist:
American Planning Association, California Chapter,
Inland Empire Section-John Hildebrand
California Baptist University- Marshare Penny
ChangeLab Solutions- Eric Calloway
City of Coachella- Louis Lopez
City of Rancho Cucamonga-John Gillison
City ofJurupa Valley- Laura Roughton
CityofPalm Desert- Lauri Aylaian & Ryan Stendell
City of Riverside-AI Zelinka
City ofVictorville- Michael Szarzynski
Claremont Graduate School- Kimberly Morones
Coachella Valley Association of Governments- LeGrand
Velez
Health Assessment and Research for Communities-
Jenna LeComte-Hinely
Lewis-San Antonio Healthy Communities Institute-
Angelica Baltazar
National Community Renaissance-Alexa Washburn
Partners for Better Health- Evette d e Luca
Prevention Institute- Rachel Bennett
Public Health Alliance-Carla Blackwater
San Bernardino County Public Health Department-
Corwin Porter,Trudy Raymundo&Scott Rigsby
San Bernardino County Land Use Services-Tom
Hudson, Karen Watkins, & Linda Mawby
San Bernardino Council of Governments -Josh Lee
Transportation&Land Management Agency- Steve
Weiss
Western Riverside County of Governments-Jennifer
Ward &Andrea Howard
The Healthy Development Checklist is intended to help communities across the region incorporate
health into everyday life. It is a major step forward in Riverside County's(also known as the Riverside
University Health System)continuing drive to build healthy communities. Beginning in 2011, with the
adoption of the Healthy Communities Element as part of the County's General Plan and the Healthy
Riverside County Resolution, we have continued to encourage the inclusion of health in planning and
transportation policy in the County and in its 28 cities.' The Checklist has also garnered the support of
regional partners, including the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and Western
Riverside Council of Governments. Both of these partners are working with Riverside County to
promote a broader use of this Health Development Checklist, including in San Bernardino County.
An overarching principle in the Healthy Development Checklist is Equity. Health equity is ensuring that
all people have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to lead healthy lives.This
approach to health equity has informed the content and strategies in the Healthy Development
Checklist.
EEngagement and Empowerment.
All of us must work collectively to ensure our communities are engaged in the planning
process.We must empower our constituents to be engaged in decision-making by providing
accurate, easy to understand and timely information. Engagement and Empowerment of our
communities allows for inclusion and a higher sense of buy-in.
Quality.
We must ensure that our communities are built to the highest quality possible.This means
keeping healthy communities as the focus and ensuring that where people live, work, play
and learn provides them with opportunities to build health into their everyday life.
U Utilization.
How we utilize our limited resources is essential to ensure we can serve our growing
population. We must build complete streets that encourage active transportation, healthy
eating and active living.
Increase healthy behaviors.
We must build our communities so that there is easy access to parks, open spaces,
recreational activities, shopping,jobs and educational opportunities. Healthy behaviors lead
to lower morbidity and mortality rates thereby, improving and extending an overall quality of
I ife.
TTransportation.
The provision of active transportation infrastructure for walking, biking and access to transit
ensures greater healthy options for our residents.
Y Youth.
By building healthy communities where youth can thrive and grow with clean air, water,
access to healthy foods, parks and active transportation we can increase the opportunities
for our children to live a healthier life.
' For additional information on community health data in Riverside County,you can visit SHAPE Riverside County.
HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST & CRITERIA
The design of our communities has a great impact on our health and the well-being of our residents.
This checklist provides criteria, empirical evidence, and best practices for new healthy development.
Our goal is to encourage developers, city officials, and decision makers to use this tool to help guide
the development of neighborhoods that promote physical and mental health, encourage community
engagement, and improve quality of life for all. Community members may also find this tool as a useful
resource to better understand healthy development practices.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHECKLIST?
The Healthy Development Checklist was developed to provide criteria for healthy development
practices in the Inland Empire. It is intended to be used as a tool to judge the overall health
performance and supportiveness of new development projects.While not every criterion will apply to
every development project, projects should aim to comply with as many of the criteria as possible to
promote health through their development project.
HOW TO USE THE CHECKLIST?
The Healthy Development Checklist is organized into six topical categories:
1) Active Design
2) Connectivity
3) Public Safety
4) Environmental Health
5) Community Cohesion
6) Access to Food, Services, and Jobs
A summary checklist is followed by a more detailed catalogue of the checklist. For each checklist
question, projects can assess their performance as follows:
• "COMPLIES WITH ALL CRITERIA"(if a project meets all criteria)
• "COMPLIES WITH SOME CRITERIA"(if the project meets some, but not all of the bulleted
criteria)
• "DOES NOT COMPLY"(if the project does not meet any of the criteria)
• "N/A"(if the criteria does not apply to this project)
WHO SHOULD USE THE CHECKLIST?
Developers, planning staff, and decision-makers should use the Healthy Development Criteria:
• Developers should refer to the criteria and checklist as a guide for the design and planning
of a project in the early stages, preferably before submitting an application for development
review.
• City staff can use the checklist to review development proposals and make
recommendations to both developers and decision-makers.The checklist can also be used
to inform staff reports and public meetings on projects.
• Decision-makers are encouraged to use the completed project checklist to better
understand the health outcomes of a proposed project.
• Community members and advocates can use the checklist as a resource and tool to guide
healthy development in their communities.
Checklist I Page 5
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Complies with Complies with Does not N/A
ACTIVE DESIGN all criteria some criteria comply
1. NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project support access to neighborhood amenities
(e.g., convenience store, dry cleaning, community
center, caf6, etc.) within reasonable walking
distance from residential developments?
2. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project incorporate a park or open space within
reasonable walking distance of all residential
development?
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project contribute to creating a safe and
comfortable pedestrian environment for residents
of all ages?
4. SIDEWALKS. How well does the project create or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
contribute to a complete network of sidewalks?
5. FRONTAGE DESIGN. How well does the project
incorporate attractive, pedestrian-scale exteriors ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
and massing to encourage walkability for people of
all ages?
6. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
incorporate design features to promote the
physical activity of all building occupants?
CONNECTIVITY
7. NETWORK. How well does the project leverage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
public open space, sidewalks, pedestrian
amenities, bicycle facilities, and multi-use trails to
connect safely and comfortably to surrounding
neighborhoods?
8. WALKABILITY. How well does the project enhance ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
walkability by providing a highly-connected street
network?
9. TRANSIT ACCESS. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
provide all residents with safe access to transit and
transit facilities within reasonable walking distance?
10. BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project provide high levels of bicycle connectivity
through a safe, well-marked and complete bicycle
network?
Checklist I Page 6
Complies with Complies with Does not N/A
PUBLIC SAFETY all criteria some criteria comply
11. INJURY PREVENTION. How well does the project
foster injury prevention through the use of traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
calming features, such as bulb outs and speed
humps, safe pedestrian crossings, and moderate
roadway speeds?
12. SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project incorporate safe access to schools within a
reasonable walking distance?
13. LIGHTING. How well does the project provide ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
adequate neighborhood lighting to prevent crime
and increase safety?
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
14. SMOKING. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
incorporate efforts to restrict smoking in multi-family
development and open spaces?
15. NEAR-ROAD POLLUTION. How well does the
project incorporate efforts to protect residents from ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
the harmful effects of high volume roads?
16. NOISE POLLUTION. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
mitigate noise pollution for all residents?
17. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project mitigate any impacts that would
disproportionately affect disadvantaged
communities?
18. INDOOR AIR QUALITY. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
incorporate the use of materials and products that
support healthy indoor quality?
