Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

Yater Quantity ❑ Is there a sustainable water supply for the proposed use? ❑ Has the permitting agency (e.g., State Engineer's Office) provided written confirmation that the applicant owns sufficient water rights Inc the proposed development? ❑ Does the landscaping plan include appropriate water conseivation easures? ❑ Are mthere opportunities for recycling or reuse of water and wastewater generated by the project? For more information, visit: wwweoauov/ust/stounevatet/usw andf www.eoa.nov/nrdnunt/O0D/ WebPubs/runntt.odt ♦we.n_a n nov/nwnwfnosflidnatl ruff wwv r.cnannv/livahility/odf/nrowthwater, odf Air Quality ❑ From an air quality perspective, is the proposed use compatible with adjacent uses? ❑ Will the proposed use emit air pollutants? Does it require an emissions permit? ❑ Are fugitive dust emissions a potential problem? During construction? Post -construction? What mitigation measures should be taken? ❑ Will the project be served by paved roads? It not, is paving recommended? ❑ Does the proposed use generate odors? If the project wtll emit air pollutants or odors, what measures should be employed to eliminate or mitigate the emissions? ❑ As the project develops, will there be adequate transpor- tation infrastructure in place to absorb the volume of traffic generated by the project without degrading air quality? ❑ In the project designed to reduce vehicle emissions? E.g. grid layout or non -circuitous street system, internal and external connectivity, mixed uses ❑ Is the project designed to offer and encourage the use of travel choices in addition to the automobile? E.g , Transit -friendly design, bike/pedestrian trails, etc. ❑ Is the project itt close proximity to cell towers, power lines nr other uses that emit potentially harmful electro- magnetic radiation? For more information, visit: won,' era any,'otaaftransn/trancant/r01001 ndl www.ihwa der nev/envunnment/air ahs arm Opportunities for Physical Fitness ❑ Are open spaces and nails included to pi ovide regular opportunity tot physical activit ies such as walking and hiking? ❑ Are communities built with mixed -use commercial and residential purposes, and with sidewalks so that people t walk to movies, testauiants, and so on? ❑ Are schools built within communities so that young people can walk to school? ❑ Are sidewalks wide enough for nmlitiple uses (e.g., bikes and walkers)? ❑ Is lighting placed along trails and sidewalks to increase the comfort level of those using them? ❑ Is there park space and equipment for children to play with? For more information, visit: s,ww.sur non; .oral nov/tooirsinbesily/ VP.nv snrawlwatebnrafhnalth.ndf mew Floe urn'. nmmnniNstie0f ielDetailPnnt! 1 1434.2.173 00 Mini w r.v elni.oio/walkabtlite odf Transportation and Injury Prevention ❑ It the proposed use involves significant truck uaffrc, does the site plan provide adequate room for hunk turnarounds and safe buck access and egress, relative to neighboring developments? 0 Does the proposed project include safe routes to school with a minimum of street crossings and high visibility far children walking to school? 0 Does the proposed plan include pedestrian signals and mid -street islands on busy streets, and presence of bicycle lanes and trails? ❑ Does the project include trafffc quieting road designs in both subdivisions and shopping districts? ❑ Does the project provide adequate neighborhood access to public transportation? ❑ Does the proposed project include ramps, depressed curbs or periodic breaks in curbs that act as tamps for people with disabilities? ❑ Does the ptopnsed project include voice/audio or visual dues provided at crosswalks and transit steps? ❑ Does the project comply with ADA requirements for design of crib ramps, cross slopes and detectible warnings for new construction of retrofit projects? rheTfi Count Colorado Health De artrndhtc1 7elopedtl ischeckifsttdassistlocalpublie Tealth age ties ipthejrretilew ofapphcati n forrnew de elopinentaitd redeve[opment Dlaps irk t jeirenmmlgnities The fUlLehecklisNs avallabt atwww tchd org that unlike ElAs, which are seen as largely quantitative, HIAs are largely qualitative in nature. Because they may differ substantially in both the scope of impacts analyzed and the implementation process of the assess- ments themselves, combining the two as- sessments in a single document may prove to be difficult. Further, due to the nature of the factors assessed, the qualitative modeling of some HIA outcomes may be more difficult• than modeling of EIA outcomes. However, some level of integration of HIA into a required EIA may result in important and significant benefits. As discussed below, the San Francisco Department of Public Health found that, after sustained HIA efforts to inte- grate analysis of health outcomes in land -use decision making, several "complementary edaa 431eaH (OD) keno strategies" began to evolve. These strategies included integrating some analysis of health impacts in EIAs required by the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act, building a dialogue on the relationship between land use and public health, and promoting official health agency po- sitions on urban policy planning questions. The Department of City Planning began to request analysis of public health concerns for specific planning questions. In fact, the efforts in San Francisco "suggest that HIA can significantly influence urban land use policy" (Bhatia 2005). The Red Line Transit Project HIA in Baltimore was designed to evaluate the significant impacts to the geography, health, and social environment of the communi- ties that would be affected by a proposed new light -rail line. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project was released and detailed how construction and implementation of the project might affect the environment, including air, water, noise, and traffic volume. However, it did not iden- tify how these factors would impact commu- nity health through changes to the built en- vironment. Also, although the DEIS enabled informed choices to be made about the best location for the Red Line and did illustrate some of the health outcomes for each of the transit options, it did not "emphasize human -centric design options." Accordingly, the City Department of Transportation, with assistance from the City Health Depart- ment, initiated efforts to complete the HIA to "more fully explore how the Red Line will impact health and examine the potential to improve the quality of life in Baltimore." The authors of the Red Line HIA reiterated that the HIA would serve "as a comment to and supplemental analysis of the DEIS and identif[y] where the DEIS could have gone further to assess health impacts." HOW HIAs ARE USED While the type of policy, plan, or project eval- uated under an HIA can vary, a number of the HIAs recently conducted in the U.S. have ana- lyzed either changes to zoning ordinances or comprehensive plans, such as the TransForm Baltimore HIA, or have evaluated the specific health outcomes of redevelopment projects, such as the Jack London Gateway HIA. Recently, an HIA was conducted to evaluate a proposed plan for development in El Cerrito and Richmond, California, to analyze the possible inclusion of affordable housing sites with other land uses. Prior to the completion of the HIA, land -use plan- ning agencies had not determined specific sites for affordable housing nor the percent- age and type of affordable housing at any site. Urban Habitat, an organization that advocates for social, economic, and environ- mental justice in the Bay Area, asked Human Impact Partners to assess health benefits and liabilities associated with three sites they proposed to include in their campaign for affordable housing. Following the release of the HIA, a letter from the participants to the city council and city staff discussed the health -based recommendations, and inclu- sion of affordable housing sites is now being considered. In San Francisco, the Department of Public Health undertook the Eastern Neigh- borhoods Community Health Impact As- sessment (ENCHIA) project to explicitly un- ZONINGPRACTICE 10.11 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION j page 4