COMMUNITY COHESION
19. PASSIVE SPACES. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
incorporate spaces that facilitate social
engagement?
20. RECREATIONAL SPACES. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project incorporate facilities and access to a
variety of recreational opportunities for all users?
21. COMMUNITY SPACES. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
incorporate facilities and access to a multi-purpose
community space accessible to the public?
Checklist I Page 7
ies
ies
ACCESS TO FOOD, JOBS, AND SERVICES Callnc�rliteriaith somelc iteiah compy N/A
22. GROCERY. How well does the project integrate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
access to a full-service grocery store (e.g., sells
meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables) within
reasonable walking distance of all residents?
23. COMMUNITY GARDEN. How well does the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
project incorporate space for growing food onsite
through community gardens, edible landscaping,
or small-scale farming within a reasonable walking
distance from residential development?
24. FARMER'S MARKET. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
designate space or provide access to a farmer's
market within a reasonable walking distance?
25. HEALTHY FOOD. How well does the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
maintain a balance of healthy and unhealthy food
retailers?
26. JOBS. How well does the project design promote ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
shorter commutes and better access to jobs?
27. HEALTH SERVICES. How well does the project
provide future residents with access to health ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
services?
28. CHILDCARE. How well does the project support ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
increased access to affordable and high-quality
childcare?
29. MIXED-USE. How well does the project integrate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
mixed-use development?
30. MIXED HOUSING. How well does the project
contribute to a mix of housing options that will allow ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
all potential household sizes, incomes, and types to
become neighbors and share available amenities?
Checklist I Page 8
DETAILED HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ACTIVE DESIGN
1. NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES. How well does the project support access to neighborhood '
amenities(e.g., convenience store, dry cleaning, community center, caf6, etc.)within
reasonable walking distance from residential developments?
RATIONALE:
Neighborhoods that include destinations within reasonable walking distance are linked to
increased total physical activity of residents. A"walk shed" radius is a useful measure to delineate
the area from which a place is reachable by a short walk, commonly understood as up to one half
mile.' An effective circulation system links people to key neighborhood destinations efficiently
and safely.
CRITERIA: •
Review the project for the following features:
• Access to one or more existing or planned transit stops(including bus, streetcar, informal
transit stop, rapid transit, light or heavy rail stations, commuter rail stations)within a 'z mile
walk distance;and
• At least two destinations within a %mile walking distance of all or most residents, including ,
parks, schools, commercial centers, and offices.
EVIDENCE: -
Congress for New Urbanism.2001. 'Ped Sheds."Transportation Tech Sheet.Retrieved from: •
http.//cnu.civicactions.net/sites/www.cnu.org/files/CNU Ped Sheds.pdf
Frumkin,H.and L.Frank,R.Jackson.2004.Urban Sprawl and Public Health:Designing,Planning,and Building for Healthy
Communities. Washington,DC:Island Press.
Klingerman M.and J.Sallis,S.Ryan,L.Frank,P.Nader.2007. 'Association ofneighborhood design and recreation ,
environment variables with physical activity and body mass index in adolescents."American Journal of Health Promotion
21(4).•274-77.
Mouzon,S.2012. "Walk Appeal."Better Cities and Towns.Retrieved from:http.•//bettercities.nednews-opinion/blogs/steve- '
mouzon/18645/walk-appeal
2. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. How well does the project incorporate a park or open space within
reasonable walking distance of all residential development? -
RATIONALE:
The close proximity of parks and recreation services encourages use, physical activity, and mental
health benefits for people of all ages. Parks can also be used as spaces for community events and
civic engagement. People living within a half mile of a park consider facilities close enough to walk
to.
-
' For the purposes ofthis Checklist,any references to a"reasonable walking distance"should consider the walk
shed as a measure for walkability and also the best applicability to the local community context(e.g., urban, -
suburban, rural).While practical influences should always be considered(e.g., safety,shortcuts, etc.), projects •
should aim for at least a'/z mile walk distance, but a'/a mile walk distance is preferred. •
Active Design I Page 9 -
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features.•
• Every resident lives within '2 of park or public open space;and
• A ratio of at least 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents;and
• Joint-use agreements with local school districts or other entities(if necessary, to achieve
these park standards.)
EVIDENCE:
Louv,Richard.2008.Last Child in the Woods.New York:Algonquin Books.
Trust for Public Land.2016. 'Parks on the Clock:Why we Believe in the 10-minute walk."Retrieved from:
https.//www.tpl.org/blog/why-the-10-minute-walk#5m.0001 boOtOr4t 1 d50von 1 fn8ldyt 18
Westrup,L.2002. "Quimby Act 101:An Abbreviated Overview."California Department of Parks and Recreation.Retrieved
from:https.//www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/quimbyl01.pdf
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. How well does the project contribute to creating a safe and
comfortable pedestrian environment for residents of all ages?
RATIONALE:
Walking is positively correlated with the presence of sidewalks and perceived neighborhood
aesthetics and safety. Perceptions matter:the extent to which a neighborhood is perceived as
walkable is correlated with residents' likelihood of participating in regular physical activity. A
quality pedestrian environment also creates a physical and psychological buffer between
pedestrians, bikes and cars, in addition to providing shade.A carefully planned built environment
can be highly effective in preventing pedestrian injuries.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Pedestrian signals, in-pavement flashing lights, four-way stops, crosswalks, and/or
pedestrian overpasses to ensure pedestrian safety and
• Gently sloped walks instead of or in addition to steps in public open spaces;and
• Barrier-free paths that facilitate access for all users;and '
• Legible signage that minimizes confusion and communicates important wayfinding
information to all users(e.g., seniors, deaf, multi-language),-and •
• Street trees planted between the vehicle travel way and sidewalk at intervals of no more
than 50 feet along at least 60%of the total existing and planned block length within a
project and on blocks bordering the project;and
• Within ten years, shade from trees or permanent structures over at least 40 0 of the total •
length of the existing and planned sidewalks within or bordering the project(measured
from the estimated crown diameter). •
EVIDENCE:
Retting,R.A.,and A. T.McCaln S.A.Ferguson.2003. '4 review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures designed
to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes."American Journal of Public Health 93(9),• 1456-1462.
•Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality Collaborative. 'Best Practices for Complete Streets."Retrieved from.
https.//www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/cs-bestpractices-sacramento.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council.2016.LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development Retrieved from: •
http.//www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version • •
Active Design I Page 10
4. SIDEWALKS. How well does the project create or contribute to a complete network of sidewalks?
RATIONALE:
The presence of a complete sidewalk network is a major determinant of whether or not someone
may choose walking for any given trip.Walking is positively correlated with the presence of
sidewalks and perceived neighborhood aesthetics and safety. Lack of physical activity is a major
factor in Americans' health.The provision of a network that facilitates walking can help bridge this
physical activity gap and directly influence measurable health indicators.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Sidewalks on both sides of all new and redeveloped streets;and
• Minimum sidewalk width of feet along residential streets and 8 feet along commercial or
mixed-use streets;and
• Continuous sidewalks across the entire project street network(excepting alleys and
service-oriented streets),-and
• Incorporation of universal design features to ensure that all users(including those using •
wheelchairs, walkers,pushing strollers, and hand carts)can easily travel to neighborhood
destinations, including:
o Multi-use pathways that are separated from vehicular traffic and that facilitate
pedestrian and wheelchair access,
o Planting strips on both sides ofall streets without protruding into the path of travel-
and '
o Short right-turn radii for major roads and ramps crossing pedestrian rights-of-way.
EVIDENCE: •
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.2011.A Policy on Geometric Design of High ways and
Streets. Washington,DC.-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Boodlal,L.2003. 'Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings-an informational guide."US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.Retrieved from:http.//www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/sopada fhwa.pdf
5. FRONTAGE DESIGN. How well does the project incorporate attractive, pedestrian-scale exteriors
and massing to encourage walkability for people of all ages?
RATIONALE: •
Building design greatly affects our sense of comfort while walking, biking, or driving, as well as our
connection to a place and our neighbors. Providing opportunities to have frequent face-to-face
contact in a neighborhood has been shown to promote social ties among neighbors.Architectural •
features such as porches and transparent shop fronts that promote visibility from a building's
exterior have been linked to higher levels of perceived social support and lower levels of •
psychological distress.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
•
• Buildings with primary entrances oriented towards the sidewalk/street or public open
spaces;and
Active Design I Page 11
• Buildings that are scaled appropriately to the width of the street to create a pleasant public
realm environment(generally using a rule of thumb of at least 1 foot of building height for
every 1.5 feet from street centerline to building facade),,and
• Surface parking is located behind buildings(or to the side in certain contexts).
EVIDENCE: 11
ChangeLab Solutions.(n.d.)'Pedestrian Friendly Code Directory:Eyes on the Street."Retrieved from: '
http.//www.changelabsolutions.org/childhood-obesity/eyes-street
Lund,Hollie.2002. Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community."Journal of Planning Education and Research.21
(3):301-312.
Speck,J.2012. Walkable City How Downtown can Save America,One Step at a Time.New York:North Point Press.
Wekerly, G.2000. 'From Eyes on the Street to Safe Cities."Places 13(l):44-49.
6. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY.How well does the project incorporate design features to promote the
physical activity of all building occupants? •
RATIONALE:
Certain features can be incorporated into the design of buildings that help people increase their
physical activity as a part of daily life.Active design strategies include the convenient placement of
stairs, building and site design to encourage walking, and the provision of spaces for physical
activity. '
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: •
• Placement of stairs within 25'ofan entrance and before any elevator;
• Stair prompts and signage at elevator banks;
• Windows&skylights to make enclosed stairs more visible and appealing;
• No unnecessary escalators and elevators;
• Elimination ofphysical barriers(such as walls, door locks, and poor placement of building
elements)that can deter physical activity.
EVIDENCE: ,
Center for Active Design.2010. 'Active Design Guidelines:Promoting Physical Activity and Health In Design."City of New
York.
• •
Active Design Page 12
CONNECTIVITY
7. NETWORK. How well does the project leverage public open space, sidewalks, pedestrian
amenities, bicycle facilities, and multi-use trails to connect safely and comfortably to
surrounding neighborhoods?
RATIONALE:
Research indicates that children who bike or walk to recreational sites(parks, playgrounds, etc.)
use sites more often.The safer it is to bike or walk to play sites,the more likely it is that kids will
bike or walk there. Furthermore,trail use is significantly correlated with user proximity, with
evidence showing that trails within at least 1/2 mile of every residence is ideal for maximizing access
and use.Trails and parks that are well maintained, safe, clean, well-lit, and have facilities, such as
restrooms, drinking fountains, and exercise equipment, are used more and contribute to higher
physical activity levels among users.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: •
• Pedestrian amenities at parks and on trails, including seating, restrooms, signage, lighting,
landscaping, shade structure, trash cans and drinking fountains;and
• Park design that emphasizes connectivity to other park/trail access points within
reasonable walking distance, including complete streets design, close proximity to transit
stops, and safe pedestrian and bike routes.
EVIDENCE:
Kaczynski,A.and K.Henderson.2007. 'Environmental correlates ofphysical activity:a review of evidence aboutparks and •
recreation."Leisure Sciences 29(4):315-354.
National Center for Environmental Health.2013.Parks and Trails Health lmpactAssessment. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.Retrieved from:https.•//www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/parks trails/sectionc.htm#1
Shulaker,B.and J.lsacoff, T.Kjer,and K.Hart.2016.Park Design for Physical Activity and Health.San Francisco:Trust for
Public Land.
8. WALKABILITY. How well does the project enhance walkability by providing a highly-connected
street network?
RATIONALE:
There is ample evidence that greater street connectivity and higher residential density are related
to higher total physical activity and lower BMI.Adults are more likely to walk if they live in
neighborhoods with high connectivity and intersection density, high population density, and a mix •
of land uses.
A high intersection density is one of the single most important variables for determining whether a •
place will have high enough levels of connectivity to foster increased levels of walking, as well as
for increasing transit use and reducing vehicle distance traveled. Grid street patterns that decrease
distance between destinations encourage walking and help foster physical activity.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
Connectivity Page 13
• No cul-de-sacs, courts, and paseos without through access by pedestrians and bicyclists to
otherstreets, courts,paseos, orparks;
• An internal connectivity of at least 140 motorized/non-motorized intersections per square
mile;and
• Small, walkable blocks with perimeters no more than 1600 feet long;and
• At least one through connection(street, alley, trail/path)of all blocks and the project
boundary every 800 feet. Does not apply to blocks or portions of the boundary where '
connections cannot be made due to physical obstacles.
EVIDENCE:
Frank L,Schmid T,Sallis l Chapman J,Saelens B.2005. "Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively
measured urban form:findings from SMARTRAQ."American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28:117-125.
Stangl,P.2015 'Block size-based measures ofstreet connectivity:A Critical Assessment and new approach."Urban Design
Internationa120(l),- 1-12.
U.S. Green Building Council.2016.LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development.Retrieved from:
http.//www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version
9. TRANSIT ACCESS. How well does the project provide all residents with safe access to transit
and transit facilities within reasonable walking distance?
RATIONALE:
In addition to walking and biking, public transit offers a potential alternative to driving. Public
transit improvements can also result in other benefits, including reduced traffic crashes, improved
physical fitness and health, energy conservation, increased community livability, increased
affordability, and economic development. Urban form, including the presence of compact
development and access to public transit,tend to have a positive association with physical activity.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• At least 50%of dwelling units and nonresidential use entrances have access to existing or
planned transit stops(including bus, streetcar, informal transit stop, rapid transit, light or
hea vy rail stations, commuter rail stations)within a '/z mile walk distance;and
• Compact development and mixed land use that maximizes walkable access to public
transit, and •
• Transit facilities designed to maximize user comfort while waiting by incorporating shade
structures, street furniture and relevant information/signage.
EVIDENCE: •
En
American Public Transportation Association.2009. 'Defining Areas of Influence."(Recommended Practice).Retrieved from: '
http.•//www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA%20SUDS-UD-RP-001-09.pdf •
Convergence Partnership.2006.Healthy,Equitable Transportation Policy.Retrieved from:
http.//www.convergencepartnership.org/sites/default/files/healthtrans fullbook final.PDF
Forsyth,A.and L.Smead(Eds.).2015.Mobility,Universal Design,Health,and Place(A Research Brief).Health and Places
Initiative.Retrieved from:http.//research.gsd.harvard.edu/hapi/files/2015/11/HAPI ResearchBrief UniversalDesign- •
112315.pdf
Litman, T.2010. 'Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits."American Public Transportation Association.Retrieved
from:http.//www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Health Benefits Litman.pdf •
Connectivity I Page 14 •
10. BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY. How well does the project provide high levels of bicycle connectivity
through a safe, well-marked and complete bicycle network?
RATIONALE:
Good bicycle connectivity and safe bicycle facilities can have dramatic public health benefits. New ,
bicycling facilities can dramatically lower health care costs. Additionally, communities that support
transit use, walking, and bicycling are associated with more physical activity and lower body
weights. Key metrics to the success of bicycle networks is trail/bikeway accessibility. Use of trails
and bikeways is negatively correlated with distance to the facility.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• On-street bicycle facilities(Class 11 or Class IV)on most streets;and
• Class W facilities on limited access roadways with higher rates of speed and larger
intersection spacing;and '
• Highly visible or color-coded markings and/or bicycle lane striping on the road surface(or
a painted buffer between the bicycle and travel lanes).;and
• Where appropriate, 'bicycle boulevards"with narrower travellanes, slower targetspeeds,
unique signage, and bicycle prioritization through vehicle barriers or other visual cues.
EVIDENCE:
Gotsch; T.2011. 'Costs&Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland,Oregon."Journal of Physical Activity&Health 8(1).-
549-558. '
Handy,S.L.2004.Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships among Transportation,Land Use,and Physical
Activity. Washington,DC.-Transportation Research board andInstitutes of Medicine Committee on Physica/Activity,Health
Transportation,and Land Use.
PucherJ,and J.Dill,and S.Handy.2010. "Infrastructure,programs,and policies to increase bicycling:an international •
review."Preventive Medicine 50: 106-25.
Ln
Connectivity Page 15 ,
PUBLIC SAFETY
11. INJURY PREVENTION.How well does the project foster injury prevention through the use of
traffic calming features, such as bulb outs and speed humps, safe pedestrian crossings, and
moderate roadway speeds?
RATIONALE:
Vehicle speed is one of the most critical variables that determines traffic collision severity.The use
of design features that moderate traffic speeds and increase driver awareness of bicycle and
pedestrian activity all help to reduce the occurrence and severity of injury of collisions. This is
especially true for those with limited mobility, such as elderly pedestrians and children. Risk of
injury is also greater on busier streets and streets with more than two lanes. However, pedestrian
safety can be improved through the provision of continuous wide sidewalks, well-marked and
signalized crosswalks,traffic controls at intersections; and traffic-calming infrastructure.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: •
• Traffic-calming infrastructure, such as speed humps, ,bulb-outs, and chicanes,-and
• To the extent possible, neighborhood/local streets have a target speed limit of20 miles
per hour and collectors/arterials have a target speed limit of30 miles per hour,-and
• All vehicle travel lanes on local streets within the project area are no wider than 10 feet,•
collector streets and roads are no wider than 11 feet,-and arterial roads have travel lanes
no wider than 12 feet,-and
• All two-lane streets have clearly marked space for on-street parking and/or bicycle lanes,-
and _
• Outside lane striping to delineate the vehicle travel way from on-street parking, bicycle
lanes, or unused shoulders,-and
• Grade-separated cycle tracks OR wide parking lanes(up to 10 feet)where physical
separation between bicycle lanes and on-street parking is not desirable or possible, such
as in areas with high parking turnover.
EVIDENCE:
Koepsel% T.2002. "Crosswalk markings and the risk ofpedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in olderpedestrians."The
Journal of the American Medical Association 288(17):2136-2143. ,
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Washington,DC.-Island Press.
Zegeer,C.2001. Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations."Transportation Research •
Record(1773):56-68.
12. SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS.How well does the project incorporate safe access to schools •
within reasonable walking distance? •
RATIONALE:
The implementation of safe routes to school strategies have resulted in significant decreases in the
number of child pedestrian deaths and injury rates.Additionally, improved safety for students
walking and biking to school also has broader benefits, including reduced transportation costs,
increased connectivity between neighborhoods, and improved student alertness.
Public Safety I Page 16
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• An attendance,boundary that adheres to these specified distances:most or all students
living within a 3/4-mile walking distance forgrades 8 and below, and 1 1/2-mile walking
distance forgrades 9 and above, of school building.
EVIDENCE: ,
Boarnet,MG,and CL Anderson,K.Day, T.McMillan,M.Alfonzo.2005. 'Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School
legislation:urban form changes and children's active transportation to school."American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28
(2): 134-40.
National Center for Safe Routes to School.2015.Creating Healthier Generations:A Look at the 10 Years of the Federal Safe
Routes to School Program.Retrieved from:http.•//saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/SRTS 10YearReport Final pdf
U.S. Green Building Council.(n.d)LEED BD+C.•Schools.Access to Quality Transit.Retrieved from:
http.//www.usgbc.org/credits/schools-new-construction/v4-draft/ltc5
13. LIGHTING. How well does the project provide adequate neighborhood lighting to prevent
crime and increase safety?
RATIONALE:
Street lighting improvements can help reduce both crime and people's perceptions of fear. In
addition, street lighting can have the effect of increasing activity after dark. ,
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Lighting that enhances visibility of streets, alleys, windows, walkways, and bikeways for
pedestrians and vehicle traffic;and
• Safe pedestrian path zones that align with traffic patterns and generate a sense of welcome
at all hours of the day;and
• Enough lighting for safety, while ensuring lighting does not produce glare for users,
including pedestrians, drivers, or light trespass to neighbors.
EVIDENCE: '
IESNA Security Lighting Committee.2003. 'Guideline for Security Lighting for People,Property,and Public Spaces."New
York:Illuminating Engineering Society ofAmerica. �
Painter,K. 1996. "The Influence of Street Lighting Improvements on Crime,Fear,and Pedestrian Street Use,after dark."
Landscape and Urban Planning 35(2-3): 193-201.
Ln
cu
Public Safety Page 17
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
-'AOKING. How well does the project incorporate efforts to restrict smoking in multi-family
development and open spaces?
RATIONALE:
Each year, smoking causes about one in five deaths in the United States. Smoking continues to be
an ongoing health issue and is one of concern in the Inland Empire. Furthermore,there is
extensive evidence that indicates second hand smoke, especially in shared spaces, such as
multifamily residential buildings, can be a health hazard for non-smokers in adjoining units.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• No smoking in parks and public plazas, and
• Signage stating smoking bans in parks and public plazas, and
• Restrict smoking in multifamily residential buildings so as to protect tenants from the
effects ofsecondhand smoke generated in nearby or adjoining units.
EVIDENCE:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2014. 'Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking."Smoking and Tobacco Use,Data
and Statistics,Fact Sheets.Retrieved from:http.//www.cdc.gov/tobacco/
data-statistics/fact sheets/health-effects/effects cig smoking/
15. NEAR-ROAD POLLUTION. How well does the project incorporate efforts to protect residents
from the harmful effects of high volume roads?
RATIONALE:
Pollutants from cars,trucks and other motor vehicles are found in higher concentrations near major
roads. People who live, work or attend school near major roads appear to have an increased
incidence and severity of health problems associated with air pollution exposures related to
roadway traffic, including higher rates of asthma onset and aggravation, cardiovascular disease,
impaired lung development in children, pre-term and low-birthweight infants, childhood leukemia,
and premature death.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Near-road landscaping that reduces particle concentrations and noise. Generally, include a
context-appropriate vegetation barrier that is at least20 feet and has full coverage(no
gaps),-and
• Locate homes at least 1,000 away from a high-volume road;and
• Install filtration systems for all buildings within 1,000 feet of high-volume road
EVIDENCE:
California Department of Education.2015.Sustainable Communities and School Planning.Retrieved from: •
http.//www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/bp/documents/bestprcticesustain.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency.2017.Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume
Roadways.Retrieved from:haps.//www.arb.ca.gov/ch/rd technical advisor final •
Environmental Health I Page 18
16. NOISE POLLUTION. How well does the project mitigate noise pollution for all residents?
RATIONALE:
Noise pollution can negatively impact the physical and mental health of residents. Unwanted noise
may increase due to population growth, street traffic changes, and even mobile technology. Long '
term exposure to excessive noise can lead to stress,fatigue, hearing loss, and loss of productivity.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Active rooms, such as kitchens,placed in locations that buffer sounds from roads in rooms
where noise is more problematic, such as bedrooms;and
• Minimize exposure to noise pollution in outdoor spaces by planting earthen berms with
grasses or shrubs;and
• Use ofgreen roofs, which can absorb noise and reduce outside sound levels by up to 40-
50 decibels;and
• Reduce exposure to noise pollution for building occupants by incorporating acoustically
designed walls, double-glazed windows, and well-sealed doors.
EVIDENCE:
Brophy, V.and JO Lewis.2011.A Green Vitruvius.London:Earthscan.
Kryter,K. 1994.The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise:Physiology,Psychology,and Public Health.San Diego:
Academic Press.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.(n.d.)'Environmental Health."Healthy People 2020.Retrieved from:
https./lwww.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic%nvironmental-health
17. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.How well does the project mitigate any impacts that would
disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities?
RATIONALE:
The negative impacts of the built environment disproportionately impact disadvantaged
communities, including higher incidences of respiratory disease, cancer, obesity, and
developmental diseases. Community design,together with planning decisions, can play a key role
in making these communities healthier and mitigating the impacts of existing land use patterns
and transportation investments in the region.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Minimize exposure to hazardous contaminants, including contaminated soils,pesticides,
contaminated groundwater, and emissions by not siting residential development near or in
the path of exposure sites(e.g., bus fleets stations, factories,powerplants, landfills, and
areas ofpesticide spraying) 0
• Minimize development of sensitive land uses-defined as schools, hospitals, residences,
and elder and childcare facilities-near air pollution sources-including freeways, high
volume roads, airplane landing paths, and polluting industrial sites.
EVIDENCE:
California Department of Education.2015 Sustainable Communities and School Planning.Retrieved from:
http.•//www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/bp/documents/bestprcticesustain.pdf _
Environmental Health Page 19
Environmental Protection Agency.2016. "Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis."
Retrieved from:https.//www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg 5 6 16 v5.l.pdf
5rinivasan,5.and L.O Fallon,A.Dearry.2003. 'Creating Healthy Communities,Healthy Homes,Healthy People:Initiating a
Research Agenda on the Built Environment and Public Health."American Journal of Public Health 93(9).• 1446-1450.
18. INDOOR AIR QUALITY. How well does the project incorporate the use of materials and
products that support healthy indoor quality?
RATIONALE:
Poor indoor quality can contribute to chronic disease, including asthma, heart disease, and cancer.
Poor ventilation, humidity, and exposure to carbon monoxide can exacerbate negative impacts to
health. Most exposure to environmental pollutants occurs by breathing air indoors.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Building materials that are not known to emit harmful toxins;and
• Reduce occupant exposure to VOCs by using cabinetry, doors, molding, shelving, and trim
materials with low VOCs. Employ caulking, adhesives,paints, varnishes, and other finishes
that are free of solvents and V005;and
• Reduce occupant exposure to molds by using mold resistant materials in community
bathrooms and other water sensitive locations.
EVIDENCE:
American Lung Association.(n.d). Healthy Air at Home."Retrievedfrom:http.//www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-
air/indoor/at-home/
Environmental Protection Agency.(n.d). "Improving Indoor Air Quality."Retrieved from:https.//www.epa.gov/indoor-air- •
quality-iaq/improving-indoor-air-quality
CE
Environmental Health Page 20
COMMUNITY1 1
19. PASSIVE SPAutb. How well does the project incorporate spaces that facilitate social
engagement?
RATIONALE:
Creating public spaces that promote the engagement of residents and high connectivity of
neighborhoods and services have positive impacts on health.The good design of public spaces is
important to ensuring not only their use, but the encouragement of socialization and activity.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Plazas, a central square, dog runs, and bbq areas that encourage social interaction and
enhance opportunities for physical activity and
• Seating that encourages people to be comfortable in parks and public spaces;and
• Design that promotes public gathering and use of open space for activities,places for
food, and flexibility for multiple uses, including:
o Visible and accessible entrances, spaces, and paths,
o Functional structures,
o Pedestrian and bicyclist access,
o Public art,
o Close access to public transit.
EVIDENCE: '
Eitler, Thomas W.,E.T.McMahon,and T.C.Thoeng.2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places. Washington,D.C.:
Urban Land Institute. •
Project for Public Spaces.2009. Why Public Spaces Fail.Retrieved from:http://www.pps.org/reference/failedplacefeat/
20. RECREATIONAL SPACES. How well does the project incorporate facilities and access to a '
variety of recreational opportunities for all users?
RATIONALE:
Having accessible recreation, exercise, or sports facilities in neighborhoods tends to be associated
with active recreation.Additionally, research has shown that children are more physically active in
preschools that have more available playground equipment and a larger space for outdoor play.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Sports fields, courts, swimming pools, tot lots,putting green, recreational gardening and
fitness facilities, including:
o Baseball or softball diamonds, soccer fields, an open playgreen, a skate park,
basketball, tennis, sand volleyball, and/or practice fields;or
o Swimming pools, which may include an adult lap pool and spa, a children's pool, a
splash park;or
o Equestrian staging area(if appropriate to the context).
• Parks that emphasize open space and natural habitat, have minimal development, and are
6 -0
well distributed throughout the site. Park amenities may include: 0 •
0 -0
Community Cohesion Page 21
o Open lawns
o Restrooms
o Shade structures
o Picnic areas
o Interpretive areas and interpretive signage •'
• Park facilities for users of all ages with different recreational needs, interests and abilities.
Seniors and veryyoung children in particular have unique needs. Consider the following ,
age-specific park infrastructure:
o Very young children(age 0-6):tot lots, splash pads
o Older children(6-18).•sports fields, courts, skate park
o Adults:sports fields,putting green,gardening and fitness facilities, adult lap pool
o Senior(age 60+).•gardening and fitness facilities, adult lap pool, trails
EVIDENCE:
Bauman,A.E.,and F.C.Bull.Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and Children:A Review of
the Reviews.London:National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence.Retrieved from:
http.//www.nice.org.uk/nicemedialpcl`f/wor`d/environmenta/%20corre/ates%2Oof%20%physical%activity%20re vie w.pdf '
Harnik,P.and B. Welle.2011.From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile:How Urban Park Systems Can Best Promote Health •
and Wellness. Trust for Public Land Retrieved from:https.•//www.tpl org/sites/default/files/cloudd tpl org/pubs/ccpe-health-
promoting parks-rptpdf
Ulrich,R.Evidence Based Environmental Design for Improving Medical Outcomes.Retrieved from:http.//muhc-
healing.mcgill.ca/english/Speakers/ulrich p.html
21. COMMUNITY SPACES. How well does the project incorporate facilities and access to a multi- ,
purpose community space accessible to the public?
RATIONALE:
Adaptable, multi-purpose community rooms can help foster a sense of social cohesion and offer
space for education and health related programming. Education and lifelong learning can improve
social well-being and help maintain cognitive function as people age.
CRITERIA: ,
Review the project for the following features:
• At least one community space in every community and/or neighborhood-and ,
• Community room with multi-use spaces, including recreational rooms, auditoriums, •
outdoor plazas, and green building features;and
• Integration of community rooms with parks, open space facilities, and cultural centers.
EVIDENCE: •
GJ
American Society of Landscape Architects.2014. 'Health Benefits of Nature."Professional Practice.Retrieved from:
http.//www.asla.org/healthbene/itsofnature.aspx •
Eitler, T.and E.McMahon, T. Thoerig.2013.Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places.Washington DC:Urban Land
Institute.
Community Cohesion Page 22
ACCESS TO FOOD, SERVICES, AND JOBS
22. GROCERY. How well does the project integrate access to a full-service grocery store(e.g., sells
meat, dairy,fruits and vegetables)within reasonable walking distance of all residents?
RATIONALE:
Residents of communities with access to healthy foods have healthier diets. Proximity to
supermarkets is associated with lower rates of obesity and the presence of convenience stores is
associated with higher rates of obesity.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• A neighborhood market within the project design, or
• A public, multi-use space that allows for food markets, or
• Access to a full-service grocery store within reasonable walking distance.
EVIDENCE •
Sallis,J.,and Karen Glanz.2009. Physical Activity and Food Environments:Solutions to the Obesity Epidemic."Milbank
Quarterly.87(1): 123-154.
Wakefield,J.2004. 'Fighting Obesity Through the Built Environment."Environmental Health Perspectives 112(l 1):A616-
A618.
23. COMMUNITY GARDEN. How well does the project incorporate space for growing food onsite
through community gardens, edible landscaping, or small scale farming within a reasonable
walking distance from residential development?
RATIONALE:
Community gardens provide a whole host of community benefits in addition to serving as an
additional source of healthy food. Participation in community gardening is associated with higher
fruit and vegetable intake,though, and can be an effective strategy at improving access to healthy
foods.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Community gardens in neighborhood parks and residential development as part of
project design;or
• Joint-use agreements with local school districts or other entities(if necessary to ensure
access to a school garden),-or
• Access to a communitygarden within reasonable walking distance.
EVIDENCE:
Eitler, Thomas W.,ET McMahon,and T.C.Thoerig.2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places. Washington,D.C.:
Urban Land Institute.
Lovell,S.2010. 'Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States."Sustainability2(8).• •
2499-2522.
Access to Food, Jobs, and Services I Page 23
24. FARMER'S MARKET.How well does the project designate space or provide access to a farmer's
market within reasonable walking distance?
RATIONALE:
Proximity to farmer's markets has been found to be associated with lower body mass index(BMI)
among youth, while density of fast-food and pizza venues has been found to be associated with
higher BMI.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Space included for a farmer's market within project design;or
• Access ensured to a farmer's market within reasonable walking distance.
EVIDENCE:
Jilcott,S.B.,and S. Wade,J.T.McGuirt, Q. Wu,S.Lazorick,J.B.Moore.2011. The association between the food '
environment and weight status among eastern North Carolina youth.Public Health Nutrition 14(09): 1610-1617.
Leadership for Health Communities.2007 Action Strategies Toolkit. Washington,D.C.:Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
25. HEALTHY FOOD.How well does the project maintain a balance of healthy and unhealthy food
retailers?
RATIONALE:
Peoples'food choices and their likelihood of being overweight or obese are also influenced by
their food environment.A popular measure of healthy and less healthy food availability in a given
geographic area-including distance to food retailers, cost of foods, or density of food outlets- is
the modified Retail Environment Food Index(mREFI), which is a ratio of fast-food restaurants and
convenience stores compared to supermarkets, produce markets, and farmer's markets. Presence
of fast food retailers has a negative effect on diets and diet related health outcomes.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: ,
• Restrict fast food retailers within 'z mile of schools, and
• Manage the allowance of fast food retailers relative to the ratio of healthy food retailers to
unhealthy food retailers. This could be accomplished by utilizing the Modified Retail
Environment Food Index Score. Calculate the mREFI, which is calculated for a census tract
as(healthy retailers)/(healthy retailers f unhealthy retailers).Areas with a score of less
than 5 are considered to have 'poor access"to healthy retail food, scores of to 10 to have
fair access,"scores above 10 to 25 to have ';good access,"and scores above 25 to have
'high access.'
EVIDENCE:
Centers for Disease Control.2011. 'Census Tract Level State Maps of the Modified Retail Food Environment Index(mRFEI).
Retrieved from:ftp.//ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/dnpao%ensus-tract-level-state-maps-mrfei TAG508.pdf
•Moore L VandA VDiez Roux,JANettleton,DRJacobs,M Franco.2009. 'Fast-food consumption,diet quality,and
neighborhood exposure to fast food:the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis."American Journal of Epidemiology 170(1):
29-36.
Access to Food, Jobs, and Services I Page 24
26. JOBS.How well does the project design promote shorter commutes and better access to jobs?
RATIONALE:
Jobs-housing balance is an indirect method of estimating how much commuting future residents
of the proposed community might have to endure.While some may find driving enjoyable, ,
commuting is generally a stressful activity that affects one's health and one's social ties to their
community. Extended commutes increase stress, with implications for both mental health and
familial relationships.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Design includes more housing nearjob-center areas;or
• Includes jobs near housing-dense areas;or
• Includes affordable housing between job center areas;or
• Creates mixed-use projects that include jobs and housing.
EVIDENCE: •
California Planning Roundtable.2008. 'Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance."Retrieved from:
http.//www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub files/CPR-Jobs-Housing.pdf
Frank,LD and MA Andresen, TL Schmid.2004. 'Obesity Relationships with Community Design,Physical Activity,and Time
Spent in Cars.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(2):87-96.
Freeman,Lance.2002. "The Effects ofSprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties:An Explanatory Analysis':Journal of the
American Planning Association 67(1).•69-77.
Koslowsky,M.and A.Kluger,M.Reich. 1995. Commuting stress:causes,effects,and methods of coping.New York.•Plenum •
Press.
27. HEALTH SERVICES.How well does the project provide future residents with access to health
services?
RATIONALE:
The inability to access public transit poses a significant barrier for low-income patients to access
health care services and can result in missed appointments, avoiding care, and deterioration of
health conditions. One method to bridging the gaps in healthcare is by creating clinical- •
community partnerships, which can be more cost effective and culturally appropriate in addressing
preventive care and population health.
CRITERIA: •
Review the project for the following features:
• Access to a clinic or health facility within reasonable walking distance, or •
• Include multi-use spaces that could be used as a health center or to provide health
services within the project design.
EVIDENCE: •
Active Living by Design. Clinical-Community Collaboration Case Examples.Retrieved from:
http.//activelivingbydesign.org/resources/clinical-community-collaboration-case-examples/
Access to Food, Jobs, and Services Page 25 '
Hobson,J.and Julie Quiroz-Martinez.2002.Roadblocks to Health:Transportation Barriers to Healthy Communities.
Transportation for Healthy Communities Collaborative.Retrieved from:
http.//www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/roadblocks to health 2002.pdf
28. CHILDCARE.How well does the project support increased access to affordable and high
quality childcare?
RATIONALE:
Access to quality childcare is vital to a child's early development and also contributes to important
economic benefits, including direct and indirect job benefits, increased tax revenues, and a more
productive workforce. Communities, cities, and developers are finding unique ways to partner in
supporting child care facilities as part of development projects and land use plans.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: '
• Mixed use development included as part ofproject design;or •
• Design of flexible, multi-use spaces that could be used as a child care center;or
• Access to a child care center within reasonable walking distance.
EVIDENCE:
Hodgson,K.2011.Child care and Sustainable Community Development.(American Planning Association Family Friendly
Communities Briefing Papers).Retrieved from:https.//www.planning.org/research/family/briefi'ngpapers/childcare.htm
Local Investment in Child Care aINCC).2008. 'Building Child Care Into New Developments:A Guide For Creating Child
Care Facilities In Transit-Oriented Developments."Retrieved from:http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/
Uploads/200806241inccdevBRweb.pdf •
PolicyLinkand the Marguerite Casey Foundation.2016.High-Quality,Affordable Childcare forAll:Good for Families, •
Communities,and the Economy.(Issue Brief Series:The Economic Benefits of Equity).Retrieved from:
http.//www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/Childcare-for-All-FINAL-05-06-16.pdf
29. MIXED-USE.How well does the project integrate mixed-use development?
RATIONALE:
There are many different health and wellbeing benefits to living in a mixed-use area.Youths,
adults, and seniors residing in neighborhoods with mixed land use typically engage in more total
physical activity than those in single-use neighborhoods. Adults are more likely to walk if they live
in neighborhoods with high connectivity, high population density, and mixed land use.
Additionally, one primary characteristic of a high quality healthy community is mixed land use, •
where residents live in proximity to services and amenities, rather than in purely residential
environments. •
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features:
• Neighborhood-serving uses, such as food markets, libraries, dry cleaning services and
,beauty salons within the project design;and
• Retail and service uses on the ground floor to entice pedestrians.
Access to Food, Jobs, and Services I Page 26
EVIDENCE:
Barton,H.and C. Tsourour.2001.Healthy Urban Planning.New York.-Rout/edge.
Eitler, T.and E.McMahon, T. Thoerig.2013.Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places.Washington DC:Urban Land
Institute.
Frank,LD and MA Andresen, TL Schmid.2004. Obesity Relationships with Community Design,Physical Actiivty,and Time
Spent in Cars.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(2):87-96. ,
Frumkin,H.and L.Frank,R.Jackson.2004. Urban Sprawl and Public Health:Designing,Planning,and Building for Healthy
Communities. Washington,DC-Island Press.
30. MIXED-HOUSING. How well does the project contribute to a mix of housing options that will
allow all potential household sizes, incomes, and types to become neighbors and share
available amenities?
RATIONALE:
Offering housing that is affordable to local workers is crucial, as a mix of housing that meets a '
diversity of needs and incomes allows diverse professionals to live in the community in which they
work.There are ample benefits to having housing that can accommodate local workers, including
increased social cohesiveness and a decrease in the amount of driving necessary to support a
community.
CRITERIA:
Review the project for the following features: ,
• An inclusionary housing requirement, and
• Design of multi-generational housing, and
• A wide range of housing for diverse household sizes and types.
EVIDENCE:
Fraser,J.and R. Chaskin,J Bazuin.2013.Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work for Low-Income Households.
Cityscape:A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15(2):83-100.
Urban Land Institute.2003.Mixed Income Housing,Myth and Fact.Retrieved from:hitp.//inclusionaryhousing.ca/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2010/01/ULI-Mixed-Income-Hsg-2003.pdf
. •
Access to Food, Jobs, and Services Page 27
Works Cited
Active Living by Design. Clinical-Community Collaboration Case Examples. Retrieved from:
http.//activelivingbydesign.org/resources/clinical-community-collaboration-case-examples/
American Association of State High way and Transportation Officials. 2011.A Policy on Geometric
Design of High ways and Streets. Washington, DC:American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
American Lung Association. (n.d). 'Healthy Air at Home."Retrieved from:http.//www.lung.org/our-
initiatives/healthy-air/indoor/at-home/
American Public Transportation Association. 2009. 'Defining Areas of Influence."(Recommended
Practice). Retrieved from:http.//www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA o20SUDS-
UD-RP-001-09.pdf
American Society of Landscape Architects. 2014. 'Health Benefits of Nature."Professional Practice.
Retrieved from:http.//www.asla.org/healthbenefi'tsofnature.aspx
Barton, H. and C. Tsourour. 2001. Healthy Urban Planning. New York:Routledge.
Bauman,A. E., and F.C. Bull. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and
Children:A Review of the Reviews. London:National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence.
Retrieved from:http.//www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/word/environmental o20correlates o20of o
201ophysical%acti vity%20re vie w.pdf
Boarnet, MG, and CL Anderson, K. Day, T. McMillan, M.Alfonzo. 2005. Evaluation of the California
Safe Routes to School legislation:urban form changes and children's active transportation to
school."American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2): 134-40.
Boodlal, L. 2003. Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings-an informational guide."US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from:
http://www.bikewaIk.org/pdfs/sopada_fhwa.pdf
Brophy, V. andJO Lewis. 2011.A Green Vitruvius. London:Earthscan.
California Department of Education. 2015. Sustainable Communities and School Planning. Retrieved
from:http.//www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/bp/documents/bestprcticesustain.pdf
California Planning Roundtable. 2008. 'Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance."Retrieved from:
http.//www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub files/CPR-Jobs-Housing.pdf
Center forActive Design. 2010. 'Active Design Guidelines:Promoting Physical Activity and Health In
Design."City of New York.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014. 'Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking."Smoking and
Tobacco Use, Data and Statistics, Fact Sheets. Retrieved from:http.//www.cdc.gov/tobacco/
data-statistics/fact sheets/health-effects/effects cig smoking/
Centers for Disease Control. 2011. 'Census Tract Level State Maps of the Modified Retail Food
Environment Index(mRFEI). Retrievedfrom:ftp.//ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/dnpao%ensus-
tract-level-state-maps-mrfei TAG508.pdf
ChangeLab Solutions. (n.d.)'Pedestrian Friendly Code Directory:Eyes on the Street."Retrieved from:
http.//www.changelabsolutions.org/childhood-obesity/eyes-street
Works Cited I Page 28
Congress for New Urbanism. 2001. Ped Sheds."Transportation Tech Sheet. Retrieved from:
http.//cnu.civicactions.net/sites/www.cnu.org/files/CNU Ped Sheds.pdf
Convergence Partnership. 2006. Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy. Retrieved from:
http.//www.convergencepartnership.org/sites/default/files/healthtrans fullbook final.PDF
Eitler, Thomas W., E.T. McMahon, and T.C.Thoerig. 2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). "Improving Indoor Air Quality."Retrieved from:
https.'//www.epa.go v/indoor-air-quality-iaq/improving-indoor-air-quality
Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health. Retrieved from:
http.//www3.epa.gov/otaq/nearroadway.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis."Retrieved from:https.//www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
06/documents/ejtg 5.6 16 v5.l.pdf
Forsyth,A. and L. Smead(Eds.). 2015. Mobility, Universal Design, Health, and Place(A Research Brief).
Health and Places Initiative. Retrieved from:http.//research.gsd.harvardedu/hapi/files/2015/
11/HAPI ResearchBrief UniversalDesign-I 12315.pdf
Frank, LD and MA Andresen, TL Schmid. 2004. 'Obesity Relationships with Community Design,
Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(2):87-96.
Frank L, Schmid T, Sallis J, Chapman J, Saelens B. 2005. "Linking objectively measured physical activity
with objectively measured urban form:findings from SMARTRAQ."American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 28117--125.
Fraser, J. and R. Chaskin, J Bazuin. 2013. Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work for Low-Income
Households. Cityscape:A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15(2).•83-100.
Freeman, Lance. 2002. "The Effects of Sprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties:An Explanatory Analysis".
Journal of the American Planning Association 67(1).•69-77.
Gotschi, T. 2011. 'Costs&Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon."Journal of Physical
Activity&Health 8(l).•549-558.
Handy, S. L. 2004. Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships among Transportation,
Land Use, and Physical Activity. Washington, DC.- Transportation Research board and Institutes of
Medicine Committee on PhysicalActivity, Health Transportation, and Land Use.
Harnik, P. and B. Welle. 2011. From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile:How Urban Park Systems Can
Best Promote Health and Wellness. Trust for Public Land Retrieved from:
https.•//www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/cloud.tpl,org/pubs/ccpe-health-promoting-parks-rpt.pdf
Hobson, J, and Julie Quiroz-Martinez. 2002. Roadblocks to Health: Transportation Barriers to Healthy
Communities. Transportation for Healthy Communities Collaborative. Retrieved from:
http.//www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/roadblocks to health 2002.pdf
Hodgson, K. 2011. Child care and Sustainable Community Development. (American Planning
Association Family Friendly Communities Briefing Papers). Retrieved from:
https.//www.planning.org/research/family/briefi'ngpapers/childcare.htm
Works Cited I Page 29
IESNA Security Lighting Committee. 2003. 'Guideline for Security Lighting for People, Property, and
Public Spaces."New York:Illuminating Engineering Society ofAmerica.
Jilcott, S. B., and S. Wade, J.T. McGuirt, Q. Wu, S. Lazorick, J.B. Moore. 2011. The association between
the food environment and weight status among eastern North Carolina youth. Public Health
Nutrition 14(09): 1610-1617.
Kaczynski,A. and K. Henderson. 2007. 'Environmental correlates ofphysical activity a review of
evidence about parks and recreation."Leisure Sciences 29(4):315-354.
Klingerman M. and J. Sallis, S. Ryan, L. Frank, P. Nader. 2007. 'Association of neighborhood design
and recreation environment variables with physical activity and body mass index in adolescents."
American Journal of Health Promotion 21(4):274-77.
Koepsel% T. 2002. "Crosswalk markings and the risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in older
pedestrians."The Journal of the American Medical Association 288(17):2136-2143.
Koslowsky, M. and A. Kluger, M. Reich. 1995. Commuting stress:causes, effects, and methods of
coping. New York:Plenum Press.
Kryter, K. 1994.The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise: Physiology, Psychology, and Public
Health. San Diego:Academic Press.
Leadership for Health Communities. 2007.Action Strategies Toolkit. Washington, D.C.:Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation.
Litman, T. 2010. 'Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits."American Public Transportation
Association. Retrieved from:http.//www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/
A PTA-Health-Benefits Litman.pdf
Local Investment in Child Care(LINCC). 2008. 'Building Child Care Into New Developments:A Guide
For Creating Child Care Facilities In Transit-Oriented Developments."Retrieved from:http.•//www.
reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/20080624Iinccde vBRweb.pdf
Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods. New York:Algonquin Books.
Lovell, S. 2010. 'Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United
States."Sustainability 2(8).•2499-2522.
Lund, Hollie. 2002. "Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community."Journal of Planning
Education and Research. 21(3).•301-312.
Moore L V and A V Diez Roux, JA Nettleton, DR Jacobs, M Franco. 2009. "Fast-food consumption, diet
quality, and neighborhood exposure to fast food-the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis."
American Journal of Epidemiology 170(1).•29-36.
Mouzon, S. 2012. "Walk Appeal."Better Cities and Towns. Retrieved from:http.//bettercities.net/news-
opinion/blogs/ste ve-mouzon/18645/walk-appeal
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Washington, DC-
Island Press.
National Center for Environmental Health. 2013. Parks and Trails Health Impact Assessment. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from:
https.•//www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/parks trails/sectionc.htm#1
Works Cited I Page 30
National Center for Safe Routes to School. 2015. Creating Healthier Generations:A Look at the 10
Years of the Federal Safe Routes to School Program. Retrieved from:
http.//saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/SRTS 10YearReport Finalpdf
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.) 'Environmental Health."Healthy People
2020. Retrieved from:https.//www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-
objecti ves/topic%n viron m en tal-h ealth
Painter, K. 1996. "The Influence of Street Lighting Improvements on Crime, Fear, and Pedestrian Street
Use, after dark."Landscape and Urban Planning 35(2-3): 193-201.
PolicyLink and the Marguerite Casey Foundation. 2016. High-Quality, Affordable Childcare forAlk
Good for Families, Communities, and the Economy. (Issue Brief Series: The Economic Benefits of
Equity). Retrieved from:http://www.policylinkorg/sites/default/files/Childcare-for-All-FINAL-05-06-
16.pdf
Project for Public Spaces. 2009. Why Public Spaces Fail. Retrieved from:http.//www.pps.org/
reference/failedplacefeat/
Pucher J, and J. Dill, and S. Handy. 2010. "Infrastructure,programs, and policies to increase bicycling:
an international review."Preventive Medicine 50: 106-25.
Retting, R.A., and A. T. McCartt, S.A. Ferguson. 2003. 'A review of evidence-based traffic engineering
measures designed to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes."American Journal of Public
Health 93(9),• 1456-1462.
Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality Collaborative. 'Best Practices for Complete Streets."
Retrieved from:https.•//www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/cs-
bestpractices-Sacramento.pdf
Sallis, J.,and Karen Glanz. 2009. "PhysicalActivity and Food Environments:Solutions to the Obesity
Epidemic."Milbank Quarterly. 87(1).• 123-154.
Scott M., and D. Cohen, K. Evenson, J. Elder, D. Catellier, JS Ash wood,A. Overton. 2007 "Weekend
Schoolyard Accessibility, Physical Activity, and Obesity The Trial ofActivity in Adolescent Girls
(TAAG)Study."Preventive Medicine(44), 398-403.
Shulaker, B. and J. Isacoff, T. Kjer, and K. Hart. 2016. Park Design for Physical Activity and Health. San
Francisco: Trust for Public Land.
Speck, J. 2012. Walkable City:How Downtown can Save America, One Step at a Time. New York:
North Point Press.
Srinivasan, S. and L. O Fallon,A. Dearry. 2003. 'Creating Healthy Communities, Healthy Homes,
Healthy People:Initiating a Research Agenda on the Built Environment and Public Health."
American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1446-1450.
Stangl, P. 2015. 'Block size-based measures of street connectivity A Critical Assessment and new
approach."Urban Design International20(1),• 1-12.
Trust for Public Land 2016. 'Parks on the Clock: Why we Believe in the 10-minute walk."Retrieved
from:https.•//www.tpl.org/blog/why-the-l0-minute-walk#sm.0001bo0t0r4t1d50von1fn8ldyt18
Ulrich, R. Evidence Based Environmental Design for Improving Medical Outcomes. Retrieved from:
http.//muhc-healing.mcgill.ca/english/Speakers/ulrich p.html
Works Cited I Page 31
Urban Land Institute. 2003. Mixed Income Housing, Myth and Fact. Retrieved from:
http.//inclusionaryhousing.ca/wp-contentluploads/sitesl2l2O 10/0l/UL/-Mixed-Income-Hsg-
2003.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council. 2016. LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development. Retrieved from:
http.//www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version
U.S. Green Building Council. (n.d.)LEED BD+C.•Schools.Access to Quality Transit. Retrieved from:
http.//www.usgbc.org/credits/schools-new-construction/v4-draft/Itc5
Wakefield, J. 2004. Fighting Obesity Through the Built Environment."Environmental Health
Perspectives 112(11):A616-A618.
Wekerly, G. 2000. From Eyes on the Street to Safe Cities."Places 13(1).•44-49.
Westrup, L. 2002. 'Quimby Act 101:An Abbreviated Overview."California Department of Parks and
Recreation. Retrieved from:https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/quimbyl0l.pdf
Zegeer, C. 2001. 'Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations."
Transportation Research Record(1773):56-68.
Works Cited I Page 32